View Full Version : Officers ordered to stand down and allow vandalism and desecration of memorial
buffalobo
02-16-2015, 10:28
WTF?
Link to newstory
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/02/14/2-arrested-after-police-memorial-vandalized-during-protests-in-denver/
jhirsh5280
02-16-2015, 10:37
Letter to the Chief,
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/02/15/letter-to-chief-white-from-officer-danny-veith/#.VOE5d-GmV8t.facebook
Cops arent happy!
wctriumph
02-16-2015, 10:38
Progressive politics as usual. Appeasement and hope they go away.
Yup, I saw that. Be safe out there. Seems that for protesting, it's better for them to let the "fire" consume itself and burn out before they step in.
"We have learned that providing route security at a distance and intentionally avoiding direct confrontation prevents injury to officers, limits liability, and minimizes the criminal actions of many protestors."
Great-Kazoo
02-16-2015, 10:55
Yup, I saw that. Be safe out there. Seems that for protesting, it's better for them to let the "fire" consume itself and burn out before they step in.
"We have learned that providing route security at a distance and intentionally avoiding direct confrontation prevents injury to officers, limits liability, and minimizes the criminal actions of many protestors."
Question is how many buildings and vehicles torched or vandalized IS Acceptable? Like the 16th st mall attacks these are probably isolated incidents.
How many did it take in Ferguson, under the president's eye, before police stepped in?
The article says two men were arrested in retaliation of the vandalism; seems biased to me. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue though. Only feelings were injured over this issue. Is it worth a potential greater conflict that could grow out of control given the nature of the protest? The protestor's actions make me sick, but if the police having stood down prevented a much larger conflict, I think it was the right move. Taking the high road is almost never easier or more comfortable.
Aloha_Shooter
02-16-2015, 11:40
When the hell are people going to wake up and admit that so many of these protests are rooted in lies and deception and aimed at tearing down Western society?
BPTactical
02-16-2015, 11:48
"Avoiding direct confrontation"
What non confrontational pussy came up with that plan besides the Governor of Missouri during the MB riots?
Nothing sends a clearer message that you are free to rape, pillage and plunder than a statement like that.
SamuraiCO
02-16-2015, 12:06
Sounds like England's first response to the Nazi's. Didn't work out too well for them.
When the police allow the people to break the law, the rule of law has no meaning. The law breaking will escalate each subsequent time following the police inaction. So the police allow 100-200 to break the law, do they step in when it reaches 500 or 1000? When is it too much law breaking that it must be stopped? At what point will it reach the level that it's not ok? Should they wait until there are so many law breakers that the police can't stop them and the National Guard must be called. What happens when armed citizens band together and decide that if the police won't do there job to protect life and property they will?
When the police allow the people to break the law, the rule of law has no meaning. The law breaking will escalate each subsequent time following the police inaction. So the police allow 100-200 to break the law, do they step in when it reaches 500 or 1000? When is it too much law breaking that it must be stopped? At what point will it reach the level that it's not ok? Should they wait until there are so many law breakers that the police can't stop them and the National Guard must be called. What happens when armed citizens band together and decide that if the police won't do there job to protect life and property they will?
It's almost like they're letting it build until marshall law is necessary...
[tinhat]
BPTactical
02-16-2015, 12:50
It's almost like they're letting it build until marshall law is necessary...
[tinhat]
Nah, ya think?
What happens when armed citizens band together and decide that if the police won't do there job to protect life and property they will?
I think if armed citizens band together to prevent protesters from throwing paint, then the problem will have gone out of control a long time ago.
When the police allow the people to break the law, the rule of law has no meaning. The law breaking will escalate each subsequent time following the police inaction. So the police allow 100-200 to break the law, do they step in when it reaches 500 or 1000? When is it too much law breaking that it must be stopped? At what point will it reach the level that it's not ok? Should they wait until there are so many law breakers that the police can't stop them and the National Guard must be called. What happens when armed citizens band together and decide that if the police won't do there job to protect life and property they will?
They'll find a way to take more of our rights away based on such "protests".
They want conflict and turmoil...they want us to behave like animals so they have evidence to rule us as such.
It's pathetic that these sub human scum think it proper to desecrate a memorial. Sticks in my craw.
I think if armed citizens band together to prevent protesters from throwing paint, then the problem will have gone out of control a long time ago.
So you are saying you believe this will never go beyond paint throwing. I doubt anybody here is going shoot someone for throwing paint. My point is if it is allowed to "escalate" how many people are going to step in to protect their life and property when the police won't, and what does that look like?
I don't think this particular event will go past paint throwing, no. However, I do think that had the police intervened at the time, that it very well could have gone past paint throwing, which I believe is what they were avoiding at the time.
Again, I'm not trying to justify any paint throwing, I can't even wrap my head around the mindset behind that. I'm saying that if letting protesters throw paint on the memorial (and still arresting people by the way) stopped this from escalating, then it was probably the right call to make. Now, I'm not exactly a dim-witted protester, but the police standing down during this isn't exactly conveying a message of, "I can do whatever I want now because the police are afraid to act." Good luck to any protesters dumb enough to think that and try to get away with anything else.
I just can't wrap my head around what amount of breaking the law and damaging property is acceptable when it is being observed by the police. Who gets to make the decision of how much law breaking is acceptable each time it happens?
In this case it sounds like the guys that were present wanted to step in, but were instructed by guys above them not to do so. I imagine police witness chargeable offenses every single day that they choose not to act on. As I'm not now, nor have ever been an officer, I believe I've reached the very edge of my lane as far as contributing an opinion on the matter.
The reason to have laws on the books is so that everybody knows where the line is drawn and it is not subjective or open to individual interpretation. If a law is unclear is must be interpreted by a judge or jury not an individual unless that person has been chosen by the people to do so. If the law needs to be changed to read "throwing paint" on other peoples property is allowed then so be it. We at least have the ability to elect our law makers if we don't like what they do. The police chief should not be able to decide what laws to uphold or not.
What if the president wants to decide what laws to uphold and which ones to ignore, without approval from congress? Oh, wait never mind, too late, the rule of law is dead or dying, just do whatever you want.
I think my contributions to this thread are running dry as well.
Mace, bean bags, rubber bullets and handcuffs should have been used.
The news services are definitely biased. Earlier today, the story read, in part, "In Denver, some protesters held signs in support of Jessica Hernandez, a teenager who was shot and killed by Denver officers last month after she drove a stolen car toward an officer." The updated version of the story now reads, "Some marched in support of Jessie Hernandez, a 17-year-old who was killed when she was shot by police during a criminal incident in January. "
If I recall correctly, the officer involved in that incident was actually struck by Hernandez (aiming right at him. I seem to recall that he was hospitalized. Hernandez had stolen a vehicle before this incident, so she wasn't some innocent dove. Friggin media.
I wonder if they would have been ordered to "stand down" if protesters were throwing paint on a mosque. Would pig's blood be ok?
buffalobo
02-16-2015, 18:54
I wonder if they would have been ordered to "stand down" if protesters were throwing paint on a mosque. Would pig's blood be ok?
Or marching up the side walk to the home of one of the officers specifically threatened by name.
Great-Kazoo
02-16-2015, 18:56
Mace, bean bags, rubber bullets and handcuffs should have been used.
It was a protest, not a dating service.
I wonder if this is the future of law enforcement. See a bank robbery.........................let him go and arrest him later to prevent a disruptive event in the community.
Catch a rapist....................
Catch someone sexually assaulting a child...................
What are the new rules for an arrest? Is this only for Denver or will it spread?
RblDiver
02-17-2015, 15:39
So the police allow 100-200 to break the law, do they step in when it reaches 500 or 1000?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzWClNWNIaY
Great-Kazoo
02-17-2015, 16:34
I wonder if this is the future of law enforcement. See a bank robbery.........................let him go and arrest him later to prevent a disruptive event in the community.
Catch a rapist....................
Catch someone sexually assaulting a child...................
What are the new rules for an arrest? Is this only for Denver or will it spread?
Read the comments section of an incident. They range from "couldn't the cops just follow them till they gave up" to "WELL if they were better trained, they could have shot at his legs to stop him. He only had a knife, how dangerous was he?"
Seriously, that's the mentality of America today.
Read the comments section of an incident. They range from "couldn't the cops just follow them till they gave up" to "WELL if they were better trained, they could have shot at his legs to stop him. He only had a knife, how dangerous was he?"
Seriously, that's the mentality of America today.
Do you ever watch those old '90's movies of the future? I remember wondering, "How'd we ever get so dumb for being in the future?"...we are well on our way. Demolition man comes to mind.
It was a protest, not a dating service.
i didn't even bring up the rabbit and the beads!
