Police misconduct 2

[cannon_fodder]

Similar situation happened in Tulsa not long ago. An off duty cop was walking his dog, a neighborhood dog ran over, rudely, to say hi. Officer calmly took out his firearm and shot the dog. When it staggered back into its yard he followed it and shot it again.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/witness-owners-of-dog-killed-by-off-duty-tulsa-police/article_400fc734-6d16-51cb-8748-e188852b8ab1.html

The year before an off duty officer was "investigating" a noisy neighbor dog, who then "charged him" and he was force to put it down.
https://www.facebook.com/DogsShotbyPolice/posts/587763534579348

Can you imagine what would happen if a police dog ran up to my dog and I shot it dead? Or if a police dog lived with my neighbor and was loud, so I "investigated it" by going into the dogs yard and then shot it dead... I'd probably be arrested and charged with murder.

In the last 50 years there hasn't been a documented case where an officer was killed by a dog. About once an hour there is a documented incident where a cop kills someones pet.  There were 6000 reported incidents with dogs by USPS employees last year, but they somehow managed to not kill any. In three years Buffalo police reported killing 92 pets, sometimes after breaking and entering into the wrong home:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-department-shot-92-dogs-years-officers-killed-25/
http://www.dogmurderers.com/
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/reddit-puppycide-police-dogs/


Not sure why they are so worried about dogs. Hundreds of people will be shot and killed by police this year...
- - - - - - -


Some are clearly disturbed and may have done bad things. But when you freeze and put your hands up, you shouldn't be shot by police. That's what the bad guys do in the movies:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/us/san-antonio-bexar-county-texas-police-shooting/

I mean, it sure is a lot harder to negotiate with a guy or subdue him than it is to just shoot him dead - but if their job was just to shoot people that were not cooperating, we could hire any old assclown to do the job. My favorite part - the police are OUTRAGED that someone released the video. People are now being mean to them on social media!

[patric]

Similar situation happened in Tulsa not long ago. An off duty cop was walking his dog, a neighborhood dog ran over, rudely, to say hi. Officer calmly took out his firearm and shot the dog. When it staggered back into its yard he followed it and shot it again.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/witness-owners-of-dog-killed-by-off-duty-tulsa-police/article_400fc734-6d16-51cb-8748-e188852b8ab1.html

The year before an off duty officer was "investigating" a noisy neighbor dog, who then "charged him" and he was force to put it down.
https://www.facebook.com/DogsShotbyPolice/posts/587763534579348

Can you imagine what would happen if a police dog ran up to my dog and I shot it dead? Or if a police dog lived with my neighbor and was loud, so I "investigated it" by going into the dogs yard and then shot it dead... I'd probably be arrested and charged with murder.

In the last 50 years there hasn't been a documented case where an officer was killed by a dog. About once an hour there is a documented incident where a cop kills someones pet.  There were 6000 reported incidents with dogs by USPS employees last year, but they somehow managed to not kill any. In three years Buffalo police reported killing 92 pets, sometimes after breaking and entering into the wrong home:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-department-shot-92-dogs-years-officers-killed-25/
http://www.dogmurderers.com/
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/reddit-puppycide-police-dogs/


Not sure why they are so worried about dogs. Hundreds of people will be shot and killed by police this year...
- - - - - - -


Some are clearly disturbed and may have done bad things. But when you freeze and put your hands up, you shouldn't be shot by police. That's what the bad guys do in the movies:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/us/san-antonio-bexar-county-texas-police-shooting/

I mean, it sure is a lot harder to negotiate with a guy or subdue him than it is to just shoot him dead - but if their job was just to shoot people that were not cooperating, we could hire any old assclown to do the job. My favorite part - the police are OUTRAGED that someone released the video. People are now being mean to them on social media!

Absolute Madness.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/video-man-pulled-over-for-making-direct-eye-contact-with-officer/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/31/what-happened-after-an-officer-stopped-a-black-motorist-for-making-direct-eye-contact/

[cannon_fodder]

Police Officer's are not ENTITLED to respect. But, unfortunately, when disrespected they are too frequently willing to violate constitutional right as a punishment to the citizen.

OBEY

and like it.

A police officer should be able to take a "stare down" from some passing motorist and move on as quickly as I can when some kid is making faces at me from the minivan in front of me...

[heironymouspasparagus]

I mean, it sure is a lot harder to negotiate with a guy or subdue him than it is to just shoot him dead - but if their job was just to shoot people that were not cooperating, we could hire any old assclown to do the job. My favorite part - the police are OUTRAGED that someone released the video. People are now being mean to them on social media!

Too often, that is exactly what we do - hire any old assclown.  Haven't checked for a month or so, but in July, we were up to a count of 24 police officers killed by bad guys this year.

And 580 civilians killed by cops this year.  And as we are seeing more and more, "hands up - don't shoot" doesn't stop the killing.

Seems to be a little disparity there.

[TeeDub]

The other problem is that the police unions argue for and represent even the assclowns.   Like that one in Owasso.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The other problem is that the police unions argue for and represent even the assclowns.   Like that one in Owasso.

Circle those wagons!!  Play to the agenda at all costs.

[cynical]

It's not quite that simple, but at the same time it is simpler. Assuming that the FOP operates under the same legal standard as any other union, the FOP owes every member of the bargaining unit the legal "duty of fair representation." It really doesn't matter whether the FOP leadership, the community, or the members of the TulsaNow Forum approve of the member's actions. The FOP will provide representation whenever a member of the bargaining unit is subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The proceedings become just another legal action with facts being filtered through legal standards regardless of the politics.

The FOP is not there to seek truth, justice, and the American Way. It is there to represent police officers - collectively when bargaining for a collective bargaining agreement, and individually when disciplinary proceedings are brought. That's why the wagons seem to always be circled. The entire thing is structured that way. It's the law.

If you've been following the continuing saga of the TCSO, you may have noticed that there have been no arbitrations brought in response to the various demotions and terminations of deputies. County sheriff's department are an entirely different environment because under Oklahoma law they can't engage in collective bargaining. There is no bargaining unit and no FOP representation.

Circle those wagons!!  Play to the agenda at all costs.

[cannon_fodder]

I do not begrudge anyone representation. But when you are dealing with potential criminal matters granting union members special rights is ridiculous. Next time you are involved in a shooting incident politely ask to go home for 72 hours before they can confront you or ask questions about it. Ask for your representative to be present in any grand jury investigation. Next time you are pulled over ask to talk to your attorney before you blow for your BAC. Etc. etc. etc.

The FOP does and SHOULD provide defense for officers. Their job is to advocate for the officers.

But there should be push back. Our system has become so one sided - it is slanted in favor of the government not the citizen. The officer gets special treatment, special rules, and can even get back pay when he was fired for beating a guy in custody. The prosecutor gets deference and can easily railroad the public defenders office (how many prosecutors are judges, how many public defenders?.

No one wants to push back and seen to be "on the side" of the "bad guys" If you question an official version of events without video evidence, your chided. Hell, even with video evidence - many people don't care. The police are beating up and murdering bad guys, they must be bad, or they wouldn't be getting mistreated by police.   Officials need to stand up and say "no way. If you shoot someone on duty you need to give a recorded statement as soon as possible. You do not get 72 hours to talk to a union rep before giving a statement of facts."  Judges need to say "this warrant has no basis, denied."

When officials let the FOP write the rules, and judges approve  ~99% of warrants --- there aren't really checks and balances. The Executive branch of the government can just do as it pleases. BIG GOVERNMENT is always a concern for conservatives, unless it is police power... then we don't care.

