|
I'm glad the kid's in stable condition, not just for her sake but because felony murder is a hard rap for a dog to beat.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think you're thinking of something DR said but I'll agree to that now at least. There is a big difference in culpability between doing something you don't have the right to do, and doing something you have the right to do but in retrospect was a bad idea. Tasering the kid didn't "start the fight," the kid doesn't somehow have the moral right to assault the officer and beat the poo poo out of him because he doesn't like getting tasered while resisting arrest. No, I'm referring to when you said this Jarmak posted:I don't generally agree with the way cops like to use tazers as compliance tools, but with the way this guy warned the kid about a million times that he was going to taze him if he didn't stop resisting this is about the least egregious example of that I've seen to date, particularly in light of the fact he was alone . which clearly indicates that you think tasers shouldn't be used for compliance, and that this is a case where you still disagree, but it was less-bad than other times. Tasering the kid obviously started the fight. I didn't make any claim as to whether the kid has a moral right to fight back, but he was in no way resisting arrest until that point, he just wasn't doing everything the cop wanted him to the moment he was ordered to. Jarmak posted:There was plenty from the report, try actually reading it this time I did read it. The narrative indicates that the evidence they have for how the fight went was almost entirely the cop's account. They only have evidence of the aftermath and the injuries. You consistently refer to it as a "ground and pound" (gee I wonder why) because you trust the cop full stop. Feel free to show us specific parts if you want to make an argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
There you go; there you go. This is what I mean about poo poo training and not knowing your target's background. You cry about needing hollowpoints, and you can't even put one into the loving dog.quote:The officer responded and was allegedly accosted by a dog. Investigators said the officer shot at the dog but a stray or ricocheted bullet struck the child. Let's not go reporting vaguely now. What do they mean "stray or ricochet" anyway? Was there a cast-iron skillet in the corner for the bullet to ricochet off of? Did it go through drywall? What happened officer? Also, thatdarnedbob posted:I'm glad the kid's in stable condition, not just for her sake but because felony murder is a hard rap for a dog to beat. :
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
The one dog police can't kill is one that apparently was actually doing something aggressive instead of bounding towards them playfully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Listen SedanChair sometimes it's you or a toddler and in a split second decision you don't have the luxury of second guesses. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Radish posted:The one dog police can't kill is one that apparently was actually doing something aggressive instead of bounding towards them playfully. The article says the officer was "accosted" by it. That could mean the dog was biting his jugular...or just bumping into him and barking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:"Not tactically optimal" was being used to describe the fact the cop didn't just wait for backup so he had overwhelming force on his side, or allowing himself to get into a position where the kid was beating on him, and its used to differentiate between causal responsibility and moral responsibility. Says you and the officer. Jarmak posted:Yes, 30 seconds can seem like an eternity, and 8 seconds can seem like an instant. Not only is one of those lengths of time almost 4 times longer then the other, its like you're not aware humans that perceive things differently depending on context and stress. Right, and that's why you're disingenuous. You think the guy who had his headphones in and was walking away from police had 30 full seconds to asses the situation and respond differently. I gave you 30 seconds, from when he might have seen a police car and started walking away. What I see is a dude walking away, no confirmation that he thinks the police are there for him. Super cop sneaks up behind the guy gun drawn, then a surprised man turns around, does something weird with his hands and then gets shot. But to you that's 30 full seconds of calculated "how do I react as to not get shot" thinking on the victims part. Somehow he's just too loving stupid to do whatever it is you think he should have done differently. I gave you 30 seconds. Even if he did have 30 seconds and thought the police were there for him, he clearly didn't react the way that would have allowed him to live, whatever that is. Clearly it wasn't enough time, but to you, you're loving stupid world view makes what the officers did justified... how that is, well I don't know, and that's the problem. Jarmak posted:I think you're thinking of something DR said but I'll agree to that now at least. There is a big difference in culpability between doing something you don't have the right to do, and doing something you have the right to do but in retrospect was a bad idea. Tasering the kid didn't "start the fight," the kid doesn't somehow have the moral right to assault the officer and beat the poo poo out of him because he doesn't like getting tasered while resisting arrest. You just got done saying you'd beat the poo poo out of me if I tried to get on your back and taze you. Now you're saying it's not a valid response? When someone attacks you you fight back, it's human nature. Pretending like human nature can just be turned off when your attacker is wearing a police uniform is loving stupid. Jarmak posted:There was plenty from the report, try actually reading it this time I read the report, didn't convince me. Especially since parts of report conflict directly with what we saw in the video and the important bits can't even be seen in the video. Also the fact that it was only seconds between when the camera turned into just a blur and the gun shot sounds, it really seems to me that this 17 year old hulk couldn't have done what is being claimed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
