Cops behaving badly

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:35 am

Blind and unarmed? Taze him!!

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:54 am

Moliere wrote:Blind and unarmed? Taze him!!

"The man was uninjured during the incident and today officers have been with him, and have now apologised for what happened.

"The man has accepted our apology and does not wish to make a complaint however we will continue to review the situation.

"Our officers have explained why a Taser was deployed and the man acknowledged that his behaviour could have led to people being concerned.

Both sides were reasonable and cordial? Must be the UK.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:01 pm

If that was the US, the cops would have bludgeoned him and hospitalized him, and his family would be suing on his behalf until he came out of his coma.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:56 pm

Here is an example of 'legal' police conduct that really shows how far the system bends over backwards to protect officers from any responsibility for their own mistakes. Man's constitutional rights were not violated in a case where man shot for wielding a wallet.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:01 pm

Watching that video, I would have shot him, too. He gets out of the vehicle looking directly at the officer with a black object held in both of his hands.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:14 pm

malchior wrote:Here is an example of 'legal' police conduct that really shows how far the system bends over backwards to protect officers from any responsibility for their own mistakes. Man's constitutional rights were not violated in a case where man shot for wielding a wallet.

I don't know about constitutional rights, but they certainly violated his body. At the least, the guy should get some sort of settlement for that. It's hard to say, really. Poor drunk bastard made the mistake of parking on an incline and had to fight to get his door open, then stumbled out with his wallet in his hand and "aimed" it at the cop. All I saw was a black rectangle pointing at the dash-cam for a second before shots were fired. That cop was shooting before he even had his gun aimed, given the first shot hit the ground and the second went 3 feet higher. In my mind, I see him drawing and firing as he ducked back into his car, almost with his eyes closed. He certainly didn't seem to see that wallet until he got closer, or when the guy was flapping it around and cards were falling out of it.

I am glad he was human about it and in a panic when he realized what happened. He didn't just keep going "Where's the GUN?! Where IS IT?!" He immediately knew he did something wrong and can be heard saying "Man, he had a f&%$ing wallet. A f&%$ing wallet..."

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:38 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Watching that video, I would have shot him, too. He gets out of the vehicle looking directly at the officer with a black object held in both of his hands.

I watched that video about five times. I agree with the court from the perspective of having carried firearms and multiple jobs and having received a lot of training on use of force. It isn't necessary that a person be under actual threat to use lethal force. It is only necessary that they reasonably believe that they are under threat. In this case, the guy had something that looked like a gun, which he handled like a gun, then did not respond to the officer's instructions intended to neutralize the threat without lethal force. A reasonable person in that situation could very well believe that the person had a gun and intended to use it.

The fact that it turned out to be a wallet sucks, but if 'it wasn't really a gun when we got a closer look at it' were an argument, then what happens when a cop shoots a guy with a replica, or a BB gun? Do we want cops to wait for suspects to fire on them before they respond?

This was a terrible situation that has ended up seriously harming two people, likely two families, but there isn't always a 'bad guy' when things go wrong.

Vorret · Post by **Vorret** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:45 pm

Blackhawk wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Watching that video, I would have shot him, too. He gets out of the vehicle looking directly at the officer with a black object held in both of his hands.
I watched that video about five times. I agree with the court from the perspective of having carried firearms and multiple jobs and having received a lot of training on use of force. It isn't necessary that a person be under actual threat to use lethal force. It is only necessary that they reasonably believe that they are under threat. In this case, the guy had something that looked like a gun, which he handled like a gun, then did not respond to the officer's instructions intended to neutralize the threat without lethal force. A reasonable person in that situation could very well believe that the person had a gun and intended to use it.

The fact that it turned out to be a wallet sucks, but if 'it wasn't really a gun when we got a closer look at it' were an argument, then what happens when a cop shoots a guy with a replica, or a BB gun? Do we want cops to wait for suspects to fire on them before they respond?

This was a terrible situation that has ended up seriously harming two people, likely two families, but there isn't always a 'bad guy' when things go wrong.

I don't know, maybe I'm biased since I'm in Canada but I don't think cops should have an instinct of "shoot first ask questions later". We're civilian, they're supposed to be there to protect us, you come out of you car with a wallet and you get shot is, to me, completely irrational and stupid. It's attempt murder and they should be jailed.

But that's my Canadian perspective where I don't expect anyone to have a gun on themselve.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:52 pm

In the US, we lose an officer to gunfire every six days. In Canada, it's one every nine months.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:55 pm

Vorret wrote:
I don't know, maybe I'm biased since I'm in Canada but I don't think cops should have an instinct of "shoot first ask questions later". We're civilian, they're supposed to be there to protect us, you come out of you car with a wallet and you get shot is, to me, completely irrational and stupid. It's attempt murder and they should be jailed.

But that's my Canadian perspective where I don't expect anyone to have a gun on themselve.

He didn't shoot first. He showed up, and let his presence be known first through sirens and red/blue lights (and that is actually considered as part of the use of force - a clear presence.) He investigated second and saw a threat. Third, he tried the only option available to him in that situation that wasn't deadly - he ordered what he believed to be an armed man to show his hands. Fourth, he gave the order a second time. Shooting was the fifth thing he did.

What would you suggest he have done, in a situation where he believed that the guy was coming out of his car with a gun, and has already refused to stop? Note that, at that point, believing he's holding a gun, a mistake means you die.

/edit - and not only do you die, but you die leaving an armed man standing at an accident scene on a busy public road.

Vorret · Post by **Vorret** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:04 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:In the US, we lose an officer to gunfire every six days. In Canada, it's one every nine months.

Exactly why I'm biased, it's a completely different mindset here!

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:16 pm

Guy was nuts...even after multiple orders he is still not showing both hands. In this day and age you do not get out holding an item...show both hands and sit quietly.

Last time I was pulled over...my window doesn't work....I stopped, opened my door, and put both hands where they could be seen. I didn't like opening my door but the windows are dark and I figured it was better than not opening it. I then complied with all that was asked of me. I even told them about my pocket knife which he said was fine not to worry about it. I was pulled over 2 times recently for speed but both times there was no problem AT ALL and I never felt scared or nervous in the least. Also both police officers were friendly and patient. I gave them no reason to be nervous with me.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:23 pm

My interactions with police (I tend to zoomzoom) are fine, except the ticket at the end. My one "bad" experience was a cop who simply didn't know that laws had changed and the big "E" on my state inspection sticker was for "Emissions" - not a forgery. He had me step out of the car, and when I did unfold myself out of the tiny thing, he took two steps back and put his hand on his gun. He wasn't expecting me to be 6" taller than him, I think. He berated me, chewed me out, had me stand at the hood of my car, and went back to his... and came back 5 minutes later telling me to have a good night and gave me my ticket. I'm guessing dispatch laughed at him.

My only "brown pants" possibile situation was when I was working security and was called to stand guard at a bank that had been robbed the previous day. For some reason, they thought employees would feel better knowing a guard was there overnight. I did my rounds and sat in my car all night until about 3:00am when I was startled by a knock on my window and looked up to see a cop there demanding to know what I was doing. There were a handful of other cops around my car with their guns drawn. Apparently my boss didn't think he needed to let them know someone would be there overnight and the cops thought it was interesting to find someone staking out a bank that had just been robbed. Resolved without shots fired and never got out of the car. Good times.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:34 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:In the US, we lose an officer to gunfire every six days. In Canada, it's one every nine months.

3 people are killed by police everyday. And that is only known through inference. We dont have any desire to quantify it though it is deadly force by the government. Even a 5% error rate means that an equivalent amount of completely innocent people die. The problem isn't the police per se it is the public policy wrapped around it. And a lack of political courage to explore whether it really even is a problem much less address it.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:39 pm

Daehawk wrote:Guy was nuts...even after multiple orders he is still not showing both hands. In this day and age you do not get out holding an item...show both hands and sit quietly.

How can you ascertain that? The door was falling into him. He has guns pointed at him and he is being yelled at it. Show me your hands was difficult due to the cars position. The cognitive overload was clear because once he saw the level of danger he put his hands up. Simultaneously with the shooting unfortunately.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:25 pm

Step 1: cop pays 15 year old for sex.
Step 2: robs the girl to get his money back.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:50 pm

Homeless? Check.
Hungry? Check.
Eat a slice of pizza? Check.
Receive a $250 fine? Check.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:03 pm

At least the cop didn't cuff him and beat him for it. Still uncool, though - basically harassing someone for being homeless. Couldn't just have him move 4 feet away, onto the curb of the street?

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:09 pm

How do you pat down and search every student at a high school and find no drugs? That seems statistically improbable.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:47 pm

In other news, the Sheriff's department has initiated a new program to help encourage students to join legal professions while possibly offering to pay college tuition. Lawsuit results at 11:00.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:07 pm

Paingod wrote:In other news, the Sheriff's department has initiated a new program to help encourage students to join legal professions while possibly offering to pay college tuition. Lawsuit results at 11:00.

But they had a school administrator there. So cops groping your teenager without probable cause ain't no thang.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:15 pm

In reading the article, I'm confused as to why the cops were so insistent that there were drugs to find. Even their dogs only found false-positives. Coming back a second time because you "just know there's something to find" isn't probable cause when the first search turns up nothing. It sounded like the school admins weren't excited about the search either. WTF is going on here?

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:24 pm

Paingod wrote:In reading the article, I'm confused as to why the cops were so insistent that there were drugs to find. Even their dogs only found false-positives. Coming back a second time because you "just know there's something to find" isn't probable cause when the first search turns up nothing. It sounded like the school admins weren't excited about the search either. WTF is going on here?

They needed to fill their drug-finding quota?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:39 pm

Lorini wrote:
Paingod wrote:In reading the article, I'm confused as to why the cops were so insistent that there were drugs to find. Even their dogs only found false-positives. Coming back a second time because you "just know there's something to find" isn't probable cause when the first search turns up nothing. It sounded like the school admins weren't excited about the search either. WTF is going on here?
They needed to fill their drug-finding quota?

Maybe they're just really bad at planting evidence.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Mon May 08, 2017 12:29 pm

Have terminal cancer.
Take a medication with synthetic THC.
Drive a car.
Get arrested and go to jail on DUI charges.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon May 08, 2017 12:35 pm

Working as designed, and not a cop thing.

Driving under the influence of drugs -- including prescription medications as well as illegal drugs -- can also result in DUI charges.

Mixing drugs and driving, whether it's medicinal marijuana or legally prescribed muscle relaxers, is just as illegal as driving drunk and can also constitute a DUI offense. Doctor's orders are no defense to drugged driving charges.
...
Some drugs legally purchased at a pharmacy, whether they're prescribed by a doctor or bought over-the-counter (OTC), can be just as dangerous for motorists as alcohol and can trigger a DUI. Look for warning labels or ask your pharmacist if you are in doubt about a drug's capacity for impairment.

That's a concern for her state legislature.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Mon May 08, 2017 4:55 pm

Moliere wrote:Have terminal cancer.
Take a medication with synthetic THC.
Drive a car.
Get arrested and go to jail on DUI charges.

Yep happens all the time. I don't know about synthetic THC but many medications have on the label if you shouldn't drive with them. And supposing if this person who has terminal cancer killed someone while driving? Her having terminal cancer has nothing to do with it.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Mon May 08, 2017 5:18 pm

Lorini wrote:
Moliere wrote:Have terminal cancer.
Take a medication with synthetic THC.
Drive a car.
Get arrested and go to jail on DUI charges.
Yep happens all the time. I don't know about synthetic THC but many medications have on the label if you shouldn't drive with them. And supposing if this person who has terminal cancer killed someone while driving? Her having terminal cancer has nothing to do with it.

My concern is that the article confirms the level of THC in the medication is not enough to impair driving. As Isgrimnur and I'm sure the police union, pointed out they were following the letter of the law. She tested positive for THC. Throw her in jail. How about showing some discretion?

According to her pharmacist, the amount of THC in her blood is not enough to make anyone high. The time Kastner will spend in jail will force her to miss a chemo session, which will force her to restart her whole regimen. Her doctor is not happy.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon May 08, 2017 5:21 pm

How about discretion?

Colonel Brenda Dietzman with the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office says Kastner chose the date on which to begin her 48-hour sentence and the jail has to accommodate that.

"We routinely, on a daily basis, take inmates to dialysis and other medical procedures and appointments," Dietzman said. "We take the care of our inmates very seriously."

She could not speak to why Kastner did not take the option of being taken for chemo, referring calls to the city courts.

Lorini · Post by **Lorini** » Mon May 08, 2017 5:28 pm

Moliere wrote:
Lorini wrote:
Moliere wrote:Have terminal cancer.
Take a medication with synthetic THC.
Drive a car.
Get arrested and go to jail on DUI charges.
Yep happens all the time. I don't know about synthetic THC but many medications have on the label if you shouldn't drive with them. And supposing if this person who has terminal cancer killed someone while driving? Her having terminal cancer has nothing to do with it.
My concern is that the article confirms the level of THC in the medication is not enough to impair driving. As Isgrimnur and I'm sure the police union, pointed out they were following the letter of the law. She tested positive for THC. Throw her in jail. How about showing some discretion?

According to her pharmacist, the amount of THC in her blood is not enough to make anyone high. The time Kastner will spend in jail will force her to miss a chemo session, which will force her to restart her whole regimen. Her doctor is not happy.

She should be able to leave jail to continue her chemo. Apparently she chose not to work with them to do that. I don't know of their ability to test for THC so I withdraw my comment. In other words, we know that they can test for blood alcohol levels. Can they test for THC levels? If not, then yep she's going to be arrested because she broke the law.

I'm not police friendly but I'm also not a fan of bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with what she did. It sounds like as medical marijuana is something more people take, the law needs to be changed to account for levels of it in the bloodstream. Expecting police not to follow the law if they don't feel like it is probably not going to happen.

Punisher · Post by **Punisher** » Tue May 09, 2017 12:18 pm

I don't think I saw it in the article, but there appears to be some info missing.
1) What was the traffic stop for in the first place? Was she weaving or something?
2) If the traffic stop was not specifically DUIish (IE: speeding, running a red light, as opposed to swerving or something), how did they know/suspect about the THC/DUI in the first place? Did she fail a field sobriety test?

Definitely seems like something is missing...

and this isn't a cop behaving badly story.. If the cop had probable cause to charge her with DUI, then that's it, he did what he was supposed to. It's up to the courts to determine the rest.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed May 31, 2017 1:52 pm

deputies forcibly removing elderly woman from train station seat

In the video, she is heard asking for her cane. To which a sheriff's deputy responds, "I will give you your cane once you stand up," and the woman replies, "No, hand me my cane so I can stand up."

It's amazing when cops can't adapt to the context of the situation. You don't need to bully a 76 year old woman for sitting in the wrong seat.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed May 31, 2017 2:25 pm

Moliere wrote:
It's amazing when cops can't adapt to the context of the situation. You don't need to bully a 76 year old woman for sitting in the wrong seat.

Poor training, bad leadership.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:57 am

Cops responding to a house alarm first shoot the two dogs in the backyard before checking in on the owners at the front door.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:50 pm

Woman calls police to report possible assault/rape in alley near here house. She goes out to speak the cops in her pajamas and while talking to the cop in the drivers seat, his partner shoots her:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/us/minnea ... index.html

Cops had body cameras but did not turn them on.

But why did the cop feel so threatened that he felt he had to shoot a woman in her pajamas, the very person that called them? Makes no sense.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:57 pm

I've been watching this unfold in the news, and the idea that the cop in the passenger seat shot across his friend and out the driver's side window makes absolutely no sense. My uninformed, knee jerk guess is that he was mishandling his firearm and it accidentally went off. But I suspect we'll get the real story over the next few days. This is dominating the news right now, and I highly doubt it's going to just fizzle out.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:19 pm

What makes you think we'll get anything close to the real story?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:46 pm

This isn't being internally investigated. The city handed it off almost immediately to The Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), something it seems they started doing back in 2014 for "critical incidents" to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

But more importantly, too many people want to know the truth. Also, the victim was white. The usual groups that appear whenever a minority is involved will probably avoid a public outcry in defense of the police involved in this particular shooting.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:02 pm

Grifman wrote:Woman calls police to report possible assault/rape in alley near here house. She goes out to speak the cops in her pajamas and while talking to the cop in the drivers seat, his partner shoots her:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/us/minnea ... index.html

Cops had body cameras but did not turn them on.

But why did the cop feel so threatened that he felt he had to shoot a woman in her pajamas, the very person that called them? Makes no sense.

She was carrying some books that were WAY too advanced for her.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:24 pm

I don't get it.