|
Zeitgueist posted:Pulled her over for DWB and then gaslighted her and called her hysterical when she justifiably got upset. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft quote:After voicing his concerns, Schoolcraft was reportedly harassed and reassigned to a desk job. After he left work early one day, an ESU unit illegally entered his apartment, physically abducted him and forcibly admitted him to a psychiatric facility, where he was held against his will for six days. quote:The decision to take him to the hospital was made solely by armed men who happened to be his superior officers in the Police Department with a vested interest in shutting him up.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
User your imagination! For example, a taser can be useful if you want to claim you forgot which holster it was in after you execute a handcuffed suspect. (reminder that the person who did this is already out of prison)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Woozy posted:User your imagination! For example, a taser can be useful if you want to claim you forgot which holster it was in after you execute a handcuffed suspect. Yeah well prone handcuffed suspects can be very dangerous. Tasering is the only way to be sure. I mean there's several instances I can remember where they were totally going for a guys gun and ended up dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Every year the same apologists run and hide when we shift from philosophy and highschool gotcha debate to actual videos, images, and recent history. And people wonder why cops hate cameras.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I still don't understand what scenario you're supposed to use a taser, in practice(not theory). Almost every situation I would have used a taser ends up being used to justify a shooting, and it looks an awful lot like they are mainly used to punish people who are no real threat. Well, the Taser was originally developed to be an alternative to lethal force, but most police departments seem to deploy it as a compliance tool - and, sadly, Taser themselves provide no guidance on its intended use (going so far as to say that LEAs should come up with their own guidelines on its acceptable applications).
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I still don't understand what scenario you're supposed to use a taser, in practice(not theory). Almost every situation I would have used a taser ends up being used to justify a shooting, and it looks an awful lot like they are mainly used to punish people who are no real threat. Well um, reality seems to be a pretty good indicator. They are obviously used as step one in the escalation of force. With step zero being "initiate the encounter."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I still don't understand what scenario you're supposed to use a taser, in practice(not theory). Almost every situation I would have used a taser ends up being used to justify a shooting, and it looks an awful lot like they are mainly used to punish people who are no real threat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I think the reasonable place for the Taser in practice would be against someone violently resisting without a weapon or someone with a blade in a standoff situation. Yes in theory. In practice, a philips head gets you shot. Being on the ground, immobile, and handcuffed
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Are there any big differences between this shooting and the one where the cop shot a facedown guy in the back at the BART station several years ago? Other than the fact that this time, the guy they shot was white, of course. That guy just got Involuntary Manslaughter
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Are there any big differences between this shooting and the one where the cop shot a facedown guy in the back at the BART station several years ago? Other than the fact that this time, the guy they shot was white, of course. That guy just got Involuntary Manslaughter In this case, there is no accident claim. If this was CA, short of an NG, the lightest she could probably get in vol man. An NG is possible though because she's a cop, as Kelly Thomas taught us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Are there any big differences between this shooting and the one where the cop shot a facedown guy in the back at the BART station several years ago? Other than the fact that this time, the guy they shot was white, of course. That guy just got Involuntary Manslaughter Apparently the population of Hummelstown, PA gives more of a poo poo about the police murdering people. nm posted:In this case, there is no accident claim. If this was CA, short of an NG, the lightest she could probably get in vol man. An NG is possible though because she's a cop, as Kelly Thomas taught us. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yeah well prone handcuffed suspects can be very dangerous. Tasering is the only way to be sure. I think it was established earlier in this thread that anyone in taser range is too dangerous to be tasered and should be shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:
They literally moved the trial hundreds of miles away. Also getting an all-white anything in LA, outside of maybe Beverly Hills, is a feat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Speaking of NYPD, I came upon this gem from an officer while browsing the NYC subreddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/305xna/philadelphia_cops_shoot_and_kill_people_at_6/ Fast05GT posted:Exactly. 99% of police shootings are justified. Pointing a firearm at a cop or another person, shooting at the police or another person, coming at a cop with a knife or a baseball bat or hammer, assaulting then to the point of rendering then unconscious, trying to run them over with a car, etc. All lawful reasons to get shot by the police. You cannot expect to do any of these things and not get shot. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:They literally moved the trial hundreds of miles away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Lucca Blight posted:Speaking of NYPD, I came upon this gem from an officer while browsing the NYC subreddit. I don't understand why people who are so terrified of being hurt sign up for the only job they can get where you might realistically get shot at while you are at work. If you don't want to be in a dangerous situation and would rather shoot up a room full of people than die for the common good, why are you offering to protect and serve?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