y'all are literally autistic if you can't understand how hard it is to pull the trigger on man's best friend
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
I probably fell for something...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:y'all are literally autistic if you can't understand how hard it is to pull the trigger on man's best friend
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:y'all are literally autistic if you can't understand how hard it is to pull the trigger on man's best friend Clearly harder than shooting children or brown folks
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
I feel like this is a valuable contribution to this thread: http://www.wave3.com/story/29356052/police-union-leaders-open-letter-attacks-sensationalists Short version: Police union chastises people for criticizing police, swaggers in front of "criminal element", threatens to use "every option available" against anyone who threatens them. You really should read the whole letter because it's boilerplate Facebook Tough Guy...but from the loving cops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
quote:A 4-year-old child was struck by a bullet fired from a Columbus Police Officer’s gun in Whitehall. With language like that, I wonder how long until they claim the dog pulled the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Listen SedanChair sometimes it's you or a toddler and in a split second decision you don't have the luxury of second guesses. He should have let the dog bite him, then wander around the house for a while before biting him again, then finally take him tearfully into custody with a hug.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Right, and that's why you're disingenuous. You think the guy who had his headphones in and was walking away from police had 30 full seconds to asses the situation and respond differently. I gave you 30 seconds, from when he might have seen a police car and started walking away. Yes but that's because for some reason you think he couldn't see the second cop that was in front of him, and for some reason you think that he turned around and started walking the other way soon as the cop came up by coincidence, and for some reason you think he couldn't hear the two cops screaming at him to show his hands and that that when he calmly told the cop to gently caress off that that was a sign of panic. ElCondemn posted:You just got done saying you'd beat the poo poo out of me if I tried to get on your back and taze you. Now you're saying it's not a valid response? When someone attacks you you fight back, it's human nature. Pretending like human nature can just be turned off when your attacker is wearing a police uniform is loving stupid. I wouldn't beat the poo poo out of you because of some unstoppable electricity rage demon of human nature had been released, I'd beat the poo poo out of you as the result of a conscious decision because it would be the appropriate reaction. ElCondemn posted:I read the report, didn't convince me. Especially since parts of report conflict directly with what we saw in the video and the important bits can't even be seen in the video. Also the fact that it was only seconds between when the camera turned into just a blur and the gun shot sounds, it really seems to me that this 17 year old hulk couldn't have done what is being claimed. Okay, lol, next lets talk about jet fuel and steel beams.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Okay, lol, next lets talk about jet fuel and steel beams. Wait you actually believe cops when they say they "feared for their life" and "he reached for my gun"? Especially when the camera was conveniently turned off before hand? Hahahaha you have to be trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Zelder posted:I wish my job let me kill everyone who gave me the side eye too, lol. If youre not American youll just have to suffer through with your possibly better internet and healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Wait you actually believe cops when they say they "feared for their life" and "he reached for my gun"? It wasn't turned off, it was knocked to the ground and broken when the kid attacked him, which you can see happen in the video. Also the photos of the cop's bloody face kind of speak for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It wasn't turned off, it was knocked to the ground and broken when the kid attacked him, which you can see happen in the video. Also the photos of the cop's bloody face kind of speak for themselves. If you actually think it wasn't the cop tearing off the camera himself then I don't know what to say. Tip: The kid did not attack the cop out of the blue, the cop attacked first, any injuries on the cops part was from the murder victim flailing around as he was tased and then shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Either way, Monday morning quarterbacking every detail of the way the cop conducted the stop and effected the arrest to find minor mistakes that enabled the assault does not take