User Panel
Prior to this thread, I didn't realize quite how severe the entitlement mentality is amongst the TBL.
VA-like benefits: |
|
Quoted:
When you violate policy and get sued the cost can be much more than a job related penalty. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What's interesting to me is that the change in policy will not change the law on use of force. The only possible cost to officers of violating the new policy will be job-related penalties. When you violate policy and get sued the cost can be much more than a job related penalty. A violation of policy is not sufficient to strip QI. |
|
Quoted:
What's interesting to me is that the change in policy will not change the law on use of force. The only possible cost to officers of violating the new policy will be job-related penalties. It will not subject them to enhanced risk of suit or prosecution, because both those possibilities are governed by established law unaffected by any department's policies. ETA: The cops should just stop using force for anything except immediate defense against violence and see how the community likes the result. View Quote actually there is case law that says an officer can be held personally liable for using lawfull force if it violated department policy. I believe the defining case law on the subject is out of Long Beach California. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks, so like I said it doesn't say run and hide. Those were words you added. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, it does not say anywhere in it an officer has to run, or hide. Those words were added by you. Other examples include:
Placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer Containing a threat Moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position Thanks, so like I said it doesn't say run and hide. Those were words you added. Its police administrator speak for run and hide. |
|
Quoted:
A violation of policy is not sufficient to strip QI. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's interesting to me is that the change in policy will not change the law on use of force. The only possible cost to officers of violating the new policy will be job-related penalties. When you violate policy and get sued the cost can be much more than a job related penalty. A violation of policy is not sufficient to strip QI. Said the lawyer who does not practice in the 9th Circuit. Yes, violating policy can get QI stripped for an officer who works in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
just from memory, it seems like the policy suggested 'run and hide' only when safe to do so, if possible, or some other narrow circumstances, not requiring it in all cases. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Its police administrator speak for run and hide. just from memory, it seems like the policy suggested 'run and hide' only when safe to do so, if possible, or some other narrow circumstances, not requiring it in all cases. The guy trying to fire you after the fact gets to determine if it was "possible" or "safe to do so." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, violating policy can get QI stripped for an officer who works in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. Even a broken clock ... Violation of policy alone should not give someone standing to sue or create loss/harm. On the surface that sounds like a good idea. But its overly broad. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, violating policy can get QI stripped for an officer who works in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. Even a broken clock ... Well, the consequences of this means that I evaluate every situation, if there is time, to minimize risk to me and the officers who work for me. The safety of the public is a secondary concern because I will be second-guessed by folks with no knowledge of use of force laws and no practical experience fighting or taking violent people into custody. If the female Federal Judge, who has never been in a fist-fight in her life, thinks what I did was wrong, or it just doesn't "feel" right, I could lose my house. The days of me risking my ass to save yours, without thought of consequences, are over. You can live or die; I'll still get paid to take the report. |
|
Quoted:
The guy trying to fire you after the fact gets to determine if it was "possible" or "safe to do so." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its police administrator speak for run and hide. just from memory, it seems like the policy suggested 'run and hide' only when safe to do so, if possible, or some other narrow circumstances, not requiring it in all cases. The guy trying to fire you after the fact gets to determine if it was "possible" or "safe to do so." the rest of us are subject to similar situations at our job, and if you're not part of the TBL and have to use force to defend yourself, you sure get judged by some people who get to decide if your actions were "reasonable". In short, welcome to the real world. |
|
|
Quoted:
The days of me risking my ass to save yours, without thought of consequences, are over. You can live or die; I'll still get paid to take the report. View Quote I don't see how this is a change from the standard practice amongst LEOs. And honestly, I'm happy to accept that if it means you'll also not shoot the newspaper lady or the wood carver, or flashbang the toddler. just be sure to turn in your gun and the keys to the MRAP at the chief's desk. You shouldn't need those things to take reports all day. |
|
An MRAP would make a wicked mobile office to write reports in!
