Puppycide in Austin

Off Topic
261

Now that they caught him lying on tape, he should be fired. If you would lie to cover your ass in an incident involving your weapon being fired, you can’t be trusted with the power given to a poice officer. I’m not talking about transferring him to a desk job either. He should be straight up fired.

If I were caught lying about less important things at my job, I’d be gone.

I got really annoyed where he tried to flip it and make it out to be the dog owners fault:

“Why didn’t you get your dog?” . Maybe because you didn’t even give him 3 seconds to do that?

262

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
Now that they caught him lying on tape, he should be fired. If you would lie to cover your ass in an incident involving your weapon being fired, you can’t be trusted with the power given to a poice officer. I’m not talking about transferring him to a desk job either. He should be straight up fired.

If I were caught lying about less important things at my job, I’d be gone.

I got really annoyed where he tried to flip it and make it out to be the dog owners fault:

“Why didn’t you get your dog?” . Maybe because you didn’t even give him 3 seconds to do that?[/quote]

Not to mention “get you hands up” and “get your dog” are contradictory.

263

HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?

264

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]

Apparently he isn’t as smart as HG when it comes to creating a Simpsonian defense.

265

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Rory Miller is a widely respected expert, LEO, and author. He trains people.

It’s easy to see who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.[/quote]

Tom take a look at this thread I started a while back. Wife Witnessed A Crime - Off Topic - Forums - T Nation

This guy is now a friend and I for one can say he did NOTHING wrong. And it was covered up and nothing happened to the officer. The FBI told my friend if he had video he might have a case, but since he didnt nothing they could do.

266

[quote]Mac85 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Mac85 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
a bunch of really awesome points, largely ignored.[/quote]

Yes, those are all serious problems. I don’t think anyone was defending the cop for his bad track record or lying after the fact. The argument I was making was that he had a few seconds to make a decision. Factor in the totality of circumstances, and there could have been a serious officer and public safety issue. In the end, that wasn’t the case. He shouldn’t have lied about it, and if he’s a turd then get rid of him.

If I remember correctly, you are a convicted criminal for armed robbery, yes? Do you find it odd that you have friends who are “cops”? I’m sure you’re a decent guy, but you can see the conflict of interest. Good cops probably wouldn’t be real close with you given your past. How did you react to your friends after they told and showed you about the brutality they inflict? Did you report them to their professional standards bureau? If not, you are just as bad as the cops who hide behind the “blue wall”.
[/quote]

Why would it be “odd” that I’m friends with cops? My friend Shawn is a DC cop - he and I used to steal cars together when we were teenagers. Shit he’s the one that taught me how to use a dent puller. My cousin is my cousin… should he “disown” me as family? He’s 13 years younger than me, I taught him how to fight and how to pick up chicks, etc… Some of my other cop friends I’ve known since HS.

As for the “acquaintances” (and the one who was bragging is an acquaintance - the husband of a close friend of my ex-wife) most of them don’t know I’m a felon. I don’t go around with a sign on my forehead that says “felon”. I did my time, paid my fines and became a upstanding, positive member of my community. Those that do know, have treated me civilly and have even engaged me in friendly conversation.

As for how I reacted when he showed me the pictures, I gave him a high five and and said, “Damn, bro! You fucked that guy UP! ha ha ha!”. Do you think I should have confronted an obviously psychotic individual with a track record of violating people’s rights and in a position of power over me (and any other citizen unfortunate enough to cross him) to cause all kinds of hardship and trouble? Someone who knows my address and personal information about my family? Are you fucking STUPID?[/quote]

It’s odd because I don’t know too many cops who really hang out with criminals. On that note, I don’t know too many cops who used to steal cars. As for your cousin I’m of the belief that family is family, and business is business.

I don’t see why they wouldn’t treat you in a civil manner, but you can see why a person in law enforcement may not be interested in developing a close relationship with you, right?

No, but you could have submitted an anonymous tip to his professional standards branch if it really bothered you as much as you claim. That would have at least made his superiors take a look at the guy. Instead you passed a fault and complimented him on his criminal acts. Good job.

If you’re not willing to help make change, you can’t really complain too much.

