Aspiring TV producer mistakenly killed by deputies in West Hollywood

Xcathdra

Unity_99
I think its more than a split second and self defense to fire at the hostages running at the cops....this is an obvious thing the hostages would be doing! So the cops did the wrong thing and it ended in the wrong person, the hero civilian dying. Its sickening. If in doubt, in that split second, DON'T FIRE!

edit on 11-4-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Please point out in the article where the officers knew the person running at them was a hostage?

edit on 11-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

They knew there were hostages. If in doubt and you don't clearly know its the killer, DON'T FIRE. No firing first, then asking questions. Just a decade ago, that would be bringing them up in front of panels. Whenver fire arms went off, there were panels that oversaw it. It was not just done.

And those laws are the only real legality. These are police state crimes against humanity and treason.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Negatives of the military surplus:

- mentality is a huge aspect in controling people given power. I have promoted first time managers and have seen nightmares created. I have known a few officers who were similar. The mentality of the police should be returned more to one of "protect and serve". Militarization is more, "Police and secure" in the mindset that arises
- perception. People who are not typically criminally inclined prefer the notion of the friendly neighborhood policeman. Has that ever even existed? I mean, you expect the notion came from somewhere. Regardless...there are perception issues within LEO. I have been openly ridiculed by officers on forums for suggesting that they perform community involvement. I pointed to local FD's for their work within the community, and the sheer love we have for our FD because of their service in more ways than just fighting fires (which they are actually among the worlds best in certain types of fires). Militarization brings negative, Orwellian connotations to the average person. It agitates people who dislike the idea of an ever present authority intimidating them with items that, before we went to Afghanistan, were relly only available to soldiers. Why is black predominantly the color for LEO uniforms? At least in this area...only sheriff wears something other than black. They tend tot he role of our friendly neighborhood policeman in most cases.
- culture. America is a culture that was founded on the notion that we would rather err on the side of liberty than safety. How does a militarized police force promote American culture?
- it is predicated on falsities. Who are you going after in that military vehicle? More often than not, from my observation, it is some drug runner or somthing to that effect. We arm the enforcement arm of society with militry grade gear so we can have them use that gear to go after people for nonviolent offenses.
- It isn't just the vehicles Its everything else. The riot gear equipped SWAT teams delivering relatively simple warrants. The evolution of SWAT has gone from a "band of justice fighters" portrayed on TV in the 70's/80's, to a paramilitary force.
- the purpose of much of that kind of stuff is intimidation. The black paramilitry clothing, etc. It may not be how you mean it But it is how the chief of police in my local community sees it. Their intended audience of intimidation is the thugs in town. The rest of us have to live iwth it, too. Unfortunately.

This may seem a bit rambling. I can clean up understanding and presentation as necessary tomorrow. For now, i have a date with the sandman.

reply to post by Unity_99


No they did not know they were hostages. Again point out in the article where it states the officers new the people were running at them were hostages?

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Negatives of the military surplus:

- mentality is a huge aspect in controling people given power. I have promoted first time managers and have seen nightmares created. I have known a few officers who were similar. The mentality of the police should be returned more to one of "protect and serve". Militarization is more, "Police and secure" in the mindset that arises
- perception. People who are not typically criminally inclined prefer the notion of the friendly neighborhood policeman. Has that ever even existed? I mean, you expect the notion came from somewhere. Regardless...there are perception issues within LEO. I have been openly ridiculed by officers on forums for suggesting that they perform community involvement. I pointed to local FD's for their work within the community, and the sheer love we have for our FD because of their service in more ways than just fighting fires (which they are actually among the worlds best in certain types of fires). Militarization brings negative, Orwellian connotations to the average person. It agitates people who dislike the idea of an ever present authority intimidating them with items that, before we went to Afghanistan, were relly only available to soldiers. Why is black predominantly the color for LEO uniforms? At least in this area...only sheriff wears something other than black. They tend tot he role of our friendly neighborhood policeman in most cases.
- culture. America is a culture that was founded on the notion that we would rather err on the side of liberty than safety. How does a militarized police force promote American culture?
- it is predicated on falsities. Who are you going after in that military vehicle? More often than not, from my observation, it is some drug runner or somthing to that effect. We arm the enforcement arm of society with militry grade gear so we can have them use that gear to go after people for nonviolent offenses.
- It isn't just the vehicles Its everything else. The riot gear equipped SWAT teams delivering relatively simple warrants. The evolution of SWAT has gone from a "band of justice fighters" portrayed on TV in the 70's/80's, to a paramilitary force.
- the purpose of much of that kind of stuff is intimidation. The black paramilitry clothing, etc. It may not be how you mean it But it is how the chief of police in my local community sees it. Their intended audience of intimidation is the thugs in town. The rest of us have to live iwth it, too. Unfortunately.

