Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«4 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


iyaayas01 posted:

What's the justification for this? Suspect could utilize the taser to incapacitate officer and subsequently gain possession of the officer's weapon and/or otherwise harm the officer? If it's just "it could harm the officer" that's some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

Keep in mind any use of force discussion- hell, any legal discussion- varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That said, the general guideline for use of lethal force (gunfire, strikes to the head, running people over with your car, whatever your department authorizes) is that you fear for your life or the life of another.

It's perfectly legal under certain circumstances for an officer to shoot say, a person armed with a bat, a knife, or a taser. It may also be completely unjustified. It all depends. If I'm with 20 other cops and some guy pulls out a taser, I'd be pretty hard pressed to justify that I felt the perp was about to incapacitate me as I had 19 other guys to protect me after I was incapaciatated.

If I'm slugging it out by myself on some project rooftop with no partner and my radio went bouncing down the stairs and the perp pulls out a taser- well, you can probably make a drat good case for drawing and using your firearm in that case.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Kaal posted:

The cops had surrounded the victim, who was not behaving like he was armed, and were in a clear position of strength. Adrenaline or no, at that point, their mistaken perception that the man was armed is no longer defensible. Shooting the victim in the back without further provocation was clearly wrong.

I'm not that familiar with this case, but the first two images from the webpage at http://www.alexanderjason.com/shreveport.htm make it look like he was deliberately acting like he was armed.

Let me do some more reading.

Kaal posted:

It's a weapon, and any weapon used against a cop can be responded to with lethal force.

No no no absolutely loving not

Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at Oct 5, 2011 around 06:07

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


GD_American posted:

Is the NYPD considered a trend-setter

let me tell you about our typewriters

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Kaal posted:

For what it's worth, I am dubious of the idea of "suicide by cop" in the first place. It's a pretty recent invention, and it seems to me that it gets used a lot as a moral balm to explain away a police shooting as "It was a crazy man who wanted to die and wanted to force me to shoot him".

What if the guy calls 911 and says "send the cops over, I'm ready to kill them and I want to die", because that's actually happened. It's pretty rare, but so are police shootings.

Once the laughter dies down: in a city of 8 million people and 30,000 cops, the NYPD had something like 8 fatal shootings in 2010 and 24 total shootings overall (not counting dogs, negligent discharges, etc). In a city of 8 million people.

Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at Oct 5, 2011 around 06:11

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Kaal posted:

Well if he's got a signed and witnessed statement attesting to the fact then I'm not going to dispute that. But you know just as well as I do that such things are hardly representative.

Cops shooting unarmed people is hardly representative either.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Kaal posted:

I don't think that you'll find anyone in this thread accusing cops of generally shooting unarmed people.

Okay then I have no idea where we're going with this. Do you like cats?

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


iyaayas01 posted:

Three simple rules: never consent to a search, ask if you are being detained or are free to go, and if they detain you and/or you are read your rights, the first and only words out of your mouth should be "I'd like to speak to a lawyer."

While I don't disagree with anything in this statement, a few quick clarifications:

1) While you might not consent to a search, that doesn't mean the officer doesn't have the right to conduct one, under certain circumstances.

2) You can be detained and even arrested without having been read your rights.

3) While you can ask for a lawyer, if we aren't planning on asking you any questions, a lawyer won't be able to do much for you until arraignment.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Feds and those who work joint fed task forces need security clearances.

Also, many positions in larger departments require more in depth security checks that are frequently reviewed.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Whip Slagcheek posted:

Officers already on the force are held to the same standards and tested twice a year. Failure to pass results in being assigned to light duty and remedial physical training until you can pass. Multiple failures can result in administrative action/complaints in your work folder.

I wish we had this.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Skyworks posted:

They grab him, to be honest they have to hit him really hard

...

You in the US should look into that rather than beating them.

I think something got lost in translation here.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


I have absolutely zero interest in a bullshit incident that apparently happened on the other loving side of the planet from me.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


The effect of budget cuts on the criminal justice system is severe. I've had many, many cases either get "dropped" or pled out because the ADA can't wait a year for forensic or DNA results to come back. Priority is properly given to crimes against persons cases, but it's really annoying to have, for example, a firearms possession case against a violent predicate felon and gang member get pled out because we can't wait over a year for DNA results.

And if it's this bad for the state, imagine what type of budget the public defenders have to work with...

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Cmdr. Shepard posted:

So you got a ride... home? Or to the station?

I'm thinking he's military, so "the base" in this case is probably home.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Was it a god-damned liter of cola? This is important.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Larceny in the farce degree.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Does this look like spit to you?

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


bringer posted:

How many fellow officers have you arrested for hiding their names and badge numbers?

Uh, this would be a violation of NYPD employment rules, not a penal law crime. You can't arrest someone for doing it.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


bringer posted:

How many fellow officers have you reported for hiding their names and badge numbers?

I'm assuming you'd never hide your own identity as you believe so strongly in rules.

Zero? I've never seen it done.

Edit: I once was accused of "hiding my badge" because it wasn't clipped to my shirt; I was wearing an authorized uniform shirt with my shield numer and name embroidered on it instead, but the guy refused to believe me. I also always identify myself when asked and so does everyone I work with, i've never done anything i'm not willing to put my name to.

Why do you ask? Run into someone who refused?

Also, in NYC it's a shield, not a badge.

Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at Nov 17, 2011 around 16:53

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Your identifying information is supposed to be on your outermost garment, so the info should either be on my vest or I would have to display my shield in some fashion.

I'm 3000 miles from Oakland, btw.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


I can't seem to get youtube working on my phone right now, but the identify yourself rule does not apply to undercovers OR plainclothes officers not currently taking enforcement action. I think.

To be honest, I've never had anyone ask me to identify myself in a situation where my identification wasn't plainly visible. Before I start acting like a cop, I have to identify myself as a cop. If i'm just getting a coffee in a suit down at court and someone asks me if i'm a cop, I don't have to ID myself, i'm just another guy getting coffee. If I've just done something that requires police authority, obviously I have to id myself.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Paid detail cops are subject to more regulation, not less. I don't think those guys are anywhere near the protests unless you happen to go to a business that hired them, like barnes & noble or something. They stand around in lobbies and don't do much, and they certainly aren't subject to the orders of the companies. The can be given certain limited instructions that are cleared with the NYPD first (ie, "we want a uniform cop to stand by the front door to deter shoplifting") but they aren't a private goon squad or anything.

I'm not entirely sure how paid detail works beyond that, paid detail is not pensionable, I prefer overtime to standing in a ATM lobby for 8 hours.

Light blue windbreakers sounds like community affairs who somehow have special uniforms and don't have to wear normal cop hats, so if they aren't identifying themselves, I don't know what to tell you except

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


grover posted:

"Occupy" discussions are evicted from this thread, effective immediately!

Go occupy the D&D or GBS discussion threads if you want to debate and discuss or generally bullshit this topic. If you have a legitimate police/law question you want to ask a gooncop that might somehow be mistaken as an Occupy question, it'd better be TO THE DAMNED POINT and not some thinly veiled "gently caress da police" dig. If anyone tries to set a tent up in here, I'm going to start swinging a PR24 upside their heads.

No mods no masters occupy GiP free TF

...

Seriously though, while discussing the politics of OWS movements will obviously quickly degenerate into a GBS/D&D wasteland of a thread populated only by cannibalistic post apocolyptic mutants hell bent on destruction and genetically incapable of polite argument, howling mad and roaming the wasteland, answering questions about general policies or incidents should be allowed here.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Branis posted:

We have to run a separate, special check that must be on an approved list of reasons set by the state if we wanna know if someone has a CCW. South dakota loves guns. Silencers are legal here as long as they are made by a SD company and only used by SD resident, in SD.

Silencers are legal in lots of states, as long as you pay the $200 tax stamp and get all the forms signed off on.

Silencers are also completely over rated, never use one without hearing protection. (even if you've got something like a repro Delisle- trust me, silenced guns are loud.)

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Yeah, but anything else is still loud as gently caress.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


found some light bedtime reading:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...rge-report.html

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


One of those guys shooting one handed killed a guy who was firing a mac10 at him in Times Square.

Gunfights are slightly different than target shooting.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Also, I'm pretty good one handed, even with my off hand, but then again, I practice. Still, hitting a man sized target from ten feet away one handed is not difficult in the slightest.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Lord Gaga posted:

I am betting you way way way overestimate how often cops practice with their guns on average. From my experience with local cops there are far fewer gun people who are police officers than one would expect. I don't shoot one handed often but I do shoot about 50-100 rounds though my carry gun per month on average and would not trust myself to do that. I dont really see why you would shoot one handed unless someone is grabbing your other hand.

