Atlanta Police Chief resigns after Black Man shot

a reply to: Gryphon66

Since you're talking to me out of the corner of your mouth, and the other member was referring to my claim, I'll be glad to address it with you.

no i wasn't, talking to you out of the croner of my mouth pay attention , you said it in a post before to shamrock. if i wanted to address you i would have point blank. don't be so full of your self, i'm not afraid to address you

Issuing a loaded question with a false dilemma, and then trying to cover up what you did, is over the line in terms of good faith in discussion ... IMO.

question was not loaded, it was straight forward plain and simple. no false dilemma in it at all. never covered up anything and posted my post over and over in full and in part, the first part to make a point.

please your just pissed cause your argument has been pointed out to be wrong time and time again. all you can do is try to use intellectual sounding posts to try and make me look bad, in other words spin spin spin.

give it up man your just a joke.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Fair enough.

We disagree.

Let's move on.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Granby

You have no clue do you?
1. Controlling someone against there will means inflicting some level of pain. You hold they struggle you hold tighter, pain.

They then wriggle, kick, spit, anything with out any restraint to hurt You in an effort to get away.

All the time the police are not allowed to hurt the poor little darling.
Please how much training have you had controlling someone that is willing to kill you to get away?

FYI play wrestling doesn't count

If the cop that was on his back would have had him properly controlled he would barely be able to wiggle and definitely not kick and get away.
That is my point.

The guy was seated and the cop has his back and still could not control him. It is easy to see why when you watch the video.
He did not know how.

He was in a dominant position and could have very easily controlled that man but he did not know how.

These cops can be easily trained in control.

1 hour a day. Twice a week for 6 months.
Controlling positions. Grips. Points of entry.

This is all basic stuff.

What would be the harm in putting police through this training?
How could it possibly hurt?

It would make their jobs much easier.

Why not do something like this?
What is the reasoning behind not having this type of program?

a reply to: Granby

There’s no harm in that at all. The problem is paying for it. You get defensive tactics in the academy and refreshers every so often. Sometimes. But “six months” won’t cut it. Like any other skill, it has to be continuous training or it degrades over time. Continuous training costs money. Money comes from budgets. Budgets are set by politicians.

The net result is that most agencies settle on “refresher courses” and cops, many of whom don’t make a ton of money to begin with, are left with the choice of paying for it out of pocket or not paying for it.

a reply to: Granby

Why aren't we talking about if the guy hadn't fought with the cop and not taken the taser in the first place? Why are we not talking about that one?

oh for f7895 sake he took the cops taser the cop knew it was a taser

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Also, I'm not sure that that we need to be talking about "cleansing society" in the same thread we're talking about police killing ANOTHER Black man in questionable circumstances.

For what it's worth (and I've lived here my whole life) tazers have ALWAYS been pushed as non-lethal. Even though we knnow that under the exact right circumstances it could cause a heart-attack in some people.

I don't personally think it was an "execution" ... but it was really really poor judgement on the part of the officers.

A lot of these tasers look just like a gun. If you're the cop and he turns around and points something at you that looks like a gun, are you gonna risk your life on the hope that it's just a taser?

Even if it is just the taser, are you gonna trust this violent, intoxicated man to just leave you alone after he tases you?

You'll equivocate because you don't want to see the other side, but the answer to both those questions is no you wouldn't.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Granby

There’s no harm in that at all. The problem is paying for it. You get defensive tactics in the academy and refreshers every so often. Sometimes. But “six months” won’t cut it. Like any other skill, it has to be continuous training or it degrades over time. Continuous training costs money. Money comes from budgets. Budgets are set by politicians.

The net result is that most agencies settle on “refresher courses” and cops, many of whom don’t make a ton of money to begin with, are left with the choice of paying for it out of pocket or not paying for it.

Which is why instead of defunding we need restructure.

6 months will most definitely cut it. That would have a huge advantage.
Of course skills degrade over time if not used.

But we are just talking about being competent at the basics.
There can be a refresher course on that.

6 month program and after completing you must then do three 1 hour days a month.

Of course I do not mean that exactly to the letter but you get the idea.

Their most definitely is a way that police can at least become competent and confident in controlling a person.
Money must be redirected for a program like this.

It is not like they need to be crazy strong and physical. That is the point.

Something like this should be necessary.

Maybe part of the academy program with the refresher course every 60 days or 90 days

Something

a reply to: Snarl

Nope. The post was out of line.

It should be removed and I should be appropriately disciplined.

That's why I tagged "go mods."

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Granby

Why aren't we talking about if the guy hadn't fought with the cop and not taken the taser in the first place? Why are we not talking about that one?

Because I am not trying to deflect away from what I think is excessive force and because when I watch the video I can clearly see how this cop had no idea how to control him and could have some so easily.

a reply to: Granby

6 month program and after completing you must then do three 1 hour days a month.

Okay so you mean like....continuous training? Kinda like what I said?

Got it.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Granby

6 month program and after completing you must then do three 1 hour days a month.

Okay so you mean like....continuous training? Kinda like what I said?

Got it.

sorry for not having all the details exactly worked out

Not trying to argue

I hope others chime in on the idea. I am curious as to what they think.


Do you think there are monies that can be diverted to something like this?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: TorqueyThePig

I really don't see a bi-annual psych review/exam to be a big deal. You said you were a cop; do you think it would be too much to ask?

TheRedneck

I wouldn't have had an issue with it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ketsuko

but if you live in a city, it's just not possible for an officer to know everyone.

Isn't that why they used to have beat cops? So they could get to know everyone (almost anyway)?

Seems to me that tiered system was the best way to handle things. One or two beat cops, their neighborhood, they know the people. Then city-wide cops called in when something big happens or for beat cop backup.

TheRedneck

That worked when cities were smaller.

I was responsible for an area of 10 square miles with about 10,000 people in it. That was just one area of 10 in the city of 100,000.

Hard to walk beats regularly in larger areas, especially when it's busy and you're understaffed.

That said, officers do get to know their areas and the citizens in them. Hard not to when you're in them everyday.

a reply to: Granby

Continuous training is a great idea. Officers shouldn’t be expected to pay for it on their own, but many of them do because their agencies don’t.

People think LE agencies have huge budgets. Some do, most don’t. Regardless, the vast majority of any agency’s budget is for payroll and related expenses. Like in the neighborhood of 80% for most agencies. That means the left over money has to pay for everything else. Training. Gas. Electric bills. Computers. Ammo. Training. Body worn cameras. New vehicles. Maintenance of old vehicles. Everything.

Can more money be found? Sure, but what are we going to pay less for to offset it?