More Cop Fails

Off Topic
101

[quote]WN76 wrote:

What would the incentive be for gunning down an elderly lady who wanted help? That’s what is bugging me. I believe the officers feared for their lives and reacted accordingly.[/quote]

If you want to look at it that way, from the incentive side that is, you got to take into account that there are also next to zero disincentives in place if you kill someone who is innocent.

If a cop knows that the most fucked up scenario will most likely be excused if he can come up with something halfway plausible his most rational approach would be to gun people down because of the slightest of provocations, because the risks of not acting do exist whereas the risks of not acting do not.

If a cop automatically lost his badge if he killed someone innocent he would think twice.

If he could expect to be hung on the next tree, he would think thrice.

If he had to expect that his wife and children would be hanging next to him, he would think even harder.

In conclusion, no negative incentive if you fuck up makes for trigger happy cops, if you remove that risk, they do not need that much of an incentive to gun someone down.

Minimizing risk in that scenario means shoot first, ask later.

102

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

What would the incentive be for gunning down an elderly lady who wanted help? That’s what is bugging me. I believe the officers feared for their lives and reacted accordingly.[/quote]

If you want to look at it that way, from the incentive side that is, you got to take into account that there are also next to zero disincentives in place if you kill someone who is innocent.

If a cop knows that the most fucked up scenario will most likely be excused if he can come up with something halfway plausible his most rational approach would be to gun people down because of the slightest of provocations, because the risks of not acting do exist whereas the risks of not acting do not.

If a cop automatically lost his badge if he killed someone innocent he would think twice.

If he could expect to be hung on the next tree, he would think thrice.

If he had to expect that his wife and children would be hanging next to him, he would think even harder.

In conclusion, no negative incentive if you fuck up makes for trigger happy cops, if you remove that risk, they do not need that much of an incentive to gun someone down.

Minimizing risk in that scenario means shoot first, ask later. [/quote]

“Elderly Woman Shoots Police Officer Mistaken for Robber” is a more acceptable headline.

“Yes, this is Campbell County 911,” said dispatcher. “We have officers outside of your residence. They advice me you’re armed with a handgun. You need to put it away. It is the police department. They are trying to check on you.”

That is a 911 transcript. They called the dispatcher to get a hold of the old lady, but she was wandering around deaf and blind shooting at ghosts. They can’t even prove that there was a burglar. Obviously they exhausted efforts to get her to drop the gun.

She could have walked into a neighboring home thinking it was hers and shot the occupants.

A lot of you are wrapped around the axles because this was an old woman.

103

[quote]groo wrote:
Lets be real. Regular LEO has no significant fire discipline. Lets say we stuck an average to good infantry unit with the task of taking down the old lady and the order was given that no shots were to be taken until actively fired upon. The old lady wouldn’t have been killed in the same fashion. It could still have went poorly if she opened up on the members of the unit but they would not have fired first. Thats what I mean by poor discipline. I would expect enough fire discipline to not proactively fire upon an old lady.

What do you think the over/under will be on the settlement that gets paid to the ladies family?

[/quote]
The problem with your analysis is that there was no order saying “no shots were to be taken until actively fired upon”. Police are trained (in Ontario at least) that they can shoot in this circumstance (and in fact can justifiably shoot someone holding any weapon under situations). The Police in this situation almost certainly followed orders, and hence there was no lack of discipline.

104

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

What would the incentive be for gunning down an elderly lady who wanted help? That’s what is bugging me. I believe the officers feared for their lives and reacted accordingly.[/quote]

If you want to look at it that way, from the incentive side that is, you got to take into account that there are also next to zero disincentives in place if you kill someone who is innocent.

If a cop knows that the most fucked up scenario will most likely be excused if he can come up with something halfway plausible his most rational approach would be to gun people down because of the slightest of provocations, because the risks of not acting do exist whereas the risks of not acting do not.

If a cop automatically lost his badge if he killed someone innocent he would think twice.

If he could expect to be hung on the next tree, he would think thrice.

If he had to expect that his wife and children would be hanging next to him, he would think even harder.

In conclusion, no negative incentive if you fuck up makes for trigger happy cops, if you remove that risk, they do not need that much of an incentive to gun someone down.

Minimizing risk in that scenario means shoot first, ask later. [/quote]

“Elderly Woman Shoots Police Officer Mistaken for Robber” is a more acceptable headline.

“Yes, this is Campbell County 911,” said dispatcher. “We have officers outside of your residence. They advice me you’re armed with a handgun. You need to put it away. It is the police department. They are trying to check on you.”

That is a 911 transcript. They called the dispatcher to get a hold of the old lady, but she was wandering around deaf and blind shooting at ghosts. They can’t even prove that there was a burglar. Obviously they exhausted efforts to get her to drop the gun.

She could have walked into a neighboring home thinking it was hers and shot the occupants.

A lot of you are wrapped around the axles because this was an old woman. [/quote]

I dont care about her, did not know here.

You brought up incentives.

I pointed out that the incentive structure is more complex than you insinuated and that it is geared a certain way.

105

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

Now, let’s see if I can get a bayonet lug for the Sig… Holstering may be a problem.[/quote]

Well, I presume you have a Remington 870 in the car.

Talk to your boss, get the local Marines to tell you how to use it, and up weapon.

At the very least, your SWAT needs to think about this.[/quote]

We’re working on getting the carbines in the car. I don’t think higher up will go for the bayonets though, haha. They frown on us wearing sunglasses when speaking to people. [/quote]

Maybe not for you, but certainly SWAT. Carbine? a .223? WTF? I’d prefer 00 buck any day.[/quote]

Remington 870 + bayonet = scary as f*#k.

I would absolutely surrender.

106

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Lets be real. Regular LEO has no significant fire discipline. Lets say we stuck an average to good infantry unit with the task of taking down the old lady and the order was given that no shots were to be taken until actively fired upon. The old lady wouldn’t have been killed in the same fashion. It could still have went poorly if she opened up on the members of the unit but they would not have fired first. Thats what I mean by poor discipline. I would expect enough fire discipline to not proactively fire upon an old lady.

What do you think the over/under will be on the settlement that gets paid to the ladies family?

[/quote]
The problem with your analysis is that there was no order saying “no shots were to be taken until actively fired upon”. Police are trained (in Ontario at least) that they can shoot in this circumstance (and in fact can justifiably shoot someone holding any weapon under situations). The Police in this situation almost certainly followed orders, and hence there was no lack of discipline.[/quote]

Not discipline in the following orders sense. In the sense of usage of weapons properly. Look at The thirdruffians posts where he talks about entering hundreds of homes all with weapons and kicked a kid in the jaw instead of shooting him. That type of discipline. Where a bit of fear for personal safety doesn’t immediately make you shoot.

Regular LEO are notoriously poorly trained as even the supporters would agree. Also largely are no great shakes as marksmen. Though this is more or less an accurate assessment of most weapons fire in a high stress or combat situation. An average handguns enthusiast will easily put in more range time than is required by LEO regulations.

107

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

This is my favorite of the relatively recent killings by the way. Where the deputy is let off because of his claims the father was acting irrationally. So he killed him because of the risk he posed to his daughters if he drove off with them…as opposed to the oh I don’t know unquantifiable harm seeing your father shot and killed a few feet from you would cause.

The best is how the news stories move from calling them the girls to his daughters and as more details about him come out…oh you know that he was a beloved marine and regularly worked out with his daughters and prayed with them before school came out…that the irrational actions he took became more murky and undefined and we end up with one dead dad and a huge wrongful death suit that the wife will likely win…along with a deputy that gets off scott free on a murder.[/quote]

Despicable.
[/quote]

That’s pretty fucked up. Why did they make no attempt to arrest the UNARMED man? Can you now shoot someone for driving dangerously with kids in the car?[/quote]

From the sound of it, the officer didn’t have control over the situation. Should have never let the guy get back into the car.
[/quote]

The article said that 3 or 4 other deputies arrived on scene a few minutes before the shooting occurred. I don’t see any possible way that this is a clean shoot. The guy never threatened the police or tried to hurt anyone, other than endangering his own kids with his driving.

I’m not saying the guy had the purest intentions (WTF was he doing with his young girls driving recklessly at 4am?), but he gave them no reason to shoot him.[/quote]

This doesn’t look like a clean shoot because the officer could have prevented him from getting back into his vehicle. The officer should have intervened sooner, so that the victim did not have the means to harm the young girls. Guy was probably a Vet who needed some help.
[/quote]
Was it you who mentioned something earlier about the higher ups sharing vids of police getting killed or similar?

How many of these feature Vets?

108

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
I do not know the facts of this case; however…

We are long past the point where every officer should have a camera w/audio on their person. All testimony by any officer should be ‘backed-up’ by film. Certainly all interogations should be recorded from start to finish without stopping the camera. Anytime the film is lost or damaged the related evidence should be discarded. The ‘Officer Bill Of Rights’ should be repealed; there is no moral reason for officers to have legal protections that ordinary citizens do not. The same for implied immunity. When the law abandons the moral high ground for conveniences sake, justice is difficult to find. There are plenty of good Leo’s out there and we need policies and procedures that help maintain the integrity of the law.

Why Firing a Bad Cop Is Damn Near Impossible
[/quote]

I’m not opposed to being AV recorded. I have 5 cameras on my car, and a microphone on my vest. It’s more likely to save my ass. A few weeks ago a friend of mine was accused of beating a girl while in cuffs. In car camera showed her smashing her own head into the partition while saying “I’m going to tell everyone you raped me!”. She was so drunk she forgot she was on camera. I hear the look on her face and her lawyer’s when they saw the video was pretty good.

All evidence related to the crime should be thrown out? You’re assuming technology doesn’t fail. Ever have a computer crash on you? So in theory a rapist could walk because a camera didn’t record the arrest of the suspect. Sounds great. [/quote]

I suspect the majority of the time the recording would support the officer, that’s my point. It is critical that efforts are exhausted to demonstrate the integrity of the law/officer. Tech. failures would represent a fraction of cases. No more than any other technical violation. Although I understand your frustration when hard work is wasted; a ‘tie must go to the runner’ in our system. I’ll pay a little more and you can wear a back-up camera.

109

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

This is my favorite of the relatively recent killings by the way. Where the deputy is let off because of his claims the father was acting irrationally. So he killed him because of the risk he posed to his daughters if he drove off with them…as opposed to the oh I don’t know unquantifiable harm seeing your father shot and killed a few feet from you would cause.

The best is how the news stories move from calling them the girls to his daughters and as more details about him come out…oh you know that he was a beloved marine and regularly worked out with his daughters and prayed with them before school came out…that the irrational actions he took became more murky and undefined and we end up with one dead dad and a huge wrongful death suit that the wife will likely win…along with a deputy that gets off scott free on a murder.[/quote]

Despicable.
[/quote]

That’s pretty fucked up. Why did they make no attempt to arrest the UNARMED man? Can you now shoot someone for driving dangerously with kids in the car?[/quote]

From the sound of it, the officer didn’t have control over the situation. Should have never let the guy get back into the car.
[/quote]

The article said that 3 or 4 other deputies arrived on scene a few minutes before the shooting occurred. I don’t see any possible way that this is a clean shoot. The guy never threatened the police or tried to hurt anyone, other than endangering his own kids with his driving.

I’m not saying the guy had the purest intentions (WTF was he doing with his young girls driving recklessly at 4am?), but he gave them no reason to shoot him.[/quote]

This doesn’t look like a clean shoot because the officer could have prevented him from getting back into his vehicle. The officer should have intervened sooner, so that the victim did not have the means to harm the young girls. Guy was probably a Vet who needed some help.
[/quote]
Was it you who mentioned something earlier about the higher ups sharing vids of police getting killed or similar?

How many of these feature Vets?[/quote]

Some not all. The worst one I have seen involved a Vietnam Vet. I’m not saying Vets are more likely than the average citizen to have a shoot out with police, but when they do, it’s spectacular. They have a significant psychological advantage.

110

[quote]WN76 wrote:
I’m not saying Vets are more likely than the average citizen to have a shoot out with police, but when they do, it’s spectacular. They have a significant psychological advantage. [/quote]

Nah, it’s training and strategy. I had a heated long-going dispute with a man who happened to be a police officer because his sister was my girlfriend and it ended very badly.

We revently met, talked things out like men, and parted if not friends, on a basis where we won’t actively be seeking to beat the shit out of each other.

He brought a cop friend with a not-so-concealed handgun who sat back in case things got ugly.

I brought an Army friend.

He was back about 75 yards with a .308 in the tree line, wearing a ghillie suit and an adult diaper.

111

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:
I’m not saying Vets are more likely than the average citizen to have a shoot out with police, but when they do, it’s spectacular. They have a significant psychological advantage. [/quote]

Nah, it’s training and strategy. I had a heated long-going dispute with a man who happened to be a police officer because his sister was my girlfriend and it ended very badly.

We revently met, talked things out like men, and parted if not friends, on a basis where we won’t actively be seeking to beat the shit out of each other.

He brought a cop friend with a not-so-concealed handgun who sat back in case things got ugly.

I brought an Army friend.

He was back about 75 yards with a .308 in the tree line, wearing a ghillie suit and an adult diaper.

[/quote]

One would think that someone who has already been conditioned to killing would be better able to perform than someone who may be in their first gun fight, yes?

I agree that training and strategy play a significant role, but I think a Vet would perform better under these conditions as it’s not his first time at the rodeo.

You have a good friend.

Did he use the diaper?

112

While we have a majority of this thread attempting to trash all LEO’s, I’ll take a moment to interrupt it.

Props to a local PD where I’m at who with the help of the CBI and FBI made an arrest today in the kidnapping and subsequent murder of a 10yr old girl this month.

113

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
While we have a majority of this thread attempting to trash all LEO’s, I’ll take a moment to interrupt it.

Props to a local PD where I’m at who with the help of the CBI and FBI made an arrest today in the kidnapping and subsequent murder of a 10yr old girl this month. [/quote]

Don’t worry… this will go unnoticed.

Bashing LEO’s is the cool thing to do now.

114

[quote]WN76 wrote:
Did he use the diaper?
[/quote]

Some things you don’t ask.

115

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:
Did he use the diaper?
[/quote]

Some things you don’t ask.[/quote]

Helluva friend you have there.

118

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
While we have a majority of this thread attempting to trash all LEO’s, I’ll take a moment to interrupt it.

Props to a local PD where I’m at who with the help of the CBI and FBI made an arrest today in the kidnapping and subsequent murder of a 10yr old girl this month. [/quote]

Don’t worry… this will go unnoticed.

Bashing LEO’s is the cool thing to do now.[/quote]

Don’t take it too hard.

Bashing ANY part of the establishment seems pretty hip now: the cops, the military, the schools and, of course, the country itself.[/quote]

If the “elites” and their watchdogs would like the hoi polloi to defer to their “betters” and their not so well trained watchdogs, maybe not displaying their contempt so openly might help?

This would imply of course that respect is earned and not owed to God, King and Country, just because they are, like, there.

120

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
While we have a majority of this thread attempting to trash all LEO’s, I’ll take a moment to interrupt it.

Props to a local PD where I’m at who with the help of the CBI and FBI made an arrest today in the kidnapping and subsequent murder of a 10yr old girl this month. [/quote]

Don’t worry… this will go unnoticed.

Bashing LEO’s is the cool thing to do now.[/quote]

Don’t take it too hard.

Bashing ANY part of the establishment seems pretty hip now: the cops, the military, the schools and, of course, the country itself.[/quote]

If the “elites” and their watchdogs would like the hoi polloi to defer to their “betters” and their not so well trained watchdogs, maybe not displaying their contempt so openly might help?

This would imply of course that respect is earned and not owed to God, King and Country, just because they are, like, there.
[/quote]
He he.

Like a Pavlovian reflex, isn’t it?[/quote]

Indeed, it is, and no amount of peasant shaming will change that if an effete “elite” tries to shaft everyone else the gut reaction will be one of either submission or contempt and hatred for both them and their uniformed lackeys.

Its natural.

Its healthy.

It might even be whats for breakfast, lunch and dinner for a growing number of people.

Hi, I am orion, flipping the script since 2004.