Post: #101

When they guy had his hands in the air, why didn't the cop just ask him to keep them in the air, and then walk over and cuff him?

I once spoke to a LAPD cop about the difference in policing approaches between British and UK Police. I told him that UK police see themselves as members of their community - he told he me that every day he's a solider going into a war zone.

Post: #102

(12-10-2017 01:39 AM)eradicator Wrote:  The article I read about this basically said that the jury found the cop not guilty essentially because the defense proved that the cop did everything by the book, and correctly did as he was trained, so they can find him not guilty and disagree with the training.

...

If this is the case then it's a severe miscarriage of justice.

Police procedure does not = infallible under law. The police can't write an SOP that says 'shoot potential offenders on sight' and then wash their hands of murder when said cops follow that procedure.

Police are not allowed to break the law, and police procedure does not = law.

While the cop in question might have gotten off the hook due to some kind of bullshit statist lawfare or a state prosecutor taking a dive for the team, if this kid has any family then they're undoubtedly going to sue the division and make them pay through the nose.

Post: #103

That cop's a fucking sackless moron.

Post: #104

Just in case you were getting used to the idea that this man was just a grainy blob in a video.





I will have a smile a mile wide when I one day see the headline "Vigilantes gun down former cop acquitted of murder."

I often wonder where the fathers, brothers and sons of these murder victims are.

Post: #105

(12-10-2017 01:45 AM)WalterBlack Wrote:  When they guy had his hands in the air, why didn't the cop just ask him to keep them in the air, and then walk over and cuff him?

I once spoke to a LAPD cop about the difference in policing approaches between British and UK Police. I told him that UK police see themselves as members of their community - he told he me that every day he's a solider going into a war zone.

How in the world are we on page five of this thread and people are still asking why the officer didn't just saunter over and cuff the suspect and then crack open a beer and cheers everyone in the hotel for a job well done?

That's what all these comments sound like to me at this point. I'm not defending the approach but have you guys completely glossed over the reason for the police being called? It was reported that someone in the room pointed a rifle out the window. As a responding officer much less as a normal random human being given this info you better damn believe that a "reasonable" person would consider that there is still a rifle unaccounted for and zero idea how many people or potential other weapons are still in the room.

Again, question the approach ok, but act like this is a situation where there's a really low likelihood of danger to the other hotel guests or the responding officers given the premise and I just gotta wonder if I'm on the same planet as the people responding this way.

Post: #106

(12-09-2017 03:50 PM)Aurini Wrote:  Take away lesson: when dealing with a police officer, you need to be the voice of calm and reason.

I don't want to see any of you shot, gentlemen. If you happen to be pulled over by the police, it's up to you to de-escalate.

Start by putting your hands up on the steering wheel, with your window down, and the engine off. Keep them visible and stay relaxed. Respond to everything with "Yes, Officer," and then repeating the actions you're going to take.

"I need your license and registration."

"Yes, officer. They're in my glove compartment. I'm going to reach over to get them. Is that okay?"

Good advice - I'd change only one thing:

Replace Officer with "Sir" or (Godforbid) "Ma'am". Makes them feel more human rather than an officer in control of everything and often paints you (true or not) as military, especially in the South.

If they suspect you're military they'll go slightly easier on you at times, especially in the South or near military bases. I'm not saying you should lie if questioned, but rather want to frame the interaction is a favorable of terms as possible.

G

Post: #107

(12-10-2017 06:10 AM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 01:45 AM)WalterBlack Wrote:  When they guy had his hands in the air, why didn't the cop just ask him to keep them in the air, and then walk over and cuff him?

I once spoke to a LAPD cop about the difference in policing approaches between British and UK Police. I told him that UK police see themselves as members of their community - he told he me that every day he's a solider going into a war zone.

How in the world are we on page five of this thread and people are still asking why the officer didn't just saunter over and cuff the suspect and then crack open a beer and cheers everyone in the hotel for a job well done?

That's what all these comments sound like to me at this point. I'm not defending the approach but have you guys completely glossed over the reason for the police being called? It was reported that someone in the room pointed a rifle out the window. As a responding officer much less as a normal random human being given this info you better damn believe that a "reasonable" person would consider that there is still a rifle unaccounted for and zero idea how many people or potential other weapons are still in the room.