- - - - - - - -


In the South Carolina case, where the guy is shot in the back as he runs away... Defense Attorneys and Prosecutors spent hours arguing about bond yesterday. This is interesting for two reasons:

1) We abuse bond in this country. Bond should be set based on a) how likely the suspect is to appear for trial and b) how dangerous the suspect is likely to be to the public. Bond is NOT pre-trial punishment. The accused is innocent until proven guilty. So if he is likely to appear for trial and unlikely to be dangerous, bond should be set at an affordable level. This officer's bond should be set at an affordable level, no matter how guilty it appears he is.

2) They spent much time talking about what the video "didn't show." They argue that the dead guy was beating the officer up before the videos started. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Who cares how guilty it appears the guy is, that isn't part of the test. Also --- it doesn't matter what the dead guy was doing before the incident happened. Taken as true, pretending that the dead guy had beaten the officers to death --- you still can't shoot him in the back as he runs away. Why didn't either the prosecutor or the judge point out the irrelevance of the entire show?

[edit]painful spelling error corrected...[/edit]

[patric]

When officials let the FOP right the rules

They literally do that.  Once upon a time it was "we dont make the laws we just enforce them" but that is no longer true with the big unions and lobbyists actually writing the law in so-called "requested legislation" form, ready to have a lawmakers name attached... and what lawmaker will say no to being on the side of "law and order?"  

1) We abuse bond in this country. Bond should be set based on a) how likely the suspect is to appear for trial and b) how dangerous the suspect is likely to be to the public. Bond is NOT pre-trial punishment. The accused is innocent until proven guilty. So if he is likely to appear for trial and unlikely to be dangerous, bond should be set at an affordable level.

They made no effort to hide the "bail is punishment" here, and the conservative press is (excuse the pun) up in arms:  "I think it is important to send a message."
http://bearingdrift.com/2015/05/29/waco-sending-a-dangerous-message/

[heironymouspasparagus]

The FOP is not there to seek truth, justice, and the American Way. It is there to represent police officers - collectively when bargaining for a collective bargaining agreement, and individually when disciplinary proceedings are brought. That's why the wagons seem to always be circled. The entire thing is structured that way. It's the law.

And that first statement right there is kind of a whole other point on its own.  What are cops for if NOT to protect us from people would take exactly those things from us by whatever means?

[cynical]

I agree there should be push-back. The adversarial legal system we have is based on push-back. However uncomfortable it is for those participating in it, it is better than any of the alternatives. And the natural affinity between prosecutors and judges because so many judges used to be prosecutors is a very legitimate concern. But pushing back in a way that empowers those who want to convince police officers that they are under attack may not be a good strategy. As I write this I'm wondering what is a good strategy, but denying them the right to representation that everyone else in the country has (we're not talking about "implied consent" here) is the wrong approach to take.

On the 72 hour provision, that provision governed the taking of a detailed statement from the officer and did not otherwise grant 72 hours of immunity from arrest. For an example of where such ideas come from, see this article (http://www.aele.org/law/2008FPAUG/2008-8MLJ201.pdf) by the non-profit Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc. They seem so reasonable until one hears from the other side. AELE is a whole other discussion, a law enforcement support agency that apparently lives off of seminar fees and engages in "counteractive lobbying." I find it ironic that the police will take, and selectively portray as reliable, statements from victims, witnesses, and alleged perpetrators immediately after a horrendous incident, but are themselves advised to "in no case" take a statement from an officer who has just shot someone before 48-72 hours has passed. Read the article. It is chilling. AELE exist for the sole purpose of exploiting fear of crime and countering what it perceives as the evil influence of the ACLU and other so-called "liberal" organizations. They have been effective far beyond their means. Anyone who really cares about this trend is well-advised to support the ACLU financially and politically, not because they are "liberal" (they aren't), but because they are focused on restraining the government's encroachments on individual non-economic rights in the post 9-11 era when almost no one else is. And pressure the legislature to adequately fund both the prosecution and public defender functions while you're at it.

Meanwhile, independent investigations in use-of-force cases should be the rule rather than the exception.  

