Rogue police

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:25 am

I'll post this so we can watch, over the next decade, whether it results, as it ought, in a prison sentence.

Florida policeman shoots autistic man's unarmed black therapist in Miami - BBC News

It's wearing a uniform that triggers events like this. Wearing a uniform should not confer immunity from prosecution.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:45 am

I would disagree it was a rogue policeman or that policemen as a whole are rogue.

It is the climate of fear that any and everyone has the possibility to be armed and liable to shoot.

I suspect the shots were intended for the autistic guy sitting cross legged handling a toy truck and shouting.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:58 am

Bruv;1498825 wrote: I would disagree it was a rogue policeman or that policemen as a whole are rogue.I've not suggested that policemen as a whole are rogue. I would go so far as to say I hold them to be disreputable en masse, since they seem unwilling and incapable as an organization of policing themselves alongside policing the population at large. In my opinion they should hold themselves to a higher standard than the norm, not a lower standard which continually isolates them from legal consequences.

We'll have to await news. Judging from previous shootings by Florida police I'll not hold my breath.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:08 am

somehow, I doubt it was the uniform. More likely the gun.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:23 pm

spot;1498826 wrote: I've not suggested that policemen as a whole are rogue. I would go so far as to say I hold them to be disreputable en masse, since they seem unwilling and incapable as an organization of policing themselves alongside policing the population at large.

First sentence is the opposite of the second sentence, and please don't get into semantics.

Disreputable en masse, is as bad as rogue............in my world, don't know about your's.

Another policeman with the daily possibility of meeting armed bad guys will understand how a fellow police officer feels in such circumstances.

And human nature being what it is, people will always protect their own.......rightly or wrongly.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:38 pm

You puzzle me. I'd have thought the daily possibility of meeting armed bad guys was lower for an American police officer than for an average member of the American public. And I thought they were all meant to be exquisitely trained on noisy spring-loaded ranges to distinguish "armed perps" from collateral passers-by and not to blow holes in the latter.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 2:57 pm

I puzzle you ?

You surprise me, what do you think police do for a living, seeing old ladies across roads?

(You are toying with me shirley)

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:01 pm

I can't imagine anyone in uniform not being jittery right now. Howsomeever... I asked the kid who works for me who is a gun owner and hunter if he thought it might be nerves and he tells me that the first thing you are taught is to not put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire - that way you don't have an accident.

The guy says he asked the cop why he shot him and the reply was 'I don't know'

But if there was any doubt left out there that something is wrong here in America - this video should take care of that.

Although who knows what video may have been omitted from this incident.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:32 pm

Bruv;1498825 wrote:

It is the climate of fear that any and everyone has the possibility to be armed and liable to shoot..

Yep. That's why I want to ban guns. Australia and Japan did it and are better for it.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:41 am

Bruv;1498836 wrote: what do you think police do for a living, seeing old ladies across roads?They impose the despotic will of the established order on a groaning citizenry, just as their British colleagues do to Her Majesty's subjects over here. It's what they're for, it is their function, they serve no other purpose. Ask the miners' pickets who were at Orgreave if you want a second opinion.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:26 am

Saint_;1498843 wrote: Yep. That's why I want to ban guns. Australia and Japan did it and are better for it.

That's interesting ; I am going to look into that; a bold move.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:19 am

spot;1498852 wrote: They impose the despotic will of the established order on a groaning citizenry, just as their British colleagues do to Her Majesty's subjects over here. It's what they're for, it is their function, they serve no other purpose. Ask the miners' pickets who were at Orgreave if you want a second opinion.

Despotic:- A ruler who governs with an iron fist, caring little for the welfare of the people, can be called despotic.

I can swear like an Irish navvy........you very nearly got a mouthful for that......*cough*.....slight exaggeration.

What world do you live in ????

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:28 am

Bruv;1498857 wrote: What world do you live in ????The aftermath of Thatcher, a ruler who governed with an iron fist, caring little for the welfare of the people, from whose policies a large fragment of the British nation is still struggling to recover. Ask the miners' pickets who were at Orgreave if you want a second opinion.

