• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
tyr_13 said:
I think the officer might have been trying to scare the girl out of taking more pictures.

And because the officer has an anti-social personality, she thought that the only things that would keep her personally from doing something wrong would be the only thing the child would be deterred by; jail time.
Click to expand...

Well, she's certainly learned a valuable lesson about how the cops will treat a victim.
 
tyr_13 said:
I think the officer might have been trying to scare the girl out of taking more pictures.

And because the officer has an anti-social personality, she thought that the only things that would keep her personally from doing something wrong would be the only thing the child would be deterred by; jail time.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true just because the girl wasn't a participant in the conversation; the police came to the house around midnight, and the first thing the father said was that his daughter was in bed. So the officers were only ever talking to him.
 
Checkmite said:
I don't think that's true just because the girl wasn't a participant in the conversation; the police came to the house around midnight, and the first thing the father said was that his daughter was in bed. So the officers were only ever talking to him.
Click to expand...
Which is a huge mistake in terms of security.

If you're thinking of arresting someone, you don't start announcing it to people who are inclined to want to defend the person to be taken into custody.

For officer safety and theirs, too, you generally want to separate them and work it so by the time the person becomes aware, it's already over and much more difficult to "interfere" at that point.
 
Well the police officers never intended to actually arrest her; it was an empty threat, that much is obvious. But the girl also wasn't there during the exchange anyway, so the threat wasn't directed at her, it was directed at her father. The question is why they would threaten him like they did.

And the only thing I can think of is that they didn't think an 11-year-old girl being enticed into sending nude pictures to a stranger was a problem worth their time and wanted the father to drop his complaint.

Which is pretty wild, but it's not unheard of for law enforcement to treat victims of crimes, particularly sex crimes this way. If you listen to enough rape victims' stories for instance there's no shortage of accounts where a victim went to the police and was bullyragged with all sorts of dire portents about the negative repercussions and impending complete disruption of the lives of the victim and everyone around them, in a fairly naked attempt to pressure them to leave without formalizing their complaint.
 
Checkmite said:
Well the police officers never intended to actually arrest her; it was an empty threat, that much is obvious. But the girl also wasn't there during the exchange anyway, so the threat wasn't directed at her, it was directed at her father. The question is why they would threaten him like they did.

And the only thing I can think of is that they didn't think an 11-year-old girl being enticed into sending nude pictures to a stranger was a problem worth their time and wanted the father to drop his complaint.

Which is pretty wild, but it's not unheard of for law enforcement to treat victims of crimes, particularly sex crimes this way. If you listen to enough rape victims' stories for instance there's no shortage of accounts where a victim went to the police and was bullyragged with all sorts of dire portents about the negative repercussions and impending complete disruption of the lives of the victim and everyone around them, in a fairly naked attempt to pressure them to leave without formalizing their complaint.
Click to expand...
Exactly. By treating the victim(s) like crap, those cops got to write the whole thing off as an abandoned complaint. It's their bad luck that the exchange was recorded which means a lot more paperwork, a negative comment in their files, and perhaps a six-month delay of their next promotions.

I'll bet, however, that their immediate supervisor was pleased with the immediate outcome. "Less work for us!"
 
Checkmite said:
Well the police officers never intended to actually arrest her; it was an empty threat, that much is obvious. But the girl also wasn't there during the exchange anyway, so the threat wasn't directed at her, it was directed at her father. The question is why they would threaten him like they did.

And the only thing I can think of is that they didn't think an 11-year-old girl being enticed into sending nude pictures to a stranger was a problem worth their time and wanted the father to drop his complaint.

Which is pretty wild, but it's not unheard of for law enforcement to treat victims of crimes, particularly sex crimes this way. If you listen to enough rape victims' stories for instance there's no shortage of accounts where a victim went to the police and was bullyragged with all sorts of dire portents about the negative repercussions and impending complete disruption of the lives of the victim and everyone around them, in a fairly naked attempt to pressure them to leave without formalizing their complaint.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's an empty threat. The threat seems quite clear, if the parents keep complaining the police will respond by arresting the daughter.
 
