Announcement

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,980|6109|USA

I guess some cop had to wait 8 minutes or whatever for an egg mcmuffin, then did a weepy tell-all about how nobody trusted cops anymore. She has been dubbed "Officer Karen," and gets mentioned alongside police who refuse to do their jobs because they're mad that their fellows are being held accountable for their unconscionable handling of Rayshard Brooks.

I think we can all stop pretending that Rayshard was a some paragon of virtue and a noble father, while at the same time acknowledging that his death was entirely unnecessary.

Elsewhere,

Erie police officer emails mayor, reporters with complaints, concerns
https://www.yahoo.com/news/erie-police- … 34901.html

A veteran Erie Bureau of Police officer defended his profession, criticized journalists and broadly stated that Black people seeking social justice “cannot take care of their own or anyone else without playing the race card” in a long email sent to several Erie Times-News reporters and copied to Mayor Joe Schember.

Sgt. Jeff Annunziata, the chief traffic investigator for Erie police and a 34-year veteran of the police bureau, sent the email from his city account on Monday night to Schember and four Erie Times-News reporters.

The email from Annunziata, 62, also states that citizens “do not understand compliance;” asserts that most police officers try to avoid confrontation; suggests without evidence that the Clinton Foundation and billionaire George Soros are funding Black Lives Matter and antifa, and makes a point of mentioning that Erie officer Richard Burchick was shot and killed in 1991 by a Black man.

“Why are the facts ignored about the killing in this country and how small, the minute numbers of Police officers that kill a black man in the line of duty?” Annunziata wrote.

“There is not one police officer that I have met around the country that seeks out controversy instead of an agreement NOT ONE,” Annunziata wrote.
Our badges are shiny, etc. etc.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,944|5969|949

Fuck him.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+567|3057
I guess he really wanted to file for early retirement.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,944|5969|949

"Old man yells at cloud, gets fired."
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

funny of you to pop up to defend this case and then say nothing about the multiple police murders that have just lit up your country like a bonfire. fuck off. or were you too busy out shooting protestors with tear gas and rubber bullets?
If I'm going to be obligated to comment here on all matters of police use of force, I'm gonna need a salary.  Until then, I'll visit this forum when I want, and comment when I want.  If that's not good enough for you, put on your big boi pants and get ready to be disappointed.

and, yes, as newbie said above: my problem is with any policing situation at all that escalates that quickly and ends up with people dead.
Then blame Brooks for escalating.  He fought a lawful arrest, stole a police weapon, used it to tase an officer, resulting in a concussion when his head hit the pavement, then attempted to flee and discharged the taser again at police.  This is a deadly force scenario.  All day, every day.  End of story.  This isn't even considering the possibility that Brooks, who had already demonstrated a willingness to take and use an officer's weapon, was able to take the other officer's gun after tasing him.  When he turns around and aims a gun-like object and the officer sees a flash from the business end of that gun-like object, I don't know what in the actual fuck you expect him to think and/or do.  "Just let him go" is a non-starter, as Brooks had just committed felony obstruction, felony theft, felony robbery, and aggravated assault with the resistance and taking /use of the taser.  Expecting officers to just let him run free is utterly retarded.

the police here frequently let examples of 'felonies' or illegality go if it risks endangering life or making a bad situation worse. why aren't police there taught proper grappling skills? why aren't police there taught that life is more important than 'wanted dead or alive' sherrifing?
Being taught how to fight isn't the same thing as winning every fight.  Only an absolute imbecile would think so.  Plus, it's pretty hard to win a fight when you're getting tased and concussed.

your silence speaks volumes on the last few weeks, by the way. always a good by-the-book pedant when you see a crack of light for your cause.
Again, I'm happy to take on the mantle of BF2S Use of Force Analyzer.  But my expert testimony isn't free.

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2020-06-18 21:49:53)

HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

my point is that violent convicted felon or no, that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not the police can shoot him. we don't live in a society where sheriffs hunt down criminals and bag-n-tag them.

and i do happen to know that, with pretty rudimentary grappling training, you can learn to effectively take down pretty much anyone. there were two of them and they outsized the guy. it's not difficult to immobilize and detain someone, no. especially with two people on one.
When I was nine years old I had a bout with cancer.  It was quickly resolved, but it required me to subject myself to multiple scans over the following months and years, many requiring injections.  One day, I was sick of the needles and just decided it wasn't going to happen that day.  Four hospital staff couldn't hold me down.  FOUR.

AND I WAS TEN.

Put down the crack pipe.

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2020-06-18 21:57:33)

HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

he started off with his hands behind his back and they fucked it up from there. stop acting like he was possessed of some super-human vigour.

i would politely suggest that if you're physically inept and not good at grappling, then you don't become a police. you certainly shouldn't be entrusted with a lethal weapon when you aren't good at basic physical self-defense. people end up dead because of your panic or incompetence.

as i said above, a better investment would be to divert some of those immense funds into training physically capable police officers, rather than over-armed clint eastwoods.
He was 100% compliant for the twenty minutes preceding the fight.  I guarantee if they'd proned him out to cuff him on the ground, people would be bitching about the needlessly forceful arrest tactics.  He was acting like a reasonable human being the whole time, so they treated him as such when it came time to slap the bracelets on his wrists.  Brooks caused this incident.  Brooks fought his lawful arrest.  Brooks stole a taser.  Brooks tased an officer.  Brooks ran.  Brooks tried to tase the other officer.

Do you see a trend here?  I can help you out: it's Brooks.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

you'd feel very differently about this if it was one of your relatives who got senselessly murdered by a trigger-happy cop. you'd be asking 'why weren't they properly physically trained?'.

it's not a streetfight.
First of all, it basically is a street fight.

Second, your standards pretty much guarantee that women can't be police officers.  How does that sit with you?
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

resisting lawful arrest is not a serious crime deserving of death.
I haven't seen anyone say otherwise.  Of course, that's not at all the extent of Brooks' criminal activity that night.  So to suggest that is the argument that is being made would be idiotic at best, and dishonest at worst.

Where do you fall on that spectrum?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,980|6109|USA

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Brooks wasn't a fool in this, and didn't have a part to play in escalating things. But the final decision was made by the police.

This ABC article puts it rather neutrally:

The fired Atlanta police officer who fatally shot Rayshard Brooks in the parking lot of a Wendy's restaurant violated at least seven police department policies governing the use of force, including kicking the victim after allegedly shooting him in the back and failing to immediately administer medical aid, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced that warrants have been issued for former police officer Garrett Rolfe on 11 charges, including felony murder, multiple counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and seven violations of his oath by a public officer. Warrants were also issued for another officer involved in the fatal confrontation, Devin Brosnan, on two counts of violations of oath by a public officer and one count of aggravated assault.

"We've concluded that at the time Mr. Brooks was shot, he did not pose an imminent threat of serious injury to the officers," Howard said at a news conference Wednesday afternoon.
You greatly deferred to the judgment of the court when Officer Brailsford was up for shooting Daniel Shaver. Will that pattern hold if this doesn't go in favor of the Atlanta officers?

Citing pain or even "concussion" caused by the deceased is also probably going to fall on deaf ears while police are so willing to issue these at the slightest (or zero) provocation.

Football players get concussed without turning the superbowl into a dangerous shootout. But if they kneel for the anthem (which IMO by the way is tacky when played at a sporting event, and probably shouldn't be used), they get panned by the same right wingers who have thin blue line bumper stickers for being a bunch of pussies.

news.com.au puts it in a less gentle manner:

Atlanta cops in Rayshard Brooks shooting collected shell casings rather than help, says lawyer
After cops shot a black man, they spent over two minutes picking up their shell casings while he lay dying on the ground, the man’s lawyer says.

The Atlanta cops involved in the deadly police shooting black man Rayshard Brooks — that has sparked a fresh wave of anger in the US — collected their shell casings rather than giving first aid.

It is claimed they waited more than two minutes before even checking his pulse, a lawyer for Brooks’ family claims.

Witnesses said that “the officers went and put on plastic gloves and picked up their shell casings after they killed him — before rendering aid,” lawyer L. Chris Stewart said at a press conference Saturday, a day after Brooks was shot dead trying to avoid a drunk-driving arrest.

“They appear to be caring more about covering their tracks than providing aid,” he said of the officers, Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan.

