TWO NYPD officers executed because of Ferguson decision,

[Monica Cowles]

So you support cops even when they are in the wrong? I support LEO when they are in the right as I do any individual but I cannot support their militarization and treatment of an individual as an enemy until that individual acts like the enemy. I cannot support an LEO who's choice it is to rely on a firearm or brutality as the first choice for dealing with an unknown situation. If the LEO is scared doing his job maybe just maybe he needs a new carreer Perhaos you might understand those words.

*sigh* in order to argue convincingly, you have to at least pretend you see both sides of an issue...it's really easy to scrutinize plays Monday morning from your easy chair. What's missing (in MOST cases...<<--**take note, now ) is facts, evidence, an adrenaline dump, physiological and psychological affects on your body, an understanding of basic human nature and well, just a hint of common sense.
Please.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Ever watched unarmed, naked men toss several large officer around like toys? I have.

I once worked on the admitting ward of a large state mental hospital. We were unarmed and we dealt with people like that every day, and somehow we managed to survive and not kill anyone. The difference is fear and training. We were trained to handle people without deadly force, and we weren't constantly fearful. It's pretty obvious that modern police training relies heavily on the deadly force option and instills an attitude of over-vigilance in officers.

 

[JRuby]

*sigh* in order to argue convincingly, you have to at least pretend you see both sides of an issue...it's really easy to scrutinize plays Monday morning from your easy chair. What's missing (in MOST cases...<<--**take note, now ) is facts, evidence, an adrenaline dump, physiological and psychological affects on your body, an understanding of basic human nature and well, just a hint of common sense.
Please.

Please yourself - you are simply making excuses why a LEO can break the rules and laws he has been tasked to uphold. When a LEO shoots some one in the back such as what freshour did and gets a slap on the wrist for doing it is to me unjust and I cannot support it. I will not support it. When Westerman the head of the police union in Portland pulls a gun in act of road rage and gets away with it - to me that is wrong. But you go ahead and support these LEO all you want I will support LEO when tey are held to the same standard as us none LEO's are held to. I would rather have no LEO if they are corrupt. . I actually strongly support laws and try to obey them as best I can - so far so good. I expect LEO to do the same.

 

[freestoneangler]

When did we regress back to racial tension akin to the 1960s and 70s? Even the language, (pigs) is dated?

That would be November 4th, 2008... the day America's "great experiment" started... a day that will live in infamy .

Obama, his administration, and the complicit liberal media have, sadly and in a perverse twist of irony, set race relations in this country back 60 years.

 

[etrain16]

I once worked on the admitting ward of a large state mental hospital. We were unarmed and we dealt with people like that every day, and somehow we managed to survive and not kill anyone. The difference is fear and training. We were trained to handle people without deadly force, and we weren't constantly fearful. It's pretty obvious that modern police training relies heavily on the deadly force option and instills an attitude of over-vigilance in officers.

First, police officers are not professional mental health workers. Second, and more importantly, dealing with a mental health patient, one you have no history on, in public, who may or may not be violent, who may or may not have a weapon and be a threat, is a far different circumstance than a patient in a controlled environment, surrounded by workers trained specifically to deal with them - and it's very unlikely they aren't armed.

Police officers have to be a lot of things. Psychiatrists, counselors, negotiators, protectors. That's a lot to ask of anyone. I watch the news, I see the stories. I know bad things happen with the police sometimes, and that's unfortunate. I do believe that if they exceed the bounds of their jobs, even breaking the law, they need to be held accountable. But, considering what they have to deal with, I think at least some measure of leeway must be afforded, but certainly not carte blanche.

I've known a lot of officers over the years, all of them very good people, both in uniform and out of uniform. I remember an event that happened years ago. I was on my way to work and came across a house fire. The fire department had just arrived but couldn't get to the house because a man outside was going nuts out front. He kept trying to run in to the house, which was completely engulfed in flames at this point. Several officers arrived and it took all of them to get him restrained, or he would have killed himself, and this all happened on the front porch of a home that was consumed with flames. The fire department stayed back as this man, who was hitting the officers, was finally pulled back so the fire department could do their job. These officers had no protective clothing, yet were right up against the flames. They risked their lives to save the life of this man. It was never reported in the news.

And how about Damon Coates? He was shot in the face attempting to render help to a mentally ill 15-year old. He didn't tackle the kid or use violence, he was trying to reason with him when the kid stood up and shot Coates in the face with a stolen .45. Or maybe Oregon City officer Robert Libke, shot and killed in cold blood last year while responding to help at a reported house fire in an attempt to try and save lives?

For every report you can give of an officer doing something bad, there are, I would argue, far more examples (many never reported), of officers doing good things. Unfortunately, the good doesn't make the news as frequently as the bad. But the good are out there, helping in their communities, raising their families, doing the right thing.

It seems you're willing to condemn the majority for the actions of the minority. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

Rather than complain about them, what would you recommend as a solution? I think we would all agree that police officers are necessary. So what could be changed to improve the situation? It's easy to point fingers and assign blame, it's harder to make a real change. What do you think could be done to prevent, or at least limit, issues in the future?

 

[JRuby]

First, police officers are not professional mental health workers. Second, and more importantly, dealing with a mental health patient, one you have no history on, in public, who may or may not be violent, who may or may not have a weapon and be a threat, is a far different circumstance than a patient in a controlled environment, surrounded by workers trained specifically to deal with them - and it's very unlikely they aren't armed.

Police officers have to be a lot of things. Psychiatrists, counselors, negotiators, protectors. That's a lot to ask of anyone. I watch the news, I see the stories. I know bad things happen with the police sometimes, and that's unfortunate. I do believe that if they exceed the bounds of their jobs, even breaking the law, they need to be held accountable. But, considering what they have to deal with, I think at least some measure of leeway must be afforded, but certainly not carte blanche.

I've known a lot of officers over the years, all of them very good people, both in uniform and out of uniform. I remember an event that happened years ago. I was on my way to work and came across a house fire. The fire department had just arrived but couldn't get to the house because a man outside was going nuts out front. He kept trying to run in to the house, which was completely engulfed in flames at this point. Several officers arrived and it took all of them to get him restrained, or he would have killed himself, and this all happened on the front porch of a home that was consumed with flames. The fire department stayed back as this man, who was hitting the officers, was finally pulled back so the fire department could do their job. These officers had no protective clothing, yet were right up against the flames. They risked their lives to save the life of this man. It was never reported in the news.

And how about Damon Coates? He was shot in the face attempting to render help to a mentally ill 15-year old. He didn't tackle the kid or use violence, he was trying to reason with him when the kid stood up and shot Coates in the face with a stolen .45. Or maybe Oregon City officer Robert Libke, shot and killed in cold blood last year while responding to help at a reported house fire in an attempt to try and save lives?

For every report you can give of an officer doing something bad, there are, I would argue, far more examples (many never reported), of officers doing good things. Unfortunately, the good doesn't make the news as frequently as the bad. But the good are out there, helping in their communities, raising their families, doing the right thing.

It seems you're willing to condemn the majority for the actions of the minority. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

Rather than complain about them, what would you recommend as a solution? I think we would all agree that police officers are necessary. So what could be changed to improve the situation? It's easy to point fingers and assign blame, it's harder to make a real change. What do you think could be done to prevent, or at least limit, issues in the future?

My recommendation is that LEO police thier own - and hence make it a non event for the public - if they got rid of the bad seeds and the Unions did not protect them then I think it would be very difficult to condemn them as a whole. The good should and deserve the repsect of the public and likewise those that feel that the law either doesnt apply or that they are above the laws should be criminally crucififed. I actually trust and respect most LEO but when they let the bad seeds break the law how good are any of them?

 

[Monica Cowles]

This is where I stand. Firmly.

 

[etrain16]

My recommendation is that LEO police thier own - and hence make it a non event for the public - if they got rid of the bad seeds and the Unions did not protect them then I think it would be very difficult to condemn them as a whole. The good should and deserve the repsect of the public and likewise those that feel that the law either doesnt apply or that they are above the laws should be criminally crucififed. I actually trust and respect most LEO but when they let the bad seeds break the law how good are any of them?

It's a good idea, but who makes certain they do so with an untainted view? These folks work together every day. They know the rigors of the day to day job better than non-LEO's. Maybe that's why they are more willing to protect their own. I don't know that that would be the best solution, as it just puts even more responsibility on them, and forces them to consider throwing their own to the wolves.

I don't know if the police have anything like a military JAG office, but maybe that would be a possible way to go. Lawyers, judges, etc., dedicated to overseeing misconduct by officers, like is done in the military. Maybe that could be an option, maybe not.

 

[etrain16]

This is where I stand. Firmly.

Once again, Mr. Harvey says in few words what so many others can't say in entire books. Eloquent and well stated.

 

[JRuby]

As long as good LEO allow bad LEO in their ranks they will never get the respect or admiration that doing the job should receive.

 

[etrain16]

As long as good LEO allow bad LEO in their ranks they will never get the respect or admiration that doing the job should receive.

So condemn all good police officers because a few are protected by their union? What exactly do you expect them to do? I think you're expecting them to have more power and influence than they actually have. I guess by your example, we should also disrespect and fail to admire soldiers for the same reason.

I work with people that aren't good employees. Beyond reporting them to my superiors, I have no further resources to remove them or prevent them from staying on the job. I can't force them out, I can't harass them until they leave - or I would be punished myself. Is that fair?

I just can't go along with a statement like the one you made. I agree bad cops need to be punished accordingly, but I won't go so far as to assume all other cops will go out of their way to protect them. I think the union and the local politicians are far more guilty of that.

 

[JRuby]

Soldiers do not have a union and they do police thier own - as stated earlier they do have the JAG. I have set in on several captaisn masts, fortunately not my own. The military does punish those that go a foul of thier laws. The military in my opinion is one place where double jeopardy does exist.

I also doubt very much that the bad employees where you work have the ability to do you physical harm for no reason and then have a legal protection provided to defend those actions. So lets keep this based on LEO - they have the ability to decide life and death depending on if they feel threatened when no threat actualy exists. Try that as a civilian.

 

[etrain16]

Soldiers do not have a union and they do police thier own - as stated earlier they do have the JAG. I have set in on several captaisn masts, fortunately not my own. The military does punish those that go a foul of thier laws. The military in my opinion is one place where double jeopardy does exist.

I also doubt very much that the bad employees where you work have the ability to do you physical harm for no reason and then have a legal protection provided to defend those actions. So lets keep this based on LEO - they have the ability to decide life and death depending on if they feel threatened when no threat actualy exists. Try that as a civilian.

Actually, under certain circumstances, I do have that right. You stated that they have the right "if they feel threatened", which is exactly what a civilian can do. The only necessary justification is that you are in fear for your life. So, in that sense, it's very similar to what LEO's can do.

You seem to be under the impression that an officer is able to determine that no threat actually exists under any circumstances. Unfortunately, that's simply not possible in all cases. They have to use split second judgment, and sometimes that judgment is wrong.

You seem to be confused, the law does not give police officers the right to do whatever they want. If bad cops are breaking the law and the prosecutors aren't going after them, then who is really to blame? It's not the job of police officers to go after fellow cops, it's the job of prosecutors. There is a legal system in place to go after these guys, I find it difficult to believe that the union has so much power that they can tell everyone else what to do. If that's the case, I guess it's time to get some folks in office that can stand up to them. I just wonder why that hasn't happened yet. Maybe continuing to vote the same people over and over into local offices is also part of the problem.

 

[JRuby]

LEO in genral have more leeway when shooting someone - try to explain as a civilian why you shot someone in the back, use a weapon on someone that does not have a weapon or excessive force. LEO do nto have this problem - they are not even repsonsible for where every round goes as indicated in a new york shooting a few months ago. On top of that if there is a problem they have the union and a legal team provided for them. When and if they lose the city gets sued - use our tax money to pay for the mistake and LEO moves on with a slap on the wrist. A question was asked what should be done abotu abhorent police behavior- I provided an answer - you dont like my answer then come up with one of your own.