Rather here than in America though, life could be a lot worse.

You sound like the Sheffield Star. When I tried accessing their website five minutes ago I was presented with a page saying just "View not supported", they obviously know far too much about me.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:48 am

spot;1498859 wrote: The aftermath of Thatcher, a ruler who governed with an iron fist, caring little for the welfare of the people, from whose policies a large fragment of the British nation is still struggling to stay afloat in.

Rather here than in America though, life could be a lot worse.

Sorry I don't recognise that world despite living through the same period.

Thatcher WAS a strong leader, she never ruled, she led a majority government.

She was deposed, despots don't get deposed.

I despised the woman too..........despotism is over egging it for effect.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:07 am

This particular case is interesting. It seems to me that the officer simply became extremely nervous and accidentally discharged his weapon.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:48 am

Once of the local cities brought in an outside review team after a couple of troubling incidents. The findings were that the police officers were woefully undertrained in how to deal with the mentally ill and tended to react as if they were dealing with criminals. They are sending all of their officers to training, which will take awhile since they can only send a few at a time.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:37 am

While I agree that these Police Officers level of training is woefully inadequate, how much training does one need to understand that a man laying on his back with his hands in the air saying "please don't shoot", isn't the appropriate recipient for 3 rounds of ammunition. We can all figure that out with out intensive training, surely.

Looks like you need your guns to defend yourselves from your police, rather than any terrorist threat. It would be safer to sack the lot and start again from fresh.

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:55 am

Gun control works well for us here in Canada.

We can NOT completely ban guns from North America, you tell me how would our farmers and ranchers protect themselves, their livelyhoods? (sorry on spelling)

I find that in is not guns that are the problem it's who gets to have guns that is the problem.

Here we have a whole lot of hunters, and gun collectors and it's not the hunters and collectors that are going on killing rampage attacks.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:08 am

minks;1498893 wrote: it's not the hunters and collectors that are going on killing rampage attacks.Oooh - Tom Lehrer alert. People ask me how I do it and I say there's nothing to it, you just stand there looking cute and when something moves, you shoot. And there's ten stuffed heads in my trophy room right now: Two game wardens, seven hunters and a cow.

As Time said in 1966, "When satire gets that close to reality, it loses much of its humor."

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:38 pm

oh Spot, times are tough here in Alberta, hunting is for surviving, amazingly hunters hunt for the meat. It does not go wasted. And news flash... our first nations folks use guns now and rarely bow and arrows.

We are not all trophy hunters my friend. btw... I do not hunt, I do not own a gun, but... I know the value of extra meat in the freezer when times are tough and beef, pork and chicken prices are chocking us.

Hunters have set seasons where they are allowed to hunt and they can not hunt certain species or gender at certain times. Hunting is very regulated.

Can't you imagine me and my faux pink cowboy hat and a matching pink camo shot gun..... nooooooooooooo not ever.

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:44 pm

oops sorry Spot, I did see the humor in your post, I was not unloading on you.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:16 pm

I wish that the federal government, instead of just giving tanks, armored vehicles, machine guns, and other ordinance to local police, would develop a decent training program covering dealing with the mentally ill nonviolently and make it available to the local police units. At least figure out the best way to evaluate and deal with some situations and distribute videos and teaching material. This would get the ball rolling.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:41 am

Wandrin;1498948 wrote: I wish that the federal government, instead of just giving tanks, armored vehicles, machine guns, and other ordinance to local police, would develop a decent training program covering dealing with the mentally ill nonviolently and make it available to the local police units. At least figure out the best way to evaluate and deal with some situations and distribute videos and teaching material. This would get the ball rolling.

Problem is that all of those toys are already paid for and are surplus, so giving them away is not as costly as keeping, storing and maintaining them.