“Aid that could have saved his life if allegedly he was taken to the hospital and died in surgery. But they didn’t give that to him.”

“One kicks him and flips him over,” Mr Stewart claimed of the officers.

“We counted 2 minutes and 16 seconds before they even checked his pulse,” he insisted of numerous videos of the deadly encounter. “And people wonder why everyone’s mad.”
On the pulse of the thin blue line:

Atlanta Police Get $500 Bonus To 'Boost Morale' Following Rayshard Brooks Shooting
https://www.ibtimes.com/atlanta-police- … ng-2996918

Fundraiser for Officer Charged in Rayshard Brooks Shooting Raises $250,000
https://www.newsweek.com/fundraiser-off … ks-1511849

Protest updates: Atlanta police officer Devin Brosnan says Rayshard Brooks was 'friendly'; funeral set for Tuesday
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/prote … r-BB15Elsb

Atlanta police officers called out sick or refused to answer calls Thursday to protest the filing of murder charges against an officer who shot a man in the back, while the interim chief said members of the force feel abandoned amid protests demanding massive changes to policing.
Good to see our boys in blue being the adults in the room.
uziq
Member
+466|2789

HollisHurlbut wrote:

uziq wrote:

resisting lawful arrest is not a serious crime deserving of death.
I haven't seen anyone say otherwise.  Of course, that's not at all the extent of Brooks' criminal activity that night.  So to suggest that is the argument that is being made would be idiotic at best, and dishonest at worst.

Where do you fall on that spectrum?
hey, your pals kicked a dying man and didn’t administer medical aid for 2 minutes.

your pals had previous records of shooting members of the public unnecessarily. they didn’t file the necessary reports when they nearly killed a man.

the department turned a blind eye.

don’t talk to me about dishonesty you fucking twonk. i haven’t been entrusted with keeping public order and i sure as hell haven’t killed anybody.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-19 01:04:40)

uziq
Member
+466|2789

HollisHurlbut wrote:

uziq wrote:

you'd feel very differently about this if it was one of your relatives who got senselessly murdered by a trigger-happy cop. you'd be asking 'why weren't they properly physically trained?'.

it's not a streetfight.
First of all, it basically is a street fight.

Second, your standards pretty much guarantee that women can't be police officers.  How does that sit with you?
so the police system in america routinely involves street fights with lethal weapons involved. sounds great.

can i refer you to, erm, every other country in the western world that manages to arrest people without death-by-cop? UK police manage it with batons and loud voices, mostly.

i don’t think anyone who isn’t physically able should be a cop. a lot of women could kick my ass. i don’t see why being handy and in good physical possession of yourself is barred from women. again, police here tend to call back-up or turn up in sufficient numbers if they see anything getting physical. i don't see why a woman police officer should be in a potentially lethal 1v1 with a member of the public at any point. why isn't safety and, you know, the fucking protection of human life always paramount?

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-19 01:31:43)

RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,724|6074|Oxferd Ohire
Plus physical requirements are a joke here. You got the 1.5mile run in 12 minutes. 40situps in a minute. And 30 pushups.

Women have to do 85% of those targets.

And many departments don't retest.
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,980|6109|USA

So.

LASD Deputy Fatally Shoots 18-Year-Old Auto Body Shop Security Guard In Gardena
https://news.yahoo.com/lasd-deputy-fata … 42411.html

18-year-old security guard fatally shot by deputies in California
https://nypost.com/2020/06/19/18-year-o … alifornia/

I eagerly await the "he shouldn't have rans" and the "he gave the deputy no choices" and the deflections onto non blue-on incidents.

He could have always stood terrified in a puddle of his own urine, but police also on occasion shoot and beat on people babbling for mercy, or who are just haplessly present.

The guards in Half-Life 2 seem more reasonable then the relentless deluge of cops-gone-wild stories. At least the gate guy will let you pass once you put the can in the trash.
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,724|6074|Oxferd Ohire
Just a few bad apples
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Brooks wasn't a fool in this, and didn't have a part to play in escalating things. But the final decision was made by the police.
And that decision was 100% reasonable, for the reasons I stated earlier.

You greatly deferred to the judgment of the court when Officer Brailsford was up for shooting Daniel Shaver. Will that pattern hold if this doesn't go in favor of the Atlanta officers?
I agreed with the ruling of the court that certain evidence should be suppressed because it was prejudicial and irrelevant.  As for the ultimate judgment of the jury, I said that I understood how it could find Brailsford not guilty because of the immediate circumstances, even though the police did literally everything wrong up to that point.

Citing pain or even "concussion" caused by the deceased is also probably going to fall on deaf ears while police are so willing to issue these at the slightest (or zero) provocation.
It shouldn't.  It is all relevant to the determination of reasonableness.

Football players get concussed without turning the superbowl into a dangerous shootout.
Please tell me you're not seriously comparing a violent, unpredictable arrest with no rules to a football game where any actual danger is stopped with a simple whistle.  Please tell me you're not doing that.

news.com.au puts it in a less gentle manner:
I would be willing to bet a non-trivial amount of money that this department instructs officers to pick up their brass after a course of fire during training.  Nothing happens until the brass is cleaned up.  This is what we call a "training scar" and is not uncommon.  My colleagues and I go to great lengths to eliminate as many of them as possible, going so far as to bark at people for handing a rubber gun back to the role player opponent who had just dropped it.  It has happened that an officer has given a weapon back to a suspect he had just disarmed because that's what they did after a training scenario had concluded.  In a similar vein, a police officer was killed a few years ago because she got into a firefight with a suspect and her gun malfunctioned.  Instead of clearing it and making it work, she raised her hand because that's what they did on the range so the instructor knew there was a malfunction.  I give people no end of grief when they do shit like that.  But our attitude is not universal, unfortunately.  Before these officers are condemned as callous and uncaring or accused of covering up what happened, these things need to be looked into.

Good to see our boys in blue being the adults in the room.
I don't blame them.  Why insert themselves into situations where force might need to be used and the DA who said one week earlier that taser use is aggravated assault and deadly force will charge with murder an officer who responds to that force with deadly force?  I see it as perfectly reasonable to view the Fulton County DA as being on a mission to hem up law enforcement who use force.  If I'm hesitant to use force that I've been explicitly told is reasonable, why would I put myself in a position where I might have to use it and then get screwed by the DA?
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,944|5969|949

Shut up pig man.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

hey, your pals kicked a dying man and didn’t administer medical aid for 2 minutes.
I've seen a still image that could be interpreted as a kick, but that's it.  Show me some video of the kick.  Regardless, what they did or didn't do after the shooting is irrelevant as to whether or not the shooting was justified.

your pals had previous records of shooting members of the public unnecessarily. they didn’t file the necessary reports when they nearly killed a man.
And that has nothing to do with whether or not this shooting was justified.

don’t talk to me about dishonesty you fucking twonk. i haven’t been entrusted with keeping public order and i sure as hell haven’t killed anybody.
Why shouldn't I talk to you about dishonesty?  You're the one characterizing this as simply resisting arrest.  That's obviously not what happened.

And you could try not name-calling and instead actually responding with evidence to support your position.  I notice you've not addressed any of the points I made regarding all the things Brooks did before he got shot.  Let me remind you: misdemeanor obstruction for the initial resistance, felony theft when he took the officer's taser, felony robbery when he took the officer's taser directly from his possession, felony obstruction when he used the taser, felony aggravated assault (charge 1) when he used the taser, and felony aggravated assault (charge 2) when he tried to tase the pursuing officer.  So here we have a violent suspect who has already taken an officer's weapon and used it against him who then turns around and discharges a weapon in the face of the officer pursuing him.  It's easy to sit in your cushy gamer chair and condemn the officer for shooting, but this is a totally reasonable response, even if you don't like it.
uziq
Member
+466|2789
a totally reasonable response, which is why they're appearing in court for felony murder?

why is the deceased's criminal past relevant here but not the officers' own violations?

so it's okay to sleight his character and make him out to be a dangerous criminal, deserving to be shot? but trigger-happy cops who have been in trouble before for discharging their firearms must have their decisions considered only in the isolated moment?

lol. enjoy prison. ACAB
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

can i refer you to, erm, every other country in the western world that manages to arrest people without death-by-cop? UK police manage it with batons and loud voices, mostly.
Sure, if I can point you to the overwhelming number of people in the US who manage to submit to being arrested without being killed.  They manage it by not resisting, stealing weapons, using them, running away, then trying to use the stolen weapon again.

i don’t think anyone who isn’t physically able should be a cop. a lot of women could kick my ass. i don’t see why being handy and in good physical possession of yourself is barred from women. again, police here tend to call back-up or turn up in sufficient numbers if they see anything getting physical. i don't see why a woman police officer should be in a potentially lethal 1v1 with a member of the public at any point. why isn't safety and, you know, the fucking protection of human life always paramount?
Remember, I fought off four hospital staff when I was ten years old.  As for officer/subject ratios, that's not something that can be controlled until after the fact.  And sometimes you can't wait to intervene.  If you're getting your ass beaten by five guys and there was one cop standing fifty feet away, I guess you're fine with that cop waiting until some back up arrives before they start pulling people off your bloody carcass.
uziq
Member
+466|2789
a lot of what ifs and not very much talk about police with a history of shooting members of the public being in trouble yet again for killing a man.

you seem miffed that the DA and public even hold police to account when they use force or take a life.

it's nice that plenty of people get arrested in a peaceable manner but america's death-by-cops stats are sky-high compared to other western nations. talk about the stats and not your feel-good scenarios.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

a totally reasonable response, which is why they're appearing in court for felony murder?
Yes.  The DA is a duplicitous pile of shit who says one thing last week and the opposite thing this week.

why is the deceased's criminal past relevant here but not the officers' own violations?
I don't think I've mentioned anything about his criminal history beyond the crimes he committed that night.

so it's okay to sleight his character and make him out to be a dangerous criminal, deserving to be shot? but trigger-happy cops who have been in trouble before for discharging their firearms must have their decisions considered only in the isolated moment?
He was a dangerous criminal.  See above where I listed the bare minimum crimes he committed during the encounter.  And I never said he deserved to be shot, just that the shooting was reasonable, given the totality of circumstances.

lol. enjoy prison. ACAB
Try evidence instead of insults.  And fuck you.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5335

uziq wrote:

a lot of what ifs and not very much talk about police with a history of shooting members of the public being in trouble yet again for killing a man.
So maybe instead of just asserting things you actually support them.  I am disinclined to blindly accept your characterization of their records, given your obvious hostility toward them from the outset.

Not that it matters anyway, because whatever previous encounters these officers have had with other people, it doesn't change what Brooks did.

you seem miffed that the DA and public even hold police to account when they use force or take a life.
No, I'm "miffed" that the DA has the audacity to charge two cops two weeks ago with aggravated assault when they used tasers on someone, then claim, one week later, with a straight face that taser use isn't a deadly threat when used against officers.  For reference, Georgia code defines aggravated assault as an assault "with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury."  Threat of serious bodily injury is a basis for using deadly force.

it's nice that plenty of people get arrested in a peaceable manner but america's death-by-cops stats are sky-high compared to other western nations. talk about the stats and not your feel-good scenarios.
I'm talking about the Brooks case.  Statistics on how many people are killed by police in the US compared to other countries is not germane to the determination of whether or not Brooks' shooting was reasonable.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,980|6109|USA

HollisHurlbut wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Brooks wasn't a fool in this, and didn't have a part to play in escalating things. But the final decision was made by the police.
1And that decision was 100% reasonable, for the reasons I stated earlier.

You greatly deferred to the judgment of the court when Officer Brailsford was up for shooting Daniel Shaver. Will that pattern hold if this doesn't go in favor of the Atlanta officers?
2I agreed with the ruling of the court that certain evidence should be suppressed because it was prejudicial and irrelevant.  As for the ultimate judgment of the jury, I said that I understood how it could find Brailsford not guilty because of the immediate circumstances, even though the police did literally everything wrong up to that point.

Citing pain or even "concussion" caused by the deceased is also probably going to fall on deaf ears while police are so willing to issue these at the slightest (or zero) provocation.
3It shouldn't.  It is all relevant to the determination of reasonableness.

Football players get concussed without turning the superbowl into a dangerous shootout.
4Please tell me you're not seriously comparing a violent, unpredictable arrest with no rules to a football game where any actual danger is stopped with a simple whistle.  Please tell me you're not doing that.

news.com.au puts it in a less gentle manner:
5I would be willing to bet a non-trivial amount of money that this department instructs officers to pick up their brass after a course of fire during training.  Nothing happens until the brass is cleaned up.  This is what we call a "training scar" and is not uncommon.  My colleagues and I go to great lengths to eliminate as many of them as possible, going so far as to bark at people for handing a rubber gun back to the role player opponent who had just dropped it.  It has happened that an officer has given a weapon back to a suspect he had just disarmed because that's what they did after a training scenario had concluded.  In a similar vein, a police officer was killed a few years ago because she got into a firefight with a suspect and her gun malfunctioned.  Instead of clearing it and making it work, she raised her hand because that's what they did on the range so the instructor knew there was a malfunction.  I give people no end of grief when they do shit like that.  But our attitude is not universal, unfortunately.  Before these officers are condemned as callous and uncaring or accused of covering up what happened, these things need to be looked into.

Good to see our boys in blue being the adults in the room.
6I don't blame them.  Why insert themselves into situations where force might need to be used and the DA who said one week earlier that taser use is aggravated assault and deadly force will charge with murder an officer who responds to that force with deadly force?  I see it as perfectly reasonable to view the Fulton County DA as being on a mission to hem up law enforcement who use force.  If I'm hesitant to use force that I've been explicitly told is reasonable, why would I put myself in a position where I might have to use it and then get screwed by the DA?
OK so point by point,

1) It really doesn't seem reasonable to shoot someone in the back even if they are running off with your taser. And it's certainly not going to help matters as they currently stand.

2) You dodged the meat of the question though. Will you defer to the judgment of the court if it doesn't go the Atlanta officers' way?

3) Is it reasonable for police to shoot people in the face with rubber bullets for peaceful protesting, or other people in the face for just being somewhere in the vicinity of a peaceful protest? Look at all the concussions getting dished out. Sample: Injured and uninsured, protesters get medical aid from LA doctor

It wasn't Deon Jones’ fractured cheekbone or even his concussion that most worried Dr. Amir Moarefi. He was most concerned that Jones could go blind.

"He sustained a rubber bullet direct injury to the cheek, which broke his zygomatic bone, which is your cheekbone, literally about an inch and a half from his eye and about another inch and a half from his temple," Moarefi said.

...

In a June 4 statement, the American Academy of Ophthalmology called on domestic law enforcement officials "… to immediately end the use of rubber bullets to control or disperse crowds of protesters."

Instagram medicine
Jones is one of hundreds of people who have contacted Moarefi for medical help since the Long Beach, California, ophthalmologist posted his offer on Instagram.

"I started to get the messages coming in and first it started off with a lot of virtual consults, a lot of messages, pictures, FaceTime chats," Moarefi said.

The requests for help quickly snowballed. His Instagram post was shared among protest groups all over the country.

"I’ve seen broken ankles, broken hands, broken fingers, welts all over the body. I’ve seen people who have sustained really bad tear gas injuries, where their entire face broke out into these nasty hives, including their eyes. Pepper spray, I’ve seen really bad cases. You could just see visible swelling of their eyeball," Moarefi said.
"The officer was concussed, so all y'all should stand with us." Deaf ears.

4) It's partly tongue-in-cheek, but it could still be a valid analogy. Football players get concussed before whistles can be blown. Nobody in a striped shirt is around to blow the whistle on cops in the midst of maiming or killing someone. That is their responsibility, which police are entrusted with to a gigantic degree. Death should be the last resort. Not the first. Not somewhere in the middle. We should be moving away from the wild west mentality, not advancing it. Some of these stories would make Wyatt Earp blush.

5) Does training specifically instruct you to police your brass before rendering aid to a gunshot victim? It seems like an asinine non sequitur. "Sorry, Major. I didn't know what to do when one of my guys was hit by an IED, so I cleaned the toilet."

6) Not blaming them seems to be your default state though unless you're left with no possible recourse. I could literally pluck any of these stories out of a hat and accurately guess where you'd stand on it most of the time.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,980|6109|USA



Police not triggering onto someone like a pack of feral rottweilers. He even had a gun.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard