User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 8:43:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I was in law enforcement, I'd seriously think about a career change. This shit isn't going to last, sooner or later the average Joe is going to want to stomp the JBT, and when that day happens it will be like the French Revolution. lol, for some reason all of the bad press cops are getting just makes me want to try it out. My local department only requires a GED.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:25:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol, for some reason all of the bad press cops are getting just makes me want to try it out. My local department only requires a GED. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If I was in law enforcement, I'd seriously think about a career change. This shit isn't going to last, sooner or later the average Joe is going to want to stomp the JBT, and when that day happens it will be like the French Revolution. lol, for some reason all of the bad press cops are getting just makes me want to try it out. My local department only requires a GED. Well, keep working on it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:49:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I was in law enforcement, I'd seriously think about a career change. This shit isn't going to last, sooner or later the average Joe is going to want to stomp the JBT, and when that day happens it will be like the French Revolution. if you say so 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 7:35:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every one of those posters ought to be ashamed of themselves and come back and apologize. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In other words, a knee-jerk reaction. There wasn't enough information for any self-respecting person to make a judgement call. Thought I'd go back and do a recap but got tired after page 10. These comments were some of the more colorful ones. steveba4- Well, now the prosecution needs to do what they have to do...make sure those assholes spend the rest of their lives in prison. Kennyo1- In a situation like this the cops need to be jailed as criminals. Antero- He's right. You simply never know with a police interaction if you, your spouse, your kid or your dog is going to end up dead. FlyingIllini- The fucks need to prosecuted. We all know they won't be, however. ffcol- Too bad they did not follow the department protocol of not shooting an unarmed guy in the head. FiremanFrank- Holy shit. What a mess. LAPD sure has some high standards in their officers. Tohbii- dude was fucking murdered POLYTHENEPAM- American law enforcement: Building community support, one isolated incident at a time. Z_0- The cops were probably bullied on high school. The towel brought back old, disturbing memories of being snapped in the butt by towels in gym class. Who can blame them? verticalgain- Protecting innocents is lame, killing "bad guys" is awesome. mean_sartin- They fight a different war. Only men in the arena can ever understand it. Headless_T_Gunner- Edited...VA-gunnut sdboy- You could start by condemning them. I see plenty of leos here throwing out the wait for facts bullshit and then rolling into outright defending the bad ones but if the facts don't show in the officers favor then crickets. <--- This one I thought was funny. NWhiker- I wonder what would happen if I went around town with my ccw shooting people who I "thought" had a gun gotigers- One more thing.....this cop should do time. This was attempted murder. gotigers- If you think what these cops did is right, then you are what is wrong with cops. gotigers- The dead innocent civilian might try to stay alive. Yep. Cuff him he isnt a cop. He might hurt us. Dustrod- Man waves down cop for help Cop kills man Arfcops rejoice Dustrod- Used to have standards. Now i guess just throw on a polo, some oakleys and find the closest moving towel Every one of those posters ought to be ashamed of themselves and come back and apologize. For what exactly? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 7:38:52 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I was in law enforcement, I'd seriously think about a career change. This shit isn't going to last, sooner or later the average Joe is going to want to stomp the JBT, and when that day happens it will be like the French Revolution. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2015 7:43:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol, for some reason all of the bad press cops are getting just makes me want to try it out. My local department only requires a GED.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I was in law enforcement, I'd seriously think about a career change. This shit isn't going to last, sooner or later the average Joe is going to want to stomp the JBT, and when that day happens it will be like the French Revolution. lol, for some reason all of the bad press cops are getting just makes me want to try it out. My local department only requires a GED.
You do most of the girls you'll pull over will look more like Roseanne Barr then Scarlet Johanson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 1:13:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Los Feliz LAPD shooting: Family ‘hoping for miracle,' demanding police records
The unarmed man shot in the head by an LAPD officer in Los Feliz last month remains in critical condition, according to his family’s attorney. Walter William DeLeon, 48, was shot June 19 after raising his hands at officers on Los Feliz Boulevard. One hand was wrapped in a piece of gray cloth and the officer told investigators he believed DeLeon was hiding a gun underneath it, according to the LAPD. “I think everyone is praying for the best and hoping for a miracle,” said attorney Ben Meiselas. “His injuries are catastrophic.” DeLeon has two teenage children and lived in Hollywood. His family said he regularly took walks carrying a rag to wipe his sweat. DeLeon undergoes a series of surgeries this week, said Meiselas. He has been unable to speak with LAPD detectives investigating the shooting or anyone else for that matter, because of his injuries. “Right now, he is fighting for his life,” he said. Palacios worked in the LAPD’s Security Services Division and was assigned with his partner to patrol Griffith Park, which sits above Los Feliz Boulevard where the shooting occurred.
The LAPD has refused to name his partner. Mieselas said that violates a state Supreme Court ruling requiring police to name officers involved in shootings. http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/07/07/52917/los-feliz-lapd-shooting-family-hoping-for-miracle/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 2:09:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Los Feliz LAPD shooting: Family ‘hoping for miracle,' demanding police records http://a.scpr.org/i/99053ebe7716e5356af1d967d06059b3/107820-full.jpg http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/07/07/52917/los-feliz-lapd-shooting-family-hoping-for-miracle/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Los Feliz LAPD shooting: Family ‘hoping for miracle,' demanding police records http://a.scpr.org/i/99053ebe7716e5356af1d967d06059b3/107820-full.jpg The unarmed man shot in the head by an LAPD officer in Los Feliz last month remains in critical condition, according to his family’s attorney. Walter William DeLeon, 48, was shot June 19 after raising his hands at officers on Los Feliz Boulevard. One hand was wrapped in a piece of gray cloth and the officer told investigators he believed DeLeon was hiding a gun underneath it, according to the LAPD. “I think everyone is praying for the best and hoping for a miracle,” said attorney Ben Meiselas. “His injuries are catastrophic.” DeLeon has two teenage children and lived in Hollywood. His family said he regularly took walks carrying a rag to wipe his sweat. DeLeon undergoes a series of surgeries this week, said Meiselas. He has been unable to speak with LAPD detectives investigating the shooting or anyone else for that matter, because of his injuries. “Right now, he is fighting for his life,” he said. Palacios worked in the LAPD’s Security Services Division and was assigned with his partner to patrol Griffith Park, which sits above Los Feliz Boulevard where the shooting occurred.
The LAPD has refused to name his partner. Mieselas said that violates a state Supreme Court ruling requiring police to name officers involved in shootings. http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/07/07/52917/los-feliz-lapd-shooting-family-hoping-for-miracle/ Are they required to name an officer that did not shoot someone and is a witness? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 2:20:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they required to name an officer that did not shoot someone and is a witness? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they required to name an officer that did not shoot someone and is a witness? Its seems that the real reason to prevent officers involved in shooting from being made public is to prevent officers from being sued. California Supreme Court rules names of officers involved in shootings are public record California’s police departments do not have a blanket right to conceal the names of officers involved in shootings, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a decision expected to have statewide implications.
In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Long Beach police union, concluding there is a presumption that the public has a right to know the identities of officers involved in shooting incidents. The state’s highest court ruled 6-1 in favor of disclosing the names of officers, stating that public interest in police conduct outweighs police privacy concerns. In the trial case, the officers involved were shielded by their department. However the court ruled that was not legal and the family of the victim sued the officers and the department and won in court. The officer’s names were eventually released in the Zerby case — officers Jeffrey Shurtleff and Victor Ortiz were involved in the case. The family of Zerby, 35, also won a $6.5 million civil judgment against the officers and the city. The jury in federal civil court found not only that the officers violated Zerby’s 4th Amendment Constitutional rights, but that they committed a battery on Zerby and were negligent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 2:28:04 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For what exactly? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In other words, a knee-jerk reaction. There wasn't enough information for any self-respecting person to make a judgement call. Thought I'd go back and do a recap but got tired after page 10. These comments were some of the more colorful ones. steveba4- Well, now the prosecution needs to do what they have to do...make sure those assholes spend the rest of their lives in prison. Kennyo1- In a situation like this the cops need to be jailed as criminals. Antero- He's right. You simply never know with a police interaction if you, your spouse, your kid or your dog is going to end up dead. FlyingIllini- The fucks need to prosecuted. We all know they won't be, however. ffcol- Too bad they did not follow the department protocol of not shooting an unarmed guy in the head. FiremanFrank- Holy shit. What a mess. LAPD sure has some high standards in their officers. Tohbii- dude was fucking murdered POLYTHENEPAM- American law enforcement: Building community support, one isolated incident at a time. Z_0- The cops were probably bullied on high school. The towel brought back old, disturbing memories of being snapped in the butt by towels in gym class. Who can blame them? verticalgain- Protecting innocents is lame, killing "bad guys" is awesome. mean_sartin- They fight a different war. Only men in the arena can ever understand it. Headless_T_Gunner- Edited...VA-gunnut sdboy- You could start by condemning them. I see plenty of leos here throwing out the wait for facts bullshit and then rolling into outright defending the bad ones but if the facts don't show in the officers favor then crickets. <--- This one I thought was funny. NWhiker- I wonder what would happen if I went around town with my ccw shooting people who I "thought" had a gun gotigers- One more thing.....this cop should do time. This was attempted murder. gotigers- If you think what these cops did is right, then you are what is wrong with cops. gotigers- The dead innocent civilian might try to stay alive. Yep. Cuff him he isnt a cop. He might hurt us. Dustrod- Man waves down cop for help Cop kills man Arfcops rejoice Dustrod- Used to have standards. Now i guess just throw on a polo, some oakleys and find the closest moving towel Every one of those posters ought to be ashamed of themselves and come back and apologize. For what exactly? Lowering the brain power in their local gene pool? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 2:44:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its seems that the real reason to prevent officers involved in shooting from being made public is to prevent officers from being sued. California Supreme Court rules names of officers involved in shootings are public record In the trial case, the officers involved were shielded by their department. However the court ruled that was not legal and the family of the victim sued the officers and the department and won in court. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are they required to name an officer that did not shoot someone and is a witness? Its seems that the real reason to prevent officers involved in shooting from being made public is to prevent officers from being sued. California Supreme Court rules names of officers involved in shootings are public record California’s police departments do not have a blanket right to conceal the names of officers involved in shootings, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a decision expected to have statewide implications.
