|
Dum Cumpster posted:Again I think one scared person isn't the way to deal with this situation. Would there be something wrong with waiting in his car for more officers to arrive? They seemed to get there pretty quickly. I think that would be better for everyone involved. I really don't get why a cop would ever be alone, anywhere. Is it just for budget reasons, or what? It seems like officer safety trumps all other concerns most of the time, yet having the safety valve of a second person on the scene would probably be the best thing to keep them safe in most circumstances - and it would probably be good for anyone who has to come into contact with them as well.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
the latter. facts play out like this: Witness: I don't want to put my name in the report. Cop: That's fine. We'll just call you "female 1" Statement of "female 1" provides partial basis of probable cause for arrest. Defense counsel is given name of "female 1" for purposes of preparing a hearing on probable cause and may or may not be ordered by court not to disclose name or even statement to client if there is a witness safety concern. Prosecutor gets statement of "female 1" and sends investigator to try to convince "female 1" to testify. Once "female 1" agrees to testify, defense counsel gets name of "female 1" for purposes of preparing a defense. Bottom line, not everyone who gives a statement will be willing to testify at trial...many witnesses develop mysterious cases of amnesia. But a witness who gives a statement at the scene anonymously might be persuaded to testify. A witness who disappears into the ether without giving a statement is useless. When the victim is another gang member, you pretty much get "I didn't see nothing."
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It plays out a little differently in the gang homicide cases. Not here. Different strokes. Also, the hood always knows who's snitching here anyhow. We do have anonymous sources for warrants though I guess. No snitching cuts both ways. We can't get good witnesses for us to talk to us either. nm fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Yeah, it's not like he was a known criminal with a past involving drugs and weapons, and also wanted for shooting someone the night before. Being concerned about his lack of compliance and digging in his pants is clearly an overreaction when dealing with someone known to carry a gun. He was obviously reaching for a D&D Lollipop. Yeah, that specific instance I kind of feel the officer was justified in the shooting. As soon as they're pulled over the dude looks back and then starts fidgeting around to the point it looks like he's changing his pants, then he keeps moving his hands off the headrest after repeated instructions to keep them visible. Sure, the cop escalated with his language pretty quickly but the dude was wanted in connection with a shooting the day before and kept putting his hands down at his sides. I'm as critical of the police as anyone here, but I'd have probably done the same in that cop's place. I feel like its instances like this, where the actions of the cop were pretty justified but people seem to act like it's a comparable situation to the Tamir Rice shooting, that others point to when they're dismissing any criticism of police as anti-cop bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
There was no reason for the officer to be right up there at the door like that. He apparently stopped the car because he suspected someone in the car (the guy he wound up shooting) was involved in a shooting earlier. That's a textbook felony stop situation. In a felony stop you don't just run up to the car with the scary dangerous person in it and wave your gun around and start cussing. If the person is actually as dangerous as you think they are, that's a great way to get shot in the face. You a) make the stop in a place of your choose, b) have more than one officer / car at the stop, or at least hold them in the car until more arrive, and c) give commands from a position of cover, ordering them out of the car and back to the officers at a position of disadvantage. In addition to putting the suspect at a position of disadvantage, if you do wind up in situation where you have to shoot him, you are less likely to be shooting directly into a car with other occupants, as this officer did. Whether the suspect was a threat or not, the officer is still responsible for the rounds he fired, and the other people in the car did nothing to warrant being shot. You do it that way precisely because you have more control, and don't wind up in an ambiguous situation with four people in a car two feet away from you with no reaction gap. I don't fault the officer for being nervous that the guy was refusing commands and putting his hands in places that he could get a weapon, and I am ultimately unsure whether it was a justified shooting because I can't clearly see what the guy was actually doing when the officer shot him and I have not seen anywhere whether there was actually a weapon. However, I fault the officer for horrible, over-aggressive tactics. This poo poo is drilled over and over. You put a suspect at a position of disadvantage, you don't just run headlong into a confrontation without a plan. That is true both from the perspective of officer safety, and from the perspective of not creating situations where use of force is more likely. At least, that's how I learned it at the law enforcement academy I graduated from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:There was no reason for the officer to be right up there at the door like that. He apparently stopped the car because he suspected someone in the car (the guy he wound up shooting) was involved in a shooting earlier. That's a textbook felony stop situation. Thank you. Sure, the shooting may have been "justified" but the cop is the one who made the situation into what it was. He is a reckless, aggressive prick who has now killed at least two people who might have been apprehended without violence by a better application of police tactics and a cooler head. Dude should not be a cop, period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:At least, that's how I learned it at the law enforcement academy I graduated from.  . Tell us more piggy. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:
Shut up it was a good post. It would be nice to see the law be more critical of people who voluntarily and unnecessarily put themselves in dangerous situations and then suddenly find themselves compelled to kill someone in self-defense!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:
High quality post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:High quality post. Says the guy who couldn't hack it as a cop, but feels like saying "that time I went to a police academy" gives him the right and justification to comment on police tactics with some bit of vague authority on the subject. Protip for your future armchairing in the real world: it does not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:High quality post. Don't feed the trolls. But back on topic, In plenty of internet videos (and most of my personal interactions with police) the police (as you noted from that particular shooting) seem to be attempting to escalate the situation. Do you agree that that is a standard (or common) tactic? Is it new? If so, why the change?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Says the guy who couldn't hack it as a cop, but feels like saying "that time I went to a police academy" gives him the right and justification to comment on police tactics with some bit of vague authority on the subject. Protip for your future armchairing in the real world: it does not. Says a guy who watches a video where a cop clearly out of his element frantically screams obscenities at a suspect before murdering them in a situation entirely of his own making and is like, "yeah, pretty good police procedure, totes a good shoot, nothing to see here folks."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Says the guy who couldn't hack it as a cop, but feels like saying "that time I went to a police academy" gives him the right and justification to comment on police tactics with some bit of vague authority on the subject. Protip for your future armchairing in the real world: it does not. This is so representative of so much that is wrong in American police culture. Police culture in this country simply rejects the notion that law enforcement is accountable to anyone other than itself. Of course I have a "right and justification" to comment on police tactics and behavior, as does literally everyone else. And of course I have (more than) a "vague authority" on the subject for having received formal training and working in the field. This obsession with not being "armchaired" or "Monday morning quarterbacked" is the height of hypocrisy in police culture. You know what the job description of law enforcement is? Armchairing everyone else. Protip: when you shoot someone with tools and authority given to you by the people, the people get to criticize you. I never tried to "hack it" as a "cop." I'm a law enforcement officer for a federal land management agency. I somehow manage to routinely deal with armed people without screaming "I am gonna shoot you" or making GBS threads my pants and blowing away a 12 year old. My time at the academy, which was predominantly staffed by city cops, was more than enough direct exposure to "cop life" for me. KernelSlanders posted:But back on topic, In plenty of internet videos (and most of my personal interactions with police) the police (as you noted from that particular shooting) seem to be attempting to escalate the situation. Do you agree that that is a standard (or common) tactic? Is it new? If so, why the change? I think there is an obsession with control, and the tendency to escalate derives largely from that. Cops in general feel entitled to be in control of what's going on around them. When that doesn't happen, and when you accept that as some kind of foundational imperative it invites escalation when noncompliance occurs. Sometimes that's a good thing. If you're intervening in a chaotic situation, be it a domestic conflict or a traffic accident where people are in each other's faces or getting close to highway traffic, or what have you, then yeah, everyone needs to do what the cop says and the people who don't need to be dealt with more forcefully. If you cannot assert authority and see it heeded, in appropriate situations, then you can't really do the full job of a cop. However, in many, probably most, other situations it's counterproductive. Once you decide "this person is going to do what I tell them to do, or I am going to make them do it," you are substantially limiting your options. You are letting that person dictate your actions. In the case of the video we're discussing, it seems like that was the cop's thought process. I told this rear end in a top hat to put his hands on the head rest, he didn't, so I will make him do it RIGHT NOW. That's one option. But he had other, probably better, options.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Interesting. Reminds me of the time I was pulled over for speeding, except I misinterpreted the cop's hand signal as saying "slow down" when really he meant "pull the gently caress over". So when he caught up to me 500 yards down the road he was not happy (to put it lightly). Until how I hadn't thought about how much worse that could have gone (if I wasn't white).
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:In the case of the video we're discussing, it seems like that was the cop's thought process. I told this rear end in a top hat to put his hands on the head rest, he didn't, so I will make him do it RIGHT NOW. That's one option. But he had other, probably better, options. Thanks for contributing. You're giving the specifics of what I was thinking would be a better way to deal with that arrest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Lots of murmurs and dissension in the ranks of the NYPD as precinct bosses order no PTO until they're caught up on summonses: http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/no-time-off-for-nypd-until-cops-get-back-to-work/ The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing. Grabbing my popcorn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:Lots of murmurs and dissension in the ranks of the NYPD as precinct bosses order no PTO until they're caught up on summonses: It seems like the NYPD is admitting that the time they spend on writing summonses is not a huge factor in the safety of communities and is strictly a revenue source. So basically what the population already knew.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:In the case of the video we're discussing, it seems like that was the cop's thought process. I told this rear end in a top hat to put his hands on the head rest, he didn't, so I will make him do it RIGHT NOW. That's one option. But he had other, probably better, options. There are times where as soon as the cop walks up to the window he's an rear end in a top hat and cursing for no reason, this wasn't one of those instances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
bango skank posted:If you watch the video, it seems less to me that the cop was angry the guy wasn't following orders and more once he found out the guy he was talking to was a suspect wanted in connection to a shooting that he kind of panicked. He's polite and has a calm tone of voice until he gets the guys name("Why're you moving around so much man, you're making me nervous"), soon as he recognizes the name he radios in for someone to hurry up and get there, then when the guy keeps putting his hands in his lap is when he freaks out and escalates. I don't know what video you watched, but his second sentence had an f-bomb and it only went downhill until he shot the dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:Says the guy who couldn't hack it as a cop, but feels like saying "that time I went to a police academy" gives him the right and justification to comment on police tactics with some bit of vague authority on the subject. Protip for your future armchairing in the real world: it does not. That's rich coming from someone who's probably never even seen the outside of a Kazak_Hstan academy before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I never tried to "hack it" as a "cop." I'm a law enforcement officer for a federal land management agency. I somehow manage to routinely deal with armed people without screaming "I am gonna shoot you" or making GBS threads my pants and blowing away a 12 year old. My time at the academy, which was predominantly staffed by city cops, was more than enough direct exposure to "cop life" for me. I like you, and this basically describes why I don't like cops. Cops have the authority of the Law behind them, if they can't talk their way out of a situation then they ain't worth much. Reaching for the gun is a hardcore small man move and most cops are some seriously small men. Basically, anybody who feels they need a gun, shouldn't be a cop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I like you, and this basically describes why I don't like cops. Cops have the authority of the Law behind them, if they can't talk their way out of a situation then they ain't worth much. Reaching for the gun is a hardcore small man move and most cops are some seriously small men. Basically, anybody who feels they need a gun, shouldn't be a cop. You are correct. These pussy rear end cops need to man the gently caress up and fight fair. Fat lazy fucks should either learn to take they licks and deal with situation without a gun or quit. They signed up to put themselves in danger so they shouldn't cry when they can't handle it without resorting bitch-rear end tactics like using a gun. No tazing people unless a person is armed. No shooting someone unless you get shot at first, and only then they have to give an official warning. They need to earn that $30 grand a year, instead of sitting around eating donuts and pulling over black people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
You've hit the nail on the head!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
anonumos posted:I don't know what video you watched, but his second sentence had an f-bomb and it only went downhill until he shot the dude. Hardbody posted:You are correct. These pussy rear end cops need to man the gently caress up and fight fair. Fat lazy fucks should either learn to take they licks and deal with situation without a gun or quit. They signed up to put themselves in danger so they shouldn't cry when they can't handle it without resorting bitch-rear end tactics like using a gun. No tazing people unless a person is armed. No shooting someone unless you get shot at first, and only then they have to give an official warning. They need to earn that $30 grand a year, instead of sitting around eating donuts and pulling over black people. I feel like the cop probably thought he was going to catch some stupid kid trying to stash a joint or some weed, but once he realized who he was talking to he knew he put himself in a bad situation. The article says no weapon was found in the car so I don't know why the guy kept putting his hands down, but when faced with someone wanted in connection with a shooting and they are behaving like that I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might be going for a weapon. bango skank fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Are you confused over what video we're talking about? Go back and watch it, he doesn't swear or escalate until he realizes who hes talking to. You've interpreted things wildly different than me because even the "you're making me nervous" comment sounded unprofessional and weirdly confrontational. This guy sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
bango skank posted:I feel like the cop probably thought he was going to catch some stupid kid trying to stash a joint or some weed, but once he realized who he was talking to he knew he put himself in a bad situation. The article says no weapon was found in the car so I don't know why the guy kept putting his hands down, but when faced with someone wanted in connection with a shooting and they are behaving like that I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might be going for a weapon. But it is unreasonable to approach a car with 4 people in it without backup. If he was nervous about the situation, why escalate it instead of backing off? He clearly did not have the ability to control the suspects (that is, without shooting into the car), the whole scenario would have gone better for everyone if he had the ability to back off while covered by another officer. Then, from a position of safety, they could have the suspects make their hands visible, get them out of the car, and restrain them until the situation was cleared up. But because he chose to unnecessarily escalate things, a person is unnecessarily dead. If a police officer approaches multiple people alone, pretty much any resistance or non-compliance can be interpreted as a risk to his life. There's no reason to put anyone involved under that sort of risk to save a few minutes, just wait for backup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:But it is unreasonable to approach a car with 4 people in it without backup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I'm a law enforcement officer for a federal land management agency. So were you one of the guys who chose not to shoot the rednecks who were using women as human shields
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In what way? Most agencies don't have the funding to have 2-man units and don't have anywhere near the manpower to turn every traffic stop of a vehicle with multiple occupants into a cop circus. this. contrary to popular belief, most cops approach a routine stop assuming it will go like this: Take driver's info. Issue citation. Move on with shift. Not end in guns blazing. If they have specific information that the occupants may be prone to violence or have weapons, they'll call backup, but for the overwhelming majority of police interactions, more than one officer isn't needed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
nm posted:Also, the hood always knows who's snitching here anyhow. Yup. Pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Hardbody posted:You are correct. These pussy rear end cops need to man the gently caress up and fight fair. Fat lazy fucks should either learn to take they licks and deal with situation without a gun or quit. They signed up to put themselves in danger so they shouldn't cry when they can't handle it without resorting bitch-rear end tactics like using a gun. No tazing people unless a person is armed. No shooting someone unless you get shot at first, and only then they have to give an official warning. They need to earn that $30 grand a year, instead of sitting around eating donuts and pulling over black people. You're trying to be satirical but the only inaccurate bit of this post is the $30k.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In what way? Most agencies don't have the funding to have 2-man units and don't have anywhere near the manpower to turn every traffic stop of a vehicle with multiple occupants into a cop circus. I really don't see how it's ever a good idea to have a single officer interact with anyone, anywhere, but especially if he needs to talk to a group of people. If things go wrong, it forces the cop to escalate things much faster than he would have to if help was available. Around here, I rarely see marked cars with a single officer inside except traffic enforcement on the highway. And even then it seems like most traffic stops involve multiple cruisers (particularly if the driver is black, but that's a different conversation). I'm not sure if it's policy or not, but the default approach appears to be to wait for a second car to pull up before the first cop walks out towards the car that was pulled over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In what way? Most agencies don't have the funding to have 2-man units and don't have anywhere near the manpower to turn every traffic stop of a vehicle with multiple occupants into a cop circus. That is a valid point but apparently the officer said he knew Ramirez/the robbery suspect was in the car before he pulled it over. http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...19bb2963f4.html Wouldn't that make it a non-routine stop? I get that this is extra information from the post you were replying to. Also haven't had enough coffee and can't use my words good yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I really don't see how it's ever a good idea to have a single officer interact with anyone, anywhere, but especially if he needs to talk to a group of people. If things go wrong, it forces the cop to escalate things much faster than he would have to if help was available. A lot of officers work by themselves because having two officers in the same car can sometimes cause them to amp each other up to the point where they become even more aggressive. Case in point, had there been two officers in the Ramirez case, they could have spent the whole leadup to the car amping each other up about this guy being a murderer, and killing him even faster. The whole point of having them by themselves is to cause them to slow things down and try to de-escalate, but that doesn't really work when they have guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Wilhelm_Scream.wav posted:So were you one of the guys who chose not to shoot the rednecks who were using women as human shields Different agency, but for what it's worth I think they made the right decision in leaving. Grazing permits aren't worth gunfire. I am pretty disappointed there wasn't any meaningful followup from the U.S. attorney though. The people who confronted the BLM with guns and impeded their enforcement of a court order should have been prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:You're trying to be satirical but the only inaccurate bit of this post is the $30k. The fact people here agree with you is what scares me. And the funny part is 30k is the only accurate part of this post. Not every agency is the NYPD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I really don't see how it's ever a good idea to have a single officer interact with anyone, anywhere, but especially if he needs to talk to a group of people. If things go wrong, it forces the cop to escalate things much faster than he would have to if help was available. Multiple people in this thread have said multiple times that anyone wanting to be a cop in this environment is loving crazy. Expecting that kind of manpower at every agency is unreasonable without lowering hiring standards. The simple fact of the matter is many many places have a cop:citizen ratio of 1:3000 or so. Some rural counties may literally have 1 officer and 1 lieutenant as the only patrol officers working a large geographical area. Your nearest backup could be over 30 minutes away. Expecting backup in a reasonable amount of time is just not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Hardbody posted:Multiple people in this thread have said multiple times that anyone wanting to be a cop in this environment is loving crazy. Expecting that kind of manpower at every agency is unreasonable without lowering hiring standards. The simple fact of the matter is many many places have a cop:citizen ratio of 1:3000 or so. Some rural counties may literally have 1 officer and 1 lieutenant as the only patrol officers working a large geographical area. Your nearest backup could be over 30 minutes away. Expecting backup in a reasonable amount of time is just not going to happen. Agreed in those situations but his backup showed up in about a minute so I don't see how that applies here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
It applies because he was talking about officers in general not just this specific situation? For the record the shooting that was posted left a pretty bad taste in my mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Hardbody posted:It applies because he was talking about officers in general not just this specific situation? For the record the shooting that was posted left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Ok, I thought you were lumping both together. I think you have a point that policing can be very different across the US and everyone would be happier with the outcome if we would put more money into policing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:38
|
|