responsibility for the assault away from the kid. All right, I recognize in some of my posts I've been pretty dickish, and that's on me for contributing to a hostile conversation. But I want to make an actual point, so upon waking up from a good night's sleep I am apologizing for that, and just for a minute could you abandon the staunch defence of Team Cop and read what I'm actually saying? The point of looking at the totality of the circumstances leading up to the killing is to determine where mistakes were made and where training and policing could be improved to prevent it, not to remove all responsibility from the kid and cheer on the death of all cops or whatever you think I'm trying to do. The kid absolutely should have behaved differently and could have prevented the situation by doing so, but I don't care about that, because this is how kids behave sometimes and that's not going to go away. If we want this to stop, we have to look at the training and support provided to the professional adult on the scene whose job it is to protect the public safety, including the safety of dumbass sovereign citizens who watched too many YouTube videos. We absolutely should Monday-morning quarterback the everloving gently caress out of a tragedy like this, just as we do with plane crashes, so we can understand why it happened and improve the system so next time the human foibles at work here don't spiral out of control into injuries and death. You're making this distinction between "causal responsibility" and "moral responsibility" but I am only talking about the former, I don't really care about the latter. Moral responsibility is important in a criminal case, but I'm talking about institutional problems where the blame game is worthless and causal responsibility is all that matters. So when I say something like "the cop should be trained better so he doesn't provoke violence by using his taser inappropriately as a compliance tool and then loving it up", I'm not saying "therefore the kid had the moral right to beat his rear end", I'm saying that regardless better training or culture would have prevented that from even being a problem. I feel like I'm discussing a plane crash and I while making a list of failure points I say "the pilot should have been better trained in what to do when the pitot system failed so he wouldn't have reacted the wrong way" and you're exclaiming "Whoa! Whoa! That is not the pilot's fault, stop Monday-morning quarterbacking. That bad pitot system was someone else's fault, how dare you say he has a moral right to gently caress it up and the pilot should have to deal with it, it's not his fault!" Yeah okay sure, but sometimes aircraft systems fail, and refusing to properly train pilots to deal with that and just expecting everyone else to be perfect all the time so the pilot never has to correct a dangerous situation is going to lead to unnecessary deaths. If you think we should have classes in high school about basic procedure and how to deal with the police to reduce teen-sass, great that's a great idea, but it's not going to eliminate it and we need to be able to handle that without killing people. The cop had no reason to tase that kid. The kid was facedown on the ground, the cop on top of him. He was complying, just not fast enough and instead of maintaining physical control, the cop tried to taser him to make it easier or teach him a lesson, hosed it up, and lost control of the situation. This is bad policing. Hyper-legalism is worthless: when I gently caress up at my job, I don't get to say "well, nothing I did was illegal! I'm not to blame!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Another article on the cop shooting the 4 year old. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/19/whitehall-officer-involved-shooting.html "Neighbor Carrie Britton said the family has two dogs and that they were on shock collars and couldn’t get out of the house. Two dogs were being held in the back of the house after the shooting, according to police."
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
I don't know why he didn't put another one into the dog after shooting the girl. Not doing so implies the dog was greeting someone at the door and not being vicious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:37
|
|
Jarmak posted:"Not tactically optimal" was being used to describe the fact the cop didn't just wait for backup so he had overwhelming force on his side, or allowing himself to get into a position where the kid was beating on him, and its used to differentiate between causal responsibility and moral responsibility. The basic question of why Officer Friendly was in a situation where a kid was kicking his rear end goes unaddressed still, I see.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Thank god he wasn't a postman. They are vicious dog murdering sociopaths. That dog got lucky it was only a cop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I said that even mr brightlights made a bunch of tactical errors (although in his case I don't think any of them are unreasonable, unless he violated some sort of department policy) This is the kind of mindless hyperlegalism I'm talking about. The cop hosed up but it's okay as long as he didn't violate any department policy. But should there have been a policy? Should there be training for how to avoid these tactical errors that put the cop in a vulnerable position where he feared he may lose consciousness? Why wasn't there? Should we look his actions to determine where his department failed him and how the next cop could be trained and supported so he avoids those errors and an rear end-beating?