|
|
Quoted:
You forgot about he 'Shakespeare in the Park' incident. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like there has been a consent decree since 2012 after they got jammed up with the Feds for shooting that woodcarver guy, who I think was deaf? You forgot about he 'Shakespeare in the Park' incident. |
|
It wouldn't have been so bad if those five actors weren't so damn good!
|
|
|
Quoted:
I don't see how this is a change from the standard practice amongst LEOs. And honestly, I'm happy to accept that if it means you'll also not shoot the newspaper lady or the wood carver, or flashbang the toddler. just be sure to turn in your gun and the keys to the MRAP at the chief's desk. You shouldn't need those things to take reports all day. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The days of me risking my ass to save yours, without thought of consequences, are over. You can live or die; I'll still get paid to take the report. I don't see how this is a change from the standard practice amongst LEOs. And honestly, I'm happy to accept that if it means you'll also not shoot the newspaper lady or the wood carver, or flashbang the toddler. just be sure to turn in your gun and the keys to the MRAP at the chief's desk. You shouldn't need those things to take reports all day. It goes from a stabilize the scene then interview the involved parties Vs interview the informant first while ignoring the fleeing suspects until after a detailed interview with the informant established the nature of the crime and the informants willingness to prosecute. Traditional police work: Make the scene safe, maintain the status quo, then sort it all out. Vs. Emerging police work: Let the scene fall apart and let the potential suspects escape ignoring RS until there is probable cause to arrest. |
|
Quoted:
I don't see how this is a change from the standard practice amongst LEOs. And honestly, I'm happy to accept that if it means you'll also not shoot the newspaper lady or the wood carver, or flashbang the toddler. just be sure to turn in your gun and the keys to the MRAP at the chief's desk. You shouldn't need those things to take reports all day. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The days of me risking my ass to save yours, without thought of consequences, are over. You can live or die; I'll still get paid to take the report. I don't see how this is a change from the standard practice amongst LEOs. And honestly, I'm happy to accept that if it means you'll also not shoot the newspaper lady or the wood carver, or flashbang the toddler. just be sure to turn in your gun and the keys to the MRAP at the chief's desk. You shouldn't need those things to take reports all day. You're precious, aren't you? You only see when police screw the pooch because that's what sells newspapers and air time. There are thousands of times, every day in this country where police risk their lives to avoid using lethal force. I've got a dinner-plate sized medal that they give you when you don't shoot somebody you could have. It would have been much simpler and personally less risky for me to shoot the young lady after I rescued the people she was holding hostage. Instead, I risked my life and the lives of other officers to de-escalate and safely take her in to custody, including violating nearly every tactical procedure in the book. If something had gone wrong and she hurt me, other officers or members of the public, I would get fried under current conditions. Do you think I am going to risk my ass in the future, or will I just legally shoot until the threat ceases? I can be in policy and legally shoot her and be protected, or I can think outside the box and risk my house, pension and possible freedom. The law of unintended consequences will show this is a bad idea. |
|
|
I wonder if attitudes like this have anything to do with shit like this happening.
