Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[laughing dog]

Rice had a toy. It doesn’t matter what he looked like,

His size makes a difference in how he would be perceived in real time. Rice may have treated his gun as a toy, but it looked like a firearm because the orange tip was removed. You have somebody of adult dimensions wielding something that looks like a semiauto firearm, no wonder somebody called 911!

The police didn’t know who or what they were dealing with. Rather than even try to find out, they fired away. What they did was indefensible and a crime

He was a thug. Easy to forget given all the hagiographies pushed on us for three years, but he most definitely was a thug.

He a criminal record that ended in 2013. In the intervening period before his sadistic murder, there is no evidence to support your bigoted characterization of “ thug” .

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because we like to pretend we live in a civilized society, and not a totalitarian police state.

Ability to offer an active gunman a chance to surrender is dictated by circumstances, not by pretenses of civilized society.

Those circumstances are largely dictated by the authorities.

There are a LOT of better options than to rush in, heavily armed but clueless, and to then find yourself in a position where the only remaining option is to shoot or be shot.

Perhaps you could try employing police officers who receive training in tactics, strategy, communications, intelligence gathering, coordination, negotiation and the use of non-lethal force.

Just giving them a pistol and a load of ammunition, and then letting them act like a bunch of violent clowns whose only idea is to shoot first and ask questions later, really doesn't seem to be working well for you.

Rushing in makes it much less likely they'll walk into an ambush.

 

[Toni]

Who was 12 years old and playing with a toy

We've discussed this case to death. He was not playing with a "toy" but with a realistic replica.

He was also very big for his age, in both height and girth. He looked more like George Zimmermann than a typical tween.

Curiously, there weren't many protests and certainly no riots over Rice's killing. Is it because he wasn't a thug? I know #BLMers love their thugs - George Floyd, Pat-Pat, Winston Boogie Smith etc.

 

[laughing dog]

Because we like to pretend we live in a civilized society, and not a totalitarian police state.

Ability to offer an active gunman a chance to surrender is dictated by circumstances, not by pretenses of civilized society.

Those circumstances are largely dictated by the authorities.

There are a LOT of better options than to rush in, heavily armed but clueless, and to then find yourself in a position where the only remaining option is to shoot or be shot.

Perhaps you could try employing police officers who receive training in tactics, strategy, communications, intelligence gathering, coordination, negotiation and the use of non-lethal force.

Just giving them a pistol and a load of ammunition, and then letting them act like a bunch of violent clowns whose only idea is to shoot first and ask questions later, really doesn't seem to be working well for you.

Rushing in makes it much less likely they'll walk into an ambush.

But it makes it more likely they’ll rush into an ambush.

 

[Toni]

Who was 12 years old and playing with a toy

We've discussed this case to death. He was not playing with a "toy" but with a realistic replica.

He was also very big for his age, in both height and girth. He looked more like George Zimmermann than a typical tween.

Curiously, there weren't many protests and certainly no riots over Rice's killing. Is it because he wasn't a thug? I know #BLMers love their thugs - George Floyd, Pat-Pat, Winston Boogie Smith etc.

Apparently being tall for your age is a crime worthy of immediate execution if you are a black child, in your view.

Two things that are immediately disgusting about his shooting, aside from the speed with which he was executed by two grown men in police uniforms are that the person who made the call to the police expressly says she did not believe he had a real gun —and the video of the shooting. I watched it, several times. Any decent human being could tell that Tamir Rice was a child, by the way he moved, abd by his demeanor, and by the fact that he seemed to be attempting to comply with police orders to show his hands—which was their excuse for shooting him.

That anybody has the cold blooded lack of common sense or compassion to excuse this execution of an unarmed child is disgusting.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tamir Rice was given 0 seconds to comply with any order.

 

[bilby]

Because we like to pretend we live in a civilized society, and not a totalitarian police state.

Ability to offer an active gunman a chance to surrender is dictated by circumstances, not by pretenses of civilized society.

Those circumstances are largely dictated by the authorities.

There are a LOT of better options than to rush in, heavily armed but clueless, and to then find yourself in a position where the only remaining option is to shoot or be shot.

