That's pretty fucked up and the police officer should be brought up on charges. I could almost understand shooting the other guy who is not being responsive to police orders but the guy with his hands up? Every profession has some bad apples and this is why body cams are a must.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Still waiting for a condemnation of this behavior from other police officers. Or do we only require that from Muslims?
http://abc30.com/news/fresno-police-...n-car/1332532/Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
"Security was tight outside of department 60 at the Fresno County courthouse as several investigators arrived for former Fresno police officer Alfred Campos' preliminary hearing. The 40-year-old, charged with having a stolen vehicle. Tuesday, his former colleagues testified about the evidence they found that backs up their case. One officer spoke about surveillance video from a Foods CO station."
So it isn't exactly this - but an example of police testifying against other police. Keep in mind that police officers (outside the top brass) shouldn't be talking to the media anyway (almost no private employer wants to have its staff discussing political hot button issues) so I don't see it that big of a deal. I'm fairly certain I could find many police chiefs condemning certain police behavior and/or 'bad apples' in their midst.
The Muslim issue is stickier and you know it. If someone is spouting jihadist beliefs and you hear it as a citizen you should be informing the local police and/or FBI/Homeland Security. This doesn't seem to happen often. (I say seem because a lot of that information may be classified so we may never know the extend of Muslims reporting on other Muslims).
No we don't require that from anyone, at least not in this country. He's been placed on leave already while this is investigated but the case is now what we would call sub judice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think it's time to ask some serious questions about the training the American police has been giving it's officers.Quote:
“And I’m saying, ‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ and his words to me were, ‘I don’t know.’”
Courts have ruled that they are legally allowed to not hire applicants that they consider to smart. Combined with the mentality that rule #1 is to return home safely thus creating the concept of "everyone is my enemy and wants me dead." Throw in the unions that back officers no matter what, and court decisions like in Madison: the police chief was arrested for contempt for emailing officers about retraining AFTER they testified that an unprovoked shooting was "following procedure".Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The system is going to need rebuilt from the ground up, which means it ain't getting rebuilt.
Rule number one is perfectly reasonable and responsible.
Maybe if the Police weren't in regular mortal peril they'd be less trigger happy.
Oh it gets even worse than that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
http://gazette.com/ed-jones-affirmat...article/116344
"Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice lowered the exam requirements for police officers in Dayton, Ohio, because Justice felt that not enough black people were passing the exams. The previous standard required applicants to achieve a 66 percent on part one of the exam and a 72 percent on part two. The new standards are lowered to 58 percent and 63 percent respectively. These scores would get you a D- or F in most schools. This is not limited to Dayton; these lower standards have been imposed in many cities to boost black quotas. If it isn’t bad enough that Justice wants police officers who can’t pass the entrance exam, the New York and Dayton fire departments are also lowering their testing standards."
Agreed - it is in everyone's best interests to have a well trained police force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The responsible thing would be to understand that the public's safety should come before all. Thats the whole idea behind behind putting your life on the line. The current mindset overrides even the most basic common sense reactions when it comes to deescalation.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Bullshit. They're putting their lives on the line because there is a realistic chance of not making it home safely, trying to ensure they do is not wrong it is common sense rightly demanded of any other employee in any other situation.
I've worked in areas where you face situations that put your life at risk, eg my previous employer had four armed robberies in the time I worked there. Rule number one in that situation is make sure you are safe, so in that scenario let the robbers take what they want and let the Police deal with them, don't try and take them on yourselves.
Again, the appropriate thing would to first make sure the customers are safe. Same as I said before. Or when the fire alarm goes off do you run out of the building office space style? Lots of jobs are high risk, with or without weapons that can be turned on innocents. Yet it's the police that make themselves the bigger problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No you are categorically wrong. If you are in a position of a duty of care, like a teacher, the customers would be your responsibility. Generally small but high volume cash businesses and duty of care don't mingle and they certainly don't in my experience. Our business had no duty of care over customers who were not allowed in staff areas behind the counter anyway. Our procedures categorically did not demand in a robbery that you put yourselves in harm's way to protect a customer (who all scarpered the second a robbery began).
Our rule was always "our people come first". It was the chain's* "first guiding principle" (customer service being second) and means we value our people more than an individual customer. If there was a confrontation between a customer and a team member who has followed procedures then it is the customer who will be barred and asked to leave.
* The 4 robberies were for my business not the chain.
EDIT: Your library may have different procedures but then I don't imagine libraries are major armed robbery targets (I may be wrong) plus since you allow in unaccompanied children (at least libraries did when I was young) I imagine you have a duty of care to them.
No one is suggesting an employee is supposed to add risk to himself. But I'm betting you also didn't have anything that would set off nonsilent alarms or cages in public spaces in the event of a robbery. You know, something that could end up with a robber and customer sharing the same space at high risk moments.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Making sure that the people who come into your business are kept safe is not only good for business its part of being a decent human. Even at my library all emergencies revolve around making sure the customers are safe.
I think following procedure is the point you're not getting. The police have been caught numerous times not following procedure without fallout, lying about following procedure and getting the benefit of doubt cause the other guy is black or has a record, or following a procedure that has been shown to have a negative effect of their effectiveness as an officer, like the concept your claiming is responsible.
We really should have the best possible officers right? Waiting for you to fully berate the Obama administration for this kind of bull shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
http://gazette.com/ed-jones-affirmat...article/116344
"Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice lowered the exam requirements for police officers in Dayton, Ohio, because Justice felt that not enough black people were passing the exams. The previous standard required applicants to achieve a 66 percent on part one of the exam and a 72 percent on part two. The new standards are lowered to 58 percent and 63 percent respectively. These scores would get you a D- or F in most schools. This is not limited to Dayton; these lower standards have been imposed in many cities to boost black quotas. If it isn’t bad enough that Justice wants police officers who can’t pass the entrance exam, the New York and Dayton fire departments are also lowering their testing standards."
You could easily say not enough of the right people are applying because of shit wages from people being unwilling to pay appropriate taxes. :noob:
Following the final robbery we implemented a maglock on the customer door so the customers needed us to press a button behind the counter to be allowed in or out. We sold the franchise not much later than that, and I vowed never to work in Liverpool ever again, it is not the sort of thing we went into business for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
As for problems with procedure not being followed - I never defended that, did I? So what's your point? I defended a procedure involving rule number one, violations of procedure need dealing with as appropriate.
Police officers starting salary is higher than enlisted soldiers. You can build a solid middle class lifestyle on it. Should they be paid more? Possibly but I feel that is really dependent on the area they work in. IE an officer having to deal with shit holes like Detroit is very different than say patrolling Taos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Do you have the wages for Dayton vs the county vs anything that might be within an hours drive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
This may come as a surprise to some of you but American cops aren't shopkeepers.
No surprise. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
My point is that look after yourself and for an employer look after your employees is reasonable rule number one. If your employer doesn't have your interests at heart then I feel sorry for you.
The point I'm trying to make is that we expect cops to be able to handle difficult and dangerous situations differently from shopkeepers, and ofc also better. Among other things we expect cops not to reflexively kill people just because they're scared. We expect cops to be able to handle situations involving agitated people with psychiatric problems without killing them. We expect cops to not shoot unarmed and incapacitated people. We expect them not to tase people to death due to inappropriate usage of tasers. We expect them to use appropriate levels and types of force in appropriate situations. What a shopkeeper would or would not do is irrelevant.
And I'm sure on a daily basis 99.99% of American cops don't kill people etc
However still in America a police officer is more likely to be killed in the line of duty than a young black man is to be killed by a police officer. So some fear is inevitable and so too then are some mistakes. Tackle the cause, not the symptom. American cops should not be so likely to die.
As for what is or is not relevant, the relevance is that in both scenarios the employer presses upon the employee that the first rule is "get home alive and safe". Because both are reasonable employers. I don't know any employer anywhere in the western world that doesn't have the same principle when it comes to risks. The risk of death is possible but is to be minimised by all reasonable means.
Maybe if police used Tasers more often they wouldn't be as many shootings. But oh yeah liberals didn't want that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
There is a trade off between minimizing risk to the police and minimizing risk to the people they ridk abusing. Cops have learned that they can completely disregard the latter. A shopkeeper doesn't even have to consider the latter whereas cops have to strike a balance where there is a non-zero risk to themselves due to the requirement that they don't act like scared or crazy animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Your claim about risks is, as far as I can tell, not one that is supported by any recent and reliable research looking at outcomes of encounters with police. If you know of good studies that show that, in any given official encounter between black people and cops, the cop is more likely to be abused or killed, then feel free share. It would however not be particularly relevant. It's a cop's job to uphold the law and to act in accordance with the law and assume some of the risks that come with that job. Criminals can't be expected to do the same while non-criminals (for the purposes of an encounter) haven't signed up for any such risk-taking.
It's almost as if cops abuse tasers as well, frequently going against guidelines and often with fatal outcomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I didn't say that in any encounter the cop is more likely to be abused or killed, I said that of the total population of young black men in America, and the total population of police, it is the police that come out worse and more likely to be killed.
Obviously those who are in an encounter may not be representative of those who are the general population.
It is nevertheless the outcomes of encounters that is interesting, not background risk.
No, it is both. Background risk sets the background for the encounter. If you don't look at the big picture, then you won't understand what is happening properly.
It is inevitable that those with both the availability of lethal force and the legal authority to use that force, if subject to a credible lethal risk themselves, will use the force they are entitled to use. This happens on a basis of "they only have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky every single time". If 50% of fatal encounters led to a Police fatality then the background figures would be dramatically even worse.
You're comparing outcomes of encounters for cops with background risk for black people.
No I'm comparing background risk for both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless