eschereal the seriously twisted:
They could not even be bothered to check the address to make sure they had the correct one, the raid had to happen right now!
Department brass needs to be culled. Seriously, sent to live in Litchfield.
Litchfield, Connecticut? Is the idea to punish them by boring them to death?
What? It’s better than Danbury.
Dewey_Finn:
Litchfield, Connecticut?
No, Litchfield Illinois. It is down about forty or so miles from St. Louis, in the part of the state where you can go 80 miles and feel like you are still exactly where you were.
Belle Plain, Kansas:
BELLE PLAINE, Kan. (AP) — The dashcam video captured a horrific scene: a Kansas sheriff's deputy in a patrol truck mowing down a Black man who was running, shirtless, across a field in the summer darkness after fleeing a traffic stop.
“When the first officer turned his lights on, I pulled over and complied … exactly as you’re supposed to. But when three additional vehicles pulled up quickly and started to surround my car, I freaked out. That’s when I took off, it was a ‘fight or flight’ moment and I was going to live,” he said. “I felt like I was in danger. This was out in the country, late at night, and it was dark. So I ran for my life. That’s what you see in the dashcam video. I’m running in an open field, and I’m scared.”
Womack had left the police department earlier in August with hopes of growing his own security business. He was on his way back home from a business trip to California when a Kansas Highway Patrol officer in western Kansas initiated a chase over “an alleged traffic violation,” according to the lawsuit. Sheriff’s deputies from Pratt County and Kiowa County joined in the chase.
The car chase eventually ended on a dirt road, and Womack took off on foot across a nearby farm field.
The dashcam footage from a Pratt County sheriff’s deputy’s vehicle shows Rodriguez using his patrol truck to catch up to Womack, who was unarmed.
Rodriguez swerves his truck to hit Womack, knocking him to the ground and running over him. Womack rolls out from under the truck, his arms and legs flailing on the ground as someone on the video shouts, “lie down, lie down.” A deputy in the second patrol truck can be heard uttering an expletive as he watches what is happening.
IMO Mr. Womack had good reason to fear for his life (considering police actions in this country in just the past decade) and his fears were realized and proved well-founded judging by the incident captured on video.
Court records show he is also charged with several misdemeanor traffic citations, including failure to drive in the right lane on a four-lane highway, improper signal and driving without headlights.
Yeah, they won’t say why the cop called for backup for misdemeanor traffic violations before he had pulled the ex-cop over.
The ex-cop new what this was…an opportunity for a beat-down.
Here’s a new twist in the Daniel Prude case:
NEW YORK (AP) — Rochester, New York’s former police chief alleges the city’s mayor pressured him to lie about her handling of the police killing of Daniel Prude, which was kept from the public for six months, and that she fired him because he refused...
La’Ron Singletary, terminated in September after announcing plans to retire , says in legal papers made public Wednesday that Mayor Lovely Warren urged him to omit facts and give false information to back her claim that it wasn’t until months later that she learned key details of the March 23 encounter that led to Prude’s death from suffocation.
Singletary wrote in the papers — a notice of claim sent to the city as a precursor to a lawsuit — that Warren was especially worried that his testimony before a city council panel investigating Prude’s death would undermine her repeated assertions that the then-chief hid information from her.
Singletary wrote that those assertions, made by Warren at news conferences and in TV interviews after news of Prude’s death became public in September — were false, defamed his character and harmed his reputation as an upstanding law enforcement official.
Dewey_Finn:
From the article, “The 23-year-old suspect police were looking for actually lived in the unit next door to Young at the time of the raid and had no connection to her.” You think maybe he skedaddled while they made a very loud raid next door? Or at least got rid of the weapons he wasn’t supposed to have?
Also from the articleCBS 2 found both during wrong raids and in CPD’s every day interactions with civilians .
In my fantasy world, an officer deliberately turning off his/her camera for any reason while on duty would be a firing offense.
You let them off light.
I would include criminal charges.
Folacin
December 18, 2020, 6:56pm
831
In the current world, I would ask “what is the point?”. They’d claim qualified immunity or the jury would let them. Losing their jobs is something that can actually happen, although that can be a long struggle sometimes also.
I was visiting @Euphonious_Polemic ’s fantasy world.
How about any testimony they offer to the events while their bodycam is off is automatically inadmissable.
Every time a police officer fucks up that bad (or even comes close) they should be required to perform a thousand hours of uncompensated community service (in civvies, unarmed, in that neighborhood). Like, say, repairing smashed doors, just to start.
mhendo
December 18, 2020, 8:43pm
835
Folacin:
In the current world, I would ask “what is the point?”. They’d claim qualified immunity or the jury would let them. Losing their jobs is something that can actually happen, although that can be a long struggle sometimes also.
Qualified immunity is not a defense against criminal charges; it only applies in cases where police are facing a civil suit for violating people’s constitutional rights.
If a state legislature wrote a law making the deliberate deactivation of a body camera while on duty a criminal offense, police would not be able to invoke qualified immunity in response to the resulting criminal charges.
NYPD Report: NYPD, Mayor deBlasio fucked up in Summer 2020
The New York Police Department was caught off guard by the size of the spring protests after the killing of George Floyd and resorted to aggressive disorder control methods that stoked tensions and stifled free speech, the city’s inspector general said in a report released Friday.
The Department of Investigation report followed a six-month probe that focused on the NYPD’s institutional planning and response to the May and June protests after Floyd’s killing by police in Minneapolis, rather than on the actions of individual officers.
It criticized tactics that included trapping demonstrators with a technique called kettling, making mass arrests, using pepper spray and batons, and detaining protesters for hours. Too few officers were deployed early in the demonstrations, the report said.
The report also found that Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision to impose a nightly curfew after two days of looting exacerbated conflicts between demonstrators and police officers, who were given mixed messages on how it was to be enforced.
De Blasio’s executive order said the curfew applied to everyone, with exceptions for essential workers. In subsequent public statements, he said the curfew wouldn’t apply to “peaceful protesters.”
The report does make some recommendations, including:
The Department of Investigation recommended the NYPD create a unit to lead protest planning and response, adopt policies and training that reinforce respect for First Amendment rights, and improve messaging during demonstrations, such as repeating dispersal orders and staging officers in riot gear out of the view of protesters.
It also recommended that the department no longer use for protests a rapid-response unit that deals in terrorism and other emergencies.
Some possible credit due:
Police Commissioner Dermot Shea, who told investigators he objected to the curfew, said in a statement that he intends to incorporate all 20 of the report’s recommendations into the department’s policies. And de Blasio, in a video response, said the report “makes very clear, we’ve got to do something different and we got to do something better.”
Let’s see how this turns out when the next protests happen, but right now the reformer in me is somewhat pleased.
Another pleasing outcome, finally, that unfortunately doesn’t undo the years lost to Mr. Burrell:
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — For nearly two decades, Myon Burrell had nothing but time. Locked up for life at 16 for a high-profile murder he swore he had nothing to do with, he was stuck in a tiny cell without even a window to watch the seasons change...
From the link:
Several members of the little girl’s family, however, said they were upset to see Burrell free, and that the media fanfare felt like a slap in the face. Tyesha’s brother, Jimmie Edwards III, said he doesn’t believe Burrell is innocent, in part because he never tried to reach out to the family after her death.
“If I was convicted of doing something I didn’t do, the first thing I would do was contact the family,” he said by telephone. “I would try to make amends with the family (and) I would do everything in my power to let them know that I was innocent.”
Really? If I was falsely convicted, that’s just about the last thing that I would do. They wouldn’t believe me, why would they? The courts have already convicted me.
He did do everything in his power to let them know he was innocent, he got the courts themselves to let him go, and that’s not enough for them. He claimed his innocence at his trial. And they wanted him to call them from jail and claim his innocence then?
I get that they are still grieving, even after all this time, and that it hurts, but they are not wanting justice, what they want is vengeance, and it doesn’t matter whether or not the target of their vengeance is deserving of it.
“Make amends”? For what exactly?
“Sorry I was locked up for a crime I did not commit, and the legal authorities have let the guilty person go”?
What exactly does he have to make amends for?
The person who said this is a fuckwit.
The person who said that may possibly be speaking from unbearable grief. It doesn’t make it more sensible, but perhaps one can set it aside as not necessarily characteristic of their abilities to reason. Also because the media tend to shine a light on the most stupid and outrageous utterances they can find, regardless of context.
Unbearable grief should not make someone lash out at an innocent man who has also suffered.
They are relatives of a victim, yes and deserve sympathy. They are also fuckwits.