This may seem a bit rambling. I can clean up understanding and presentation as necessary tomorrow.

For now, i have a date with the sandman.

MY perception, as a law abiding citizen, is that the police where I live, and I see them every day, are very friendly and helpful. In fact, one time I saw a customer go into a convenience store with a holstered gun that was very obvious. It made me nervous and I asked a police officer later if it were legal in my state for the guy to carry a holstered gun in public, this was his reply "If the man had a license, there's nothing I can do to stop him. I would be violating his Constitutional right to bear arms, and it is not illegal in this state if he has a license to carry an unconcealed weapon".

So there you go, a police officer in Indiana informed me face to face, because I asked him face to face, about a law in my state. And get this, Indianapolis now has a higher crime rate than Chicago. Whodathunk little Indianapolis would beat Chicago in homicides. Can you see what the police are dealing with? Indianapolis lowered the number of police because of "budgetary issues" and then the crime rate soars.

The reason we have a police state, is not because of overbearing law enforcement, but because WE THE PEOPLE can't even police ourselves or our neighborhoods. A policeman made a split second decision and it was a mistake, but take into account what his decision was based on...a report that people were being held hostage at an address. I am sure the dispatcher did not say "But wait, Winkler is in there and he might run out later, so watch out for Winkler and don't shoot him".

And then let me ask this..how many on here drive over the speed limit? If you do, then you are not a law abiding citizen. If you can't respect what you think is a little law, then how are you going to respect the law makers and the law enforcers when it comes to the big laws?

My perception of law enforcement is positive and I see policemen every day. At least where I see them at, the area is well-patrolled enough to make it safe for me to ride my wheelchair at midnight to the convenience store 2 blocks away. Just their presence is enough to keep it safe.

But America, wake up, WE THE PEOPLE created this police state. We can't even control our neighborhoods and then we wonder why crime abounds.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Like BFFT, I also admire and even greatly value Xcathdra for being an open and
communicative source of information. Whereby the lack of officers like you,
willing to bridge a large expanse, in regards to the lack of communication between
the two polarities in our society. Namely the police and the common citizen.
Is truly the only way we might understand our perceptions one of each and of the
other. It seems a tough nut to crack knowing how delicate some questions
are for you. Sometimes it's all about the way of the words we use in regards
to your own respect for fellow officers. I try desparetely to understand what
most citizens see, as an open and blatent assault by politician, pushing police,
to punish the people. And have no respect for anyone who isn't blue or gov.
It certainly seems as tho we are the target, at least here in america.
A reply isn't mandatory of course.

Unity_99

Xcathdra

Unity_99
I think its more than a split second and self defense to fire at the hostages running at the cops....this is an obvious thing the hostages would be doing! So the cops did the wrong thing and it ended in the wrong person, the hero civilian dying. Its sickening. If in doubt, in that split second, DON'T FIRE!

edit on 11-4-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Please point out in the article where the officers knew the person running at them was a hostage?

edit on 11-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

They knew there were hostages. If in doubt and you don't clearly know its the killer, DON'T FIRE. No firing first, then asking questions. Just a decade ago, that would be bringing them up in front of panels. Whenver fire arms went off, there were panels that oversaw it. It was not just done.