You shoot 100 rounds a month and can't hit a target from 10 feet away one handed? Seriously?

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Kaal posted:

If you're referring to this (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...n-times-square/), it took the cop four shots to do so - in the middle of a tourist-packed area. Understandable, but hardly a good showing. The modified isosceles is taught for a reason.

so getting in a foot pursuit with an illegal cd vendor who then suddenly starts a gunfight with you and shooting him without injuring anyone else is hardly a good showing?

Your standard for a gunfight seems to be literal perfection.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Apparently 3 of 4 rounds going into the perp isn't good enough.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


captainblastum posted:

You know what helps with that? Holding the gun with two hands - which is what his point actually was, not demanding 100% accuracy.

There are a lot of factors that might prevent you from holding the gun with two hands- it's not like every cop who shot one handed decided to totally disregard his training and the advantage a two handed stance gives you.

Off the top of my head, a lot of the time during a pursuit you're holding your radio or flashlight in your off hand- while throwing it away to free up a hand might be a rational decision, during a gunfight you might automatically draw and fire one handed, especially if you aren't expecting the fleeing perp to suddenly produce a weapon, stop running and open fire.

Instead of castigating the officers for firing one handed (and in the times square case specifically cited, the officer had a 75% hit rate which is amazing given the average accuracy) or for point shooting (which seems to be what a LOT of cops are doing), a better use of the study would be to determine why this is happening and what training steps are needed to do it.

Edit: excuse me, a 100% hit rate firing one handed after being shot at, from the NY Times

quote:

It also showed Sergeant Newsom, who has been on the force for 17 years, raising his left arm over his chest in hopes of protecting his heart. It is a defensive move rookies are taught in the Police Academy. Police officials were astonished that the sergeant, less than 15 feet from the stubby barrel of a semiautomatic weapon with no hope of taking cover, was cool-headed enough to remember to do so.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said Mr. Martinez fired first, getting off two shots. Then his gun jammed.

Mr. Kelly said the sergeant fired four shots. All four hit Mr. Martinez: in the chest, below the neck and in the left arm; he also suffered a graze wound to the right arm.

Looks like the Sgt. reverted to his extremely archaic pre-mandatory bulletproof vest days for the one handed shooting, which shows that under stress, you might revert waaaaaaaaaay back to your initial training, as they haven't taught this as a shooting style in forever.

Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at Nov 23, 2011 around 21:41

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


dp

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Branis posted:

There was that shooting of two CHP troopers back in like the 70s or 80s where they found spent brass in the dead Troopers pockets because thats how they had trained on the range so they didn't have to empty it into their pocket. People do wierd things when under alot of stress.

poo poo, one of the attackers in the attempt to kill Truman sat down on some steps in the middle of a gunfight to figure out how to reload his gun.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Uh, the officer in question did have 100% accuracy.

Also, the study seems to indicate that the "firing 500 rounds" stereotype is the exception, not the norm.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Police departments will probably never emphasize firearms training for the simple reason that as the shooting report shows, firearms are used in a ridiculously small amount of incidents. Frankly, cycling 32000 officers through the NYPDs amazingly ghetto firearms facility twice a year is probably hard enough.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Gobbeldygook posted:

Could a random city cop arrest someone for something that's a violation of federal but not state law? If so, how is the process different from the perspective of the officer?

Not to my knowledge, although I have arrested people for violating local laws who are then tried for the equivalent violation in federal court.

Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at Nov 24, 2011 around 02:55

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


The other interesting part of that gunfight is that even after four hits, the sgt still had to physically struggle with the guy to get the weapon away from him.

The perception among a lot of people seems to be that one center mass hit = instant incapacitation. Clearly not the case, as the 86 Miami shootout also shows.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


poo poo, i've gotten banned/probated more for that-which-shall-not-be-named discussion than those amateurs.

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Also I like how they take issue with us being in GiP despite being civilians, but nobody mentions the land pirate thread.

(No one will ever mention ems, the most overworked and underappreciated first responders )

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Smiling Jack
Dec 2, 2001


Solkanar512 posted:

Have you ever tried posting there? Or are you afraid of having your opinion challenged?

Yes. No.

Also, you're kind of prejudiced as you're assuming you know what my opinions are.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«4 »