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is the kind of mindless hyperlegalism I'm talking about. The cop hosed up but it's okay as long as he didn't violate any department policy. Going by how the cops seem to react to these situations, the new training will be: Shoot sooner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Neither did he, he quoted the well-accepted and often quoted average brake response of an alert driver, and you quoted tests that involve something completely different. Gosh, if only the people involved were trained to think on their feet during a stressful situation. Oh well, it's not like it's their job to be able to keep a cool enough head to assess a bad situation and handle it quickly. Effectronica posted:The basic question of why Officer Friendly was in a situation where a kid was kicking his rear end goes unaddressed still, I see. Let's add "basic self-defense in subduing, pinning, and otherwise fighting off a 17 year old who is not, in fact, Batman" to that list of things cops are apparently never trained how to do. Right up there with "handling stressful situations". Classtoise fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Do they train cops specifically to blow away dogs if they so much as look at them or is this another case of state sanction thugs going from 0 to full death at the slightest inconvenience? Like I've seen a lot of dogs in my life, some more aggressive than others, but I've never been in a situation where I totally needed to kill the thing to save my life. What is it with these cops and always having to defend themselves from man's best friend? Do they rub themselves in bacon every morning that just riles these creatures up? edit: Eurogoons: How often do your law enforcement have to gun down family pets? Mavric fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
What's the big deal with shooting dogs? It's fair play if the cops feel threatened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:All right, I recognize in some of my posts I've been pretty dickish, and that's on me for contributing to a hostile conversation. But I want to make an actual point, so upon waking up from a good night's sleep I am apologizing for that, and just for a minute could you abandon the staunch defence of Team Cop and read what I'm actually saying? I pretty much agree with everything in this post, my response is aimed at the "the cop murdered the kid for flashing his brights" bullshit. Yeah he definitely made some mistakes (including deploying the tazer when he did), I agree that we need to reform the way cops handle a lot of things. Its hard to have a serious conversation about this when we can't get past "man that pig was just using an excuse to get his murder fix on" stage. VitalSigns posted:This is the kind of mindless hyperlegalism I'm talking about. The cop hosed up but it's okay as long as he didn't violate any department policy. You misunderstand me with that point, it goes to moral culpability and whether it deserves punishing or simply corrective training. Someone who has been trained or given guidelines that cover the mistakes that cop made is much more morally culpable then someone who is just trying to do their best without specific guidance and fucks it up. Classtoise posted:Let's add "basic self-defense in subduing, pinning, and otherwise fighting off a 17 year old who is not, in fact, Batman" to that list of things cops are apparently never trained how to do. Right up there with "handling stressful situations". Not really sure where people are getting that a 17 year old in good shape isn't any sort of threat. Cops are for the most part people that ride around handing out speeding tickets, not special forces, a young male in decent shape is going to probably kick their rear end (or at least have an even chance) if they get into a fight without the benefit of their weapons/gadgets or backup. That's also in the age group that either commits the most or the second most amount of murders per capita depending on how you slice up the stats. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:when I gently caress up at my job, I don't get to say "well, nothing I did was illegal! I'm not to blame!"  
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not really sure where people are getting that a 17 year old in good shape isn't any sort of threat. Cops are for the most part people that ride around handing out speeding tickets, not special forces, a young male in decent shape is going to probably kick their rear end (or at least have an even chance) if they get into a fight without the benefit of their weapons/gadgets or backup. That's also in the age group that either commits the most or the second most amount of murders per capita depending on how you slice up the stats. Well, here's the thing, though. I actually do work with people in that age group. That's literally my job. In fairness, I don't have to do it much anymore since I now work nights, but I know how it goes, I've seen poo poo go down, I've participated in kids getting restrained. I would not want to try and restrain a 17-year old guy by myself - even if I could theoretically do it (while I am not particularly in shape, I am a fairly large man), it would be dangerous as hell. But let's go back to what you said here and earlier. Jarmak posted:... a young male in decent shape is going to probably kick their rear end (or at least have an even chance) if they get into a fight without the benefit of their weapons/gadgets or backup. Jarmak posted:There is a big difference in culpability between doing something you don't have the right to do, and doing something you have the right to do but in retrospect was a bad idea. Tasering the kid didn't "start the fight," the kid doesn't somehow have the moral