Andy_Ross said:
That's like an episode of one of those TV shows likethe A Team, MacGyver or Quincy, where the heroes get involved with a rogue, small town police department out in the boonies somewhere.
Here's me thinking they were completely fictional.
Click to expand...

I said before that the Dukes of Hazard actually turns out to be an affectionate portrait of an idealised small town police force.
 
Married PA state trooper used his position as a cop to have his mistress falsely locked up in a mental hospital, but that sadism wasn't enough, so he arranged to see to the violent arrest personally.

A married Pennsylvania State Police trooper is facing false imprisonment charges after he allegedly violently detained his ex-girlfriend and committed her to a mental health treatment program under bogus claims.

Ronald Davis, 37, was arrested Thursday on accusations he abused his authority to carry out the twisted takedown that left his former girlfriend improperly stuck in a medical facility for multiple days, the Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office said.

Davis reportedly told her: “I know you’re not crazy, I’ll paint you as crazy” leading up to the forced medical treatment, the victim claimed, according to court documents released by the district attorney’s office.

...

Davis, who prosecutors said is married with a family, is facing charges of felony strangulation, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person and official oppression.

He was remanded without bail following an arraignment Thursday, the DA’s office said.
Click to expand...

Another woman beating cop.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/24/pa-state-police-trooper-ronald-davis-tackled-ex-to-ground-dauphin-da/
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Married PA state trooper used his position as a cop to have his mistress falsely locked up in a mental hospital, but that sadism wasn't enough, so he arranged to see to the violent arrest personally.



Another woman beating cop.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/24/pa-state-police-trooper-ronald-davis-tackled-ex-to-ground-dauphin-da/
Click to expand...

Just came here to post that.


My girlfriend is a Best Interests Assessor (social worker with a specialism in assessing the minimum appropriate restrictions yo protect the best interests of people who lack capacity, or sometimes assessing that people do have capacity). (DOLs or deprivation of liberty)

There is a relationship with those who need sectioning, but one cannot be sectioned and under a DOLs simultaneously - although I can't understand how that works. But a sectioning in England and Wales (not sure about Scotland) is for those who are a danger to themselves or others due to mental health, but where they do have capacity.

In her last training, someone said that the English requirement is for the doctors to prove a lack of capacity or to prove a need for sectioning - the presumption is people are same and have capacity. It was claimed that in the US, it's up to the patient to prove they are sane and have capacity. I don't know if this is true of the US, or sone states, or just a misunderstanding of the situation, but if so it strikes me as being open to abuse.
 
My experience, a decade or so ago, is that my uncle falling into alcoholism and pill addiction couldn't go to an emergency room, declare he needed help and actually get that help. They'd stick him in a bed, hydrate him, make judgmental back-handed comments and generally act like this is just one more loser they don't want to deal with.

Several of us had to write affidavits, get them notarized, present them to the hospital, the psych director interviewed us. Then all of that allows them to interview the subject directly to make a determination if they pose a risk to themselves/others.

Mental health isn't a part of the medical system in the same way as physical injuries are. As a society, we just don't approach it the same way.

That along with a certified peace officer writing affidavits having outsize consideration in nearly all circumstances are some of the differences (the theories and language around it are largely the same, but those issues color the results).
 
jimbob said:
Just came here to post that.


My girlfriend is a Best Interests Assessor (social worker with a specialism in assessing the minimum appropriate restrictions yo protect the best interests of people who lack capacity, or sometimes assessing that people do have capacity). (DOLs or deprivation of liberty)

There is a relationship with those who need sectioning, but one cannot be sectioned and under a DOLs simultaneously - although I can't understand how that works. But a sectioning in England and Wales (not sure about Scotland) is for those who are a danger to themselves or others due to mental health, but where they do have capacity.

In her last training, someone said that the English requirement is for the doctors to prove a lack of capacity or to prove a need for sectioning - the presumption is people are same and have capacity. It was claimed that in the US, it's up to the patient to prove they are sane and have capacity. I don't know if this is true of the US, or sone states, or just a misunderstanding of the situation, but if so it strikes me as being open to abuse.
Click to expand...

There are three different concepts in the UK, the legislation differs slightly, in different parts of the UK, but broadly is the same.

