Criminal Behavior Against US Police Officers

[JoeMorgue]

Again if we saw police trying to deescalate situations and just failing we (or at least I and I feel safe in saying most other people) would be having a radically different discussion.

But when your response to "woman in minivan moving at a blistering speed of 'slightly faster than a brisk walk' with her blinkers on not stopping on the freeway and instead trying to pull off somewhere safe which by your own rules is exactly what they are supposed to do" is "pit maneuver that flips her vehicle over and then mock her for it after the fact" the "But traffic stops can turn violent at any moment" excuse falls flat.

Here's the thing. Show me a cop who in a situation at least put an honest even token effort into deescalating the situation and even if a lot goes wrong I'm still generally on their side or at least somewhat sympathetic.

Not my fault I rarely see that.

 

[Belz...]

I learned them from reading all the Karen, ACAB & While Black threads here at the ISF.

In other words this isn't a thread to discuss the dangers of being a police officer but a way to "get back" at other posters for pointing out abuse by police. Par for the course for right-wingers these days. No policy except "owning the libs".

I learned when an event that has a statistically low probability of happening actually happens it's proof of systemic racism and that all cops are bastards or racists and that America is a fundamentally racist society.

Yeah, then you didn't read those threads at all. You took the criticism of law enforcement as some sort of a personal issue. Looking at America from outside it's so incredibly obvious that you have a pervasive problem with racism that your refusal to see it is quite sad.

Yet, it doesn't stop Michelle Obama from worrying about her daughters being pulled over when they get in a car.

I'm amazed you didn't call her "Michael".

 

[Bogative]

Also for all the "They protect us" chest beating let us not forget that the the law has come down multiples times on the side of cops having zero obligation to actually help anyone.

Yet, they go out there and do it everyday anyway. What a bunch of jerks.



Back to the topic.


A Nebraska State Trooper was shot in the arm after responding to a 911 call of someone shooting outside of a home. Turns out it was a hostage situation and the hostage taker fired several rounds at police after his hostage was able to escape.

He probably deserved it though. Law enforcement stuck around and fired tear gas into the home forcing the hostage taker outside where he shot at officers, including the one he wounded. Typical police escalation.

Maybe one of these days law-enforcement agencies will join ISF so the keyboard commandos here can instruct them on the proper way to police.

 

[plague311]

Yet, they go out there and do it everyday anyway. What a bunch of jerks.

Back to the topic.

A Nebraska State Trooper was shot in the arm after responding to a 911 call of someone shooting outside of a home. Turns out it was a hostage situation and the hostage taker fired several rounds at police after his hostage was able to escape.

He probably deserved it though. Law enforcement stuck around and fired tear gas into the home forcing the hostage taker outside where he shot at officers, including the one he wounded. Typical police escalation.

Maybe one of these days law-enforcement agencies will join ISF so the keyboard commandos here can instruct them on the proper way to police.

You know what would be ******* crazy? If they tried talking to the man.

Like, hear me out, lets say they had a group of trained, professional counselors that could come out to the site and talk to them.

Make no mistake, blasting the **** out of a house with tear gas has to be fun and all, but just think if someone could have de-escalated the situation. How awesome would that have been?

Doesn't this kind of go against your "every traffic stop is a surprise" theme too? It's not like the cop didn't know there was an armed person inside.

 

[Thermal]

Kind of feel like, based on my interactions with humans, that I wouldn't at all like to pick some out at random to **** with. Never worked out well in the past

 

[Belz...]

Yet, they go out there and do it everyday anyway. What a bunch of jerks.

You understand that even jerks go out there and do their job everyday, right? It's a question of how well they do that job. It seems to me that, in response to some posters having a black-and-white view of police, you've decided that the reasonable thing to do is to take the opposite, equally radical view.

 

[Butter!]

This thread made me drink.

 

[Thermal]

Good thread, then.

 

[shemp]

You need an excuse?

 

[Thermal]

I'll drink to that!

 

[pgwenthold]

Again if we saw police trying to deescalate situations and just failing we (or at least I and I feel safe in saying most other people) would be having a radically different discussion.

But when your response to "woman in minivan moving at a blistering speed of 'slightly faster than a brisk walk' with her blinkers on not stopping on the freeway and instead trying to pull off somewhere safe which by your own rules is exactly what they are supposed to do" is "pit maneuver that flips her vehicle over and then mock her for it after the fact" the "But traffic stops can turn violent at any moment" excuse falls flat.

Here's the thing. Show me a cop who in a situation at least put an honest even token effort into deescalating the situation and even if a lot goes wrong I'm still generally on their side or at least somewhat sympathetic.

Not my fault I rarely see that.

There is the case (mentioned a few pages back) of the guy that actually DID try to deescalate the situation with a suicidal guy with a gun. He was succeeding, until "backup" arrived and shot the guy on the spot for wielding a gun.

Of course, the policeman who was de-escalating got fired because he didn't actually shoot the guy soon enough and therefore put the back-up at risk of being shot.

He was fired for de-escalating the situation.

That's US policing, right there.

 

[tyr_13]

I've always said that. My "sympathy" such as it is doesn't lie with them because... well obvious but on a purely functional level we've not made the best situation for cops to be in either.

That's also one thing that baffles and pisses me off. The cops should be wanted to deescalate the current situation as much or more than anyone.

Part of it, hell maybe most of it, is that regardless of personal motivations they get indoctrinated into the beliefs the OP is trying to push. This means they really do think these obviously maladaptive practices protect them. It's literally drilled into them. Also, *insert all the other thinking fallacies for all the other woo we talk about here*.

Another part of it is the ever-present American glory-hound attitude. I'm a big strong guy who uses guns, practices martial arts, and is a blacksmith. These circles also attract a lot of 'tough guys who would do anything to protect their family'. But that 'anything' is actually only, 'flashy things that pump up my ego and make me feel like a hero'. Even the dumb preppers fall into this. 'I learn how to fight to protect my family'. Oh really guy I just beat on the mat, you must know a lot about first aid. No? I've got a tourniquet in my bag here...what's that? I'm carrying a purse? Yes, I won't let my 'machoness' get in the way of effectiveness. You don't know any first aid? Oh, you must know a lot about cleaning then. Your family is a lot more at risk from the risks of...do you at least change your CO detector batteries every year? Do you even have them? You know how to fight and hoard ammo, but do you know how to sew? Weave? Medicine? Nutrition? Cook? Develop communication skills? Emotional intelligence to keep everyone feeling go and working effectively? Learning about policies to know what to support for your community safety?

No, that 'anything' is 'fight and kill things'. Deescalation? Sounds like wimp talk for losers.

 

[mgidm86]

I think we just had a thread about Portland, or Seattle or some such, no longer pulling over people with minor traffic violations for pretty much this same reasoning. It puts people's lives in danger and cops will commonly use it just to pull people over. Which can then escalate. It commonly targets poorer people as well, since most of them can't afford to pay for some of those things.

No. It puts minority people's lives in danger, at least that is the reasoning.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/lo...nges/283-7c4e2427-d844-440e-acad-ed0e46e68a8d

“The goal of these two changes is to make our city both safer and more equitable, helping reduce the number of Black, Indigenous and people of color who are disproportionally impacted by consent searches and traffic stops,” Wheeler said, citing 2019 data that showed Black Portlanders account for roughly 6% of the population and 18% of traffic stops.

The city of San Jose did the same thing here with theft and other so-called low-level crime. They raised the amount of property value required for a crime to be a felony to make felonies less common.

Smoke and mirrors. "Hey we have less crime now, give us more money and stuff!"

This is why we see groups of people walking into stores, grabbing stuff from shelves and walking out more often now (San Francisco for one). Retailers see an uptick in these crimes because they aren't getting arrested.

https://apnews.com/article/business...rus-pandemic-d0c6dc49ef4cd6d05f649a860bd72888

However, police agencies in California will have to contend with local prosecutors, who decide whether to charge an offender with a misdemeanor or felony, if at all. Progressive district attorneys such as those in San Francisco and Los Angeles have pledged to avoid stiff penalties, sentencing enhancements and incarceration for certain crimes.

.......

“The easiest way to reduce crime is to fix Proposition 47 and reimpose strong sentencing for the pervasive retail theft that is literally closing stores across our state,” said Tracy McCray vice president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association. “Exacerbating the situation is San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s insistence on dropping or downgrading charges of those caught red-handed that allows those very same crooks to further victimize our communities over and over again.”

Prop 47 lessened the punishment for group smash and grab robberies. Why would they do that? Same reason, too many minorities.

My best friend, a 95 pound woman, was jumped by 6 black people, knocked unconscious, phone and purse stolen. One girl was caught red-handed on the scene and they let her go. A police aquaintance of mind suggested this was why.

Perhaps changing the rules and gaming the system is not the best way to fight crime.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

My best friend, a 95 pound woman, was jumped by 6 black people, knocked unconscious, phone and purse stolen. One girl was caught red-handed on the scene and they let her go. A police aquaintance of mind suggested this was why.

Perhaps changing the rules and gaming the system is not the best way to fight crime.

Have you considered that the cops was simply too lazy to do their job? None of the things you listed would have any impact on a cop's ability to arrest someone for robbery.

Cops not actually helping people when they report real crimes is a very common complaint for the critics of the police. Lots of cops on hand to do "broken windows" policing, which turns out to be little more than a systematic police harassment campaign, but none seem to be available for dealing with reports of real crime.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Hey it's okay that cops will sometimes give an innocent black man 87 warning shots to the back because I know of a case where the cops let a violent perp just walk so it all balances out" is a weird flex, but okay.

 

[catsmate]

Fascinating. When I saw the thread title in the 'General Topics' window I knew, even without it being listed, who'd be the thread creator...

 

[plague311]

No. It puts minority people's lives in danger, at least that is the reasoning.

Oh, are minority people not included in "people"? Odd flex, but ok.

The city of San Jose did the same thing here with theft and other so-called low-level crime. They raised the amount of property value required for a crime to be a felony to make felonies less common.

Smoke and mirrors. "Hey we have less crime now, give us more money and stuff!"

This is why we see groups of people walking into stores, grabbing stuff from shelves and walking out more often now (San Francisco for one). Retailers see an uptick in these crimes because they aren't getting arrested.

Prop 47 lessened the punishment for group smash and grab robberies. Why would they do that? Same reason, too many minorities.

The article you linked to was proof that the governor recognizes organized smash and grabs are a problem and is making changes to enforce it.

Why was Prop 47 passed? From what I understand it's because the prison system in California was coming apart because of the sheer amount of people being sent to prison. It was ranked highest in the US, or second to Texas. I've always been confused by the prop 47 thing too, because even with the change, all prop 47 did was change it from a felony to a misdemeanor. It's about the same as Texas, for instance:

Changing what was here because I found the Texas shoplifting code.

Criminal Penalties for Shoplifting in Texas
Taking items valued at less than $100 is a class C misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine. Theft of items valued between $500 - $2,000 is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a 2,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail

California shoplifting is:

Shoplifting in California occurs when a defendant enters a store, while that establishment is open, intending to steal property worth less than $950. The crime is considered a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in the county jail. (All other entries of commercial establishments with the intent to steal are burglaries.

So, the question is, why isn't Texas seeing the same thing as what's being implied in California? Why aren't people just snagging stuff in Texas and riding out? Or are they? The punishment in Texas is lower than California.

My best friend, a 95 pound woman, was jumped by 6 black people, knocked unconscious, phone and purse stolen. One girl was caught red-handed on the scene and they let her go. A police aquaintance of mind suggested this was why.

Perhaps changing the rules and gaming the system is not the best way to fight crime.

Sorry to hear that. Living in big cities has a higher chance of running into crime, but as mentioned before, it sounds like she got a terrible cop. I've heard of protest cops. Where to protest a law they just don't enforce it to make it look like more damage is being done. Could it be a situation like that?

 

[Donal]

A lot of it has to do with how U.S. government is structured. And perhaps a bit to do with the physical geography of the country as well.

Having multiple divisions of police in a large urban area is probably reasonably possible. And, to some extent, it exists. Parking enforcement is an example, as is the experiment the New York is doing with a mental health response team.

But most of the country does not resemble New York or Chicago. as towns get smaller, so do the amount of resources they have for emergency services and law enforcement. You get down to having volunteer fire departments, for example, because the budget doesn't allow for a full-time standing force. So if you have a budget to support five officers total, it's not effective to make one parking only, one two traffic patrol, and two criminal enforcement. You won't be able to have coverage at all times for any of the areas. It's more effective, in theory, to hire five officers who can handle all three (criminal, traffic, parking). Oh, and also be the first responder for medical emergencies because the nearest hospital\ambulance service is in the medium sized town 20-30 minutes away.

Of course, the State Police might patrol the state road that makes up the main drag through town, but they don't go into the residential areas to enforce the school speed zones. And, on the criminal end, they may be quite a ways away when the call comes. Which is why a small community may decide to have it's own small force instead of rely on state or county forces in the first place. If small towns want a guarantee of a level of patrol, they have to do this. Or pay. There is at least one small town around here that I know pays the county sheriff's department to patrol their village.

I don't think its an unsolvable problem. It mostly involves reversing the structure of U.S. police forces to be designed from a top down viewpoint rather than ground up.

I do think a big part of the problem is there is no national standard for police. Granted, federal involvement is not going to be easy, and if done wrong will make things so much worse. Remember, it was the FBI who led the assassination of Freddie Hampton.

But, I don't think "small-town resources" is as big an issue. about 85% of the country lives in a large metropolitan area (100k or more). They aren't being patrolled by Andy Griffin.

 

[Donal]

No. It puts minority people's lives in danger, at least that is the reasoning.

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/lo...nges/283-7c4e2427-d844-440e-acad-ed0e46e68a8d




The city of San Jose did the same thing here with theft and other so-called low-level crime. They raised the amount of property value required for a crime to be a felony to make felonies less common.

Smoke and mirrors. "Hey we have less crime now, give us more money and stuff!"

The opposite is even more true. Systems like Comstat encourage police to arrest people for the smallest of charges and for municipalities to make more "quality of life" crimes. They then turn around and say "hey, we're arresting a lot of people, give us more money and stuff!" Some of that stuff being surplus military hardware.

This is why we see groups of people walking into stores, grabbing stuff from shelves and walking out more often now (San Francisco for one). Retailers see an uptick in these crimes because they aren't getting arrested.

https://apnews.com/article/business...rus-pandemic-d0c6dc49ef4cd6d05f649a860bd72888

From a 2017 pew research study, most crimes, whether violent or property crimes, go unsolved even when reported.

Prop 47 lessened the punishment for group smash and grab robberies. Why would they do that? Same reason, too many minorities.

My best friend, a 95 pound woman, was jumped by 6 black people, knocked unconscious, phone and purse stolen. One girl was caught red-handed on the scene and they let her go. A police aquaintance of mind suggested this was why.

I'll take things that didn't happen for 500, Alex.

Perhaps changing the rules and gaming the system is not the best way to fight crime.

Perhaps we should look at how we define crimes and what we believe is an appropriate punishment.

 

[Checkmite]

More important IMO to the raw fact that a person shot a cop or a cop shot a person, is what happens afterwards.

People who commit acts of violence against police officers, if they're not killed immediately, are arrested as soon as possible, denied bail, and without exception go to prison for a very long time. The same cannot be said of police officers who kill innocent people.