I am thoroughly ashamed.
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Don't blame them for quitting if you actually think about the practicalities
From the tweet the underlying story is that they are banning the use of prone restraints, chokes are already banned..Eh?
Please elaborate.....
When you need to detain someone the police obviously have to use the appropriate amount of force for the risk, I think using what are called Graham factors.
Essentially prone restraint is one of the lowest uses of force for when there is a risk to officer safety, or risk of flight or resistance to use of cuffs for the purpose of applying the handcuffs.
By banning them it would be considered a risk to officers, from a safety perspective, a financial perspective both for their jobs and risk of litigation and criminally if it becomes excessive force, and thinking about it increase the likelihood of using more severe force against violent arrestees. I wouldn't want to work in those conditions. To restrain a person who is actively resisting on your own without their face being on the ground at some point seems like more trouble than I'd be willing to put up with for a job.
I say this as someone who watches a ton of police excessive force videos and physically hates aggressive over the top policing. Its just a logical conclusion to what was within the story.
They are children, in school.
That's why there's the objectively reasonable standard.
Not all children are prepubescent, and weapons exist. Plus prone restraint is again, minimal use of force in a lot of scenarios. However I'm sure it's a feeling for you so no changing your opinion, so crack on, the police just want to choke babies
It still blows my mind there's a need for police in schools in the first place.
You'd think it would be easier to ban guns than deal with the problems they cause but here we are.
It's quite bizarre. Is there really a need?
That's exactly why I asked him to elaborate.
Cheers for the lengthy reply, I kind of guessed that your reply would be something like it was. Although I think the Police were more just looking for any reason to not be at the schools in the first place and this gave them the out they were looking for.
Oh, and I definitely think a fair few of them just really want to choke kids.
The trend in legislation, and handbooks should be to use the least restrictive methods, de-escalation should always be the first option, especially with children but it's just unreasonable to expect people with a duty of care to both the student themselves and other students, as well as to their own safety, to not have some level of face down restraint available where justified against violent and physically resistant students where it's otherwise physically required due to the factors specific to that use of restraint just because it looks barbaric and can cause some psychological harm to the student when they could be causing imminent harm to others.
Unless there are alternative proposals that are as or more effective, of course.
Interestingly there is a consultation going on in the UK at the moment on similar, will be interesting to see what gets proposed here.
Right, minimal use of force to hold a child face down with a 200+ lb adult's knee on their back.
Have you actually thought about how this works or are you just doing your usual schtick?
You mean the black ones, right?
Yes and no. It depends on the school I guess. Ideally in this day and age you want a school resource/liaison officer for emergencies, particularly active shooters. There needs to be a line drawn though, so you don’t have these officers being armed hall monitors. Some school districts, like LA unified, have their own police dept. A lot of these schools have big gang and drug problems.
@Drainy , I'm starting to think you're quite a pro violence kinda guy
People should avoid violence but should have the option to restrain using appropriate force if it's the minimally invasive option to avoid more violence and it can't be avoided = I love violence
I think it's a jackboot that broke the camel's back kind of thing.
Police shouldn't have business in schools for starters is insane,
But in the US warped reality, I think @Drainy gave a plausible explanation on why some good policemen don't want to find an armed 16-20 year old dickhead with disadvantage, so I don't understand those attacked on calling him racist, baby choker and love violence. I don't agree with him in most of his opinions but I think it had been uncalled for
At the same time, I think that the police is using this as an excuse to push to keep using their usual excess of force and not in good faith for the reasons that @Drainy gave
But in the US warped reality, I think @Drainy gave a plausible explanation on why some good policemen don't want to find an armed 16-20 year old dickhead with disadvantage, so I don't understand those attacked on calling him racist, baby choker and love violence. I don't agree with him in most of his opinions but I think it had been uncalled for
At the same time, I think that the police is using this as an excuse to push to keep using their usual excess of force and not in good faith for the reasons that @Drainy gave
If people paid attention then they'd see the common trend is empathy for people having to deal with shit on the ground, not making decisions based on the need to impose their authority, but because it's necessary to avoid harm to themselves or others
If people are violent for other reasons I'm literally as opposed to that as anyone
That said, I do need to stop giving people attitude in responses when I'm being defensive. Or just not post on this type of thing anymore.
I get what you are doing, Drainy.
Don't put words in my mouth, Drainy, you're a far better debater than that.
I didn't say you loved, or even liked, violence. What I did say, and I'll expand on it, was pro violence, as in, I feel you think violence is not only acceptable, but actually the preferred reaction to threat.
And in doing so, any action after that, because of the perception of threat, is understandable and forgivable.
I've come to that conclusion across a number of threads, so please don't think this is knee-jerk or malicious
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Not shooting anyone this time, but just failing to do anything at all.
If a kid is shot in the face for playing loud music in a 7-Eleven parking lot at 11pm certain posters on this forum will defend such actions because city ordinance requires all loud music to cease at 10pm.
