The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason police fire multiple shots after they have killed a civilian?
Is it because they are aware of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_firearm_examination

Although striations are individualized evidence and will not match any other bullet or weapon, microscopic striations in the barrel of the weapon will change about every three to five shots. This is important because if attorneys wish to present ballistics evidence in court, it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one specific bullet would match one specific weapon. Forensic ballistics examiners may not fire more than five shots at most from a weapon found at a scene for this exact reason.​
 
EHocking said:
The reason police fire multiple shots after they have killed a civilian?
Is it because they are aware of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_firearm_examination

Although striations are individualized evidence and will not match any other bullet or weapon, microscopic striations in the barrel of the weapon will change about every three to five shots. This is important because if attorneys wish to present ballistics evidence in court, it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one specific bullet would match one specific weapon. Forensic ballistics examiners may not fire more than five shots at most from a weapon found at a scene for this exact reason.​
Click to expand...

No, it's panic.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No, it's panic.
Click to expand...
And yet, it works.
Ballistics report raises questions in Breonna Taylor shooting
The ballistics report could not determine if Taylor's boyfriend shot an officer.Short story? Charges weren’t brought against the shooting officers because ballistics could not show that the cop was shot by friendly fire because cops fired so many shots.

So the “consensus” was that Breonna’s boyfriend must have fired the shot and a grand jury decided on that basis not to indict the officers for the shooting.
 
Buffalo cops that shoved an old man and cracked his skull resulting in brain injury are cleared by grand jury.

Pigs above the law once again.

A grand jury voted not to indict the two Buffalo police officers for what happened in front of City Hall, Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn Jr. said Thursday.
Watch now: DA investigating, 2 officers suspended after protester seriously injured
Watch now: DA investigating, 2 officers suspended after protester seriously injured

The protester was injured Thursday night after being pushed by police as officers cleared Niagara Square as the citywide curfew went into

Officers Aaron Torgalski, who can be seen on the video pushing Gugino, and Robert McCabe, who can be seen about to kneel toward the injured Gugino before being moved along by a supervisor, were suspended without pay that night.
Click to expand...

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/no-indictment-for-two-buffalo-police-officers-charged-with-pushing-75-year-old-protester/article_893ec3d6-6cad-11eb-98a6-4335d875af41.html

Fire up them torches, time for some riots.
 
Last edited:
I wonder why it was so hard to get an indictment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Rubber_stamp_for_the_prosecution

An unnamed Rochester defense lawyer was quoted in a 1979 newspaper article claiming that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich", a saying subsequently repeated by the chief judge of New York State's highest court, Sol Wachtler. And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: "[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury."
Click to expand...

Ranb
 
Lt. Col. Grossman, the 'Killology' guy beloved of police training departments has an illustrated children's book out. It's called 'Why Mommy carries A Gun'

Here is a read-along with Karl from InrangeTV who gives it suitable 'treatment'
 
Last edited:
I just saw an update on the Rochester pepper spraying incident. It seems three police officers have been relieved of duty and one suspended (whooppee big deal!) perhaps because the video that was finally released is so damning they could hardly not be.

The kid was apparently having some kind of mental incident and reported to be possibly suicidal. So they chased her down, hand cuffed her, and when she would not cooperate, (in part of that interaction, they told her to stop acting like a child! She responded "I am a child," which I'm sure infuriated them beyond any reasonable expectation of control!) they threatened her first with pepper spray, then with pepper spraying directly into her eyes. 90 seconds later, they did exactly that, and when she screamed for mercy they snidely told her that that's what happens when they pepper spray you.

I had not realized before that she was already in handcuffs! For ***** sake, what was the threat? I suggest that if three cops are that panic stricken by a handcuffed 9 year old girl, they really need to re-evaluate their lives. In justification, one of the police spokesmen excused the action because it did not harm her, and they don't have a ready way to get a person to comply "instantly." Our heroes in blue are very busy, I guess.
 
EHocking said:
And yet, it works.
Ballistics report raises questions in Breonna Taylor shooting
The ballistics report could not determine if Taylor's boyfriend shot an officer.Short story? Charges weren’t brought against the shooting officers because ballistics could not show that the cop was shot by friendly fire because cops fired so many shots.

So the “consensus” was that Breonna’s boyfriend must have fired the shot and a grand jury decided on that basis not to indict the officers for the shooting.
Click to expand...

The report above says that Breonna's boy friend says he fired the first shot as a warning when the police broke in. There does not appear to be any doubt or dispute about this. The police argued that they then responded to being shot at which justifies them having opened fire. this was the reason the Grand Jury failed to progress the case.

The ballistics failed to prove that Breonna's boyfriend shot a police officer. although official police weapons were 40 calibre and the boyfriend's was 9mm and the officer was shot with a 9mm the crucial event was;
Fred Moore, another attorney for Walker told ABC News that LMPD records show Hankison had a 9mm and two 40-caliber service weapons. Moore said it's been difficult to determine which weapons Hankison was armed with during the shooting because he disappeared and was unaccompanied for several hours after the incident.
Click to expand...
so that they could not prove (BARD) that the officer was not shot by Hankinson's personal weapon.

There is clearly a major problem with police processes when an officer involved with fatal shooting can disappear with evidence and not be prosecuted for interfering with a police investigation. Police officers in this situation should be immediately breathalysed and drug tested and interviewed. Clearly they retain their legal rights to decline to make a statement and get counsel. They should not have the right not to be tested for drugs and alcohol.They should not have the right not to immediately surrender any weapons on their person.
 
bruto said:
I just saw an update on the Rochester pepper spraying incident. It seems three police officers have been relieved of duty and one suspended (whooppee big deal!) perhaps because the video that was finally released is so damning they could hardly not be.

The kid was apparently having some kind of mental incident and reported to be possibly suicidal. So they chased her down, hand cuffed her, and when she would not cooperate, (in part of that interaction, they told her to stop acting like a child! She responded "I am a child," which I'm sure infuriated them beyond any reasonable expectation of control!) they threatened her first with pepper spray, then with pepper spraying directly into her eyes. 90 seconds later, they did exactly that, and when she screamed for mercy they snidely told her that that's what happens when they pepper spray you.

I had not realized before that she was already in handcuffs! For ***** sake, what was the threat? I suggest that if three cops are that panic stricken by a handcuffed 9 year old girl, they really need to re-evaluate their lives. In justification, one of the police spokesmen excused the action because it did not harm her, and they don't have a ready way to get a person to comply "instantly." Our heroes in blue are very busy, I guess.
Click to expand...

Do they really think that handcuffing and pepper spraying a child will not result in long term psychological injury if not physical?
 
Aridas said:
Hard? Well... there are likely some mistaken assumptions there. For one, though, there's a far, far too likely chance that, like in other "prosecutions" of police officers who did brazen wrong, the prosecutors could well be arguing as if they were the defense.
Click to expand...
With grand juries proceedings normally secret, we might never know for sure even though in this case the DA said he tried hard to do so.
 
Ranb said:
With grand juries proceedings normally secret, we might never know for sure even though in this case the DA said he tried hard to do so.
Click to expand...

There are some people who will simply never vote to indict/convict a cop, period. Could easily be that it was just that kind of jury (as opposed to the Breonna Taylor or Michael Brown shooting DAs, who very obviously threw the cases - and in the latter case all but said so openly - note that I am drawing no conclusions on Brown, I'm not discussing that disaster of a police force here)
 
Mumbles said:
There are some people who will simply never vote to indict/convict a cop, period. Could easily be that it was just that kind of jury (as opposed to the Breonna Taylor or Michael Brown shooting DAs, who very obviously threw the cases - and in the latter case all but said so openly - note that I am drawing no conclusions on Brown, I'm not discussing that disaster of a police force here)
Click to expand...

Many of whom would happily support someone who gouged a cop's eye out.
 
Planigale said:
The report above says that Breonna's boy friend says he fired the first shot as a warning when the police broke in. There does not appear to be any doubt or dispute about this. The police argued that they then responded to being shot at which justifies them having opened fire. this was the reason the Grand Jury failed to progress the case.
Click to expand...

That and the whole not being asked to by the prosecutor. They literally didn't have the option of charging those officers with anything.

I wonder how much the Buffalo old man assault is convenient for the prosecutor that the details of what happened in the grand jury can never come out.
 
Mumbles said:
There are some people who will simply never vote to indict/convict a cop, period. Could easily be that it was just that kind of jury (as opposed to the Breonna Taylor or Michael Brown shooting DAs, who very obviously threw the cases - and in the latter case all but said so openly - note that I am drawing no conclusions on Brown, I'm not discussing that disaster of a police force here)
Click to expand...

Grand Juries don't need unanimity, they go by simple majority at least in NY. Though not majority of those eligible to vote for a specific case, majority of the entire grand jury.
 
Picture of a Portland cop on guard duty for a dumpster full of edible food and not wearing a mask during a pandemic.

What a good use of taxpayer funds.

https://twitter.com/supernovaxox/status/1361837504064675840/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Best_Beta4lyfe/status/1361839919740555265

A Portland grocery store had a power failure and was throwing away all the perishable food. Locals noticed this and started passing out the still safe-to-eat food. PPB sent 5 cops to guard this dumpster to ensure that the food ended at a landfill and not in people's stomachs.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Picture of a Portland cop on guard duty for a dumpster full of edible food and not wearing a mask during a pandemic.

What a good use of taxpayer funds.

https://twitter.com/supernovaxox/status/1361837504064675840/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Best_Beta4lyfe/status/1361839919740555265

A Portland grocery store had a power failure and was throwing away all the perishable food. Locals noticed this and started passing out the still safe-to-eat food. PPB sent 5 cops to guard this dumpster to ensure that the food ended at a landfill and not in people's stomachs.
Click to expand...


This is a bit off-topic, but it raises an interesting question of who owns things discarded into a labelled trash bin. Does the store still own it, even though they're discarding it? Has ownership been transferred to the company whose name appears on the bin? In both these cases, removing items from the bin can be considered theft. Or is it now considered unowned and available for use by the public at large?

Different jurisdictions probably have different rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom