Bad cops thread

[RicInOR]

RicInOR said: ↑

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/23/elderly-man-calls-911-gets-beat-up


"Elbert Breshears for an ambulance for his wife who suffers from dementia, but it was police who showed up first.

"The wife and I were standing about here, that's the window she knocked out. I was standing here holding her hand and she was wavering hollering help," Breshears said."


"Cops claimed the elderly man attacked them. He said Breshears would be charged with abuse of the elderly, resisting arrest, and assault on a police officer"

<broken link removed>


Cautionary tale of those of us with firearms. Just because you come upon a scene where someone is crying for help, do not assume you know who is on which side.

Riot said:
This is not a case of abuse of police power. The man was holding the arm of a woman that was waving and hollering for help at the police. Police threw the guy down on the ground. Now he's complaining that the police are being abusive? How the frack were the police suppossed to know that his wife suffered from dimentia? Shouldn't she be in a home or at a hospital if she gets so bad that she runs out to the road away from her husband screaming for help?

This case falls under the Objective Reasonableness Standard (see Graham v. Connor).

Did the police throw this man on the ground because he was white?
No.
Did the police throw this man on the ground because he was elderly?
No.

So what leg are you trying to stand on to say that the police are abusing their power in this incident? Because an old man had to get stitches?

--------------------------------------------
In general - I never want to see any officer hurt, much less injured. All news reports are incomplete.

There were 2 question areas - first this above article and then the more general
This response is setting aside the more general for now.

Someone expecting medical help gets thrown to the ground by a LEO - we need to examine that - those officers need to be on review (not criminal charges)


The question becomes - SHOULD the police have behaved better. Yes!

Had the police arrived on the scene cold - then they have to assume the threat posture. But someone had called an ambulance. Why were there police at all?
If you call for medical assistance you expect that, not LEO. If the police come - why? As "meat" to help carry someone? Crowd control? Would they have come if they didn't get the full information from the emergency call center?


If you throw an old person to the ground, that could be death sentence. Check with parents or grand parents if you don't believe that statement. Someone over 80 with a broken hip - is often a person waiting for death that is, they will never recover.


How an officer responds to a 20 something in their physical prime has to be different than they respond to an old person. Not without caution - a 97 pound stoner high on a pain killer can be very dangerous to an officer. I had a co-worker whose wife would frequently throw off 2 250lb paramedics when she was seizing.


Where the fault lies goes to the more general response but let me quickly say that it comes down to lack of training and lack of accountability. The pattern is hinted at - There have been a couple of stories this year where someone called for paramedics and instead got police and now there are dead bodies or injuries.



"Resisting arrest" is code for "Contempt of Cop" While there is no Contempt of Cop law - any cop not on their first day knows there are many, (far too many), ways to keep someone in-line. Arrest them on RA and then 3 days later, after they have lost their jobs, been humiliated, then they'll learn not to be - the right word is "U*" but in our PC environment - other than behaving as a submissive subject of the state, drop the charges.


Elder abuse? Wow - that is such a shut up we are the power charge. When my daughter broke her arm at age 7 or 8, we had every single medical person ask about what had happened. Since she fell outside and was lying about what she was doing at the time - trying to do a cartwheel off some landscaping rocks at the apartments we lived in - knowing she shouldn't be playing on them - the questioning itself was traumatising to her. So while we need to protect those who cannot protect themselves, we should not be attacking. The thought that the DA or court & jury can figure it out is just wrong.


"Shouldn't she be in a home or at a hospital if she gets so bad that she runs out to the road away from her husband screaming for help?" - my flippant last comment comes from this statement. What I hear is we are inmates. Subjects of our betters. Submissive in our lives. Maybe last week she wasn't bad enough to need professional help and this week she does? Maybe they can't afford that.



Instead of spending money on tires, fuel and shells for an MRAP, their department should have ensured the responding officers were trained. Trained to respond - not react. Trained for handling elderly, mentally ill, dogs, deaf, blind, non-English speakers. What they had on their side was time. Contain the scene - wait. Even with no other training that what a citizen requires to carry a firearm, they should have known that - contain and wait.

 

[wichaka]

Exposing those abusing their position in the jurisdiction where they are employed would be better served, as it adds to the pressure of the offending Admin. in charge of handling the situation, to hopefully not sweep it under the carpet. If they do, it makes more of an impact coming from local residents.

Bringing abuses to light that are not local, enrages folks to further fuel the us vs them fire in places where there have been no abuse.

I understand that the abuse happens all over our great country, but I would like to see the LE abuse exposure be more local, as in the northwest...as this is where this forum serves, where we live and would have more of a possible contact with such departments.

Soooooo if ya got solid fact info. on local LE abuse, such as news outlets, video etc., let's hear it.

 

[RicInOR]

Radley Balko ‏@radleybalko
Brilliant idea someone suggested to me tonight: Use asset forfeiture proceeds to fund civilian review boards.

 

[Riot]

In general - I never want to see any officer hurt, much less injured. All news reports are incomplete.

Yes, especially that one...

Someone expecting medical help gets thrown to the ground by a LEO - we need to examine that - those officers need to be on review (not criminal charges)

In my opinion, all use of force cases should place officers on review. That's the way it is here and that's the way it should be with them, as well.

The question becomes - SHOULD the police have behaved better. Yes!

How in the world can you draw that conclusion? Because the guy was old? Because he's playing the victim?

Had the police arrived on the scene cold - then they have to assume the threat posture. But someone had called an ambulance. Why were there police at all?

First off, police don't monitor Ambulance/Fire calls and usually a seperate 9-1-1 dispatcher relays to the appropriate responder (Fire/EMS/Police) each emergency.

For example, one 9-1-1 call (by the subject) for his wife to have an ambulance...another may have been a neighbor (since even by his own admitance his wife broke out a window) or they could have simply been driving by and seen a woman, screaming for help, running towards them- waving and pulling away from her husband.

What conclusion would you draw from that?

If you call for medical assistance you expect that, not LEO. If the police come - why? As "meat" to help carry someone? Crowd control? Would they have come if they didn't get the full information from the emergency call center?

Again, we don't know all the details. You're assuming some overzelous cop heard an ambulance dispatch to a house and just took it upon himself to jump on an old man.

If you throw an old person to the ground, that could be death sentence.

You're right. So should have the police just simply let the old man throw the old woman to the ground? You've got realize that the police assumed that the woman was the victim of assault while you assume that the police just wanted an excuse to rough up Grandpa.

Where the fault lies goes to the more general response but let me quickly say that it comes down to lack of training and lack of accountability. The pattern is hinted at - There have been a couple of stories this year where someone called for paramedics and instead got police and now there are dead bodies or injuries.

Police handle crimes.
EMT handles medical.
Firefighters handle fires.

We get it. However, sometimes even EMTs ask for assistance- especially with combative, intoxicated and mental health patients.

You realize when you call 9-1-1, the dispatcher has to take the facts and present them to the appropriate authorities, right?

So lets look at the facts:

Woman suffering from dimentia.
Woman is combative.
Woman is fighting, destroying property and is disorientated.
Husband can't handle it, thinks it's best that she be admitted to the hospital.

Yeah, totally can't see why they would call the cops.

"Resisting arrest" is code for "Contempt of Cop"

Going to stop you there...resisting the application of restraints means more force has to be used. If you resist, in any way, force must be used to either maintain physical control of a subject or to stop the subject from doing something else (harming someone, escaping, commiting a crime, destroying property, etc.). Resisting Arrest is no more "Contempt of Cop" than running from the police and getting involved in a car chase is.

While there is no Contempt of Cop law - any cop not on their first day knows there are many, (far too many), ways to keep someone in-line. Arrest them on RA and then 3 days later, after they have lost their jobs, been humiliated, then they'll learn not to be - the right word is "U*" but in our PC environment - other than behaving as a submissive subject of the state, drop the charges.

So because the charges are dropped then the cops must have been in the wrong, correct?

Instead of spending money on tires, fuel and shells for an MRAP, their department should have ensured the responding officers were trained. Trained to respond - not react. Trained for handling elderly, mentally ill, dogs, deaf, blind, non-English speakers. What they had on their side was time. Contain the scene - wait. Even with no other training that what a citizen requires to carry a firearm, they should have known that - contain and wait.

This kind of training only comes from experience. No amount of classroom instruction, power point presentation, or reading material can prepare you for dealing with and identifying mental health subjects. You have to learn that stuff in the field.

I get that a cop can't treat every problem as if it is a nail and he is a hammer...cops have to wear multiple "hats" as it is.

They have to be prepared to kill someone at a moments notice.
They have to be a non-bias mediator, listen and observe.
They have to learn to identify problems before they become violent.
They have to counsel and console people.
They have to be a public servant and ensure that they are doing more good than harm.

The officer, in my opinion, used force in a good faith effort to assist, in what he thought was a person being assaulted by her husband.

That is why I concluded from the article and interview. I have a bias view (because I am pro-LEO, have been in there shoes and have even handled similar situations). You have a bias view because you think every "resisting arrest" charge is code for "he wasn't doing what I said so I beat him" and think every "news" article complaining about a cop is as genuine as the shoes on your feet.

 

[RicInOR]

Via Drew: "

Sheriff's deputy blows stop sign and t-bones woman's car, breaking her neck in 4 places. Unable to stand or function she is declared drunk and arrested. Bad cop trifecta now in play

Had to post as the pull quote mentions "Bad Cop"


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-deputy-smashes-car-leaving-broken-neck.html

"The driver's neck was broken in four places, leaving Weyker unable to perform a field sobriety test on the scene of the crash, or even blow into a Breathalyzer. " "The accident report stated that Weyker's breath faintly smelled of alcohol, her eyes appeared red and glassy, and her speech was slurred. "
"even though blood tests showed that she had no alcohol or drugs in her system."

Not sure if the WI law is mandatory arrest on DWI if you are so injured as to not be able to take the test. If it is, it needs to be changed.

The other lies in the arrest report, however, do need to be addressed. Why havent' they in the past year?
"Aside for his brief suspension for breaking traffic laws and damaging county property, Quiles has faced no disciplinary action for his falsified report. "

The false part of the report is not about her slurred speech etc. No it is about the officers actions which video disputes.

 

[RicInOR]

Stupid.
One time sure - verify the death certificate and update.

But I gotta ask - are these all different units / teams / departments - or does this one group of guys just really hate this woman. 4 Times this year, 8 years after his death!

"Jordan's son, James Jr., 31, said officers rushed into the apartment in July and arrested him when he told them his name." They are looking for someone who would be about 60-65, so they arrest Junior. I suppose they actually "detained" Jr. But with all the guns and officers would a reasonable person think that?

http://nypost.com/2014/05/06/nypd-has-raided-dead-mans-home-over-and-over-suit/

Oh I know, she just happened across a death certificate which matched her husband description, at least in writing, cause he is a dangerous diabetic serial turnstile jumper still terrorizing NYC!





Turnstile Jumper, for those who do not know, is someone who does not pay the fare on public transportation.

 

[Sstrand]

Ric
The real problem is the guy jumped the turnstiles with a bottle of soda larger that 16 ounces . . .

Sheldon

 

[RicInOR]

War on Smoking - it is NYC

" This Marlboro man enjoys a cigarette while sitting out on the windowsill of his lower Manhattan apartment, but cops mistook one of his smoking breaks for a suicide attempt.

Officers busted down the door of Mark Moody's Peck Slip apartment — and hauled him to Bellevue Hospital. "

He walked away with a $45,001 settlement.




Guess how high the window sill is ... guess .... 12 ft - the second floor.




http://nypost.com/2014/05/04/12-of-the-craziest-lawsuits-in-ny-history/

 

[RicInOR]

Wow.
Police Officers Charged. Not a civil suit.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/dallas-cop-indicted-for-shooting-mentally-ill-man/article/2548114

"Two Dallas police officers have been indicted in the last two weeks for shooting and wounding residents in incidents where the initial police accounts were later contradicted by video.

Cardan Spencer and Amy Wilburn were both charged with aggravated assault by a public servant."

"But police union leader Ron Pinkston said the indictments are a bad signal to send to officers dealing with potentially life-threatening situations"


99% of the time the video with exonerate the LEO, But worth the expense for the 1% like these 2.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

<broken link removed>

 

[RicInOR]

This shooting occurred back in December. This is the investigative report by the local CBS News outlet. Official reports will take years to complete.
Read the whole account:
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/police-shooting-frenzy-raises-concerns/

Car is trapped ~2 dozen cops on scene - with good reason, but adrenaline rushing thru them, leading to murderous intent - fire 50 shots into car - Wait then fire over 300 more. ( approx 17 ea )

Once the car is trapped, the cops have TIME.
Secure the Scene. Ensure the Suspects Do Not Leave.

One of the men in the car had committed armed robbery and shot a cop. A reason to hunt and arrest him, not a reason to murder him.
The other guy - who was not part of those events - would have been pulled from car, detained and investigated. Maybe would have been charged with aiding an escaping felon or some such.

At the time of the shooting there were no guns in the car.

The cops who got shot, didn't deserve that - two in addition to the original officer who was shot. Yep, cops shot other cops - injured not killed (I would not be shocked to learn from ricochets.)
Some officers have suffered hearing loss, possibly permanent.
The owners of other cars, homes and businesses, didn't deserve to have those shot up either.

When there is a chase involved, whenever possible, those giving pursuit should not go "hands on" they should secure the scene. Let those without the adrenaline rush take the suspect.

Yes a store was robbed and a cop shot. That scumbag deserves to be rotting in prison. The police are not charged with being the Executioner.

 

[coastal steelheader]

Oops wrong thread

Damn Heineken!

Mods please delete

 

[RicInOR]

CA -
<broken link removed>

Bad cops because -
If they would have taken five minutes to really [conduct surveillance of] the place it is obvious that there are multiple units there,"


BUT
"County Counsel John Beiers, who represents it and the Sheriff's Office, said the officers have immunity because they acted reasonably and the search warrant was validly issued and executed. The officers didn't know until after they served the warrant that the home was actually three separate units, he said."


HOWEVER
according to the law suit
" Kinsella was either incompetent or lying because the wanted person did not live there and they did not know him." -- Deputy Sheriff/Special Agent Mike Kinsella



Since the Deputies information came from a month before - you'd think they'd have had time to drive by and verify if the place was single family home, or a duplex or apartment - or maybe they could have used some new fangled computers to check the public records.



These supposedly rare mistakes keep happening:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/18/another-drug-bust-gone-bad
"...deputies looking for methamphetamines and bearing automatic weapons barged into the home of Eugene Mallory, an 80-year-old retired engineer living a quiet life in the small community of Littlerock. Moments later, Mallory lay in his bed bleeding to death from six bullets fired from an MP5 9mm submachine gun. The murky circumstances that led to the shooting are now the subject of a federal lawsuit. The officers found no meth on the property. "

We had discussed this raid:
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/th...r-old-man-in-his-own-bed.162920/#post-1060515

 

[Don H]

Here's a beat cop taking his job way too literal!

(BTW, it was inside a Starbucks -- not inside the bathroom of a Starbucks)

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/In_Camden_County_a_bad_lieutenant.html

CHERRY HILL, N.J. (CBS) – A Camden County Police Lieutenant has been removed from duty after he was accused of masturbating inside of a Starbucks in Cherry Hill.

Lt. Benito Gonzalez Junior has been charged with a disorderly persons lewdness offense.

 

[whiskeybill]

Advocate: Decision reeks, beyond a reasonable doubt - Times Union

"Outrageous and inexplicable.

Those are the words &#8212; among other choice adjectives &#8212; that jump to mind after Justice Lisa Anne Proskin's stunning refusal to convict Albany police officer Brian Lutz for DWI.

This was a stomach-turning decision, a brazen disregard for objectivity and an affront to anyone who wants to curb drunk driving.

Let's look at the facts, as laid out in a Menands Village Court trial that ended Thursday. In December 2010, Lutz is sleeping behind the wheel of an SUV parked in the right lane of I-787. The driver-side door is open, and there's vomit on the road. It's just before 6 a.m.

Let that sink in. Lutz's car is stopped IN A HIGHWAY LANE in the morning darkness. It's a miracle some poor soul didn't crash into him.

Menands officer Thomas Johnson, according to his testimony, rouses Lutz and tells him to get the SUV "on the (bleeping)-ing shoulder." The order makes sense, since I'm sure Johnson didn't want to question Lutz while standing IN A HIGHWAY LANE.

What does Lutz do?

He drives away, exiting 787 and stopping in a Price Chopper parking lot. Lutz likely knew if he stayed on the highway a.) his car could be towed and b.) a state trooper might pull up and insist on his arrest.

It was a savvy move, but I wouldn't advise it. If you're not a cop and you drive away from a traffic stop, I'm guessing you'll soon be face down on the pavement. Nothing like that happened to Lutz. But when he failed a sobriety test, showing blood-alcohol of 0.21, Menands police did the right thing and arrested him. At the station, things really got to be fun. That's where a camera captured Lutz pleading &#8212; "Why are you doing this to me?" he said, slurring his words &#8212; and the arrival of a police union president and another off-duty Albany officer. With unfettered access to Lutz in the booking room, and apparently unaware of the camera, the pair told their colleague how to limit the self-inflicted damage.