Again, question the approach ok, but act like this is a situation where there's a really low likelihood of danger to the other hotel guests or the responding officers given the premise and I just gotta wonder if I'm on the same planet as the people responding this way.

That's a valid point but that's why there are procedures and protocols that cops are trained in and supposed to follow. I don't think "put your hands straight up" and "don't touch the floor no matter what" with "now crawl over to me" and "if you touch the floor you die" are in any of the manuals.

The guy was grossly under trained or grossly emotionally ill suited for this job. My money is on both

From the video my intuition is that this guy's ego had him in a job he wasn't really cut out for and the dead guy and his family paid (and are paying) the ultimate price for that.

That he wasn't held accountable to/for the consequences of his actions is just insult to the injury

Post: #108

PapayaTapper Wrote:That's a valid point but that's why there are procedures and protocols that cops are trained in and supposed to follow. I don't think "put your hands straight up" and "don't touch the floor no matter what" with "now crawl over to me" and "if you touch the floor you die" are in any of the manuals.

The guy was grossly under trained or grossly emotionally ill suited for this job. My money is on both

Agreed, but even more basically, I don't think there's a rule that says, "Single cops must face down rooms of multiple people, at least one of whom was reportedly sticking a rifle out the window."

Rushing in alone, and then claiming you felt threatened because you were alone, is fucking stupid.

Post: #109

(12-10-2017 06:10 AM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 01:45 AM)WalterBlack Wrote:  When they guy had his hands in the air, why didn't the cop just ask him to keep them in the air, and then walk over and cuff him?

I once spoke to a LAPD cop about the difference in policing approaches between British and UK Police. I told him that UK police see themselves as members of their community - he told he me that every day he's a solider going into a war zone.

How in the world are we on page five of this thread and people are still asking why the officer didn't just saunter over and cuff the suspect and then crack open a beer and cheers everyone in the hotel for a job well done?

That's what all these comments sound like to me at this point. I'm not defending the approach but have you guys completely glossed over the reason for the police being called? It was reported that someone in the room pointed a rifle out the window. As a responding officer much less as a normal random human being given this info you better damn believe that a "reasonable" person would consider that there is still a rifle unaccounted for and zero idea how many people or potential other weapons are still in the room.

Again, question the approach ok, but act like this is a situation where there's a really low likelihood of danger to the other hotel guests or the responding officers given the premise and I just gotta wonder if I'm on the same planet as the people responding this way.

Nobody is suggesting that their work would be done after cuffing the suspects, but that absolutely needs to be the first thing they do.

When police are confronting a potentially armed suspect, and any wrong move by that suspect may lead to a terrified cop squeezing the trigger, that's an extremely dangerous situation for everyone involved. The police need to end that situation as quickly as possible. That means verifying that the suspect isn't armed (or just cuffing him) right away. Once they had the guy on the ground cooperating, that should've been it. There was no need to prolong a dangerous situation. I can't for the life of me imagine that barking orders for 4 minutes and having the suspect crawl towards you is the correct protocol for a scenario like this. It's just idiotic.

Post: #110

Watch the full video. The cops weren't that cautious with the girl, extremely cautious with the guy, then absolutely idiotic when trying to make entry to the room. If there were someone in the room with a rifle, he could have put two of those officers down by shooting through the door. One guy is standing right in front, while the other is fumbling (and drops) the key card. Their behavior wasn't very consistent, so I am inclined to think they are incompetent or their training was absolute garbage.

Post: #111

(12-10-2017 06:10 AM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  How in the world are we on page five of this thread and people are still asking why the officer didn't just saunter over and cuff the suspect and then crack open a beer and cheers everyone in the hotel for a job well done?

That's what all these comments sound like to me at this point. I'm not defending the approach but have you guys completely glossed over the reason for the police being called? It was reported that someone in the room pointed a rifle out the window. As a responding officer much less as a normal random human being given this info you better damn believe that a "reasonable" person would consider that there is still a rifle unaccounted for and zero idea how many people or potential other weapons are still in the room.

Again, question the approach ok, but act like this is a situation where there's a really low likelihood of danger to the other hotel guests or the responding officers given the premise and I just gotta wonder if I'm on the same planet as the people responding this way.

As far as I am concerned, if you don't get it, you can get off from this planet together with these incompetent cops, good riddance.

The fact that no shots have been made while police arrived and then for those 16 minutes it took them to ride up that elevator and ambush the poor people is a strong hint that possibly either the witness claiming that rifle was put out of window was fake or that there is no violent intent.

People make false reports all the time and cops know that, their job is to investigate, not assume guilt. They must take safe precaution of course, but not be hysterical about it. USA is a country with guns allowed, why should it surprise anyone that a peaceful gun got flashed trough window or that some observer might mistake another object for a gun?

Yes, obviously, they made him come to them because they feared that someone might shoot them trough hotel room doors. But they treated him as if he was hiding that rifle in his pants which is moronic.
The guy clearly had no way to hide a fucking rifle in his pants, there could have been a small handgun at best. They absolutely could afford to wait a split second to see what is he holding in his hand, if anything, with their automatic rifles aimed at him. They might approach the hotel number with all the caution they want, but shooting the guy for imagining a fucking rifle in his pants is idiotic.

The cops were also clearly misandrist in assuming more easily that the woman had no weapons on her, they gave her much easier time then to the guy, watch the video.

Post: #112

(12-10-2017 06:10 AM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  How in the world are we on page five of this thread and people are still asking why the officer didn't just saunter over and cuff the suspect and then crack open a beer and cheers everyone in the hotel for a job well done?

That's what all these comments sound like to me at this point. I'm not defending the approach but have you guys completely glossed over the reason for the police being called? It was reported that someone in the room pointed a rifle out the window. As a responding officer much less as a normal random human being given this info you better damn believe that a "reasonable" person would consider that there is still a rifle unaccounted for and zero idea how many people or potential other weapons are still in the room.

Again, question the approach ok, but act like this is a situation where there's a really low likelihood of danger to the other hotel guests or the responding officers given the premise and I just gotta wonder if I'm on the same planet as the people responding this way.

Was the rifle in the guys pants?

Does this cop have vision issues? I don't know, however, at the distance he was standing away from the victim, can't you just kind of tell already that there is nothing in his pants?

I think it's crazy that five pages into this thread, and four days after this verdict, no talk of justice department involvement. Bad stuff.

Aloha!

Post: #113

Post: #114

(12-08-2017 03:27 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Saw the video - I'm split on it.

Officer is literally threatening to shoot the kid while giving him simon says instructions - which probably confused the scared kid.

Right before he shot the kid, the kid's hands were going toward his waistband - trained (trigger happy) cops know what this means.

Noone wins in this case, it all came down to a split second decision.

The kid shouldn't of been messing around with a pellet gun in a window in public view (if true).

The cop should've created a better situation and commanded it better.

(12-08-2017 03:34 PM)Mage Wrote:  Fuck this piece of shit cop.

He prohibited the guy to talk, that's why.

The guy might have felt sick or in pain and unable to think straight or crawl straight. Like someone said above his pants might have been falling off. Lot's of reasons he might had to raise that arm and touch that wall, but he was not allowed to explain them.

I don't buy the cop fearing him pulling out a gun. It would have been a small handgun hidden in his pants against a cop in armored vest and a machine gun. The likelihood of the man taking a precise and quick shot from that crawling position was very very low low, he was not even looking at the cop. There is no way he could have be a threat to that cop.

I don't know what happened before, but we all know that the guy just had a pellet gun so he was defiantly not being a threat to the cop before too.

The cop was clearly humiliating the guy by making him crawl all over, why couldn't he walk over and handcuff him? The cop was doing all he could to make that person make a mistake - he yelled at him, prohibited him to talk and explain himself and humiliated him.

The order - "if you fall - you fall on your face" is impossible to follow for many people - isn't it an instinct to but your hands in front of you when you fall?

Also I don't understand the logic of calling cops on a person for having a gun in a country with guns allowed. It's scary that yelling armored cops may appear on you at any minute and shoot you for not following their instructions perfectly when you are surprised and confused and cannot think clearly.

Virtually everyone in this thread, and almost everyone on the internet, has assessed this situation incorrectly. There is a massive failure of logic going on.

Everyone is blaming the cop, but cops have nothing to do with this. The cops are just soldiers following orders. The cops are told to follow orders or they risk jail themselves! So they are told to shoot when someone reaches for the waistband because there has been many instances where cops have been killed in the past from such motions.

So in reality, if people do not like how the situation was handled, it was because the cops had bad orders. This is the fault of the police sheriffs and other police commanders. Blaming the individual cop is asinine, ignorant, and totally counter-productive. And all I see on the net is people blaming the cop, plastering his face everywhere, when in fact he's just an innocent soldier who obeyed his orders faithfully.

If you disagreed with the Nuremburg trials, then you should disagree with prosecuting individual soldiers/cops who are simply following orders. Your issue is with the superiors. They are the ones who should stand trial, and be forced to defend the ridiculous crawl towards the cops with your hands behind your head and legs crossed procedure. Pick the right targets, or else nothing changes.

The best procedure would be to have the suspect lift his hands into the air and stand straight up, turn away from the officer, and walk backwards toward the cop. There is no way a man with his hands in the air, walking backwards, could ever reach for a gun and fire it at an officer in time.

Also, the reason the cops were trying to get the man to move down the hallway was to get him somewhere he could be safely handcuffed without being in line of fire of potentially more suspects inside of the hotel room. They did not believe they could safely cuff him in front of the doorway without compromising their position. But I agree with everyone here the procedure to move the suspect down to the officers was insanely convoluted and retarded.

Finally, the man who died deserves some blame for lying to the officers. They clearly asked him if he was drunk, and he told them he was not. Bad move. He should have told the truth. He was definitely shitfaced. The cops believed he was capable of following complex instructions when he was not.

The family should sue the police station in the area for a wrongful death for using poor protocols in a civil court. I think they can win.

Post: #115

I figured they could call the hotel room and talk to the guy first and ask him some questions about what was going on but I suppose if he was a crazed madman he could have taken the other person hostage or something like that. While a lot of people don't understand how easily and quickly it is for someone to pull out a gun and get a few rounds off there has to be a better way than this.

Cops are out of control these days and the punishment handed down to them is often lame.

I would like to start a police misconduct and a know your rights thread but I think it would end up resembling a BLM twitter feed.
Would be great to have some honest discussion about the overzealous, tyrannical, militarized, police force we have in our country.

Every time I go back to the states I walk on eggshells in my hometown. Many of my interactions with police have been decent because of my military background and my "yes sir" approach to them but even then I've had cops threaten me, get in my face, and even poke my chest when I ask things like

"Am I being detained officer"

or

"I would like to leave."

or even

"I told you I'm not going to incriminate myself just because you ask the same question a thousand different ways. You're harassing me now."

These cops are often punks and lie about everything including your rights, what happened in their reports, and what you said to them. I can honestly say about half of all cops I've encountered are somewhat or exactly like that. Punks. This is coming from a guy who supports the idea of what a cop is supposed to be and has a lot of respect for military, EMT, fire and other "public servants".

Post: #116

Due to Union protections, when cops kill someone they don't have to give a statement for days or even weeks later. They get time to get their story straight. Apparently this video was barred from being used in the trial for some reason too.

The movie training day seems really accurate on what cops can get away with if they want to. They get away with spur of the moment shit, imagine when they actually scheme and plan what they can get away with.

Post: #117

(12-10-2017 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 03:27 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Saw the video - I'm split on it.

Officer is literally threatening to shoot the kid while giving him simon says instructions - which probably confused the scared kid.

Right before he shot the kid, the kid's hands were going toward his waistband - trained (trigger happy) cops know what this means.

Noone wins in this case, it all came down to a split second decision.

The kid shouldn't of been messing around with a pellet gun in a window in public view (if true).

The cop should've created a better situation and commanded it better.

(12-08-2017 03:34 PM)Mage Wrote:  Fuck this piece of shit cop.

He prohibited the guy to talk, that's why.

The guy might have felt sick or in pain and unable to think straight or crawl straight. Like someone said above his pants might have been falling off. Lot's of reasons he might had to raise that arm and touch that wall, but he was not allowed to explain them.

I don't buy the cop fearing him pulling out a gun. It would have been a small handgun hidden in his pants against a cop in armored vest and a machine gun. The likelihood of the man taking a precise and quick shot from that crawling position was very very low low, he was not even looking at the cop. There is no way he could have be a threat to that cop.

I don't know what happened before, but we all know that the guy just had a pellet gun so he was defiantly not being a threat to the cop before too.

