The Troy, MI PD has added a cat to the ranks !
Book him, kitty.
The Troy police department in suburban Detroit added a cat to the ranks Friday after auditioning five felines from the Michigan Humane Society.
The cat will be used for therapeutic purposes and make public appearances. A Troy officer who has two cats at home is getting a new four-legged partner.
Sgt. Meghan Lehman says the department also wants to promote pet adoptions from area shelters. She says Troy students will be asked to come up with possible names for the kitten. A name will be selected through a vote on Twitter.
Troy police pledged to add a cat if it could reach 10,000 Twitter followers by April. It took just eight days to go from 4,000 to 10,000.
SteveG1
April 7, 2018, 6:29pm
13084
Of course. Blue Lives Matter. And ONLY blue.
SteveG1
April 7, 2018, 6:32pm
13085
How? Are they magic or something? Was it some kind of 1960s CIA remote viewing powers?
At last, truth.
‘Better financially’ to kill suspects than wound them: sheriff
Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood was looking for an endorsement in 2006 when he posed the question, “When a deputy shoots somebody, which way is better financially? To cripple them or kill them for the county?”
“Kill them?” someone off camera asks before Youngblood answers “Absolutely.”
“Because if you cripple them you have to take care of them for life and that cost goes way up,” he said.
I’ll be waiting for the cops on this board to come into this thread and denounce these remarks.
Quoted for amusing username/post combo. But maybe I’m just buzzed.
mikecurtis:
There were two cops actively on the scene. Both cops (presumably) assessed that the person was acting erratic and needed to be approached with caution. Shelby “says” that she believed he was on PCP and subsequently believed that shooting was necessary. Officer Turnbough, who was standing right next to Shelby, observed the situation from the same vantage, didn’t feel that Crutcher needed shooting but used a taser instead. So, clearly, deadly force was not necessary
How do you ascertain that the shooting was unnecessary based on a difference of opinion alone? Yes, it could have been unnecessary but it just as likely could have been necessary. Why give more credence to Officer Turnbough than to Officer Shelby?
Because the justification for the shooting was fear. Both were subjected to the same circumstances, yet only one felt fear for his life. If one cop doesn’t feel that fear, then the other’s fear is misplaced, and the shooting is unjustified.
Maybe the one cop was just stupid and didn’t realize the threat that an unarmed black man posed to the cops life?
Ambivalid:
Idiotic reasoning.
By the cop who was afraid of an unarmed black guy after another cop wasn’t? I agree with you.
Ambivalid:
Idiotic reasoning.
Quoted for amusing username/post combo.
Fear_Itself:
Because the justification for the shooting was fear. Both were subjected to the same circumstances, yet only one felt fear for his life. If one cop doesn’t feel that fear, then the other’s fear is misplaced, and the shooting is unjustified.
Much as I agree with the opinion that the shooting was unjustified, this particular line of reasoning is invalid on it’s face.
Not entirely sure why.
The public is criticized for monday morning quarterbacking police shootings. “You weren’t there, You didn’t know the circumstances, you don’t know what it is like to be a cop…” stuff like that, questioning the public’s right to comment upon the choices made by the police when they decide to use deadly force.
In this instance, you had another cop, who was there, who did know the circumstances, and does know what it is like to be a cop, and he came to a different, and more correct conclusion.
k9bfriender:
Not entirely sure why.
The public is criticized for monday morning quarterbacking police shootings. “You weren’t there, You didn’t know the circumstances, you don’t know what it is like to be a cop…” stuff like that, questioning the public’s right to comment upon the choices made by the police when they decide to use deadly force.
In this instance, you had another cop, who was there, who did know the circumstances, and does know what it is like to be a cop, and he came to a different, and more correct conclusion.
The reasoning employed is ‘the fact that two people disagree means that means this one is wrong’. It could be that the other, or both, were wrong.
The simple fact that they disagreed does not determine which was right.
SteveG1
April 12, 2018, 1:38pm
13098
k9bfriender:
Not entirely sure why.
The public is criticized for monday morning quarterbacking police shootings. “You weren’t there, You didn’t know the circumstances, you don’t know what it is like to be a cop…” stuff like that, questioning the public’s right to comment upon the choices made by the police when they decide to use deadly force.
In this instance, you had another cop, who was there, who did know the circumstances, and does know what it is like to be a cop, and he came to a different, and more correct conclusion.
We hear the same shit, even when there is testimony and video proving the cop lied.
Maybe some of the snowflakes who can’t handle the “pressure” need to find a different line of work.
Typo_Negative:
The reasoning employed is ‘the fact that two people disagree means that means this one is wrong’. It could be that the other, or both, were wrong.
The simple fact that they disagreed does not determine which was right.
If they had a disagreement over which ice cream flavor to get, I’d agree.
As it ended with an unarmed man dead, I would say that the cop who did not kill the unarmed man was more in the right than the cop who did kill the unarmed man.
Yes, this seems readily apparent to me. Not sure why people have an issue with it.
Shodan
April 12, 2018, 4:35pm
13101
As long as the decision is not made after the fact, I don’t have an issue either.
He is acting erratically, he refuses to show his hands, he reaches into his pocket. Turns out he was only reaching for his cell phone is fine - until it isn’t.
Regards,
