What's new
By:

Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement

candrew said:
My uncle was a cop in NYC and up until the mid-80's this was a pretty common practice (except the Uber part of course).

He told me he would confiscate their keys and tell the person he was leaving them with the desk sergeant at his precinct and to come pick them up tomorrow. He would then radio them a cab or if they were lucid enough tell them to walk home if they lived nearby.

The only exceptions would be if they had any outstanding warrants or if they were disrespectful/cursed him out.

In the mid-80's MADD started mobilizing throughout the country and would pressure police to do away with the practice.
Click to expand...
I imagine, families of victims of drunken driving probably helped change that practice too. If it weren't for how many people die daily, weekly, monthly and yearly from drinking and driving, I think that would be a much better practice. That said, drinking and driving is much more serious than many will have you think to believe and therefore, it has more serious consequences.
 
The Thriller said:
@Red

I think this might’ve been the post you were referring to.

Just like with health care, coronavirus, and gun violence, I think we can all benefit by learning from what other countries have done. All too often we act as if we live on an island and must reinvent the wheel every time. Or in the case of policing, we must maintain the status quo because it’s what we’ve always done.
Click to expand...

Dang. I don’t think that was the one. I’ll look for it, hoping that it is in this thread. The study described a series of policies revolving around the use of lethal force, and which ones, when included as policy, were helpful. Maybe it was this one, but I don’t see the article in question. You asked folks to read and offer their thoughts. I read it, but neglected to offer my opinion. The study was strictly about United States police departments, and did not analyze foreign police forces at all....
 
Red said:
Well, I respect your difference of opinion. Here is how I see what is happening in America(and, really, it’s a world wide phenomena right now, and that is an extremely revealing aspect to what is happening, I do believe) with the police. On the front end, we need better training, and, on the back end, we need equal justice if what justice metes just seems too far out of whack.

And really, I think it comes down to this: how do we improve the chances of non lethal outcomes, while ensuring the police themselves are protected, are as safe as possible while on the job? This is what I think it comes down to, and I think it is a very difficult problem to solve.

@The Thriller posted something, I think it was earlier in this thread, about the different policies enacted by police departments, and how some departments have far less lethal encounters without resultant increased police fatalities or injuries. Due to lethal force policies they follow. Or don’t follow. I’m tagging Thriller because maybe he can find that comment easier than I can. At the time, he asked people to read the piece, I did, and I found the differences between various approaches to be revealing. What I took from that piece is that it is possible to have lethal force policies that reduce civilian deaths without compromising police safety. We’ll have to find that article, and post it again.

Again, I want to emphasize, without going my usual long overboard, that the fact this has become a world wide movement may be very important to truly understand what all this means.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing with any of this at all really. I agree they need to be held accountable, we need better policies, and better training, etc. I was just irritated by the scenario at the Wendy's turning into apologizing to the mob for something that was completely reasonable, and nothing really came out of it about burning down the restaurant. I think we'll see worse and worse treatment of the police, regardless of the circumstances, and cops leaving the profession, without many coming in behind them. I think this could very well get completely out of hand.

The taser was a weapon taken off a cop by force and brandished among the general public. If that scenario generates this kind of insane response against the police, then we are already down the slope. No slipping required.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Isn't that description applicable to a black man every time he steps out of his home?
Click to expand...
What is your argument then? That's really a pretty stupid response to the scenario. Try thinking first, then responding and be capable of nuance that someone can feel that the backlash against police everywhere is getting to ludicrous proportions while also supporting the BLM cause fully.
 
Beer said:
I honestly don't know what you are saying? Yes, I remember OWS. That was nowhere near the same militant level as what is going in in Seattle.
Click to expand...

I was saying I don’t think it’ll go that far. This stuff doesn’t have stating power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LogGrad98 said:
Answer the scenario. Or stfu
Click to expand...

Let's compare the two:

Perp fires a taser (thus making it useless in the immediate) over his shoulder while running away
vs
Some perp is in a shootout with the cops and for god knows why some cop thinks he might be out of ammo so they should stop shooting

I know you can see your own ridiculous comparison, so stop being a dickhead.
 
The Thriller said:
This thread I think is helpful



what do you think?
Click to expand...


@The Thriller @LogGrad98 , above is the comment posted that I thought had interesting information on what works and doesn’t work in reducing lethal force incidents. It’s actually the Twitter thread and I did think it was helpful. I’ll have to take another look to refresh that info, but this is the comment I had in mind and remembered as being helpful.
 