Perhaps you could try employing police officers who receive training in tactics, strategy, communications, intelligence gathering, coordination, negotiation and the use of non-lethal force.

Just giving them a pistol and a load of ammunition, and then letting them act like a bunch of violent clowns whose only idea is to shoot first and ask questions later, really doesn't seem to be working well for you.

Rushing in makes it much less likely they'll walk into an ambush.

Seriously???!!?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rushing in implies a breach, which implies a plan with tactics. Not just inserting oneself into the situation and hoping for the best.

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently it's so common they do it even when they know they are being watched.

 

[Gospel]

Tamir Rice was given 0 seconds to comply with any order.

What I am driving at is this: the issue transcends the safety of criminals or the protection of any specific ethnic group. It's fundamentally in the collective interest of all Americans that law enforcement endeavors to utilize reconnaissance or some form of preliminary assessment whenever possible, prior to resorting to lethal force.

Certainly, there will be situations where such precautionary measures may not be feasible. However, to openly advocate for the instantaneous employment of lethal force is to exhibit a stark indifference towards the safety of the very American citizens whom some profess to hold in high regard.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it is simpler. An officer does not have the right to kill a person because the officer put his life needlessly at risk through incompetent tactical decisions. The problem is, the system isn't designed to manage such cases.

 

[Gospel]

The system in place is fundamentally designed to handle such scenarios. Cases do exist where officers have been apprehended, charged, and penalized for precipitous decisions. What we need is a more open-minded police force, willing prosecution, and Police Union receptive to accountability measures.

My suggestion is that we increase pay for law enforcement officers in the USA, aligning them more closely with high-earning professions like law and medicine. Simultaneously, rather than stripping them of their firearms (a move which would be foolish considering the Second Amendment keeps the public armed), we should aspire to incorporate European-style police training and culture. With this robust and comprehensive training, officers would be better poised to judge when firearm use is truly appropriate. While this might not completely eradicate police shootings, it would significantly reduce instances where force is unnecessarily deployed.

Instead of simply endorsing the status quo and perpetuating the existing culture of self-preservation among police (like some unnamed user on this forum does), it's far preferable to undertake some meaningful action. Inaction will only serve to reinforce current behavior, doing nothing to challenge or improve upon the present state of affairs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The system in place is fundamentally designed to handle such scenarios. Cases do exist where officers have been apprehended, charged, and penalized for precipitous decisions. What we need is a more open-minded police force, willing prosecution, and Police Union receptive to accountability measures.

In general, an officer's actions have to be criminal in order to be held accountable in the Judicial system. The shooting of Rice wasn't criminal, it was incompetent.

Instead of simply endorsing the status quo and perpetuating the existing culture of self-preservation among police (like some unnamed user on this forum does), it's far preferable to undertake some meaningful action. Inaction will only serve to reinforce current behavior, doing nothing to challenge or improve upon the present state of affairs.

The Police need to get back into society. Case after case of awful actions, the Police have usually protected itself, not society. They've lied, spun, omitted details that change the course of past events that led to awful outcomes. It doesn't occur a lot, but it happens too often.

 

[Toni]

The system in place is fundamentally designed to handle such scenarios. Cases do exist where officers have been apprehended, charged, and penalized for precipitous decisions. What we need is a more open-minded police force, willing prosecution, and Police Union receptive to accountability measures.

My suggestion is that we increase pay for law enforcement officers in the USA, aligning them more closely with high-earning professions like law and medicine. Simultaneously, rather than stripping them of their firearms (a move which would be foolish considering the Second Amendment keeps the public armed), we should aspire to incorporate European-style police training and culture. With this robust and comprehensive training, officers would be better poised to judge when firearm use is truly appropriate. While this might not completely eradicate police shootings, it would significantly reduce instances where force is unnecessarily deployed.

Instead of simply endorsing the status quo and perpetuating the existing culture of self-preservation among police (like some unnamed user on this forum does), it's far preferable to undertake some meaningful action. Inaction will only serve to reinforce current behavior, doing nothing to challenge or improve upon the present state of affairs.

Can you tell us more about European style police training?

 

[Gospel]

In general, an officer's actions have to be criminal in order to be held accountable in the Judicial system. The shooting of Rice wasn't criminal, it was incompetent.

Once more, it bears noting that such accountability requires not just a willing prosecution, but also unbiased judges. Our system is well-structured to hold officers accountable for a vast range of actions, provided we have cooperative judges, prosecutors, and police unions to enforce it effectively. Regardless of the laws we establish, if these three critical components – the judges, prosecutors, and unions – deliberately shield officers, any law designed to ensure accountability becomes moot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I disagree fully. Police work in a different world than we do. Judging their actions on the same scale as the typical citizen doesn't work. It is so dubious, that it has made it near impossible to hold officers accountable for unnecessary lethal force. Justifiable homicide for officer isn't the same as for a civilian.

We need a system that can manage Police related violence on a scale that is fair for Police officers and the violence they deal with, while not providing them carte blanche. It is currently all or nothing right now. We need a middle ground for that profession.

 

[Gospel]

The system in place is fundamentally designed to handle such scenarios. Cases do exist where officers have been apprehended, charged, and penalized for precipitous decisions. What we need is a more open-minded police force, willing prosecution, and Police Union receptive to accountability measures.

My suggestion is that we increase pay for law enforcement officers in the USA, aligning them more closely with high-earning professions like law and medicine. Simultaneously, rather than stripping them of their firearms (a move which would be foolish considering the Second Amendment keeps the public armed), we should aspire to incorporate European-style police training and culture. With this robust and comprehensive training, officers would be better poised to judge when firearm use is truly appropriate. While this might not completely eradicate police shootings, it would significantly reduce instances where force is unnecessarily deployed.

Instead of simply endorsing the status quo and perpetuating the existing culture of self-preservation among police (like some unnamed user on this forum does), it's far preferable to undertake some meaningful action. Inaction will only serve to reinforce current behavior, doing nothing to challenge or improve upon the present state of affairs.

Can you tell us more about European style police training?

My emphasis is on adopting a training model that prioritizes de-escalation techniques and community policing, mirroring practices observed in countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, to cite a few examples. While I do not possess detailed information or specific sources, I do believe the priority should be on fostering de-escalation skills and a community-centric approach, as opposed to focusing on war-like scenarios.

 

[Toni]

The system in place is fundamentally designed to handle such scenarios. Cases do exist where officers have been apprehended, charged, and penalized for precipitous decisions. What we need is a more open-minded police force, willing prosecution, and Police Union receptive to accountability measures.

My suggestion is that we increase pay for law enforcement officers in the USA, aligning them more closely with high-earning professions like law and medicine. Simultaneously, rather than stripping them of their firearms (a move which would be foolish considering the Second Amendment keeps the public armed), we should aspire to incorporate European-style police training and culture. With this robust and comprehensive training, officers would be better poised to judge when firearm use is truly appropriate. While this might not completely eradicate police shootings, it would significantly reduce instances where force is unnecessarily deployed.

Instead of simply endorsing the status quo and perpetuating the existing culture of self-preservation among police (like some unnamed user on this forum does), it's far preferable to undertake some meaningful action. Inaction will only serve to reinforce current behavior, doing nothing to challenge or improve upon the present state of affairs.

Can you tell us more about European style police training?

My emphasis is on adopting a training model that prioritizes de-escalation techniques and community policing, mirroring practices observed in countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, to cite a few examples. While I do not possess detailed information or specific sources, I do believe the priority should be on fostering de-escalation skills and a community-centric approach, as opposed to focusing on war-like scenarios.

I agree completely. I was just hoping you had links to articles that gave some more details.

Even within my own small city, there have been a couple of cases where people were killed by police in circumstances where no one should have been harmed. De-escalation would have been much, much better.

 

[robnisch]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/24/us/san-antonio-officers-charged-fatal-shooting/index.html

Angry woman with hammer nearly injures three policeman.

 

[Rhea]

POlice need to learn how to overcome their inflated dominance egos and BACK OFF and regroup. “Hey, maybe this is a situation for a mental health professional, not a goon, boys!”