View Full Version : Atlanta Shooting
tactical_2012
06-14-2020, 14:28
If yall havent seen the videos yet here they are it is a NewYork Times Article (I Know) that breaks the incident down. It has both Body Cam video and a security cam video.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/videos-rayshard-brooks-shooting-atlanta-police.html
After watching both I just feel so sad for every LEO in the country dont know how they keep going to work everyday
Dude fought 2 cops, grabbing one of their Tazers, then fired it at an officer. Darwin award received.
Dude fought 2 cops, grabbing one of their Tazers, then fired it at an officer. Darwin award received.
Yet one already fired, other suspended, chief quit etc.
I really hope state elections reflect an average persons desire for a return to a law and order platform instead of #stunningandbrave to delete history (statues, base renaming, removing gone w/ the wind etc) and mass business burning is somehow peaceful.
If it doesn't, I truly think I'm on the union is lost kind of train.
TEAMRICO
06-14-2020, 15:09
Honestly I have stopped caring anymore.
As soon as they grab a taser of police or even a regular persons, it is game over. Now the suspect stole your own weapon to potentially shoot/tase you and finish you off.
Looks like one less crazy fuck off of street.
Biggest loser is Wendy's. They even pledge to donate money for racial injustice or whatever, and one of the branch got torched. Sad story....
As soon as they grab a taser of police or even a regular persons, it is game over. Now the suspect stole your own weapon to potentially shoot/tase you and finish you off.
Looks like one less crazy fuck off of street.
Biggest loser is Wendy's. They even pledge to donate money for racial injustice or whatever, and one of the branch got torched. Sad story....
CEO donated his own money to Trump, so Wendy's must suffer. He asked for it. Just ask the SJWs.
beast556
06-14-2020, 16:37
Honestly I have stopped caring anymore.
Yep, feel the same way.
Bailey Guns
06-14-2020, 16:38
I'm having a hard time finding the bad part of that good shoot. I'm seriously hoping the city winds up paying the fired officer a hefty sum for this bullshit.
Rucker61
06-14-2020, 17:06
The only end game I can see coming is that the police will simply refuse to engage with suspects of color. There's no way to win there.
CEO donated his own money to Trump, so Wendy's must suffer. He asked for it. Just ask the SJWs.
I think it was CEO of the major franchisee donated to Trump.
I think WEN corporate did
Franchisee donated to Trump
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/11/fact-check-franchise-owner-not-wendys-ceo-gave-400-k-trump-2020/5342047002/
WEN donated to social justice.
https://www.businessinsider.com/wendys-responds-to-backlash-donates-to-support-social-justice-2020-6
I think it was CEO of the major franchisee donated to Trump.
I think WEN corporate did
Franchisee donated to Trump
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/11/fact-check-franchise-owner-not-wendys-ceo-gave-400-k-trump-2020/5342047002/
WEN donated to social justice.
https://www.businessinsider.com/wendys-responds-to-backlash-donates-to-support-social-justice-2020-6
Thanks for the fact-check.
hollohas
06-14-2020, 20:25
That's bullshit that department abandonded those officers and hung them out to dry. They were polite and professional leading up the the arrest attempt. The video CLEARLY shows the bad guy fire the taser at the officer. Total time elapsed between the bad guy turning, firing the taser and the officer drawing and firing is no more then 1.5 seconds. That was 100% justified.
And the poor officer was fired without even a second thought...even after the higher-ups told him at the scene they'd take care of him.
hurley842002
06-14-2020, 20:45
Atlanta police shooting autopsy: Rayshard Brooks suffered 2 gunshot wounds to the back, death ruled homicide
https://www.foxnews.com/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-homicide-gunshot-wounds-back-autopsy
Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
hollohas
06-14-2020, 20:49
Atlanta police shooting autopsy: Rayshard Brooks suffered 2 gunshot wounds to the back, death ruled homicide
https://www.foxnews.com/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-homicide-gunshot-wounds-back-autopsy
Sent from my SM-G986U using TapatalkOh, that's no surprise. There's no doubt the rounds hit him behind his midsection. He didn't even break stride as he swung his arm back and fired the taser. It would have been impossible to shoot him in the front.
Bailey Guns
06-14-2020, 20:52
Atlanta police shooting autopsy: Rayshard Brooks suffered received 2 well-deserved gunshot wounds to the back, death ruled justified homicide.
In a world where people were reasonable that's how the headline would read.
Bailey Guns
06-14-2020, 20:53
Every single day I shake my head at how far we've wandered off course as a country and a society.
hollohas
06-14-2020, 21:01
In a world where people were reasonable that's how the headline would read.Exactly.
Instead the headlines read that he was "murdered while in police CUSTODY" on his kid's birthday. It's bullshit.
Zundfolge
06-14-2020, 21:21
Good shoot ... bad shoot ... doesn't matter, the mob is in charge now so all black men are saintly angels (especially when they fight with cops) and all white cops (and non cops) are evil racists ... and all non-white cops suffer from internalized white supremacy.
Things are really going to suck for poor black communities when all the police leave.
...the headlines read that he was "murdered while in police CUSTODY" on his kid's birthday. It's bullshit.
Any father that is passed-out drunk in a Wendy's drive-thru on his kid's birthday is a real piece of shit.
Thanks for the fact-check.
Too bad that Wendy's drive-thru open late to cater to weedies, but it is burned down. The drive -thru line is most likely longer at least by few vehicles. [panic]
Great-Kazoo
06-14-2020, 23:45
Every single day I shake my head at how far we've wandered off course as a country and a society.
We haven't wandered, some people mistook the under construction signs for a short cut.
Know what the next target is now that GWTW is off the air?
It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown
White skinhead wandering around at night, wearing a white sheet and a bag of rocks. Oh yeah that SCREAMS RACIST.
Then since it's PRIDE MONTH. The alaphabet, or should it be betabet ? crew is DEMANDING an apology from the Schultz estate. Saying Both the creator of Peanuts and it's heirs caused untold trauma to Lucy. By repressing her lesbian, dyke, bi, tri side to flourish . Instead forcing her to wear a dress, while being submissive to her "brother" the failed musician.
GOOD GRIEF!
Sure i made it up. BUT..................... i'm sure there's some sjw surfing every tv show, ever aired, looking for something to justify looting their neighborhood grocery store
tactical_2012
06-15-2020, 06:30
Cop may face possible murder charge
Atlanta cop who shot Rayshard Brooks could face felony murder: DA | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/us/da-in-rayshard-brooks-investigation-says-felony-murder-charge-on-table
The phrase amongst the younger internet generation for this.... Clown World. >.<
If the police had been using trigger locks they wouldn't have had to worry about someone unauthorized using any of their weapons against them.
[ROFL1]
Just kidding. I couldn't resist.
I don't know how any cops even go to work these days. I couldn't do it.
All respect for authority has been lost, in some places. And it all starts at home, with the kids. And only gets worse as they age.
It's a dangerous job and it seems it has become a no-win situation. I have no idea how anyone would do the job in the current environment.
I'm a little surprised that no department has had the entire force call-in sick for about a week to put a stop to the insanity.
If they charge that cop for that shooting I hope the whole dept quits in support for him. I think that's why the Chief quit.
Another thing that I don't understand about this incident is that every news report that I've heard on TV and the radio state that the guy "pointed the taser at police" when in fact it is clear as day from the video that he actually does fire the taser at police.
hurley842002
06-15-2020, 10:07
when in fact it is clear as day from the video that he actually does fire the taser at police.
This doesn't generate the desired outcome of the media.
Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
UrbanWolf
06-15-2020, 10:13
Honestly I have stopped caring anymore.
Yeah that's how I feel.
tactical_2012
06-15-2020, 11:40
The chief never quit she just stepped down as Chief hut still works for the department
The chief never quit she just stepped down as Chief hut still works for the department
I got the impression she worked for the govt. and volunteered to be the chief and now she's looking for another home within the govt.
BlasterBob
06-15-2020, 13:49
Typically, a law is broken then the offender RESISTS being arrested and/or being cuffed. Simply don’t break the law and you won’t have to be concerned about interaction with a LEO that may be having a shitty day.[blaster]
I'm a little surprised that no department has had the entire force call-in sick for about a week to put a stop to the insanity.
Sooner or later this will start happening. It has to, the professional victims have given the cops no choice.
O2
Typically, a law is broken then the offender RESISTS being arrested and/or being cuffed. Simply don’t break the law and you won’t have to be concerned about interaction with a LEO that may be having a shitty day.[blaster]
We are all breaking the laws all the time. Sometimes, even if you aren't, the police pull you over and make up a reason to contact you. When you're black, that happens more often. So a nice sentiment, but it doesn't fit reality.
Also, break a law = killed without trial, isn't America. Well, it's not supposed to be anyway.
Aloha_Shooter
06-15-2020, 14:25
He wasn't killed for sleeping in the drive-through. He was shot when the officers returned fire and sadly died. One could maybe argue they should have realized he was firing the Tazer instead of a lethal firearm and held fire but I'm not going to second-guess a split-second decision in a circumstance I've never faced. In an ideal world, Internal Affairs would investigate and then report back (objectively and dispassionately) on whether it was a justified shoot and what -- if any -- changes to be made to training ... but this world is hardly ideal and the current emotionally charged situation is about as far from ideal as you can get.
Also, break a law = killed without trial, isn't America. Well, it's not supposed to be anyway.
Be pretty tough to have a trial if law breakers can freely run away without any repercussion.
The big concern there is that law breakers with a handicap or other medical issue will be clearly treated unequally and that's just not fair. Can't have that.
https://www.lawofficer.com/america-we-are-leaving/
BlasterBob
06-15-2020, 15:40
We are all breaking the laws all the time. Sometimes, even if you aren't, the police pull you over and make up a reason to contact you. When you're black, that happens more often. So a nice sentiment, but it doesn't fit reality.
Cop pulls you over and just makes up a reason for the contact. May be difficult but best hold your tongue and not argue with the cop so the Judge can hear the facts and hopefully declare the charge was total bull shit. Also, trust that Judge is NOT a relative or drinking buddy of the offending cop. [blaster]
We are all breaking the laws all the time. Speak for yourself if you must, BUT I do NOT break laws all the time. Matter of fact, it's quite rare. Just when I'm in a hurry and not being impeded by heavy traffic.[Coffee]
I supported that crazy hotel hallway vicitim, Indiana facebook live shot victim, Aurora old man with hearing aid victim, george, etc. However, this guy in Atlanta IS NOT A VICTIM. HE IS A CRAZY CRIMINAL who stole other person's (this case, it happened to be a police) weapon and try to use against it.
Be pretty tough to have a trial if law breakers can freely run away without any repercussion.
The big concern there is that law breakers with a handicap or other medical issue will be clearly treated unequally and that's just not fair. Can't have that.
I should be more clear when responding to Bob. I'm not talking about this Atlanta shooting. But the idea in general that all you have to do is not break laws to avoid police contact is generally false.
ETA: Obviously confusing, given that it's in the Atlanta shooting thread.
I should be more clear when responding to Bob. I'm not talking about this Atlanta shooting. But the idea in general that all you have to do is not break laws to avoid police contact is generally false.
What about the aspect of compliance vs. resistance effecting the outcome if you do find yourself in an interaction with LE? Do you feel that that is generally a fallacy as well?
I think we're getting into the weeds here. I'd say that generally when you're not breaking the law, your chances of contact with law enforcement are lower.
I'd say that generally when you do have contact with law enforcement, compliance gets you a better outcome than resistance.
But I'd also say that generally your chances of having a decent encounter with law enforcement in either of the previous two statements goes up when you're white. The statistics might be small (like mass shootings, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks), but when they do happen they are generally serious and people tend to remember. Is that fair enough?
I think we're getting into the weeds here. I'd say that generally when you're not breaking the law, your chances of contact with law enforcement are lower.
I'd say that generally when you do have contact with law enforcement, compliance gets you a better outcome than resistance.
But I'd also say that generally your chances of having a decent encounter with law enforcement in either of the previous two statements goes up when you're white. The statistics might be small (like mass shootings, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks), but when they do happen they are generally serious and people tend to remember. Is that fair enough?
You planted this particular garden. I think your first and second statements are generally fair. You kind of lose me on the third one by over-valuing the virtue of color. You even follow it up with a qualifier that it is basically statistically insignificant.
Short version: Try to be a law abiding citizen, and if encountered by LE, be courteous, respectful and compliant. Your chances of leaving the scene unscathed increase exponentially regardless of race, color, creed or religion. Fair enough?
Yes.
I have a hard time with the statistically insignificant stuff, because I think that, in the end, most things are statistically insignificant, given enough time or distance from the event. Example: the deaths from 9/11 would be statistically insignificant measured against just about any metric that counts ways, or how many people die from one cause. But, you'd have to go a long way away from the US in distance, time, or both, to find a person who would admit to feeling that way.
Bailey Guns
06-15-2020, 18:07
Well, if we're going to be honest, black males represent about 6 or 7 percent of the population. They commit a bit over 50% of all homicides. (Latest stats I could find) They also kill police officers at a much higher rate than whites. (Can't find that stat at the moment...it's significantly higher.)
Maybe there's a reason besides racism that black vs white encounters are more favorable to whites. Assuming that's even the case.
Bailey Guns
06-15-2020, 18:14
One could maybe argue they should have realized he was firing the Tazer instead of a lethal firearm and held fire but I'm not going to second-guess a split-second decision in a circumstance I've never faced.
I'd venture to guess that a deadly force response is authorized by just about every dept in the country when a suspect attempts to tase or even pepper spray an officer. Didn't have tasers when I was working the street but policy in all 3 depts where I worked was explicit...if someone uses a chemical weapon against you (ie: pepper spray) deadly force was an allowed option (obviously depending on the totality of the circumstances). Reason being that obviously tasers and chemical sprays have the potential to completely incapacitate the officer.
So you're comparing a large scale terrorist act (9/11) as being statisticallly insignificant, so long you get to cherry-pick the comparison metrics, to a police brutality trigger event that is being bandied happily about by the left and the msm to foment unrest, all while other instances of (for the sake of this protest) blacks being murdered, whites being murdered and police of all colors are being murdered and given practically ZERO attention by the left and msm?
Statistical insignificance aside, what you should have a problem with is that a single event is being used to turn almost the entire world upside down, with no regard for the final cost, while other egregious actions happening IN THE SAME TIME FRAME are almost totally ignored unless they can be used/spun to further the agenda. And that, is DECIDEDLY NOT insignificant, IMO.
Jumpstart
06-15-2020, 18:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEvMc-K8XHY&t=26s
Chris Rock and MLK
So you're comparing a large scale terrorist act (9/11) as being statisticallly insignificant, so long you get to cherry-pick the comparison metrics, to a police brutality trigger event that is being bandied happily about by the left and the msm to foment unrest, all while other instances of (for the sake of this protest) blacks being murdered, whites being murdered and police of all colors are being murdered and given practically ZERO attention by the left and msm?
Statistical insignificance aside, what you should have a problem with is that a single event is being used to turn almost the entire world upside down, with no regard for the final cost, while other egregious actions happening IN THE SAME TIME FRAME are almost totally ignored unless they can be used/spun to further the agenda. And that, is DECIDEDLY NOT insignificant, IMO.
No, you're projecting what I think now. You suggested I was saying something was statistically insignificant, and I was agreeing, but taking a side bar to explain that I don't like that argument, and explain why. I'm not comparing 9/11 to anything and it shouldn't be part of the discussion.
There are so many moving parts to what's going on right now that it's almost not worth in engaging in debate about it because everyone can find a niche aspect to be dissatisfied with. I'm not happy with the way the media is doing what the media always does. I'm not happy that social media is now a tool for the news, individual people, and corporations alike to project one virtue signal or another that they think will drum up the most likes, views, discussions, etc. I don't like that suburban white kids that likely can't even relate to why the black community would be mad are using this as an excuse to riot and get away with general destruction that has no message, no direction, no objective, no anything other than the desire to go cause trouble. I don't like how people who aren't out protesting, tend to just brush everything off with simple expressions that are no more thoughtful than commenting on the weather. "Don't commit crimes and there won't be any trouble." If things were that simple, none of this would be happening.
I'm sure there are ten other directions to go from here, but in short, I don't like any of it. One thing that we can all agree on, is that even I'm sick of making a bunch of knee-jerk comments and firing up debates. Like another member said to me, some of these threads are like pushing on a sore tooth in your mouth. You know you shouldn't do it, and the result is never good, but you keep doing it. I'll try to ratchet back my snark when I read something I disagree with, since I know there are 50 other people standing ready at their keyboards ready to point out dumb stuff I say.
Is that what the group PM is up to now? ;)
Cheers.
There's a group PM??? Maybe my numbers are low...
From 2016:
http://youtu.be/67Fr-xKukco
There's a group PM??? Maybe my numbers are low...
Is that what the group PM is up to now? ;)
Cheers.
Yup. Some forums would call it the circle or known as gossip circle.
hollohas
06-15-2020, 19:46
Also, break a law = killed without trial, isn't America. Well, it's not supposed to be anyway.It doesn't. But assaulting police officers, stealing their weapons and then firing said weapons at them usually does.
We are all breaking the laws all the time. Sometimes, even if you aren't, the police pull you over and make up a reason to contact you. When you're black, that happens more often. So a nice sentiment, but it doesn't fit reality.
No statistics back you up. Really loathsome sentiment.
Bailey Guns
06-15-2020, 20:06
The numbers put out there by Ms McDonald are pretty hard to reconcile with the narrative that the problem is cops killing blacks indiscriminately.
Blacks are killing blacks indiscriminately. Something in black culture is the problem. Not the police. But few people want to hear that because it neutralizes the popular narrative and takes away the excuse for bad behavior by blacks. The benefits to being a victim are far greater than they are being the cause of the problem.
I actually wish cops nationwide would stop working for a week or two. Park the cars. Stay home.
Bailey Guns
06-15-2020, 20:07
No statistics back you up. Really loathsome sentiment.
Yep. Lotta that going around these days.
Bailey Guns
06-15-2020, 20:15
A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black person than an unarmed black person is likely to be killed by police. I'd heard that statistic before but couldn't remember it exactly.
hollohas
06-15-2020, 20:28
I actually wish cops nationwide would stop working for a week or two. Park the cars. Stay home.
With all the comp time they've been racking up, it shouldn't take much convincing to organize this^.
No statistics back you up. Really loathsome sentiment.
I'm saddened that you need a chart of numbers to understand that not every person's reality matches yours.
The numbers put out there by Ms McDonald are pretty hard to reconcile with the narrative that the problem is cops killing blacks indiscriminately.
Blacks are killing blacks indiscriminately. Something in black culture is the problem. Not the police. But few people want to hear that because it neutralizes the popular narrative and takes away the excuse for bad behavior by blacks. The benefits to being a victim are far greater than they are being the cause of the problem.
I actually wish cops nationwide would stop working for a week or two. Park the cars. Stay home.
This is an entirely different issue. Stop going out of your way to pretend that they are the same thing.
Wishing police would stay home for a week is the same as telling all your friends on Myspace not to buy gas on Tuesday to fight gas prices.
*You probably weren't on Myspace when it came out, but that kind of crap went around often back at that time.
Bailey Guns
06-15-2020, 20:34
Except the agency won't authorize everyone to take comp time at once. They'll have to go without permission and pay I'm guessing.
Except the agency won't authorize everyone to take comp time at once. They'll have to go without permission and pay I'm guessing.
If they feel strongly enough about it, then they should do it.
Bailey Guns
06-15-2020, 20:49
This is an entirely different issue. Stop going out of your way to pretend that they are the same thing.
What exactly is different? The truth vs the lie? One is a make believe problem, the other is a real problem, both surrounding the same issue...blacks being killed. It seems plain as day to me.
Wishing police would stay home for a week is the same as telling all your friends on Myspace not to buy gas on Tuesday to fight gas prices.
*You probably weren't on Myspace when it came out, but that kind of crap went around often back at that time.
Well so what? Is that a crime in Irvingland to wish something? I'm not telling anyone else to feel that way or to wish that would happen. I said that's what I would like to see. I didn't suggest you or anyone else needs to want that. Now THAT'S two separate things...telling all your friends on some silly social media platform to do something vs a singular person voicing a desire that something happen.
Okay no stat is fine, and let's get poverty white/brown/yellow/black/orange/blue out of stat to be fair.
Middle class minorities who are black and brown SAY they were a targeted by racism. They said it out of their fuxking mouth. What more bull shit discussion do people need?
LOL put word on their mouth and say:
"No you didnt"
"It is your culture"
"I am rich and highly educated. I have a minority friend and I dont see no racism!"
Bullshit!
From this incident, i am going to learn from this and try not to say anything offensive to anyone. No offense stuff to elder. Cautious talking to cry baby professors. Cautious talking to angry DMV employees. No offensive slangs including.
Now. If anyone steal your gun or Taser X26 and shoot you with it, it is totally a different situation. :)
The issue I have with it is that the group named "Black Lives Matter" isn't about what their name is.
Niger Innis: Black Lives Matter agenda doesn't have a 'damn thing to do' with saving black lives (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/niger-innis-black-lives-matter-agenda-doesnt-have-a-damn-thing-to-do-with-saving-black-lives)
Niger Innis, the spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality, slammed the Black Lives Matter movement for what he sees as “hard truths” about the group’s agenda.
“They take their instructions, their guidance from the Marxist playbook,” Innis, who is black, said to Fox News’s Laura Ingraham about the Black Lives Matter movement this week. “Look, I’m going to tell some hard truths that people aren’t going to want to hear.”
“The BLM movement, Black Lives Matter movement, was founded by Alicia Garza and a number of other co-founders that were promoting a hard Marxist and LGBT agenda,” Innis continued. “Look, I don’t have a problem with people exercising their First Amendment rights. You have the right to organize, you have the right to protest, you have the right to come up with an agenda. But I’ll be goddamned if you use the suffer[ing] and misery of black Americans and our legacy to the United States of America as your shield and use us as cannon fodder when your agenda really has not a damn thing to do with saving black lives.”
Innis acknowledged that many of the protesters enraged by the death of George Floyd are innocent and mean well but are “misguided.”
Innis, son of the late Roy Innis, a black American activist and politician, criticized the Black Lives Matter push to defund the police and argued that the group has its sights set on eliminating Western values as a whole.
“If you look at their agenda, defunding the police, that would put black lives in danger,” Innis warned. “But it’s even more than that, Laura. They have, as a part of their platform, on their own website that we want to disrupt — disrupt! — the Western-prescribed nuclear family.”
“They want to overthrow capitalism. They want to overthrow Western civilization, and they see America as the biggest clear and present danger to fulfilling that agenda, and they are using black people to do it.”
Innis cited the murder of 77-year-old retired police Capt. David Dorn, a black man who was allegedly murdered by a black looter in St. Louis while attempting to stop the robbery of a pawnshop, which is owned by a friend of his. Innis referred to the killers as “savages committing acts of destruction.”
“It is so gross, and for all of these corporations … that give a dollar or millions of dollars to the BLM agenda, they are destroying black lives. You want to talk about anti-black supremacy, that’s the anti-black supremacy that’s taking place,” Innis said before concluding with the point that “the irony ... is that it’s the illusion of black supremacy and the reality of a Marxist agenda that will bury all of us.”
Cities all across the country have witnessed peaceful protests, violent riots, and calls to defund and disband police departments in response to the death of Floyd, a black man who died while in police custody in Minneapolis. The Black Lives Matter organization has been the most outspoken, driving force behind those efforts.
Perhaps an angle being overlooked is this: Assume for sake of illustration that most ?white? people are being taught (in school, by parents, by peers, in the media) to be respectful and obey the commands of the police, and aren?t given much sympathy if they don?t, and things don?t turn out well for them. If black people are being raised to disrespect the police, not obey their commands, and that police are killing more black people than other black criminals (by their parents, teachers, news media, pop culture icons, peers, etc.), then it would be no surprise that lawful interactions based on probable cause or even reasonable suspicion between LEOs and the two groups would have drastically different outcomes, statistically.
That?s leaving out the reality that in the black ?pop culture? criminals, drug using/dealing, wife/girlfriend beating gang member, cop killers are routinely portrayed as role models in movies, music, news, rallies, books, ?black history?, etc.
Consider all the non-black members here complaining about encounters they’ve had with “gung-ho”, authoritarian, asshole cops. If they were black, they would be screaming racism. If they’re not, cops are just being assholes with nothing better to do. Perhaps it’s often more a learned perception of the person being contacted.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/be/2b/13/be2b138bda41b57479ec7321279bb747.jpg
I'm saddened that you need a chart of numbers to understand that not every person's reality matches yours.
This is an entirely different issue. Stop going out of your way to pretend that they are the same thing.
Wishing police would stay home for a week is the same as telling all your friends on Myspace not to buy gas on Tuesday to fight gas prices.
*You probably weren't on Myspace when it came out, but that kind of crap went around often back at that time.
Not every persons reality? You sound like #metoo and every other whackadoodle hard leftist that believes that random ancedotal (and often contrived) examples trump hard facts. Should keep following that crowds thinking, these days they are also busy claiming math is racist.
You know, I bet from another computer what I'm saying does sound like that. That's too bad and I can't think of a better way to express my disagreement. I guess it's just way easier and more comfortable to write off different view points as bullshit than to engage with them. Oh well.
http://youtu.be/EojpsR_EyxY
Bailey Guns
06-16-2020, 05:26
You know, I bet from another computer what I'm saying does sound like that. That's too bad and I can't think of a better way to express my disagreement. I guess it's just way easier and more comfortable to write off different view points as bullshit than to engage with them. Oh well.
Who's writing off differing viewpoints? If you're talking about BLM, people have been "engaging" with them since the beginning. People at all levels have tried to explain this movement was founded on a lie. There are countless blacks and whites out there who have pointed out the fallacy of the BLM talking points...been doing so for years. The only people writing anything off are the leftists and the BLM people. They've completely written off logical thought, the truth and common sense.
https://www.lawofficer.com/america-we-are-leaving/
This article has a few good points, but the overarching tone of it was "We dindu nuffin!"; it is, therefore, tone deaf (which is a theme for Maj. Yates in recent years).
For example, in Sacramento (https://i.imgur.com/NDglcu8.mp4), a man was falsely ID'd as having a warrant. Complies with police commands and stands with his hands on his head. Proceeds to then get drop kicked in the back by some tactical retard moron and that sets off a chain of events that leads someone who literally hadn't done anything being charged with resisting arrest. A false arrest, I might add (since, well, the warrant wasn't for him). What are people supposed to think when they see stuff like that? What is a person supposed to do when they are doing everything right and still get drop kicked in the kidneys?
What are people supposed to think when someone like Sgt. Charles Langley is playing some sick game of Simon Says Twister while continually telling the poor bastard he's going to get shot, and another cop on scene, Philip "Mitch" Brailsford, with a completely inappropriate engraving on his AR-15's dust cover (You're Fucked) unloads rounds when a drunk, sobbing, scared for his life person trips while crawling; when all they had to do was tell him to keep his hands up and secure him in cuffs the moment he was in the hall. How do any of us know we won't be the next Daniel Shaver, who did his best to comply under completely ridiculous and contradictory circumstances and was rewarded with being murdered? And then Brailsford not only gets away with it, he now gets a PTSD pension because he murdered someone. What the actual f...?
How do we know we won't be the next John Crawford? Given no time to drop a weapon before the responding officer opens fire, when we have no idea what's going on?
How do we know we won't be the next Philando Castile? Trying to get a wallet out and, having done our duty to inform the cop of the presence of a weapon, get lit up.
Such cops don't have the constitution to wear the uniform and interact with the public.
Are these incidents normative? Of course not. But they have a serious impact on the national consciousness and perception of police.
Just like 1 psychotic break for SSG Robert Bales ruined any possible good being done in Panjwayi Afghanistan, so too does every incident of police brutality, or general dickheadery, erode trust a little more. Every time a police officer approaches someone like an dickhead instead of a person. Every time a cop acts like his badge and gun somehow excuse him from a little human decency, they are the ones who have brought it to where it is now.
Police have a serious public relations problem, and frankly they largely brought it upon themselves. Departments across the nation seem to be about as self-aware as the cretins at 16th Street mall.
As my first Platoon Sergeant said, "You can have 1000 attaboys, but all it takes is one 'ah, shit'."
Great-Kazoo
06-16-2020, 09:26
I think we're getting into the weeds here. I'd say that generally when you're not breaking the law, your chances of contact with law enforcement are lower.
I'd say that generally when you do have contact with law enforcement, compliance gets you a better outcome than resistance.
But I'd also say that generally your chances of having a decent encounter with law enforcement in either of the previous two statements goes up when you're white. The statistics might be small (like mass shootings, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks), but when they do happen they are generally serious and people tend to remember. Is that fair enough?
Chances of a better outcome increase based on how you interact with them. Doesn't matter the color of your skin.
in the mid 70's out motorcycle riding, there was continuous unwarranted LE stops on myself and others riding "choppers" Pulled over just because.
Usual drug search, loud pipes, horn not audible enough. Or what we called harassment. Then i was. SO what's the reason for being pulled over now!. Considering your partner stopped me 5 blocks from here for the same bullshit. That usually produced 1-2 more patrol cars, with guns drawn, or blatant hands on gun.
Going forward to the mid 80's (yeah it took 10 yrs) when stopped and asked. Do you know why i pulled you over? Possibly for some traffic infraction. as well as so how's your day going officer, still dealing with idiots who don't obey the speed limit. Or some small talk.
The different between WTF did i do wrong!!, to how's your day going, made the difference between 30 minutes of overt LE presence. Or, i'll let you off with a warning this time.
Same interaction if one of my "hispanic" buddies was driving. Start off polite and it usually ends the same way. Unless they say, Can you step out of the car. After finding out there's a warrant or two out for FTA. Really, who remembers to pay parking tickets?
Charges filed.
1 of them got aggravated assault
The other, 11 charges, including felony murder, and 3 counts agg assault
hollohas
06-17-2020, 14:18
I can't recall ever being more disgusted in the criminal justice system than I am right now while listening to the DA lay out the charges against the Atlanta officer. It's sickening how bullshit this is.
The DA has spent a huge amount of time saying how compliant and polite Brooks was. That he was just "peacefully sleeping" in his car. That Brooks didn't argue or fight them. That he didn't threaten the officers. That he wasn't even all that drunk anyway. Literally, the DA is saying Brooks didn't do ANYTHING wrong. No mention of him assaulting officers, twice. No mention of him being a 4 time felon out on parole. No mention of that fact that he jumped the curb when he parked his car.
And instead, the DA says the officers never told Brooks he was under arrest. And the officer wasn't threatened by the taser being fire at him because the prongs went over his head...and because Brooks was 12ft away. That the officers didn't provide timely medical assistance to Brooks (even though there's video of the officer administering CPR and begging Brooks to hold on). That they pinned him down immediately after shooting him.
They are throwing the book at the one officer. 11 or 12 counts. Felony murder, assault, assault on two or three witnesses because their car got hit. Breaking a bunch of department policies, etc.
This is outrageous.
EDIT to add:
Devin Brosnan, the 2nd officer who is a complete turd, who is seen in the video being a complete pantywaste while Brooks is resisting arrest and assaulting them, who managed to get his taser stolen because he failed to deploy it aggressively ultimately leading to the officer Rolfe needing to defend himself...has turned state witness.
The fucking DA said "We've concluded, at the time Mr Brooks was shot, that he did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or officers."
YET, about 3 weeks ago, THE SAME DA charged 6 other officers with aggravated assault for using a taser on someone, which, by statute has to include use of a deadly weapon, threat of serious bodily injury, intent to rape, rob, or murder, or discharging a firearm from a vehicle.
Cant have it both ways bucko.
This article has a few good points, but the overarching tone of it was "We dindu nuffin!"; it is, therefore, tone deaf (which is a theme for Maj. Yates in recent years).
For example, in Sacramento (https://i.imgur.com/NDglcu8.mp4), a man was falsely ID'd as having a warrant. Complies with police commands and stands with his hands on his head. Proceeds to then get drop kicked in the back by some tactical retard moron and that sets off a chain of events that leads someone who literally hadn't done anything being charged with resisting arrest. A false arrest, I might add (since, well, the warrant wasn't for him). What are people supposed to think when they see stuff like that? What is a person supposed to do when they are doing everything right and still get drop kicked in the kidneys?
What are people supposed to think when someone like Sgt. Charles Langley is playing some sick game of Simon Says Twister while continually telling the poor bastard he's going to get shot, and another cop on scene, Philip "Mitch" Brailsford, with a completely inappropriate engraving on his AR-15's dust cover (You're Fucked) unloads rounds when a drunk, sobbing, scared for his life person trips while crawling; when all they had to do was tell him to keep his hands up and secure him in cuffs the moment he was in the hall. How do any of us know we won't be the next Daniel Shaver, who did his best to comply under completely ridiculous and contradictory circumstances and was rewarded with being murdered? And then Brailsford not only gets away with it, he now gets a PTSD pension because he murdered someone. What the actual f...?
How do we know we won't be the next John Crawford? Given no time to drop a weapon before the responding officer opens fire, when we have no idea what's going on?
How do we know we won't be the next Philando Castile? Trying to get a wallet out and, having done our duty to inform the cop of the presence of a weapon, get lit up.
Such cops don't have the constitution to wear the uniform and interact with the public.
Are these incidents normative? Of course not. But they have a serious impact on the national consciousness and perception of police.
Just like 1 psychotic break for SSG Robert Bales ruined any possible good being done in Panjwayi Afghanistan, so too does every incident of police brutality, or general dickheadery, erode trust a little more. Every time a police officer approaches someone like an dickhead instead of a person. Every time a cop acts like his badge and gun somehow excuse him from a little human decency, they are the ones who have brought it to where it is now.
Police have a serious public relations problem, and frankly they largely brought it upon themselves. Departments across the nation seem to be about as self-aware as the cretins at 16th Street mall.
As my first Platoon Sergeant said, "You can have 1000 attaboys, but all it takes is one 'ah, shit'."
Just had this pop into my recommended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUhdc1GAddk
Jocko making the same point: public relations are in need of fixing.
He also makes a great point about the "us vs them" problem. I'd tack on, in his example of cops who are nervous, etc., that the public is in the same boat. Just as any cop on any stop may be walking up to a car wondering if he's about to get into a gun fight, so too does a not insignificant portion of the public wonder if any interaction with police will lead to a fabricated arrest, injury, or death.
Know those videos they show in the academy of cops getting murdered on country roads, dash cam catching them screaming in terror as the criminal unloads into them at point blank range? Those are a double edged sword. They show a statistically unlikely reality in order to drill not being complacent. But they also propagandize and instill fear. Similarly, when people see videos of police brutality or cops murdering people who didn't do something so heinous as to deserve such treatment, or the cops are obviously escalating the situation, the same statistically unlikely reality is instilled in the mind of the public.
For those who would guffaw at the public having such a perception, I would pose the following question: if the statistically unlikely is enough to completely put away such fears, or serve as fodder for derision, then why do you carry a gun?
This is not a subject where we can have an "iron sight" argument. 99% of what we see is due to bad optics. So perhaps it would be a good idea for police nationwide to stop drinking their own Kool Aid and using CounterSniper™ optics style pounding of the table. They need some Schmidt and Bender or Nightforce level PR. Cus right now? Well, right now, the multi-colored, switchable reticle with military overrun on the box ain't looking so hot.
The officer would ordinarily have a claim for malicious prosecution when this is all over. If not for prosecutorial immunity... which is pretty much absolute unlike qualified immunity. Little is worse than a politicized, weaponized prosecutor, they make a bad cop look angelic.
Regardless of Police, weapons trainer, etc, I think Cardiologist and psychiatrist would agree that this is most likely difficult situation to avoid.
The officer with the vest and about 20+ lbs load was running (at temp well over 80F) while bad guy had a active weapon taser. His heard rate is probably at 160bps. When bad guy try to shoot the officer with taser, I am fairly sure even very hard trainer police or even rambo/Chuck Norris' heart rate would be well over 180s at that point. Taking a pistol out of level 2 or 3 safariland ALS and/or SLS retention pistol while running + at 180bps would not be easy thing to do.
If the guy who got shot at by taser had a time machine to stop a time, and had good 5 minutes of relax time (to lower his BP/BPS/temp , I am sure he would've have managed to not fire? who knows.
Good point, and I'm surprised that he was able to land any shot on the suspect. Had I been in the same circumstance, there wouldn't be a news article about "murdering" an "African American innocent young man", but instead, hitting somebody's house 1/4 of a mile away while they're in the bath or something. He needs a marksmanship badge.
I had a friend about 10 years ago (we no longer talk due to George Zimmerman views) told me this funny story. He has ccw and black w/ Japanese first name. He got pulled over once by Denver, and he wanted to be nice and told the officer he has a gun.