And those laws are the only real legality. These are police state crimes against humanity and treason.

Unity, no offense, but "a decade ago that ....." is not true. The rule of thumb has always been meet deadly force with deadly force, and if threatened, it's acceptable.

Now we all weren't there on scene, on site or in their shoes, we can all sit here until the cows come home and debate whether their actions were justified, or appropriate based upon hindsight, BFFT got it perfect, it's perception.

I have seen too many cases pass my desk that are legitimate abuses of power by the police that were overlooked upon initial investigation, however I have seen many more that were not unjustified get as far as our office for what reason, I have no idea, and i've also seen lives totally ruined by it, because by the time we clear someone (it can take years) the damage is already done...

Perception, it's dangerous at times, because you have the benefit of not having to be in a situation and making that decision.

I had a lot more I wanted to say but I have to censor myself, or I'll get banned.

vkey08

Unity_99

Xcathdra

Unity_99
I think its more than a split second and self defense to fire at the hostages running at the cops....this is an obvious thing the hostages would be doing! So the cops did the wrong thing and it ended in the wrong person, the hero civilian dying. Its sickening. If in doubt, in that split second, DON'T FIRE!

edit on 11-4-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Please point out in the article where the officers knew the person running at them was a hostage?

edit on 11-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

They knew there were hostages. If in doubt and you don't clearly know its the killer, DON'T FIRE. No firing first, then asking questions. Just a decade ago, that would be bringing them up in front of panels. Whenver fire arms went off, there were panels that oversaw it. It was not just done.

And those laws are the only real legality. These are police state crimes against humanity and treason.

Unity, no offense, but "a decade ago that ....." is not true. The rule of thumb has always been meet deadly force with deadly force, and if threatened, it's acceptable.

Now we all weren't there on scene, on site or in their shoes, we can all sit here until the cows come home and debate whether their actions were justified, or appropriate based upon hindsight, BFFT got it perfect, it's perception.

I have seen too many cases pass my desk that are legitimate abuses of power by the police that were overlooked upon initial investigation, however I have seen many more that were not unjustified get as far as our office for what reason, I have no idea, and i've also seen lives totally ruined by it, because by the time we clear someone (it can take years) the damage is already done...

Perception, it's dangerous at times, because you have the benefit of not having to be in a situation and making that decision.

I had a lot more I wanted to say but I have to censor myself, or I'll get banned.

I respect the law and those who have to enforce the law. I know that you guys do work hard to protect us. Yes, I get the idea that there are some rogues out there, but overall, I trust the police. Why should I not?

Thank you for your sacrifice, and I know that it is a sacrifice, because the police swear themselves to defend us with their lives. That's an honorable thing and people should never forget that law enforcement is an honorable occupation. I know that people will disagree with me, but perhaps if people didn't have the knee jerk reaction and call police officers pigs, then maybe there will be more respect on each side.

People forget that police officers are human beings first. They have families they love and are often away from, in the line of danger. Police officers cry at home over cases like children being kidnapped or killed and maybe they get tired of seeing the blatant disregard for the law and the political punditing from people who don't want to admit that the problem in the United States isn't the gun laws, it's the people who are breaking the laws and getting guns.

Maybe police officers are tired of responding to yet another crime in which hard drugs motivated murder. Maybe they are tired of the constant calls about child abuse and domestic abuse and having one more time to investigate a bank robbery or jewelry store theft, because people just can't seem to get the idea to respect their neighbors and property of others.

Did people even think about that? Police officers are humans first and guess where they came from...the general population of We the People. It's not like they dropped out of the sky.

We the People need to start respecting the law.

Reckon it was all staged and he was assassinated from what I know from major motion pictures thats how it works in one of those type of cities.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


All valid points and thank you for responding.

As far as the FD comment - The reason everyone loves the fire department is they are not the ones who have to say no. Usually that is relegated to law enforcement so they can do there thing unhindered and I have no issues with that at all.

