Police Standards Are A Problem

[Sig1Hunter]

17 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

If they have a gun and are shooting at you, yes. If they're stealing candy bars, no. Not that hard.

Oh, i. missed the part where the cop killed the 14 year old thief.  The video only showed him taking him to the ground.  Couldn't tase him,  that would be excessive force to you.  Cant hit him with a baton,  excessive force again to you.  Cant take him down either,  i guess.  Cops just gotta say "pretty please let me handcuff you and take you to jail",  and hope for compliance.  When it isn't gained,  i guess they just walk away? 

 

It's interesting that implicit in your rambling nonsense of a post upthread, is one certain fact: That 13 year old boys are capable of causing violence / death to other people.  In this case the thief didn't have much time to decide and act upon that. The officer doesn't know if the kid has a knife/gun/etc. The moment physical resistance is encountered,  swift and decisive control becomes necessary.  Whether or not you understand this is irrelevant.  Its not your legal obligation to make that decision from your perch upon a steaming pile of ignorance.  

 

NEWSFLASH: putting a full size human that doesn't want to go  in handcuffs, in handcuffs,  can be difficult and dirty work.

[3rdnlng]

Were the cops over 30? If they were then they are "The Man" and you know you can't trust "The Man".

[boyst]

I don't at all see what the big deal was.  Kid got what he deserved and was lucky he didn't get more.  He was being a clown.

[The_Dude]

Just now, Sig1Hunter said:

Oh, i. missed the part where the cop killed the 14 year old thief.  The video only showed him taking him to the ground.  Couldn't tase him,  that would be excessive force to you.  Cant hit him with a baton,  excessive force again to you.  Cant take him down either,  i guess.  Cops just gotta say "pretty please let me handcuff you and take you to jail",  and hope for compliance.  When it isn't gained,  i guess they just walk away? 

 

It's interesting that implicit in your rambling nonsense of a post upthread, is one certain fact: That 13 year old boys are capable of causing violence / death to other people.  In this case the thief didn't have much time to decide and act upon that. The officer doesn't know if the kid has a knife/gun/etc. The moment physical resistance is encountered,  swift and decisive control becomes necessary.  Whether or not you understand this is irrelevant.  Its not your legal obligation to make that decision from your perch upon a steaming pile of ignorance.  

 

NEWSFLASH: putting a full size human that doesn't want to go  in handcuffs, in handcuffs,  can be difficult and dirty work.

1. (the bolded) I never made that point or suggested it -- you did for some reason. Your logic is squirrelly at best so I wont try to follow it.

 

2. ESCALATION OF FORCE -- it starts with 'come here, son' and not a body slam. 

3. You're an idiot for the 2nd bolded. Why are soldiers required to make proper identification of a deadly threat, but cops can just assume the potential when it comes to a child? That seems idiotic. 

4. Your 3rd bolded -- as a guy who has killed people and used deadly force I think I know a thing or two about restraint and being decisive. 

 

5. I've put many a person in cuffs....well, zip strip cuffs. It's not that hard. 

6. The kid deserved detention or in school suspension, not a body slam by an armed, grown man.  

[DC Tom]

26 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

So wouldn't that make the original post that I quoted a piss poor post because the guy assumed he resisted?

 

Yep.

 

But note that the original poster is a known congenital idiot.  

[boyst]

Just now, The_Dude said:

1. (the bolded) I never made that point or suggested it -- you did for some reason. Your logic is squirrelly at best so I wont try to follow it.

 

2. ESCALATION OF FORCE -- it starts with 'come here, son' and not a body slam. 

3. You're an idiot for the 2nd bolded. Why are soldiers required to make proper identification of a deadly threat, but cops can just assume the potential when it comes to a child? That seems idiotic. 

4. Your 3rd bolded -- as a guy who has killed people and used deadly force I think I know a thing or two about restraint and being decisive. 

 

5. I've put many a person in cuffs....well, zip strip cuffs. It's not that hard. 

6. The kid deserved detention or in school suspension, not a body slam by an armed, grown man.  

You're like the retard brother of the retard who was dog90210 who's more aggressive/unbalanced/angry.