nm posted:My "favorite" part of excessive force cases is when the officer keeps tasing and tasing a person because they won't comply. I'm not sure they understand how the nervous system works and how a big jolt of electricity can prevent someone from doing what you're yelling as you tase him. you would think being tazed as part of their tazer training would make this clear, but obviously not. maybe cops should be tazed, then yelled at to do a pushup and tazed again when they fail to comply to get it through their skulls
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
Arnold of Soissons posted:I don't understand why people who are so terrified of being hurt sign up for the only job they can get where you might realistically get shot at while you are at work. If you don't want to be in a dangerous situation and would rather shoot up a room full of people than die for the common good, why are you offering to protect and serve? I think police training and culture does a decent amount of this after they join. There's a lot of reinforced notions that everyone is out to kill them and working in that environment it becomes reality that they have to be thankful for every day they make it home alive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you would think being tazed as part of their tazer training would make this clear, but obviously not. maybe cops should be tazed, then yelled at to do a pushup and tazed again when they fail to comply to get it through their skulls There are plenty of places where you get maced and tazered and then you have to fight against others, obey orders and hop through obstacles. It usually doesn't go well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:Are there any big differences between this shooting and the one where the cop shot a facedown guy in the back at the BART station several years ago? Other than the fact that this time, the guy they shot was white, of course. That guy just got Involuntary Manslaughter I imagine it's harder to claim that you totally intended to draw your taser, no, seriously, when it's already in your hand and in use. If that's not an option there aren't really any excuses left that you can give. Unless he was secretly a disguised sectoid commander. She must have run out of arc thrower uses and was forced to shoot him to prevent him from mind controlling anyone. She deserves a medal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
The Larch posted:I imagine it's harder to claim that you totally intended to draw your taser, no, seriously, when it's already in your hand and in use. If that's not an option there aren't really any excuses left that you can give. Far as America is concerned "I am a police officer and decided that person should die" is more than enough. The reason could be "I didn't sleep well last night and was having a bad day so I literally murdered somebody" and America would be like "Ok, thanks for your service!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
The Larch posted:I imagine it's harder to claim that you totally intended to draw your taser, no, seriously, when it's already in your hand and in use. If that's not an option there aren't really any excuses left that you can give. This is tangential to your point, but here's an interesting thing about Tasers: they're typically holstered on the opposite hip from the handgun, and they're also ~1/3 as heavy as a loaded Glock 17!  Y'all probably already knew that though
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:This is tangential to your point, but here's an interesting thing about Tasers: they're typically holstered on the opposite hip from the handgun, and they're also ~1/3 as heavy as a loaded Glock 17! Generally an entirely different grip as well, and sometimes colored extremely brightly. All things to prevent precisely that kind of mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
And they have a manual safety, which by definition means if you make it ready to fire, you know you are not using a Glock.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
So, pretty much any cop who shoots an unarmed, possibly restrained, person and claims they "thought they were using their taser" is either straight up lying and expects everyone to believe it because it came from a cop, or the police are so poorly trained they can't even be bothered to look at/feel the device before using it on someone, which would explain the abysmal accuracy rate that police are known for. I'm inclined to believe both 
blunt for century fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
I'm inclined to believe that any lawyer will advise their client to come up with an explanation other than "I don't know what happened" when being investigated for a shooting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:So, pretty much any cop who shoots an unarmed, possibly restrained, person and claims they "thought they were using their taser" is either straight up lying and expects everyone to believe it because it came from a cop, or the police are so poorly trained they can't even be bothered to look at/feel the device before using it on someone, which would explain the abysmal accuracy rate that police are known for. A lot of the time? Probably. But mistakes are still very much a possibility. All these things about different colored handles and so on are true but here's the thing- the science of psychology tells us that in these situations the brain isn't really "thinking". Just look at how lovely eyewitness reports are to understand this. It's also very hard to train for these things, it's just too hard to replicate the psychology and there's too many slightly different ways a situation can occur. The military has some success in this area but it takes incredible amounts of time and money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
The simplest solution is to disarm the police, or segregate between arresting officers and armed officers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:So, pretty much any cop who shoots an unarmed, possibly restrained, person and claims they "thought they were using their taser" is either straight up lying and expects everyone to believe it because it came from a cop, or the police are so poorly trained they can't even be bothered to look at/feel the device before using it on someone, which would explain the abysmal accuracy rate that police are known for. "In the heat of the moment sometimes it's you or the guy handcuffed on the ground and sometimes mistakes are made you don't understand!" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
One good thing about RT is that they delight in covering things US media likes to skimp on. Their propagandist drive is a decent counterbalance to ours with some of these stories. http://rt.com/usa/245725-philadelphia-racketeering-conspiracy-trial-begins/ quote:In the trial for six ex-Pennsylvania narcotics officers accused of conspiracy, robbery, extortion, kidnapping and drug dealing during a six-year racketeering scheme, opening statements began with a verbal sparring match between the lawyers. Team cop-defense has a really good story though: quote:McMahon lambasted the government’s 19 primary witnesses, calling them "trashy," "disreputable," "greedy," "sociopathic" and "odoriferous," among other descriptions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
It's amazing how the mugshots are basically pigs.jpg.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
tsa posted:A lot of the time? Probably. But mistakes are still very much a possibility. All these things about different colored handles and so on are true but here's the thing- the science of psychology tells us that in these situations the brain isn't really "thinking". Just look at how lovely eyewitness reports are to understand this. It's also very hard to train for these things, it's just too hard to replicate the psychology and there's too many slightly different ways a situation can occur. The military has some success in this area but it takes incredible amounts of time and money. Then take the time and spend the money. We are giving someone a gun and the authority to decide if it's justifiable to kill someone. If they can't be trained to be able to react to situations other than 'poo poo pants, pull trigger' they get a desk job or get to be a traffic cop. There will always be errors in judgement or over reactions but 'it's hard' is not an excuse to give a gun to people like that cop who ventilated the kid with the toy gun (I can't even remember his name right now there's been so loving many of these). The fucker actually cried at the gun range and had multple supervisors report he can't handle stressful situations but someone still armed him and sent him out into the public. Or that fatass cop at the earlier Ferguson demonstrations that was waving his rifle around anyone who looked at him even though all they were doing was walking past him (at least he got suspended if memory serves) People whine about how dangerous and hard it is to be a cop but rarely if ever seem to be outraged that were putting people who can't handle that danger out there anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
 "I was stressed and trying to get to work and doing 50 in a 45." "No problem! Accidents happen and I certainly dont want to take two days pay from you!"A thing that no one expects to happen. But shoot a restrained kid in the back of the head because "WOOPS!" ... Hey man we feel bad for you now. Killing restrained kids is rough! Here have a tax-funded vacation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:
Actually if the speeding guy is a cop it does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Then take the time and spend the money. We are giving someone a gun and the authority to decide if it's justifiable to kill someone. If they can't be trained to be able to react to situations other than 'poo poo pants, pull trigger' they get a desk job or get to be a traffic cop. Who is going to pay for it? Regular force-on-force classes aren't cheap, and are going to difficult to justify in the context of limited budgets when most police will never fire their guns outside the range.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Who is going to pay for it? Regular force-on-force classes aren't cheap, and are going to difficult to justify in the context of limited budgets when most police will never fire their guns outside the range. Well, if proper training is too expensive and most officers will never fire their weapons, then the solution is obvious - we should disarm patrolmen so that they only carry nonlethal weapons (such as a taser) and restrict firearms to special armed response units that can be called in as backup if required. This way we won't have to worry about under-trained officers mishandling their equipment and killing people, and the training budget for firearm response can be focused on the special units, allowing them to reach a much higher level of training than anyone currently achieves. There will probably be additional savings because not every officer will need to be armed or receive range time with a gun, communities will be more comfortable with officers knowing they aren't a bad-training-incident away from death, and the officers receiving weapons training will be more competent and effective when deployed against armed threats instead of children. A solid improvement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Who is going to pay for it? Regular force-on-force classes aren't cheap, and are going to difficult to justify in the context of limited budgets when most police will never fire their guns outside the range. Figure out how many officers you CAN afford to train, and sell the guns of all the officers you can't. If they aren't properly trained they really shouldn't have them in the first place, especially if most officers never fire their gun outside the range. Win/win?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Who is going to pay for it? Regular force-on-force classes aren't cheap, and are going to difficult to justify in the context of limited budgets when most police will never fire their guns outside the range. Maybe they could sell some of their Homeland Security toys? Seems like there is always money for that bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
So officers would be allowed to keep and bear arms as private citizens, but not while on duty? Do you think that officers having less capacity for force than the people they are supposed to police might be a problem? If faced with a school shooter or armed robber, would officers need to wait for the firearms unit, even though rapid action can often save lives?Spun Dog posted:Maybe they could sell some of their Homeland Security toys? Seems like there is always money for that bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It wouldn't be much money. All the homeland security stuff is provided at little cost, having been already bought, paid for and used by the federal government. I know. There's never money for anything that they don't want to do, is there? Body cameras, rape kits, ethics classes...no problem on the MRAP though, it's a bargain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:07
|
|