Licensed to Kill - 'Officer Involved Shootings' is the New Euphemism for Police State Gun Violence

TorqueyThePig

OrphanApology

TorqueyThePig

OrphanApology
reply to post by TorqueyThePig

 

When you're in a position where you have a gun and have authority, the citizens have the right to hold you under intense scrutiny. It is your job to do the opposite.

In regard to getting laws changed, writing congressmen and squeaking at corrupt politicians to change laws does very little if nothing. The only thing that would change the laws is if around 4000-10000 people got together and protested paying taxes for a year or two. Follow the money.

Either way, the system isn't changing and most police officers are above the law. You rarely see police convicted of what citizens would be, even though as you said they should be held to a higher standard.

Even if there are good cops out there, many aren't good cops.

Plus the very nature of the job is criminal as most of the job description is pulling people over and issuing citations to bleed them of funds for erroneous things like having a light out.

If people think of cops more as thugs than security then that assessment would be more spot on, most of the time they do more citations and arrest people for non-violent crimes (getting arrested for public intoxication when you're walking home to avoid driving drunk is one great example I can think of) than protecting the public from super dangerous people.

There is a huge difference between scrutiny and bashing an entire group. You seem smart enough to realize that.

I agree there have been many cases were an officer wasn't levied a fair punishment. If he was arrested and charged the police agency did their job. It is up to the judicial system to decide the punish. There have been many cases were people other than the police who have gotten away with minimal to no punishment.

I do agree that there are some stupid laws on the books that need to be eliminated. I also believe that some departments do focus more on traffic citations and chicken crap arrests instead of the important stuff. That is wrong.

However if a person is going 50 MPH through a school zone don't you think he should be issued some kind of citation?

Also you only give one side of the example for someone being arrested for disorderly intoxication. If someone is just walking down the street and is arrested for disorderly intox it is a bad arrest. Just walking down the street does not encompass all of the elements of the crime. I know it happens I am just saying it is a bad arrest.

What if you are in the checkout line at the store and a drunk man walks up to you and begins yelling obscenties. He then walks up to the cashier and yells at her. Then he runs out of the store and starts yelling at cars passing in the parking lot. As an officer you stop him and he starts yelling at you. What do you do at that point? Remember another tax paying citizen called the police and asked for assistance in the matter.

Scrutiny of an entire agency or company is completely normal behavior. If police departments were competing and it was up to the consumers in a given area to choose which company to go with, they would fire most of the ones out there. That's consumer behavior, and although law states that people aren't allowed to have consumer behavior, they still do because it's natural. When so many cops over so many years, so many police departments have abused their positions...people DO blame the whole bunch. Just like if I bought rotten meat on several occasions at Wal-Mart I would stop buying meat from all Wal-Marts.

Someone just walking down the street who is intoxicated is a completely legitimate arrest. The law is on the books written that way. It happens all the time, in many different areas. Again, this is just one example. There are hundreds if not thousands of ridiculous laws on the books that people get arrested for every day. Actually more people are arrested for stupid things than serious crimes.

Someone going 50 in a school zone should be given the same citation as anyone else driving over the speed limit. There have been no significant studies proving that school zones have prevented any deaths in school age children related to these zones. It is simply an excuse to cite and bleed people for even more money. Also many school zones are set up like speed traps, this is NOT a coincidence. If anything the only school zones that should be watched more carefully is stop signs in areas where children cross.

Again scrutiny is fine. Bashing is not. So do you blame the Wal Mart cashier in Texas for the bad meat you bought from a Wal Mart in New York? That sounds kind of prejiduce to me.

Wow I don't know where you live but where I am from the statute specifically states that for disorderly/public intoxication the persons behavior must be "annoying or dangerous to others." If an officer arrests a person for simply walking down the street because they didn't want to DUI then it is a bad arrest. Again not saying it doesn't happen I am just saying that it's a bad arrest. IMHO not an example of a stupid law. Panhandling without a permit to me is a stupid law.

But do you agree that someone driving reckless should be given a citation? Would you want a young street racer in his "race car" speeding, tailgating and changing lanes eratically next to you when you're driving to work?

edit on 18-9-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: grammar

When you work for a bad company that treats it's customer's badly you are a representative of that company. I worked in collections for years for an evil big bank corporation and got bashed on a daily basis. I expected it and held no hard feelings for it because after-all, they were really bad to their customers and employees. When you work for something with an evil track record, you are the face of that record. Expect people to not like you.