The cop was clearly humiliating the guy by making him crawl all over, why couldn't he walk over and handcuff him? The cop was doing all he could to make that person make a mistake - he yelled at him, prohibited him to talk and explain himself and humiliated him.

The order - "if you fall - you fall on your face" is impossible to follow for many people - isn't it an instinct to but your hands in front of you when you fall?

Also I don't understand the logic of calling cops on a person for having a gun in a country with guns allowed. It's scary that yelling armored cops may appear on you at any minute and shoot you for not following their instructions perfectly when you are surprised and confused and cannot think clearly.

Virtually everyone in this thread, and almost everyone on the internet, has assessed this situation incorrectly. There is a massive failure of logic going on.

Everyone is blaming the cop, but cops have nothing to do with this. The cops are just soldiers following orders. The cops are told to follow orders or they risk jail themselves! So they are told to shoot when someone reaches for the waistband because there has been many instances where cops have been killed in the past from such motions.

So in reality, if people do not like how the situation was handled, it was because the cops had bad orders. This is the fault of the police sheriffs and other police commanders. Blaming the individual cop is asinine, ignorant, and totally counter-productive. And all I see on the net is people blaming the cop, plastering his face everywhere, when in fact he's just an innocent soldier who obeyed his orders faithfully.

If you disagreed with the Nuremburg trials, then you should disagree with prosecuting individual soldiers/cops who are simply following orders. Your issue is with the superiors. They are the ones who should stand trial, and be forced to defend the ridiculous crawl towards the cops with your hands behind your head and legs crossed procedure. Pick the right targets, or else nothing changes.

The best procedure would be to have the suspect lift his hands into the air and stand straight up, turn away from the officer, and walk backwards toward the cop. There is no way a man with his hands in the air, walking backwards, could ever reach for a gun and fire it at an officer in time.

Also, the reason the cops were trying to get the man to move down the hallway was to get him somewhere he could be safely handcuffed without being in line of fire of potentially more suspects inside of the hotel room. They did not believe they could safely cuff him in front of the doorway without compromising their position. But I agree with everyone here the procedure to move the suspect down to the officers was insanely convoluted and retarded.

Finally, the man who died deserves some blame for lying to the officers. They clearly asked him if he was drunk, and he told them he was not. Bad move. He should have told the truth. He was definitely shitfaced. The cops believed he was capable of following complex instructions when he was not.

The family should sue the police station in the area for a wrongful death for using poor protocols in a civil court. I think they can win.

Post: #118

Why did he reach for his waist? He could have pulled a gun? .... this is the kind of questions that a lot of people would ask if it was one of those fatal shootings of "unarmed" black men... but it still applies here.

The "killer" police officer went in with the intention to shoot someone and he got what he wanted...he just lost his police job that is all (no other punishment).

Post: #119

(12-10-2017 01:45 AM)WalterBlack Wrote:  When they guy had his hands in the air, why didn't the cop just ask him to keep them in the air, and then walk over and cuff him?

I once spoke to a LAPD cop about the difference in policing approaches between British and UK Police. I told him that UK police see themselves as members of their community - he told he me that every day he's a solider going into a war zone.

Considering the state of many of the US's "diverse" inner cities, I think the term warzone is actually a rather apt descriptor for these areas.

Post: #120

If the victim was a black man, more than 70% of the comments here would be saying the shooting was justified because he reached for his waist (and he could have had a gun)... that is the answer you are looking for.

PS: I am also black.

(12-08-2017 03:28 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  Why would you "love" for forum members to "take on this"?

Because this forum has a distinct pro law enforcement slant when it comes to police involved shootings when it is a black man shot by a white officer-but they seem to go the other way when it is a Muslim immigrant officer shooting a white woman. Here we have a innocent white man being murdered by a white cop, lets see how it plays out. I have made my position known, fuck this trigger happy piece of shit with a badge-thoughts?
[/quote]

Post: #121

^^ according to reports, it is my understanding the police were originally dispatched due to someone visible from the window of the room with a rifle.

Now, assuming that is the case, and also knowing that it was supposedly just an airsoft -

There is an important lesson here for EVERY man, woman, and child; you must learn firearm safety and rules at an early age and never break them. Whether it's the real thing, a toy, or something in between like a BB gun.