That is really bad!. ...just more salt in the wound of a difficult loss; my heart goes out the families of the fallen
Aloha_Shooter
02-17-2015, 17:35
Do you ever watch those old '90's movies of the future? I remember wondering, "How'd we ever get so dumb for being in the future?"...we are well on our way. Demolition man comes to mind.
Seriously. At least we know what to do when we can't figure out the stupid seashells.
RblDiver
02-17-2015, 17:45
Seriously. At least we know what to do when we can't figure out the stupid seashells.
I prefer this "good answer." (NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOUBKbd-M9M
Gcompact30
02-17-2015, 19:41
Wow hope the Chief read the letter from his own officer, it's not rocket science hope he get the point before some officer gets hurt or worse killed. Amazing just to let something like that happen. I bet the Chief isn't from Colorado I will be shocked if he was and let that BS happen to the memorial. I bet he wouldn't let someone come to his house and pour red paint all over his house or car without calling the police.
How is it possible that this many people can't think past the tip of their nose?
The police took the best possible course of action in my opinion.
There were protesters that were already upset with the actions of police over an issue that did not, in my opinion warrant that kind of outrage. As such, any police who moved to stop this paint throwing would have gotten an over reaction from this crowd beyond whatever action the police were trying to take; and some heads would have more than likely gotten knocked around.
The nightly news would then have been full of interviews with idiots saying, "See how we treated in da streets?" and "The police used over-whelming force in a situation that clearly did not call for such." and "We just wanted our voices to be heard, not get abused by no police!"
Then there'd be calls to organize another event that is three times as large, and maybe there'd be some jokers putting together some malitov cocktails in their garage, getting ready to go to battle with the police the next time around.
Instead, the news last night was full of interviews with people saying what a shame it was to see the memorial disgraced, followed by footage of morose fire fighters washing off all the paint for their brothers at the police department. Story after story was about what pieces of shit the protesters were; and you know who was hating on the police after the protest? Not a damn person. The police gave the protesters enough rope to hang themselves and they marched right into the noose and over the edge while the whole community watched and shook their collective heads.
The only people hating on the police were those who claim to support the police, but really just wanted to see some heads get knocked around. The same people that completely disregard the fact that after they watch the 2 minute news clip of some protester being arrested, then turn off the tv and go to bed, those same cops they claim to support have to go right back out into a community newly enraged at the police.
If letting some assholes, act like assholes is going to prevent more unwarranted ill will toward the police, then let it happen. If there is an officer reading this who'd prefer to see footage of the fire department cleaning some officer's blood off the street after they were ambushed while eating lunch, instead of washing red paint off of the memorial, I'd like to hear from them.
People are worried about the decision to stand down cultivating a period of increasing lawlessness, and I don't think those fears are reasonable. Increased community outrage and protesting is what cultivates increased lawlessness, not letting a protest lose steam while at the same time losing community favor. I know this is an emotional thing for this group (those dumb protesters trashed a memorial for officers that had nothing to do with what they were upset about), but the responses on here just make us look silly as a group. I'll take two days of headlines about people being upset with the chief over a week of headlines about riots any day. Stay safe police, sorry these idiot protesters disrespected your fallen brothers, but I'd rather you be alive to be pissed about it than not.
EDIT: I did read the letter to the chief from the officer, and I agree that the chief needs to at least address this issue publicly. As well as making it clear that the police elected to turn the other cheek, ONCE, and everyone else is officially reminded of the law, should they see fit to openly disrespect said law a second time.
This mind set is very similar to allowing the looting and arson in Ferguson, Missouri. Let them express themselves and leave them alone.
How much illegal behavior should be allowed before actions are taken to stop those that break the law.
State statues are very specific that an officer can make an arrest under several circumstances and one is for an illegal act in his presence. Would it be different if those protesters wore white hoods and performed acts breaking the law?
Should the police take action and stop this group if they began to loot and began to destroy cars and burn nearby buildings. What if your house were there and they began to break your windows and burn your home. What is the point where police should take immediate action and stop the illegal behavior?
How is it possible that this many people can't think past the tip of their nose?
The police took the best possible course of action in my opinion.
There were protesters that were already upset with the actions of police over an issue that did not, in my opinion warrant that kind of outrage. As such, any police who moved to stop this paint throwing would have gotten an over reaction from this crowd beyond whatever action the police were trying to take; and some heads would have more than likely gotten knocked around.
The nightly news would then have been full of interviews with idiots saying, "See how we treated in da streets?" and "The police used over-whelming force in a situation that clearly did not call for such." and "We just wanted our voices to be heard, not get abused by no police!"
Then there'd be calls to organize another event that is three times as large, and maybe there'd be some jokers putting together some malitov cocktails in their garage, getting ready to go to battle with the police the next time around.
Instead, the news last night was full of interviews with people saying what a shame it was to see the memorial disgraced, followed by footage of morose fire fighters washing off all the paint for their brothers at the police department. Story after story was about what pieces of shit the protesters were; and you know who was hating on the police after the protest? Not a damn person. The police gave the protesters enough rope to hang themselves and they marched right into the noose and over the edge while the whole community watched and shook their collective heads.
The only people hating on the police were those who claim to support the police, but really just wanted to see some heads get knocked around. The same people that completely disregard the fact that after they watch the 2 minute news clip of some protester being arrested, then turn off the tv and go to bed, those same cops they claim to support have to go right back out into a community newly enraged at the police.
If letting some assholes, act like assholes is going to prevent more unwarranted ill will toward the police, then let it happen. If there is an officer reading this who'd prefer to see footage of the fire department cleaning some officer's blood off the street after they were ambushed while eating lunch, instead of washing red paint off of the memorial, I'd like to hear from them.
People are worried about the decision to stand down cultivating a period of increasing lawlessness, and I don't think those fears are reasonable. Increased community outrage and protesting is what cultivates increased lawlessness, not letting a protest lose steam while at the same time losing community favor. I know this is an emotional thing for this group (those dumb protesters trashed a memorial for officers that had nothing to do with what they were upset about), but the responses on here just make us look silly as a group. I'll take two days of headlines about people being upset with the chief over a week of headlines about riots any day. Stay safe police, sorry these idiot protesters disrespected your fallen brothers, but I'd rather you be alive to be pissed about it than not.
EDIT: I did read the letter to the chief from the officer, and I agree that the chief needs to at least address this issue publicly. As well as making it clear that the police elected to turn the other cheek, ONCE, and everyone else is officially reminded of the law, should they see fit to openly disrespect said law a second time.
This mind set is very similar to allowing the looting and arson in Ferguson, Missouri. Let them express themselves and leave them alone.
I disagree here. Allowing looting at Ferguson would have been inappropriate as that "protest" had already gotten out of control at that point.
How much illegal behavior should be allowed before actions are taken to stop those that break the law.
This depends on the situation. Will you turn yourself in every time you go 1 mph over the speed limit, cross a street not in a cross walk, or demand that someone be persecuted for the current magazine law?
State statues are very specific that an officer can make an arrest under several circumstances and one is for an illegal act in his presence. Would it be different if those protesters wore white hoods and performed acts breaking the law?
For the first sentence, see above. As far as wearing hoods, it depends. If the protesters were wearing white hoods, but still protesting the same thing, then no it wouldn't be different. If the protesters were wearing white hoods and protesting segregation, I doubt anyone would have been told to stand down.
Should the police take action and stop this group if they began to loot and began to destroy cars and burn nearby buildings. What if your house were there and they began to break your windows and burn your home. What is the point where police should take immediate action and stop the illegal behavior?
I think it is obvious that police should have, and would have taken action against this group if they were looting or burning down houses. They didn't though, and my gripe with this thread is that so many are projecting similarly unlikely scenarios. I'm having a difficult time understanding how my point of view is foreign to everyone else. The protesters were protesting against the police specifically, and specifically the actions of the police. Anything the police would have done would be blown out of proportion and caused further conflict, warranted or not. If this protest was about fracking, and protesters got sidelined into defacing property, I don't believe that police would have been told to stand down. Again, because the focus of the protest would not have been aimed at the police in that situation, and the situation would be less likely to boil over. I'm confident that had any person, or property that was not that memorial been specifically targeted, the police would not have stood down. By letting the protesters deface that memorial, the police let the movement give itself a black eye and lose steam. I feel like I need to make myself clear again by stating that I'm just as upset about the defacing of the memorial as anyone here. I think this entire protest is stupid, and anyone involved or sympathetic to that cause has brain damage.
We can talk about the "what if's" all day long, but as long as there isn't another protest, then it doesn't matter. The protesters look bad, and the police look good. This is a huge protest fail.
I think Stu is saying that, in regards to requiring immediate police action, there's a difference between a large group and an individual. With large groups (especially given the tension between police and the other side) its not always insightful to have a show of force by a group that is at the heart of the protest. In this sole instance, it was better to let them act like idiots and arrest them after the risk of a riot breaking out subsided. Compare that to finding a lone individual throwing paint on something where confronting them wont escalate it beyond vandalism (or at least the odds are low it'll escalate).
The protestors put them in a bad spot. Another reason I respect what cops do. They get put into a lot of patience-trying situations. The reason this seems to set so many people off is this isn't the first time this has seemingly happened. The looting and riots in Ferguson, the protestors blocking busy roads by laying down, etc. it comes across that in large groups, you can generally do what you want and the police are too worried about the image it might paint if they step in.
This needs to be addressed that it won't be tolerated. Next time, they might do more than just throw paint and not expect police intervention. Right back in the same boat because they let it happen the first time. Normal citizens saw they still got arrested for what they did so cops were calculated nd still got the criminal. Guarantee others saw that the cops stood by idly while laws were broke right in front of them and are getting ideas. They don't pay attention that te people were apprehended after.
Some people just want to watch the world burn. Give warnings and act on them and someone will still claim to be a victim which means more protests. I'm glad I don't live in a big city.
ETA: I'd like to think that if someone was in danger or someone else's (not city property) was being trashed, they would have stepped in.
Robert White "grew up" in the Washington D.C. pd. If I was a resident of Denver I'd be most concerned about what qualifications he brought in that made him the best candidate. It didn't take long for many of the street officers to become less than enthralled with him. Whether we agree with his decision on how to handle this appalling incident or not, it's just another step in widening the gap in what the officers think of him. Most of the guys I know on DPD were much more in favor of former chief Whitman (now Capt of the Metro unit until his upcoming retirement).
I strongly agree with both Dave_L's and Irving's last statements.
Robert White "grew up" in the Washington D.C. pd. If I was a resident of Denver I'd be most concerned about what qualifications he brought in that made him the best candidate. It didn't take long for many of the street officers to become less than enthralled with him. Whether we agree with his decision on how to handle this appalling incident or not, it's just another step in widening the gap in what the officers think of him. Most of the guys I know on DPD were much more in favor of former chief Whitman (now Capt of the Metro unit until his upcoming retirement).
I strongly agree with both Dave_L's and Irving's last statements.
That being said Doc, hardly anyone likes their boss. I know the Chiefs in my buisness are usually out to bust our balls. But then again, he may suck at his job for all I know. He wouldn't be the first. This was a disrespectful and crappy thing to do, but I think Irving as well as DaveL had some very good points. Watching the news in C Rock it looks as if the Police took the more difficult but high road and the people interviewed were outraged by the act. The only thing the local "news" offers is perception. I perceive that the situation didn't get out of control and the cops did a good job. Not allowing people to "peacefully" protest is a slippery slope as it is a protected right. If there are a few lawbreakers in the batch they should be held accountable and arrested. We don't want to be held accountable for gun crimes and have the 2nd amendment liberties given to us restricted......of course that doesn't seem to be stopping them.
All I'm saying is that when the dust settled, not intervening turned out to be a good decision. I don't know anything about the chief or his leadership skills or any other abilities. From the uproar, it seems that officers have issues with him, so perhaps he bumbles through his job and this was just another fumbled decision that happened to turn out with positive results. From a macro perspective, if you have a group of people declaring that your actions are too harsh, is that the time to crack skulls and show how tough you are? I don't think I'd be able to make that decision on the fly, but I can tell that protesters looking bad is a better outcome than having a larger protest in the days after because everyone cared more about being right than keeping the peace.
Dammit, Stu. How dare you bring an unpopular, reasonable viewpoint to an emotional powderkeg of a thread?!
;)
You have many good points, and I grudgingly (!) agree with them. And the officers weren't completely helpless; they arrested the two 23 year old idiots that took advantage of a situation to be utter and total douchebags.
I saw a brief blurb on the news that the police were putting together a plan to cover the whole memorial so nothing like that could happen again. I hope they also add some obvious video cameras and some covert cameras, because you know some of the scrofulous knuckle-draggers will look at that as a challenge.
It was horribly, horribly disrespectful. I'm glad there were no riots. I also hope fervently that the people involved in the desecration of the memorial are forced to endure the same type of hurt, shock and insult the officers had to witness, while being just as powerless. I'll stop there, because this is a family forum and I don't want to shock anyone.
Apparently they vandals belonged to some type of Anarchist gang. This wasn't their first time doing it. They just used that night as another opportunity to exploit their agenda.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.