Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[robnisch]

This maybe a bit off topic but the police have no legal obligation to protect you.

Loading…

caselaw.findlaw.com

There have been other cases like this one.
NPR had a show tonight about this case.
SCOTUS has ruled on it.

It's about a woman that had a restraining order against the father of her three children.
The police did not enforce the order. He killed the three girls and shot up the police station.

 

[ZiprHead]

Inappropriate tweet and responses moved to here.

 

[Derec]

This maybe a bit off topic but the police have no legal obligation to protect you.

Obviously a comedic exaggeration, but it is difficult for police to act before a crime has been committed. There may be another crime (such as making terroristic threats) but that may be impossible to prove.

It's about a woman that had a restraining order against the father of her three children.
The police did not enforce the order. He killed the three girls and shot up the police station.

With this issue specifically, restraining orders are very easy to get and thus don't get treated as seriously as some of them ought to be.
There is no real evidence required to get issued one.

 

[Derec]

Not police per se, but Elijah McClain's case has been discussed in this thread:

Judge wipes away 5-year prison sentence for Aurora paramedic in Elijah McClain’s death

He gets probation instead.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's about a woman that had a restraining order against the father of her three children.
The police did not enforce the order. He killed the three girls and shot up the police station.

With this issue specifically, restraining orders are very easy to get and thus don't get treated as seriously as some of them ought to be.
There is no real evidence required to get issued one.

So, what is the point in issuing them if they are not enforced? Placebo?

 

[ZiprHead]

It's about a woman that had a restraining order against the father of her three children.
The police did not enforce the order. He killed the three girls and shot up the police station.

With this issue specifically, restraining orders are very easy to get and thus don't get treated as seriously as some of them ought to be.
There is no real evidence required to get issued one.

So, what is the point in issuing them if they are not enforced? Placebo?

Hey, they can be charged with violating the protection order while being charged with the murder of the ex-wife and kids. Win win.

 

[robnisch]

MSN

The ultimate misconduct.

 

[ZiprHead]

From the report above:

Kentucky sheriff charged in fatal shooting of judge at courthouse

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A sheriff in southeastern Kentucky was arrested and charged with murder after a district judge was fatally shot in his chambers on Thursday, authorities said.

Judge Kevin Mullins, 54, was fatally shot at the Letcher County Courthouse in Whitesburg, Kentucky, on Thursday afternoon, according to Kentucky State Police spokesperson Matt Gayheart. Police arrested Letcher County Sheriff Shawn M. Stines at the scene and charged him with one count of first-degree murder.

Several law enforcement agencies and emergency medical services responded to the courthouse after receiving a 911 call at about 2:55 p.m. ET regarding shots being fired from inside the building, Gayheart said in a statement on Facebook. Authorities discovered Mullins with "multiple gunshot wounds," according to Gayheart.

"Lifesaving measures were attempted but unsuccessful," Gayheart said. "Mullins was pronounced deceased on scene by the Letcher County Coroner’s Office."

A preliminary investigation revealed that Stines, 43, fatally shot Mullins after an argument inside the courthouse, Gayheart said. Stines was taken into custody shortly after without incident.

The investigation into the shooting remains ongoing. The incident was initially announced by Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, who said on social media that a district judge had been shot in his chambers.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[laughing dog]

Those are two officers should already be jailed. There is no excuse for their instant violent attack. That victim had no chance to comply even if he wasn’t deaf.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"When we tell you to do something, you do it." - police officer in video

This seems to be a prevalent attitude amongst police officers involved in these kinds of instances, irrespective if what they are asking someone to do is proper or not.

Tyreek Hill was from the start antagonistic and uncooperative, but the officer should have maintained a professional attitude. Instead, he wanted to show dominance and demand obedience.

I remember a similar incident with a military person who got pulled over and went to a gas station where the lighting was good and it was clear that the incident got escalated because the man wasn't giving the officer the so-called respect that he thought was due him. I don't recall the names involved in that incident, though.

Yup. If you try to defy the police things are prone to going bad. Don't be confrontational. Do nothing to impede them other than things like refusing a request to search. Have your hands empty if at all possible--if for some reason you must have a weapon (say, you just shot someone that's down but not out) have it pointed down, not forward. The police know that the cases that go bad almost always involve defiance first. Do nothing which the guy with the gun might interpret at a threat (and that applies regardless of the situation. I've had a gun pointed at me because I was mistaken for a burglar by someone who didn't know I was expected.)

It must be horrific living in a totalitarian police state, where anything other than instant and unquestioning obedience is frequently fatal.

But at least Americans can console themselves that it's a price worth paying for their freedom.

The street isn't where you should challenge the legality of police actions.

 

[ZiprHead]

Another case of the police lying on their reprt.

 

[bilby]

"When we tell you to do something, you do it." - police officer in video

This seems to be a prevalent attitude amongst police officers involved in these kinds of instances, irrespective if what they are asking someone to do is proper or not.

Tyreek Hill was from the start antagonistic and uncooperative, but the officer should have maintained a professional attitude. Instead, he wanted to show dominance and demand obedience.

I remember a similar incident with a military person who got pulled over and went to a gas station where the lighting was good and it was clear that the incident got escalated because the man wasn't giving the officer the so-called respect that he thought was due him. I don't recall the names involved in that incident, though.

Yup. If you try to defy the police things are prone to going bad. Don't be confrontational. Do nothing to impede them other than things like refusing a request to search. Have your hands empty if at all possible--if for some reason you must have a weapon (say, you just shot someone that's down but not out) have it pointed down, not forward. The police know that the cases that go bad almost always involve defiance first. Do nothing which the guy with the gun might interpret at a threat (and that applies regardless of the situation. I've had a gun pointed at me because I was mistaken for a burglar by someone who didn't know I was expected.)

It must be horrific living in a totalitarian police state, where anything other than instant and unquestioning obedience is frequently fatal.

But at least Americans can console themselves that it's a price worth paying for their freedom.

The street isn't where you should challenge the legality of police actions.

It is, if you care about your freedom.

If you are only free to obey without question (or face lethal force), and then to spend thousands of dollars and several years, arranging for a judge to perhaps gently reprimand the officer for exceeding his authority, then you really aren't free at all.

Police abuse of the public will continue until censure of individual officers for such abuse is almost invariably swift and severe. If police can hide behind bureacratic, judicial and institutional barriers, that protect them from swift and serious censure for wrong-doing, the whole barrel will rapidly become bad.

The fundamental measure of whether a society is free or not is whether the police fear the public, or the public fear the police.

The police should expect to be treated by the public at large as equals at best. That's the job. If you want the public to bow to your whims, and obey your commands, and to generally kiss your ass and respect your authority, then you should never be allowed to join the police service in the first place.

 

[TSwizzle]

That is fucking horrific.

 

[Rhea]

Holyy shit that is ugly behavior.

And does the white guy who pointed at him face jail time for false accusation endangering his life?
I’m sure all our white guys here who think that women falsely accusing men of rape should face charges will agree he needs to be locked up and have the book thrown at him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"When we tell you to do something, you do it." - police officer in video

This seems to be a prevalent attitude amongst police officers involved in these kinds of instances, irrespective if what they are asking someone to do is proper or not.

Tyreek Hill was from the start antagonistic and uncooperative, but the officer should have maintained a professional attitude. Instead, he wanted to show dominance and demand obedience.

I remember a similar incident with a military person who got pulled over and went to a gas station where the lighting was good and it was clear that the incident got escalated because the man wasn't giving the officer the so-called respect that he thought was due him. I don't recall the names involved in that incident, though.

Yup. If you try to defy the police things are prone to going bad. Don't be confrontational. Do nothing to impede them other than things like refusing a request to search. Have your hands empty if at all possible--if for some reason you must have a weapon (say, you just shot someone that's down but not out) have it pointed down, not forward. The police know that the cases that go bad almost always involve defiance first. Do nothing which the guy with the gun might interpret at a threat (and that applies regardless of the situation. I've had a gun pointed at me because I was mistaken for a burglar by someone who didn't know I was expected.)

It must be horrific living in a totalitarian police state, where anything other than instant and unquestioning obedience is frequently fatal.

But at least Americans can console themselves that it's a price worth paying for their freedom.

The street isn't where you should challenge the legality of police actions.

It is, if you care about your freedom.

If you are only free to obey without question (or face lethal force), and then to spend thousands of dollars and several years, arranging for a judge to perhaps gently reprimand the officer for exceeding his authority, then you really aren't free at all.

But how do you challenge it? The law quite correctly says you can't use force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Holyy shit that is ugly behavior.

And does the white guy who pointed at him face jail time for false accusation endangering his life?
I’m sure all our white guys here who think that women falsely accusing men of rape should face charges will agree he needs to be locked up and have the book thrown at him.

Same as any other case--a mistake isn't criminal but knowingly make a false allegation should be punished. I'm pretty harsh on this, I think the provably false allegation should carry the same punishment the accused would have faced if they really did it. Framing someone is a false allegation. Knowingly suppressing clear evidence of innocence is a false allegation.

 

[bilby]

"When we tell you to do something, you do it." - police officer in video

This seems to be a prevalent attitude amongst police officers involved in these kinds of instances, irrespective if what they are asking someone to do is proper or not.

Tyreek Hill was from the start antagonistic and uncooperative, but the officer should have maintained a professional attitude. Instead, he wanted to show dominance and demand obedience.

I remember a similar incident with a military person who got pulled over and went to a gas station where the lighting was good and it was clear that the incident got escalated because the man wasn't giving the officer the so-called respect that he thought was due him. I don't recall the names involved in that incident, though.

Yup. If you try to defy the police things are prone to going bad. Don't be confrontational. Do nothing to impede them other than things like refusing a request to search. Have your hands empty if at all possible--if for some reason you must have a weapon (say, you just shot someone that's down but not out) have it pointed down, not forward. The police know that the cases that go bad almost always involve defiance first. Do nothing which the guy with the gun might interpret at a threat (and that applies regardless of the situation. I've had a gun pointed at me because I was mistaken for a burglar by someone who didn't know I was expected.)

It must be horrific living in a totalitarian police state, where anything other than instant and unquestioning obedience is frequently fatal.

But at least Americans can console themselves that it's a price worth paying for their freedom.

The street isn't where you should challenge the legality of police actions.

It is, if you care about your freedom.

If you are only free to obey without question (or face lethal force), and then to spend thousands of dollars and several years, arranging for a judge to perhaps gently reprimand the officer for exceeding his authority, then you really aren't free at all.

But how do you challenge it? The law quite correctly says you can't use force.

"Quite correctly"??

If a person is assualting, restraining or obstructing you about your lawful business, you have the right to use force against that person.

A police officer is not in any sense special or different in that regard.

1. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Your use of the concept that police are superior to other citizens as an axiom is bizarre, flies in the face of the explicit starement by the founder of modern policing to the contrary, and is leading you to a level of blind sycophancy that is rendering me nauseous.

Living in a police state is a very poor ambition, and you should be aware that others may not share that goal with you.

 

[ZiprHead]

This one is a little on the older side and may have been posted before.

Two people doing a home invasion robbery shoot a victim twice in the head and do the same to another victim who dies.

The first guy shot survives but instead of taking him to the hospital the cops take him to the station for interrogation.

 

[Coleman Smith]

I spent part of a 40 year career in the claims business handling claims for insurance companies that insured police departments handling all kinds of claims from simple automobile accidents to cops beating up cuffed non-resisting suspects.

In one case a femal office thoght a man was taking to long to get out of his car after she ordered him to get out. She drug him out and put her knee in his chest.

It turns out that he was slow getting out because he was recovering from open heart surgery.

Have handled one case of a cop shooting and killing an unarmed subject.

Also handled claims generated by illegal acts committed by physicians, lawyers, nurses, other insurance adjusters and a couple of fellow employees.