Thread drift: I just got the alert from the Tulsa World that the outlet mall has been officially announced for Jenks. Congratulations to those who opposed it. Someone needs to get busy and buy the property and donate it to the Parks Department so that it doesn't happen again.

I do not begrudge anyone representation. But when you are dealing with potential criminal matters granting union members special rights is ridiculous. Next time you are involved in a shooting incident politely ask to go home for 72 hours before they can confront you or ask questions about it. Ask for your representative to be present in any grand jury investigation. Next time you are pulled over ask to talk to your attorney before you blow for your BAC. Etc. etc. etc.

The FOP does and SHOULD provide defense for officers. Their job is to advocate for the officers.

But there should be push back. Our system has become so one sided - it is slanted in favor of the government not the citizen. The officer gets special treatment, special rules, and can even get back pay when he was fired for beating a guy in custody. The prosecutor gets deference and can easily railroad the public defenders office (how many prosecutors are judges, how many public defenders?.

No one wants to push back and seen to be "on the side" of the "bad guys" If you question an official version of events without video evidence, your chided. Hell, even with video evidence - many people don't care. The police are beating up and murdering bad guys, they must be bad, or they wouldn't be getting mistreated by police.   Officials need to stand up and say "no way. If you shoot someone on duty you need to give a recorded statement as soon as possible. You do not get 72 hours to talk to a union rep before giving a statement of facts."  Judges need to say "this warrant has no basis, denied."

When officials let the FOP right the rules, and judges approve  ~99% of warrants --- there aren't really checks and balances. The Executive branch of the government can just do as it pleases. BIG GOVERNMENT is always a concern for conservatives, unless it is police power... then we don't care.

- - - - - - - -


In the South Carolina case, where the guy is shot in the back as he runs away... Defense Attorneys and Prosecutors spent hours arguing about bond yesterday. This is interesting for two reasons:

1) We abuse bond in this country. Bond should be set based on a) how likely the suspect is to appear for trial and b) how dangerous the suspect is likely to be to the public. Bond is NOT pre-trial punishment. The accused is innocent until proven guilty. So if he is likely to appear for trial and unlikely to be dangerous, bond should be set at an affordable level. This officer's bond should be set at an affordable level, no matter how guilty it appears he is.

2) They spent much time talking about what the video "didn't show." They argue that the dead guy was beating the officer up before the videos started. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Who cares how guilty it appears the guy is, that isn't part of the test. Also --- it doesn't matter what the dead guy was doing before the incident happened. Taken as true, pretending that the dead guy had beaten the officers to death --- you still can't shoot him in the back as he runs away. Why didn't either the prosecutor or the judge point out the irrelevance of the entire show?

[cynical]

The FOP is made up of police officers but is not the police. The FOP represents police officers. No part of the FOP's mission involves representing you or me if we are not police officers any more than any part of the Teamsters' Union is there to represent auto drivers who are involved in a collision with a trucker. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance caused by police officers who break the law. When I see law enforcement agencies behaving as paramilitary organizations, I worry. When I see police officers shooting unarmed people of whatever race who present no threat to the public or to the officer, I worry. When I see the FOP providing a lawyer to a police officer accused of misconduct, I worry about the misconduct but not the representation. There is already another side at work to represent us. If they don't do so effectively, we need to challenge them to do better or replace them. If the rules set by public contracts are skewed, those same public officials need to unskew them, and if they can't or won't do it, replace them with someone who can. Address the problem, which is not the principle that police officers are entitled to representation.

And that first statement right there is kind of a whole other point on its own.  What are cops for if NOT to protect us from people would take exactly those things from us by whatever means?

[patric]

But pushing back in a way that empowers those who want to convince police officers that they are under attack may not be a good strategy.... AELE exist for the sole purpose of exploiting fear of crime and countering what it perceives as the evil influence of the ACLU and other so-called "liberal" organizations.

And yet there is still hope; not all cops are jumping on the "we are under siege" bandwagon.

David Couper, the former Madison police chief, said the most recent statistics don't support (Governor) Walker's suggestion that police shootings are on the rise.
"That's not what the data show," he said, adding that fatal police shootings are actually down by 13 percent over last year.
Couper, citing data from a 2015 report by the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, said the number of police officers killed in traffic accidents rose by 36 percent over last year. He said it would make more sense to focus on that than police shootings, which have been declining steadily since 2011.
http://www.wpr.org/walker-police-comments-draw-mixed-response-wisconsin-law-enforcement

As for any moral or ethical compulsion the FOP could have to address bad policing, sure, that would be a meaningful gesture, but if anyone should be pulling the plug on bad guys in uniform it should be CLEET.

[cannon_fodder]

I couldn't find the graphic, but felonious (intentional) killing of police officers have been falling consistently since the 1980s. A combination of violent crime overall going down, team tactics, better communication (no point in shooting a cop to get away if they already radio you in, video taped you, or have a chopper overhead), and body armor.

On average 55 officers are murdered while on duty each year. There are ~800,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. Each officer has 10 "contacts" a day with potential bad guys (some are way more, some have zero) from tickets, to drug dealers, to whatever. We won't even count the hundreds of people who encounter officers on a more casual basis each day (in traffic, walking down the street, etc.) that could harm them if they wanted.

10 contacts x 800,000 officers x 300 days a year = 2,400,000,000 contacts per year.
55 end with the officer being killed.
55/2.4 billion = 00.0000229166667% 
or 1 in about 44,000,000 contacts end in the officer's death.

for comparison, about 1 in every 4,000,000 airline passengers dies in a crash. (3.5 billion passengers, about 1k deaths)

Yet we don't get on airplanes as if it was a life or death decision. All jumpy and nervous, passengers accidentally killing pilots because you think they looked dangerous before takeoff (pilot error #1 cause). Yet airline passenger is ten times more dangerous.

Yet officers are trained to treat each contact as potentially dealy...

[Vashta Nerada]

When I see law enforcement agencies behaving as paramilitary organizations, I worry. When I see police officers shooting unarmed people of whatever race who present no threat to the public or to the officer, I worry. When I see the FOP providing a lawyer to a police officer accused of misconduct, I worry about the misconduct but not the representation. There is already another side at work to represent us. If they don't do so effectively, we need to challenge them to do better or replace them. If the rules set by public contracts are skewed, those same public officials need to unskew them, and if they can't or won't do it, replace them with someone who can. Address the problem, which is not the principle that police officers are entitled to representation.

The FOP isnt the least bit embarrased that they "must" defend slimeballs. 

Patrick J. Lynch, head of the police officer's union, said Officer James Frascatore "Did a professional job of bringing the individual to the ground" in describing tennis star James Blake's assault and arrest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/surveillance-video-shows-officer-throwing-james-blake-to-the-ground/2015/09/11/a40783b6-58c1-11e5-9f54-1ea23f6e02f3_video.html


That sounds a lot more like praise than regret.  So who is their model?


The officer who tackled tennis star James Blake has been sued four times for roughing up suspects during arrests, documents show.

Officer James Frascatore, on the force for four years, is a defendant in four ongoing civil cases that charge he and other officers used excessive force during false arrests.

In June 2012, Frascatore pulled over Leroy Cline for a busted tailight, WYNC reported. Frascatore asked for Cline's ID without saying why he was being pulled over, Cline said.

"He completely ignored me and said, 'License, registration,'" Cline told WNYC last year. "I said, 'Officer, what am I being pulled over for?'"
"That's when he opened my car door and gave me three straight shots to the mouth."

Frascatore had a different story about what happened: he claimed Cline attacked him and bit his fist.

Officer Frascatore is suing Cline, claiming he sustained "permanent" injuries from Cline's car while trying to arrest him.
The officer "became sick, sore, lame and disabled...(and) has been permanently injured," the lawsuit claimed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tackled-james-blake-sued-4-times-excessive-force-article-1.2356691