I don't know where you live, but where I live there are lots of ridiculous laws and abusive practices condoned by law. Where I live, if you are over the legal driving limit for alcohol you can be arrested for public intoxication for simply "walking". There is no difference in the legal limit for driving and what would be considered the legal limit for public intoxication. Happens all the time when police don't like the way someone is "talking back" to their unnecessary questioning and search and seizures. Some areas are different. I have lived in small towns where the cops genuinely didn't bother anyone and most of the police force had older guys who just didn't care to harass, forces where they didn't make much from citations. That's the minority however and the majority are full of people that went in for the wrong reasons and stayed in for the wrong reasons.

Showing extreme examples of people getting cited is like taking a 7 foot tall man and saying he represents the majority of the population. The example you gave is an obvious example of wreckless driving that endangers drivers on the road. The majority of cases, or rather if you looked at a normal distribution of citations you will find most are for people whose behavior is not an immediate danger to anyone but makes for a great source of police department revenue.

reply to post by OrphanApology


So you know how it feels to be judged. I am sorry that you had to experience it. I am glad you didn't let it bother you. It didn't bother for the first 5 or 6 years, but after that it started to get to me. Oh well, like I said I am trying to leave the profession as soon as I can.

Yeah I understand that bad arrests are made. It sucks and officers should be held accountable. However not all officers make bad arrests.

You are correct I did give an extreme example. So you agree with citations for things that may put someone else in danger, but not for things that don't? Me too! That's why I haven't in my career written a tint ticket, a loud stereo ticket or other crap like that. I have however pulled over a vehicle for tint and discovered the driver was wanted out of Georiga for sexual battery on a minor.

I guess we agree on most things.

TorqueyThePig
reply to post by OrphanApology

 

So you know how it feels to be judged. I am sorry that you had to experience it. I am glad you didn't let it bother you. It didn't bother for the first 5 or 6 years, but after that it started to get to me. Oh well, like I said I am trying to leave the profession as soon as I can.

Yeah I understand that bad arrests are made. It sucks and officers should be held accountable. However not all officers make bad arrests.

You are correct I did give an extreme example. So you agree with citations for things that may put someone else in danger, but not for things that don't? Me too! That's why I haven't in my career written a tint ticket, a loud stereo ticket or other crap like that. I have however pulled over a vehicle for tint and discovered the driver was wanted out of Georiga for sexual battery on a minor.

I guess we agree on most things.

edit on 18-9-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

I imagine that by you doing the right thing and not issuing the tint ticket citations that you didn't move up or get as many bonuses as you could have. I too worked for the evil corporation for over seven years but I really wouldn't allow myself to get bothered. You have to look at things in context as to why people feel that way. It isn't personal, it's just that you work for something that is written into law in an evil way.

Imagine being one of the cafeteria workers that worked in the death star. I bet those guys had trouble finding jobs on other planets.

reply to post by OrphanApology


No, contrary to popular belief we don't get bonuses for writing citations. At least at my agency. I can't speak for others.

I did move from patrol to School Resource Officer at a high school. Love the job. Helping the youth and the community the way it should be. Getting back to the roots of Community Policing instead of reactionary policing.

Kinda back on topic....It's ashame that as soon as I find a better paying job I am out. "Good" police leaving the career is one of my reasons we are seeing this negative trend emerging.

Good conversation. Thank you for the responses.

TorqueyThePig
reply to post by Bassago

 

I have had bad days at work and have not illegaly arrested someone or killed anybody.

I guess I am just able to judge the individual and not the whole. I pride myself on that. It sucks that other people can't.

But I respect your opinion and your right to it. I do appreciate you being mature and not calling me a bunch of names.

And even though you don't want help from the police, if you lived in my town my hand would always be extended regardless of what you thought of me.

edit on 18-9-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

I didn't mean that you had. It happens though and too many times for anyone to feel safe anymore. None of this (for me anyway) is personal. It's simply a tactical perspective, there are too many loose cannons in the cop departments. Not worth the risks of even minimal contact if it can be avoided.

Your OathKeepers membership goes a long way in my eyes to establishing your credibility. Not all of us believe you are a "secret society." I read your web site, it was a good step. So when the SHTF I believe you'll be standing with the good guys.

This is a controversial subject for a reason.

I appreciate the participation from everyone here, especially from active officers who concede the deteriorating relationship between American citizens and their employees. Our disappointment is not limited to police, they just happen to be on the 'front lines' (and to call interaction with the public that is symptomatic of the problem).

We are well past the point of resolving this with a conversation. Ultimately, our founders provided us not only with a warning of the eventuality (not possibility) of needing to address such problems but, with a mechanism with which to correct it.

Lord Acton, in his infinite wisdom, coined a phrase that I think is widely believed to be true and has somehow been overlooked. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." In many ways, the possessors of power are not to be blamed for their corruption, it is human nature. An unavoidable outcome of the shortsighted abdication of responsibility on the part of us, the American people.

However, we must recognize that there is only one solution to this problem as it stands. The removal of said power. I do not simply mean the reduction of authority or increased oversight, those diversions have run their course and have proven to be ineffective in containing tyranny. I mean most police must lose their jobs, permanently and not to be replaced. The human resources, equipment and property formerly diverted from productive application must be allowed to return to peaceful use by individuals in their respective communities. The funds previously allocated being returned to taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes and refunds.

It does not stop there by any measure, most power that has been ill-awarded is in need of deprecation and/or elimination. Law enforcement just happens to directly and catastrophically affect the citizens of this great country.

This must happen gradually and peacefully but, thoroughly and without subversion or undue delay.

I invite more comments on this as it is, perhaps, THE most important issue that faces us in the short term.

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


How long ago did you join? reason I ask, and possibly an answer to it all.

I firmly believe but without the tangible proof, that somewhere around 1994-5 there was a shift in the psychological profiles allowed to pass scrutiny.

I can't believe how some of those I used to work around passed the psych evals.. And then the traveling trainers, as we used to call them. They come from all sorts of orgs and outfits.

Personally the "good" cops start to question and look in the mirror. Doing more harm than good to society. All the non-violent drug inmates, ruined families, FOR PROFIT prisons, etc..

Not including CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE ..or CHECKPOINTS
none with integrity would participate for those 2 reasons alone!

reply to post by greencmp

Our disappointment is not limited to police, they just happen to be on the 'front lines' (and to call interaction with the public that is symptomatic of the problem).

This is greatly manipulated by police unions and the 'blue line'..

To see badges be used to harass people striking for union representation, the corporation calling the cops, and the cops breaking up the protest.. WHEN THEY HAVE A UNION... ffs

Or how profiting from an admittedly corrupt system will EVER CHANGE IT?

the locking up of rapists/thieves/murderers has given a free pass for all the other ANTI-liberty things.

Its like a thief stealing from your garden and justifying it by watering it.... SOCIETY has always found ways to deal with theft/rape/murder... without an army of redcoats.. look and compare.

are there any differences between what redcoats did and badges today?

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


We actually agree on more than one point. I'm not naive about the danger of law enforcement. It is a choice that is taken balancing those risks with the rewards.

The solution? My belief is that we went astray with two things. One is the institutional value that promotes secrecy. Audio and video on every lapel, cruiser and if possible, gun barrel. 100% transparency protects all parties.

The second issue is training. I believe LEO's are trained to preserve their subjective feeling of safety at all times and at all costs. What a distorted sense of power that must be. I say this is where it all broke down. This business of trashing the constitution and common restraint is putting the public in danger. Police officers have as much right to be safe as a citizen does. Make police accountable and you might see a big improvement in the amount of respect from citizens. Will it make the job harder? I would argue the answer is no in the case of LEO's that operate with due respect for the citizens' rights.

I believe you will see the corrupted LEO establishment will fight any effort to retrain or to institute transparency. This is just for the locals. Once you get to the federal level it's so bad it may not be recoverable.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

I believe you will see the corrupted LEO establishment will fight any effort to retrain or to institute transparency. This is just for the locals. Once you get to the federal level it's so bad it may not be recoverable.

I am not saying that restoring our republic will be easy but, it will be simple and it must be peaceful.

Remember that most of our police are good americans and, having been reintegrated into society, will be a great resource as we progress. Our combined efforts will certainly be up to the task.

None of this is personal. There cannot be any animosity.

reply to post by HanzHenry


I am with the idea that police/security forces shouldn't be monopolized and there should be competition. Then again in the current system free-markets are non-existent so maybe I am just well wishing on my part.

Competition fights corruption because consumers choose where their money (or whatever system of trade exists that represents their human capital) goes. I haven't got an oil change at quick lube down street for 10 years because they stripped the cap by using power tools and refused to own up to it. They went out of business. Now imagine that same type of principle applied to every service and industry and the anarchists stop sounding so insane.

Back to the current situation:

I really hope that when things get from bad to worse good people will be out there and will hopefully outnumber the bad. Oh and have a better arms collection

this is also another safeguard for police..

Garrity.

Garrity Warnings: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question


By Eric P. Daigle, Esq., Daigle Law Group, Southington, Connecticut; and Secretary, IACP Legal Officers Section


As I travel the country and work with different police departments, I am troubled by the inconsistency and the lack of knowledge of police management regarding use of Garrity in administrative investigations. I have learned that while investigators and management are aware of the practice of using Garrity warnings, as created by the case Garrity v. New Jersey,1 these warnings are misinterpreted and misapplied throughout the United States.

In law enforcement organizations, the Garrity principle is an important tool to provide officers the necessary protections while still enabling departments to conduct thorough and complete internal investigations. In a given agency, what is more important: the criminal investigation or the discipline of the employee for a violation of department policy? It may matter whom one asks. In a given department, is a Garrity warning given to compel a statement if there is a potential criminal investigation?

During an administrative investigation of an officer, the agency head or representatives (that is, internal affairs investigators) are permitted to and generally should compel the subject officer to truthfully answer questions that are narrowly tailored to the scope of the subject’s job as a police officer. The basic principle of Garrity is that when the statement taken from the subject officer is compelled, the statement and the evidence derived from the statement cannot be used against the subject officer in a criminal action against the officer arising from the same circumstances about which the officer was questioned. This article attempts to clarify—or asks readers to consider—whether agencies are applying Garrity principles inconsistently because of a clear lack of judicial interpretation, creating the perceived belief that the agency cannot question its own employees.


The Garrity Principle

In Garrity v. New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court established some straight forward rules regarding situations in which police officers are compelled to provide statements to their employers.
Under Garrity, an incriminating statement obtained from an officer who is compelled to provide the statement under the threat of job loss if the officer invokes the right to remain silent may not be used against the officer in a criminal proceeding. The court found that such a statement is deemed coerced if the officer is denied a meaningful opportunity to assert Fifth Amendment rights. The court reasoned that it is unacceptable to put an officer in the position of choosing whether to self-incriminate or to risk job loss for invoking the Fifth Amendment.

SO, if a cop does something illegal he can't both lose job and face criminal prosecution!?!

THAT ALONE is ANOTHER JUSTIFIABLE reason for hatred by public.

NONE with HONOR would participate in THAT EITHER!!

reply to post by TorqueyThePig


You may be in for the break you need that could restore good will and make your efforts as a conscientious peace officer well appreciated; It appears we will be saying goodbye to a very bad and divisive law that may just make you one of the good guys once again in many more people's eyes. It is a forbidden topic here at ATS so cannot go into detail but I have been 46 years of my life fighting it with my own disobedience. I finally see light at the end of this marathon tunnel.

I am basically a good person, honest, conscientious, hard-working, and committed to excellence. It has been a hard pill to know that at any moment with the tiniest slip-up and an over-zealous enforcer I could have lost my freedom and livelihood in an instant. It was necessary to be distrustful of those in blue and self-reliant enough to never need, want, nor desire their presence in any matter - yet be smug though mannerly during an encounter. I didn't like hating you but it was necessary in order to preserve my liberty. I was always afraid of the decisions I might make if it came down to my freedom and a cop's life on the line. My good nature after so many decades became detached coldness. Thankfully this should soon end on a positive note but there will be scars for both sides to bear.
___

I believe another problem we face at the moment is a number of police recruits that are recently returning from the Gulf. Some have PTSD issues and others faced situations where they were ordered to be intrusive and repugnant and it has carried over into their dealings with their own countrymen at home. There is also the Stanford University Prison Experiment where mock prisoners and mock jailers began over-playing their roles and abuses occurred. That would go along with poor training you brought up earlier.

There is no doubt we are becoming very much a militarized police state, and the validations for violating the sanctity of one's home have become very thin and tenuous. When there is no real freedom there is no sense of community, no pride in community, and no respect for community enforcers.

Erongaricuaro
reply to post by TorqueyThePig

 

You may be in for the break you need that could restore good will and make your efforts as a conscientious peace officer well appreciated; It appears we will be saying goodbye to a very bad and divisive law that may just make you one of the good guys once again in many more people's eyes. It is a forbidden topic here at ATS so cannot go into.

edit on 18-9-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

Oh man, my curiosity.. hint please..


My anger personally is. if the badge truly meant what our ancestors fought for, I would wear one, and would have the last decade or so,
But I remember too much about what I learned of redcoats to become one.. or S/S gestapo

HanzHenry

Oh man, my curiosity.. hint please..

Lord Valdemort. It that shall not be named. It would be so anticlimactic to reveal it openly but could result in my being banned in this context.

It fuels the prison/slave labor complex keeping our correctional facilities over-crowded and more under construction to fill the "need." It is something now favored by the majority of Americans across the country but remains illegal by federal law (though battling with various States whose populations have given it a green light) due to powerful lobby groups fearful of the competition it presents to their industry.

It may be the answer to cancer and able to shrink many types of tumors - Can you imagine how many researchers could be out of work if proven true? Having industrial applications and had long been a food source along with many applications in textiles and cordage. Many of its products are OK to possess but we have to go outside the country and import those products. My car utilizes almost 50 lbs. of it in its panels and construction. The list goes on but I am forbidden to speak about it by name.

There has been no final showdown yet but The Powers appear to be giving-in to the will of the people. There is hope.

My anger personally is. if the badge truly meant what our ancestors fought for, I would wear one, and would have the last decade or so,
But I remember too much about what I learned of redcoats to become one.. or S/S gestapo

When financial interests overshadow what may be beneficial for the people because there is better gain to be had with prohibition and black market pricing then your analogies are apropos.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

My car utilizes almost 50 lbs. of it in its panels and construction.

That could be a fire hazard

reply to post by Erongaricuaro
My car utilizes almost 50 lbs. of it in its panels and construction.

 

My car utilizes almost 50 lbs. of it in its panels and construction.

greencmp -
That could be a fire hazard

Michael Hastings may have agreed with you. Somehow I don't think that was the reason for the fireball though.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


I'm personally excited about the changes surrounding Peter Parker's gf.

I had two parents die of cancer and it's sad that they were unable to meet her because of the laws that currently exist. That and there's so many applications.

OrphanApology
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

I'm personally excited about the changes surrounding Peter Parker's gf.

I had two parents die of cancer and it's sad that they were unable to meet her because of the laws that currently exist. That and there's so many applications.

I agree, I lost my favorite aunt to the same idiocy. There is a lot to be excited about after decades of insanity.

A bonus is that the cops will have to keep their BS in the streets and "knock" at our doors then talk to us politely if all goes well with this. Heaven forbid if we get another Reagan or "Poppy" Bush that will bring it all back on again before we get federal law as it should be soon enough.

greencmp
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

 

I believe you will see the corrupted LEO establishment will fight any effort to retrain or to institute transparency. This is just for the locals. Once you get to the federal level it's so bad it may not be recoverable.

I am not saying that restoring our republic will be easy but, it will be simple and it must be peaceful.

Remember that most of our police are good americans and, having been reintegrated into society, will be a great resource as we progress. Our combined efforts will certainly be up to the task.

None of this is personal. There cannot be any animosity.

edit on 18-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

This is how I WISH it would go down, and hope it does. which is why words must be sharp and concise.

These men and women somewhere have a desire for American freedom all humans do. To FULLY grasp exactly what it is that the badge stands for TODAY... in REALITY... not what it is wished to be..
--For Profit prisons
--blue line
--Civil Asset Forfeiture
--drug law enforcement in non violent circumstances
--checkpoints (unless a mass murdering psycho just escaped the nuthouse.. down the street)
--revenue generating tickets (you know the difference; the madman road rager doing 120 at rush hour)
--bogus traffic stops to harass, search, etc without the MOST honorable, BILL of RIGHTS abiding, freedom loving intentions
--anyone deserves the right to bear arms (unless they are a nuthouse psycho, even a weed selling felon)
--tinted window tickets? really? what a total BAG.. did you ever write one of those?