Got to use the cuffs and leg restraints to make sure these dangerous wheelchair bound 93 year old women don't hurt anyone..
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Just lucky she didn't reach for her waistband.
Article actually explains why they cuffed her, they claim she was intentionally sliding out of the wheel chair to prevent then from removing her from the facility she living at. IF their claims are true then it was to do with concern for her safety.
Look at the photo of her arms. She has massive bruises because thats what happens when you handcuff a 93 year old woman. What next, shoot her in the head to protect her from a headache?
Incidentally that's a picture of her in court, not in the process of being removed from anywhere.
yeah they are going to shoot her for headache prevention, don't be a drama queen.
You sure the picture is from court or from the TV interview? Usually you don't see TV microphones sitting on the table in court.
IF she is sliding herself out of her wheel chair then if they let her do it and she gets hurt, who gets the blame and sued? Who would be catching hell for her hurting herself in jail?
I mean yeah she never should have been in jail,her family should have come and taken her in once she was evicted. But IF she is doing things while in custody that could cause herself injury, they will restrain her.
Last edited:
Ok, you're just confirming my long term suspicions that America is fecked in the head. SHE'S A 93 YEAR OLD WOMEN IN A WHEELCHAIR FOR feckS SAKE!! You really can't imagine a better way to handle that situation than putting her in handcuffs and leg restraints?!
As for drama queen, if you understood for one second how barbaric some of your law enforcement actions and techniques are to people over here, you'd maybe understand the reactions better. Then again you're a country that lets people die of cancer if they can't afford medicine, so I suppose its not wildly out of character.
I'm just going to assume nothing has changed then... Due to the lack of any answer.
Not sure what exactly you were asking
I asked if there has been any changes in procedure (are you or your department doing anything differently). I asked you, one of the resident POs, as I thought you may have something to add. It's not a question designed to bait you, I was trying to gain information.
I don't understand why you found the question confusing or difficult to answer tbh... just ignore it if you don't want to answer it.
Yeah drama queen confirmed. I explain why in one instance the cops did what they did including correcting your error in saying the picture was of her in court and your dumb assumptions of why they did it ( which were in the article you posted a link to but obviously did not read). You then jump to a bigoted attack based entirely on my nationality and more assumptions made in error on what I think of many of the incidents posted here and many more that never make it to this thread.
Last edited:
You didn't 'correct my error', up were completely wrong. It was a photo of her in court (which anyone could see by the fact she was wearing an orange jumpsuit). Unless you'd like to try and claim that was the outfit she was already wearing when arrested?
As for my 'bigoted attack' I'm sorry you have to suffer by being a member of such a vulnerable target group. Americans are obviously high on the list of people who need protecting..
Not sure what specific procedures you're referring to.
The biggest emphasis in the last 2 years has been on mental illness as a result of some high profile use of force incidents. My dept and many others have put officers through mandatory mental illness training classes. Academies i heard are also spending more hours as part of the curriculum.
Use of force policy has not changed and reflects graham v Connor case law. My dept emphasizes de-escalation and using verbal judo in our yearly defensive tactics training. But we're already pretty good at that as a department, and we still have a lot of uses of force it seems this past year. Deadly force policy is also the same. Only thing that changed recently is we aren't allowed to shoot at moving vehicles and must move out of the way, which i think is bullshit.
As far as public demand for getting rid of "bad apples" after watching a questionable video, it's easier said than done. It's civil service and costs cities a lot of money to pay, train, clothe, and equip a single officer. Even when an officer does get fired, they almost always fight and sue to get their job back. As you can guess, it's not cheap to hire city lawyers and drag out a lawsuit in court for months and even years. People might not care, but departments generally don't want to lose their investments. From what I've seen, officers get fired for things they do off-duty, like getting arrested for DUI, domestic violence, prostitution. Or lying while under investigation. Not because they had a questionable use of force or shooting.
Hope i answered sooner of your questions.
Yes you have, is this broader policy or just your department?
We're governed by California POST (peace officer training standards) as are all local departments in the state. They establish mandatory minimum hours of training in certain things for academies and depts to abide by. Each dept has their own use of force and deadly force policy, but they almost always mirror graham v Connor with maybe a few tweaks here and there. It pretty much states you will be judged on force used that you believed to be appropriate at the specific time given the circumstances, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and that an officer with similar training and experience would have made a similar decision... something like that.
The only thing that really varies from dept to dept is tactics, like felony stops, pursuit policy, handcuffing techniques, vehicle stops, building searches, active shooter response, etc
Ok thanks.
When you say questionable do you mean questionable in court of public opinion or actually provably dodgy?
Are you saying you are more likely to be disciplined for this than questionable shooting? Why is that?
When you say questionable do you mean questionable in court of public opinion or actually provably dodgy?
In sheer numbers of incidents, yes. Remember that very few POs ever use lethal force in their careers, and even fewer actually kill their subjects.
If you examine the use of force policy it allows for some "wiggle room" and for good reason. Officers are expected to respond and take action on whatever call or threat is reported to them. When a situation escalates to "Oh shit, I'm gonna have to go hands on with this guy" or if I have to take out a taser, baton, or if I end up pulling out my gun, it becomes a very dynamic, high-stress, ever-changing situation. And it's almost never fluid, clear-cut, black-and-white. That's why officers should be allowed some leeway to make what the public might deem as a mistake or bad decision.
Articulation is key after a use of force or shooting. Officers need to be able to articulate what they observed, what force decision they made, and why they made the decision at that particular time. Very similar to the Graham v Connor case, we had a use of force on an older diabetic man having a diabetic shock. He almost ran his car into the officer, got out and was stumbling, was unresponsive, not complying with verbal commands, physically resisted when said officer went hands on. He got slammed to the ground and eventually cuffed up. From the outside looking in, it looks fecked up. But the officer AT THAT TIME, without 2020 hindsight of knowing he was diabetic, observed what appeared to be a heavily intoxicated man who almost ran into him and then was non-compliant throughout the whole contact and even physically resisted. He felt like shit afterwards of course, but as long as he articulates his use-of-force well, he should be rightfully cleared.
So in short, as long as an officer is able to articulate the circumstances of why he used force or fired shots, he is usually cleared. I know it sounds like a cop-out, and in some incidents posted on here it very much is. But that "wiggle room" needs to be there or officers would be getting fired left and right for every mistake, and soon you'd have cops not taking any action or not using force at all because they know they don't have that protection.
It's more common to fire officers for getting into trouble off-duty or getting arrested, since they're supposed to be "law enforcement".
Or for integrity issues like lying when under investigation, since they'd no longer have credibility to testify in a court of law.
Or stupid things while on-duty like having sex w/citizen, or stealing property/money you were supposed to book, or lying on your timesheets to get some extra overtime pay, or not arresting someone you were supposed to (negligence of duty).
Questionable as in public opinion.
On this point. Its probably fair to say that could go the other way? An officer can take unnecessary action or use excessive force knowing that a bit of protection is there as long as they can articulate themselves well enough.
I understand your point tho. I also understand what you mean wrt numbers now (dismissals).
I hope to see more being done (alternative techniques/approaches and looking at police forces from other countries etc), but at least something is being done in your department. Also hope the mandatory minimum hours of training leaves officers sufficiently prepared for what they will face, so that reactions are more measured and predictable as opposed to panic, fear and confusion.
I recall you said that your department has been more forward thinking compared to others anyway right?
Here's a video from a couple of years back with a nice wholesome family and a small disagreement they had with police.
Unfortunately, yes. It's all about the articulation and being able to "sell it" to your law enforcement peers.
Tbh, the mandatory trainings and refresher classes we take every year or 2 are there to cover the departments' asses, not necessarily ours. that way if things go sideways it falls on the officer for not handling a situation the way dept trained. A lot of officers especially those with time on are usually more stubborn and resistant to any new training or ideas and just go through the motions.
I wouldn't say we're more forward thinking. It's just California is more liberal and police depts have gone through a lot of growing pains here, especially the big ones like lapd. If your dept or city gets sued enough or scrutinized by the public and feds, or go through riots then it forces change and accountability.
So many idiots in that video
What the hell is going on there?
I did click on the youtube link and found this article - the man filming was arrested and (his words) assaulted by PD after the video ends.
https://www.longislandpress.com/201...s-man-accuses-suffolk-police-of-false-arrest/
Q
I'm not entirely sure
The mother just acted injured/unconscious, placed on a gurney, then sprung back into action to "help" her son as they wrestled with him...before getting tossed and going limo again.
Everything else is just bonus viewing
I'm not entirely sure
The mother just acted injured/unconscious, placed on a gurney, then sprung back into action to "help" her son as they wrestled with him...before getting tossed and going limo again.
Everything else is just bonus viewing
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/1...closed-by-accident-that-injured-chp-officers/
Less than a year on and still on his probationary period.
Struck on xmas eve, passed away on xmas.
I know some of you are already towards the end of your day, but keep it in mind for any future holidays. Please don't drink and drive.
Less than a year on and still on his probationary period.
Struck on xmas eve, passed away on xmas.
I know some of you are already towards the end of your day, but keep it in mind for any future holidays. Please don't drink and drive.
Last edited:
They arrested someone who is known as "SWAuTistic".
Not even some stupid shit 14 year old. Guy is 25.
Not even some stupid shit 14 year old. Guy is 25.
This whole incident happened over a $1 Call of Duty wager too, simply horrific.
He did an interview on some YouTube news show, showed absolutely no remorse whatsoever and essentially tried to absolve himself of blame. He also swatted a COD event a few months ago by claiming there were bombs there, whoever this man is he's as guilty as the shooter IMO.
What do they charge him with? Manslaughter?
Someone swatted a gamer in the UK as well...
Everything’s fine in US police guys, nothing to see here. ‚Murica!