Training is real time, and costs real money.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:35 am

LarsMac;1498976 wrote: Problem is that all of those toys are already paid for and are surplus, so giving them away is not as costly as keeping, storing and maintaining them.

Training is real time, and costs real money.

Yes, you're right of course.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:07 am

I saw the video of this. He was laying on his back with his hands in the air, wearing shorts & T-Shirt, clearly with no concealed weapons. The autistic patient was sitting cross legged, making no threatening actions whatsoever.

The therapist was identifying himself with clarity. He was then shot - with a rifle. If it had been with a pistol, then the claim of having missed the intended target could be plausible, but anyone who is that bad a shot with a rifle should never be allowed to hold a firearm.

The officer claims he had to make a split second decision. The video showed that the situation was relaxed & in no way requiring a split second decision.

The unquestionable fact seems to be that it was the Black man who became the target, whilst it was the White man who supposedly had the 'gun'.

Apparently the officer has been put on leave, pending further enquiries. He should not have been put on leave at all. He should have been put in the cells pending Trial.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:20 am

@FourPart.....you must have seen a different video or you interpret it differently.

The autistic guy was in the line of fire so if the officer missed, which he did, he would hit the recumbent therapist.

The autistic guy was holding his toy truck to his face, as if sighting a weapon.

It was a harmless and non threatening act from a non threatening person, but in a land prone to anybody having the means to blast your brains out on purpose or accidentally, the nervous pulling of the trigger by the officer is the default reaction..............sadly.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Aug 03, 2016 6:06 pm

Kinsey had shouted out clearly & repeatedly to them that all he had was a Toy Truck. This was even heard clearly on the mobile phone that was recording the incident from the other side of the road, so it would have been even clearer to the Police Officers in attendance.

I hope this results in a major lawsuit & maximum disciplinary action against the trigger happy cop.

Post by **Momus** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:01 am

FourPart;1499095 wrote: I saw the video of this. He was laying on his back with his hands in the air, wearing shorts & T-Shirt, clearly with no concealed weapons. The autistic patient was sitting cross legged, making no threatening actions whatsoever.

The therapist was identifying himself with clarity. He was then shot - with a rifle. If it had been with a pistol, then the claim of having missed the intended target could be plausible, but anyone who is that bad a shot with a rifle should never be allowed to hold a firearm.

Apparently the officer has been put on leave, pending further enquiries. He should not have been put on leave at all. He should have been put in the cells pending Trial.

The officer was responding to an emergency call stating that the patient being calmed by the carer, was armed and suicidal. By his movements, it was believed that he had a gun and the carer was in danger of being shot. Whether the caller to emergency services had that, right or wrong, will be in time revealed following a full inquiry although call logs do seem to bear this out. It appears the officer discharged at the white patient because he believed he was about to harm the carer and he missed. Not acceptable, agreed, but these officers are governed by what dispatch tells them following emergency calls when the public very often misjudge a situation. To state the officer should be put in cells is asinine especially as in gun free England, you will have no comprehension as to what officers in the USA face every day on every call out based on a member of the public's untrained understanding of what they are witnessing. Had the caller been correct in their assumption and the patient had killed the carer, you would be complaining the officer did not stop him.

Post by **spot** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:40 am

You don't regard what you've described as incompetence?

You don't think it's sufficiently incompetent as to be considered negligent?

I mean, these people in uniform are supposed to be professionally trained and to carry some form of responsibility for their actions. This degree of error has to be prosecuted as criminally negligent if there's to be any standard applied to policing at all.

You're claiming as fact that the rifle was fired deliberately in an attempt to hit an unarmed patient from a mental home.

You're also claiming as fact that the officer fired so wildly as to hit the wrong man.

But to call for his conviction and imprisonment is "asinine"? Really?

I note you've taken the name of the Greek God of Satire and Mockery as your username. Allow me to compliment you on an appropriate choice.

Post by **Momus** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:09 am

spot;1499672 wrote: You don't regard what you've described as incompetence?

You don't think it's sufficiently incompetent as to be considered negligent?