[Sig1Hunter]

Just now, The_Dude said:

1. (the bolded) I never made that point or suggested it -- you did for some reason. Your logic is squirrelly at best so I wont try to follow it.

 

2. ESCALATION OF FORCE -- it starts with 'come here, son' and not a body slam. 

3. You're an idiot for the 2nd bolded. Why are soldiers required to make proper identification of a deadly threat, but cops can just assume the potential when it comes to a child? That seems idiotic. 

4. Your 3rd bolded -- as a guy who has killed people and used deadly force I think I know a thing or two about restraint and being decisive. 

 

5. I've put many a person in cuffs....well, zip strip cuffs. It's not that hard. 

6. The kid deserved detention or in school suspension, not a body slam by an armed, grown man.  

Uh... what? Cops have to identify a deadly threat before using deadly force. Again,  i missed the part where deadly force was used.  This was a simple take down.

 

It's funny that you watch a 4 second video and presume that's where the incident started.  

 

[shrader]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

I don't at all see what the big deal was.  Kid got what he deserved and was lucky he didn't get more.  He was being a clown.

 

He doesn't appear to be injured at all in either the video or the news follow-up story.  But what if he was paralyzed?  What if he died?  What if he was my son?  Some day we'll stop judging some fake scenario and instead deal with what actually did happen.

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

Coach has no legal right to detain anybody. The kid can legally fight the coach if he puts his hands on him. That is not resisting arrest.  He broke the law by stealing a candy bar. He did not break the law by getting away from the coach. The police broke the law by assaulting a minor. 

 

Your "understanding" of what is permissible during the commission of a crime is uninformed.

 

In Georgia, as in most places, it is lawful for a private citizen to detain or subdue someone who is destroying or stealing private property:  https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60

 

Individuals have every right to stop and detain someone who is committing a crime.

 

As far as your second assertion that the police "assaulted" a minor:  No, they did not, they used a low level physical force to stop an individual who was resisting their lawful authority.

[Sig1Hunter]

11 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

4. Your 3rd bolded -- as a guy who has killed people and used deadly force I think I know a thing or two about restraint and being decisive. 

 

 

You apparently don't know jackschit about being decisive.  It's easy to pull a trigger on someone 350 yards away in a "third world shithole" where "Hajis" are seen as some subhuman form of life by you.  Being decisive is making a split second decision to control a situation before it escalates,  knowing full well that everyone and their brother is recording it and every dumbass and douchebag on the internet will judge you for your actions,  even if they are legal and proper.

[The_Dude]

7 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Uh... what? Cops have to identify a deadly threat before using deadly force. Again,  i missed the part where deadly force was used.  This was a simple take down.

 

It's funny that you watch a 4 second video and presume that's where the incident started.  

 

 

1. I mean, yeah. You can't just kill people -- that's murder.

 

2. Their violence of action was completely unnecessary. I could have handled that situation with no violence. 

3. I don't presume that -- you just presume I do. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by The_Dude

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

 

1. I mean, yeah. You can't just kill people -- that's matter. 

 

2. Their violence of action was completely unnecessary. I could have handled that situation with no violence. 

3. I don't presume that -- you just presume I do. 

Dang...too bad you couldn't get hired.  I bet i know why,  and it isn't because you admitted to toking a little weed back in the day....

 

 

[boyst]

14 minutes ago, shrader said:

 

He doesn't appear to be injured at all in either the video or the news follow-up story.  But what if he was paralyzed?  What if he died?  What if he was my son?  Some day we'll stop judging some fake scenario and instead deal with what actually did happen.

Hw would have deserved it. Life choices have consequences. 

[The_Dude]

4 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Dang...too bad you couldn't get hired.  I bet i know why,  and it isn't because you admitted to toking a little weed back in the day....

 

 

 

I'm glad. The job is beneath my talents. I imagine its a lot like garrison army which is the gayest thing in the history gayness. 

Just now, Boyst62 said:

Hw would have deserved it. Life choices have consequences. 

 

Youre a ***** idiot. 

 

Stealing a candy bar should never result in being slammed.

Edited December 20, 2018 by The_Dude

[whatdrought]

38 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

Coach has no legal right to detain anybody. The kid can legally fight the coach if he puts his hands on him. That is not resisting arrest.  He broke the law by stealing a candy bar. He did not break the law by getting away from the coach. The police broke the law by assaulting a minor. 

 

The coach was stopping the riot- it was within his job duties as a member of the school staff.

 

The police further stopped the riot. It’s not assault when the police are stopping a crime. It’s their job. 

 

24 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Yep.

 

But note that the original poster is a known congenital idiot.  

 

Is that me that you’re referring to?

Edited December 20, 2018 by whatdrought

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Is that me that you’re referring to?

 

It's The_Dude.

 

But if you feel left out...you're a congenital idiot, too.

[boyst]

10 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I'm glad. The job is beneath my talents. I imagine its a lot like garrison army which is the gayest thing in the history gayness. 

 

Youre a ***** idiot. 

 

Stealing a candy bar should never result in being slammed.

He didn't get it for stealing the candy bar you hair licked amoeba sucking buffoon

[The_Dude]

5 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

He didn't get it for stealing the candy bar you hair licked amoeba sucking buffoon

 

You're an idiot if you think that kinda force was necessary. A ***** idiot. 

[whatdrought]

12 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's The_Dude.

 

But if you feel left out...you're a congenital idiot, too.

 

Thanks Tom.

 

My Christmas season is complete. Once I look up congenital I’ll be good to go. 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Thanks Tom.

 

My Christmas season is complete. Once I look up congenital I’ll be good to go. 

 

You wouldn't be a congenital idiot if you knew what it meant... 

[B-Man]

SUNSHINE IS THE BEST DISINFECTANT:

 

 Senator Tim Scott Tries to Mandate Reporting of Officer-Involved Shooting Details, Including Race. 

 

“The GOP senator named the amendment after Walter Scott, an unarmed black motorist killed fleeing police on April 4, 2015.”

 

 

 

 

.

[The_Dude]

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Thanks Tom.

 

My Christmas season is complete. Once I look up congenital I’ll be good to go. 

 

I've had to make googles to decipher some of Tom's texts. I am but a simple man.

[whatdrought]

23 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

You wouldn't be a congenital idiot if you knew what it meant... 

 

Fair is fair.

[Not at the table Karlos]

2 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Oh, i. missed the part where the cop killed the 14 year old thief.  The video only showed him taking him to the ground.  Couldn't tase him,  that would be excessive force to you.  Cant hit him with a baton,  excessive force again to you.  Cant take him down either,  i guess.  Cops just gotta say "pretty please let me handcuff you and take you to jail",  and hope for compliance.  When it isn't gained,  i guess they just walk away? 

 

It's interesting that implicit in your rambling nonsense of a post upthread, is one certain fact: That 13 year old boys are capable of causing violence / death to other people.  In this case the thief didn't have much time to decide and act upon that. The officer doesn't know if the kid has a knife/gun/etc. The moment physical resistance is encountered,  swift and decisive control becomes necessary.  Whether or not you understand this is irrelevant.  Its not your legal obligation to make that decision from your perch upon a steaming pile of ignorance.  

 

NEWSFLASH: putting a full size human that doesn't want to go  in handcuffs, in handcuffs,  can be difficult and dirty work.

A 14 year old is a full size human? On what planet?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

On 12/19/2018 at 12:18 PM, Alaska Darin said:

Officers are superior soldiers to NCOs?  Forgive me while I laugh uproariously.

 

 

I've had this fight with this idiot before. He just doesn't get it. Just because HE was a crappy soldier as an NCO, doesn't mean officers are somehow superior.

 

 

[The_Dude]

23 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

I've had this fight with this idiot before. He just doesn't get it. Just because HE was a crappy soldier as an NCO, doesn't mean officers are somehow superior.

 

 

 

I was an outstanding NCO. NCOERs all 1-1. 

 

Plus, off duty conduct — how many non-cons did I see get DUI’s or domestic assault charges? I can’t count. Never saw it from officers though. 

 

Thats not to say that there werent exceptional NCOs. 

 

“No one is more professional than I” ?

Edited December 20, 2018 by The_Dude

[DC Tom]

On 12/19/2018 at 12:18 PM, Alaska Darin said:

Officers are superior soldiers to NCOs?  Forgive me while I laugh uproariously.

 

Of course they are.  They have college degrees.  Four years at West Point or Annapolis is far better experience than 15 years doing the job...

[Sig1Hunter]

1 hour ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

A 14 year old is a full size human? On what planet?

Many are,  yes. 

 

The planet we are on is called Earth, aka "the real world". 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

A 14 year old is a full size human? On what planet?

 

Many individuals are approaching fully grown at the age of 14, and many more are large enough that they can do physical harm to an adult if they so choose.

 

Through resisting the lawful authority of the responding officer, the individual in question expressed his willingness to do exactly that.

[TtownBillsFan]

22 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Seek help man.

Exactly.  This "dude" has now found his way to the ignore function, and I don't even ignore Tibs!  This guy is just a jack-hole.

Edited December 20, 2018 by TtownBillsFan
no to now

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:

 

So, 13 year olds are cool to kill overseas as long as they are in "3rd world shitholes", but 14 year old criminals that are physically resistant to uniformed police don't need to be taken to the ground and handcuffed? And any cop that would dare do that is a POS to you? Am i getting this right? 

 

And, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? 

Because he's truly proven himself as a douchebag of the highest-order.  Like Lt Cln Douchebag or some some such.  A-whole.

[TtownBillsFan]

1 hour ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

A 14 year old is a full size human? On what planet?

Planet Earth, Tulsa, OK, USA.  I have three nephews that are over 6'2, 205 at age 13.  Damn, you're ignorant.  Age-ist, much?

[Alaska Darin]

1 hour ago, The_Dude said:

 

I was an outstanding NCO. NCOERs all 1-1. 

 

Plus, off duty conduct — how many non-cons did I see get DUI’s or domestic assault charges? I can’t count. Never saw it from officers though. 

 

Thats not to say that there werent exceptional NCOs. 

 

“No one is more professional than I” ?

non-con?  WTF is that?

 

[Tiberius]

Kind of funny Trump will sign a criminal justice reform bill into law. Ya, he never does anything that isn't full of self-interest. He wants the best prison cell, I guess 

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Kind of funny Trump will sign a criminal justice reform bill into law. Ya, he never does anything that isn't full of self-interest. He wants the best prison cell, I guess 

 

You’re an American classic.

[The_Dude]

35 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

non-con?  WTF is that?

 

*non-com 

 

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Of course they are.  They have college degrees.  Four years at West Point or Annapolis is far better experience than 15 years doing the job...

 

Wow. You're comparing an E7-E9 to a 2LT. Brilliant. Not stacking the deck at all are ya?

[LeviF]

3 hours ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

A 14 year old is a full size human? On what planet?

 

Guess you haven't watched much high school basketball or football lately. 

 

Some observations:

1. Standards for hiring in many departments are going up, but salaries aren't.  My department requires a four year degree to apply.  NYPD requires 60 college credits.  Starting salary for an NYPD patrolman is currently $42.5k.

2. Many police departments are woefully understaffed.  Look at the departments in Texas and New Mexico that are practically begging people to apply.  My department is understaffed and processing applicants like crazy.  Same with VSP and many departments in MA.  Most applicants can't get past the initial physical exam, many more get bounced during background/polygraph/psych.  That's on top of the fact that we get fewer applicants than at any time in recent memory.

3. Cops can't just let a criminal go.  That's not how it works.  If they don't appear to be a threat, you attempt to gain compliance through presence and the implied threat of physical response.  If you cannot gain compliance that way, you gain it through physical action.  This is non-negotiable.  We aren't Macy's loss prevention.

4. Use of force is a continuum, and the level of force required can change quickly, drastically, and with little warning.

5. Unarmed does not mean not a threat.

6. Many departments do not require yearly physical testing and ongoing standards.  This is a shame.  Out of shape cops are a danger to themselves, their fellow officers, and the public.  I refuse to work with slobs and I go well out of my way to avoid doing so.

[Alaska Darin]

13 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Guess you haven't watched much high school basketball or football lately. 

 

Some observations:

1. Standards for hiring in many departments are going up, but salaries aren't.  My department requires a four year degree to apply.  NYPD requires 60 college credits.  Starting salary for an NYPD patrolman is currently $42.5k.

2. Many police departments are woefully understaffed.  Look at the departments in Texas and New Mexico that are practically begging people to apply.  My department is understaffed and processing applicants like crazy.  Same with VSP and many departments in MA.  Most applicants can't get past the initial physical exam, many more get bounced during background/polygraph/psych.  That's on top of the fact that we get fewer applicants than at any time in recent memory.

3. Cops can't just let a criminal go.  That's not how it works.  If they don't appear to be a threat, you attempt to gain compliance through presence and the implied threat of physical response.  If you cannot gain compliance that way, you gain it through physical action.  This is non-negotiable.  We aren't Macy's loss prevention.

4. Use of force is a continuum, and the level of force required can change quickly, drastically, and with little warning.

5. Unarmed does not mean not a threat.

6. Many departments do not require yearly physical testing and ongoing standards.  This is a shame.  Out of shape cops are a danger to themselves, their fellow officers, and the public.  I refuse to work with slobs and I go well out of my way to avoid doing so.

Thanks for posting and doing what you do.  I come from a family with police...I know how difficult a job it is being society's parents.  Most people only see the worst instances of how police behave, the never see the 1000s of other interactions that happen each day.  It takes a special person to put on that uniform every day.

 

My only real problem with police is the "Thin Blue Line" that exists and keeps bad cops from being terminated or prosecuted as often as they should be.

[Sig1Hunter]

4 hours ago, Alaska Darin said:

Thanks for posting and doing what you do.  I come from a family with police...I know how difficult a job it is being society's parents.  Most people only see the worst instances of how police behave, the never see the 1000s of other interactions that happen each day.  It takes a special person to put on that uniform every day.

 

My only real problem with police is the "Thin Blue Line" that exists and keeps bad cops from being terminated or prosecuted as often as they should be.

The Thin Blue Line brotherhood is much more than just that.  A buddy of mine that works with me down here in Florida recently had his young daughter diagnosed with childhood cancer. He recently went up to Philly with her for treatment.  Yesterday,  a group of officers from a local Philly area PD brought his kids boatloads of gifts. All purchased out of their own wallets. They don't even know the guy,  other than he is a brother in blue, and his family is going through a very trying time this Christmas.  

 

I understand your sentiment about the negative applications of the brotherhood.  From my perspective,  that side of it is not as prominent as it once was.  If I stop an off duty cop,  or immediate family,  speeding or something non criminal - yeah they are getting a warning. Criminal stuff,  though? Sorry bud.  Your mistakes aren't costing me my career and pension. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The Thin Blue Line brotherhood is much more than just that.  A buddy of mine that works with me down here in Florida recently had his young daughter diagnosed with childhood cancer. He recently went up to Philly with her for treatment.  Yesterday,  a group of officers from a local Philly area PD brought his kids boatloads of gifts. All purchased out of their own wallets. They don't even know the guy,  other than he is a brother in blue, and his family is going through a very trying time this Christmas.  

 

I understand your sentiment about the negative applications of the brotherhood.  From my perspective,  that side of it is not as prominent as it once was.  If I stop an off duty cop,  or immediate family,  speeding or something non criminal - yeah they are getting a warning. Criminal stuff,  though? Sorry bud.  Your mistakes aren't costing me my career and pension. 

 

Individuals who don't evenly enforce the law don't deserve the respect afforded the duty.

 

It's no different than the likes of the Clintons living by different standards than they would impose on others.