Shit, we have posters on here who have argued that all that matters is the mindset of the killer, not the actual facts. If someone is afraid they are in danger, regardless of actual danger, then blast away. So, in your scenario if the killer was afraid of hearing loss it would be totally justified.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This brought me to tears. It's a fcking assassination. Of a calm young pregnant woman in her car for what, a supposed shoplifting? I read somewhere she might not even have shoplifted. And I swear she just takes her foot off the break and the car idles forward when the pig shoots her.
How. How are there not riots. This is insane.
Edit: The comments on that Twitter page are all sickening. Doesn't seem like anyone watched the footage and just took the police report at face value.
Edit 2: shoplifting value was around $20. And eye witnesses say it wasn't even her.
Last edited:
Listen, all that matters is if the cop, or any random person, feels they are “threatened”. If they do it is a good kill. Right @Drainy ?
It's a complex analysis whether it's a crime or not, I've not considered all the factors (of which the mental state of the officer is a major part, whether it's reasonable etc) and don't intend to do so, I will just agree it's tragic
I hate when the police have their guns ready before there's any sign of trouble, ridiculous show of unwarranted aggression.
Also fecking weird to exploit Marcy's law by public servants to avoid criticism. What's that about
Cops doing what cops do.Bad apples and all that.
What mental state would the cop have to be in to shoot a pregnant woman dead? Threatened by her driving away? Or by the seriousness of the crime of stealing noodles from a Kroger store? Trying to run them over by turning her car around (because everyone knows, the side, not the front, of the car is the most dangerous).
Is the fact she was pregnant also a threat? Maybe she was going to have an abortion in a different state? Or maybe it was a later stage in her pregnancy and her child was going to grow up to be a terrorist and killing her was the only way to stop that.
Why should the shooter's mental state matter anyway, they are cops, if they are so easily scared, they shouldn't have access to lethal equipment.
And using the whole Marsy's law thing is blatantly so they can withhold evidence, by making her the perp rather than the victim of this 'incident' they can restrict access to the evidence of any defending (which is what this claim makes anyone on her side, as opposed to prosecuting) lawyers.
No one is asking you to be criminal judge and jury in any of these threads about gun violence, make a decision beyond all reasonable doubt, but surely you see this is more than just tragic? They killed two people here, was the unborn child also threatening?
Even if you were judging it from the point of a civil case where it is accepted you wouldn't have all the evidence and your decision is made on the balance of probabilities, you still don't seem able to condemn the actions of the police officers. The only criticism you have is the invoking of Marsy's law, none about drawing or using a weapon to kill.
'Nobody asked you'. I was literally tagged into a post about a video that in all probability would otherwise not have watched because of the upsetting content.
I was critical of them drawing the gun, by the way, in case it was missed. They completely fecked up the situation, at least from what we've seen.
Speaking objectively, whether they are criminally liable is a more complex question, which is what I said.
I've already said it's tragic, to me that is a pretty terrible event. Don't know how to express my sadness at the circumstances better?
I was critical of them drawing the gun, by the way, in case it was missed. They completely fecked up the situation, at least from what we've seen.
Speaking objectively, whether they are criminally liable is a more complex question, which is what I said.
I've already said it's tragic, to me that is a pretty terrible event. Don't know how to express my sadness at the circumstances better?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
When I said nobody asked you, I was specifically talking about beyond reasonable doubt criteria.
What I then went on to ask was if, on the balance of probabilities, you thought, rather than just being tragic, whether using a gun in this specific situation was justified or criminal
On the surface it seems excessive and whether it's departmental policy or the officers stupid judgement it shouldn't have gotten to that situation.
I watch a fair amount of police interaction videos and the number of times you have trespass scenarios escalate due to stupid policies and hyper aggressive policing. Thankfully almost all don't end up like this.
I know a lot of cities have started implementing no pursuit policies and since they have her car license plate if they really wanted to pursue the theft and resisting it makes more logical sense to me to pursue that since I presume she wasn't identified as a person of interest in other violent crimes.
It's a bit ridiculous to be pulling a gun over a petty theft allegation. Being charitable we've only seen a clip though (or at least I have) and in fairness it's a presumption on my part that they were escalating unnecessarily, which could turn out to be incorrect.
Trying to look at it purely objectively based on the limited number of times I watched the video..
It was hard to tell exactly at what point the shot is fired. The car is moving extremely slowly and he seems to freely reach the side of the car, which doesn't mean no risk of serious injury but less so. Not sure there is imminent threat of serious injury in a vacuum so big questions about reasonableness of the shot and definitely needs further investigation. I imagine that the defences will be that he was technically assaulted by a fleeing suspect using a deadly weapon ( ie the car) while performing his duties as an officer so will make it out that he had no choice but to apprehend her, that he would argue that even if the shot occurred while he's at the side of the car he decided to pull the trigger while at the front and there is a delay in reaction speed, and throw in a bit of perception distortion.
If you were to force me to make a call, I don't buy it based on the evidence we have. My intuition is that the officer was impacted by the car with minimal pain or fear of injury and shot as a reaction to that but again it's a 15 second or whatever clip provided with little context other than commentary to persuade us one way about it so, as I always say about breaking news reactions, everyone should be sceptical and wait for all the facts to come out.
Thank you @Drainy . I appreciate that.