[rwheels]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

You're oversimplifying an issue that can't be simplified.

Did you read my post a few pages back about being in Chauvin's shoes at one point when I worked custody?! Had that ended badly, would I suddenly have become a POS despite having never gotten into any trouble nor being written up (...and despite having low use-of-force numbers)?!?

Some of the bad seeds are great partners and good cops.....until they're not.

How can they be both, good and bad? I am not trying to simplify, but your partner may be good to you, but bad for the community, as a whole. Do not not gangs (not labeling your profession) hold the same mentality?

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by rebekahb

You see this in quite a few professions. For some, when you read the stories it's like how did it get past this many people and get this far? No one noticed or said anything? Assumption here, but it seems like people don't want to get involved for various reasons. Things always seem a little more black and white when you look from the outside. I've truly learned you never know what you're going to do until you are in a situation. I don't envy those who work in life/death high pressure situations.

I'm not sure what the specifics are that folks on the outside think a copper should be singled out. I read somewhere that there were reports that the officer had a number of complaints against him. As I've said before, when I got my first complaint I was shocked, my Supt. told me if you're not getting complaints you're not doing your job. In my 30+ year career I can't tell you how many complaints I had against me, I was also named in likely a dozen different law suits. I was never found to have done anything wrong, and unfortunately police depts everywhere pay out lawsuits even when they are nuisance suits. The complaints against me ran the gamut from being rude, racist, theft and excessive force. Just typing it out here likely sounds bad to folks on the outside, but trust me it is par for the course especially if you work in a busy division.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by rwheels

How can they be both, good and bad? I am not trying to simplify, but your partner may be good to you, but bad for the community, as a whole. Do not not gangs (not labeling your profession) hold the same mentality?

....because sometimes they aren't problems. They are good partners and good cops (...meaning fair in their enforcement, no egregious force issues, etc.), and then one day they screw the pooch and they end up in trouble.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Murf993

I'm not sure what the specifics are that folks on the outside think a copper should be singled out. I read somewhere that there were reports that the officer had a number of complaints against him. As I've said before, when I got my first complaint I was shocked, my Supt. told me if you're not getting complaints you're not doing your job. In my 30+ year career I can't tell you how many complaints I had against me, I was also named in likely a dozen different law suits. I was never found to have done anything wrong, and unfortunately police depts everywhere pay out lawsuits even when they are nuisance suits. The complaints against me ran the gamut from being rude, racist, theft and excessive force. Just typing it out here likely sounds bad to folks on the outside, but trust me it is par for the course especially if you work in a busy division.

Exactly!!!!!

[Littlebear]

There is also the dynamic that says, "If they be looking at him now, they might be looking at me tomorrow".
Some think less looking is the answer to this problem, rather than better looking.

Murf

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

There is also the dynamic that says, "If they be looking at him now, they might be looking at me tomorrow".
Some think less looking is the answer to this problem, rather than better looking.

Murf

It doesn't work like that. If one person is in the spotlight, we're all in the spotlight. Nobody wants to be under the microscope because one person can't follow the rules, so that person gets checked by somebody with more juice than they have. If a Deputy talks to his mistress on a county issued cell phone, for example, and the powers that be catch wind of it, they start checking all of our phones. This isn't a culture of exclusion. There's a saying that goes around....."Officers/Deputies are their own worst enemy."

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

It doesn't work like that. If one person is in the spotlight, we're all in the spotlight. Nobody wants to be under the microscope because one person can't follow the rules, so that person gets checked by somebody with more juice than they have. If a Deputy talks to his mistress on a county issued cell phone, for example, and the powers that be catch wind of it, they start checking all of our phones. This isn't a culture of exclusion. There's a saying that goes around....."Officers/Deputies are their own worst enemy."

I think you are idealizing to a degree. I wish we lived in that world....

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

I think you are idealizing to a degree. I wish we lived in that world....

I think I know what I'm talking about because I live the life. Believe what you want. I refuse to try and shine the light for you.

[Sedan_Clan]

Here's a perfect example of how the decision(s) of one person affects us all. Up until the middle of last year, the carotid restraint was still an allowable application of force for assaultive/high risk situations. Somebody in another state got in trouble and other departments - including mine - either completely rendered the carotid restraint a policy violation under ANY circumstance or, as the case with my department, moved it to the deadly force category. Exclusion?!? Yeah we wish. That decision just made it more difficult for EVERY female on the department to defend herself against a stronger/larger opponent.

[rwheels]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

....because sometimes they aren't problems. They are good partners and good cops (...meaning fair in their enforcement, no egregious force issues, etc.), and then one day they screw the pooch and they end up in trouble.

I was not referring to the good cops, but rather to those who perhaps even you, would rather not work with for how they treat people as a whole. As I stated earlier, there certainly are more Chauvins out there, but this mess will just keep going in cycles, because (I believe) no one accepts responsibility. Likewise when mass shootings happen, the NRA suddenly hugs there weapons, and points fingers in different directions. I accept that society, as a whole, is messed up, and agree that the burden is placed on those of your profession that strive to do your best on a daily basis. Your dialogue of trying to be open is helpful, but it is also very defensive. In fairness, if you questioned me about society, I too would point out all the good that it has done.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by rwheels

I was not referring to the good cops, but rather to those who perhaps even you, would rather not work with for how they treat people as a whole. As I stated earlier, there certainly are more Chauvins out there, but this mess will just keep going in cycles, because (I believe) no one accepts responsibility. Likewise when mass shootings happen, the NRA suddenly hugs there weapons, and points fingers in different directions. I accept that society, as a whole, is messed up, and agree that the burden is placed on those of your profession that strive to do your best on a daily basis. Your dialogue of trying to be open is helpful, but it is also very defensive. In fairness, if you questioned me about society, I too would point out all the good that it has done.

I'm not really defensive; I am direct. Me explaining something or responding to an inquiry is exactly that. I've already explained that nobody likes working with bad people......in this case, bad cops. They bring unnecessary attention to the profession (...or result in attention by/from supervisory personnel) that NONE of us want.

Since you brought the NRA into this....


....if you don't find the focus on AR15's disingenuous, then you're not being honest (...nor are you paying attention to the statistics). That was a general statement, not directed at you specifically.

[rwheels]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I'm not really defensive; I am direct. Me explaining something or responding to an inquiry is exactly that. I've already explained that nobody likes working with bad people......in this case, bad cops. They bring unnecessary attention to the profession (...or result in attention by/from supervisory personnel) that NONE of us want.

And that is what I'm getting at, and don't understand. Why aren't they ousted? Perhaps they just don't make the news, IDK. They seem to be there for someone's convenience, and that is what throws me off.

As for the weapons issue, why have dialogue after the fact? The mental and weapons issues only come up because someone goes crazy, and "suddenly" everyone has a problem, "but not me".
I'm not being disingenuous about AR-15s, but I do remember when AK-47s and automatic AR-15 were legal, as I'm sure you do. Like wise you certainly remember that bank shooting where these two robbers kept you guys at bay with your peashooters, being the reason you guys had to get better weapons. The guns were innocent; the guys holding them on the other hand...

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by rwheels

And that is what I'm getting at, and don't understand. Why aren't they ousted? Perhaps they just don't make the news, IDK. They seem to be there for someone's convenience, and that is what throws me off.

Your assumption. Plenty of cops get fired all of the time.

[rwheels]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Your assumption. Plenty of cops get fired all of the time.

Not assuming, just posted IDK.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by rwheels

And that is what I'm getting at, and don't understand. Why aren't they ousted? Perhaps they just don't make the news, IDK. They seem to be there for someone's convenience, and that is what throws me off.

As for the weapons issue, why have dialogue after the fact? The mental and weapons issues only come up because someone goes crazy, and "suddenly" everyone has a problem, "but not me".

I'm all for open dialogue about the mental health/weapons issue. What bothers me is the focus. Furthermore, California is also very strict already. If you have documented mental health issues, documented domestic violence issues, etc., it affects your ability to purchase a weapon. We already have 10 day waiting periods here and the DOJ background checks everybody who purchases a weapon. There are already hundreds upon hundreds of gun laws on the books. More restriction is not going to significantly reduce crime (...proven by the ineffective 1994 assault weapon's ban, which is why the inherent subset clause took effect) and the AR15 is not the weapon of war the media and gun opponents make it out to be. Handguns are used in 95% of gun deaths (...which are mostly suicides).

[rwheels]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I'm all for open dialogue about the mental health /weapons issue. What bothers me is the focus. Furthermore, California is also very strict already. If you have documented mental health issues, documented domestic violence issues, etc., it affects your ability to purchase a weapon. We already have 10 day waiting periods here and the DOJ background checks everybody who purchases a weapon. There are already hundreds upon hundreds of gun laws on the books. More restriction is not going to significantly reduce crime and the AR15 is not the weapon of war the media and gun opponents make it out to be. Handguns are used in 95% of gun deaths (...which are mostly suicides).

Totally agree. Weapon does not mean intention. I'm certain that it can be said but the majority of these problems begin at home with personal responsibility, but few that accept this. If I mess up, I did it; no one else, but unfortunately not many in society want to accept this.
I want to thank you for a fair and respectable dialogue, and glad that you are straight with your answers. Be safe out there.
Wouldn't mind taking a ride with you, but only to show you respect as the person you are, thanks!

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by rwheels

Totally agree. Weapon does not mean intention. I'm certain that it can be said but the majority of these problems begin at home with personal responsibility, but few that accept this. If I mess up, I did it; no one else, but unfortunately not many in society want to accept this.
I want to thank you for a fair and respectable dialogue, and glad that you are straight with your answers. Be safe out there.
Wouldn't mind taking a ride with you, but only to show you respect as the person you are, thanks!

I think you hit the nail on the head about it beginning in the home and later transitioning to recognizing your own personal responsibility/culpability. If EVERYBODY employed that approach we'd all be in a better place.

Come ride. I'll purposely get us into something and show you a good time. Whenever I'm looking, I find it. Unfortunately I tend to find it even when I'm not looking as well. Lol!

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I think I know what I'm talking about because I live the life. Believe what you want. I refuse to try and shine the light for you.

Once again, it's not always about you. The larger subject is above your pay grade.
And I wouldn't expect you to break precedent & try to shine a light on the subject; I can Google!

Many folks have heard of Frank Serpico.
"In 1970, New York City organized the Knapp Commission to hold hearings on the extent of corruption in the city's police department. Police officer Frank Serpico's startling testimony against fellow officers not only revealed systemic corruption but highlighted a longstanding obstacle to investigating these abuses: the fraternal understanding among police officers known variously as "the Code of Silence" and "the Blue Curtain" under which officers regard testimony against a fellow officer as betrayal." Wiki

It didn't start or stop there. In fact, police unions have been trying to hide & protect member behavior continuously, often to the detriment of the community they are serving (Chauvin's legal bills are being paid by his police union). This "Blue Wall" type of thing is also a problem in the elite armed forces like the Green Berets, but they are often prosecuted more successfully.

Clan: "More restriction is not going to significantly reduce crime (...proven by the ineffective 1994 assault weapon's ban, which is why the inherent subset clause took effect)"

ABC News: "One of the most-cited studies on the effectiveness of the ban was done in 2004. That federally funded report by the National Institute of Justice at the Department of Justice found that the number of gun crimes involving automatic weapons dropped by 17% in the six cities involved in the study during the ban."
"However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers," the report stated."

Pollyanna was not a police chief.

Murf:

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Once again, it's not always about you. The larger subject is above your pay grade.
And I wouldn't expect you to break precedent & try to shine a light on the subject; I can Google!

Many folks have heard of Frank Serpico.
"In 1970, New York City organized the Knapp Commission to hold hearings on the extent of corruption in the city's police department. Police officer Frank Serpico's startling testimony against fellow officers not only revealed systemic corruption but highlighted a longstanding obstacle to investigating these abuses: the fraternal understanding among police officers known variously as "the Code of Silence" and "the Blue Curtain" under which officers regard testimony against a fellow officer as betrayal." Wiki

It didn't start or stop there. In fact, police unions have been trying to hide & protect member behavior continuously, often to the detriment of the community they are serving. This "Blue Wall" type of thing is also a problem in the elite armed forces like the Green Berets, but they are often prosecuted more successfully.

Clan: "More restriction is not going to significantly reduce crime (...proven by the ineffective 1994 assault weapon's ban, which is why the inherent subset clause took effect)"

ABC News: "One of the most-cited studies on the effectiveness of the ban was done in 2004. That federally funded report by the National Institute of Justice at the Department of Justice found that the number of gun crimes involving automatic weapons dropped by 17% in the six cities involved in the study during the ban."
"However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs [assault weapons] and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers," the report stated."

Pollyanna was not a police chief.

Murf:

I'm not sure Google and Wiki are your best resources for identifying police wrong doing. I think Sedan_Clan points are fair and I don't think he is being defensive. I can't tell you the number of times I find myself explaining or defending the actions of the police, there are people that will be critical of everything the police do, they are vocal and take up way more oxygen than they should and the media loves to put a microphone and camera up for them to air their grievances. The vast majority of the time when police are accused of wrong doing, excessive force etc they are cleared, but that usually takes some time, here in Canada we have incidents where officers used lethal force and it took over 2 years to clear them. In the mean time the narrative continues to be ramped up and when the officer is cleared it's often too late, the damage is done and the truth and facts have become irrelevant. We have a case going on in Toronto now, police responded to an EDP call in a high rise, two officers and two paramedics were in the apt with other family members when the subject went on the balcony managed to lock herself out there alone and tried to climb to the next apt and fell to her death. The family and lawyer said the police threw her off the balcony. That in of it self is such garbage for so many reasons, but the media and BLM et al beat the drum for weeks. The SIU interviewed everyone, and located a number of independent witnesses on the street who say the woman climbing onto the next balcony and fall. The officers were cleared rather quickly in about 4 months, the family is now demand another investigation and the media continues to beat the drum. So sometimes we may seem defensive but you can't image how often we find ourselves having to deal with this misinformation, in public and on occasion with friends and family.

[Littlebear]

Murf#2,

It looks to me like I agree with you 99%. The system sucks. You site your supporting cases, and then we have progressives saying the system sucks too, siting their favorite cases.

Stasis is not the answer; agents for change are not the enemy. We have seen computers change policing (Bratton?), as we will see other forces changing policing. We need to be pro-active, or else entropy will rule.

Murf

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Murf993

I'm not sure Google and Wiki are your best resources for identifying police wrong doing. I think Sedan_Clan points are fair and I don't think he is being defensive. I can't tell you the number of times I find myself explaining or defending the actions of the police, there are people that will be critical of everything the police do, they are vocal and take up way more oxygen than they should and the media loves to put a microphone and camera up for them to air their grievances. The vast majority of the time when police are accused of wrong doing, excessive force etc they are cleared, but that usually takes some time, here in Canada we have incidents where officers used lethal force and it took over 2 years to clear them. In the mean time the narrative continues to be ramped up and when the officer is cleared it's often too late, the damage is done and the truth and facts have become irrelevant. We have a case going on in Toronto now, police responded to an EDP call in a high rise, two officers and two paramedics were in the apt with other family members when the subject went on the balcony managed to lock herself out there alone and tried to climb to the next apt and fell to her death. The family and lawyer said the police threw her off the balcony. That in of it self is such garbage for so many reasons, but the media and BLM et al beat the drum for weeks. The SIU interviewed everyone, and located a number of independent witnesses on the street who say the woman climbing onto the next balcony and fall. The officers were cleared rather quickly in about 4 months, the family is now demand another investigation and the media continues to beat the drum. So sometimes we may seem defensive but you can't image how often we find ourselves having to deal with this misinformation, in public and on occasion with friends and family.

BLM is a cancer and I hope we start societal chemotherapy before it's too late.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I honestly was leaving this, because I thought you'd say "frisk" or "cavity search", but no....

Never had a cop do that, TSA on the other hand