Christ. You just have to wonder how many LE officers share this delusion...
https://parler.com/post/39a94299-78b2-471c-a829-0e42a2ece1db
https://parler.com/post/39a94299-78b2-471c-a829-0e42a2ece1db
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
“We need to look at ourselves as officers and think, is what I’m doing right?”
That’s a bingo for officer Anderson.
Can’t see him being employed much longer in LE, unless he works in one of the myriad areas of ignorance in this country. Then he is golden.
Apparently it is from a while ago...
https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/greg-anderson-washington-police-officer-video/
A week’s suspension...
I’ll take your word for it as I’m not American. But from what I’ve seen and read over the years about your police and consequenses when they do something they shouldn’t, I wouldn’t put money on it.
One more...
The moron goes on a power trip, then tries to wriggle out of a complaint by threatening his military career and then blames the media.
But the important question is "What happened before the video"
How do those police boots taste?
Edit: I should ask, what happened before this post? Is it really nothing or has something been omitted or not posted? It’s difficult to say unless you actually know/saw what happened.
Yep, it is that post I'm referring to.
Just because I refuse to join the judging society, I'm a boot-licker? I'm just not someone who thinks all police are bad, and any event that has police pushing back was started by them. That is a trending theme nowadays. There are good and bad people in every sector of life, so not every event can be treated the same.
Let us say a man punched a police officer and then filmed the retaliation by the police, or edited out their part of the incident. Very easy to do. Would it not be easy to paint that as police aggression? And going by the way everyone is a judge nowadays, the police officer would be trialled by Twitter and Forums across the world. There would be no hesitation. And even if the evidence of the instigating event appears, the damage is already done.
People need to stop judging all instances based on a single bit of footage.
You have pretty much said we should treat everything as the same. I'm glad you are not in charge of the law, otherwise all defences will be muted by 'a similar thing has happened before and they were found guilty, so that means you are guilty'. That is essentially what you just said. You would pretty much ban any form of violence against dogs by police, even if it was in self-defence. You cannot treat everything the same.
Those two are different events by two different people, involving two different dogs, which could be under two completely different circumstances. You cannot judge one incident based on another.
Did I not already say that they 'may very well be guilty' or something to that extent? Yes, I did. But I'm just not into jumping to conclusions just based on a segment of footage. There are quite a few videos (not all) like that in this thread that only show the police aggression, but no moment before that.
See here’s the thing. As a police officer, you’re not supposed to retaliate. That’s literally your job, to remain calm and in control of the situation. I deal with aggressive and verbally abusive patients and relatives regularly. Does that mean that when they act like that, I try to one up them and get louder than them, or make more threats than them, or do I remain calm?
It’s the same thing for police. There is no such thing as justified aggression because they signed up for that job knowing what is expected of them. If they’re being shot at or swung at with a knife, fair enough, but ten times out of ten we see all this undue aggression in situations where it’s not called for.
In conclusion, if your first response when seeing another blatant power trip by an institution that has shown instances of racism and abuse pretty much everyday, is to think “Well what happened before? I think that despite all previous context and past examples that the police are probably justified in acting this way” then that makes you a bootlicker.
‘Keep your hands out of the window’
‘Get out of the car’
The driver couldn’t have won in this situation. You just know that those trigger happy feckers would accuse him of reaching for a gun as an excuse to shoot him to death the minute he moved his hands to open the door. Also, how do you expect him to comply if you’ve just told him ‘yeah you should be’ when he says he’s afraid to get out of the car...
Wow. Just wow.
Of course every situation is different, but it’s a bit childish to deny trends, causation, or typical behavior. So what if there might have been angry words exchanged before the clip or even a physical altercation, as LE they are held to a higher standard & once someone is in custody, the abuse should stop. It’s the allowance of brutality to continue that helps create these events, not the seconds or minutes prior to a video.
You seem to be fixating on the second dog clip. The dog clips are a bit of a new phenomena, but it is embarrassing that you would use a small segment of potential situations to absolve the behavior of the large percentage of police brutality we see every day. And no cute wordplay disavows that; you’re not being balanced when offering up the platitudes, you’re looking for an excuse to absolve.
e - you also have a weird application of the law. What happens before an incident often times is not relevant or unable to be discussed in a courtroom. If you are talking only about the court of public opinion, what validity does that have in reality? Of course people will be swayed by the veracity of a clip & not be too concerned about what transpired immediately before.
Last edited:
Well, the recent pedant in here will be a tad stumped as the story discusses the back story from when he was elected as union boss.
But, you are spot on, we don’t know the children from the 70s involvement in this. Who knows what they were wearing?
That’s pretty dark humour lads
Typically on felony stops there’s specific verbiage that’s supposed to be used, and a particular way you direct someone through certain steps to minimize unnecessary movement. Without knowing their specific training, and at the risk of MMQB’ing it, I’d say any time you’re not being clear and concise in your instructions then you will end up with someone confused, and probably doing what they think you want rather than what you may have asked for. Which can obviously lead to issues beyond the rest of what actually happened.
no it's not, but it was quoted and until that quote is deleted I will not remove it as I own that.
Well I deleted at least one more quote of it, so you can clear it out if the other one gets deleted.
People should be perfectly entitled to stop in a safe area. Even cops should be ok with that given the number of accidents that happen to them while doing highway stops at night. US cops have this hatred of anyone who doesn't obey them and demonstrate full compliance. It's your right to ask certain questions, assert certain rights, and demand certain standards of LEOs.
Thanks.
Back on topic. I remember way back when I took drivers training in HS that we were taught by the local PD to always try and drive to a well lit open are for both ours and the officers safety. Is this standard?
Was thinking the same as you. Thread became rather dark there.
Agreed, worked with others to clean up the area. Appologies.Was thinking the same as you. Thread became rather dark there.
Absolutely. We’re specifically trained to get people off the freeways, especially at night time, and to not make driver side approaches. The amount of times I’ve seen other departments making stops and coming up on the initial approach on the driver side is crazy to me.
I’ve had numerous times trying to direct someone where I wanted them to go on a stop, and they went somewhere else. Sometimes it’s a language barrier, sometimes they can’t hear you, or sometimes it’s just wanting to pull into a gas station instead of a different parking lot. The only times it’s really been sketch is when they turn down neighborhoods or stop in front of other houses etc
Deleted my portion due to understandable consternation by some.
Is the driver side approach not applicable on freeways only due to obvious danger to LE or is a passenger side approach better to be able to see the driver’s hands, what’s in their lap, movement, etc.?
For some reason the cops usually hate it when somebody knows their rights and flexes them. They accuse you of being evasive or uncooperative. Traffic stops are just a huge minefield and should be reduced. I think an argument can be made to change the way traffic stops are implemented or conducted. We all know that they are mostly revenue devices for small town cops anyway.
working with the police there? Bootlicker.
My response to Grinner Kinda covers it, but yes and no. They should direct you to a safe spot, or the best place in that area, that is safe for both of you. If they aren’t giving you directions over the PA then you should find a safe spot to stop as quickly as possible (people love to just slam their brakes and stop immediately. Yes that includes the lane they’re driving in on the freeway) because you don’t want to drive forever finding somewhere, because then it looks rather suspect.
I'd put on my hazards to show that I acknowledge the cop's presence.
As do I. Every time. Helps all parties involved, it seems.
Sometimes the shoe fits.
Makes sense. I can imagine the immediate stopping is frustrating. As @Grinner just posted, I was taught to always turn on my hazards to acknowledge and then find a safe place as fast as posisble.
The traffic concern on freeways usually trumps any benefit of driver side approach. The biggest benefit being that you can detect impairment easier, smell it on them etc. On city streets I’ll usually mix it up, passenger side initial approach so I can see their door frame, center console, anything around their steering wheel...and then second approach I’ll go to the driver side. One because it changes where I am in case they are going to do something, and secondly because then it gives me a different view so I can see the passenger side and floorboard etc.
When you do a stop do you ask questions fishing for other possibilities? Ask to do a search...that sort of thing?
That holds if there’s an occupant in the passenger seat as well?
this really has turned into an @Skizzo AMA
Some cops do, yeah. I think it’s a personality flaw of not wanting to be questioned etc.
That being said, the most frustrating, and sometimes also hilarious, is the ones who are flexing hard on what they think they know, but are so far off base it’s comical.
I didn’t read Miranda so they’re off the hook for their DUI. Ok Johnnie Cochran.
Arguments on traffic stops happen all the time anyway. People flat out lie to my face daily about whatever I just saw them do directly in front of me. They’re like children. But you just try and direct them to save their arguments for court if they feel they were stopped in error.
Everyone should know their rights and responsibilities in these situations. Especially when it's been enshrined into law that cops can legally lie to you.this really has turned into an @Skizzo AMA
But people aren't required to admit to you what you may be accusing them of. That's called self-incrimination.
No apology needed, I was just making an observation. But I don't mind dark humour though, definitely not to the extent that other posters feel discouraged from it.
How often are you getting pulled over by the police to phrase it like that? I haven't ever been pulled over, only stopped at routine alcohol checks.