As for community policing - there are several different interaction methods police use, and community orientated policing is just one of those methods.

Type / Style of Policing methods can vary from state to state and city to city. Some agencies are able to provide individual officers to a geographical area to ask as a go between for the police and the citizens inside that area. It allows specific issues to be raised to the same officer, who in turn is able to provide more targeted areas for patrol officers assigned to the area.

I can list off more but people get the idea. The one thing that is present in every single method is communication. I cannot stress enough how important communication is, from the citizens to the police and the police to the citizens.

As an example the Police Chief in a neighboring jurisdiction sets time aside every Wednesday (at least it used to be. Not sure if its changed) morning for citizen contact. Instead of people coming to the PD, the Chief would go to a restaurant (informal) and welcomed citizens to stop by for coffee and a chat. While it is only for a few hours every week, the impact has been noticeable when it comes to how the citizens feel towards the police department. When they are able to ask questions on the how's and whys, and to get a response from the Chief, it tends to foster an environment of "so this is why they do this or need that or cant do this or that".

While the answer may not be something they like, the fact they are getting an answer along with the ability to ask follow up questions, especially from a person from command staff, has the benefit of lowering animosity and creating communication between the people and the police.

While people may think larger departments have an edge, its not really the case when it comes to communication. Sure they have PIO's (public information officer) but as the concept goes, the larger the entity the more people are treated as numbers and not individuals.

The effort / concentration required to run a department is lengthy and only becomes more involved the larger the city grows. Its very easy to have a break down in communications when the agency has a very high call volume. Because of how busy they can be, citizens don't quite understand why an officer cannot remain on scene and talk to them at length. It comes across as if the officers don't care, when in reality they have calls stacked (not in all cases but you know what I mean).

The only way to get on the same page, regardless if people agree with what's written on that page, is communication back and forth. The citizens must engage with the police to help target areas that need extra patrol or specialized assignments and the police must engage with the citizens they serve to find out of their methods are working or if they need to make changes.

I know people distrust the police - its an age old problem that permeates every society on the planet. However, if we use history as our guide we can see where communication among groups who have traditionally not trusted each other start to understand each other by communicating. Some of those examples include turning former enemies on the international stage to that of allies.

Communication is the key.
Mutual understanding and trust is the lock the key opens.

Being overly optimistic I would go so far as to say that once the lock is open, the front door can remain open during the overnight hours sine trust can be built back into the community.

randyvs
Like BFFT, I also admire and even greatly value Xcathdra for being an open and
communicative source of information.

Thank you.. I know im not the most popular person in these areas, and I know other members of law enforcement have disagreed with some of my posts / conclusions. Regardless the only way it works is to communicate. I would love to see more LEO's chime in as their experiences will be different than mine and vice versa.

randyvs
Whereby the lack of officers like you,
willing to bridge a large expanse, in regards to the lack of communication between
the two polarities in our society. Namely the police and the common citizen.
Is truly the only way we might understand our perceptions one of each and of the
other.

I firmly believe in this and completely agree with communication. What I have tried to get across to people is it is ok to not like how the police operate. Its ok to not like the manner in which police actions are reviewed. I try to explain why law enforcement takes an action based on the laws. People, in my opinion, take my posts as defending the action when in reality I am demonstrating why the action could occur in the first place.

People need to understand that just because you don't like the police or the laws, does not mean its ok to ignore the very laws that govern police. What I mean is the method to fix the issues is to engage law enforcement in communication. You don't have to agree with what they say, but at the very least you can arm yourself with knowledge which by extension can allow people to make the changes they think are needed.

As with everything -
Step 1 is to identify the problem
Step 2 is to identify how the problem was created
Step 3 is to identify solutions to the problem
Step 4 is to put those solutions into practice
Step 5 - Don't allow a break down in communications between the citizens and the police.

just like everything else, once something is fixed does not mean it wont become broken again. It requires regular maintenance (communication) and diagnostics (solutions have been in place for 6 months / 1 year / 18 months - are they working or do they need adjustment).

randyvs
It seems a tough nut to crack knowing how delicate some questions
are for you. Sometimes it's all about the way of the words we use in regards
to your own respect for fellow officers.

Interpersonal communications in this line of work are a double edged sword (its one of the reasons I try to answer questions people have while Id o my job (and if appropriate).

If you tell a person how it is, it can come across as direct, arrogant, disrespectful.
If its sugarcoated, its entirely possible the person we are dealing with will not get the point of what we are trying to say.

You factor in the infinite number of reasons for police contact and you can see where it can go and how quickly it can get there.

Even a joke / sarcastic comment can be taken as something its not intended to mean (from personal experience). Eventually, if people communicate enough, an understanding is formed about how the person / officers personality comes across, reducing the chance of miscommunication.

randyvs
I try desparetely to understand what
most citizens see, as an open and blatent assault by politician, pushing police,
to punish the people. And have no respect for anyone who isn't blue or gov.
It certainly seems as tho we are the target, at least here in america.

Politics is one of those areas that can enhance and can also poison any situation, depending on the politics being used and the reason for using them. I can speak from experience that the departments I have worked for / worked with have policies in place that prevent officers from engaging in politics / openly supporting a candidate in a manner that portrays the department as taking a side.

On the other side there are laws in place (will vary by state / county / city) that prohibits police information from being provided to politicians. I had an encounter when I first got into this line of work where the Mayor wanted access to a case file. The request was refused and the Mayor was told it was against the law for him to access the file. Being a politician I wager he knew it was illegal.

Did his actions piss me off? Absolutely.
Did the refusal get anyone in trouble? Yes - the Mayor.

As with everything knowledge and communication is power.

Will the power be used for good or evil is dependent upon the citizens and how much they engage their elected reps / city departments.

randyvs
A reply isn't mandatory of course.

edit on Ram41214v322014u52 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

It might take me some time but if someone takes the time to ask questions I will make the time to try and answer them to the best of my knowledge. As with everything, due diligence by the individual is required, laws vary from state to state and if someone needs official legal advice, talk to a lawyer.

Either or thanks for the post.

WarminIndy
call police officers pigs,

PIGs = Pride, Integrity and Guts.

If I had to choose one thing that is extremely important and that people should take away with their encounters with law enforcement is this - (you don't have to agree with it, but just food for thought).

Law Enforcement is exposed to situations that no person should ever have to be exposed to. They will see stuff in a 10 hour shift that people will never see in their entire life time. Every single person we have contact with could be having the absolute worst days of their lives and we are possibly the straw that breaks the camels back.

As a civilian (with no exposure to law enforcement / medical services / children's division) keep in mind that an officer with an attitude may not be because of anything you did. When you work a rape, a child abuse case and 2 domestic violence cases within one shift it can take a lot out of a person.

The chunk it can take out of a person can be huge if the agency does not have a large staff, forcing the responding patrol officers to do double duty as the detectives for the case.

The sense of humor (or lack of for those not familiar with law enforcement / emergency services) is, to say the least, off color, off beat and can come across as callous, cold and non caring. I am guilty of all and have had my share of wtf moments by those who have heard my comments.

All I can say is it needs to be placed into context (easier said than done I know). As a civilian, ask yourself how you would cope with, in a 10 hour shift, child abuse with the child going to the hospital and you having to take custody of the child from the parents, 2 domestic violence assaults where the women were pummeled to a pulp and a death notification to parents whose 17 year old child dies in a car accident because the driver of the vehicle was screwing around.

There really is not much of a resource we can turn to in order to talk some of these issues out. Over the years a mentality is developed that can help shield the officer from some of the after effects of constantly dealing with those situations. That mentality is what people find the most confusing, the most cold, the most callous reactions. Aside from fellow officers (or people in similar professions) there is not many people we could talk to that could understand some of those conversations. Its one of those areas where, and this is bad I know, but unless your present to see and deal with the aftermath of these situations you would not understand the impact it can have on a person exposed to it day in and day out.

For what it is worth nothing I have posted is meant to come across as an excuse for behavior or action from law enforcement. I post the information in hopes people can get a somewhat better idea of why we do some of the things we do. Other officers will have different views and some may disagree with me entirely - That's fine.

It supports the larger picture of how unpredictable this profession can be and how a similar encounter / result can affect people in completely different manners.

The goal is to get people not in law enforcement to maybe try and understand why something was done before jumping up and down on them.

just my 2 cents.

Bellor
Reckon it was all staged and he was assassinated from what I know from major motion pictures thats how it works in one of those type of cities.

Before you take Hollywood over Reality -

*** WARNING - INCLUDES VIDEO FOOTAGE OF POLICE SHOOTINGS ***

reply to post by Xcathdra


I do highly respect police officers and see them as people with an extraordinary job to do. Here is an article about police officers who had to take care of babies left in a car.

Georgia Police Officers Diaper Duty

Certainly there are those who do snap and need help, but we have to remember that they are dealing with the worst acts of humanity and American police officers are not the Gestapo. I have had experiences with a few police officers who were acting a little more ambitious than they should, but I had to remember that they may have been having a bad day or something else was going on.

In North Carolina, I was pulled over for a random check. The young police officer who pulled me over didn't realize that as a woman who typically puts my wallet in the grocery bags in the trunk after shopping, would not let me get it out of the trunk to show him my driver's license. Then when he read the car registration, he said I was driving a stolen car because it said Chevy on the registration, but the car was a Geo Storm. He didn't know that Chevy was the manufacturer.

So I took the ticket willingly then went to see the D.A. to explain what happened. The D.A. dropped the charges because this young officer needed more experience. Did I get angry at the police officer? No, I didn't escalate the situation, because I realized that he was young and probably just needed a little more time to learn that Chevy was the manufacturer of Geo Storm.

A few years later I saw him again and I commented about that ticket and asked him if he learned about cars. He laughed and remembered the incident. He was never punished or reprimanded because I didn't think he should have been. But if it hadn't been me, then who knows what would have happened. The officer was a few years later a little more wiser and we didn't have an issue with each other.

I suppose that I could have waited for the hearing, but why waste taxpayer money over a simple mistake?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Law Enforcement cannot make random stops. We have to have reasonable suspicion a crime occurred in order to make a traffic stop. The only class of vehicles that can be randomly stopped / checked is interstate commerce (Tractor Trailers).

As for waiting for your hearing, you did the right thing, either choice is appropriate. I always explain to people to contact the PA's office since they are the final authority on whether a person is charged and what the charge is. They are also the ones who can drop the charges. The Judicial system is present for people accused to have an open forum.

As for learning from mistakes - an absolute must.

The one thing that is almost impossible to teach officers is command presence. Its been my experience that officers who lack make up for it by using their authority as a substitute. Usually when we make the news it because of a stupid mistake (don't get me wrong, there are legitimate complaints against law enforcement) which occurs from the authority driven types.

Command Presence can also be received as arrogance, which I have been accused of in the past, both at work and on this site. We try to learn and we try not to repeat the mistakes. Being we are human also we will eventually fail and make mistakes.

The sure fire way to learn is to be open minded and engage in discussions. Talk to the police and let them know what's going on. Ask questions on the why's and how's. There has been such a lack of communication that you will find officers and citizens who are going to be a bit paranoid at first as to why the conversation and questions are taking place.

Communication is key - from both directions.
Understanding is key - from both directions.
Disagreements are key - from both directions.

When all the cards are laid on the table, it becomes easier for both sides to see what's working, to see what could work with further communication and development, and what issues need more attention and focus to find something that could work or if the issue needs to be dropped and resolutions start from scratch.

This only occurs when communication is present though.

Xcathdra
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Communication is key - from both directions.
Understanding is key - from both directions.
Disagreements are key - from both directions.