I mean, these people in uniform are supposed to be professionally trained and to carry some form of responsibility for their actions. This degree of error has to be prosecuted as criminally negligent if there's to be any standard applied to policing at all.

You're claiming as fact that the rifle was fired deliberately in an attempt to hit an unarmed patient from a mental home.

You're also claiming as fact that the officer fired so wildly as to hit the wrong man.

But to call for his conviction and imprisonment is "asinine"? Really?

I note you've taken the name of the Greek God of Satire and Mockery as your username. Allow me to compliment you on an appropriate choice.

Did you fail to note my stating the situation was unacceptable? Of course, it is unacceptable and negligent given as the officer missed the intended target. I am talking about the rush to demonize an officer when you could never possibly comprehend the expectancy of the worst scenario, based on the information given in the emergency call by the member of the public, and subsequent brief, dispatch information. Officers act on dispatch information given by the public based on what they are witnessing and their assumption of what is unfolding. After all, if the officer is negligent for getting it wrong, then the member of the public should also be thrown in the cells for defective reporting of the facts. If it's fair to say the caller was acting in haste, fear, or a knee jerk reaction, it is also fair to state that the officer did likewise. Here, it seems it is only the officer who is perceived to be guilty of any wrongdoing. Further more, despite the officer being no doubt mortified that he made such a crucial error and lack of judgement that will impact on his career, there are now calls to destroy his life further by throwing him in the cells. Errors were made by the caller and the officer but that is the price paid when dealing with human beings and not androids who even so, would be capable of malfunction. Officers invariably have a split second to sum up a situation based on dispatch information that relies on members of the public. The initial assessment coming from the public to emergency services is an assessment of a situation by untrained eyes with no former experience and that is what is relayed to the attending officer en route. The title of these comments is rogue police. the definition of rogue, being, a dishonest and unprincipled man. Where is the evidence that he acted dishonestly or in an unprincipled manner ? Of course, his actions were negligent, but should the focus not be on his firearms training and experience before being sent out to deal with such situations?

Post by **spot** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:18 pm

I don't comprehend serial killers notching up high scores either, but I still want serial killers prosecuting. And criminally incompetent police officers too. Comprehending them or their self-induced stresses comes a distant second.

I've used the word "rogue" in the sense of uncontrolled, running amok, unfettered by legal restraint, and I consider it systemic.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:56 pm

@Momus.....Welcome, and where did you spring from ?

Thinking I agree with your assessment, people are fallible unfortunately, especially when loaded weapons are involved.

Post by **Momus** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:10 pm

Bruv;1499699 wrote: @Momus.....Welcome, and where did you spring from ?

Thinking I agree with your assessment, people are fallible unfortunately, especially when loaded weapons are involved.

I was generally looking at various reports. There's many a forum out there discussing this but i hadn't seen one stating the officer should be thrown in the cells for what stands out as a mistake.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:48 pm

Momus;1499701 wrote: I was generally looking at various reports. There's many a forum out there discussing this but i hadn't seen one stating the officer should be thrown in the cells for what stands out as a mistake.

Perhaps the mistake is the officer needs to be armed ?

Post by **Momus** » Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:59 am

Bruv;1499703 wrote: Perhaps the mistake is the officer needs to be armed ?

In the USA, there is little alternative but for officers to be armed. To pass legislation now that would see officers unarmed, would be to incite a bloodbath. Equally, if new legislation took firearm possession from civilians, more innocent people would die. The innocent would be left unable to protect themselves, while the violent would always be able to source firearms through the black market. The public and officers would become sitting ducks. When you have a country that has millions of firearms already in circulation, the notion of recalling every one, is mere fantasy. The firearms themselves are not the root of the problem. Some countries with firearm possession have a fraction of gunshot fatalities as the USA does. It's all about mindset and with US police officers, the mindset is always there, that they haven't a clue what they are walking into when they receive that brief message from dispatch stating a member of the public has reported someone with a gun.