Quoted:
Where do you think anyone gives a shit about your respect or support? View Quote Naaaa |
|
Quoted:
how many rounds are required to make a blue Tacoma safe and "maintain the status quo" View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Traditional police work: Make the scene safe, maintain the status quo, then sort it all out. how many rounds are required to make a blue Tacoma safe and "maintain the status quo" Are you trolling, or just dumb? No one thinks that the LAPD performance in that instance was good, or representative of good police work. It may have been legally excusable, that doesn't mean it's what we should do in the future. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep. And you have no idea how the pension sysytem works. Do you realize that leaving the police retirement system means you get ONLY what you contributed minus penalties? You don't get the match money paid by your agency. That is a HUGE loss for an officer to take. And, btw, most pension systems are now looking more like a 401K than a traditional pension. Now, private companies are getting cuts out of it, so higher admin costs and less money to the retirees. The horror! All of this other shit aside, the days of public employee pensions should end. They should just get 401(k)'s like everyone else, with standard vesting of employer contributions (like five years). |
|
Quoted:
Are you trolling, or just dumb? No one thinks that the LAPD performance in that instance was good, or representative of good police work. It may have been legally excusable, that doesn't mean it's what we should do in the future. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Traditional police work: Make the scene safe, maintain the status quo, then sort it all out. how many rounds are required to make a blue Tacoma safe and "maintain the status quo" Are you trolling, or just dumb? No one thinks that the LAPD performance in that instance was good, or representative of good police work. It may have been legally excusable, that doesn't mean it's what we should do in the future. In your opinion, do you think it should have been legally excusable? Just curious. |
|
Quoted:
In your opinion, do you think it should have been legally excusable? Just curious. View Quote If it was SIS or D-Platoon(SWAT) that did this, no it would not be legally justifiable. But it wasn't. It was station-level detectives and plainclothes guys who were sent out on the police equivalent of an audible with poor or no planning and little communication with other departments. Charlie Beck took regular plainclothes gang guys and put them in a situation they were not trained nor prepared for. When you fail to train or prepare people for a difficult and dangerous task, you should not be surprised when they fail. So, given the totality of the circumstances, I can see why the DA ruled the way he did. Should Charlie Beck and members of his command staff who cooked up this shit sandwich have been fired? Absolutely. |
|
Quoted:
actually there is case law that says an officer can be held personally liable for using lawfull force if it violated department policy. I believe the defining case law on the subject is out of Long Beach California. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What's interesting to me is that the change in policy will not change the law on use of force. The only possible cost to officers of violating the new policy will be job-related penalties. It will not subject them to enhanced risk of suit or prosecution, because both those possibilities are governed by established law unaffected by any department's policies. ETA: The cops should just stop using force for anything except immediate defense against violence and see how the community likes the result. actually there is case law that says an officer can be held personally liable for using lawfull force if it violated department policy. I believe the defining case law on the subject is out of Long Beach California. I would like to see a link. The test for stripping QI is whether the actions of the officer violated clearly established law defining the right allegedly violated or prohibiting the officer's conduct . A violation of policy would be germane to this inquiry only if the policy tracked clearly established law so that a violation of the policy was necessarily a violation of clearly established law. State law may vary. |
|
Quoted:
If it was SIS or D-Platoon(SWAT) that did this, no it would not be legally justifiable. But it wasn't. It was station-level detectives and plainclothes guys who were sent out on the police equivalent of an audible with poor or no planning and little communication with other departments. Charlie Beck took regular plainclothes gang guys and put them in a situation they were not trained nor prepared for. When you fail to train or prepare people for a difficult and dangerous task, you should not be surprised when they fail. So, given the totality of the circumstances, I can see why the DA ruled the way he did. Should Charlie Beck and members of his command staff who cooked up this shit sandwich have been fired? Absolutely. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
In your opinion, do you think it should have been legally excusable? Just curious. If it was SIS or D-Platoon(SWAT) that did this, no it would not be legally justifiable. But it wasn't. It was station-level detectives and plainclothes guys who were sent out on the police equivalent of an audible with poor or no planning and little communication with other departments. Charlie Beck took regular plainclothes gang guys and put them in a situation they were not trained nor prepared for. When you fail to train or prepare people for a difficult and dangerous task, you should not be surprised when they fail. So, given the totality of the circumstances, I can see why the DA ruled the way he did. Should Charlie Beck and members of his command staff who cooked up this shit sandwich have been fired? Absolutely. Was anyone fired over this? |
|
Quoted:
Lol, nice try. Attack the poster when you can't address the truth. TBL FTW I'll say it again, cry babies. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love this thread!!! Since JBTs have no duty to protect citizens, why should we give a flying fuck what restrictions are put on them? Of course the city needs to weigh the cost of reduced revenue vs. the lower cost of labor. Little babies don't like it, they can work somewhere else like millions of folks in the private sector. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Jesus! Show us on the doll where the bad policeman touched you? Lol, nice try. Attack the poster when you can't address the truth. TBL FTW I'll say it again, cry babies. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I noticed you didn't bother to address the part you edited out, wanna try again? |
|
Quoted:
Are you trolling, or just dumb? No one thinks that the LAPD performance in that instance was good, or representative of good police work. It may have been legally excusable, that doesn't mean it's what we should do in the future. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Traditional police work: Make the scene safe, maintain the status quo, then sort it all out. how many rounds are required to make a blue Tacoma safe and "maintain the status quo" Are you trolling, or just dumb? No one thinks that the LAPD performance in that instance was good, or representative of good police work. It may have been legally excusable, that doesn't mean it's what we should do in the future. The blue Tacoma incident was one that virtually everyone concedes was a bad shoot, and yet, it was apparently justified by their UoF policy. Can you really not see why I would bring that up in a thread about UoF policies as an example of why they should be restricted. / tightened? ETA: in other words, if your use of force policy justifies shooting the newspaper lady, it might be too liberal. |
|
The law is the law, don't like it vote to change it. Don't like the policy vote different people in.