Red said:
@The Thriller @LogGrad98 , above is the comment posted that I thought had interesting information on what works and doesn’t work in reducing lethal force incidents. It’s actually the Twitter thread and I did think it was helpful. I’ll have to take another look to refresh that info, but this is the comment I had in mind and remembered as being helpful.
Click to expand...

@The Thriller @LogGrad98

This is what I was looking for. It’s a link within the Twitter thread.

Police use of force project.

http://useofforceproject.org/#project

These results indicate that while the chances of killing a civilian increases the more arrests a police department makes, that likelihood is shaped by the department’s policies governing how and when police can use force during those encounters. This suggests that advocacy efforts pushing police department to adopt more restrictive use of force policies - and the accountability structures to enforce them - can substantially reduce the number of people killed by police in America. And while this analysis was limited to examining rates of deadly force, these policies may also be associated with reductions in other forms of police violence as well.

Despite their potential impact, efforts to push for these changes have often been opposed by police organizations that claim more restrictive use of force policies “endanger officers” or "put communities at risk" by preventing officers from effectively addressing crime (See here, here, here, and here). We find that these assumptions are not supported by the data. Officers in police departments with more restrictive policies in place are actually less likely to be killed in the line of duty, less likely to be assaulted, and have similar likelihood of sustaining an injury during an assault.

Moreover, our findings show police departments with more restrictive use of force policies have similar crime rates, including similar violent crime rates, as police departments with less restrictive use of force policies.

In short, a commitment to protect and preserve life necessitates the immediate adoption of more restrictive policies governing when and how officers use force in our communities.
 
Last edited:
Archie Moses said:
There's another thing going on in CA in California where a young man was found dead hanging by his neck. The police say it appeared to be a suicide and are investigating, but that pissed a lot of people off. Other people quickly speculated he was murdered (I hate the word lynch btw because of its ugly history.) I, 100%, think it needs to be investigated. But isn't it common for the police to say it appears to be a suicide although it's under investigation?
Click to expand...
There were actually 2 black men found hanging from trees, 10 days and about 50 miles apart. Both were called suicide.
 
The guy is over the legal limit and a danger on the road. I understand arresting him but it also seems like a waste unless you don't have much choice. Arresting someone isn't the punishment for their breaking the law. What comes from a judge is the punishments. Cops aren't judges. They got the information they need. His car can be impounded. It's actually pretty wasteful use of resources to arrest him just to have him sleep off being drunk. It's much easier if you ask if he has someone that can pick him up and take him home. Give him the documentation for his court date. But if cops felt like he needed to be in jail for safety reasons like him being a threat to others they can at that point. What he did after being told he was under arrest is terrible. He is a threat at that point. I still think they could have used other methods to stop him besides shooting though. Somehow lots of other places do with similar situations. It's also that he is a big black man that is more scary to the police. If a white women did the same I doubt they would have shot her.
 
Archie Moses said:
It actually is.

Let him go? He probably drives drunk again.

Arrest him? He gonna remember that.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying let him go scott free. He still gets charged with DUI, pays the thousands in fines, go to a victim presentation, losses his license (although I personally think ignition interlocks are a better choice), does community service and pays close to 10000 more for car insurance over the next several years.

Hard to forget all that.

Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Gameface said:
I'm not saying let him go scott free. He still gets charged with DUI, pays the thousands in fines, go to a victim presentation, losses his license (although I personally think ignition interlocks are a better choice), does community service and pays close to 10000 more for car insurance over the next several years.

Hard to forget all that.

Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I agree.

We can still levy justified punishments on offenders. We really just need to rethink the whole officer with a gun thing in law enforcement. Send a de-escalation officer. Tow away his truck. Get him an uber. Levy fines and other penalties. Situations don’t have to escalate.

Honestly, it’s similar to parenting or education. Many situations that turn ugly can often be avoided just by following a de-escalation process. Doesn’t mean we don’t levy justice. But be smart.

How many other minor incidents are needlessly escalated because a police officer arrives? I’d really like to see the effects over a few years if we stopped sending police officers to wipe every nose out there.
 
Gameface said:
I'm not saying let him go scott free. He still gets charged with DUI, pays the thousands in fines, go to a victim presentation, losses his license (although I personally think ignition interlocks are a better choice), does community service and pays close to 10000 more for car insurance over the next several years.

Hard to forget all that.

Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Going through all that myself at the moment. Still had to get into the van and be processed at the station. Took about an hour. 17 months later its still costing me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top