The very people who riot following a shooting and call for the officer to be strung up, continue to insist on keeping their own guns and their right to bear arms. Exactly how many homeowners in the US have shot what they believe was an intruder, only to find they have made a terrible mistake?

To call for the throwing into the cells of a police officer who appears to have made a genuine mistake based on erroneous information from a member of the public, is vengeful and serves no purpose other than a desire to see the officers life ruined further.

It is also counterproductive and damaging in the long term. If anyone seeking to join law enforcement believes that one mistake, one counterfactual action will see them serving life and their families suffer through it, they will find another profession. No decent, law abiding person is going to enter any profession where a genuine error of judgement see's their life ruined.

Violent criminals have easy access to firearms in the US, fact. Violent criminals in the US will always have easy access to firearms legally or unlawfully, fact. Members of the public reporting false information to emergency services will continue, fact. It's a vicious circle that can not be remedied easily and rapidly. All the time this circle continues, officers and public alike will make errors of judgement. Calling to ruin an officers life further by sending him to prison for what appears to be a mistake, will only fuel the violent backlashes we have seen already with shootings in the US. Vengeance is not the answer.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:03 pm

Momus;1499701 wrote: I was generally looking at various reports. There's many a forum out there discussing this but i hadn't seen one stating the officer should be thrown in the cells for what stands out as a mistake.

The legal test, recognized internationally, which would make this a crime rather than a mistake is "recklessness". I think everything I've seen published about what happened indicates recklessness and, in my opinion, that decision should be taken in a courtroom by a jury instead of a forum.

Post by **Momus** » Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:15 pm

spot;1499719 wrote: The legal test, recognized internationally, which would make this a crime rather than a mistake is "recklessness". I think everything I've seen published about what happened indicates recklessness and, in my opinion, that decision should be taken in a courtroom by a jury instead of a forum.

Your opinion that the officer's actions constitute recklessness are just that, opinion and an opinion based on what little is available on the internet. There are many factors that could play a part. The patient was holding a toy truck. The patient was not a small child that could instantly tell the officer that the prospect of a small child holding a gun, about to shoot his carer, was remote. The patient looks like an adult and it's likely, that this is what the officer believed he was dealing with when arriving on the scene. To him, when he had to make a split second assessment, what looked like a full grown adult holding what the member of the public reported as a gun, is an assessment most people would have made if they were in his position. i can't judge of his target practice and mistake of shooting the carer, but the inquiry will no doubt, take into account, his line of peripheral vision.. We can see the carer calling out to the officer that he was unarmed, but it has to be remembered, that the officer was not told the carer was armed by dispatch but the patient and the officer believed the patient was armed.

I concur with you that the decision needs to be taken in a courtroom by a jury and not a forum which is exactly why your members post that the officer should be thrown in the cells at this early stage without any evidence being heard in court, is asinine.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Aug 06, 2016 2:46 pm

The video clearly showed the carer shouting that he was a therapist & that his patient was holding a toy truck. That much was picked up very clearly by the microphone of a mobile phone from the other side of the road. It would have been heard much more clearly by the Police Officers who were present.

If the shot was supposed to have been intended for the patient, then for a shot to have missed from a pistol could be understandable, but not from a rifle.

Post by **spot** » Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:02 pm

Momus;1499723 wrote: Your opinion that the officer's actions constitute recklessness are just that, opinion and an opinion based on what little is available on the internet.

Nobody said the officer should be jailed without a trial, you're making things up. My words were "we can watch, over the next decade, whether it results, as it ought, in a prison sentence".

As for "what little is available on the internet", the event was filmed and the film's in the public arena. It's on the basis of the film that I suggest the policeman was recklessly incompetent. It's direct evidence of reckless incompetence, not mere opinion. If you want my mere opinion, the man wasn't fit to carry a sandwich board much less a firearm on that particular occasion, he was totally out of his depth and panicking despite being armed, but that's not evidence of incompetence. The film, on the other hand, is.