In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Long Beach police union, concluding there is a presumption that the public has a right to know the identities of officers involved in shooting incidents. The state’s highest court ruled 6-1 in favor of disclosing the names of officers, stating that public interest in police conduct outweighs police privacy concerns. In the trial case, the officers involved were shielded by their department. However the court ruled that was not legal and the family of the victim sued the officers and the department and won in court. The officer’s names were eventually released in the Zerby case — officers Jeffrey Shurtleff and Victor Ortiz were involved in the case. The family of Zerby, 35, also won a $6.5 million civil judgment against the officers and the city. The jury in federal civil court found not only that the officers violated Zerby’s 4th Amendment Constitutional rights, but that they committed a battery on Zerby and were negligent. Again, if I am present as an LEO at the scene of a officer involved shooting, but do not discharge my weapon, am I "involved" in an officer involved shooting? If i didn't shoot my weapon, use any other type of force, or tell the officer that there was a weapon, I am really more of a witness than "involved". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 3:54:40 PM EDT
[#12]
Plain English, damn skippy you're involved. In legalese, probably not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:07:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:]
Again, if I am present as an LEO at the scene of a officer involved shooting, but do not discharge my weapon, am I "involved" in an officer involved shooting? If i didn't shoot my weapon, use any other type of force, or tell the officer that there was a weapon, I am really more of a witness than "involved". I'm curious to the answer of this but I'd assume anyone who potentially influenced the situation is considered and involved party... Can a witnessing officer refuse to testify? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:17:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm curious to the answer of this but I'd assume anyone who potentially influenced the situation is considered and involved party... Can a witnessing officer refuse to testify? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:]
Again, if I am present as an LEO at the scene of a officer involved shooting, but do not discharge my weapon, am I "involved" in an officer involved shooting? If i didn't shoot my weapon, use any other type of force, or tell the officer that there was a weapon, I am really more of a witness than "involved". I'm curious to the answer of this but I'd assume anyone who potentially influenced the situation is considered and involved party... Can a witnessing officer refuse to testify? Presence is level one in the UoF continuum. Whether that scale is utilized or not, it makes it clear that the presence of a police officer makes him an active participant in a situation. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx Hard to wriggle away from that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:35:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lowering the brain power in their local gene pool? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In other words, a knee-jerk reaction. There wasn't enough information for any self-respecting person to make a judgement call. Thought I'd go back and do a recap but got tired after page 10. These comments were some of the more colorful ones. steveba4- Well, now the prosecution needs to do what they have to do...make sure those assholes spend the rest of their lives in prison. Kennyo1- In a situation like this the cops need to be jailed as criminals. Antero- He's right. You simply never know with a police interaction if you, your spouse, your kid or your dog is going to end up dead. FlyingIllini- The fucks need to prosecuted. We all know they won't be, however. ffcol- Too bad they did not follow the department protocol of not shooting an unarmed guy in the head. FiremanFrank- Holy shit. What a mess. LAPD sure has some high standards in their officers. Tohbii- dude was fucking murdered POLYTHENEPAM- American law enforcement: Building community support, one isolated incident at a time. Z_0- The cops were probably bullied on high school. The towel brought back old, disturbing memories of being snapped in the butt by towels in gym class. Who can blame them? verticalgain- Protecting innocents is lame, killing "bad guys" is awesome. mean_sartin- They fight a different war. Only men in the arena can ever understand it. Headless_T_Gunner- Edited...VA-gunnut sdboy- You could start by condemning them. I see plenty of leos here throwing out the wait for facts bullshit and then rolling into outright defending the bad ones but if the facts don't show in the officers favor then crickets. <--- This one I thought was funny. NWhiker- I wonder what would happen if I went around town with my ccw shooting people who I "thought" had a gun gotigers- One more thing.....this cop should do time. This was attempted murder. gotigers- If you think what these cops did is right, then you are what is wrong with cops. gotigers- The dead innocent civilian might try to stay alive. Yep. Cuff him he isnt a cop. He might hurt us. Dustrod- Man waves down cop for help Cop kills man Arfcops rejoice Dustrod- Used to have standards. Now i guess just throw on a polo, some oakleys and find the closest moving towel Every one of those posters ought to be ashamed of themselves and come back and apologize. For what exactly? Lowering the brain power in their local gene pool? I wouldn't worry, your buddies in blue are out there culling the herd every day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:39:36 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm curious to the answer of this but I'd assume anyone who potentially influenced the situation is considered and involved party... Can a witnessing officer refuse to testify? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:]
Again, if I am present as an LEO at the scene of a officer involved shooting, but do not discharge my weapon, am I "involved" in an officer involved shooting? If i didn't shoot my weapon, use any other type of force, or tell the officer that there was a weapon, I am really more of a witness than "involved". I'm curious to the answer of this but I'd assume anyone who potentially influenced the situation is considered and involved party... Can a witnessing officer refuse to testify? Yes and no. Anyone can refuse to testify. Anyone can also look at contempt for failing to testfy under subpoena. There are some exceptions (family, health professionals, clergy), but I don't think they would apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:47:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Presence is level one in the UoF continuum. Whether that scale is utilized or not, it makes it clear that the presence of a police officer makes him an active participant in a situation. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx Hard to wriggle away from that point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:]
Again, if I am present as an LEO at the scene of a officer involved shooting, but do not discharge my weapon, am I "involved" in an officer involved shooting? If i didn't shoot my weapon, use any other type of force, or tell the officer that there was a weapon, I am really more of a witness than "involved". I'm curious to the answer of this but I'd assume anyone who potentially influenced the situation is considered and involved party... Can a witnessing officer refuse to testify? Presence is level one in the UoF continuum. Whether that scale is utilized or not, it makes it clear that the presence of a police officer makes him an active participant in a situation. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx Hard to wriggle away from that point. Officer presence is not a use of force. Verbal commands or directions is not a use of force. Being present is not a use of force. On a use of force form you will list other officers present, but only document your use of force. Any officer who uses force will document their use of force on their own form. You will not complete a use of force form for being present at a UOF incident. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:49:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Officer presence is not a use of force. Verbal commands or directions is not a use of force. Being present is not a use of force. On a use of force form you will list other officers present, but only document your use of force. Any officer who uses force will document their use of force on their own form. You will not complete a use of force form for being present at a UOF incident. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:]
Again, if I am present as an LEO at the scene of a officer involved shooting, but do not discharge my weapon, am I "involved" in an officer involved shooting? If i didn't shoot my weapon, use any other type of force, or tell the officer that there was a weapon, I am really more of a witness than "involved". I'm curious to the answer of this but I'd assume anyone who potentially influenced the situation is considered and involved party... Can a witnessing officer refuse to testify? Presence is level one in the UoF continuum. Whether that scale is utilized or not, it makes it clear that the presence of a police officer makes him an active participant in a situation. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx Hard to wriggle away from that point. Officer presence is not a use of force. Verbal commands or directions is not a use of force. Being present is not a use of force. On a use of force form you will list other officers present, but only document your use of force. Any officer who uses force will document their use of force on their own form. You will not complete a use of force form for being present at a UOF incident. The link I provided says your assertions are wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:49:37 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't worry, your buddies in blue are out there culling the herd every day. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In other words, a knee-jerk reaction. There wasn't enough information for any self-respecting person to make a judgement call. Thought I'd go back and do a recap but got tired after page 10. These comments were some of the more colorful ones. steveba4- Well, now the prosecution needs to do what they have to do...make sure those assholes spend the rest of their lives in prison. Kennyo1- In a situation like this the cops need to be jailed as criminals. Antero- He's right. You simply never know with a police interaction if you, your spouse, your kid or your dog is going to end up dead. FlyingIllini- The fucks need to prosecuted. We all know they won't be, however. ffcol- Too bad they did not follow the department protocol of not shooting an unarmed guy in the head. FiremanFrank- Holy shit. What a mess. LAPD sure has some high standards in their officers. Tohbii- dude was fucking murdered POLYTHENEPAM- American law enforcement: Building community support, one isolated incident at a time. Z_0- The cops were probably bullied on high school. The towel brought back old, disturbing memories of being snapped in the butt by towels in gym class. Who can blame them? verticalgain- Protecting innocents is lame, killing "bad guys" is awesome. mean_sartin- They fight a different war. Only men in the arena can ever understand it. Headless_T_Gunner- Edited...VA-gunnut sdboy- You could start by condemning them. I see plenty of leos here throwing out the wait for facts bullshit and then rolling into outright defending the bad ones but if the facts don't show in the officers favor then crickets. <--- This one I thought was funny. NWhiker- I wonder what would happen if I went around town with my ccw shooting people who I "thought" had a gun gotigers- One more thing.....this cop should do time. This was attempted murder. gotigers- If you think what these cops did is right, then you are what is wrong with cops. gotigers- The dead innocent civilian might try to stay alive. Yep. Cuff him he isnt a cop. He might hurt us. Dustrod- Man waves down cop for help Cop kills man Arfcops rejoice Dustrod- Used to have standards. Now i guess just throw on a polo, some oakleys and find the closest moving towel Every one of those posters ought to be ashamed of themselves and come back and apologize. For what exactly? Lowering the brain power in their local gene pool? I wouldn't worry, your buddies in blue are out there culling the herd every day. Lucky me. 
No wonder GD is too terrified to go outside. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:52:08 PM EDT
[#20]
NVM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 5:47:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The link I provided says your assertions are wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:]
Again, if I am present as an LEO at the scene of a officer involved shooting, but do not discharge my weapon, am I "involved" in an officer involved shooting? If i didn't shoot my weapon, use any other type of force, or tell the officer that there was a weapon, I am really more of a witness than "involved". I'm curious to the answer of this but I'd assume anyone who potentially influenced the situation is considered and involved party... Can a witnessing officer refuse to testify? Presence is level one in the UoF continuum. Whether that scale is utilized or not, it makes it clear that the presence of a police officer makes him an active participant in a situation. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx Hard to wriggle away from that point. Officer presence is not a use of force. Verbal commands or directions is not a use of force. Being present is not a use of force. On a use of force form you will list other officers present, but only document your use of force. Any officer who uses force will document their use of force on their own form. You will not complete a use of force form for being present at a UOF incident. The link I provided says your assertions are wrong. Really? This is what your link says "Officer Presence — No force is used. Considered the best way to resolve a situation. ?The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation. ?Officers' attitudes are professional and nonthreatening." So it's a use of force to not use force and be professional in a nonthreatening manner? I fucking love GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 6:51:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Ok Jethro.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 6:54:55 PM EDT
[#23]
So it's a use of force to not use force and be professional in a nonthreatening manner?
I fucking love GD. The real question is, were you "involved", or not. Ipad quotes...no bueno
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:03:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Unless the witnessing officer is silent and did nothing, IMO they were involved in the events leading up to the shooting... When a pair of officers is involved in a shooting, and only one fires his weapon, are both offices placed on leave? (Assuming same car / partners type thing) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:03:26 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok Jethro. Does your link support a use of force? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:07:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless the witnessing officer is silent and did nothing, IMO they were involved in the events leading up to the shooting... When a pair of officers is involved in a shooting, and only one fires his weapon, are both offices placed on leave? (Assuming same car / partners type thing) If I do not use deadly force, or any force that may have contributed to the suspect's serious injury or death , I would not be placed on admin leave if I was at the scene of an OIS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:22:33 PM EDT
[#27]
When I was a young Soldier stationed in Germany I heard stories, and eventually witnessed the German Polizei beating & shooting first, and then asking questions afterwards. It seems like U.S. Law Enforcement has taken the old Polizei mantra to a whole new level. Shoot/Communicate/Deflect is the new norm in stateside policing.
It makes you wonder who is should really be held to the higher standard, the civil servant, or the the civilian populace. This new trend is giving the benefit of doubt to those that have sworn an oath to serve and protect, over that of "guilty before innocent" public. I have no doubt that the job of a sworn Peace Officer is very dangerous, but let's be honest here, they didn't sign up to make balloon animals at a child's birthday party. They voluntarily chose to put on a bulletproof vest, strap on a gun and holster, and agree to be the first line of defense against the worst people that society has to offer. The need to differentiate good versus evil can use a bit more patience than has been exhibited in the past few years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:29:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I was a young Soldier stationed in Germany I heard stories, and eventually witnessed the German Polizei beating & shooting first, and then asking questions afterwards. It seems like U.S. Law Enforcement has taken7 the old Polizei mantra to a whole new level. Shoot/Communicate/Deflect is the new norm in stateside policing. It makes you wonder who is should really be held to the higher standard, the civil servant, or the the civilian populace. This new trend is giving the benefit of doubt to those that have sworn an oath to serve and protect, over that of guilty before innocent public. You must be under 30. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:32:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I do not use deadly force, or any force that may have contributed to the suspect's serious injury or death , I would not be placed on admin leave if I was at the scene of an OIS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unless the witnessing officer is silent and did nothing, IMO they were involved in the events leading up to the shooting... When a pair of officers is involved in a shooting, and only one fires his weapon, are both offices placed on leave? (Assuming same car / partners type thing) If I do not use deadly force, or any force that may have contributed to the suspect's serious injury or death , I would not be placed on admin leave if I was at the scene of an OIS. Again. Stop beating around the bush. Would "you" be "involved". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:37:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You must be under 30. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When I was a young Soldier stationed in Germany I heard stories, and eventually witnessed the German Polizei beating & shooting first, and then asking questions afterwards. It seems like U.S. Law Enforcement has taken7 the old Polizei mantra to a whole new level. Shoot/Communicate/Deflect is the new norm in stateside policing. It makes you wonder who is should really be held to the higher standard, the civil servant, or the the civilian populace. This new trend is giving the benefit of doubt to those that have sworn an oath to serve and protect, over that of guilty before innocent public. I have no doubt that the job of a sworn Peace Officer is very dangerous, but let's be honest here, they didn't sign up to make balloon animals at a child's birthday party. They voluntarily chose to put on a bulletproof vest, strap on a gun and holster, and agree to be the first line of defense against the worst people that society has to offer. The need to differentiate good versus evil can use a bit more patience than has been exhibited in the past few years. You must be under 30. 48 years old, a multiple tour Combat Veteran, former L.E. ( albeit briefly), and Federal Agent. I think I know what I am talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:40:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does your link support a use of force? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ok Jethro. Does your link support a use of force? I never said it did. It uses presence as part of the spectrum. In reality presence of police is a SHOW of force by the state so in fact it is force, it is officious, and it is involvement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:44:20 PM EDT
[#32]
If there's not video of what happened how do you know the officer overreacted?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 7:46:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 48 years old, a multiple tour Combat Veteran, former L.E. ( albeit briefly), and Federal Agent. I think I know what I am talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: When I was a young Soldier stationed in Germany I heard stories, and eventually witnessed the German Polizei beating & shooting first, and then asking questions afterwards. It seems like U.S. Law Enforcement has taken7 the old Polizei mantra to a whole new level. Shoot/Communicate/Deflect is the new norm in stateside policing. It makes you wonder who is should really be held to the higher standard, the civil servant, or the the civilian populace. This new trend is giving the benefit of doubt to those that have sworn an oath to serve and protect, over that of guilty before innocent public. I have no doubt that the job of a sworn Peace Officer is very dangerous, but let's be honest here, they didn't sign up to make balloon animals at a child's birthday party. They voluntarily chose to put on a bulletproof vest, strap on a gun and holster, and agree to be the first line of defense against the worst people that society has to offer. The need to differentiate good versus evil can use a bit more patience than has been exhibited in the past few years. You must be under 30. 48 years old, a multiple tour Combat Veteran, former L.E. ( albeit briefly), and Federal Agent. I think I know what I am talking about. Don't worry - you'll still be marginalized, put on the sidelines, and torn apart from the "brotherhood" for your comments, basically being labeled as "one of those that just doesn't get it"  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 8:05:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lowering the brain power in their local gene pool? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In other words, a knee-jerk reaction. There wasn't enough information for any self-respecting person to make a judgement call. Thought I'd go back and do a recap but got tired after page 10. These comments were some of the more colorful ones. steveba4- Well, now the prosecution needs to do what they have to do...make sure those assholes spend the rest of their lives in prison. Kennyo1- In a situation like this the cops need to be jailed as criminals. Antero- He's right. You simply never know with a police interaction if you, your spouse, your kid or your dog is going to end up dead. FlyingIllini- The fucks need to prosecuted. We all know they won't be, however. ffcol- Too bad they did not follow the department protocol of not shooting an unarmed guy in the head. FiremanFrank- Holy shit. What a mess. LAPD sure has some high standards in their officers. Tohbii- dude was fucking murdered POLYTHENEPAM- American law enforcement: Building community support, one isolated incident at a time. Z_0- The cops were probably bullied on high school. The towel brought back old, disturbing memories of being snapped in the butt by towels in gym class. Who can blame them? verticalgain- Protecting innocents is lame, killing "bad guys" is awesome. mean_sartin- They fight a different war. Only men in the arena can ever understand it. Headless_T_Gunner- Edited...VA-gunnut sdboy- You could start by condemning them. I see plenty of leos here throwing out the wait for facts bullshit and then rolling into outright defending the bad ones but if the facts don't show in the officers favor then crickets. <--- This one I thought was funny. NWhiker- I wonder what would happen if I went around town with my ccw shooting people who I "thought" had a gun gotigers- One more thing.....this cop should do time. This was attempted murder. gotigers- If you think what these cops did is right, then you are what is wrong with cops. gotigers- The dead innocent civilian might try to stay alive. Yep. Cuff him he isnt a cop. He might hurt us. Dustrod- Man waves down cop for help Cop kills man Arfcops rejoice Dustrod- Used to have standards. Now i guess just throw on a polo, some oakleys and find the closest moving towel Every one of those posters ought to be ashamed of themselves and come back and apologize. For what exactly? Lowering the brain power in their local gene pool? Yeah, I guess those hiring standards paid off when they shot up the ladies who were delivering papers. Let me get right on that apology.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 8:15:11 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again. Stop beating around the bush. Would "you" be "involved". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless the witnessing officer is silent and did nothing, IMO they were involved in the events leading up to the shooting... When a pair of officers is involved in a shooting, and only one fires his weapon, are both offices placed on leave? (Assuming same car / partners type thing) If I do not use deadly force, or any force that may have contributed to the suspect's serious injury or death , I would not be placed on admin leave if I was at the scene of an OIS. Again. Stop beating around the bush. Would "you" be "involved". I would be "involved" in that I was present and was a "witness" to the incident. I would be "involved" if my actions were subject to investigation to determine if I acted within policy and the law. If I was present but did not use any force or directly contribute to others using force, what would be investigated and reviewed in light of my actions? Or was I present for an incident that lead to or became an OIS? We have had our SWAT team shoot armed suspects. Were all the SWAT team on scene considered involved in a OIS? Were all placed on admin leave pending an investigation? No, only those who fired rounds were. The other team members were considered witnesses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 8:15:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 , this stuff has got to stop! 
