Tormund's police and other miscarriers of justice thread.

[Sturn]

I'm assuming that if two teenagers were actually intent on fighting and hurting each other, they would be fighting and hurting each other, and not wrestling around. I'm also assuming that if the two teens were white it would have likely been a non-issue to the cops.

First bold - From first hand experience, it isn't always obvious that people were playing. I've screached to a halt seeing shoving going on then realized they were just playing. The statute does not require "hurting" to be battery, just a rude touching of some sort. So yes, just a push can be battery so sometimes you have to stop and ask or look at a person's face to see if it was a friendly push or an angry push.

Second bold - You just assumed some people were racist based on the actions of others of the same group. Doesn't that share some similarities with being racist too? Should I use the term, "careerist" again? AP I'm a cop are you thus assuming I'm a racist also? Isn't that the same sort of disservice towards me that you are accusing cops of being towards minorities?

[Sturn]

I liked this bit from Chief Brian Allen:

"Just like anything else, sometimes mistakes are made." he said. "Each circumstance is different and there's no set guideline. There's also something called officer discretion. If you take five auto mechanics and ask them to diagnose the problem of a vehicle, you'll come up with five different solutions. If you ask five different doctors to diagnose a patient, a lot of times you'll have five different diagnoses. Conversely, if you ask five different police officers if they would write a ticket or not for the same offence, you possibly have five different answers."

Talk about ridiculous and incorrect metaphors! I would hope & expect the doctors and mechanics would not have 5 diagnoses, and I would expect the cops in a yes/no question wouldn't have five different responses!

I agree with you on this one. If 5 doctors diagnosed 5 people differently, 4 of them might expect to be sued. There IS more leeway when it comes to law versus medical practice, but the Chief's metaphor went too far.

[Merentha]

Second bold - You just assumed some people were racist based on the actions of others of the same group. Doesn't that share some similarities with being racist too? Should I use the term, "careerist" again? AP I'm a cop are you thus assuming I'm a racist also? Isn't that the same sort of disservice towards me that you are accusing cops of being towards minorities?

Kinda funny, but if you'll go back, you're only one to bring race into the issue of the teen. As to that, unless the kid pulled a weapon, came flying at the officers, or was pounding the hell out of someone else, subduing a 14 year old with a choke like that is not at all acceptable. At all. Find another way, I don't give a shit what your excuse is.

[Sturn]

Kinda funny, but if you'll go back, you're only one to bring race into the issue of the teen.

Try again. Your link, which started this conversation, had the title, "Black 14-year-old Carrying a Puppy Tackled and Choked by Police for Giving Them a "Dehumanizing Stare"

[Sturn]

Kinda funny, but if you'll go back, you're only one to bring race into the issue of the teen.

Try again. Your link, which started this conversation, had the title, "Black 14-year-old Carrying a Puppy Tackled and Choked by Police for Giving Them a "Dehumanizing Stare"

Eta: Care to address post #340 that I addressed to you or are you just not liking that one and decided to move on?

As to that, unless the kid pulled a weapon, came flying at the officers, or was pounding the hell out of someone else, subduing a 14 year old with a choke like that is not at all acceptable. At all. Find another way, I don't give a shit what your excuse is.

I would need to see video of what happened just before that clip to make a full, educated judgement, but I tend to agree with you on this one.

[polishgenius]

One of the worst story's of Police incompetence I've heard in a while: http://www.alternet....-his-depression

Are we automatically believing the accusation here? Coz it reeks to me. I'm not saying the cop didn't fuck up in that situation, and if the quote is correct then the line about being required not to aid someone they've shot is ghastly, but I seriously doubt the family's account bears much resemblance to reality either. Starting from calling 911 for depression.

[Sturn]

Are we automatically believing the accusation here? Coz it reeks to me.........

This one seems so horrible to be unbelievable. The link is from Alternet which appears to be very biased in their reporting (see post #340 upthread for an example).

From the article, we are to believe that the family called 911 due to the son being depressed. When the deputy arrived, the family was doing household chores (didn't they just call due to an emergency?) and didn't tell the deputy what was going on (the dad just kept changing a headlight and mom doing housework after they called 911). The deputy then walked in, found the son, and told him he was under arrest (for what?). He then tasered the son when there was an issue cuffing him. Then we are to believe that the son said, "Shoot me", so the deputy complied with the request for no reason, shooting and killing him.

That's what the family reported happened. We don't have (in that article at least) what the police say happened. It could be due to the bias of the website, or possibly due to the lawsuit and the cops have been ordered to shut up. Eta: Appears to be the later. Every article I've found has only the family statements of what happened, nothing from the police.

I'm sorry, but the family's version of things doesn't seem realistic at all. If it is somehow true and the deputy was a psychotic killer, then yes hand over the $61 million to the family and ask for the death penalty, I would give them thumbs up if I were on the jury. But, me thinks there's more to this story.

.....and if the quote is correct then the line about being required not to aid someone they've shot is ghastly, but I seriously doubt the family's account bears much resemblance to reality either. Starting from calling 911 for depression.

I can't imagine any department has a policy to not render aid to anyone. Again, unbelievable. But, the 911 call for depression is actually very believable, happens all of the time.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This is a report based upon the DA's investigation. The Sheriff's department is refusing to release their report:

http://www.modbee.com/2013/05/30/2740402/da-releases-details-in-keyes-shooting.html

Here's the actual DA's report:

http://media.modbee.com/smedia/2013/05/30/18/40/1jd4L1.So.11.pdf

It paints a very different picture from the alternet version of events.

[Merentha]

Try again. Your link, which started this conversation, had the title, "Black 14-year-old Carrying a Puppy Tackled and Choked by Police for Giving Them a "Dehumanizing Stare"

Eta: Care to address post #340 that I addressed to you or are you just not liking that one and decided to move on?

I would need to see video of what happened just before that clip to make a full, educated judgement, but I tend to agree with you on this one.

The link did, but I made no accusations of racism.

As to the site, you are correct in that they are often biased. I have no problems admitting it, and I did not, for a reason, link the other article you mentioned because I felt that I needed more information. However, my reaction to the article I did link was entirely based on the very simple idea that you shouldn't choke a 14 year old unless they pulled a weapon on you or were doing their damnedest to kill you, neither of which come close to happening. As the article included a long, pretty context-filled video of an officer explaining the actions of the police, I felt like, biases of the website aside, I had enough information to conclude that the police were fucking assholes and need disciplined. Or, you know, arrested for battery, but we can't have everything.

[Sturn]

The link did, but I made no accusations of racism.

You posted the link, did you not want discussion of it? When I mentioned racism accusations due to the article you linked mentioning race, you later damned me for it. Sorry, you can't defend your statement of.....

Kinda funny, but if you'll go back, you're only one to bring race into the issue of the teen.

.......against me when the article you wished to discuss has the teenager's race in the damn title. Care to retract your statement or just carry on?

As to the site, you are correct in that they are often biased.

Which was my key point a couple pages back that you seemed to have passed over until I called you on it. Why not link a less biased article for discussion instead, that has the same video? There's lots of them to choose from. You admit the site was biased, but still chose it over others much less biased in their wording for what reason? It better suppported your own biases?

[Merentha]

You posted the link, did you not want discussion of it? When I mentioned racism accusations due to the article you linked mentioning race, you later damned me for it. Sorry, you can't defend your statement of.....

.......against me when the article you wished to discuss has the teenager's race in the damn title. Care to retract your statement or just carry on?

Yeah, and it bothered me that his race was there because frankly, if you're not going to discuss the race in the article, then why bother having it in the title? The fact that he was 14 is far more relevant. Do I think that the reaction may have been motivated by latent or outright racism? Sure, could be, but at this point, there's no information either way and it just lets people speculate on it. I'm fine discussing any aspect of the article, but I will rephrase my statement to say that you were the first to bring up the accusation that the behavior was racially motivated.

Which was my key point a couple pages back that you seemed to have passed over until I called you on it. Why not link a less biased article for discussion instead, that has the same video? There's lots of them to choose from. You admit the site was biased, but still chose it over others much less biased in their wording for what reason? It better suppported your own biases?

It was from a link I had been sent. (And the article that Nestor found would support my biases more). I mean, you could ascribe malice instead of being pressed as hell for time to my actions if you wanted, but you'd be wrong.

edit: My opinion on race and the police is that while many of them are out and out racists, I'm not going to assume they're going to beat up a kid just because he's black. Instead, they're more likely to see something like playfighting as real fighting, see weapons more readily than they will with other people, and not give minorities the benefit of the doubt that they'll occasionally give other people, and will respond more harshly and with more physicality because they think they can get away with it, both in the court of public opinion and a legal one. I do not think, nor did I say, that their actions were based on "lets go choke a black kid for funsies." Would they have been less likely to choke a white kid? Eh, probably, but I think the more important part is that a man from their department got on television and announced that it was okay to choke and arrest a kid because he gave the officers "dehumanizing glares" and was exhibiting very mildly upset body language.

edi2: Were I writing the article, I would have removed "black" from the title. But, as mentioned, I wasn't exactly having a slow day yesterday.

[Sturn]

It was from a link I had been sent. (And the article that Nestor found would support my biases more). I mean, you could ascribe malice instead of being pressed as hell for time to my actions if you wanted, but you'd be wrong.

Ok I will give you this. I don't believe you were intently searching for the most-biased site to link.

I've been blasted at this forum for using Fox News as a source of information. Yes it's slanted, but it's at least a credible major news agency. My big problem is linking to extreme biased anti-police websites where the average reader quickly digests it and accepts what is said as truth without looking elsewhere for other info. Take a look at the comments at the site you linked to some of the stories there. The stories, in their bias, stir up all kinds of hate towards police. I have to deal with enough hatred stirred up by corrupt cops, it doesn't help my safety to also have biased websites stir up even more hatred with misleading headlines and information. So, that is the source of my resentment when I started browsing the site you linked. I apologize if I then redirected that resentment towards you.

[Sturn]

Cop (me) did something bad?

I would like some opinion here, in an semi-anti-cop thread, of why this person thought I had done something so wrong. Was she just an idiot or did she have something to truly complain about in others' opinions? I think I did my best to turn her opinion around, but finally walked away baffled. Sorry, this post will probably be long and involves a very unimportant issue (parking).

Tormund please tell me if you don't want this here, I didn't think it deserves it's own thread and would rather get the opinions of those who frequent here.

Like I said, very unimportant event in an otherwise busy day (I had to duck a thrown shoe George Bush style), but this one still bugged me a day later, not the more important issues throughtout the day.

City Politiican owns a buisness. City Politician complains to very high ranking civilian City Employee about a parking issue near his personal business. Due to the rank of the City Employee, the extremely minor issue gets brought straight to the Chief of Police (yes I have issues with that too). It gets handed to me literally by the Chief of Police, and I decide to handle it personally to get out of the office and due to the players involved. Yes I know that's wrong, someone got special treatment due to the players involved when the matter should have been passed several more tiers downward.

I contact the violators. I explain they can't park on sidewalks (should be obvious), and DON'T issue them any citations (due to my position my ticket book is pretty dusty, but could have called for one and issued, but I didn't). All of the violators move their vehicles and are pleasant except for one Lady. Lady stops me before I can leave. Lady complains of no closer parkings spots due to the public lots being completely filled (isn't this a universal large city problem?). She parks in the same spot for a weekly meeting. She doesn't want to walk 2 blocks in the dark when she leaves at night (it's actually a pretty safe district of the city). I resist the urge to mention the proposed parking garage expansion nearby that was voted down by taxpayers including herself. She asks if she can park in an alley (typically no parking in alley's anywhere in the city) that I know has an exception (business district) of allowing 30 minutes for loading/unloading only. It's not marked obviously to allow this, so I start to educate her and ask her how long she will be there. She's still upset, doesn't answer, so I tell her she can park on one side of the alley without further informing her she has a limit of 30 minutes (my fault), before leaving to diffuse the situation.

I drive directly to city hall to speak with City Employee who initially received the complaint to tell him he will probably get a call from City Politician. City Employee is already on the phone with City Politician, I was apparently right. City Politician is happy cars are no longer on the sidewalks, but they are parked along the alley and he suspects they aren't just loading/unloading.

I stop and run off copies of the ordinance on parking in alleys in a business district. I return immediately to the alley even though I have a growing inbox (yep, I should have passed this on down). The cars, including Lady's, are parked in the alley and it's been well over an hour now due to my trip to city hall and back. I know the violators are in a meeting in a non-profit building nearby. I don't wish to push my way into the meeting room and embarass the violators. I speak to the top-ranking employee of the non-profit. She is pleasant and she says she will educate via newsletter those stopping in the alley to visit her building for the weekly meeting. When I leave, I again don't issue any citations even though the City Politician will dislike this. I instead place copies of the city business alley parking ordinance on the vehicles and allow them to stay until the 3 hour (?) meeting is over. My thinking is warning this time, now they know, they won't do it again. Everyone should be happy. No citations for the violators, and the parking issue for the City Politician will be resolved by next week's meeting.

Next day, I get a knock on the office door from a patrol cop. Patrol cop says she was cornered by Lady at the business she owns (frequented by police). Lady complained I wronged her and even made a statement of she was afraid what she might do if it was me who walked in her business. I chuckle and don't give it much thought, it's par for the job. The next day a different patrol cop knocks on the office door. Lady complained to him too. Now I'm getting pissed. How many people is Lady talking to complaining I did something wrong to her (when I hadn't)?

Inbox still big, I take the time to drive to Lady's business to discuss the issue with her. My motivation was twofold I guess - resolve the complaint and keep Lady from smearing my name more. We have around a 15 minute conversation, greatly paraphrased:

Me: Here I am if you wish to discuss this.

Lady: You were wrong for placing the ordinance on my windshield, you should have talked to me.

Me: You were in a meeting, I think you would have been more upset if I interrupted it for a parking complaint.

Lady: The ordiance I read is about loading/unloading, I was doing neither, just parking, it doesn't apply to me.

Me: Sorry, read it again, it starts with the blanket statement you can't park in business alleys at all, then gives an exception for loading/unloading only.

Lady: Not sure if I believe you, I will read it again.

Lady: It doesn't say that on a sign in the alley.

Me: You can't park anywhere in an alley in the city as the default rule. There also aren't signs saying you can't park in the middle of the street, you still can't. If you don't know you can't, you are still guilty of it.

Lady: I've seen other cars park for more then 30 minutes in a business alley and they didn't get tickets!

Me: There are probably 1000's of violators of parking in this city at any given moment, we aren't going to catch them all. Someone actually complained about your parking, we can't ignore complaints.

Lady: I've been parking like that for months!

Me: You've been parking wrong like that for months. We just now received a complaint.

***interrupted by business employee passing by office laughing at Lady saying, "You are still upset about that parking issue?!"****

Me: How would you have me handle this differently? 1. Received the complaint and told complainer I don't care? 2. Received the complaint and issued you a parking citation? 3. Received complaint and educated the violators without issuing citations (what I did)? Is there a viable fourth option you would like better?

Lady: No answer.

Me: Explains how an officer's good name is important, someone telling others they did something wrong when they haven't is a disservice to the officer.

Lady: I only complained to three people at the meeting I was at, I will correct them.

Me: (thinks about the employee that just passed through and the 2 cops she spoke to, wonders how many more she actually complained to).

Lady: I'm still pissed!

Me: Baffled, leaves, still shakes her hand.

If you are still with me, is there something I could have done differently? Should I just chalk it up to Lady is an idiot and move on?

[Brandon Stark]

People are just going to be angry at us for doing the job we do. Most of the time I get it, and most of the time I don't especially enjoy the parts of the job (ticket writing, for example) that most often draw their ire. Just today, I was screamed at about 'cops not giving warnings anymore,' by a man with 7 speeding offenses on his record doing 50 in a 35 mph zone who I only wrote for 5 over.

Despite the views held by a lot of people that come out in threads like these, I know I'm still out there trying to help people and doing my job the right way, and that's enough to ease the tension most times. That's not an excuse for being unprofessional or overly confrontational (which doesn't seem to be a problem in your case), but it's definitely frustrating sometimes.

[thecryptile]

She's an idiot, Sturn. I wouldn't worry about it. She should have been thanking you that you didn't ticket her.

There are some big problems with corruption and misconduct in policing in some areas, but most police are just doing their jobs. I know 90% of the time I've been ticketed I earned it. I don't bear any ill will to the officers that ticketed me.

[awesome possum]

First bold - From first hand experience, it isn't always obvious that people were playing. I've screached to a halt seeing shoving going on then realized they were just playing. The statute does not require "hurting" to be battery, just a rude touching of some sort. So yes, just a push can be battery so sometimes you have to stop and ask or look at a person's face to see if it was a friendly push or an angry push.

And since just a love tap can mean battery, it should be in the officer's judgement to make that call. The officers judged poorly.

Second bold - You just assumed some people were racist based on the actions of others of the same group. Doesn't that share some similarities with being racist too? Should I use the term, "careerist" again? AP I'm a cop are you thus assuming I'm a racist also? Isn't that the same sort of disservice towards me that you are accusing cops of being towards minorities?

