Author Topic: not just missouri, best to avoid all cops (Read 181157 times)

slobber · « **Reply #400 on:** August 17, 2015, 05:41:38 AM »

I don't think I told goEMAW, but I got pulled over last weekend for rolling a stop sign on the way to church with the family. I got off with a verbal warning.
Cops...jeesh. AMIRIGHT?

steve dave · « **Reply #401 on:** August 17, 2015, 08:17:32 AM »

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/police-training-seriously-lacking-actual-science/

topical

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #402 on:** August 17, 2015, 09:22:27 AM »

Quote from: ednksu on August 17, 2015, 12:30:28 AM

Quote from: MakeItRain on August 16, 2015, 01:09:57 PM
Quote from: ednksu on August 16, 2015, 10:05:53 AM
Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on August 13, 2015, 08:08:45 AM
Quote from: ednksu on August 13, 2015, 01:15:22 AM

Who said anything like that? I'm questioning the naivety that people here have towards police work and specifically how dangerous it is when police encounter armed resistance to civil authority.

And does Arlington PD get it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/us/arlington-tex-officer-is-fired-in-fatal-shooting-of-christian-taylor.html?_r=0

I hope your point here isn't that the Arlington PD shouldn't have fired that guy.

You'd have to be pretty rough ridin' daft to get that from my comment. MiR made the comment that Arlington gets it right when they clearly didn't As much as MiR wants to spew in this thread, I posted a pretty clear example where the one officer screwed up. Now I don't know (and we likely never will know how things went down) the most likely scenario is justifiable for the police officer's actions. But the cop violated policy and good practice and shouldn't be on the force.

I'm confused. I said the Arlington PD gets it, you said they don't, but then your last sentence said "the cop violated policy and good practice and shouldn't be on the force." I think you are so hell bent on arguing and being full of crap that you're confusing yourself.
I don't think you know if you're coming or going at this point. You said arlington PD "gets it" and I responded because they clearly don't. That is pretty obvious when you have a rookie cop so emboldened that he wonders off by himself and someone ends up dead. So no, they don't "get it." Back to your regularly scheduled flailing.

I took it to mean that they "got it" because they fired the crazy dork.

ednksu · « **Reply #403 on:** August 17, 2015, 10:05:21 AM »

Well it's good they "got it" after a young man died because of crap training.

Additionally have you heard the comments by his parents? Amazing people, tremendous empathy for the cop.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #404 on:** August 17, 2015, 10:56:31 AM »

Quote from: ednksu on August 17, 2015, 10:05:21 AM

Well it's good they "got it" after a young man died because of crap training.

Additionally have you heard the comments by his parents? Amazing people, tremendous empathy for the cop.

I'm glad to see that you are familiar with the training practices of the Arlington PD. How in your mind do you square calling the Arlington PD's training "crap" when they fired the officer in training for not doing what he was being taught in said training?

michigancat · « **Reply #405 on:** August 17, 2015, 11:11:54 AM »

Quote from: steve dave on August 17, 2015, 08:17:32 AM

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/police-training-seriously-lacking-actual-science/

topical

Good article. Tone, body language, and the actual words cops use matter.

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #406 on:** August 17, 2015, 02:57:59 PM »

Quote from: ednksu on August 17, 2015, 10:05:21 AM

Well it's good they "got it" after a young man died because of crap training.

Additionally have you heard the comments by his parents? Amazing people, tremendous empathy for the cop.

If he had followed his training, he'd still have a job.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #407 on:** August 18, 2015, 01:09:37 AM »

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/los-angeles-police-pull-guns-pregnant-woman-mistake-video

ednksu · « **Reply #408 on:** August 18, 2015, 04:55:46 PM »

Quote from: Dugout DickStone on August 17, 2015, 02:57:59 PM

Quote from: ednksu on August 17, 2015, 10:05:21 AM
Well it's good they "got it" after a young man died because of crap training.

Additionally have you heard the comments by his parents? Amazing people, tremendous empathy for the cop.

If he had followed his training, he'd still have a job.

Quote from: MakeItRain on August 17, 2015, 10:56:31 AM

Quote from: ednksu on August 17, 2015, 10:05:21 AM
Well it's good they "got it" after a young man died because of crap training.
Quote from: Dugout DickStone on August 17, 2015, 02:57:59 PM
Quote from: ednksu on August 17, 2015, 10:05:21 AM
Well it's good they "got it" after a young man died because of crap training.

Additionally have you heard the comments by his parents? Amazing people, tremendous empathy for the cop.

If he had followed his training, he'd still have a job.

Additionally have you heard the comments by his parents? Amazing people, tremendous empathy for the cop.

I'm glad to see that you are familiar with the training practices of the Arlington PD. How in your mind do you square calling the Arlington PD's training "crap" when they fired the officer in training for not doing what he was being taught in said training?

You guys are creating a bit of a recursive loop here. If his training was good he would have followed it or, probably more appropriately, would have been washed out. The bottom line is that he did something he shouldn't have done, yes, but it wasn't a minor accident in protocol. So somewhere there is a breakdown in training and accountability. It's good that Arlington PD is being reactive about the situation, but that doesn't change the fact that one man is dead because of a failure of proactive policy. I will totally agree that having a reactive department is better than having an inert or regressive department.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #409 on:** August 18, 2015, 08:34:33 PM »

Quote

If his training was good he would have followed it or, probably more appropriately, would have been washed out.

Christ man, you go to pretty extreme lengths to avoid saying "I was wrong." I don't know why I'm continuing this but do you really think their training is bad because this dude didn't follow it? Do you think this for all cases of people not following their training or just in this case to prove your point?

MakeItRain · « **Reply #410 on:** August 19, 2015, 12:49:51 AM »

Gross
http://www.people.com/article/Convicted-Cop-Bryan-Lee-Used-Craigslist-to-Find-Women-for-Traffic-Stop-Sex

ednksu · « **Reply #411 on:** August 19, 2015, 08:50:37 AM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on August 18, 2015, 08:34:33 PM

Quote
If his training was good he would have followed it or, probably more appropriately, would have been washed out.

Christ man, you go to pretty extreme lengths to avoid saying "I was wrong." I don't know why I'm continuing this but do you really think their training is bad because this dude didn't follow it? Do you think this for all cases of people not following their training or just in this case to prove your point?

Unlike you have have zero issue saying I'm wrong, when I'm wrong. You choose to ignore the most reasonable explanation for complex issues. The reality is these are complex interactions that most people here want to boil down into black and white instances (see people here talking about Cincinnati who didn't understand the grey area the world really works in). You've come far close to my position than you'd like to admit to yourself with this post hedging your argument and creating an ad hom to attack me instead of realizing that your position of "getting it right" was more an example of the grey area where police interactions are a mostly right or mostly wrong, but with a huge distance in between those two points, far from the black and white/right wrong most people see here. I was merely pointing out that Arlington PD and this instance are another example where we sit in between the two poles.

ednksu · « **Reply #412 on:** August 19, 2015, 10:04:16 AM »

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/18/432570962/shots-on-the-bridge-unpacks-a-tangled-story-of-deceit-and-tragedy?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150818

ednksu · « **Reply #413 on:** August 21, 2015, 11:11:23 AM »

warm up the riots
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/us/st-louis-police-shooting/index.html

CNS · « **Reply #414 on:** August 21, 2015, 11:22:04 AM »

Quote from: ednksu on August 21, 2015, 11:11:23 AM

warm up the riots
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/us/st-louis-police-shooting/index.html

Was just coming here to post that. St. Louis has some major crap to work out.

I just don't get how cops don't learn.

ednksu · « **Reply #415 on:** August 21, 2015, 11:54:29 AM »

Quote from: CNS on August 21, 2015, 11:22:04 AM

Quote from: ednksu on August 21, 2015, 11:11:23 AM
warm up the riots
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/us/st-louis-police-shooting/index.html

Was just coming here to post that. St. Louis has some major crap to work out.

I just don't get how cops don't learn.

Ummm, what? I though the police filled all the pre reqs by allowing the guy to get shots off before they returned fire?

CNS · « **Reply #416 on:** August 21, 2015, 12:27:48 PM »

Shot in back, though. Once engaged, can one not disengage?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

wetwillie · « **Reply #417 on:** August 21, 2015, 12:50:18 PM »

Quote from: CNS on August 21, 2015, 12:27:48 PM

Shot in back, though. Once engaged, can one not disengage?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

The article made it sound like him even having the gun is questionable.

SdK · « **Reply #418 on:** August 21, 2015, 12:54:25 PM »

Quote from: ednksu on August 21, 2015, 11:54:29 AM

Quote from: CNS on August 21, 2015, 11:22:04 AM
Quote from: ednksu on August 21, 2015, 11:11:23 AM
warm up the riots
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/us/st-louis-police-shooting/index.html

Was just coming here to post that. St. Louis has some major crap to work out.

I just don't get how cops don't learn.
Ummm, what? I though the police filled all the pre reqs by allowing the guy to get shots off before they returned fire?

What article are you reading?

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #419 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:14:39 PM »

Quote from: CNS on August 21, 2015, 12:27:48 PM

Shot in back, though. Once engaged, can one not disengage?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

No shots were fired at the police. The police are claiming that he was pointing his gun behind him as he was running away, probably kind of half-turned. It's possible that he would be shot in the back under self defense in that scenario, but not very plausible.

michigancat · « **Reply #420 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:24:47 PM »

Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on August 21, 2015, 01:14:39 PM

Quote from: CNS on August 21, 2015, 12:27:48 PM
Shot in back, though. Once engaged, can one not disengage?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

No shots were fired at the police. The police are claiming that he was pointing his gun behind him as he was running away, probably kind of half-turned. It's possible that he would be shot in the back under self defense in that scenario, but not very plausible.

One thing that is almost always guaranteed about police is that they lie about any officer-involved shooting that is not caught on camera. And even when it's caught on camera they try to lie!

michigancat · « **Reply #421 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:26:03 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on August 21, 2015, 01:24:47 PM

Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on August 21, 2015, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: CNS on August 21, 2015, 12:27:48 PM
Shot in back, though. Once engaged, can one not disengage?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

No shots were fired at the police. The police are claiming that he was pointing his gun behind him as he was running away, probably kind of half-turned. It's possible that he would be shot in the back under self defense in that scenario, but not very plausible.

One thing that is almost always guaranteed about police is that they lie about any officer-involved shooting that is not caught on camera. And even when it's caught on camera they try to lie!

EXAMPLE

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/08/cop_shot_himself_and_blamed_a_black_driver_police_officer_kelly_stewart.html

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #422 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:29:34 PM »

Yeah, I think it was probably murder, but I'm not sure if it can be proven in court.

ednksu · « **Reply #423 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:34:37 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on August 21, 2015, 01:24:47 PM

Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on August 21, 2015, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: CNS on August 21, 2015, 12:27:48 PM
Shot in back, though. Once engaged, can one not disengage?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

No shots were fired at the police. The police are claiming that he was pointing his gun behind him as he was running away, probably kind of half-turned. It's possible that he would be shot in the back under self defense in that scenario, but not very plausible.

One thing that is almost always guaranteed about police is that they lie about any officer-involved shooting that is not caught on camera. And even when it's caught on camera they try to lie!

You mean like the Mike Brown shooting where the police narrative was correct?

ednksu · « **Reply #424 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:38:12 PM »

And I was wrong in my other post about Ball-Bey getting a shot off. And I'm sorry I don't believe the family's narrative when they acknowledge he had weapons.