The Gov of Cali should appoint a special prosecutor like NYS Gov Andrew shit stain Cuomo to investigate all police killings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 8:26:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said it did. It uses presence as part of the spectrum. In reality presence of police is a SHOW of force by the state so in fact it is force, it is officious, and it is involvement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok Jethro. Does your link support a use of force? I never said it did. It uses presence as part of the spectrum. In reality presence of police is a SHOW of force by the state so in fact it is force, it is officious, and it is involvement. Do you want to debate a "Show of Force" or "Use of Force". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 8:40:49 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
48 years old, a multiple tour Combat Veteran, former L.E. ( albeit briefly), and Federal Agent. I think I know what I am talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I was a young Soldier stationed in Germany I heard stories, and eventually witnessed the German Polizei beating & shooting first, and then asking questions afterwards. It seems like U.S. Law Enforcement has taken7 the old Polizei mantra to a whole new level. Shoot/Communicate/Deflect is the new norm in stateside policing. It makes you wonder who is should really be held to the higher standard, the civil servant, or the the civilian populace. This new trend is giving the benefit of doubt to those that have sworn an oath to serve and protect, over that of guilty before innocent public. I have no doubt that the job of a sworn Peace Officer is very dangerous, but let's be honest here, they didn't sign up to make balloon animals at a child's birthday party. They voluntarily chose to put on a bulletproof vest, strap on a gun and holster, and agree to be the first line of defense against the worst people that society has to offer. The need to differentiate good versus evil can use a bit more patience than has been exhibited in the past few years. You must be under 30. 48 years old, a multiple tour Combat Veteran, former L.E. ( albeit briefly), and Federal Agent. I think I know what I am talking about. No, you don't. What oath did you take? Serve and protect is in none of the oaths I have taken, either from various LE positions or the Military. Officers are more restrained today than at any time in the last century. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 9:04:25 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thin blue line wins again. Oh Well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 9:14:05 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would be "involved" in that I was present and was a "witness" to the incident. I would be "involved" if my actions were subject to investigation to determine if I acted within policy and the law. If I was present but did not use any force or directly contribute to others using force, what would be investigated and reviewed in light of my actions? Or was I present for an incident that lead to or became an OIS? We have had our SWAT team shoot armed suspects. Were all the SWAT team on scene considered involved in a OIS? Were all placed on admin leave pending an investigation? No, only those who fired rounds were. The other team members were considered witnesses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless the witnessing officer is silent and did nothing, IMO they were involved in the events leading up to the shooting... When a pair of officers is involved in a shooting, and only one fires his weapon, are both offices placed on leave? (Assuming same car / partners type thing) If I do not use deadly force, or any force that may have contributed to the suspect's serious injury or death , I would not be placed on admin leave if I was at the scene of an OIS. Again. Stop beating around the bush. Would "you" be "involved". I would be "involved" in that I was present and was a "witness" to the incident. I would be "involved" if my actions were subject to investigation to determine if I acted within policy and the law. If I was present but did not use any force or directly contribute to others using force, what would be investigated and reviewed in light of my actions? Or was I present for an incident that lead to or became an OIS? We have had our SWAT team shoot armed suspects. Were all the SWAT team on scene considered involved in a OIS? Were all placed on admin leave pending an investigation? No, only those who fired rounds were. The other team members were considered witnesses. Thanks. 
Bolded. So, In this case you'd, normally, be identified and, forced to testify. Therefore, whatever in the hell is happening here, in this case, is...odd. At the least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 9:19:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you want to debate a "Show of Force" or "Use of Force". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok Jethro. Does your link support a use of force? I never said it did. It uses presence as part of the spectrum. In reality presence of police is a SHOW of force by the state so in fact it is force, it is officious, and it is involvement. Do you want to debate a "Show of Force" or "Use of Force". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 9:21:00 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you want to debate a "Show of Force" or "Use of Force". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok Jethro. Does your link support a use of force? I never said it did. It uses presence as part of the spectrum. In reality presence of police is a SHOW of force by the state so in fact it is force, it is officious, and it is involvement. Do you want to debate a "Show of Force" or "Use of Force". Differentiate whether either is NOT involved. Because that is the discussion at hand. Present = involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 9:22:32 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
don't interrupt him. They're still waiting in the Railroad thread for him to show how upgrading a crossing only costs a few thousand dollars. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok Jethro. Does your link support a use of force? I never said it did. It uses presence as part of the spectrum. In reality presence of police is a SHOW of force by the state so in fact it is force, it is officious, and it is involvement. Do you want to debate a "Show of Force" or "Use of Force". LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 9:48:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Differentiate whether either is NOT involved. Because that is the discussion at hand. Present = involved. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok Jethro. Does your link support a use of force? I never said it did. It uses presence as part of the spectrum. In reality presence of police is a SHOW of force by the state so in fact it is force, it is officious, and it is involvement. Do you want to debate a "Show of Force" or "Use of Force". Differentiate whether either is NOT involved. Because that is the discussion at hand. Present = involved. So if you were present for a vehicle accident, you were involved? If you and a friend are together, you both CCW and your friend shoots someone, you were involved in a self defense shooting? If there are any criminal charges that come out of this, will the officer that never fired a shot face charges for UOF? Back to your post about "wriggle out of that one", I have filled out numerous UOF reports for using force in 20 years. I have reviewed numerous reports as a supervisor for UOF for 9 years. I have never submitted, approved or advised an officer to submit a UOF report with only "Officer Presence" filled out on it. That also includes the associated "check all that apply boxes" for "Uniform", "Badge", "Verbal Identification", "Marked Car" or "Other (Explain)________________". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 9:52:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks.
Bolded. So, In this case you'd, normally, be identified and, forced to testify. Therefore, whatever in the hell is happening here, in this case, is...odd. At the least. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless the witnessing officer is silent and did nothing, IMO they were involved in the events leading up to the shooting... When a pair of officers is involved in a shooting, and only one fires his weapon, are both offices placed on leave? (Assuming same car / partners type thing) If I do not use deadly force, or any force that may have contributed to the suspect's serious injury or death , I would not be placed on admin leave if I was at the scene of an OIS. Again. Stop beating around the bush. Would "you" be "involved". I would be "involved" in that I was present and was a "witness" to the incident. I would be "involved" if my actions were subject to investigation to determine if I acted within policy and the law. If I was present but did not use any force or directly contribute to others using force, what would be investigated and reviewed in light of my actions? Or was I present for an incident that lead to or became an OIS? We have had our SWAT team shoot armed suspects. Were all the SWAT team on scene considered involved in a OIS? Were all placed on admin leave pending an investigation? No, only those who fired rounds were. The other team members were considered witnesses. Thanks.
Bolded. So, In this case you'd, normally, be identified and, forced to testify. Therefore, whatever in the hell is happening here, in this case, is...odd. At the least. Not to split hairs, but I would expect to be identified as a witness, and expect to be called to testify. It's actually listed as one of the general functions of my job, to testify in court related proceedings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 10:06:41 PM EDT
[#46]
This FL report seems to think officer presence and verbal commands are part of the UOFand reportable...
And their firearms discharge report asks for all involved members.... Not just the one who fired... 
(Hollywood Fl, 4.09(18.18) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 10:06:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, you don't. What oath did you take? Serve and protect is in none of the oaths I have taken, either from various LE positions or the Military. Officers are more restrained today than at any time in the last century. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I was a young Soldier stationed in Germany I heard stories, and eventually witnessed the German Polizei beating & shooting first, and then asking questions afterwards. It seems like U.S. Law Enforcement has taken7 the old Polizei mantra to a whole new level. Shoot/Communicate/Deflect is the new norm in stateside policing. It makes you wonder who is should really be held to the higher standard, the civil servant, or the the civilian populace. This new trend is giving the benefit of doubt to those that have sworn an oath to serve and protect, over that of guilty before innocent public. I have no doubt that the job of a sworn Peace Officer is very dangerous, but let's be honest here, they didn't sign up to make balloon animals at a child's birthday party. They voluntarily chose to put on a bulletproof vest, strap on a gun and holster, and agree to be the first line of defense against the worst people that society has to offer. The need to differentiate good versus evil can use a bit more patience than has been exhibited in the past few years. You must be under 30. 48 years old, a multiple tour Combat Veteran, former L.E. ( albeit briefly), and Federal Agent. I think I know what I am talking about. No, you don't. What oath did you take? Serve and protect is in none of the oaths I have taken, either from various LE positions or the Military. Officers are more restrained today than at any time in the last century. Ever hear of an Oath of Honor? It may not spell it out verbatim, but if you actually read it you would have seen that you are committing service to the public. But you'd rather mince words. Century??? That goes back to the 1915's, you have got to be fucking kidding me. L.E. have been notoriously brutal in the past 100 years. Only a dufus would stand behind that statement. I'm not calling you a *dufus, I'm only stating only a *dufus would actually believe it. *alternate spelling Doofus |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 10:29:16 PM EDT
[#48]
Ahhhhhh, this thread has been gloriously resurrected. Someone explain to HugeO the difference between Use of Force and Show of Authority. LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 10:36:33 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This FL report seems to think officer presence and verbal commands are part of the UOFand reportable... http://i61.tinypic.com/2hmeaex.jpg And their firearms discharge report asks for all involved members.... Not just the one who fired... http://i58.tinypic.com/35li5x2.jpg (Hollywood Fl, 4.09(18.18) It is pertinent to a use of force. Officer presence is not a use of force. A use of force report will describe what force was used. It will also document what factors lead up to the use of force being needed. If you were a senior member of command staff and responsible for reviewing when force was used to determine if it was used in compliance with policy and laws, would you only want to know what force was used, or under what circumstances it was used? If a subject fought or resisted one of your officers would the suspect's impression of who he was fighting have some possible ramifications for your agency? Officer Presence is generally recognized gaining compliance by the combination of some display of identification, and verbal commands that inform a suspect of your authority with intention of obtaining compliance from the suspect. It becomes a use of force when physical action is taken by the officer to either gain physical compliance of the suspect or to protect themselves from physical resistance or an act of aggression (actual or perceived) from the suspect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 10:50:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Their UOF lists officer presence as level 1.... Verbal commands as level 2...
How do you get to level 2 on the UOF and not it not be considered force? It reads to me like it is.. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