I assumed people were racist based on the actions of those people. Had it been two white kids playing around on a beach, I do not believe these two white cops would have stopped them and definitely wouldn't have tackled then proceeded to choke one of them. If you feel that my view paints you as racist, I got a feeling it's not my view that makes you feel that way.

You may or not be racist. I don't know you. You may or may not be a bad cop. Again, I don't know you. What I do know - because I believe it - is that people join the police force for one of four reasons: 1) They truly want to protect and serve 2) they need a job without very high standards 3) they are dumb jocks who were the big bullies in their school and want to continue being government-sanctioned big bullies and 4) they were the bullied in school and want government-sanctioned protection and to also get revenge on society by now being bullies.

I don't know which of those you are. I'd hope #1. But being a #1 doesn't mean numbers 2 through 4 are imaginary.

Let me put it this way. My older brother stayed in the ghetto when the rest of my family moved out 20 years ago. He ended up spending most of his life up until he was 30 in and out of juvenile and then jail. When I was 13, a few months before we moved out of that shithole area, I was caught out 20 minutes after curfew as I walked home. The cop knew my brother because my brother was a trouble-making ass, and these were the exact words that came out of that cop's mouth, "You fucking spics. We're going to run you out of this town and good fucking riddance."

That wasn't very fair of that cop. At all. Did I deserve it? Nope. But I am tied to my brother and whether its fair or not, I will always be viewed through a filter by those who knew him or his reputation first. That's the way of life. The only thing I could do was prove the only similarity between my brother and I was our last name.

Don't like being tied to the racist, crooked pieces of shit in your profession? Do something about it.

[Sturn]

Don't like being tied to the racist, crooked pieces of shit in your profession? Do something about it.

Do what exactly? Quit? Even if I somehow single handedly reduced crooked cops in the US to .1% of the cop population, the .1% would still get all of the attention in conversations, media, etc.

[Brandon Stark]

I behave in a fair, professional way every day. I treat everyone I deal with in the same way, until such time as they've proven that they're one of the people I'm there to protect everyone else from. I go to my superiors when I see things that are unacceptable in my profession.

There are a lot of people like me. That's why most departments have no serious issues with use of force or corruption. That's why officers who fall on the wrong side of that line are disciplined or let go. In the liability-based society we live in there's no longer any benefit to harboring assholes in our ranks, and modern chiefs are not willing to do so. It's just a lawsuit waiting to happen. No system is perfect, but police officers at nearly all departments are put through far stricter background checks and psychological evaluations than any other commonly found profession I've seen.

And we should be.

But that doesn't change the fact that despite what we've already done to eliminate the dark things which the history of our profession made common, we will always be judged by our worst examples. Police officers are invested with a trust that few if any other professions are given, and every time that trust is broken it should be news and it should be brought to light - to ignore such things is to condone them. I just don't know that there's anything I can do to change the mind of a person who views anecdotal travesties as a sign of everyday behavior.

[awesome possum]

Do what exactly? Quit? Even if I somehow single handedly reduced crooked cops in the US to .1% of the cop population, the .1% would still get all of the attention in conversations, media, etc.

By doing these:

I behave in a fair, professional way every day. I treat everyone I deal with in the same way, until such time as they've proven that they're one of the people I'm there to protect everyone else from. I go to my superiors when I see things that are unacceptable in my profession.

People will always view you in a certain light because of the color your skin, gender, height, weight, profession. You can either choose to spend your time and energy defending yourself and others or you can try to be the one of the positive influences.

I just don't know that there's anything I can do to change the mind of a person who views anecdotal travesties as a sign of everyday behavior.

The thing is, there is plenty of empirical evidence that this is everyday behavior. Every single day, somewhere in this country alone, a dirty or crooked cop is wronging an innocent civilian. Does that mean the bad outweigh the good? No. But it also means these aren't just anecdotal travesties.

[Sturn]

People will always view you in a certain light because of the color your skin, gender, height, weight, profession. You can either choose to spend your time and energy defending yourself and others or you can try to be the one of the positive influences.

I do these things. Most cops I know do. I just went to a superior regarding another supervisor of equal rank last week. And something was done about it. It did nothing whatsoever to the negative label the police has amongst a large portion of the population. My point is, which Brandon was much more eloquent about, is that no matter what police do the bad apples will still get all of the attention. We are still more typically judged by our worst examples, not our best.

Eta: I also come here, subjecting myself to this cop negative thread, trying to express a cop's viewpoint to curb some of the hatred. How am I doing? :)