Officer asked him where the gun was at, and he said it was on his hip. Officer slowly and slowly walked away, then speed increased. While he was somewhat running back to his patrol car, he try to pull out his firearm multiple times, but he could not clear his retention for good 5 second! :)
Those duty holster has many retention so that some bad guy would not yoink it out of the holster. Need many many practices.
Of course, i told him that he should presented the ccw first and told him that he has a firearm. "I have a GUN!"may not be a great way to tell some of officers who haven't had leo job for years.
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 15:25
He also makes a great point about the "us vs them" problem. I'd tack on, in his example of cops who are nervous, etc., that the public is in the same boat. Just as any cop on any stop may be walking up to a car wondering if he's about to get into a gun fight, so too does a not insignificant portion of the public wonder if any interaction with police will lead to a fabricated arrest, injury, or death.
Know those videos they show in the academy of cops getting murdered on country roads, dash cam catching them screaming in terror as the criminal unloads into them at point blank range? Those are a double edged sword. They show a statistically unlikely reality in order to drill not being complacent. But they also propagandize and instill fear. Similarly, when people see videos of police brutality or cops murdering people who didn't do something so heinous as to deserve such treatment, or the cops are obviously escalating the situation, the same statistically unlikely reality is instilled in the mind of the public.
For those who would guffaw at the public having such a perception, I would pose the following question: if the statistically unlikely is enough to completely put away such fears, or serve as fodder for derision, then why do you carry a gun?
This is not a subject where we can have an "iron sight" argument. 99% of what we see is due to bad optics. So perhaps it would be a good idea for police nationwide to stop drinking their own Kool Aid and using CounterSniper? optics style pounding of the table. They need some Schmidt and Bender or Nightforce level PR. Cus right now? Well, right now, the multi-colored, switchable reticle with military overrun on the box ain't looking so hot.
Maybe. One huge difference is an officer generally has no idea who he's dealing with...avg Joe Citizen or multi-time convicted, violent felon. Joe Citizen knows he's dealing with an officer and the chances of that officer being "bad" are exceedingly slim. Joe Citizen probably has an interaction with police once a year, if that. An officer potentially contacts multiple people per shift. So I don't think it's quite the same. Not to mention it's all the rage for the media now to WANT to make police look bad so that's all we hear about. We don't get to see the hundreds of thousands of police/citizen contacts every single day that don't result in something negative aside from maybe a traffic ticket.
I don't think your "why do you carry a gun" comment makes sense nor does it stand up under scrutiny for the very reasons I pointed out.
I do agree law enforcement has a PR problem. I also think a lot of that problem is exacerbated by a biased media that takes all sorts of false ideas (like "hands up, don't shoot") and gives them credibility where none should exist.
That's not to say there aren't a few bad apples. We all know there are and we've seen examples recently. But they're pretty few and far between. They're like planes...one crash and it's all over the news with no mention of the hundreds of thousands that took off and landed safely.
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 15:32
This bullshit going on in Atlanta with this asshole DA is as bad as pretty much anything we've seen the cops do. It's my understanding with the charges against Rolfe the death penalty is actually on the table. That is just an outrageous example of misconduct by a DA. It also appears the second officer is trying to throw Rolfe under the bus...most likely in an effort to either not get charged or to keep his job or both. From watching the video of the shooting he looked like he couldn't decide to shit or get off the pot.
“And, the positivity of this situation is the courageousness of Officer Brosnan to step forward and say what happened was wrong. It is officers like that who change policing.”
Maybe Brosnan is just an altruistic person. Somehow, I don't think that's his motivation. Of course, that's pure speculation on my part. I think it's more likely he's trying to avoid legal or civil issues (read $$) by cooperating with the DA and/or thug's family attorney.
hollohas
06-17-2020, 15:40
Regardless of Police, weapons trainer, etc, I think Cardiologist and psychiatrist would agree that this is most likely difficult situation to avoid.
The officer with the vest and about 20+ lbs load was running (at temp well over 80F) while bad guy had a active weapon taser. His heard rate is probably at 160bps. When bad guy try to shoot the officer with taser, I am fairly sure even very hard trainer police or even rambo/Chuck Norris' heart rate would be well over 180s at that point. Taking a pistol out of level 2 or 3 safariland ALS and/or SLS retention pistol while running + at 180bps would not be easy thing to do.
If the guy who got shot at by taser had a time machine to stop a time, and had good 5 minutes of relax time (to lower his BP/BPS/temp , I am sure he would've have managed to not fire? who knows.
Agreed completely. Best I can tell from the video is it was about a 1-2 second reaction time by the officer from when the taser is fired at him and when he fired back. That includes him dropping his taser, unholstering and taking 4 shots, 2 of which were very well placed on a moving threat. It's doesn't get much fast than that in those circumstances.
There was ZERO time for him to even begin to consider that MAYBE the taser hadn't hit him and to process the fact that the taser had been discharged twice and that it wasn't a threat anymore as the DA said he should have.
hollohas
06-17-2020, 15:52
It also appears the second officer is trying to throw Rolfe under the bus...most likely in an effort to either not get charged or to keep his job or both. From watching the video of the shooting he looked like he couldn't decide to shit or get off the pot.
It was VERY clear to me the first time I watched the video that Bronsan most definitely couldn't decide to shit or get off the pot and it was his failure to act decisively that lead to him getting his taser taken from him and his co-worker's life ruined. You can hear him say "I'm going to tase you" as he gingerly tries to find a suitable spot to maybe tase Brooks' leg instead of just getting it done.
And the damn guy is going to testify for the prosecution while Rolfe is held without bond, facing life and maybe the death penalty. This is fucked.
I may have missed the comments, but Guess the DA has gone off and done this even before GBI has finished their investigation.
Here's a link to full bodycam for those interested. https://youtu.be/4O2IReqaYqw
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 17:20
Obviously the DA in Atlanta, Paul Howard, Jr, (a black man) is only filing charges against Rolfe because Rolfe is white... claimed no one.
I'm just gonna wonder to myself if the races of those two men were reversed and a white DA Howard filed those charges against a black officer Rolfe if the reaction would be the same.
Maybe. One huge difference is an officer generally has no idea who he's dealing with...avg Joe Citizen or multi-time convicted, violent felon. Joe Citizen knows he's dealing with an officer and the chances of that officer being "bad" are exceedingly slim. Joe Citizen probably has an interaction with police once a year, if that. An officer potentially contacts multiple people per shift. So I don't think it's quite the same. Not to mention it's all the rage for the media now to WANT to make police look bad so that's all we hear about. We don't get to see the hundreds of thousands of police/citizen contacts every single day that don't result in something negative aside from maybe a traffic ticket.
I don't think your "why do you carry a gun" comment makes sense nor does it stand up under scrutiny for the very reasons I pointed out.
I do agree law enforcement has a PR problem. I also think a lot of that problem is exacerbated by a biased media that takes all sorts of false ideas (like "hands up, don't shoot") and gives them credibility where none should exist.
That's not to say there aren't a few bad apples. We all know there are and we've seen examples recently. But they're pretty few and far between. They're like planes...one crash and it's all over the news with no mention of the hundreds of thousands that took off and landed safely.
I think you are agreeing with my point, actually. I wasn't asking why cops carry guns. I know why. I support their carrying of firearms, as I support everyone's carrying of a firearm. I even support felons having firearms once they've done their time. I was asking why it's seen as sensible for regular joes to carry firearms based on a statistically unrealistic scenario but not understandable that another statistically unrealistic scenario (being killed or whatever by a cop) is seen as something to deride?
How many interactions are there a day between non-police citizens? An order of magnitude higher that police to non-police interactions, and probably less incidents of violence all considered. Ergo, why, then, do we carry? It's statistically unlikely any of us will ever *need* a firearm for self defense or protecting the well being of others. I've had exactly one situation in all my years. And it wasn't even for a person, but a pair of pit/rottweiler mixes that somehow got into our pasture in Oklahoma. Wasn't about to offer them snuggles and there was no way to escort them off the property without exposing myself to them and risking whatever aggression they might display, so they got shot.
But we carry for that *one* situation where we *might* need a firearm.
So, if that's acceptable and seen as OK, then why, when there are hundreds of videos of cops being dickheads, escalating situations, roughing people up, killing them over basically nothing but "the fear for their life" (and getting off of charges), is it unacceptable for the public to be weary of cops? Especially when they engage in tone deaf apologia for their department, themselves, etc. Great, good for them. They're either an example to follow, blind to reality (even if that reality is relegated to one or two in their dept), or lying.
Cops need to stop saying things like "a few bad apples". To certain segments of society, the main target for public relations improvement actually, it comes off as cheap and insincere. Rather, politicians and the people need to recognize that if they want a good police force which is respectable, dependable, and has the trust of the people, they need to do the things I said before (I think on another thread): increase pay, increase training, and bring down a hard hammer on anyone who violates the elevated position of trust and authority that police have.
For what cops are asked to do, and the increased dangers they face vs normal non-police interaction, they are simply not paid enough, aren't trained enough, and a lot of departments are too desperate to retain people that too much slides, in my opinion. The good ones leave, those with mental issues (narcissism, abusive, etc.) are all too often not weeded out as an ongoing process, and there is too much emphasis on actions which are really just local .gov money grabs. It sucks, cus the good ones do suffer without cause.
For example: https://coloradosprings.gov/police-department/page/salary-benefits
~86k at ~4 years. In my opinion, that's simply not enough.
EPSO is worse, and they're the ones running grow busts on cartel operations in eastern EPC, driving dangerous country roads, etc: https://www.epcsheriffsoffice.com/employment/salary-and-benefits
$80k as top.
If the police want to militarize, they should consider putting MRAPs and other doodads on the bottom of the list and learn from lessons overseas. Chiefly, don't be a dickhead without cause (and one's own ego is not sufficient). It tends to invite trouble which cascades in a fashion that results in dead people and a ruined relationship with those one is supposed to be protecting.
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 17:26
Now, as usual, conflicting information is starting to appear. Brosnan's attorney denies Brosnan has agreed to be a witness for the state. He also claims Brosnan suffered a concussion after Brooks shoved him to the ground. If that's true (the concussion claim) then that makes what the DA has done even more egregious in light of his claims Brooks was not a threat to the officer. It might also explain why Brosnan appeared so indecisive in the video.
I don't know why it's so hard in this day and age to get immediate, accurate information regarding an incident and report on it. Oh, wait...yes, I do. Because everyone wants to be first with the story. Let's release what we have and not give a flying fuck about whether or not it's accurate. We're the media...we don't care about the potential harm caused by releasing bad or incomplete information. That's a problem for someone else to sort out.
BPTactical
06-17-2020, 18:44
From that other site allegedly 4 out of 6 precincts officers walked off the job at shift change.
And they thought it burned when Sherman marched through.
hollohas
06-17-2020, 18:45
Now, as usual, conflicting information is starting to appear. Brosnan's attorney denies Brosnan has agreed to be a witness for the state. He also claims Brosnan suffered a concussion after Brooks shoved him to the ground. If that's true (the concussion claim) then that makes what the DA has done even more egregious in light of his claims Brooks was not a threat to the officer. It might also explain why Brosnan appeared so indecisive in the video.
That could explain it.
If the DA flat out LIED to the world like that...damn...there's a special place in hell for him if that's true.
Reading a couple of responses has me wondering, if there’s only a few bad apples then why do cops need qualified immunity?
Other comments have me wondering why people think it’s ok for a cop to violate people’s Constitutional Rights in order to secure the cops safety. Growing up, I always thought that a big part of the respect we held for officers came from them purposely risking their lives in certain situations so as not to violate the Constitutional Rights of the citizens of this country.
hollohas
06-17-2020, 19:35
Other comments have me wondering why people think it?s ok for a cop to violate people?s Constitutional Rights in order to secure the cops safety.
Who said this^?
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 19:50
Nobody said it. As usual, he's making shit up again. That didn't take long after his return.
It doesn't really take much scrutiny to realize that all those tried and tried cop sayings are garbage.
Only a few bad apples
Cops don't know who they are dealing with, but people know see a uniform and know they're dealing with a good guy.
Cops just wanting to return home to their families each night.
It's all just bullshit rhetoric to justify being bad cops.
I think everyone I know has a "bad cop" story. Must not be as uncommon as we'd like to think.
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 19:58
Oh, FFS. Is there a phrase I could use that's not gonna hurt the feelings of you and mrak?