|
|
Quoted:
The blue Tacoma incident was one that virtually everyone concedes was a bad shoot, and yet, it was apparently justified by their UoF policy. Can you really not see why I would bring that up in a thread about UoF policies as an example of why they should be restricted. / tightened? ETA: in other words, if your use of force policy justifies shooting the newspaper lady, it might be too liberal. View Quote You might want to check your facts. The LA Police Commission found the the involved officers' actions were not consistent with the training and policies of a reasonable LAPD officer. The DA made a separate determination that the shootings were legally excusable. |
|
Quoted:
You might want to check your facts. The LA Police Commission found the the involved officers' actions were not consistent with the training and policies of a reasonable LAPD officer. The DA made a separate determination that the shootings were legally excusable. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The blue Tacoma incident was one that virtually everyone concedes was a bad shoot, and yet, it was apparently justified by their UoF policy. Can you really not see why I would bring that up in a thread about UoF policies as an example of why they should be restricted. / tightened? ETA: in other words, if your use of force policy justifies shooting the newspaper lady, it might be too liberal. You might want to check your facts. The LA Police Commission found the the involved officers' actions were not consistent with the training and policies of a reasonable LAPD officer. The DA made a separate determination that the shootings were legally excusable. Fair enough. What was their punishment? |
|
Quoted:
Fair enough. What was their punishment? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The blue Tacoma incident was one that virtually everyone concedes was a bad shoot, and yet, it was apparently justified by their UoF policy. Can you really not see why I would bring that up in a thread about UoF policies as an example of why they should be restricted. / tightened? ETA: in other words, if your use of force policy justifies shooting the newspaper lady, it might be too liberal. You might want to check your facts. The LA Police Commission found the the involved officers' actions were not consistent with the training and policies of a reasonable LAPD officer. The DA made a separate determination that the shootings were legally excusable. Fair enough. What was their punishment? I know they had to do some re-training, but I never found out what, if any, punishment they received. CA does not, generally, allow the release of individual employee discipline. |
|
Quoted:
So let me see - officers want a better employer. you think it would be best for the officers to fight the city - and on some levels that's morally right, but on another level I say let the city and its voters have the police force the city council they voted for causes to exist by their policies and let them wallow in it. They are all left wing loonies and deserve this shit for their left wing loony voting. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Weird, I always figured if people didn't like their employer's rules they could quit and go work somewhere else...... They can. But some battles are bigger than yourself. Quiting doesnt solve the problem for the remaining Seattle cops and the decent people of Seattle. So let me see - officers want a better employer. you think it would be best for the officers to fight the city - and on some levels that's morally right, but on another level I say let the city and its voters have the police force the city council they voted for causes to exist by their policies and let them wallow in it. They are all left wing loonies and deserve this shit for their left wing loony voting. yep..Seattle city council and their idiot mayor are stupid little socialist that get what they deserve.. |
|
|
Quoted:
They are unhappy with the new policies that don't let them beat the shit out of any one, any time for any or no reason. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
TL;DR... what are the policies in question? They are unhappy with the new policies that don't let them beat the shit out of any one, any time for any or no reason. Forcing them to consider the lives of their subjects places them in more harm's way than beating/shooting their way through every situation. This isn't what they signed up for, why would anyone expect them to treat citizens with humanity? |
|
Quoted:
You're precious, aren't you? You only see when police screw the pooch because that's what sells newspapers and air time. There are thousands of times, every day in this country where police risk their lives to avoid using lethal force. I've got a dinner-plate sized medal that they give you when you don't shoot somebody you could have. It would have been much simpler and personally less risky for me to shoot the young lady after I rescued the people she was holding hostage. Instead, I risked my life and the lives of other officers to de-escalate and safely take her in to custody, including violating nearly every tactical procedure in the book. If something had gone wrong and she hurt me, other officers or members of the public, I would get fried under current conditions. Do you think I am going to risk my ass in the future, or will I just legally shoot until the threat ceases? I can be in policy and legally shoot her and be protected, or I can think outside the box and risk my house, pension and possible freedom. The law of unintended consequences will show this is a bad idea. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The days of me risking my ass to save yours, without thought of consequences, are over. You can live or die; I'll still get paid to take the report. I don't see how this is a change from the standard practice amongst LEOs. And honestly, I'm happy to accept that if it means you'll also not shoot the newspaper lady or the wood carver, or flashbang the toddler. just be sure to turn in your gun and the keys to the MRAP at the chief's desk. You shouldn't need those things to take reports all day. You're precious, aren't you? You only see when police screw the pooch because that's what sells newspapers and air time. There are thousands of times, every day in this country where police risk their lives to avoid using lethal force. I've got a dinner-plate sized medal that they give you when you don't shoot somebody you could have. It would have been much simpler and personally less risky for me to shoot the young lady after I rescued the people she was holding hostage. Instead, I risked my life and the lives of other officers to de-escalate and safely take her in to custody, including violating nearly every tactical procedure in the book. If something had gone wrong and she hurt me, other officers or members of the public, I would get fried under current conditions. Do you think I am going to risk my ass in the future, or will I just legally shoot until the threat ceases? I can be in policy and legally shoot her and be protected, or I can think outside the box and risk my house, pension and possible freedom. The law of unintended consequences will show this is a bad idea. The law of un intended consequences will help us return to center this is a good thing. People have legislated away all of their responsibilities and expect them to be sustained by police officers with between 1 week and 6 months of training. That avoidance has comes full circle as people don't even want to the responsibility of violent criminals being locked up or being hurt by police. I enjoyed ferguson PD sitting by while people looted. |
|
Quoted:
You mean like throw away their retirement and go start from scratch somewhere else? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SEATTLE — In an open revolt, more than 100 Seattle police officers suing to block new use-of-force polices assert that high-level city, police and union officials privately agree with their contention that the court-ordered changes put them and the public in danger. But the officers who filed the suit aren't naming those high-level officials, saying only that the officials told them they won't seek to alter the policies because of the "politics" of the situation and the "perceived inability" to fight federally mandated reforms, the officers allege in newly filed court papers. "This means that the City is now knowingly and willingly playing politics with Plaintiffs' lives and the lives of the law-abiding citizens of Seattle," the officers wrote in a 34-page amended complaint filed late Wednesday with U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman. The complaint, which added new allegations to a May 28 lawsuit to block the policies, ratcheted up the court fight with its fresh allegations of cowering officials bowing to federal demands and vague claims that the policies have led to more assaults on officers. Sprinkled with more pointed language than the initial suit, the new complaint accuses the federal monitor tracking the reforms, Merrick Bobb, of carrying out a "zealous agenda" to restrict the ability of officers to use force and make reasonable, split-second decisions. Bobb is one of a number of defendants in the suit, which also names city and federal officials. The complaint also lambastes U.S. District Judge James Robart, who is overseeing the reforms and found the policies to be constitutional, for approving the changes in a "cursory, one-and-one-half-page order." The filing, which came a week after attorneys for the city and Bobb moved to dismiss the lawsuit, poses a new challenge for Police Chief Kathleen O'Toole, a strong supporter of the reforms who, shortly before being sworn into the job June 23, met with four of the officers to convey her concern that their suit had created the appearance that they were resisting reform and hindering efforts to restore community trust. It also opened an old wound, alleging that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) improperly wrung the policies out of the city based on a discredited and "fundamentally flawed finding" that Seattle officers had engaged in a pattern or practice of using excessive force. The policies, which went into effect Jan. 1, grew out of a July 2012 consent decree between the city and the Justice Department, which required the police department to adopt sweeping reforms to curtail excessive force and biased policing. The officers challenging the policies, primarily patrol officers in the 1,236-member department, brought their suit without an attorney or the support of their union, the Seattle Police Officers' Guild. In a statement Thursday, guild President Ron Smith said, "As I have stated before, there are severe flaws with the current Use of Force policy, but litigation is not the prudent route to achieve any changes to the policy. The review period for this policy is currently open, and input is being solicited from the rank and file on how to potentially improve the policy." www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7511844-Seattle-cops-say-city-playing-politics-with-their-lives/ Weird, I always figured if people didn't like their employer's rules they could quit and go work somewhere else...... You mean like throw away their retirement and go start from scratch somewhere else? I thought 401Ks were racist and stuff. |
|
Jesus Christ...........it sounds like I would have an easier time justifying using lethal force than the Seattle cops if I lived in Seattle!!??
|
|
Quoted:
Jesus Christ...........it sounds like I would have an easier time justifying using lethal force than the Seattle cops if I lived in Seattle!!?? View Quote I know here, if I ever have to use it, that I'll have a better time than the PD. No federal investigation for me. Fortunately, the PD seems to be able to stay ahead of the Feds, and despite their massive shooting record, the best the Feds can do to get them is a disingenuous media IO campaign. They're good shots, too. Generally they only go through a couple rounds. |
|
Quoted:
Forcing them to consider the lives of their subjects places them in more harm's way than beating/shooting their way through every situation. This isn't what they signed up for, why would anyone expect them to treat citizens with humanity? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
TL;DR... what are the policies in question? They are unhappy with the new policies that don't let them beat the shit out of any one, any time for any or no reason. Forcing them to consider the lives of their subjects places them in more harm's way than beating/shooting their way through every situation. This isn't what they signed up for, why would anyone expect them to treat citizens with humanity? |
|
Quoted:
You might want to check your facts. The LA Police Commission found the the involved officers' actions were not consistent with the training and policies of a reasonable LAPD officer. The DA made a separate determination that the shootings were legally excusable. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The blue Tacoma incident was one that virtually everyone concedes was a bad shoot, and yet, it was apparently justified by their UoF policy. Can you really not see why I would bring that up in a thread about UoF policies as an example of why they should be restricted. / tightened? ETA: in other words, if your use of force policy justifies shooting the newspaper lady, it might be too liberal. You might want to check your facts. The LA Police Commission found the the involved officers' actions were not consistent with the training and policies of a reasonable LAPD officer. The DA made a separate determination that the shootings were legally excusable. It would seem that in a case like this, where members of the police department fucked up beyond all reason, it might be a good idea to release information about what they are going to do to keep fuck ups like this happening again. That should include firing people. Can't anyone be actually held accountable? Accountability would be one of those things that, you know, help to regain the "respect and support" of the people they serve. That is, in the case that they actually want this. As some have made clear, they don't care about this. |
|
Quoted:
It would seem that in a case like this, where members of the police department fucked up beyond all reason, it might be a good idea to release information about what they are going to do to keep fuck ups like this happening again. That should include firing people. Can't anyone be actually held accountable? Accountability would be one of those things that, you know, help to regain the "respect and support" of the people they serve. That is, in the case that they actually want this. As some have made clear, they don't care about this. View Quote In California, employers do not release info about employees other than the dates worked and if they worked for the employer. That's it if you don't want to get sued. The public, in the form of the LA Police Commission, has significant input into the training, selection and retention of LAPD employees. They have so much in put that they lowered standards in the 1990's to hire more people of a certain "under-represented" category. They wound up hiring gang bangers to be cops. Rampart wasn't about cops gone bad, it was about social engineering by "the People" and how it lead to poor results. Policing is the only job on the planet where everybody knows more about it than the cop doing it. |
|
Quoted:
A violation of policy is not sufficient to strip QI. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's interesting to me is that the change in policy will not change the law on use of force. The only possible cost to officers of violating the new policy will be job-related penalties. When you violate policy and get sued the cost can be much more than a job related penalty. A violation of policy is not sufficient to strip QI. For more information on the QI mess in the 9th Circuit, read the amicus brief from the Washington State Municipal Attorneys Assoc. in Shelton/City of Snohomish v. Blondin-Gravelet. |
|
Quoted:
In California, employers do not release info about employees other than the dates worked and if they worked for the employer. That's it if you don't want to get sued. The public, in the form of the LA Police Commission, has significant input into the training, selection and retention of LAPD employees. They have so much in put that they lowered standards in the 1990's to hire more people of a certain "under-represented" category. They wound up hiring gang bangers to be cops. Rampart wasn't about cops gone bad, it was about social engineering by "the People" and how it lead to poor results. Policing is the only job on the planet where everybody knows more about it than the cop doing it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
It would seem that in a case like this, where members of the police department fucked up beyond all reason, it might be a good idea to release information about what they are going to do to keep fuck ups like this happening again. That should include firing people. Can't anyone be actually held accountable? Accountability would be one of those things that, you know, help to regain the "respect and support" of the people they serve. That is, in the case that they actually want this. As some have made clear, they don't care about this. In California, employers do not release info about employees other than the dates worked and if they worked for the employer. That's it if you don't want to get sued. The public, in the form of the LA Police Commission, has significant input into the training, selection and retention of LAPD employees. They have so much in put that they lowered standards in the 1990's to hire more people of a certain "under-represented" category. They wound up hiring gang bangers to be cops. Rampart wasn't about cops gone bad, it was about social engineering by "the People" and how it lead to poor results. Policing is the only job on the planet where everybody knows more about it than the cop doing it. The whole planet can tell the difference between the suspect vehicle and the vehicle they shot up. The whole planet can tell that unarmed people, making no offensive actions, don't need to have the shit shot out of them. Are you blaming this bullshit on the LA Police Commission? Why the FUCK didn't someone lose their job? Where does the buck stop? Again, can't anyone actually be held accountable? This is what pisses off John Q Public. Major clusterfucks like this happen, and no heads roll. In the private sector, people lose their jobs when they don't perform. Somewhere here, someone did a shitty job, right? |
|
The true heroes this labor day are the cops in this thread willing to give intelligent, informative and accurate information in response to nonsense trolling.
You're better men than I, and truly doing the lord's work |
|
Quoted:
Listen people choose to become cops nobody forces them. A few of the cops I know who have been doing it a while stay for the benefits. I do not believe police or others working for the Govt should receive any more benefits then those in the private sector. Companies are successful because they hire the best and brightest, and put in place policies and procedures to protect the company. Your not on board, you don't like it- go ahead and leave, go work somewhere else. law enforcement is the opposite, they can piss and moan and decide not to work yet they don't get fired. They dint have to worry about productivity or the bottom line, they don't care if the cities bankrupt- as long as their checks clear. Not the cops fault it's the system. Until the city operates like a business the inmates run the asylum. View Quote I have seen some pretty successful companies that have employed some pretty stupid people. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.