• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Some police officers are a real worry

TSwizzle

I am unburdened by what has been.
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
9,914
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Hee/Haw
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here's another close call. This is frightening;

A Minnesota arrest in which a driver was dragged from his vehicle and repeatedly punched and kneed by a police officer was a “disturbing and completely unnecessary” example of an excessive use of force, the state ACLU has said. Video recently obtained by the Minnesota chapter of the ACLU shows Buffalo Ridge drug taskforce agent Joe Joswiak initiating a traffic stop with his gun leveled at the driver’s seat of the vehicle, shouting expletives at the driver, and violently removing him from the vehicle – seemingly before he had a chance to comply with the officer’s commands.

Teh Gruaniad

These lunatics need to be weeded out of the force.
 
Here's another close call. This is frightening;

A Minnesota arrest in which a driver was dragged from his vehicle and repeatedly punched and kneed by a police officer was a “disturbing and completely unnecessary” example of an excessive use of force, the state ACLU has said. Video recently obtained by the Minnesota chapter of the ACLU shows Buffalo Ridge drug taskforce agent Joe Joswiak initiating a traffic stop with his gun leveled at the driver’s seat of the vehicle, shouting expletives at the driver, and violently removing him from the vehicle – seemingly before he had a chance to comply with the officer’s commands.

Teh Gruaniad

These lunatics need to be weeded out of the force.

"ACLU said" - they complain a lot, don't they, Swizzle?
Nah - the driver was simply too slow to respond. Of course if he was too fast to respond, that would justify shooting him. Much better let the cop beat the shit outa you.

Seriously though - do you have any ideas about a process that could effectively weed out lunatics?
 
Here's another close call. This is frightening;



Teh Gruaniad

These lunatics need to be weeded out of the force.

"ACLU said" - they complain a lot, don't they, Swizzle?
Nah - the driver was simply too slow to respond. Of course if he was too fast to respond, that would justify shooting him. Much better let the cop beat the shit outa you.

Seriously though - do you have any ideas about a process that could effectively weed out lunatics?

Regular psych evals with the power to disqualify patients from continued service should they be found wanting is a good start. We should pick police candidates in roughly the same way we pick special forces: Only the best.

We need to split the wheat from the chaff, and provide those who remain with suitable compensation for excellent service, so as to draw new candidates to pick through to replace the chaff.
 
"ACLU said" - they complain a lot, don't they, Swizzle?
Nah - the driver was simply too slow to respond. Of course if he was too fast to respond, that would justify shooting him. Much better let the cop beat the shit outa you.

Seriously though - do you have any ideas about a process that could effectively weed out lunatics?

Regular psych evals with the power to disqualify patients from continued service should they be found wanting is a good start. We should pick police candidates in roughly the same way we pick special forces: Only the best.

We need to split the wheat from the chaff, and provide those who remain with suitable compensation for excellent service, so as to draw new candidates to pick through to replace the chaff.

If we're going to go with expensive propositions, I'll revert to my stance as a 14 year old - and you mentioned it: "suitable compensation". Cops and teachers should make as much as doctors and lawyers. That would gitcha some good candidates. Otherwise, you're stuck trying to get the best among the worst, and no amount of psych eval or re-training is going to make it better.

It's a tough one because it only takes one lousy cop to mess up a bunch of people's lives, just as it only takes one lousy teacher to fuck up a bunch of kids.
 
Regular psych evals with the power to disqualify patients from continued service should they be found wanting is a good start. We should pick police candidates in roughly the same way we pick special forces: Only the best.

We need to split the wheat from the chaff, and provide those who remain with suitable compensation for excellent service, so as to draw new candidates to pick through to replace the chaff.

If we're going to go with expensive propositions, I'll revert to my stance as a 14 year old - and you mentioned it: "suitable compensation". Cops and teachers should make as much as doctors and lawyers. That would gitcha some good candidates. Otherwise, you're stuck trying to get the best among the worst, and no amount of psych eval or re-training is going to make it better.

It's a tough one because it only takes one lousy cop to mess up a bunch of people's lives, just as it only takes one lousy teacher to fuck up a bunch of kids.

You get what you pay for. If the government pays well enough, that puts them in the position to demand quality from those it pays. This is of course all theoretical. In reality, the American government is not a meritocracy. Still, I feel meritocratic elements would serve the American people well if applied to certain occupations, namely teachers and the police, and various other public service positions.

Upping pay rates also gives us room to do away with certain occupational amenities that don't serve the people. Amenities such as Tenure for public school teachers. Gym coaches have no business teaching math just because they stuck around for 20 years and the school doesn't know what else to do with him.

In my ideal world government jobs should be something people are willing to almost kill for which gives the people room to demand the best in those positions.
 
The proliferation of tiny police departments with tiny budgets for training, and nonexistent internal affairs (or even personnel) departments is a large part of the problem.

Consolidation of the US law enforcement community into no more than 51 departments (one per state, plus a federal department with jurisdiction in DC as well as nationwide) would be a good start. Some of the lower population states might even benefit from combining their forces - one police department for both Dakotas, for example.

When you have a huge number of police departments with only a handful of officers, quality suffers in any number of ways.
 
The proliferation of tiny police departments aren't responsible for problematic law enforcement or at root of whatever problem one ones to attach to excessive cop on unarmed or holster black deaths or prosecution failures.

We've had a series of low paid cops, three at a time, policing our village for the last fourteen years. Its a series because we can't afford to pay for senior other than semi-retired officers. No deaths by cop in 14 years here. All our officers are required to get both state and federal training to receive their certification with regular remediation and refresher training every couple of years.

Seven deaths by drugs, ambushes, street thug attacks, and hate attacks by citizens though. Easily explainable as combination of very low rents here and heavy influx of state funded thugs from Portland, Salem, and Eugene, into those living spaces putting ordinary out of work fishermen, lumber men and day workers out on the street. ...and we are one of the hot spots for grass and opioid production which runs from Garberville CA to Coos Bay OR. Lots of cover, no work, lots of idle hands, lots of desperation.

Good news is cops who were found not guilty were either fired or put on prolonged leave with retaining and counselling requirements.
 
This is the common form of police misconduct.

The guy was very much in the wrong but the officers on the scene decided to extract a bit of their own justice rather than leaving it to the courts. It's also the sort of case that His Flatulence wants to make effectively immune to civil judgment on.
 
This is the common form of police misconduct.

The guy was very much in the wrong but the officers on the scene decided to extract a bit of their own justice rather than leaving it to the courts. It's also the sort of case that His Flatulence wants to make effectively immune to civil judgment on.

As far as I'm concerned, this citizen had every reason to fear for his life and shoot the cop. This is going to happen one day soon. Why the fuck we civilians should put up with this shit is beyond me. Get these lunatics off the force.
 
Last edited:
"ACLU said" - they complain a lot, don't they, Swizzle?
Nah - the driver was simply too slow to respond. Of course if he was too fast to respond, that would justify shooting him. Much better let the cop beat the shit outa you.

Seriously though - do you have any ideas about a process that could effectively weed out lunatics?

Regular psych evals with the power to disqualify patients from continued service should they be found wanting is a good start. We should pick police candidates in roughly the same way we pick special forces: Only the best.

We need to split the wheat from the chaff, and provide those who remain with suitable compensation for excellent service, so as to draw new candidates to pick through to replace the chaff.

I would think the special forces variety would act worse in some instances where speed is of the essence. It's a question of proper training to be able to analyse a situation in front of them without always reacting on subconscious messages or perhaps past situations that were problematic.

It may be more difficult for the officer to retain objectivity if he w had a near miss or a colleague was. This doesn't of course excuse anyone in the force for wrong actions.

There again as usual it's best to wait for an inquiry etc, though I doubt if this will necessarily prevent any discontent.
 
Last edited:
"ACLU said" - they complain a lot, don't they, Swizzle?
Nah - the driver was simply too slow to respond. Of course if he was too fast to respond, that would justify shooting him. Much better let the cop beat the shit outa you.

Seriously though - do you have any ideas about a process that could effectively weed out lunatics?

Regular psych evals with the power to disqualify patients from continued service should they be found wanting is a good start. We should pick police candidates in roughly the same way we pick special forces: Only the best.

We need to split the wheat from the chaff, and provide those who remain with suitable compensation for excellent service, so as to draw new candidates to pick through to replace the chaff.

There is nothing 100% but certainly training is a key issue in candidates being able to analyse a situation within a split second; but also react with such timing.

The other issue is that if a person was not an actual danger they were perceived as such. A man waving a knife under the influence of drink or drugs many not in reality have been a danger but if the court is convinced that the perceived danger was real, it would rule in favour of the constable.
 
Here's the police version:

http://www.gomn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/anthony-promvongsa-complaint.pdf

Here's the write up of the case in the Star Tribune:

http://www.startribune.com/dashcam-...ck-of-minnesota-motorist-aclu-says/430187073/

Promvongsa's arrests include underaged drinking, drunk driving and driving after revocation of his license.

Assuming the police descriptions of the events leading to this case are 100% accurate, it is still difficult to see how the police officer's actions were justified.

Note: It is not uncommon in small towns at least for police to recognize and follow drivers they know have revoked drivers licenses. This sort of thing is noted in my local small town newspaper very frequently.
 
Taking my wife to the doctor a couple of weeks ago, I opened the garage door to find a car parked across my driveway. A lady nearby told me it was a cop car. I saw an officer looking at cars(it's common for cops and white hats to check registration/inspection stickers). I called out to him. He moved the car, driving down the block and pulling over. I passed him, stopped at the corner stop sign, and turned. He pulled out, pulled me over, claiming a rolling stop. Which was absurd, number one, I knew he was watching, number two I had to let a car pass.

Prick. $138 and three points because I apparently didn't kiss his ass to get him to unblock my driveway.

And then they wonder why people resent them.
 
No, police action is not justified. But harassing and road raging off-duty cop is never wise. But then maybe off-duty cop started first, who knows.
 
Back
Top Bottom