How much grovelling do those of us that support the very, very few good cops out there need to do in order not to offend you? What the fuck should they say in order to express an opinion that the number of bad officers is very few relevant to the number of good officers?
Please...let me know.
I'm not offended, and even though I used every example you did, I want trying to pick on you. It's just that's the shit all cops say. It's no different than any other bullshit expression that people work into conversations as filler material.
My position is pretty much exactly as Cavscout has expressed, he's just don't a much better job expressing how he feels than I am.
Move along sir, nothing to offend here.
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 20:30
You must have a reason to dismiss a saying that's been around for longer than you and I combined have been around as garbage (the bad apples thing).
The saying means that one bad part of a group can easily taint the entire group. That's exactly what's going on in law enforcement agencies around the country. Unless you believe like so many that cops are just generally bad people for whatever reason. Is it cliche? Maybe. It's only meant to express a sentiment, not to be the final word on the matter.
No one would like to see the "bad apples" removed more than me. It does no one any good for them to remain. But even when one is discovered, identified and removed and even punished in many cases that's just not enough for some. Exactly like what's going on with Chauvin in Minneapolis. He did wrong. He was almost immediately arrested, jailed and charged. And yet still people bitch about the system. What's going on with the officer in Atlanta and how he's being treated by the DA there is a HUGE injustice. It's almost as if that DA has never heard of "presumption of innocence".
Here's what I believe. There are some cops that are "bad". They are very, very few in number in relation to the number of officers in the country. I believe the overwhelming majority of police officers in this country are honorable. I don't generally think cops need "more training". To me that's as big a cliche as "a few bad apples". They need to follow the training they've received in most cases. And FFS...I'm not saying that training is a bad thing...just wanna make that clear because I know some asshat is gonna jump on that like I'm advocating for pulling some schmuck off the street and giving him a badge and gun and telling him to go forth and violate the rights of the masses. I'm just saying that, generally speaking, cops get a lot of training initially and on an on-going basis. I think the problem is more that they don't follow the training they've received in some instances and that gets them in trouble.
Great-Kazoo
06-17-2020, 20:36
You must have a reason to dismiss a saying that's been around for longer than you and I combined have been around as garbage (the bad apples thing).
The saying means that one bad part of a group can easily taint the entire group. That's exactly what's going on in law enforcement agencies around the country. Unless you believe like so many that cops are just generally bad people for whatever reason. Is it cliche? Maybe. It's only meant to express a sentiment, not to be the final word on the matter.
No one would like to see the "bad apples" removed more than me. It does no one any good for them to remain. But even when one is discovered, identified and removed and even punished in many cases that's just not enough for some. Exactly like what's going on with Chauvin in Minneapolis. He did wrong. He was almost immediately arrested, jailed and charged. And yet still people bitch about the system. What's going on with the officer in Atlanta and how he's being treated by the DA there is a HUGE injustice. It's almost as if that DA has never heard of "presumption of innocence".
Here's what I believe. There are some cops that are "bad". They are very, very few in number in relation to the number of officers in the country. I believe the overwhelming majority of police officers in this country are honorable. I don't generally think cops need "more training". To me that's as big a cliche as "a few bad apples". They need to follow the training they've received in most cases. And FFS...I'm not saying that training is a bad thing...just wanna make that clear because I know some asshat is gonna jump on that like I'm advocating for pulling some schmuck off the street and giving him a badge and gun and telling him to go forth and violate the rights of the masses. I'm just saying that, generally speaking, cops get a lot of training initially and on an on-going basis. I think the problem is more that they don't follow the training they've received in some instances and that gets them in trouble.
Why not. NYPD did that after some democrat mayor pushed for a more inclusive police force. So...............they dropped the denial for felons with non-violent crimes to be accepted . Which they later rescinded.
That all inclusive has bitten more than one political ass.
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 20:37
Oh, yeah...
I also believe that the entire narrative of cops wantonly shooting blacks and that there's systemic racism in law enforcement is complete bullshit. Yet here we are, being fed that as fact every single day. Nothing supports either narrative. The numbers sure don't support it. Pretty much the only place where you can find support for that nonsense is the news media and social media.
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 20:41
Why not. NYPD did that after some democrat mayor pushed for a more inclusive police force. So...............they dropped the denial for felons with non-violent crimes to be accepted . Which they later rescinded.
That all inclusive has bitten more than one political ass.
Some people have an uncanny ability to read what has not been written. Everyone does it occasionally...I'm talking about people that make it a lifestyle. That's why I felt the need to clarify. Even so, I know I'll be back here trying to point out to someone that's intellectually challenged that I didn't say that. You know it's gonna happen.
I'll try that "preemptive de-escalation" technique that worked so well in Seattle.
I didn't say that.
This is not towards the regular, but those who are lurking this page.
This issue is NOT about Republican/Democrats. It is NOT about Black/Blue. It is NOT about dui/ticket.
If someone hijacked your vehicle and try to run you over, would you try to second guess? "Oh, is this criminal who stole my car and using it as a weapon trying to run me over? or is he going to dodge me?
I actually agree on the more training thing, even to the point that I would walk my earlier suggestion of everyone going to Jiu jitsu classes. Suggesting more training is the same nonsense that people cling on to and endlessly repeat to say something in a conversation, without actually saying anything. Training isn't the issue. Like in any business, training is an on-going thing that is happening all the time.
I think having so much immunity is the bigger issue. A similar example is how people treat each other online compared to face to face, and that includes me.
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 20:56
Well I'm just as much of an asshole in the real world as I am online. I can't use the internet as an excuse.
Atlanta police see 'higher than usual number of call outs' after charges announced against officers (https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-police-higher-than-usual-number-call-outs-after-charges-against-officers)
Blue flu...
Earlier suggestions that multiple officers from each zone had walked off the job were inaccurate. The department is experiencing a higher than usual number of call outs with the incoming shift. We have enough resources to maintain operations & remain able to respond to incidents.
BPTactical
06-17-2020, 21:32
Atlanta police see 'higher than usual number of call outs' after charges announced against officers (https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-police-higher-than-usual-number-call-outs-after-charges-against-officers)
Blue flu...
Already been disproved. 4 out of 6 precincts walked out at shift change.
Nobody said it. As usual, he's making shit up again. That didn't take long after his return.
This is totally ok?
I?m expressing my own personal opinion. I find it a bit off that I?m immediately attacked for expressing that opinion.
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 21:50
Other comments have me wondering why people think it?s ok for a cop to violate people?s Constitutional Rights in order to secure the cops safety.
Show me who said that here.
Show me who said that here.
I said that here, my name is actually in the quote
Bailey Guns
06-17-2020, 22:12
I see. So no one on this forum actually said it's OK for police to violate the Constitutional protections of people in order to ensure officer safety. You were just wondering why people think that it's OK for police officers to violate rights to ensure officer safety even though you're the only one who said that was the case. Sure...that makes sense.
Show me who said that here.
I said that here, my name is actually in the quote
No, Bailey is asking you who you are referring to that said it's okay for cops to violate people's rights.
buffalobo
06-17-2020, 22:17
You guys quit being "insulted/offended" and debate. Folks will think your politicians or something.
Besides nobody wants to type that much.
No, Bailey is asking you who you are referring to that said it's okay for cops to violate people's rights.
He said:
Show me who said that here.
The man is looking for an argument.
Everyone please calm down.
This is a contentious discussion. Please take a deep breath before posting.
Thank you!
Already been disproved. 4 out of 6 precincts walked out at shift change.
Why would they lie? What would they hope to gain?
He said:
Show me who said that here.
The man is looking for an argument.
His latest reply very plainly explains the logical train of conversation and how you are either making no sense, or just trolling at this point.
Everyone please calm down.
Stop resisting!
Sorry. Seemed fitting for the thread.
buffalobo
06-17-2020, 22:29
He said:
Show me who said that here.
The man is looking for an argument.Irving gave you the correct info. BG wanted to know who made the statements that lead to your opinion that you stated you got from the comments posted in this thread.
Looks like APD stated it wasn’t going on and now there’s conflicting reports.
https://mobile.twitter.com/toddstarnes
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/confirmed-on-duty-atlanta-police-officers-are-walking-off-job/
Irving gave you the correct info. BG wanted to know who made the statements that lead to your opinion that you stated you got from the comments posted in this thread.
I would invite you to go back and reread my comment.
"Reading a couple of responses has me wondering, if there’s only a few bad apples then why do cops need qualified immunity?
Other comments have me wondering why people think it’s ok for a cop to violate people’s Constitutional Rights in order to secure the cops safety. Growing up, I always thought that a big part of the respect we held for officers came from them purposely risking their lives in certain situations so as not to violate the Constitutional Rights of the citizens of this country."
That comment? I believe it was requested of you to show those comments that lead you to believe people think it's ok for a cop to violate people's Constitutional Rights.
Anybody old enough to remember the RIF campaign?
buffalobo
06-17-2020, 22:57
"Reading a couple of responses has me wondering, if there’s only a few bad apples then why do cops need qualified immunity?
Other comments have me wondering why people think it’s ok for a cop to violate people’s Constitutional Rights in order to secure the cops safety. Growing up, I always thought that a big part of the respect we held for officers came from them purposely risking their lives in certain situations so as not to violate the Constitutional Rights of the citizens of this country."
That comment? I believe it was requested of you to show those comments that lead you to believe people think it's ok for a cop to violate people's Constitutional Rights.
Thanks Doc[AR15]
"Reading a couple of responses has me wondering, if there’s only a few bad apples then why do cops need qualified immunity?
Other comments have me wondering why people think it’s ok for a cop to violate people’s Constitutional Rights in order to secure the cops safety. Growing up, I always thought that a big part of the respect we held for officers came from them purposely risking their lives in certain situations so as not to violate the Constitutional Rights of the citizens of this country."
That comment? I believe it was requested of you to show those comments that lead you to believe people think it's ok for a cop to violate people's Constitutional Rights.
I already know that some people believe it’s ok for cops to violate people’s Constitutional Rights in order to secure their safety. I stated that comments had me wondering about that concept, because many of the comments I see here echo the same talking points that I hear from blue lives matter groups, online police forums and newsletters, personal conversations I’ve had with law enforcement officers, and the list goes on and on. I’ve also seen plenty of cell phone footage of officers stating as much, there’s an entire online community devoted to policing the police so to speak and they glamorize videos of citizens schooling cops on the law and their rights.
I enjoy seeing different perspectives to news and what’s going on in the world, to hear different opinions, and I try to take much of it with a grain of salt.
What I don’t appreciate is immediately being attacked and having my words attempted to be turned against me by triggered individuals.
GilpinGuy
06-17-2020, 23:03
snip
Here's what I believe. There are some cops that are "bad". They are very, very few in number in relation to the number of officers in the country. I believe the overwhelming majority of police officers in this country are honorable.
No offense BG but I was told many years ago (by a LEO BTW) that you can assume that 10% of the people you encounter are scumbags. Surgeons, teachers, cab drivers, cops, poker managers, etc. Their profession doesn't matter - they're people. I have found this to be pretty accurate for the 20 years since I heard it for the first time.
I don't think only the most honorable among us are cops.
81940
Great-Kazoo
06-17-2020, 23:09
texted the daughter about the walk out. She sent me this reply.
Yeah, I can't make it in. Exhibiting Covid related symptoms.
As soon as i can find a safe testing site and get the results. I'll be back
It doesn't really take much scrutiny to realize that all those tried and tried cop sayings are garbage.
Only a few bad apples
Cops don't know who they are dealing with, but people know see a uniform and know they're dealing with a good guy.
Cops just wanting to return home to their families each night.
It's all just bullshit rhetoric to justify being bad cops.
I think everyone I know has a "bad cop" story. Must not be as uncommon as we'd like to think.
I guess its all bullshit rhetoric until its your loved one that does not come home from their shift. This is a reality for the families of a 100+ officers who?s shifts ended in 2020 so far.
Have one of you loved ones not come from the job of serving their community and tell me its bullshit then. I have lived it
I already know that some people believe it’s ok for cops to violate people’s Constitutional Rights in order to secure their safety. I stated that comments had me wondering about that concept, because many of the comments I see here echo the same talking points that I hear from blue lives matter groups, online police forums and newsletters, personal conversations I’ve had with law enforcement officers, and the list goes on and on. I’ve also seen plenty of cell phone footage of officers stating as much, there’s an entire online community devoted to policing the police so to speak and they glamorize videos of citizens schooling cops on the law and their rights.
I enjoy seeing different perspectives to news and what’s going on in the world, to hear different opinions, and I try to take much of it with a grain of salt.
What I don’t appreciate is immediately being attacked and having my words attempted to be turned against me by triggered individuals.
I think this is a pretty reasonable response. There are PLEANTY of posts on here that are the exact same thing. Meaning, people assuming some opposing perspective exists and commenting on it here, even though no one actually said it.
Probably by the time we start requesting sources on every single comment, it's time to take a step back, maybe go visit another entertaining thread, probably started by me, and then come back later.
I guess its all bullshit rhetoric until its your loved one that does not come home from their shift. This is a reality for the families of a 100+ officers who?s shifts ended in 2020 so far.
Have one of you loved ones not come from the job of serving their community and tell me its bullshit then.
I'll remember that the next time there is a school shooting and I get to wade through a bunch of posts about how statistically unlikely school shootings are, and what's the big deal after all?
It IS bullshit rhetoric. Everyone wants to come home at the end of the day. It's not a special feeling just for police. Maybe they say it, but I feel like I don't see firefighters or combat soldiers or linemen, or miners, or rock climbers saying that dumb shit.
"Reading a couple of responses has me wondering, if there?s only a few bad apples then why do cops need qualified immunity?
Other comments have me wondering why people think it?s ok for a cop to violate people?s Constitutional Rights in order to secure the cops safety. Growing up, I always thought that a big part of the respect we held for officers came from them purposely risking their lives in certain situations so as not to violate the Constitutional Rights of the citizens of this country." That comment? I believe it was requested of you to show those comments that lead you to believe people think it's ok for a cop to violate people's Constitutional Rights.
Qualified immunity is quite literally violating people?s civil rights contra the clear phrasing of the civil rights act of 1871, and ?amended/interpreted? (read: gutted) wherein one has to basically be a carbon copy of case law (read: bullshit). It simply needs to either go or DA?s need to get in that ass when cops do dumb shit, and pull QI when it?s clear they did something to escalate or otherwise exceed their application of lawful authority.
Here?s an example.
https://youtu.be/XmoPUWGc1WY
It also brings into focus one of the concerns with recently passed SB217, which abnegates state agencies while leaving local on the hook. That?s patently unfair to the local guys and doesn?t allow a fair playing field on joint local/state operations
??
As for training, PowerPoint and pre-shift check the block briefings are not training.
Training is training to the most extreme standard of expectation. It?s not dicking off for 30 minutes and someone pencil whips a form saying you got ?trained?. It?s going home exhausted and wondering if you?re cut out for the job.
Do I want to pay for admin wonks to get upgraded desks and whatever manner of stupidity tax dollars go to? Nope. I want to pay taxes to pay those men what they deserve. To send them to high stress, interpersonal psychologically challenging classes. To go through good medical training. To do continual screenings so the broken can be salvaged and the psychos can be shut-canned. So the unions become a thing of the past because the people have their back. So the idea of a first responder discount is rendered moot.
In Cybersec and networking, we lab on the company time and dime. Why aren?t we doing that with men charged with a far more palpable responsibility?!
I?d much rather pay $300 more a year in taxes to make sure police are properly paid and trained than for the local school system to have whatever bullshit, already outdated e-learning platform instead of just sticking with what worked for generations.
And for goodness sake, the quotas (yeah yeah, they don?t exist, just like I never had to deal with quotas on recruiting duty - right... uh huh), us vs them, and all the modern militarized bullshit need to go.
I already know that some people believe it’s ok for cops to violate people’s Constitutional Rights in order to secure their safety. I stated that comments had me wondering about that concept, because many of the comments I see here echo the same talking points that I hear from blue lives matter groups, online police forums and newsletters, personal conversations I’ve had with law enforcement officers, and the list goes on and on. I’ve also seen plenty of cell phone footage of officers stating as much, there’s an entire online community devoted to policing the police so to speak and they glamorize videos of citizens schooling cops on the law and their rights.
I enjoy seeing different perspectives to news and what’s going on in the world, to hear different opinions, and I try to take much of it with a grain of salt.
What I don’t appreciate is immediately being attacked and having my words attempted to be turned against me by triggered individuals.
Then perhaps you need to use your words and write exactly what you did in explaining your thought process, rather than expecting people to intuit what it is you're saying.
And frankly, many of your opinions are controversial and/or adversarial, so your little attempts at a jab by calling people 'triggered' because they don't agree with you- or just don't agree with your arguments- make me less than sympathetic. These are controversial topics you've chosen to be a part of, so learn how to discuss effectively to make your words understood. If you can't stand the heat of disagreement, there are many other threads that are glad to share your ideas and jokes.
The First Amendment does not prtoect you from the consequences of your words.
texted the daughter about the walk out. She sent me this reply.
Yeah, I can't make it in. Exhibiting Covid related symptoms.
As soon as i can find a safe testing site and get the results. I'll be back
I hope that it's allergies or a cold she has. Praying! Let us know.
Qualified immunity is quite literally violating people?s civil rights contra the clear phrasing of the civil rights act of 1871, and ?amended/interpreted? (read: gutted) wherein one has to basically be a carbon copy of case law (read: bullshit). It simply needs to either go or DA?s need to get in that ass when cops do dumb shit, and pull QI when it?s clear they did something to escalate or otherwise exceed their application of lawful authority.
Here?s an example.
https://youtu.be/XmoPUWGc1WY
It also brings into focus one of the concerns with recently passed SB217, which abnegates state agencies while leaving local on the hook. That?s patently unfair to the local guys and doesn?t allow a fair playing field on joint local/state operations
??
As for training, PowerPoint and pre-shift check the block briefings are not training.
Training is training to the most extreme standard of expectation. It?s not dicking off for 30 minutes and someone pencil whips a form saying you got ?trained?. It?s going home exhausted and wondering if you?re cut out for the job.
Do I want to pay for admin wonks to get upgraded desks and whatever manner of stupidity tax dollars go to? Nope. I want to pay taxes to pay those men what they deserve. To send them to high stress, interpersonal psychologically challenging classes. To go through good medical training. To do continual screenings so the broken can be salvaged and the psychos can be shut-canned. So the unions become a thing of the past because the people have their back. So the idea of a first responder discount is rendered moot.
In Cybersec and networking, we lab on the company time and dime. Why aren?t we doing that with men charged with a far more palpable responsibility?!
I?d much rather pay $300 more a year in taxes to make sure police are properly paid and trained than for the local school system to have whatever bullshit, already outdated e-learning platform instead of just sticking with what worked for generations.
And for goodness sake, the quotas (yeah yeah, they don?t exist, just like I never had to deal with quotas on recruiting duty - right... uh huh), us vs them, and all the modern militarized bullshit need to go.
I didn't know 95% of that. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Then perhaps you need to use your words and write exactly what you did in explaining your thought process, rather than expecting people to intuit what it is you're saying.
And frankly, many of your opinions are controversial and/or adversarial, so your little attempts at a jab by calling people 'triggered' because they don't agree with you- or just don't agree with your arguments- make me less than sympathetic. These are controversial topics you've chosen to be a part of, so learn how to discuss effectively to make your words understood. If you can't stand the heat of disagreement, there are many other threads that are glad to share your ideas and jokes.
The First Amendment does not prtoect you from the consequences of your words.
My apologies, I forget that my words are subject to much closer scrutiny than that of others and that double standards abound.
There’s absolutely no irony considering the topic.
My apologies, I forget that my words are subject to much closer scrutiny than that of others and that double standards abound.
There’s absolutely no irony considering the topic.
People were asking for clarification. More than once. If that doesn't tell you there is an issue in communication, then I can't help you.
And yes, you and everyone else are subject to the history of what has gone on before. Many of your prior discussions take an anti-police slant. That's not exactly a good thing to be known for, on a gun forum started by an LEO.
And you can also stop with the childish snark. This isn't grade school.
That's not exactly a good thing to be known for, on a gun forum started by an LEO.
Objection your honor. Relevance?
I lived the reality of a loved one not coming home from their watch. Trust me, the family want him home.
People with dangerous jobs do say that. I deal with a another type of safety sensitive job. We do talk that way. Wouldn’t call it rhetoric but maybe cliche. There are multiple was of saying It but the underlying tone of it all is stay safe.
Yes everyone wants to go home at the end of the day and everyone does what they can to make that happen.
buffalobo
06-18-2020, 00:21
Objection your honor. Relevance?
Overruled, argumentative.
I lived the reality of a loved one not coming home from their watch. Trust me, the family want him home.
People with dangerous jobs do say that. I deal with a another type of safety sensitive job. We do talk that way. Wouldn’t call it rhetoric but maybe cliche. There are multiple was of saying It but the underlying tone of it all is stay safe.
Yes everyone wants to go home at the end of the day and everyone does what they can to make that happen.
We've all lost loved ones too soon, and in the end it doesn't matter if they were serving the community, or had a run in with cancer. I haven't bought a crotch rocket ever since I've been able to afford one, because I want to come home at night for my family. I get touchy and refer to it as rhetoric because in the context of this discussion, and police work, I feel it's often thrown around as a defense for bad behavior. That might sound like splitting hairs, but with the heightened emotions of the discussion, I'm sure you can understand. Just as I understand the people who spend so much time defending police officers as a whole, that they tend to forget to address the actions of the bad ones and gloss over the perceptions of the non-police community.
As I've said before, almost every angle of this discussion has some truth to it. People are upset about mostly outlier events. Everyone is mad, and everyone is right. It's not a simple, or comfortable discussion and will take acceptance and understanding from all sides to actually get anywhere.
buffalobo
06-18-2020, 00:55
So listening to scanner for 6th precinct in Atlanta for 2-3 hrs tonite and almost no radio traffic and what there was sounded as if it was informing officers to not leave personal effects in the precinct?
Eerie quiet and 15,000+ people listening.
Enter: Blue Flu / Corona Virus ven diagram with overlapping section labeled: Atlanta
Bailey Guns
06-18-2020, 05:02
So listening to scanner for 6th precinct in Atlanta for 2-3 hrs tonite and almost no radio traffic and what there was sounded as if it was informing officers to not leave personal effects in the precinct?
Eerie quiet and 15,000+ people listening.
I listened to it as well and agree...it was pretty quiet for Atlanta. I also heard a few calls that were pretty much just ignored. I think some in Atlanta are glossing over the seriousness of the fallout regarding some of their piss poor leadership in that city.
Bailey Guns
06-18-2020, 05:04
I hope that it's allergies or a cold she has. Praying! Let us know.
I think his daughter is fine. I think she was talking about what she might say if she were an Atlanta officer.
I could be wrong on that...hope not.
Bailey Guns
06-18-2020, 05:11
We've all lost loved ones too soon, and in the end it doesn't matter if they were serving the community, or had a run in with cancer.
Wow... Of course it matters. For a variety of reasons.
Bailey Guns
06-18-2020, 06:31
No offense BG but I was told many years ago (by a LEO BTW) that you can assume that 10% of the people you encounter are scumbags. Surgeons, teachers, cab drivers, cops, poker managers, etc. Their profession doesn't matter - they're people. I have found this to be pretty accurate for the 20 years since I heard it for the first time.
OK. Let's assume 10% is true (I think that's probably a little high, but whatever). A 90/10 ratio is still a pretty overwhelming number. If you had those odds of winning when you played the lottery would you play more often than you do? I would.
I don't think only the most honorable among us are cops.
I'm going to try to respond without getting totally frustrated by this statement. Let me refer you to what I said in post #105 of this thread:
I didn't say that.
Here's what I actually said.
Here's what I believe. There are some cops that are "bad". They are very, very few in number in relation to the number of officers in the country. I believe the overwhelming majority of police officers in this country are honorable.
I think his daughter is fine. I think she was talking about what she might say if she were an Atlanta officer.
I could be wrong on that...hope not.
That makes sense!
Great-Kazoo
06-18-2020, 08:41
I hope that it's allergies or a cold she has. Praying! Let us know.
thanks but it's her sarcasm. She neither has nor exhibits symptoms. But she did pass it on to her 3 cousins, in various LE agencies to "tell a friend"
I actually agree on the more training thing, even to the point that I would walk my earlier suggestion of everyone going to Jiu jitsu classes. Suggesting more training is the same nonsense that people cling on to and endlessly repeat to say something in a conversation, without actually saying anything. Training isn't the issue. Like in any business, training is an on-going thing that is happening all the time.
I think having so much immunity is the bigger issue. A similar example is how people treat each other online compared to face to face, and that includes me.
As someone that has offensively litigated against immunities, I'm torn on the issue of QI. It seems.... I don't think it should go away - it is already not overly difficult to overcome it, it just needs honed/adjusted. There is too many vexatious types out there that could harass officers otherwise (e.g. threatening that every time you arrest them they'll open a case, they're uncollectable) and the civil system does not protect anyone from that stuff. That said, it is often overextended based on the clearly settled law argument that prevents anyone from relief on any case of first impression or unique facts. (ETA Here to add: What that means is say officers break into your house and maliciously destroy your ming vase collection while joking about it, well they can argue that's not a solution in clearly settled case law so they are still protected by qualified immunity because nobody else has ever brought a successful case about destroying a ming vase collection [very bad example, but the gist])
Judicial immunity and prosecutorial immunity, which are for all purposes here considered absolute, need to be treated like qualified immunity. People need to be able to sue a prosecutor or a judge for proper cause, such as... this circumstance. I think maybe the best solution is a creative one - such as to require a certification from a person actively employed in that field in that state (e.g. you want to sue a judge? Another judge on the bench anywhere in the state has to review and sign off on it that it is not frivolous or groundless) or some other similar concept. "Clearly settled law" fails for all sorts of reasons, I think a citizen commission might also fail for reasons of heavily biased appointments, but who knows. All I know is absolute immunity (which LEO does not have) should disappear. There needs to be a high bar, but not too high, to pursue compensation from civil servants, even if it is from the treasury.
The last note is, sovereign immunity as fucked up by SCOTUS starting in the early 1800s needs to be corrected back to the plain text of the 11th amendment. This is what I mean: SCOTUS rewrote the 11th amendment to restrict your ability to pursue your own state in federal courts, when the amendment was clearly written to prevent citizens of other states from suing your state in federal court (actual soverign immunity) the problem here is if you have a serious issue with a judicial problem in a state - say like Bubba's the only district court judge in your country in 'Bama, and he impregnated your sister/cousin, you're fucked because any imaginable relief has to be pursued in the same exact court you're having an issue with. (ETA2: This is also a horrid example, but the point being when you have to challenge certain court issues from within the same court system you're having an issue (because of 11A reinterpretation of sovereign immunity), you're already doomed)
The big core resolution imho - and of course, this is just an opinion - is one of screening.
Most departments do screening amounting to "lie detector tests" which are only in truth, an anxiety test which pathological types can clear, and a battery of questions that have been used for forever that are not actually effective in weeding out bad people, or even recognizing psychological problems. We've had four decades of advances in science and we're still doing the same old shit, practically putting a colander on their head, asking them to swear on the bible, and hooking them up to nipple clamps. Even the inventor of the lie detector was horrified that it was put into use... because it's not a real tool.
I think it would be well worth the money for departments to screen their candidates at the last step with actual psychological screens (from external doctors, e.g. no agency guy) coupled with an FMRI scan. And then do follow up screens on like a semi annual basis to pick up on developing issues like PTSD especially with the earlier baseline to compare there. Any kind of IA or other review board (such as attorney regulation) shouldn't be comprised of anyone who works in that field - and I know that seems insane from the face, but no matter what field you work in - whether it's medicine, LEO, an accountant, programmer, whatever, people get a special kind of "empathy" for bullshit on their job, and they try to justify people's actions based in the scope of that empathy. It's honestly more reliable if people don't have any work experience in this field. Is an attorney unethical? Should they be punished? If an attorney is reviewing that claim, they're considering all the effort they put into law school and their own family, and gosh, I'd hate to put this guy out of work....
When a member of the lay public doesn't give a shit about the work-empathy and can just say on it's face, "yes".
People were asking for clarification. More than once. If that doesn't tell you there is an issue in communication, then I can't help you.
And yes, you and everyone else are subject to the history of what has gone on before. Many of your prior discussions take an anti-police slant. That's not exactly a good thing to be known for, on a gun forum started by an LEO.
?Many of your your prior discussions take an anti-police slant. That?s not exactly a good thing to be known for, on a gun forum started by an LEO?. This is absolutely laughable, and quite telling. Have you ever criticized the POTUS? Ever criticized any public servant or group of public servants? If you?ve ever criticized the POTUS then does that mean that you?re against any and all Presidents or the office in its entirety? Or maybe it?s healthy in a country to promote discourse regarding our public servants, their behavior and conduct, or any other facet of their being.
You demanded I show proof for my statement, i in turn am demanding that you show me the posts you claim show an anti cop slant.
And you can also stop with the childish snark. This isn't grade school.
?People asking for clarification? = being attacked as soon as I make a post, using language and attitude that has been previously stated as unacceptable on this forum, yet is still permitted depending upon who it is that is committing the infraction?
People were asking for clarification. More than once. If that doesn't tell you there is an issue in communication, then I can't help you.
And yes, you and everyone else are subject to the history of what has gone on before. Many of your prior discussions take an anti-police slant. That's not exactly a good thing to be known for, on a gun forum started by an LEO.
And you can also stop with the childish snark. This isn't grade school.
I should also like to demand proof of my anti-cop slant comments.
I wonder if this will make an appearance at trial
https://mobile.twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1273402121858187264
Is there a forum woodshed?
Asking for a friend.
I wonder if this will make an appearance at trial
https://mobile.twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1273402121858187264
Should be helpful in showing that the DA talks out of both sides of his face whenever he feels it's suitable.
Martinjmpr
06-18-2020, 11:47
I wonder, though, if "more training", "more screening" and "higher pay to attract quality candidates" might not end up working AGAINST the goal of removing "problematic" officers?
After all, the more training and screening, and the higher the pay, the more it "costs" the department to recruit and train an officer. And so when an officer is removed or fired, that money is flushed down the toilet and the expense of recruiting, screening and training an officer to take his place is that much higher.
Which could make it (a) easier to justify keeping an officer who has "issues" and (b) makes it more attractive to recruit an "already qualified" officer from another department - even though the circumstances under which that officer left that department might not have been favorable.
Martinjmpr
06-18-2020, 11:56
When it comes to recruiting and training new officers, every additional requirement you impose for a new recruit (age, experience, education, police record, etc) is going to decrease the size of the "pool" from which you recruit.
After all, you can't "draft" people into the police force, so in reality, you don't have a choice of a cross-section of the population from which to choose your officers: You have a choice of those people who (a) actually WANT to be cops in that city or state, (b) are physically, mentally, and morally qualified and (c) make it through the screening.
The tougher the screening, the fewer that are going to make it thorough and the less choosy you can be about who makes the cut.
Unfortunately I don't think there's an easy answer or a simple solution here. I foresee a "Ferguson Effect" on a very large scale looming in the future, though, especially in major cities. Expect the police to slow-roll their responses to calls and to spend a lot of time doing "paperwork" in the donut shop parking lot.
Exactly right. Getting hired on as a cop isn't exactly as easy as I keep hearing it is lately. Arms a little more dear of getting your peepee slapped for being a thug would go a long way, and is relatively cheap and easy to put into place compared to more training and higher pay.
It depends on locality as well. Places over here on the western slope, I've heard 200+ qualified applicants per position is the norm.
But Houston or Minneapolis might have closer to 1:1 lol. Atlanta qualifies as a negative number.
Bailey Guns
06-18-2020, 12:52
I forget the exact numbers but when I was hired at the sheriff's dept in the late 80s there were 37 open academy slots with over 1800 applicants. When I decided I wanted to move to a PD I applied to over 20 depts before I got hired. Sometimes I'd get all the way to the final step before being told I didn't make the cut, sometimes the dept didn't even accept my application, and I was also let go at various stages in between. When I applied to the dept where I got hired they were looking to fill 5 spots with about 200-ish applicants. I was told not to waste my time as they had a reputation of being the hardest dept in the metro area to get hired on to. I breezed thru the application process, thought I'd for sure be let go after the polygraph because the examiner was an asshole and I pretty much told him that, but was then called on the same day as the polygraph and told to schedule my psych exam. Less than 2 months from application submitted to getting hired. I have no idea why it was so easy. I sat on two hiring boards and still don't understand why one person would get hired over another.
I've heard in some places there aren't even enough applicants to fill the open positions these days. I can't imagine why...
texted the daughter about the walk out. She sent me this reply.
Yeah, I can't make it in. Exhibiting Covid related symptoms.
As soon as i can find a safe testing site and get the results. I'll be back
Covid-911. New strain.
Martinjmpr
06-18-2020, 14:21
It depends on locality as well. Places over here on the western slope, I've heard 200+ qualified applicants per position is the norm.
But Houston or Minneapolis might have closer to 1:1 lol. Atlanta qualifies as a negative number.
It's just a guess but I would think that a lot of the most qualified patrol officers in the most contentious locations (Houston, Dallas, KC, St. Louis, etc) , that is the ones with the best resumes, are in the best position to apply for a cushy job with the Whiteyville PD way out in the suburbs. Sure, his colleagues might give him a hard time for moving to a department where "cat in tree" is the most exciting call of the night but at least he can be confident that he's less likely to be shot, stabbed, or worse yet, charged with homicide for a decision he makes in a split second.
So that officer leaves, and the overall level of experience on competence in that big city goes down incrementally.
In terms of numbers, as long as being a cop is a "good paying government job", the positions will likely be filled by SOMEBODY. But if it's seen as an increasingly low-prestige and high-stress and high-liability job, the quality of the applicants is only going to go down and I can't think that will do anything but INCREASE the tensions between the police and the people.
Undoubtedly, you could find hordes of qualified applicants anywhere at the right price level. There were US electricians contracting to go work in Iraq, for instance, where there's no code, no safety net, no documentation, everything is a haji'ed tangle of wiring, and great risk of life from the public. But they were paid something like $250,000/year for the risk (or maybe even more, I forget). People will pump shit for a pretty low wage (imho). Money is probably the biggest factor in choosing a line of work for the majority of people.
But, pay will also increase that personnel disconnect with the public if it gets too high. People often experience that with judges - salaries in the 150,000+ range, and the parties appearing often average under 30,000. You'd get to a point where people were bitching more about pretentious officers.
Greg Ellifritz just posted an excellent analysis of this shitshow. https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-rayshard-brooks-shooting
Future Supervisory Police position:
Field Judge.
https://media.giphy.com/media/useUF6IHpTqSc/giphy-facebook_s.jpg
Aloha_Shooter
06-18-2020, 17:44
Biggest message I could give to Atlanta or Minneapolis (if I had to talk to their mayor and city council) is that under the current circumstances, I would move to Thailand and live off my military pension rather than take a job that required me to live in their cities. Any city council that would even consider eliminating the police department based on a fraudulent organization's talking points, any DA that would even consider prosecution (much less actually filing charges against the police officer) in a case like this given the ample video evidence from the body cams, don't deserve my tax dollars and would be creating threats to my physical health and safety if I lived in those environs.
Bailey Guns
06-18-2020, 18:39
Greg Ellifritz just posted an excellent analysis of this shitshow. https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-rayshard-brooks-shooting
Few minor disagreements but overall a very good read.
JohnnyDrama
06-18-2020, 19:40
Greg Ellifritz just posted an excellent analysis of this shitshow. https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-rayshard-brooks-shooting
He brings up some good points. I feel sorry for the officers involved.
Somewhere in his article I started thinking about police presence, crime, Atlanta, and Kennesaw.
thanks but it's her sarcasm. She neither has nor exhibits symptoms. But she did pass it on to her 3 cousins, in various LE agencies to "tell a friend"
Got it!
I've been crazy busy, so only saw the remark and not the context for your daughter.
Is there a forum woodshed?
Asking for a friend.
I know, right?
I wonder, though, if "more training", "more screening" and "higher pay to attract quality candidates" might not end up working AGAINST the goal of removing "problematic" officers?
After all, the more training and screening, and the higher the pay, the more it "costs" the department to recruit and train an officer. And so when an officer is removed or fired, that money is flushed down the toilet and the expense of recruiting, screening and training an officer to take his place is that much higher.
Which could make it (a) easier to justify keeping an officer who has "issues" and (b) makes it more attractive to recruit an "already qualified" officer from another department - even though the circumstances under which that officer left that department might not have been favorable.
Paragraph = number
1. Nope. Not if they accept the risk of cost. Tell the bean counters to pound sand up their CPA assholes. Prescreening is the motivating factor. You want quality? You pay. Same as private sector. Boo-hoo. The boards are playable. The CVSA is trickable. Let?s be real. Anyone with half a brain knows what the board wants. Anyone who is a psycho/sociopath can game the poly/CVSA. Remember: it?s not a lie if you believe it. The academy should be the same as a trade school with a SLRP. Get some skin in the game before they have blood in it.
2. No shit? Such is the cost of doing business. Pass it on to the recruit with remuneration on the offside. Or otherwise accept it. That?s what business does.
3. Are they broken or irredeemable? Such is life. Nationalized POST certified officers and removal of certification upon firing for cause. What you mean to say is that the screening process would have to be improved and shifted to a continual one. Woe is me or somethin?.
Stop counting beans. Start counting lives.
Police deserve better. 51k during academy? 4 years to reach 80k? While risking their life every day and expected to maintain a sane headspace? Hell nah. Who does that? No one can support a family on that. Not now. Not in COS or DEN. Maybe in podunk Arkansas, but wedding/family reunion photos are cheap there.
It's not necessarily a bean counter thing. It's a people don't respond how economists think they will thing. Maybe.
I'm thinking specifically about the part where if the force spends more to hire and train recruits, they may be more remiss to get rid of them. That is a real irrationality that exists. People irrationally hold onto to what they perceive as sunk costs all the time.
On the other hand, if liability is more direct, much like private enterprises, they'll also be more inclined to instantly ditch liabilities. No matter how irreplaceable we may think we are, if you CCW at work and someone robs the place, you defend yourself, you're shit-canned the next day. Companies don't have immunities and the bean-counting risk of liability far exceeds anything they could throw at replacing an individual.
ETA: (That said, I still think some level of QI should probably still exist, just at a cross-able threshold). If we do threaten their budget instead of state insurance, it would certainly do wonders to resolve the issue of unnecessary retention.
Without Qualified Immunity, police officers across the country will be just like the average joe citizen (and therefore completely unnecessary), who is repeatedly told by any good self defense instructor that unless their life is in serious jeopardy, just be a good witness. I realize that is precisely what many pushing “police reform” really want.
Qualified Immunity does not indemnify police from criminal acts (either civilly or criminally). It gives them some protection from personal civil liability while acting under the color of law only. It also doesn’t mean citizen’s can’t sue. It merely means the department or government entity takes on the financial liability for their actions and civil defense.
Bailey Guns
06-19-2020, 16:03
Exactly. Qualified immunity is just the whipping boy for those whose real agenda is to neuter the police. If you think you can't get qualified applicants now, wait'll you take QI away.
Exactly. Qualified immunity is just the whipping boy for those whose real agenda is to neuter the police. If you think you can't get qualified applicants now, wait'll you take QI away.
Seeing this in writing makes my gut clench. [Eek2]
Bailey Guns
06-19-2020, 17:55
Without Qualified Immunity, police officers across the country will be just like the average joe citizen (and therefore completely unnecessary), who is repeatedly told by any good self defense instructor that unless their life is in serious jeopardy, just be a good witness. I realize that is precisely what many pushing “police reform” really want.
Qualified Immunity does not indemnify police from criminal acts (either civilly or criminally). It gives them some protection from personal civil liability while acting under the color of law only. It also doesn’t mean citizen’s can’t sue. It merely means the department or government entity takes on the financial liability for their actions and civil defense.
I was sued personally and while acting officially for $17M about 20 years ago by a kid who claimed I hit him. He was drunk, I arrested him, he was mad and whacked his head on the security screen and put a 3cm cut on his forehead. Depending on which version of the complaint he filed I hit him with 1) my hand 2) my nightstick (I didn't carry one) 3) a flashlight and finally 4) the butt of my gun. Completely fabricated story but he needed to tell mom and dad something. Mom and dad, both being convicted felons, saw $$ once they saw their baby boy with a bloody face and a cut on his forehead. They hired an expert witness that was able to say with absolute certainty in his report that I hit him with the butt of Glock 17 pistol and the edge of the magazine caused the cut. But, I carried a S&W 4006 TSW. No problem...we'll just revise the expert witness report to reflect that little error. It was complete bullshit and everyone knew it. However, I had to endure about 18 months of listening to what a horrible person I was, what a bad, heavy-handed cop I was, how I liked to brutalize people, etc. Of course I couldn't say anything because of the pending trial. Trial in US District court lasted 7 days. It took the jury minutes to come back with a "Not Liable" decision (same as not guilty). It was so fast we left the courtroom to go get lunch, left the bldg, walked across the street and got the call to go back to the courtroom because the jury was back.
The point of all this is...several things.
1. Cops can still be sued with QI. It's easy. Just allege a civil rights violation...because that's illegal and you're not protected from that. Just about any lawyer can get a case into court. Even an ambulance chaser like the asshole that represented this kid. Don't have a real case? No problem...just make one up.
2. I was covered by dept insurance so I didn't have to pay atty fees. But their liability insurance only covered $1M. Any judgement over that and I was on my own.
3. So don't tell me cops can't be sued due to QI. Because I will politely tell you you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
4. Just like the good cops vastly outnumber the bad cops, the bad lawsuits against cops already vastly outnumber the good, legitimate lawsuits against cops. And without QI it would be far worse.
We've all lost loved ones too soon, and in the end it doesn't matter if they were serving the community, or had a run in with cancer. I haven't bought a crotch rocket ever since I've been able to afford one, because I want to come home at night for my family. I get touchy and refer to it as rhetoric because in the context of this discussion, and police work, I feel it's often thrown around as a defense for bad behavior. That might sound like splitting hairs, but with the heightened emotions of the discussion, I'm sure you can understand. Just as I understand the people who spend so much time defending police officers as a whole, that they tend to forget to address the actions of the bad ones and gloss over the perceptions of the non-police community.
As I've said before, almost every angle of this discussion has some truth to it. People are upset about mostly outlier events. Everyone is mad, and everyone is right. It's not a simple, or comfortable discussion and will take acceptance and understanding from all sides to actually get anywhere.
Will never defend the bad ones. Hate them.
Get it and can agree. Yes loosing loved ones early sucks. In my opinion sucks more when they are lost doing a job. Regardless of what that job is.
Bailey Guns
06-22-2020, 13:01
This is what the streets of Atlanta look like without police:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1274990852704780290
She seems pretty calm for taking one in the leg. I guess she must have some training beind her, the way she was methodically addressing the injury with supplies from her own pack.
So were these folks "citizen safety patrol" or what. At opening of clip, blue track suit appears to be carrying an AR and the white tshirt to his left has a hadgun.
buffalobo
06-22-2020, 13:44
Late at nite in major metro area shithole...
Imagine that.
Keep voting Democrat. That'll fix it.
Do you have any idea what the legal cost of your defense and trial was, Bailey Guns? I imagine it would have been easily affordable on your salary.
[Sarcasm2]
Bailey Guns
06-22-2020, 17:26
It amounted to about $450,000 over almost 2 years, give or take a bit. After the verdict came in and the jury was dismissed the judge summoned both sides into chambers. First thing he said was he wanted to discuss trial and attorney costs. I was nicely told to be on my way at that point but my attorney told me later the judge entered a judgement against the kid for court and attorney costs in that amount. Almost 20 years later he's still probably trying to figure out how he's gonna pay almost a half million dollars in costs.
It amounted to about $450,000 over almost 2 years, give or take a bit. After the verdict came in and the jury was dismissed the judge summoned both sides into chambers. First thing he said was he wanted to discuss trial and attorney costs. I was nicely told to be on my way at that point but my attorney told me later the judge entered a judgement against the kid for court and attorney costs in that amount. Almost 20 years later he's still probably trying to figure out how he's gonna pay almost a half million dollars in costs.
Probably discharged it in bankruptcy. So, outside of their own attorney fees already paid at that point (if there were any)...
Bailey Guns
06-22-2020, 18:11
Probably discharged it in bankruptcy. So, outside of their own attorney fees already paid at that point (if there were any)...
No, no...NO! I want to believe he's sitting around miserable every day with a large debt hanging over his head. If I want to believe it that makes it true.
Doesn't it?
No, no...NO! I want to believe he's sitting around miserable every day with a large debt hanging over his head. If I want to believe it that makes it true.
Doesn't it?
Only if you're tearing down statutes. The US system is built for degenerates. We never recovered any part of a judgment, either, after successfully defending a suit btw. Only those losses were actually out of pocket. At least it wasn't 450,000 worth.
If you all didn't catch it, Colorado ended qualified immunity. So the judges and the prosecutors have absolute immunity against any allegation, no matter how atrocious, and officers can get sued by noncollectable transients every time they are arrested until officers realize they have "transient immunity".
If we're going to end Q.I., we may as well end all immunities - sovereign, judicial, prosecutorial, and end bankruptcy too. Fair's fair, after all.
Best thing that could happen (unfortunately for us) is for all the cops - state, county and city, to quit on June 30th (it goes into effect July 1st) and make Colorado a demo for the rest of the country.
O2
Best thing that could happen (unfortunately for us) is for all the cops - state, county and city, to quit on June 30th (it goes into effect July 1st) and make Colorado a demo for the rest of the country.
O2
Why? It's not a bad bill for those to whom it applies (and it is bad for not applying to all). This article goes over some of the particulars:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/06/21/colorado-passes-landmark-law-against-qualified-immunity-creates-new-way-to-protect-civil-rights/#452b735378ae
QI is a clear contradiction to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Section 1983 (if one isn't a mealymouthed lawyer or judge with an agenda), and, like the Constitutionality of the Income Tax, was fabricated by the invalid and illicit machinations of an unchecked SCOTUS (which despite the retarded fantasies of Neo-Cons and Liberals everywhere, when it goes their way, is not an infallible mechanism of Constitutional interpretation, as evidenced by the last 100+ years of bullshit driveling forth from their collective pens).
So now cops get a % of individual responsibility when they violate the state constitution. They're indemnified, so frivolous lawsuits aren't going to hurt them financially. Etc.
I'm sure we'll hear the following:
"Why are we all being lumped together because of a few?"
"Why would we want to interact with them if it could result in unfavorable legal consequences?"
"The system is out to get us!"
etc.
Funny, I've heard all those before, but they were met with derision and the trope of "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to be afraid of?" or "consequences have actions", etc.
So when Jaquan Jamarius Jathon (made up name; hat tip to Key and Peele's East/West Bowl skit) does something wrong, and people point to any number of factors as to why, so-called Conservatives hoist up "individual responsibility!!!!!!" flag. Well, isn't it convenient when such a standard elicits a cry for special standards contra an equal playing field.
But I don't think it's about race, despite the narrative having been shifted. I think its about power. And tripping on the big dick that tends to give some.
Imagine how the deputy below would have gotten away with this, if it wasn't recorded on a body cam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrKuC74jdNc
Is that a "bad apple"? Nope, it's 4 bad apples, because none of them stopped it. How many bad apples are there at departments across the nation? There are around 18,000 police departments nationwide. Not sure if that includes Sheriffs Office. Let's say that there's 2 bad apples per department, which seems fair. That's 36,000 bad apples. There are about 800,000 police in America (at the high end of estimation); not sure if that includes sheriffs. So that's 4.5% of the police force nationwide are bad apples. And it might actually be higher on average, with some departments having none and some having 4,6 10, etc. That's a problem.
If every combat platoon of 30 individuals had 4.5% bad apples unchecked by good NCOs and the wrathful phallus of the UCMJ, they'd have 1.35 walking international incidents on their hands and the SMA's boot up the entire US Army's ass in short order.
Think about that.
Quoting your article:
To be clear, the new Colorado law doesn’t end the doctrine of qualified immunity; Section 1983 claims filed by Coloradans in federal court would still be subject to qualified immunity.
Except in federal courts, any officer of the State of Colorado is going to be subject to 11th amendment sovereign immunity which is all but impenetrable. So QI is completely terminated for officers in all state courts - where 9/10 suits would've been brought anyway - and now they also extend to "failure to act". I happen to know quite a bit about ?1983 claims. Extending them to "failure to act" literally may make the burdens so broad that just about anyone may be able to successfully sue in any circumstance. Officer shows up after seven minutes for a choking kid and tries to help? Winning lawsuit. Officer writes a warning to your 17yo kid who has an accident an hour later? Winning lawsuit.
Correct, it's not a wholesale ending of QI.
I agree with 4th Judicial DA candidate Michael Allen that this bill is unfair in that it creates a double standard between local and state.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.