[/quote]

I do see your point that LEO’s might not want to associate or be friendly with known criminals (although strategically, it’s a shitty strategy NOT to know your enemy). But then cops aren’t exactly known for being smart, strategic or forward thinking, now are they? LOL

As for why I didn’t drop a dime on the the bragging crooked cop, honestly I’m not even sure where to start. DC has over 20 different agencies with LEO personnel. From the Park Police, to the different local districts, to the Treasury, etc… I’d have no idea where to begin.

For the record, I DID try and report the PG county cop who beat my ass the first time. I didn’t have a badge number, but I thought I could get some cooperation with them with figuring out who was working that night and where and if they called in the stop or whatever. Guess what I got? I got my ASS BEAT AGAIN less than six months later! And EVERY TIME I got pulled over in PG county there after. So no thank you, I won’t be putting myself in harms way to “fix” a system that’s so corrupt it’s beyond repair.

How’s it like up there on your high horse, though?

267

Will check it out thanks.

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Rory Miller is a widely respected expert, LEO, and author. He trains people.

It’s easy to see who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.[/quote]

Tom take a look at this thread I started a while back. Wife Witnessed A Crime - Off Topic - Forums - T Nation

This guy is now a friend and I for one can say he did NOTHING wrong. And it was covered up and nothing happened to the officer. The FBI told my friend if he had video he might have a case, but since he didnt nothing they could do. [/quote]

268

Interesting thread. There are defnitely abuses of power byt he police which should be punished, but one problem is many things that average folk think is excessive force is justified.

Another thing is these things are never as cookie cutter as people think they should be. I’d recommend the book .

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Rory Miller is a widely respected expert, LEO, and author. He trains people.

It’s easy to see who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.[/quote]

Tom take a look at this thread I started a while back. Wife Witnessed A Crime - Off Topic - Forums - T Nation

This guy is now a friend and I for one can say he did NOTHING wrong. And it was covered up and nothing happened to the officer. The FBI told my friend if he had video he might have a case, but since he didnt nothing they could do. [/quote]

269

Too busy now, maybe summer reading.

270

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]
As I’ve mentioned, his mistake is in creating a story, not his actions which are the focus of discussion.

The responsibility for his mistake lies with the break in communication and he should’ve honestly addressed how he came to be in the situation he was and been done with it. This doesn’t necessarily require an apology either, though it couldn’t hurt PR.

As for why he did it, I couldn’t say. A heightened sense of stress, fear of the unknown, an avoidance to a personal sense of responsibility even if he was professionally in the right…

Not being rude but I’ve discussed this with more detail in my first post, I think page 3, and then through multiple different angles with doubleduce.

271

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]

Apparently he isn’t as smart as HG when it comes to creating a Simpsonian defense. [/quote]
A very thought provoking post, teacher. I mean sub. I mean officer… no, military grunt. Thanks.

272

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Again search for Firce Decisions at amazon . It’s by Rfiry Miller. Order it and read it.
Until then if you’re talking about how force should or not be used you do not know what you’re talking about.

Translation : Houstonguy is right.[/quote]
Why should I read that when I can refer to my actual LEO training, unlike HG. [/quote]
A teacher and a cop? Will you have personal experience in every scenario discussion?

And conveniently a teacher in a poor school?

Get the fuck out of here.[/quote]
Was a substitute teacher while in school. Am an MP in the National Guard. I know, it’s hard to believe that people actually get out, live, and have various experiences…which they then bring to the table unlike others who will go unnamed. Good job keeping score though. The internet is serious business. [/quote]
Lol! A substitute?

And now an MP?

Call that “living” if you want but you’re full of shit with “personal experience” for discussion.[/quote]
I guess if you live with your parents it would be unbelievable. What about your experience? [/quote]
Really? A “shot in the dark” war? Even after openly laying out your bullshit?

FTR, a substitute isn’t in any way an expert on much of anything, certainly not an educational system. And you’re still stretching here. Nice spin and all but you’re a waste of time.

273

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]
As I’ve mentioned, his mistake is in creating a story, not his actions which are the focus of discussion.

The responsibility for his mistake lies with the break in communication and he should’ve honestly addressed how he came to be in the situation he was and been done with it. This doesn’t necessarily require an apology either, though it couldn’t hurt PR.

As for why he did it, I couldn’t say. A heightened sense of stress, fear of the unknown, an avoidance to a personal sense of responsibility even if he was professionally in the right…

Not being rude but I’ve discussed this with more detail in my first post, I think page 3, and then through multiple different angles with doubleduce.[/quote]

Well…his need to lie weighs heavy on his own credibility. His credibility weighs heavy on backing the “he did the right thing” argument.

274

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]
As I’ve mentioned, his mistake is in creating a story, not his actions which are the focus of discussion.

The responsibility for his mistake lies with the break in communication and he should’ve honestly addressed how he came to be in the situation he was and been done with it. This doesn’t necessarily require an apology either, though it couldn’t hurt PR.

As for why he did it, I couldn’t say. A heightened sense of stress, fear of the unknown, an avoidance to a personal sense of responsibility even if he was professionally in the right…

Not being rude but I’ve discussed this with more detail in my first post, I think page 3, and then through multiple different angles with doubleduce.[/quote]

How about the fact that the officer gave a bunch of contradictory commands? “Get back”, “get your hands up” and “get your dog” and then blaming it on the guy for obeying the first commands and not obeying the contradictory “get your dog” command in the 2 or 3 seconds the officer gave him.

And it’s pretty obvious the officer lied because he felt he’d done something wrong and was trying to cover his ass. There is no other explanation for the lie.

275

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]
As I’ve mentioned, his mistake is in creating a story, not his actions which are the focus of discussion.

The responsibility for his mistake lies with the break in communication and he should’ve honestly addressed how he came to be in the situation he was and been done with it. This doesn’t necessarily require an apology either, though it couldn’t hurt PR.

As for why he did it, I couldn’t say. A heightened sense of stress, fear of the unknown, an avoidance to a personal sense of responsibility even if he was professionally in the right…

Not being rude but I’ve discussed this with more detail in my first post, I think page 3, and then through multiple different angles with doubleduce.[/quote]

Well…his need to lie weighs heavy on his own credibility. His credibility weighs heavy on backing the “he did the right thing” argument. [/quote]
As discussed, personal and professional “right” and “wrong” are not the same.

The military was used as an example earlier, let’s use it again.

Soldiers rightly go in to enemy territory and kill people. It’s their job whether they personally feel remorse or not.

When a soldier suffers PTSD, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is “wrong”. Hold the logic…

He may have caved to a personal sense of wrong, doesn’t mean he operated incorrectly considering what he knew.

Again, this has been discussed.

276

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]
As I’ve mentioned, his mistake is in creating a story, not his actions which are the focus of discussion.

The responsibility for his mistake lies with the break in communication and he should’ve honestly addressed how he came to be in the situation he was and been done with it. This doesn’t necessarily require an apology either, though it couldn’t hurt PR.

As for why he did it, I couldn’t say. A heightened sense of stress, fear of the unknown, an avoidance to a personal sense of responsibility even if he was professionally in the right…

Not being rude but I’ve discussed this with more detail in my first post, I think page 3, and then through multiple different angles with doubleduce.[/quote]

How about the fact that the officer gave a bunch of contradictory commands? “Get back”, “get your hands up” and “get your dog” and then blaming it on the guy for obeying the first commands and not obeying the contradictory “get your dog” command in the 2 or 3 seconds the officer gave him.

And it’s pretty obvious the officer lied because he felt he’d done something wrong and was trying to cover his ass. There is no other explanation for the lie.[/quote]
When a succession of commands are given, you move through them.

How about hands up, on the ground, hands behind your back… you don’t expect the guy to stay standing, hands up in perpetuity.

277

Hands up, get back, get the dog, BAM! all in what 20 seconds from initiating the confrontation while being surprised by an armed man with a gun barrel in your face?

It’s actually a good thing he didn’t listen to the last order and possibly get shot going for the dog.

278

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]
As I’ve mentioned, his mistake is in creating a story, not his actions which are the focus of discussion.

The responsibility for his mistake lies with the break in communication and he should’ve honestly addressed how he came to be in the situation he was and been done with it. This doesn’t necessarily require an apology either, though it couldn’t hurt PR.

As for why he did it, I couldn’t say. A heightened sense of stress, fear of the unknown, an avoidance to a personal sense of responsibility even if he was professionally in the right…

Not being rude but I’ve discussed this with more detail in my first post, I think page 3, and then through multiple different angles with doubleduce.[/quote]

Well…his need to lie weighs heavy on his own credibility. His credibility weighs heavy on backing the “he did the right thing” argument. [/quote]
As discussed, personal and professional “right” and “wrong” are not the same.

The military was used as an example earlier, let’s use it again.

Soldiers rightly go in to enemy territory and kill people. It’s their job whether they personally feel remorse or not.

When a soldier suffers PTSD, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is “wrong”. Hold the logic…

He may have caved to a personal sense of wrong, doesn’t mean he operated incorrectly considering what he knew.

Again, this has been discussed.[/quote].

Well using military/PTSD examples paint a nice picture of justifying deadly use of force…in an already hostile environment(ie.war). That dynamic doesn’t mesh with this situation(or for everyday LEO work). Grossly misused example,imo.

You use the word “may” quite a few times. Which leads me to believe what you argue is only one possibility,right?? Well…what you’re arguing may be the case in justifying his actions. But he may have caved to the possibility of facing scrutiny for his actions…and decided to lie.

Your arguments are based on the fallacy of his story,imo.

279

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]
As I’ve mentioned, his mistake is in creating a story, not his actions which are the focus of discussion.

The responsibility for his mistake lies with the break in communication and he should’ve honestly addressed how he came to be in the situation he was and been done with it. This doesn’t necessarily require an apology either, though it couldn’t hurt PR.

As for why he did it, I couldn’t say. A heightened sense of stress, fear of the unknown, an avoidance to a personal sense of responsibility even if he was professionally in the right…

Not being rude but I’ve discussed this with more detail in my first post, I think page 3, and then through multiple different angles with doubleduce.[/quote]

Well…his need to lie weighs heavy on his own credibility. His credibility weighs heavy on backing the “he did the right thing” argument. [/quote]
As discussed, personal and professional “right” and “wrong” are not the same.

The military was used as an example earlier, let’s use it again.

Soldiers rightly go in to enemy territory and kill people. It’s their job whether they personally feel remorse or not.

When a soldier suffers PTSD, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is “wrong”. Hold the logic…

He may have caved to a personal sense of wrong, doesn’t mean he operated incorrectly considering what he knew.

Again, this has been discussed.[/quote].

Well using military/PTSD examples paint a nice picture of justifying deadly use of force…in an already hostile environment(ie.war). That dynamic doesn’t mesh with this situation(or for everyday LEO work). Grossly misused example,imo.

You use the word “may” quite a few times. Which leads me to believe what you argue is only one possibility,right?? Well…what you’re arguing may be the case in justifying his actions. But he may have caved to the possibility of facing scrutiny for his actions…and decided to lie.

Your arguments are based on the fallacy of his story,imo. [/quote]
Remove your spin and follow the logic.

280

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
HG, do you think it’s acceptable for LEO’s to lie with no consequence? If he was ‘in the right’ as you’ve been asserting, then why did he feel compelled to lie?[/quote]
As I’ve mentioned, his mistake is in creating a story, not his actions which are the focus of discussion.

The responsibility for his mistake lies with the break in communication and he should’ve honestly addressed how he came to be in the situation he was and been done with it. This doesn’t necessarily require an apology either, though it couldn’t hurt PR.

As for why he did it, I couldn’t say. A heightened sense of stress, fear of the unknown, an avoidance to a personal sense of responsibility even if he was professionally in the right…

Not being rude but I’ve discussed this with more detail in my first post, I think page 3, and then through multiple different angles with doubleduce.[/quote]

Well…his need to lie weighs heavy on his own credibility. His credibility weighs heavy on backing the “he did the right thing” argument. [/quote]
As discussed, personal and professional “right” and “wrong” are not the same.

The military was used as an example earlier, let’s use it again.

Soldiers rightly go in to enemy territory and kill people. It’s their job whether they personally feel remorse or not.

When a soldier suffers PTSD, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is “wrong”. Hold the logic…

He may have caved to a personal sense of wrong, doesn’t mean he operated incorrectly considering what he knew.

Again, this has been discussed.[/quote].

Well using military/PTSD examples paint a nice picture of justifying deadly use of force…in an already hostile environment(ie.war). That dynamic doesn’t mesh with this situation(or for everyday LEO work). Grossly misused example,imo.

You use the word “may” quite a few times. Which leads me to believe what you argue is only one possibility,right?? Well…what you’re arguing may be the case in justifying his actions. But he may have caved to the possibility of facing scrutiny for his actions…and decided to lie.

Your arguments are based on the fallacy of his story,imo. [/quote]
Remove your spin and follow the logic.[/quote]

We’re both on path of logic…but I’m not the one skipping the cracks.