Then maybe he should have taken his dumb ass home. I’m sure his boss wouldn’t have had a problem with that.
People we entrust to make life-or-death decisions over us (like police officers and heart surgeons) should not be so sensitive to rough days that they lose self-control. Because their losing self-control not only is dangerous for the citzenry, but it makes it harder for the citzenry to trust their authority in the future. I should not have to worry if the responding officer has had a bad day if I’m ever in the position to call 911.
So the chief made a good call.
Let’s hope the chief in the next town over who interviews this prick also makes a good call and trashes his application.
Pool party brawler fired!
I don’t need to meet all of America to stand with America.
The point doorhinge is that you’re not doing responsible police forces any favors when you apologize for asshole behaviors. Far better to expect professionalism I say.
Let’s turn to the expert opinion. TPM: “Seth Stoughton is a law professor at the University of South Carolina, where he is affiliated with the Rule of Law Collaborative. He served as a police officer and investigator for more than seven years.” The way he expresses it cops work off of 2 models. One is that of the Warrior, the other is that of the Guardian. You know, protect and serve. You can see both types in the video. The Guardian kept things cool: [INDENT] …the teen with the camera walks up to another officer, one who is standing with a group of kids. “I’m just saying,” the officer is saying in a calm, corrective tone that parents and school teachers everywhere will recognize. “Don’t take off running when the cops get here.”
He thanks the videographer for returning the flashlight, then listens for a few seconds as the kids around him try to explain who was and was not involved in a prior incident. “Okay, guys, I appreciate that,” the as-yet-unidentified officer says. He responds to their concerns—that the police had detained the wrong people—by saying, “Okay, that’s what I’m saying. They’re free to go.” While not casual, the officer is composed. His tone is friendly and professional as he engages with the kids.[/INDENT] The Warrior guy is of course the now-fired lunkhead who escalated the situation rather than calming things down.
Expert opinion. Body cameras. Professionalism. Transparency. Continuous process improvement. Civilian oversight. These are the sorts of things we need, as opposed to high drama. A Former Cop On What Went Wrong In McKinney - TPM – Talking Points Memo
An officer fatally shoots an unarmed man for “walking with purpose”
I shall be steering clear of cop cars from now on.
[QUOTE=The Blackbyrds]
Walking in rhythm
Moving in sound
Humming to the music
Trying to move on
[/QUOTE]
…
It sounds like drivers in America need to carry handcuffs or a taser and restrain themselves when cops are approaching, so cops feel no danger.
Since it’s hard to tase yourself when already handcuffed, and vice versa, I hope a LEO will be along in the thread to advise which is preferable. I suppose that black schools(*) probably teach thugs and hos how to tase themselves when handcuffed; perhaps that instruction needs to be extended to white schools.
(* - I write “black schools” since de facto segregation has crept back in to much of the country.)
Then I’m sure you’ll have no problem finding me a link showing under what circumstances our overlords in blue can give me orders and when they can’t and which orders I’m obliged to obey and which are unreasonable.
I read the article. While the man was behaving in an erratic manner, there was no high-speed chase (it was at 35 MPH) and there was no indication at any time that he was armed.
Now, I could understand the officer taking precautions, since she didn’t know the mental state of the man, but (1) She was INSIDE her car with the windows rolled up–and anyone who has tried knows it ain’t as easy as it looks to break a windshield (2) She had her gun drawn (so if he had assaulted the car, she still could have fired (the way the article sounded, he was approaching the car but had not touched it)) and (3) THERE WAS ANOTHER OFFICER AT THE SCENE, probably less than 20 feet away, who could have rendered assistance if necessary.
I have a hard time figuring out any reasonable justification for this one.
Again, based on the 48 hours rule–more information may be forthcoming.
I’m not Google, your local library, or your local courthouse. Look it up yourself. Federal and state laws are public, I really don’t know what you’re complaining about.
Or are you just too fucking lazy to bother to find out what powers your representatives have given the police?
You’re the one who thinks that we, the unworthy servants of the police, should obey without question every single thing that our overlords in blue tell us to do and that any deviation, however slight, that we may exhibit from complete, immediate, and utter compliance is grounds for our execution.
And don’t forget the all of the very important case law pertinent to your particular locale.
That’s where the practical procedural questions are decided.
Nope, not even slightly. I think in the situation where you’re not sure whether the police can order you to do something (and it’s clear that due to your lack of knowledge, that would be every case for you), the sensible thing to do is to obey, then challenge in court later of necessary.7
As for execution, that remains absurd. The police, quite literally, do not have the power to execute someone. Anyone they kill is not killed as an exercise of state power.
I do, however, continue to think that if a cop tells you to freeze and you instead reach for the gun in your waistband, he is quite entitled to shoot you in self defence. That’s not an execution, and neither is it relevant whether the cop was entitled to tell you to freeze.
Now, you know that’s not how the Dope works. You make an assertion, you bring the cite or STFU.
Well, of course. Which is another very good reason for doing as you’re told then challenging it in court afterwards, unless you’re willing and able to cite caselaw to a cop, and do so in a fashion that isn’t distracting him from doing his job. Good luck with that.
You need me to fucking cite that laws are written down in the US? Are you really that dumb?
Here’s an example,Federal law for searches. And here’s the law on warranted arrests.
You’re using “kill” and “execute” interchangeably and you shouldn’t. You’re not alone in this, I note.
And of course these people are killed as an exercise of state power. The state hires and arms police officers with that possibility in mind.
When cops fire over 100 rounds of ammo into a car occupied by two unarmed people who did not attempt to use their vehicle as a weapon, and one bastard jumps on the hood, reloads and empties the clip into their already pretty much dead bodies, this is an execution. The fact that the state then said ‘no harm no foul’ makes it an exercise of State Power, as the outright murder of those citizens was condoned and made legal by state decision.
Well said. What galls me is that a group of cops decide to recreate the Bonnie and Clyde killings and because the coroner can’t determine which bullet fired by which cop was the cause of death, nobody has to answer for their deaths. That’s nuts.