First a doctor has a common law right to act to save the life or limb of a patient in an emergency. So even if a patient objects you can treat them. Having stabilised the situation you then have to assess capacity, are they able to make a decision, that can be done very quickly (can they retain and understand information given to them - there is no requirement for decision making to be rational), then you document they lack capacity and you can continue to treat even if they object Although in practice this is more difficult if the patient is violent, you cannot assault them, physically restraining is dubious, but you are allowed to sedate them.

Some people may have a power of attorney in place, then you have to consult the person with the power of attorney, however in an emergency you still treat until able to contact the person with authority. Sometimes these are advanced orders in case someone loses competency, but in the UK if a doctor assesses the patient as competent, the power of attorney is invalid, it only applies when the patient is incompetent (that would include being unconscious). Sectioning applies to people with disordered thought, who may be competent. Any doctor can carry out an emergency section detaining a patient who may be a danger to themselves or others for upto 48 hours (nurses can also do so for upto 4 hours). A mental health social worker needs to be contacted asap to act as the patient advocate. A psychiatrist needs to review the patient within 48 hours.

The problem with sectioning patients is you are only allowed to treat them for psychiatric problems, so is best avoided in people who have physical problems causing confusion. You could section a suicidal patient who has taken a paracetamol overdose, but that does not allow you to treat the overdose. If however they had taken drugs that were mind altering resulting in them being incompetent one would not need a section but could treat them.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/...AiQHd5hT5ONO1PQW859MsKEAyN2vmA&smid=url-share

From the Marshall Project Newsletter

Calling it a “confidential internal investigation,” Bryan Bailey, the sheriff of Rankin County, Mississippi, used his authority on a grand jury to subpoena the records of his girlfriend and another man she was seeing. The local district attorney, two judges, and the state’s attorney general learned of Bailey’s alleged misconduct but did nothing about it
Click to expand...
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/...AiQHd5hT5ONO1PQW859MsKEAyN2vmA&smid=url-share

From the Marshall Project Newsletter

Calling it a “confidential internal investigation,” Bryan Bailey, the sheriff of Rankin County, Mississippi, used his authority on a grand jury to subpoena the records of his girlfriend and another man she was seeing. The local district attorney, two judges, and the state’s attorney general learned of Bailey’s alleged misconduct but did nothing about it
Click to expand...
 
Okay this is one is a little old but it just popped back up in the news because the footage of it finally got released and it's... folks it's a weird one.

In August of 2022 D.C. police were using what as near as I can tell is some kind of general purpose meeting room at the Anacostia Library to hold training in baton techniques. The training, by all accounts, went by without any incident and at the end of it the group of police trainees gathered up for photo, completely innocently and casually with nobody making a big deal out of it or doing anything that could set someone off in any possible reasonable application of the word, when the instructor, a retired police lieutenant named Jesse Porter who had been hired as an instructor, took several steps away from the group, turned, pulled out a pistol and shot one of the trainees, 25-year-old Maurica Manyan, killing her instantly.

Like the footage and the reporting around it is super weird and amazingly disturbing because as near as I can nobody has bothered to ask the most simple and basic question... what the **** happened?

Nowhere in any article can I find ANYTHING about what went on and why. They released the footage, the group gathers for a photo, the dude steps away, turns, pulls out his gun, and fires into the group taking the picture. It's super deliberate and there's no special or crazy circumstances. He wasn't handling the gun in some other context and it went off, nothing spooked him, nobody made a move or motion that could be a threat if you squinted and stood on your head and looked it sideways.

There's one throwaway line where Porter is quoted as saying he "thought he had his training gun" but leaves way more questions than answers.

He was charged with involuntary manslaughter, got 3 years with credit for time served so I'm not even sure if he's still in prison.

https://www.police1.com/police-trai...training-session-at-library-9b2YcWvCpcJrqh2x/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...ing-of-special-officer-at-dc-library/3346776/

https://www.police1.com/officer-dow...training-session-at-library-DYWWyOegEMU0OfUD/
 
There was some kind of ongoing gag where a training gun was pointed by the shooter at the victim earlier, that apparently everyone laughed at, like maybe the punchline to a joke she was in on. He did it again at the photo shoot but didn't realize he had a live weapon, which wasn't allowed in there anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom