Login   Register
 Login    Register
Ya'll Are Brutalizing Me
HowWouldIKnowThat
User avatar
My bad, didn't even look at what thread we were in
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 16,504 | Online
Joined: Aug 15, 2013
Wasn't he lying on the ground begging not to be killed? What was the compliance issue?
cantjudge wrote:Oh, I thought all the black wangs would help.


Cunnilingus
User avatar
shitty attitude crusader
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 15,366 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

HowWouldIKnowThat wrote:Wasn't he lying on the ground begging not to be killed? What was the compliance issue?

Like I said, they shouldn't have made him move. That's where the problems come in. Ultimately I don't believe that officer should be an officer and he isn't anymore. He didn't do anything criminal though. He was trying to do a job that isn't for him. Really it's just tragic for everyone involved.
AndySmith wrote:Maybe we'll get lucky and some nutbag will put a bullet in him (Trump).

AndySmith
User avatar
Im not special.
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 11,750 | Offline
Joined: Feb 12, 2013

Cunnilingus wrote:
HowWouldIKnowThat wrote:Wasn't he lying on the ground begging not to be killed? What was the compliance issue?

Like I said, they shouldn't have made him move. That's where the problems come in. Ultimately I don't believe that officer should be an officer and he isn't anymore. He didn't do anything criminal though. He was trying to do a job that isn't for him. Really it's just tragic for everyone involved.
Shouldn't someone have determined that before he killed someone? Seems like they could have figured out without video of him shooting someone in the back.

Cunnilingus
User avatar
shitty attitude crusader
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 15,366 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

Probably. IDK. LEO's are different from private sector employees. It's really hard to get fired. Because of the job they do and the things they deal with it takes either a very long history of paper being put on them or something really bad happening to terminate them. It's good for job security but makes it hard to weed out the bad ones. That's why pretty much departments have a stringent selection process and a 1 year probationary period where you can be terminated for any misstep.

In the situation though, once the ball gets rolling you can't say "Dude stop, you're fucking up, I got this. Take a step back" it'd put everyone at risk, taking attention away from what could be a person waiting for the right opportunity to draw the gun that they were told is there.

I'm not trying to defend it. It was a bad shooting. Someone lost their life and shouldn't have had to. I'm just saying I didn't see anything criminal in that video. When private sector employees are bad at their jobs the losses are counted in dollars. When law enforcement officers are bad at their jobs it's counted in violent interactions. It sucks and you want to say "this has to stop" but how do you stop it? Anyone in charge of hiring knows it's impossible to hire the right candidate every time. There will be people who you think "God I wish I didn't bring him/her in."
AndySmith wrote:Maybe we'll get lucky and some nutbag will put a bullet in him (Trump).

AndySmith
User avatar
Im not special.
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 11,750 | Offline
Joined: Feb 12, 2013

I was talking more about the selection process and probationary period, how did no one recognize this guy is not able to do /handle the job?

I also don't get how you can say it's a bad shooting, but not a crime. When a cop fucks up and kills someone, when society gives them the type of authority and power they have, there needs to be responsibility and accountability for that. If it's a bad shooting it should be by definition a crime.

Cunnilingus
User avatar
shitty attitude crusader
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 15,366 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

You can't put someone in a position to make a decision on their own and then prosecute them for a crime when they make a bad decision. If that were the case when someone makes a bad investment with another persons money they should be prosecuted for grand larceny or some such crime. The reality is they are tasked with making decisions that involve taking people into custody, having to fight for their lives, intervene in deadly scenes etc. How can you say "If you make the wrong choice and shoot when you shouldn't have, you will be going to prison"? It's just a dumb thought. No one would be police officer or the police just would never shoot. They'd see someone doing something and say "Well, I can't raise my kids from prison so I guess that guy is getting away with murder here."

Also, you have to factor in his past experiences, which we don't know. What if he handled a similar situation differently and someone got hurt? That would put a great deal of stress on him to deal with. It would push any normal human being that is tasked with running towards violence to say "Maybe if I did this." or "If I would've done XYZ my fellow officer wouldn't be in the hospital." Experience changes people in every aspect of the world. We all learn from our mistakes and make different choices if given an opportunity. Maybe he wasn't the type to be this quick to shoot but something happened and he decided he should've been faster to use force.

It's just unfortunate. Everyone wants to have an opinion which they're entitled to but no one takes into account what the job really is. When you fuck up, someone gets hurt or dies. It's what the job is. You can't tell someone they might have to kill someone as part of their job then prosecute them if they made a bad choice.

I've also been refraining from pointing out that kid reached behind his back and then jumped to his knees very rapidly. Both could've got him shot. The reason I've been refraining is because I believe all that movement was probably unnecessary. But those 2 things showed restraint. He chose not to shoot twice in situations where others may have shot.

I just don't see a crime.
AndySmith wrote:Maybe we'll get lucky and some nutbag will put a bullet in him (Trump).

Digital Blackface
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,136 | Offline
Joined: Sep 12, 2017

You can’t train for real life threatening scenarios without being in one and the whole thing is the fault of the other cop who was barking stupid orders

BTaylor
User avatar
Banana Cream Pie Pundit
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 13,616 | Offline
Joined: Aug 12, 2008

AndySmith wrote:I was talking more about the selection process and probationary period, how did no one recognize this guy is not able to do /handle the job?



Kind of cuts to the core of what I always get out of these bad shootings. There is clearly a training/selection issue police have here. For almost all of the shootings it seems pretty clear the cop who is shooting is exhibiting awful judgment, and in this case it seems clear the shooter probably was just a shitty cop. There is no excuse for an organization to let some jackoff put "your'e fucked" on his weapon like he is playing Call of Duty. It shows a lack of respect for the organization, the power he wields, and the citizens he is supposed to protect.

And I think it is pretty clear, without having any law enforcement background, that the cop shouting orders, who I believe is the leader of the group, used shitty methods as well. I am hoping Geragos goes after a lot more than just money when it comes to justice for the victim's family. Seems pretty clear this organization is poorly run.

Cunnilingus
User avatar
shitty attitude crusader
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 15,366 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

I don't know about their selection process but most departments are tough. It's nearly a year long process just to get hired. They scrutinize every aspect of your life and confront you about it. You're screened by an experienced detective. You meet minimum qualifications and go to an oral board with 3 people who have been in the department for a long time and they choose who passes based on a scoring system, then do your physical and fitness tests, then you meet with a detective who has you give him every school record from elementary school up and your credit report. Then you're asked to report every law enforcement interaction you've ever had in life, including traffic tickets and giving statements in things that you might've witnessed. Then the detective verifies it against what's in the system. The detective interviews you and discusses things he found with you. He questions your integrity and even insults you to test your demeanor. Then he sends you to psychologist who gets all this information about you before meeting you. You then spend several hours with this psychologist talking and answering questions and explaining your thoughts on things that he's decided to ask you based on what he knows about you already as well as what he's observed in person. Then he sends his report of how he feels about you to your detective. Then you go to a polygraph test where they ask all the things you already answered and more to see if you're lying or your answers change. Then all of this is forwarded to hiring panel of 3 people who haven't met you yet but are likely sergeants, lieutenants, detectives etc and they spend an hour with you discussing everything they feel is relevant and they decide whether you should be offered a position or not. Then you have to make it through 26 weeks of an academy. Then you spend 1 year on probation.

Any misstep during this process can cost you your career. Like I said, I don't know about their department, but I am familiar with the process out here. It's not easy. Most people don't want to do the job and most people who do are deemed unfit to do it before they ever start.

What could they change to make it harder for the wrong people to get hired? Or easier for the right people to get hired? I don't know. It's tough. Everyone has their thoughts, which they're entitled to. But I don't think most people fully understand what goes into all of it.
Last edited by Cunnilingus on December 10th, 2017, 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AndySmith wrote:Maybe we'll get lucky and some nutbag will put a bullet in him (Trump).

AndySmith
User avatar
Im not special.
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 11,750 | Offline
Joined: Feb 12, 2013

BTaylor wrote:
AndySmith wrote:I was talking more about the selection process and probationary period, how did no one recognize this guy is not able to do /handle the job?



Kind of cuts to the core of what I always get out of these bad shootings. There is clearly a training/selection issue police have here. For almost all of the shootings it seems pretty clear the cop who is shooting is exhibiting awful judgment, and in this case it seems clear the shooter probably was just a shitty cop. There is no excuse for an organization to let some jackoff put "your'e fucked" on his weapon like he is playing Call of Duty. It shows a lack of respect for the organization, the power he wields, and the citizens he is supposed to protect.

And I think it is pretty clear, without having any law enforcement background, that the cop shouting orders, who I believe is the leader of the group, used shitty methods as well. I am hoping Geragos goes after a lot more than just money when it comes to justice for the victim's family. Seems pretty clear this organization is poorly run.
I agree pretty much with all of that.

It's easy to point at a handful of shithead cops and paint all cops as out of control or lacking in judgement. But there are far too many. It's not always shootings, it's a lot of more minor stuff and even when no one is shoot cops way too often escalate situations. It's what comes of viewing everyone in the world as enemy combatants when you are on duty.

I get they risk their lives and it's dangerous, but they also signed up for that and accepted the responsibility and power that comes with the position too. Police can't get respect unless they give it so people feel like cops are going to treat them like garbage anyway so why bother being respectful to them.

BTaylor
User avatar
Banana Cream Pie Pundit
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 13,616 | Offline
Joined: Aug 12, 2008

Cunnilingus wrote:
What could they change to make it harder for the wrong people to get hired? Or easier for the right people to get hired? I don't know. It's tough. Everyone has their thoughts, which they're entitled to. But I don't think most people fully understand what goes into all of it.


Not sure, and I bet each organization has different methods. It probably comes down to the top-level brass and what they notice or fail to notice. I find it hard to believe upper levels of leadership for Mesa failed to notice the culture of this group and the writing on the gun. What I bet is happening is they pat him on the back and cheered on that kind of mentality. Good leadership should create bad-asses who have a proper mental outlook.

Cunnilingus
User avatar
shitty attitude crusader
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 15,366 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

You're definitely right. One thing I've noticed in law enforcement is a lot of times the wrong people get promoted and that encourages poor choices.
AndySmith wrote:Maybe we'll get lucky and some nutbag will put a bullet in him (Trump).

HowWouldIKnowThat
User avatar
My bad, didn't even look at what thread we were in
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 16,504 | Online
Joined: Aug 15, 2013

Cunnilingus wrote:You can't put someone in a position to make a decision on their own and then prosecute them for a crime when they make a bad decision. If that were the case when someone makes a bad investment with another persons money they should be prosecuted for grand larceny or some such crime.


People in those jobs have fiduciary responsibility and can be held accountable if they fuck up egregiously enough. I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe you can be charged with crimes under that requirement.

I usually side with the cops on these, for all the reasons you're listing, but there does have to be a line they can't cross over without getting held responsible.
cantjudge wrote:Oh, I thought all the black wangs would help.


poochies uncle
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 3,934 | Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2013

This has nothing to do with training, cunny are you that much of a pussy to think it had to with training and not this cop being a scared shitless. unless you are talking how can we train cops not to be scared pussies.

you need to cut this tough guy act, you are exposing yourself.

Cunnilingus
User avatar
shitty attitude crusader
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 15,366 | Offline
Joined: Jun 25, 2012

HowWouldIKnowThat wrote:
Cunnilingus wrote:You can't put someone in a position to make a decision on their own and then prosecute them for a crime when they make a bad decision. If that were the case when someone makes a bad investment with another persons money they should be prosecuted for grand larceny or some such crime.


People in those jobs have fiduciary responsibility and can be held accountable if they fuck up egregiously enough. I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe you can be charged with crimes under that requirement.

I usually side with the cops on these, for all the reasons you're listing, but there does have to be a line they can't cross over without getting held responsible.

He was held responsible. He's no longer an officer and was tried and aquited. I agree with the verdict.
AndySmith wrote:Maybe we'll get lucky and some nutbag will put a bullet in him (Trump).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests