|
Dead Reckoning posted:Two problems with this. First, you have the luxury of working with children that are known quantities. You're familiar with their issues and have a pretty good idea that none of them have guns or knives concealed on their person. I don't think you can use "non-harmful techniques" to restrain a fully grown adult who is intent not on a temper tantrum but on harming you physically. I think you'd be crazy to try such a thing on a stranger you encountered less than a minute ago. Second, the police are not caregivers; their role is to maintain public order. If someone is walking out of a liquor store with a bottle they didn't pay for, you can't expect the owner to "wait for them to get it out of their system." Similarly, if a stranger is trampling through my front garden and yelling about The Revelation, I should not be expected to let them crush my flowers until they come down from their high or their psychotic episode resolves or whatever. I expect the police to remove that person whether they want to go or not. Basic human compassion means that your flowers get trampled so as not to remove the dignity of the human having a psychotic episode. And of course you can wait for a robber to "get it out of their system" (whatever you meant by "it") especially if its the loss of a bottle versus an assault. You can wait an hour for your bottle to be returned to you.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:This isn't a useful post and is more just an attempt to shut down a valid point. You do not need to support the cop who killed Garner to point out that Riven's argument has a serious problem. The two situations aren't comparable because Riven knows the people he's dealing with which makes it much easier for him than if you stuck a random person in his position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
I think the parent analogy is okay though, because a prerequisite of having a unified front between the parents is previous planning and decisions about how to respond to what. If police don't have such a plan they are already hosed regardless of whether they stick together or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Man, the Eric Garner thing was absolutely unacceptable, and it's insane that nothing is ever gonna come of it, but come the gently caress on, cops need to use force sometimes, and people who work at stores need to prevent some shithead junkie from stealing all their poo poo. Um. I did not write what you put in the quote box. I said, quote, "If they can't touch someone, ever, if they're not obviously being dangerous," It's easy to argue with something stupid when you completely change what I say to make it stupid. If Eric Garner had shoved a cop or been acting in any way dangerous towards them, had initiated aggression, that's one thing. But he didn't. He was pushing his hands down and away, in a a "no way" motion. He was being non-compliant, not dangerous. Dead Reckoning posted:Two problems with this. First, you have the luxury of working with children that are known quantities. You're familiar with their issues and have a pretty good idea that none of them have guns or knives concealed on their person. I don't think you can use "non-harmful techniques" to restrain a fully grown adult who is intent not on a temper tantrum but on harming you physically. I think you'd be crazy to try such a thing on a stranger you encountered less than a minute ago. Second, the police are not caregivers; their role is to maintain public order. If someone is walking out of a liquor store with a bottle they didn't pay for, you can't expect the owner to "wait for them to get it out of their system." Similarly, if a stranger is trampling through my front garden and yelling about The Revelation, I should not be expected to let them crush my flowers until they come down from their high or their psychotic episode resolves or whatever. I expect the police to remove that person whether they want to go or not. What you're saying here, given what the actions we've seen from cops from non-violent suspected criminals, is that you value that bottle and those flowers more than human life. And, you can absolutely use non-harmful techniques on a fully grown adult who is intent on harming you physically. I've had students absolutely intent on harming me physically. If a cop isn't sure if someone has a knife or gun concealed on their person, they should hold back from the situation until they have more knowledge, perhaps with their gun drawn. There's no difference between going into a choke hold on a person who may have a knife and going into a safe restraint with someone who may have a knife, and in fact the safe restraint is safer because it involves grabbing their arms. Not jumping on their back and seeing if they pull a knife and stab behind them. The problem here is that you have people acting emotionally and irrationally, and the proper response to that is to stay calm and rational yourself, and de-escalate the situation. Instead the cops are getting emotional and irrational themselves and escalating it. klen dool posted:Basic human compassion means that your flowers get trampled so as not to remove the dignity of the human having a psychotic episode. And of course you can wait for a robber to "get it out of their system" (whatever you meant by "it") especially if its the loss of a bottle versus an assault. You can wait an hour for your bottle to be returned to you. Exactly. And you know what? If someone's damaging your property, sure, put them in a restraint. You can hold someone for a long time in a safe restraint until they calm down. It is possible to immediately intervene with someone who is being damaging or dangerous without putting their life at risk. The cop that reacted to my student knew him as well. He was a known quantity to that cop and she still used excessive force, because it's all she was trained to do. Rent-A-Cop posted:My point was that the police making GBS threads a brick and