 

[etrain16]

LEO in genral have more leeway when shooting someone - try to explain as a civilian why you shot someone in the back, use a weapon on someone that does not have a weapon or excessive force. LEO do nto have this problem - they are not even repsonsible for where every round goes as indicated in a new york shooting a few months ago. On top of that if there is a problem they have the union and a legal team provided for them. When and if they lose the city gets sued - use our tax money to pay for the mistake and LEO moves on with a slap on the wrist. A question was asked what should be done abotu abhorent police behavior- I provided an answer - you dont like my answer then come up with one of your own.

I'm not sure what your answer you offered. Was it to let them police themselves? If so, how do you expect that to happen when you already show you don't trust them in the first place? You're asking people you don't trust to do something that requires trust. If that is your suggestion, I'd wonder how we'd go about enforcing it? Or making sure it happens in the first place? I'm not saying it's not a valid idea, but honestly, how do you see that happening? That's all I'm asking.

 

[JRuby]

The more I think about this the less sure I am of how to do it. It opens up way more questions then it does answers. It seems to me that any solution I can come up with seems an awful lot like a grand jury. It seems to me that the problem is that LEO is simply not held to the same standards as the populace which they are to serve and protect. I am going to ponder this a while.

 

[Sstrand]

I suppose you could let J Jackson and A Sharpton be their judge and jury . . . and executioners!!!!

Sheldon

 

[JRuby]

I dont trust them in any shape or form. I would not trust them to watch my parking spot after I drove away.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

First, police officers are not professional mental health workers. Second, and more importantly, dealing with a mental health patient, one you have no history on, in public, who may or may not be violent, who may or may not have a weapon and be a threat, is a far different circumstance than a patient in a controlled environment, surrounded by workers trained specifically to deal with them - and it's very unlikely they aren't armed.

No, we were not armed, and no it wasn't a matter of controlled circumstances. We didn't have a history on these people beyond why the police scooped them up and dumped them on our doorstep (e.g. running down the street naked, chasing his wife with a meat cleaver comes to mind). What made the difference was the approach. We didn't scream at them repeatedly to "get on the ground", so that no real communication was possible. We didn't come at them with drawn weapons in our hands. We asked them to let us help them. We told them that everything was going to be OK. And then we told the incredulous LEOs to remove the handcuffs. It might have taken 3 officers to get that cuffed individual into the back seat of a squad car, but we usually got nothing but calm cooperation. Don't forget we worked with a ward containing 60 to 80 of these individuals all day long, every day. We got an occasional bump or bruise, but it was part of the job so we accepted it and kept going.

But all of that misses the point. That being that LEOs have policies and procedures to follow. They're trained in how to handle certain situations in certain ways. They are required to obey the law. We have only one of two choices here. When someone is killed by the police in a questionable situation they either followed the law, their training, and department policies, or they didn't. If they didn't they should be convicted of a crime and/or terminated. If they did follow all those requirements and the killing still stinks to high heaven then the laws, training, and policies need to be changed. If that means that some LEOs no longer want to perform the job then so be it.

On the topic of prosecuting bad cops, the problem is that the good cops almost invariably refuse to testify against a fellow officer. Everybody covers everybody else's butt, regardless of right and wrong. If good cops want to be respected then they need to remove the bad apples from among their ranks. Instead, whenever there's a questionable killing they circle the wagons and support each other, no matter how wrong the offending officer is. You might think I'm against cops in general, but I'm not. Here's how I feel about it:

 

[WAYNO]

This is all a tough one for me. I fear that any cop I might encounter is secretly looking for a reason to smoke me. The difference is , in my culture, when a cop says stop, I stop.

Even my boy told me recently he remembers me teaching him early, be polite to cops, cause they just might shoot you.

WAYNO.,