What is protocol? If you're speeding on the way to a call, should you have your lights on? Not sure why we are even talking about this. He wasn't responding to a call. He wasn't even on duty. He was a civilian on his way to work. He had no business doing 90 mph.
No I'm not. Farva was crying about the lady pulling him over to ask him wtf he was doing. I just said she had reason to think he wasn't on a call bc he didn't have lights on. Nonoe of that matters, though. He wasn't even on duty. He was in the wrong. End of discussion.
Kill zone is within 15 yards (30 ft). We've tested this at the range and in scenarios when you don't know it's coming.
If you notice, I was asking a question. I wasn't claiming to know. It's ok for cops not drive 90-100mph on a crowded highway without lights on?
yes, in certain situations. It's more dangerous for me to drive 65 on CA freeways because people are scared to pass and it bogs down the freeway. It's safer for everyone if we drive 80-85-90. The one thing I'd say is I was told to do it only on the far left.
I'm asking that if you are on the way to a call and you are doing 90+, are you supposed to have your lights on? I'm not asking about just cruising around fucking off during the day. But lol at that policy of cruising at 90 when just fucking around. You guys give guys like me a ticket for doing 90 bc it's unsafe yet you say it's more safe for you to do 90 than the speed limit? That dog don't hunt.
If you've never seen drivers get "po po fever" from seeing a cop car behind them it's hard to understand. People lose their minds..slam on brakes, jerk the wheel and stare in their mirrors instead of looking ahead. It's safer to pass them and keep going. yes, you can break rules of the road to calls with lights on or off. Some calls don't justify going code there, but you still need to get there as fast as possible.
I'm fine with y'all cruising at 80 to prevent people slamming on brakes. 90 is a bit much, though. You guys are handing out tickets to anyone doing 90. What does "going code" mean? Maybe I'm not being clear. Dispatch calls you and tells you to go X location. You turn around and take off in that direction doing 90+ mph in a busy area. Does protocol tell you to turn your lights on to alert others around you?
Having a baseball bat 30 feet from a police officer is considered a kill zone? And you wonder why people hate cops and advocate for police reform.
This isn't call of duty. Your gun isn't always drawn and leveled off. Someone with a bat can start running at you and before you get your gun out and get a shot off the avg. person has already gone 25-30ft. They've done studies and it's an accepted distance of danger. We actually tried it and with 25lbs of gear on our most out of shape people were getting within feet of the officer. And unlike COD people don't drop after 1-2 shots. People take 8+ and keep coming.
Code = lights and sirens. Yes and no on the 2nd part. It depends on the call. You don't want to alert the suspects you are coming. Other times, yes. Turn it on and the exception is sometime you have to get to something fast, but not with lights on.
If you're on a highway, I think we can all agree you aren't alerting he suspect you are coming. I understand turning them off when you get near but any officer doing 90+ on a highway should A) be responding to a call and B) have his lights on. The lady that pulled him over had every reason to be upset by what he was doing. Regardless, we kinda went down this hole for nothing. This guy wasn't on a call. He wasn't even on duty. He was just a civilian that was late for work. He was doing 90+ bc he knows he can without getting in a ticket for it bc his fellow cops will always look the other way.
And unlike Call of Duty a mother of 5 can be standing where you're pointing your deadly weapon and firing 8+ times. Can't you see how your stance is obtuse? Or at least perceived that way by other people? Don't you see how that creates tension and animosity towards police? A mother of five is dead because a cop got flustered by a black man with a bat. Sure it may be ruled a justified shooting and an accidental death, but don't you see a problem with the police tactics? Especially considering the officer is suing the family 10 million dollars for emotional distress.
Umm the father calls later (after the son called numerous times and was uncooperative) and says his son is trying to break down his bedroom door with a baseball bat. The kids mother also stated that he had a history of mental illness. Kid attacked a cop, causing a cop to shoot him, which in turn caused his innocent neighbor to die as well bc a bullet passed through him and hit her. The kid is at fault for his death as well as his neighbors, IMO. Should this cop be suing the kids estate? No, but he is only doing this bc the kids family is suing him.
Speed limits are in place to attempt to get all drivers on the road traveling the same speed. Tests have shown that the most unsafe situation is not purely excessive speed, but having vehicles traveling different speeds on the same road. When you have anyone, a cop or not, going 10, 20+ MPH faster than the rest of the drivers on the road, it's an unsafe situation for everyone else on the road, even if you are trained at high speed driving or have a car made for driving fast. That's basically the entire point of lights and sirens. It allows cops to speed more safely by having everyone GTF out of the way. A cop speeding to get to work is just an asshole speeder making roads unsafe, just like the people he pulls over and gives tickets to. And pacing is an accepted way to catch a speeder, which is apparently what this woman did.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tees-disciplinary-records-will-be-kept-secret Leaked police files contain guarantees disciplinary records will be kept secret Guardian analysis of dozens of contracts revealed by hackers shows more than a third allow or require destruction of civilian complaint records Files released following the hacking of the country’s biggest police union show guarantees of secrecy over disciplinary records, a Guardian analysis finds. Photograph: Alamy George Joseph in New York Sunday 7 February 2016 07.00 ESTLast modified on Sunday 7 February 201618.33 EST Contracts between police and city authorities, leaked after hackers breached the website of the country’s biggest law enforcement union, contain guarantees that disciplinary records and complaints made against officers are kept secret or even destroyed. A Guardian analysis of dozens of contracts obtained from the servers of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) found that more than a third featured clauses allowing – and often mandating – the destruction of records of civilian complaints, departmental investigations, or disciplinary actions after a negotiated period of time. The review also found that 30% of the 67 leaked police contracts, which were struck between cities and police unions, included provisions barring public access to records of past civilian complaints, departmental investigations, and disciplinary actions. Samuel Walker, a professor in criminology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said there was “no justification” for the cleansing of officers’ records, which could contain details of their use of force against civilians. “The public has a right to know,” Walker said. “If there was a controversial beating, we ought to know what action was actually taken. Was it a reprimand? A suspension?” Walker said that while an officer’s whole personnel file should not be readily available to the public outside of court proceedings, records of disciplinary action should be. The leaked contracts became publicly accessible last week, when hackers breached the Fraternal Order of Police’s website and put around 2.5GB worth of its files online. These provide a glimpse into the influence of police unions, which Black Lives Matter activists have accused of impeding misconduct investigations, particularly after the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland in April. The documents date back almost two decades and include agreements from unions such as the Policemen’s Benevolent Association and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. Many contain numerous recurring clauses that slow down misconduct investigations, prevent public access to complaints and disciplinary records, and enable the destruction of complaints and disciplinary records after a negotiated period of time. At least as recently as 2007, if an officer in Independence, Missouri, was “involved in a shooting incident”, that officer could not be interrogated for at least 12 hours nor be “treated a suspect” unless local authorities thought there was reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime had been committed. This protocol was mandated in the local police union’s contract in a clause specifically designed for “officer-involved shooting investigations”. In recent years, Independence has made headlines for cases of police brutality and police shootings. From small towns in Nebraska and New Jersey to major cities like Cincinnati, Ohio and Jacksonville, Florida, “expungement” clauses allowed for records of formal investigations and written reprimands to be “purged” after a few years or, in some cases, months. Chuck Canterbury, the FOP president, said that such contract provisions were designed to protect the due process rights of police officers. “Disciplinary files are removed because they affect career advancement,” said Canterbury. “People make mistakes and if they learn from them, they should be removed. This is standard HR practice.” Other deals contained provisions focused on blocking public access to records that were preserved. A 2006-2008 contract from Burlington Township, NJ, for example, required the police department’s Investigations Commander to keep formal complaints and internal investigation documents “in a locked file”, barring access to all except the department’s investigations commander and chief law enforcement officer. Similarly, in Ralston, Nebraska, the 2009-2012 FOP contract created a “Police Officers’ Bill of Rights”, which said: “Unless agreed to by the Officer, the City shall not divulge the reason for any disciplinary action that is not appealed to the Civil Service Commission.” The city was also bound to “make every reasonable effort” to prevent a photograph of the officer from being released to the public or news media. Among five other FOP contracts, where such confidentiality clauses could not be inserted because of state open records laws, several included language seemingly designed to help officers beat public records requests. One 2009-2011 FOP contract from Hamilton County, Nebraska, initiates a mandatory five-step response to public records requests, in which the department would ascertain the identity of the person making the request, provide the officer with a summary of the would-be released information, guarantee the officer five days to object to the request, and allow the officer a departmental hearing to make the case that the release could threaten his or her personal security. Devon M Jacob, a civil rights attorney and former police officer, said: “These are public employees, so their performance should be available to the public. There’s no reason matters of waste or wrongdoing should be kept away from the public. I disagree with this idea that unsustained complaints or investigations don’t matter.” Speaking to the rationale for sealing off investigatory and complaint records, Canterbury, the FOP president, said: “It’s mostly the false or unsustained complaints that officers feel unduly hurt their careers. Nobody expunges guilty adjudicated use-of-forces, so if these acts are found unsustained in the first place, why should they continue to have any bearing on officers?” In Jacksonville, Florida, however, according to a 2008-2009 FOP contract, if an officer were to receive a written reprimand with suspension or loss of pay, after a sustained formal investigation, that action would have to be purged after five years. Often, even substantiated use-of-force allegations fail even to garner penalties as high as a reprimand with suspension. To put this in perspective, even in cases between 2010 and 2015 in which the NYPD’s office of the inspector general confirmed that officers had used unwarranted excessive force, officers were given no discipline 35.6% of the time. According to the contracts, however, most of the investigations into police misconduct are led by officers’ supervisors or investigators within the department – a process that leaves some reform advocates skeptical. One leaked 2004-2006 contract from Worthington, Ohio, said that any city official who received a citizen complaint about a police officer must advise the complainant to go to the police department instead. “If the citizen does not wish to contact the Division of Police,” the contract said, “City staff should contact the Division of Police in a timely manner and advise a supervisor of the complaint.” Alex Vitale, an associate professor of sociology at Brooklyn College, said such contract measures in effect undermined the possibility of robust civilian review boards for police. “You could pass a law to create a civilian oversight commission, but that law can’t supersede what’s in the contract,” said Vitale. “They just want to make clear what the process is and make sure there aren’t independent investigations. The police think ‘no one understands what we do’. It’s all part of this ‘us against the world’ mentality that dominates police thinking.” Canterbury said the FOP rejects the idea of civilian review boards. “Departments do much better than civilian review boards because civilians have no knowledge of law enforcement or expertise on procedures,” he said. “Police departments do a very good job on internal reviews, plus we already have external review processes like local governments, prosecutors’ officers, and grand juries.” Black Lives Matter activists argue, however, that there are too many conflicts of interest for the police to impartially investigate their own members. “Beyond the role nepotism and cronyism continues to play in the corruption of law enforcement, there is an inherent distrust of the police’s ability to keep communities safe,” said Delaine Powerful, an organizer in the Black Youth Project. “We cannot trust a system born out of slave patrols and night watches to conduct its own criminal investigations into unnecessary and unwarranted force by police.” Ron Hampton, a former director of the National Black Police Association and a police officer in Washington DC, said: “People just don’t feel that the police can investigate themselves thoroughly or impartially. “When we see all of this stuff on film, then it goes to the internal investigation and grand jury, etc, and then no indictment, no trial ... I don’t see how you can have trust in a process that doesn’t work for you.”
Young, Gifted and Black - Killed in Police Custody in Texas By acqsys Sunday Feb 07, 2016 · 5:38 PM CST Ahjah was a theater Major at Duke Ellington school for the arts in DC and at Pace University in NY. Ahjah was also a chess master who played chess for 4 years at the chess forum in lower Manhattan. Before Sandra Bland, there was Ahjah Dixon. Ahjah Dixon, a former student at Navarro Community College in Corsicana, Texas was killed while in police custody at the Corsicana Justice Center under suspicious circumstances similar to Sandra Bland. Ahajh’s family has been fighting for four years to find out how and why she died. They have been denied video footage of Ahjah while in custody moments before her death. An autopsy report revealed that Ahjah had been beaten, with bruises and contusions, (lacerated lip, bruises on her upper and lower torso, face and many other parts of her body); this has never been explained by local law enforcement. Isthyme Robinson, Ahjah’s mother, has attempted to get information from Corsicana, Texas since 2012 on what happened to her daughter. She has petitioned the Dallas Corner’s office for autopsy pictures and video footage which would reveal the nature of her body at the time of her death. Her requests have been ignored. The Department of Justice is the last recourse. "Having lost two children to police brutality has been a long walk of loneliness, alienation coupled with grief, indescribable pain, too intense to describe in any words in the human language. After four years, no action has been taken by the Justice Department regarding my request. There is only one thing in the world worse than the loss of your own child and that is the lack of justice for such unthinkable loss." Ahjah Dixon was arrested and hours later was dead. Four years later, the police department and Corsicana, Texas are still refusing to answer questions about how and why she died. Ahjah is not the first victim to mysteriously die while in police custody, but we would like to work to make sure that she is the last. Not only will we ask the Department of Justice to investigate her death, we want them to investigate the deaths of other black and brown people in police custody. Please help Ahjah's mother and the parents of other victims get justice. Sign the petition asking Loretta Lynch and the Department of Justice to investigate the deaths of black and brown victims while in police custody.
How is that even legal? They are funded by public funds. What's the act that media can use to make an institution give up anything related to a matter? Freedom of Information Act?
Collective bargaining. Union asked for it, the city gave it. As far as the woman above, and Sandra Bland, in custody does not usually mean in police custody. No clue if they were, or not, but usually when someone is booked into jail they are in the custody of corrections and not the police. Also... http://www.mydeathspace.com/article...ave_played_a_role_in_Ahjah_Dixon_s_(23)_death
Unbelievable any city would agree to that. Sorry, there's no justification for complaints to not be public. It sums up everything that is wrong in law enforcement. Good cops are ok with bad cops being kept around. Corrections falls under law enforcement, too.
Ok, though I'd hazard to guess that unless an officer is formally charged in most municipalities/states it is not public record. There is informal discipline and formal discipline depending upon the accusation. The latter requiring a formal charge. As far as that last generalized statement, whatever you want to think buddy. Corrections is not the police, it is not the same thing.
Is there a first part of that video that actually shows him speeding in the manner in which she described? The reason I ask is because I was complained on for going under the speed limit, 40mph in a 45mph zone. Another officer I work with was complained on, and the guy wanted him fired, because, although he was going the speed limit on the road he was driving on, he would have been going over the speed limit if it were a construction zone.
Here's the first one. Im not going to take the time to watch to see if she shows her odometer. He didnt really dispute how fast he was going, so I assume he was speeding like she said
Honestly I don't care if charges are brought or not. Hell we all know cops and the DA look out for each other. There needs to be more transparency. The public deserves to know who is patrolling their streets. I'd love to know how many complaints were made against the cop in Oklahoma. I see your issue now. I didn't realize the article said "police custody." Truthful everyone views all law enforcement as one big group, though.
So civilians shouldn't care about cops breaking the law? Just mind your own business and get out of their way? That's beyond ignorant.
What I was getting at is people drive erratic and paranoid when a cop car is near them. They get tunnel vision And do crazy things like slamming brakes or switching lanes without checking blind spots. That's why it is safer to pass them and not make the 40 year old Dad with a little weed in his pocket drive like a turd because he is terrified of getting in trouble.
Although he acknowledges he doesn't know how fast he was going, he also says he doesn't believe he was speeding. That's not the same thing as not disputing it. In the first video, he doesn't appear tp be driving recklessly or driving any different than the rest of traffic. Personally, it is honestly difficult to drive more than five miles an hour above the speed limit in a marked cruiser without it being readily noticable. Why? What do you do when you see the police behind and/or near you? Slow down right? He heard what her issue was and figured what is the point in arguing with her on the side of the road, which was the correct decision. Was he speeding, maybe, sure, hell I don't know. Was he going 90 when she was going 35. I highly doubt that.
What would you have the officer do if he is being attacked? in a perfect world you'd only shoot when your background is clear, but there aren't perfect situations. You have to react to stay alive. It's awful an innocent person died. It's horrible, but we have the benefit of hindsight. Officers make decisions in seconds and have to live with being second guessed by media and lawyers for years. i don't want to go down the route of "you guys don't understand because you haven't done it" because that's an easy way out. I'll just say there are a thousand ways to handle each call and some are better than others. Some end in an officer involved shooting.
Ok, again, think whatever you want. I've been both professions, but you know better right? Some people may view us the same, but we're not, and anyone who does is either willfully ignorant or not intelligent enough to know the difference. Are their exceptions? I'm sure there are as with anything. There are different standards, different hiring, etc. When I transport someone to the jail, they have either not desired medical treatment or have been admitted and released from a hospital. Anyone requesting treatment at a hospital is automatically taken to one, without exception. That is the standard for my city, and my state. The jail has a right to refuse anyone who complains of pain, not injury, just pain, and has not been treated and released. Once in jail custody they are the jail's problem.
Police and corrections both detain bad guys. Of course there are differences but at the end of the day both fall under the law enforcement umbrella. Look at it this, governors and congressmen have different roles but nobody is ignorant for thinking they are both politicians. Same with Army and Navy. Different roles but it's all military. Corrections and police are both law enforcement.
I don't think you can come up with an explanation. But that's aright man we'll just agree to disagree.
One apprehends, the other houses. They are separate and distinct from one another. Blaming the police because someone in a jail got killed or died in custody is like blaming the hog farmer because the pepperoni on your pizza was cold.
I know a cop who says he speeds because he'll completely block up traffic if he doesn't because people won't pass him. I kind of don't mind them speeding.
No I understand what you were saying. I do somewhat agree, but I'm not totally sure that the solution to the issue you raise is to have cops speed through traffic though. In addition to those issues, any car speeding, whether it's a cop or not, creates a whole other set of issues when they are traveling faster or slower than the rest of traffic. Retards who slam on their brakes and change lanes without looking should get ticketed. You don't have to give him a cavity search, but he should know he sucks at driving and maybe not be allowed to do it anymore if he's that awful at it. Also, when a cop is driving around off duty, he's no different than me, or any other civilian. He's subject to all of the same laws. So if I get pulled over for speeding, and I have a perfectly legit reason for speeding, it's still illegal, and I still can get a ticket. Same applies to him. It might be a fair argument that he'd hold up traffic. Do cops still issue tickets when I have a perfectly legit reason for breaking the law? sure. Being an off duty cop does not give him any additional rights or exemptions.
I don't mind then going with the flow on highways, which is usually 80~. No reason to be 90+, though. And no reason to be speeding on city streets.