Bad shit happens when you point anything that resembles a weapon at the police, or even a fellow citizen.

Some of these situations could be avoided entirely by understanding the consequences of firearm safety disobedience.

The police officers in this scenario sucked at their job, and should be doing jail time... but what if they were never called in the first place?

Post: #122

(12-10-2017 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ...
Virtually everyone in this thread, and almost everyone on the internet, has assessed this situation incorrectly. There is a massive failure of logic going on.

Everyone is blaming the cop, but cops have nothing to do with this. The cops are just soldiers following orders. The cops are told to follow orders or they risk jail themselves! So they are told to shoot when someone reaches for the waistband because there has been many instances where cops have been killed in the past from such motions.

So in reality, if people do not like how the situation was handled, it was because the cops had bad orders. This is the fault of the police sheriffs and other police commanders. Blaming the individual cop is asinine, ignorant, and totally counter-productive. And all I see on the net is people blaming the cop, plastering his face everywhere, when in fact he's just an innocent soldier who obeyed his orders faithfully.

If you disagreed with the Nuremburg trials, then you should disagree with prosecuting individual soldiers/cops who are simply following orders. Your issue is with the superiors. They are the ones who should stand trial, and be forced to defend the ridiculous crawl towards the cops with your hands behind your head and legs crossed procedure. Pick the right targets, or else nothing changes.

The best procedure would be to have the suspect lift his hands into the air and stand straight up, turn away from the officer, and walk backwards toward the cop. There is no way a man with his hands in the air, walking backwards, could ever reach for a gun and fire it at an officer in time.

Also, the reason the cops were trying to get the man to move down the hallway was to get him somewhere he could be safely handcuffed without being in line of fire of potentially more suspects inside of the hotel room. They did not believe they could safely cuff him in front of the doorway without compromising their position. But I agree with everyone here the procedure to move the suspect down to the officers was insanely convoluted and retarded.

Finally, the man who died deserves some blame for lying to the officers. They clearly asked him if he was drunk, and he told them he was not. Bad move. He should have told the truth. He was definitely shitfaced. The cops believed he was capable of following complex instructions when he was not.

The family should sue the police station in the area for a wrongful death for using poor protocols in a civil court. I think they can win.

What nonsense. The root of the greatest evils ever perpetrated on mankind has been the belief that men may hang their morals in their locker when they put on their uniform.

If someone gives you an SOP that requires you to commit murder you are morally obligated to ignore that SOP or quit, and you are fully accountable for you own actions on the job NO MATTER WHAT. God does not give out passes for using wildly disproportionate force to murder someone at the drop of a hat "because it was in the course material".

In what fairy-tale land do you think the faceless committee that wrote those SOPs are all going to be charged with murder?

And even if they were, what does that tell the average cop? "If we say kill, then kill, and your superiors will sort out the details later."

You are way off the moral reservation on this one.

Post: #123

(12-10-2017 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  So in reality, if people do not like how the situation was handled, it was because the cops had bad orders. This is the fault of the police sheriffs and other police commanders. Blaming the individual cop is asinine, ignorant, and totally counter-productive. And all I see on the net is people blaming the cop, plastering his face everywhere, when in fact he's just an innocent soldier who obeyed his orders faithfully.

If you disagreed with the Nuremburg trials, then you should disagree with prosecuting individual soldiers/cops who are simply following orders. Your issue is with the superiors. They are the ones who should stand trial, and be forced to defend the ridiculous crawl towards the cops with your hands behind your head and legs crossed procedure. Pick the right targets, or else nothing changes.

The first execution of a soldier following an unlawful order took place in 1474. Being a knight did nothing to keep his head attached to his body. This wasn't a precedent invented at Nuremburg, nor was applying it in Germany novel. American soldiers, too, are unequivocally intended to be criminally responsible for obeying an unlawful order. American military officers have also been held personally liable for civil damages for following unlawful orders directly issued by the President, going back to the early republic. This argument doesn't hold water and never has.

With that said, your point is taken that the departments are in on it.

New York has recently established some precedent for seizing the pensions - ordinarily protected - of criminal police officers to pay restitution and judgments to victims by using the "Son of Sam" law, originally intended to keep a serial killer from becoming wealthy off his fame while in prison without repaying his victims. People got creative in finding ways to use it, and it took cases with bizarre, egregious facts to get this very narrow issue before a judge.

Rule #1 in an American court has always been "don't piss off the judge", and it seems pretty clear to me that in this case, after suppressing the video for the trial, the judge surely had the thought in the back of his head when unsealing it that, "you know, that's fine, but I'm going to go ahead and let this genie out of the bottle and you just try to enjoy the rest of your life". Eventually, as with false rape claims, you're going to see judges and prosecutors get tired of spending their time on this shit and dealing with all the drama that unfolds afterwards and instead start looking for opportunities to put people through hell to discourage it, even if they can't secure a conviction. That might very well include figuring out ways to set off the judicial harassment of their superiors and unions, like making them lawyer up over a long-shot conspiracy charge.

Post: #124

If we hold all soldiers and cops to the standard of disobeying bad orders while they are on duty, you will have arbitrary enforcement of laws and massive corruption.

The proper way to dissent to bad orders is before one goes onto the battlefield, while one is in training. But to have soldiers disobeying orders in the field leads to highly ineffective units, and massive casualties on the field.

Yet while people are in training, they rarely see how their orders could go astray, or lead to injustice on the field. But once they are on the field, that is the last place they can change protocols or orders. Disobeying on the field is extremely dangerous and places everyone's life in danger.

None of the tough guys in this thread would dare disobey direct orders and face a court martial. You're fucked in a military tribunal, who wants to serve 10 to 20 years? No, if you disagree with how things are done you need to walk out long before you put the gun in your hands. Because once you're in the field, the ability to dissent goes straight out the window. Way too many things are on the line at that point, and refusal to obey is not tolerable.

The standard of being able to disobey orders while in active missions is nothing short of pure chaos, leading to units not acting in cohesion. The lack of efficiency quickly puts any such unit at a disadvantage against other armies or gangs, which leads to their elimination. America has been top dog for over 100 years because our soldiers are trained to follow orders no matter what - kill or be killed - and this aspect of warfare will never change. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

That is why it is so important to make sure orders and procedures must be well designed in the first place. Otherwise if we leave it up to individual soldiers, you get arguments on the field while the enemy is killing you.

Post: #125

(12-10-2017 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Virtually everyone in this thread, and almost everyone on the internet, has assessed this situation incorrectly. There is a massive failure of logic going on.

Everyone is blaming the cop, but cops have nothing to do with this. The cops are just soldiers following orders. The cops are told to follow orders or they risk jail themselves! So they are told to shoot when someone reaches for the waistband because there has been many instances where cops have been killed in the past from such motions.

So in reality, if people do not like how the situation was handled, it was because the cops had bad orders. This is the fault of the police sheriffs and other police commanders. Blaming the individual cop is asinine, ignorant, and totally counter-productive. And all I see on the net is people blaming the cop, plastering his face everywhere, when in fact he's just an innocent soldier who obeyed his orders faithfully.

Samseau - you are a Christian right?

Please be aware that by your own logic you are excused to serve Satan if you merely carry the mark of the Beast.

(12-11-2017 02:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  None of the tough guys in this thread would dare disobey direct orders and face a court martial. You're fucked in a military tribunal, who wants to serve 10 to 20 years? No, if you disagree with how things are done you need to walk out long before you put the gun in your hands. Because once you're in the field, the ability to dissent goes straight out the window. Way too many things are on the line at that point, and refusal to obey is not tolerable.

I considered being a cop when I was young. I chose not to precisely because of this reason. There is no way I could have been sure that I will never receive orders that go against my conscience, especially considering the cultural shift happening today towards big government of secular/feminist/liberal values. I am not a pacifist, but I draw a line somewhere.

I agree that based on this incident Police should make a revision on it's rules. I also think Police must leave a small window for cops to act according to the situation. That small window of allowing the officer to make his own decision is what gives humanity to the police force. If rules are so strict that there is no room for the officer on field to make a decision to shift his decision to a certain degree than that is dehumanizing to both the officer and the population. I wouldn't never serve any organization under conditions that my superiors don't trust me to make a decision on field.

Your arguments above on why it's bad to allow soldiers to make decisions are perhaps correct regarding soldiers. Cops are not soldiers. It's a sad situation when the line is blurred.