going full retard on every fat guy who fails to immediately respect their authority is a much bigger problem for public order than waiting a few minutes for the idiot in question to chill out. There are options between "Do Nothing" and "Maximum Violence" but the NYPD doesn't seem to be aware of any of them. Exactly. Samurai Sanders posted:I think the parent analogy is okay though, because a prerequisite of having a unified front between the parents is previous planning and decisions about how to respond to what. If police don't have such a plan they are already hosed regardless of whether they stick together or not. I also think the parent analogy is fine. And this happens in my work as well. One of us might do a restraint that someone else thinks wasn't justified. We don't call each other on it in the middle of it, because it's already tense, and we need to be a united team. But afterwards we do a review and if someone did something wrong, we make a change. If I was a parent (hoping to be one soon) and the other parent did something I strongly disagreed with, I'd have a conversation afterwards and make sure something changed. I'd say, "We don't hit our kid." Any further stretch of the metaphor I can think of breaks down, but this stuff is just being accepted by a lot of departments and DAs. The system completely allows it. I don't even blame most of the individual cops, I blame the training and accountability systems that make it likely and acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
An interesting take on the issue from someone who has been on both sides of the line: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/i-was-a-st-louis-cop-my-peers-were-racist-and-violent-and-theres-only-one-fix/
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Well Sedan was asking if I thought the blacks need controlling. I'm saying that I don't know what they need, or if indeed I am the man to give it to them. I don't make those decisions. But you're just deferring that to the cops and assuming their authority legitimate, otherwise. There's no continuos, intermediate, interpretation, which has been the problem from the start on both cases. Riven posted:I also think the parent analogy is fine. And this happens in my work as well. One of us might do a restraint that someone else thinks wasn't justified. We don't call each other on it in the middle of it, because it's already tense, and we need to be a united team. But afterwards we do a review and if someone did something wrong, we make a change. If I was a parent (hoping to be one soon) and the other parent did something I strongly disagreed with, I'd have a conversation afterwards and make sure something changed. I'd say, "We don't hit our kid." Any further stretch of the metaphor I can think of breaks down, but this stuff is just being accepted by a lot of departments and DAs. The system completely allows it. I don't even blame most of the individual cops, I blame the training and accountability systems that make it likely and acceptable. The message cops need to receive is that their gun doesn't make them a legitimate authority by default. The Judge Dredd poo poo literally needs to stop before people start taking matters into their own hands and we end up with a few dead officers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Riven posted:I also think the parent analogy is fine. And this happens in my work as well. One of us might do a restraint that someone else thinks wasn't justified. We don't call each other on it in the middle of it, because it's already tense, and we need to be a united team. But afterwards we do a review and if someone did something wrong, we make a change. If I was a parent (hoping to be one soon) and the other parent did something I strongly disagreed with, I'd have a conversation afterwards and make sure something changed. I'd say, "We don't hit our kid." Any further stretch of the metaphor I can think of breaks down, but this stuff is just being accepted by a lot of departments and DAs. The system completely allows it. I don't even blame most of the individual cops, I blame the training and accountability systems that make it likely and acceptable. Jesus christ, seriously? If your partner is hitting your child, intervene and stop it now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Jesus christ, seriously? If your partner is hitting your child, intervene and stop it now. Well I think the idea in the first place is to not be with someone who would hit my kid. I'm not, (married to a Kindergarten teacher) so it's purely theoretical for me. Wasn't my metaphor, and it doesn't stretch well. Don't hire cops that are doing it for the power trip? You probably couldn't hire enough cops. I thought about joining the Oakland PD at one point in my life. Had a friend who was a Lieutenant. I became a teacher instead because I didn't feel like I would fit. I self-selected out, and I think I'd make a good cop because I'd be doing it for the right reasons. I don't think everyone who would do it for the right reasons self selects out, but I can make up imaginary stats in my head that a lot do. That's really the root issue. Like the guy who shot Tamir Rice. Dude shouldn't have been a cop in the first place. I guess I'm saying that I get the "we need to be a united front" thing, but even in my work the worst thing we're doing is safely restraining a kid, not hitting them or using anywhere near lethal force. If someone is being grossly abusive then yeah, step in. But as someone pointed out, cops that step in and say stop are the ones who get punished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Riven posted:Well I think the idea in the first place is to not be with someone who would hit my kid. I'm not, (married to a Kindergarten teacher) so it's purely theoretical for me. Wasn't my metaphor, and it doesn't stretch well. Don't hire cops that are doing it for the power trip? You probably couldn't hire enough cops. I thought about joining the Oakland PD at one point in my life. Had a friend who was a Lieutenant. I became a teacher instead because I didn't feel like I would fit. I self-selected out, and I think I'd make a good cop because I'd be doing it for the right reasons. I don't think everyone who would do it for the right reasons self selects out, but I can make up imaginary stats in my head that a lot do. Just as an aside, your posts are great and you're spot on with everything. I feel like the big issues people seem to blow over and over again, are valuing objects over human life, and not seeing people who commit crimes are regular people who either are doing something out of some kind of sad desperation or are suffering from some kind of mental illness. Either case needs empathy and definitely better training for cops. Basically, we should be gearing up our society to move forward - away from violence and black and white rule following and towards empathy, compassion, etc etc. I keep thinking about that case from a year or two ago, the guy in the movie theater who was killed after being unruly. He was ill with some condition, I can't remember. but instead of doing exactly what you've been saying on the last page or so, the cops went all in on physical control and killed the guy. He was having an episode, he was panicking, and the police were absolutely not trained for that at all. I don't want to live in a society where people who don't have it all 100% outwardly together are at risk of death by our local protectors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Syjefroi posted:Just as an aside, your posts are great and you're spot on with everything. I feel like the big issues people seem to blow over and over again, are valuing objects over human life, and not seeing people who commit crimes are regular people who either are doing something out of some kind of sad desperation or are suffering from some kind of mental illness. Either case needs empathy and definitely better training for cops. Basically, we should be gearing up our society to move forward - away from violence and black and white rule following and towards empathy, compassion, etc etc. He had Down Syndrome. He had a visible, easily recognizable cognitive and developmental disability. I mean, I can understand someone without training not recognizing a psychotic episode or just regular old irrational action, but how do you look at someone with Down's and say "gently caress this guy, I'm gonna sit on him until he complies."? It takes a special lack of empathy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Yeah jeez, I mean, if someone had some rare crazy disease I could understand the police not being prepared, but a lot of people have Down Syndrome. But, I guess police training is on an incredibly small budget of time and money, so there have to be sacrifices...like how to deal with any mental disability, no matter how common.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Riven posted:The cop that reacted to my student knew him as well. He was a known quantity to that cop and she still used excessive force, because it's all she was trained to do. Worth noting that the cops knew Eric Garner too. All those 30-odd arrests or whatnot meant he must've been pretty familiar to them—they knew he wasn't a violent guy and they weren't in danger from him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/denverpolice/photos/a.216526168452374.39921.175202779251380/589440094494311/?type=1 Like this guy, right here. Cop gets called by parents because their son with Asperger's was freaking out. He deescalates the kid, finds out he's hungry, and gets him some food. Good cop, and able to do that because of good training. I just found out one of my Facebook friends does de-escalation training for Denver PD when he posted this 5 minutes ago. Gotta talk to him more now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
There was an article not too long ago about I believe it was San Antonio that has a small squad in their PD that actually specializes in dealing with individuals that have mental illnesses. EDIT: Here we go. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/08/19/338895262/mental-health-cops-help-reweave-social-safety-net-in-san-antonio William T. Hornaday fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Riven posted:https://www.facebook.com/denverpolice/photos/a.216526168452374.39921.175202779251380/589440094494311/?type=1 Hey I probably did some training with him! De-escelation rules, seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Grem posted:Are you talking about something like this? Well, yes, but given that she was held unfit for duty and fired as a result of that incident, it doesn't really change my main point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Basic human compassion means that your flowers get trampled so as not to remove the dignity of the human having a psychotic episode. And of course you can wait for a robber to "get it out of their system" (whatever you meant by "it") especially if its the loss of a bottle versus an assault. You can wait an hour for your bottle to be returned to you.  Do you think the police really have the resources to follow every single shoplifter until they decide to return the merchandise, or to babysit every single junkie through multi-hour manic episodes? Also, I never said that the cops should shoot the dude for trampling my flowers, just that the police remove the trespasser whether he wants to go or not, because respecting my dignity means not trespassing on my home and destroying my property. I shouldn’t have to wait for the trespasser to decide they’re finished. The other issue is that the police don’t interact with people they have the luxury of getting to know on an individual basis. Is this person acting erratically and aggressively going to calm down, or is he going to start smashing windows? How long is this person going to break the law before they decide to stop?Riven posted:What you're saying here, given what the actions we've seen from cops from non-violent suspected criminals, is that you value that bottle and those flowers more than human life. quote:And, you can absolutely use non-harmful techniques on a fully grown adult who is intent on harming you physically. I've had students absolutely intent on harming me physically. If a cop isn't sure if someone has a knife or gun concealed on their person, they should hold back from the situation until they have more knowledge, perhaps with their gun drawn. There's no difference between going into a choke hold on a person who may have a knife and going into a safe restraint with someone who may have a knife, and in fact the safe restraint is safer because it involves grabbing their arms. Not jumping on their back and seeing if they pull a knife and stab behind them. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Riven posted:And there are ways to ensure people receive consequences without endangering their lives. I'm a special education teacher who specializes in working with kids with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities. I am trained in verbal and non-verbal de-escalation, and safe individual and team restraints that are effective and explicitly prevent kids from being hurt or asphyxiated. I will only physically engage with a student if they are directly about to cause harm to themselves or others. That can sometimes include to someone's property, so if a kid is about to break someone's glasses or something, I might restrain, but only if I don't think their parents can reasonably replace that item. The only harm that has ever come to a student I worked with was due to lack of restraint when I should have, and the kid punched through a wire-reinforced window and tore his arm apart. Well, kudos to you for doing a tough job. I stopped being able to participate in systems like that years ago; I worked at an alternative school attached to a psychiatric hospital. As the behavior intervention specialist I directed all restraints and transports, which we did every day, including mechanical restraints. One of the reasons I quit is because I felt like I was participating in the institutional cycle of physical and emotional domination. In the moment, tactically, every one of our decisions was appropriate and carried out with the utmost caring and professionalism, and there were plenty of times where we had to take immediate action and restrain a kid because they were going to seriously hurt themselves in an instant if we didn't. For example, we had a 16 year old autistic girl who was big, strong, fast and assaultive. She could work placidly at her table with the two educational assistants who were hired to escort her at all times. For weeks at a time she would appear to be totally docile, then suddenly turn, hock a loogie on one EA, slap the poo poo out of the other one and run down the hallway screaming "I want to live in Carrie and Lisa's vagina" before I could look up from my desk. Once I was helping get her onto the bus and as she was seated wearing wrist restraints, she suddenly thrust her head into the window, smashing it. But she was a severe case. There was no need to transport kids or put them in isolation just because they didn't want to sit in class, and we wouldn't allow them to sit in the hallway. We were being hidebound and stupid and kids were suffering because of it. It seemed all too much like police behavior to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Riven posted:https://www.facebook.com/denverpolice/photos/a.216526168452374.39921.175202779251380/589440094494311/?type=1 It's worth noting that the DPD isn't blameless. The FBI is on them after this incident - for example. But that's just a toss up that there are good cops and bad cops anywhere, but there's still no action here for a pretty clear, egregious use of force. So while your buddy may be doing de-escalation training, it certainly isn't universally learned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
I guess this is a really basic question, but are there really so few people who want to be cops that PDs don't need to be the slightest bit choosy? Are some of them literally like that scene in Ghostbuters where Winston comes in and they say "great, you're hired!"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I guess this is a really basic question, but are there really so few people who want to be cops that PDs don't need to be the slightest bit choosy? Are some of them literally like that scene in Ghostbuters where Winston comes in and they say "great, you're hired!"? I think it varies a lot between departments. A major city that has a well-funded department that pays decent wages will have tons of applicants, allowing them to be picky. A podunk town that pays $15/h, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
The NY Daily News did some investigating:quote:A Daily News investigation found that at least 179 people were killed by on-duty NYPD officers over the past 15 years. Just three of the deaths have led to an indictment in state court. In another case, a judge threw out the indictment on technical grounds and it was not reinstated. NYPD efforts to fix the problem have been pretty unsuccessful. quote:Diallo, an African immigrant, was standing in the vestibule of his Bronx apartment building when four white anti-crime cops mistook him for a rape suspect. They ordered him to show his hands; Diallo tried to show them his wallet. The officers mistook it for a gun, and 41 bullets later, the 22-year-old was dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
The reality that a lot of the cop supporters don't seem able to acknowledge is that if you're talking to a cop, for whatever reason, then you might be seconds from death or longterm incarceration and have little ability to predict or control the situation. And after they've finished cuffing your body, they'll trash your name in the media in order to protect themselves. That's what is behind "Hands Up".
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The reality that a lot of the cop supporters don't seem able to acknowledge is that if you're talking to a cop, for whatever reason, then you might be seconds from death or longterm incarceration and have little ability to predict or control the situation. And after they've finished cuffing your body, they'll trash your name in the media in order to protect themselves. That's what is behind "Hands Up". Keeping your hands up and following law enforcement direction is a good thing, especially for people being arrested. So if people become more compliant after this it's a societal net positive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Keeping your hands up and following law enforcement direction is a good thing, especially for people being arrested. So if people become more compliant after this it's a societal net positive. Well, this is pretty frightening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Keeping your hands up and following law enforcement direction is a good thing, especially for people being arrested. So if people become more compliant after this it's a societal net positive. WHOOOSH, right over the head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Keeping your hands up and following law enforcement direction is a good thing, especially for people being arrested. So if people become more compliant after this it's a societal net positive. Well yeah, it's probably in your best interests to keep your hands visible at all times around someone who will shoot you if he gets scared. Doesn't really matter whether you're being arrested or not, keep your hands in view and try to avoid sudden movements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Keeping your hands up and following law enforcement direction is a good thing, especially for people being arrested. So if people become more compliant after this it's a societal net positive. What would have been the best course of action for someone who followed law enforcement direction and was shot for it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Keeping your hands up and following law enforcement direction is a good thing, especially for people being arrested. So if people become more compliant after this it's a societal net positive. I mean is english your second language? You seem to have missed the numerous examples cited where even officers who stop other officers abusing their power are disciplined rather than the officer power tripping. Trying to lay blame on the victim is retarded in the face of so many cases where the victim has no control over the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Keeping your hands up and following law enforcement direction is a good thing, especially for people being arrested. So if people become more compliant after this it's a societal net positive. We shouldn't have to live in a society where people need to "assume the submission position" just to speak with a cop without fear of being blown away on a whim. And the fact that the concern must be borne particularly by black people only makes it worse. You're reflexively blaming the victim here for being "non-compliant" even when we're being completely hypothetical. What you refuse to accept is people who aren't "bad guys" also interact with cops - and that they also see police interaction as an ordeal that they have to survive. A population that is constantly terrified of police is not a societal net positive. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Keeping your hands up and following law enforcement direction is a good thing, especially for people being arrested. So if people become more compliant after this it's a societal net positive. People who don't scare the police (including me because I don't look black) don't have to worry about it. Black people already understand that if they move they are dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-ckDJ3xTaE Nothing has been gained unless you can come to understand this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Kaal posted:We shouldn't have to live in a society where people need to "assume the submission position" just to speak with a cop without fear of being blown away on a whim. We shouldn't have to, but that is how it is. If you find yourself in a situation where you absolutely must speak to a police officer, keep your hands visible at all times and avoid any sudden movements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:We shouldn't have to, but that is how it is. If you find yourself in a situation where you absolutely must speak to a police officer, keep your hands visible at all times and avoid any sudden movements. Ok, cool. This is the police reform thread so obviously we're talking about how to change "what is". Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:We shouldn't have to, but that is how it is. If you find yourself in a situation where you absolutely must speak to a police officer, keep your hands visible at all times and avoid any sudden movements. And especially avoid that suddenest of movements, turning dark.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
I dunno if this is the right thread for it, but how the hell was Ronald Ritchie (the guy who told police that John Crawford was pointing a gun at people, then admitted he was lying) not charged with anything? Like that is pretty much conspiracy to commit murder. He basically tricked the police into attacking an unarmed man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
White dude black victim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:I dunno if this is the right thread for it, but how the hell was Ronald Ritchie (the guy who told police that John Crawford was pointing a gun at people, then admitted he was lying) not charged with anything? Like that is pretty much conspiracy to commit murder. He basically tricked the police into attacking an unarmed man. Conspiracy with whom? IANAL, but establishing any sort of culpability for Ritchie is going to be a pretty high bar to clear, since it necessarily removes all agency from the responding officers. Most armed suspect calls don't result in a dead suspect, so establishing that his call was likely to result in Crawford's injury or death is going to be difficult. The decision to shoot and culpability for that rested solely with the responding officers. In some states, lying to the police (much less a 911 dispatcher) in an unsworn statement isn't even a crime. What he did was clearly wrong, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it was illegal, or how you could even make it so without criminalizing a whole lot of innocent behavior. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Plus any kind of culpability for the 911 caller would lead to many unintended consequences in 911 reporting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Yeah if someone calls an ambulance saying someone is having a heart attack, and the ambulance crew shows up instantly starts treating for a heart attack not noticing the dude is actually choking to death, it's not the fault of the 911 caller. It's the paramedic's loving job to assess the situation them selves. Obviously the report really helps, but you still need to confirm before acting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
Tender Bender posted:I dunno if this is the right thread for it, but how the hell was Ronald Ritchie (the guy who told police that John Crawford was pointing a gun at people, then admitted he was lying) not charged with anything? Criminal charges would probably require that he knew his statements were false at the time and made them anyway, not that he made statements which later turned out to be false. Prosecuting the second one would be really stupid in the context of 911 calls, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 04:13
|
|