right to assault the officer and beat the poo poo out of him because he doesn't like getting tasered while resisting arrest. Okay, so we know the officer is alone. Kid flashes his high beams at the officer because kid thinks his high beams are on and wants him to turn them off before he blinds someone. Officer pulls the kid over. Is this technically illegal? Probably. Does it really matter? No, probably not. He probably didn't need to pull the kid over for something as minor as that, so even if it is legal for him to do, I don't see the point in it. But okay, let's say this is a big deal, just for the sake of argument. Cop pulls the kid over. Kid refuses to show his license and ID (which apparently he was a licensed driver according to this article, he just didn't have it on him. Okay, that's lovely, and he probably should hand them over or admit he didn't have them on him (I've done this before, I gave them my name/etc and they ran my number... wasn't a big deal.) But hey, he thinks he knows his civil rights. He's filming this at the same time, so what should be the big deal? Both sides are being filmed; if he's violating law it's on camera. Kid gets on his stomach, is lying next to the vehicle... but won't let himself be handcuffed. At this point, is he any real danger? Has he given you any indication that he is any threat at all? No. The moment the cop Tazers him for noncompliance is the moment where the cop escalates it, and that kid's blood is on his hands. Because if I'm that kid, and there's a Tazer going through me, I'm not shocked at all that the fight/flight instinct kicks in, and he does what he thinks he has to to survive. The kid shouldn't have attacked, yes, but the kid is not the one who has all the power in the situation and has a ton of time to assess the situation and decide whether or not to escalate it. The cop could have easily just let him lie there and called for backup just in case! Is it really going to be the end of the world if this kid decides to lie on his stomach for a while? gently caress no, it's not. But Sgt. Jonathan Frost made a conscious decision to escalate to force because he wanted to be listened to. No, gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:Well, here's the thing, though. I actually do work with people in that age group. That's literally my job. In fairness, I don't have to do it much anymore since I now work nights, but I know how it goes, I've seen poo poo go down, I've participated in kids getting restrained. I would not want to try and restrain a 17-year old guy by myself - even if I could theoretically do it (while I am not particularly in shape, I am a fairly large man), it would be dangerous as hell. I get what you're saying and I agree he shouldn't have tazered him, but I just don't buy that that was some sort of instinctive fight or flight reaction. Maybe if he had pushed away, or thrown a punch or two, but it was nothing like that, even the little we see in the video after the tazer goes off shows him scrambling away and then coming back. To me it seems much more like the tazing made him lose his temper then any sort of legit fight or flight reaction. But yeah, the cop hosed up in controlling the situation if he hadn't that kid would still be alive, and what makes it even more tragic (I mean besides a 17 year old kid being dead) is that he does such a good job being patient and professional up until the point where the kid gets on the ground and resists being and he just loses his cool. edit: VitalSigns posted:when I gently caress up at my job, I don't get to say "well, nothing I did was illegal! I'm not to blame!" I should have responded to this directly because it kind of highlights the disconnect that's happening here between people that actually want to talk about police reform but don't agree with some of the bullshit in this thread. When you gently caress up at you job and its not illegal you get fired, but you don't go to jail. A lot of the back and forth has been from people who fully agree that these cops deserved to be fired or disciplined (depending on the specific case), but don't think what they did actually rises to being criminal, and are therefore reacting to the "look the cops murdered someone" crowd. And yes, when violence is part of your job poo poo happens that is on the level of "you hosed up you're fired", rather then "murder" that leads to people dying. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I get what you're saying and I agree he shouldn't have tazered him, but I just don't buy that that was some sort of instinctive fight or flight reaction. Maybe if he had pushed away, or thrown a punch or two, but it was nothing like that, even the little we see in the video after the tazer goes off shows him scrambling away and then coming back. To me it seems much more like the tazing made him lose his temper then any sort of legit fight or flight reaction. Losing your temper is part of the fight/flight response. Anger is a tool your body uses to fight. The cop set this off when he tazed him. Anger also starts to make you irrational. The cop hosed up, then proceeded to gently caress up even harder leading to death. Stop blaming the victim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Losing your temper is part of the fight/flight response. Anger is a tool your body uses to fight. The cop set this off when he tazed him. Anger also starts to make you irrational. The cop hosed up, then proceeded to gently caress up even harder leading to death. Stop blaming the victim. no, its not the same thing at all, I have above and beyond enough personal experience with both situations to know this and that's part of the reason I scoff at the "he was just trying to survive" interpretation of events.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I get what you're saying and I agree he shouldn't have tazered him, but I just don't buy that that was some sort of instinctive fight or flight reaction. Maybe if he had pushed away, or thrown a punch or two, but it was nothing like that, even the little we see in the video after the tazer goes off shows him scrambling away and then coming back. To me it seems much more like the tazing made him lose his temper then any sort of legit fight or flight reaction. I can easily buy that because I could easily see some of my kiddos at work doing that - they're fine, they're fine, they're fine, and then it's like a switch goes off and they are out for loving blood until they wear themselves out. (This makes it sound dramatic, but it doesn't happen all that often, nor is it usually kiddos who are REALLY dangerous.) He could have just gone "gently caress I'M IN DANGER" and just gone after the guy. Which, yes, he shouldn't do that, and it's hosed up. I can't speak for everyone here, but I think that yes, given that the cop was being attacked, I understand shooting the kid. The problem I (and I think others) have is that the cop put himself in that dangerous position to begin with. If I did the same thing at work - even if I preemptively restrained a kid who was probably going to end up needing it anyway, but hadn't done anything yet - I'd almost certainly be reprimanded and probably fired. If I restrained someone who just wasn't listening to me (but was otherwise nonhostile, like someone I saw when I walked in today), I would be fired that day and my co-workers would be loving horrified. Does it necessarily mean that he's a bad person? No, even though I tend to think that cops are lovely - but it doesn't matter if he's a bad person. It doesn't really matter, in the end, if he was intentionally looking to punish this kid for sassing him or he'd just had too much going on with who knows what going on in his life and "this kid's resisting arrest for some stupid poo poo" was the last straw. The problems I see are: a] He hosed up controlling the situation massively, like you said. That poo poo would be completely unacceptable in my job. While I have the advantage of knowing what my kiddos' issues are, I have the disadvantage of every kiddo I deal with has issues. I should think that most people do not have the kind of issues mine do. b] He's suffering no consequences for it. If I escalated force that rapidly, even without actually causing harm to the kid, at the end of the day I would be loving fired (or, at worst, the next day). If I actually hurt the kid, I would be in a world of legal poo poo. This cop's escalation of force results in the kid dying for something he absolutely didn't need to... and he's working again, he's cleared of any charges at all, and there are apparently no consequences. Those are huge problems, especially b. Because even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say "oh, well, gently caress, maybe he just snapped and is not a Bad Person™", this tells Bad People™ that if you are a cop, you can get away with just about anything, which is, in my book, really bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:no, its not the same thing at all, I have above and beyond enough personal experience with both situations to know this and that's part of the reason I scoff at the "he was just trying to survive" interpretation of events. What? Have you never been angry before or never seen someone in such a state? Are you some sort of robot? Why do you insist trying to wash off a normal response when someone find themselves in pain or danger? gently caress you for blaming the victim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:I can easily buy that because I could easily see some of my kiddos at work doing that - they're fine, they're fine, they're fine, and then it's like a switch goes off and they are out for loving blood until they wear themselves out. (This makes it sound dramatic, but it doesn't happen all that often, nor is it usually kiddos who are REALLY dangerous.) He could have just gone "gently caress I'M IN DANGER" and just gone after the guy. Which, yes, he shouldn't do that, and it's hosed up. We're not too far apart on this, although I'll disagree with a few things. I don't think the majority of your kids having "problems" is actually a disadvantage in correctly interpreting a situation, you have the benefit of being used to and expecting (and I'm hoping being trained for) that kind of situation and reaction, most cops aren't. From what I've observed and learned his escalation of force was in line with how they are trained and allowed to do even if it was a bad decision to make. And although its probably a technicality at this point he's only been cleared of criminal charges, it was only after that announcement that the DA forwarded the results of the investigation to his PD to be investigation for policy violations/employment sanction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:. From what I've observed and learned his escalation of force was in line with how they are trained and allowed to do even if it was a bad decision to make. Right, other police who feel that this is the appropriate response. Looking at why that training is being justified and changing it rather than saying "welp, he was trained that way, too late now!" makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Ravenfood posted:But why was he trained to do this? Who trained him? There's a difference between talking about should be changed and what level of personal responsibility one individual bears.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 11:06
|
|