They advised Lutz not "to blow," meaning he should refuse the more formal blood-alcohol test. Since the field test isn't admissible in court, why provide such damning proof? Not that there wasn't plenty of other evidence, including the embarrassing video.

At trial, every witness &#8212; four officers &#8212; testified Lutz appeared drunk. Lutz himself even admitted he'd been drinking that night. He also told internal affairs investigators he was under the influence, he said. But none of this swayed the judge, who convicted Lutz only on the lesser driving while ability impaired charge, a non-criminal violation.

"The proof was not beyond a reasonable doubt," said Proskin, who may also doubt that Earth is round, dogs chase cats and Alex Rodriguez took steroids. It makes you wonder if anything could have convinced her, short of Lutz taking the stand and saying, "Dude, I was hammered!"

"The evidence was overwhelming," said Assistant District Attorney Mary Tanner-Richter, an experienced DWI prosecutor. "I've never had more evidence in a case like this."

Here's an unfortunate lesson provided by Proskin's decision: Drunk drivers should refuse a blood-alcohol test and its nearly irrefutable evidence. If judges are going to set the reasonable-doubt bar so insanely high, nobody who does so can be convicted for DWI. Another lesson is that police shouldn't bother arresting drunk cops. No officer wants to testify against another, and why bother if you can't get a conviction? It isn't worth the trouble.

The case also shows the continuing resistance to stricter DWI policies put in place by District Attorney David Soares, who has imposed mandatory penalties for the most egregious drunk drivers. Defense attorneys hate the rules, because they can't negotiate deals. The lawyers can't do much for their paying clients. Well, there's an exception. If a lawyer can get the case in front of a sympathetic judge, one who ignores overwhelming evidence, that changes everything.

Calling Justice Proskin!!

Was Proskin's ruling intended as a thumb-in-the-eye to Soares? We'll probably never know. But she seemed hostile to Tanner-Richter and generous to Lutz's attorney during the trial. And when Proskin's not a part-time judge, she's a lawyer for a firm that handles DWI cases. The Proskin Law Firm was founded by her father, Arnold Proskin, a former DA and state legislator.

Those facts make it easy to see Proskin's ruling as a victory for Albany County's club of legal insiders at the expense of Menands Police and everyone who wants safer roads and fewer drunk drivers.

The decision reeks."

In many states, the legislatures have taken away any discretion from judges. A DWI/DUII is just that, and it is only a matter of how many times you have been arrested that determines what your sentence is, but you do not get away with it. If you are impaired, you are convicted of just that. Matter of fact, most states say "Sure, you can refuse any and all sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood alcohol tests. We'll suspend your driving priveleges for one year, no questions asked". Apparently, that isn't how it works in New York state. I guess they better get the local chapter of MADD after the clowns in Albany and this particular judge.

 

[whiskeybill]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/c...fter-traffic-stop-for-no-front-license-plate/

This is an interesting one that begs a follow-up by the news.

 

[RicInOR]

Ask yourself - if you pointed your pistol at some teens, and beat one with it, what do you think would happen? You had better have had a good reason, or you face arrest on felony charges -

Well what if you are a cop?

Silly City, thought they would fire the officer -

http://www.telegram.com/article/20140516/NEWS/305169492/

"The city has argued Mr. Rawlston used excessive force, pointing a loaded weapon and using the handgun to strike two of the teens, while confronting them in his West Side neighborhood one night in April 2007. "

"But the initial arbitrator questioned the version of events claimed by the three teenagers, saying they lacked credibility. "


Not to worry, while he has been "fired" from the force, he has a job as a corrections officer.

 

[RicInOR]

Article which I think addresses the root of the issue of bad cops - you can't get rid of them.
Why?

"After reports that some Jonestown police officers were hired despite past misconduct, investigative reporters Eric Dexheimer and Tony Plohetski wanted to know why. They found that it's harder to revoke a peace officer's license than that of a teacher or a nurse, and that some police officials are less than truthful when filing paperwork designed to prevent police with poor work histories from moving from job to job."

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/new...le-to-track-co/nfynf/#efb78a35.unknown.735371

 

[RicInOR]

Bad as in Dumb bubblegum.

<broken link removed>

"On entering the fenced lot, he was approached by a barking dog, a pit bull. Moments later, neighbors heard gunfire. ... in the end, the dog was fine, but the unnamed deputy shot himself..."

 

[Sstrand]

The copper was only trying to show the dog that he was on the dog's side . . .
heh . . . Heh . . . HEH . . .

Sheldon