BREAKING: Kelly Thomas Case, Officer Charged with Murder

reply to post by The Vagabond


So long as you can remain objective and not let person feelings / experiences intefer with your objectivity.

not all cops are evil, regardless of how many times its portrayed that way on these forums.

Originally posted by XcathdraYour overdramatization about being executed aside, why were the other 4 given lighter sentences? What was their level of participation in the crime?

Well they knew Kelly and knew that he was as lucid as a twelve year old. They kept every witness who might just have saved Kelly's life at bay. They are all equally guilty.




]Originally posted by The Vagabond
Every single cop who was on the scene and not trying to stop the beating needs to be fired and charged. Just by being an extra cop there, they were making sure that the public could not intervene to save the life of a fellow citizen being abused by the authorities.

Using your logic then everysingle bystander should also be rounded up and charged for not stopping it.

Like that pack of rabid hyeneas wearing badges would have let them. The witmnesses would have been shot on the spot and the cops would have lied and said it was a riot and their lives were in danger. For being the supposed 'protectors' they are the most cowardly type I have ever seen in one classifiable group.

Education is very much an issue in these types of manners, from the Officers and use of force right down to the people needing to learn how the law works and how it affects them in the long run.
To be outraged that law enforcement violates a persons rights only to demand the officers rights be violated doesnt solve the problem,

OMG!!! To tell us that we are Stupid because we have taken off the All Officers are Angels rose colored glasses and begun to see them for what they are and even worse dare to speak it out loud and them proclaim that officers should be granted more rights than they accord the average taxpayer is so outrageous there are not words in the english language able to express it.

reply to post by VforVendettea


In cases like this I point out that people only see what they want...

this would be in your case true, since no where in my post did I call anyone stupid. I did state people dont understand how the laws work, and I stand by that comment.

Please tone down the drama... If you have an issue with something I said, by all means point it out and explain why you disagree with it, ask me questions and ill be more than happy to answer them.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
not all cops are evil, regardless of how many times its portrayed that way on these forums.

That is obviously true. I know just a few serving police officers, a couple more retirees, and a few young people who are in the academy (i hate to say this about friends, but that's where the "baby faced momma's boys running laps around the community college and thinking they've become lean mean enforcers" came from). I know they are good people and I like them, but some of them are freakin dangerous. Three out of three retired cops I know, one British, one American, one Canadian, all have have stories about off-duty vigilantism. The Canadian also likes to brag about how many dents his car had from the heads of people he was handcuffing. The ones who are still going through the academy... God help us all. One of them lost his job as an armed security patrolman because he was in a traffic accident, yanked the other driver out of his vehicle, threw him down and held him at gunpoint... sure, he could have crippled the guy, but the guy ran a red light and got in an accident, so he was the bad guy, and my buddy was out there to deal with the bad guys... freakin dangerous.

Here's the problem. You give people the means to win in any normal situation by sheer superiority of force, and you tell them that they are the good guys and the people who break the law are bad guys who might try to kill you at any moment, and that they must command respect as authority figures and must be able to control situations or they'll end up dead... well what happens when they can't control the situation, but there is no justification to use force? What do you do when a guy won't shut the hell up, or won't stop fidgeting around... he's not getting away, he's not dangerous, he's not even really adversarial... but you just can't get your job done because he's not cooperating enough. Well you snap and threaten them. Then when that doesn't work, you're cornered. You've gotta do it.

I'm VERY familiar with these situations as a security guard. On my current assignment, I can't make arrests, I can't confiscate anything whatsoever, most of my tickets are thrown out as a courtesy, most people live there and can't be kicked out short of an eviction, I don't carry any kind of weapon, I cannot touch anyone for any reason, I cannot drive faster than 30mph even in pursuits, and I cannot enter a residence even if there's an alarm or screaming inside. Think I have an easy time figuring out who has a right to be there and getting them to leave if they don't? I still succeed 90% of the time though. It's easy because we are realistic about the situation. We don't have to win every single time. More than half of the crime we stop is crime that isn't even attempted simply because somebody is watching, and 99% of the remainder is resolved after the fact by good information.
There was a residential burglar the cops had been having a lot of trouble with. I believe the deputy's exact words to me were, "This guy is killing us. We think we know who it is, but he's just too fast for us." All of their racing across town at high speeds and charging into people's back yards with guns drawn was pointless. My team handed the guy over on a silver platter using cameras and RFID... the cops still chased him home and rammed his car through the gate of his apartment complex though... why bother being subtle and arresting him as cleanly as possible when you could have him tonight. God knows he might break another 5 or 6 car windows.... that would cost.... well almost as much as the gate to his appartment complex probably.

Do you get what I'm saying? It's not just the people. The system is violent, dehumanizing, and wrong, and it needs to change. And frankly if that weren't a failure that a handful of elite people wanted because it kept them in power, we already would have figured that out and fixed the system, probably with the enthusiastic participation of many police officers who don't want to shoot or be shot by anyone.

reply to post by The Vagabond


As with any profession you will have your share of idiots, plain and simple. People seem to ignore the fact that only (for the most part) bad press seems to make the news. So yeah, when in 1 weeks time you see 5 stories from around the nation about Police misconduct, and thats ALL people see, they tend to develop a blanket attitude.

Every action taken by a police officer is done on a case by case basis, and using hindsight while not understanding the law causes problem in the analysis.

As for the hypothetical about dealing with people who essentially hinder an investigation by not being quiet or what have you does not always translate into an action being taken. Again in this area people ignore key elements. When we are dealing with people, and it will be person / call specific, people ignore the adrenaline dump that not only occurs with officers, but the civilians we are dealing with.

People go into a fight or flight response. This is why you will hear officers literally screaming a command over and over at a person. Fight or flight causes some important reactions.

* - Loss of fine motor control
* - Auditory exclusion
* - Visual exclusion (tunnel vision)
* - Sweat which is a throwback to our beginings - Sweat not only helps a person cool down, it also makes the person sweaty, making it harder to keep control over a person your dealing with should it go to that level.

If we go to a call, and the complainant decides he doesnt want to cooperate / answer questions etc, we usuaully just tell them that unless they get it together and concentrate, we will be leaving. If they want to press charges then they must provide info / statement / etc. Otherwise we cant do anything about the incident (exception is domestic violence, where leos can make an arrest even if the victim doesnt want to press charges).

As far as large groups of people go, law enforcement is not required to act. We can withdraw from the situation until we can get more officers into the area to ensure safety.

Justification on use of force - Another area people dont completely understand. Simply by showing up in uniform and a marked patrol car, that is a use of force - Command Presence. Verbal commands - also a use of force. As I have stated many times before on this issue, hindsight 20/20 is not allowed. Its what the officer perceived at the exact moment force was used.

Put 5 people with the same training into a fluid, high stress situation, and then ask them all what happened. You are going to get 5 different answers due to location, visual ability, angles etc. Its like the dash cam footage that shows an officer in a pursuit then foot pursuit, It shows the officer shooting the fleeing suspect in the back.

The Public was torqued off, until the dash cam footage from a second patrol car was released. That angle showed the fleeing suspect pulling a gun and turning to fire, at which pooint you see him being shot and killed.

I do understand what you are saying, I just dont completely agree with it. There are a lot of factors people do not take into account simply because they dont have the training to know. As far as the pursuit goes, you do realize that in addition to the burglary charges, he is also resisting an arrest by fleeing?

If the guy fled, and during that pursuit places the public at large in jeopardy, the resisting arrest by fleeing becomes a felony because of the mitigating circumstance. If the suspect shows no concern for public safety, then a pit maneuver can be used, which is generally considered a use of deadly force.

I do agree that there needs to be some revamps on the Police as well as Judicial side, it should not stop there. The Public, whom we work for, should have an understanding of what our job entails and what laws dictate our actions. If they dont take an intrest, then we will continue to have problems.

As far as resepct goes, it should never be demanded, required or , or even expected. It should be earned through actions. However, again, its a 2 way street. The phrase that best sums it up is you should treat people exactly how you would want to be treated.

Your last paragraph proves my point... You are blaming the police, all of them, for the problems today. Nowhere in that paragraph does it address the people who broke the law, which is why we are in contact with them in the first place.

The main argument I see people make is why did the cop do this or that. Generally speaking they tend to ignore the actions of the person that officer was dealing with.

People need to get invovled with government, talk to the officers you come across. Doing / saying nothing will not change / correct the problem / behvaior.

Originally posted by Xcathdrathis would be in your case true, since no where in my post did I call anyone stupid. I did state people dont understand how the laws work.

With respect Sir, Yes you did.
Saying that everone but LEOs need 'education' is calling them stupid and since LEOs make up laws as they go seeing if the person they are harassing has memorized the volumes amoung volumes of statutes that LEOs pass off as 'laws' of course they wouldn't understand 'how laws work' because the quoted law didn't exist before they were stopped.

The only law that it boils down to is the law of the thin blue line if you are on the other side of it you are either a paying victim to the LEOs or if you have no money you are a punching bag if they notice you at all.

This is a case of where the inmates are truly running the madhouse. It is widespread and it is brutal and people are starting to realize that they need to stand up to the bullies that have been passing themselves off as guardians for far too long.

In So Cal we are a bit more aware of this than the rest of the country because of how deeply embedded the corruption is. This boil has been festering for over a century and it needs to be lanced and drained so it can heal.

reply to post by The Vagabond


Fair enough and my apologies for the implications.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by The Vagabond

 

People go into a fight or flight response. This is why you will hear officers literally screaming a command over and over at a person. Fight or flight causes some important reactions.

This is a HUGE problem and it gets right to the heart of my concern with the system. What you must understand is that fight or flight reactions don't happen on their own and they can be controlled within certain parameters, so if a police officer who regularly has those reactions before he is in imminent danger is turned loose on a city, that's poor training and a horrible accident waiting to happen. And you can't excuse something like that with "hindsight 20/20 is not allowed". The law tells you when hindsight is and is not allowed. Some crimes have to be committed knowingly and willingly. Others, if you did it, you're wrong, period. It doesn't matter if you shot the little girl because you had tunnel vision and your hands were shaky. And where's the hindsight? Sure it's happened before but we aren't just talking about the past. You are describing problems that will be factors in future problems right now. We should find a solution right now. And if we don't, to hell with hindsight, you saw that one coming and you defended the realities that caused it.

What if surgeons operated like police? Never letting a case go for fear that they would do more harm than good, even with no information, even with inadequate equipment, even with inadequate help, even alone with shaky hands and tunnel vision... imagine the body count! If the goal is to help, and nobody is dying, there is no reason the panicky unprepared cop can't wait and watch from a safe distance with clear non-fight or flight eyes until he has the information and resources to do the right thing. And if a couple of homeless guys walk the street for a little longer, or a few car stereos get stolen or liquor stores get robbed... really even if somebody gets killed- its less of a loss than having police giving 5 different stories in court (oh wait, they don't do that, they get together and confabulate an story from their 5 conflicting reports and send somebody to jail not even knowing if its true), or having people who can't call the police because they are afraid to, or creating angry people like me who just might have a fight or flight reaction of our own and be forced to throw down on a cop before he gets the same idea towards us.

I do understand what you are saying, I just dont completely agree with it. There are a lot of factors people do not take into account simply because they dont have the training to know. As far as the pursuit goes, you do realize that in addition to the burglary charges, he is also resisting an arrest by fleeing?

Of course, you are now the textbook example of the problem I am talking about. He broke the law so he is wrong, and your job is to stop the law from being broken. Him fleeing does not place the public in jeopardy. He is having a fight or flight response, and he's doing the less illegal of the two! And you want to charge him as if he did the other? We knew who he was. We had his photo, we had his vehicle information, we had transponder reads showing when and where he enters the property to commit his crimes- no reason at all for a chase if the police had taken time to plan and prepare instead of going nuts over a few stereos and purses. How many stereos and purses makes it worth rolling the dice on a cop running over somebody's little girl?

If the guy fled, and during that pursuit places the public at large in jeopardy, the resisting arrest by fleeing becomes a felony because of the mitigating circumstance. If the suspect shows no concern for public safety, then a pit maneuver can be used, which is generally considered a use of deadly force.

That's too loose with deadly force and the subject has a right to defend his life at the expense of the cops in that situation. Don't come crying to me when believing that stuff gets one of your friends on the force splattered across a major intersection. A local cop in my area ran into an 18 wheeler and killed himself being just that stupid and he deserved it. The guy he was trying to kill got charged with murder for it. Over a traffic stop.

Your last paragraph proves my point... You are blaming the police, all of them, for the problems today. Nowhere in that paragraph does it address the people who broke the law, which is why we are in contact with them in the first place.

Breaking the law doesn't make the offender a problem. Sometimes the law is wrong. You have provided a great example of this. You can use deadly force on a guy who runs instead of fighting, because that's the law, and you're telling me we should submit to the law, and our refusal is the problem? Your law is a joke

Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by usernameconspiracy

 

a cop tried to rape my mom when I was young and we had to leave town to get away from retaliation when she went public. Im a good guy- a marine, a security guard, used to be a redcross volunteer. I know some radicals and ive had to run from cops before but im hardly a criminal. Im just not on the club that runs this society, and when theres a dispute my place in society is on the short end of the stick... and im angry about it.

I completely agree with Vagabonds statements. Until you have actually witnessed this type of behavior from our police or know someone who has been on the receiving end of their view of "justice" you will not feel the emotions of those who have been treated inhumanely.

Anger is a natural emotion and believe me when I say, its actually a healthy emotion too. These types of storys like the Kelly Thomas case really get me going.

My only concern is what someone else said. What are the chances the charges will get downgraded or the trial will somehow breach his rights and be thrown out of court.

reply to post by VforVendettea


If you are going to speak about law enforcement operations and governing laws, dont you think a person should at least be familiar with them before opening their mouths?

Stupid? No

Ignorant? Yes

There is a difference....

Originally posted by The Vagabond
This is a HUGE problem and it gets right to the heart of my concern with the system..

Fight or Flight happens on a daily basis, and not just with law enforcement. A fight or flight response can be triggerd with the most mundane things - like being called into a supervisors office without knowing whats going on, or not wanting to have a conversation with a dying relative.It will be different person to person, and can also be affected / enhanced by medication / drugs / chemical imbalances in the brain, etc etc.

Raising a voice towards someone being dealt with is not the heart of the problem at all. An argument could be made that the person should comply and not escalate the situation with the officer who is talking to them. Again the insinuation that all cops behave in the same manner demonstrates a lack of knowledge, or at the very least a refusal to acknowledge that it takes 2 to tango.

Your other examples are way off base, respectfully.

When people see something they dont understand, and dont bother to actually research it, will draw their own conclusions and almost always they come to the wrong conclusion. Case in point again your use of the medical comparison.

Doctors have been sued for releasing patients to early. The flip side to that coin is they exercise greater caution by refusing to discharge a patient for fear of being sued, which results in possible criminal activity of kidnapping and felonious restraint. The other term to familiarize yourself with in that area, as well as law enforcement, is mandatory reporter.

The comparison you are trying to make is not valid with the profession you are trying to compare it to. They have differing laws that cover the manner in whcih they do their jobs. The manner in which they deal with people is also completely different.

I would want a doctor doing police work as much as I would want a cop doing trauma surgeries.

As for the rest of your post you are demonstrating that you dont have an understanding of the problems or how the law works. Your conclusions arent valid and are based off of your complete and total lack of knowledge about the law. The argument you are making is about as logical as people being upset because police dont fire warning shots or attempt to wound a person.

The people who advocate those actions, again, are completely and totaly clueless its not even funny. If you and others want to know why we cant do that, I refer you to the Us Supreme Court and their rulings on those topics.

Since you are now going back to the realm of sterotyping I will end the conversation here. If you guys want to continue your typical rants that stereotype all law enforcement, by all means continue on.. I could use a good laugh.

If you and anyone else are intrested in learning the law and how it applies to law enforcement and why, feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer, including coming up with solutions to problems we ALL face.

If only British justice could be this quick. It will have taken 3 1/2 years for the "police" officer responsible for the death of Tomlinson to face trial in October 2012.

I'm happy to see the prosecutors take a bold decision to charge 2 men with serious offences relating to the barbaric beating of Mr Thomas.

However, I do have a complaint. There were more than two officers involved in this, at the very least justice should be extended to them in some way, perhaps official sanctions by the Fullerton PD and a good number of them being fired for failing to stop a criminal offence in progress.

Originally posted by PW229
If only British justice could be this quick. It will have taken 3 1/2 years for the "police" officer responsible for the death of Tomlinson to face trial in October 2012.

I'm happy to see the prosecutors take a bold decision to charge 2 men with serious offences relating to the barbaric beating of Mr Thomas.

However, I do have a complaint. There were more than two officers involved in this, at the very least justice should be extended to them in some way, perhaps official sanctions by the Fullerton PD and a good number of them being fired for failing to stop a criminal offence in progress.

edit on 22-9-2011 by PW229 because: Typo

The IA investigation results for the other officers should be a matter of public record at some point. I saw soemone else make this argument a few posts back. If you are going to hold officers accountible for just watching, then shouldnt you also hold the bystanders accountible for the same?

I see peple time and again say civilians have a right to assault law enforcement in order to stop their actions... Or is that just for show?

I bring this up to point out the hypocrisy by some when it comes to law enforcement and their actions, not to defend any of the officers present, which I have not done in any way shape or form.

The answer to your question by the way is something that even I dont agree with.

Law Enforcement Officers are NOT required to act - period. Again you can thank the supreme court for that. I bring this up not to defend the officers who didnt act, but to again point out that when people are not familiar with the law, they come to a wrong conclusion.

Does it make their actions right? Absolutely not.
Does it excuse their behavior? Absolutely not.

Is it something taken into account when reviewing - yes.
Will people who are not familiar with the law and aspects of it understand? I don't think they will because they argue based off of personal opinion and not law.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The IA investigation results for the other officers should be a matter of public record at some point. I saw soemone else make this argument a few posts back. If you are going to hold officers accountible for just watching, then shouldnt you also hold the bystanders accountible for the same?

I see peple time and again say civilians have a right to assault law enforcement in order to stop their actions... Or is that just for show?

I bring this up to point out the hypocrisy by some when it comes to law enforcement and their actions, not to defend any of the officers present, which I have not done in any way shape or form.

The answer to your question by the way is something that even I dont agree with.

Law Enforcement Officers are NOT required to act - period. Again you can thank the supreme court for that. I bring this up not to defend the officers who didnt act, but to again point out that when people are not familiar with the law, they come to a wrong conclusion.

Does it make their actions right? Absolutely not.
Does it excuse their behavior? Absolutely not.

Is it something taken into account when reviewing - yes.
Will people who are not familiar with the law and aspects of it understand? I don't think they will because they argue based off of personal opinion and not law.

You make some interesting and valid arguments. However it is not the civilians that watched this event who have pledged to "uphold the law." It is, of course, the police officers. It is clearly stated in the "Law Enforcement Oath of Honor:"

I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve.

Is it not standard procedure for the police to ask civilians not to place themselves in danger when dealing with an offence in progress? If these two men are found guilty then surely it would follow that the officers observing the offence are guilty of failing to uphold the law?

Let's look at it another way. Perhaps these civilians videoing the assault are not looking at uniformed officers of the law. Would it be beyond the realm of reason to presume none of them would intervene? Of course not. BUT, they were watching uniformed officers commit an offence. Their personal presumptions of the law tell them that it would not be wise to intervene. Are they guilty of an offence? No, they have made no oaths to uphold the law.

Originally posted by PW229
You make some interesting and valid arguments. However it is not the civilians that watched this event who have pledged to "uphold the law." It is, of course, the police officers. It is clearly stated in the "Law Enforcement Oath of Honor:"

Which is not the offical oath that law enforcement takes. It is going to vary from department to department, state to state, so don't rely too much on that oath as something offical. While the principle itself is present in all oaths, we still must take into account laws.

If we based the argument off of oath, the the Doctors in Oregon who support assisted suicide would be in the same boat as police for violating their oath, which is do no harm.

Originally posted by PW229
Is it not standard procedure for the police to ask civilians not to place themselves in danger when dealing with an offence in progress? If these two men are found guilty then surely it would follow that the officers observing the offence are guilty of failing to uphold the law?

Absolutely - The reason I pointed that out though is certain people in these threads feel they have a right to interfer with law enforcement actions. to that end, even more go on to state what they would do if they were ever in that situation. Its one thing to make statements on a website, its something completely different when they are present for the real thing.

There is not such thing as a charge of failing to uphold the law. Law Enforcement does not protect the individual, they protect society as a whole. Law Enforcement is not legally required to act / take action either. Before people go nuts on that info, it is going to vary based on situation and totality of circumstance.

Also, this is one of the reason there are laws that only apply to law enforcement. It is that way because of training specifically used by leo's. I would not expect a civilian to know and understand the 21foot rule, when Miranda is required and when its not, let alone know that there are exceptions to miranda. The same holds true for searches and seizures done without a warrant.

Originally posted by PW229
Let's look at it another way. Perhaps these civilians videoing the assault are not looking at uniformed officers of the law. Would it be beyond the realm of reason to presume none of them would intervene? Of course not. BUT, they were watching uniformed officers commit an offence. Their personal presumptions of the law tell them that it would not be wise to intervene. Are they guilty of an offence? No, they have made no oaths to uphold the law.

Its those presumptions that result in threads like the ones that appear on this site. To play devils advocate with civilians, the rule of thumb when not in immediate danger is to be a good witness - Observe, remeber, write it down, etc.

The actions of the officers in this incident are inexcusable and they should be investigated. However, as with any crime, charges are incumbent on the elements of a crime being met. The other issue is people think there is a law for something when in fact there is not.

My argument to people in these threads is taken as trying to justify law enforcement actions. What I am doing is providing the information they need in order to see the incident in a different manner. They dont understand that its not based on their opinion and how they think prosecution should occur.

While I agree reform is needed in the manner in which law enforcement operates, that is not the only problem. People must tkae an intrest in government and participate in it. If you dont like a law, arguing with the police is about as useful as arguing with the Prosecuting Attorney over the reason Wendys changed their hamburgers and fries.

If you are an electrical engineer, would you want a person who has absolutely no background or formal training in that area critiquing your work?

Its different when they have the training and knowledge...

The people MUST take an intrest in law enforcement, and do the research to understand the laws as well as how your rights work.

Knowledge and education is the answer for both sides - police and civilian.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I doff my hat to you.

I will do something that more on ATS should do and admit that I may have misinterpreted the information I had available to me.

I would like to add, I am not a "cop hater." Bad apples exist, it is a fact of life.

However (ahh, the favoured word of lawyers!) it is my opinion that the officers involved failed to prevent a criminal act and official sanctions should be brought.

Originally posted by PW229
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I doff my hat to you.

I will do something that more on ATS should do and admit that I may have misinterpreted the information I had available to me.

I would like to add, I am not a "cop hater." Bad apples exist, it is a fact of life.

However (ahh, the favoured word of lawyers!) it is my opinion that the officers involved failed to prevent a criminal act and official sanctions should be brought.

I am in the same boat you are so its more likely that we both learned something today. Threads like this (among the countless others) is actually a good thing for me. It gives me the ability, the next time I am in contact with a citizen, to have a better understanding of where their anger / issue / confusion / perception / problem might be coming from. It allows me to recognize a potential issue, at which point (and call permitting) it allows me to take some extra time to explain why we do something or why we cant take action etc etc.

My rule of thumb is to take the extra time (again if possible) to answer any questions / explain. It cuts down on repeat calls / allows the citizen the ability to know what to look for if it occurs again where we can make an arrest etc. Its also good public relations in that the people I come in contact with on occasions feels little more relaxed when we show up.

As far as the officers who watched - in my personal opinion and based on the info available I think they should be held accountible as well up to and including charges should it be determined they violated any crmiminals laws in the State of California. Going down the road of criminal charges though is not the end of the matter. The family will have a civil rights violation claim against the officers which is going to be Federal.

My point being, in general and not incident specific, people view law enforcement as overreacting. The problem though is its also possible for the citizens reaction to be an overreaction.

The 100 meter rush to judgment doesnt help anyone....

People MUST take an intrest in government, regardless of how bad they think it works. We derive our authority from the consent of the citizens we work for. Since the people are the boss, its only fair that they take and intrest in and participate in government.

When a boss doesnt take an interest, it sends the wrong message.

Get invovled, stayed involved, ask questions, when a problem is located offer solutions and never stop accepting more than one idea. Communications are extremely important in this line of work, I can talk to citizens all day long, however it shouldn't just be the responsibility of the police to talk to citizens. The citizens should talk to the police as well.

Just keep in mind there is a time and place for everything.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Are you saying you can't take a deep breath, supress your unreasonable fears, and speak calmly and rationally to your boss? Of course I know the feeling, like anyone, but I don't actually walk into my bosses office in the midst of a fight or flight response. I don't shout the same command at him over and over. I don't grab for my gun everytime he makes an unexpected move. I don't need the leverage over him to ask for information or cooperation. I don't get tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, or shaky hands... which is what you mentioned right after raising your voice. You cannot safely operate a firearm or even a car around civilians with shaky hands and tunnel vision, but you expect us to accept those as normal daily experiences for a cop?

What stereotypes are we dealing in here exactly. We're comparing statements you are making about the realities of law enforcement to observations I have made, and they match up to explain the disfunction that is resulting in serious mistakes, murders, and a world-leading incarceration rate. We literally have a growing police state on our hands here.

Tell yourself anyone who doesn't recognize your authority just doesn't understand. Carry on living by the sword. It's not my job to protect you from yourself. But be advised, nobody has ever been able to sustain power by violence indefinitely.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Are you saying you can't take a deep breath, supress your unreasonable fears, and speak calmly and rationally to your boss? Of course I know the feeling, like anyone, but I don't actually walk into my bosses office in the midst of a fight or flight response. I don't shout the same command at him over and over. I don't grab for my gun everytime he makes an unexpected move.

Ahh yes... more sterotyping.. I love it.
Yes, actually when you are amped up or irritated, you are technically in a flight or fight response. You will assume a defenisve posture, although based on your comments I dont think you would recognize it. You keep your distance from your boss, and by that I mean standing you are a bit farther back than normal. Sitting, you will be leaning back in your chair and will assume that position for a greater length of time than normal. Chanes are you will have your arms crossed in front of you. When talking to each other your tone is a bit more defensive, and it takes less to iritate you...

These are just some of the subtle signs that go into a fight or flight response. Factor in the signs to look for when a person is lying / misleading you and you can get a pretty good read on a person and their intent when dealing with them.

As far as grabbing for you gun, your not inl aw enforcement and as you have stated you arent even armed. Ive said it before and I will say it again. It takes a set to come into a forum and explain how someone is doing something wrong / taking the wrong action when you arent the one who was there. Also, you do not, and ill say it again, do not, understand how the laws work in this realm. Being in security, I implore you to educate yourself so you or someone else doesnt die because you fail to take action when required.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I don't need the leverage over him to ask for information or cooperation. I don't get tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, or shaky hands... which is what you mentioned right after raising your voice. You cannot safely operate a firearm or even a car around civilians with shaky hands and tunnel vision, but you expect us to accept those as normal daily experiences for a cop?

Since the officer in the topic werent dealing with their bosses, and almsot 99% of the time we dont get invovled with a hands on fist fight with our bosses, its not really the same as having a person who is refusing verbal commands who is apparently emotionally unstable / off meds now is it?

Also, we know theese things about that kid, not because of the officers, but because of the media after the fact. The officer dealing with the kid had no idea of the mental issue. Something you and others ignore and assume was known to the police.

That is the problem with monday morning quarterbacking based off a news story. Constantly berating the police because you read the article and use that to justify your position doesnt make you right, and it doesnt make the officers actions wrong.

It does make you one of those people who likes to jump on the band wagon though. Sometimes making a right call is not a popular choice, nor is it going to be accepted. Keep that in mind next time you take action and get criticised for it.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
What stereotypes are we dealing in here exactly. We're comparing statements you are making about the realities of law enforcement to observations I have made, and they match up to explain the disfunction that is resulting in serious mistakes, murders, and a world-leading incarceration rate. We literally have a growing police state on our hands here.

Your continual cooments that fail to refer to one incident, instead using blanket terms that encompass all law enforcement. We have armed security in my neck of the woods, and some of them are friggen morons who should not be able to carry a gun. However, there are some who know their stuff and I have no issues using them as backup instead of pulling an officer from another sector.

I dont refer to security in a broad sense, nor do I sterptype - Something you do and continue to do, regardless of your protests that you dont. As far as the incarceration rate might I ssuggest you learn how the judicial system works, and understand law enforcement has NOTHING to dow ith it. We do not charge people, we do not judge people, we do not punish and sentence them to jail / prison.

Law Enforcement has nothing to do with that part, so take your concerns to the appropriate people if you have issues with incarceration rates would you please.


You really should go back and read my posts entirely before opening your mouth about respect. When you leanr what that term is and how it works, get back to me.

As stated, this is an education issue on BOTH sides - LEO and Civilian. You cant fix one by ignoring the other.

I was just reading this article which goes over the story again, but from the perspective that it is not certain a conviction will stick.

It is ecplained that

Despite the circumstances, legal experts were skeptical Ramos would be convicted of the murder charge. They could recall few examples of such a charge ever sticking in court.

"It is very rare for a police officer to be charged criminally for the use of excessive force," said Lorie Fridell, an associate professor of criminology at the University of South Florida.

This guy may well get off with jjust a slap on the wrist. Which would fit: America, where an innocent civilian can be sent to the death chambers for allegedly killing a cop, but a guilty cop can get away free for killing an innocent civilian.