When all the cards are laid on the table, it becomes easier for both sides to see what's working, to see what could work with further communication and development, and what issues need more attention and focus to find something that could work or if the issue needs to be dropped and resolutions start from scratch.

This only occurs when communication is present though.

edit on 13-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Communication is key for everything.

Maybe if there was more communication, there'd be less need for lawyers?

WarminIndy
Communication is key for everything.

Maybe if there was more communication, there'd be less need for lawyers?

Based on how our judicial system operates I would say there will always be a need for lawyers. Law Enforcement does not work for the Judicial Branch and we are prohibited by law from giving anyone "legal advice". Its one of the reasons I always tell people to do their due diligence and research and if questions persist to talk to a lawyer.

There are also issues when it comes to communication with people we arrest and their rights under the law.

With that said if communication between law enforcement and the citizens we serve works then there is always the possibility of a decline in crime from cooperative action, which might result in a decline in lawyers.

So long as our politicians keep using a mixture of Sanskrit, Linear A, Cyrillic and Venusian language to make laws, there will always be a need for people who speak lawyerese.

Xcathdra

WarminIndy
Communication is key for everything.

Maybe if there was more communication, there'd be less need for lawyers?

Based on how our judicial system operates I would say there will always be a need for lawyers. Law Enforcement does not work for the Judicial Branch and we are prohibited by law from giving anyone "legal advice". Its one of the reasons I always tell people to do their due diligence and research and if questions persist to talk to a lawyer.

There are also issues when it comes to communication with people we arrest and their rights under the law.

With that said if communication between law enforcement and the citizens we serve works then there is always the possibility of a decline in crime from cooperative action, which might result in a decline in lawyers.

So long as our politicians keep using a mixture of Sanskrit, Linear A, Cyrillic and Venusian language to make laws, there will always be a need for people who speak lawyerese.

edit on 13-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

That may be one of the keys, I have never been arrested.

I know lawyers get a bad rap also but I have never needed one before. I think they have to jump through more hoops, so that's why they seem so acrobatic in court.

WarminIndy
That may be one of the keys, I have never been arrested.

I know lawyers get a bad rap also but I have never needed one before. I think they have to jump through more hoops, so that's why they seem so acrobatic in court.

The bad rap they get comes from their actions to zealously represent their clients. One of the more difficult concepts is how lawyers treat people inside the court room and outside the court room.

I have had Prosecuting Attorneys get pissy with me before on the stand, namely because my testimony supported the defense claims. I have gone rounds with defense lawyers as well... Its not personal, which is sometimes difficult to accept. You either get used to it or you don't. Ive had heated exchanges before only to have lunch after the fact.

To those who are not exposed to the judicial system it can seem confusing and bloodthirsty, where lawyers want a person to tell the truth, the half truth, and whatever helps their clients out. Its based on an adversarial setup, where the chunk of coal is tossed in and by the end of the trial the crap is burned away, leaving a purer response than when it started.

As pissed as I get with the judicial system, I don't think I would substitute for any other legal system on this planet.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Random stops do happen. I have been "victim" of them before. I have had the officer tell me the reason i was stopped was because "i turned wrong". Another, "I stopped short".

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Random stops do happen. I have been "victim" of them before. I have had the officer tell me the reason i was stopped was because "i turned wrong". Another, "I stopped short".

BFFT

The funniest stop I ever had was this, I was sent by my manager of a fast food restaurant one night to get plastic ware because we ran out. So it was night and very well lit up on the street. So I was pulled over for not having my lights on, I didn't realize it because of the lights on the street.

Now understand this, I am a very short person and have gotten used to the short jokes and people tell me they can't see me over the steering wheel. Anyway, the policeman pulls me over and when he says "How can you see where you are going?" I was not thinking about the lights and answered "Is this another short joke?"

He didn't answer for a minute then started to laugh. He said "Turn your lights on". I didn't get a ticket but he went away laughing at me. Maybe I made his day.