When Defending Cops Becomes Impossible

[rmgill]

3 minutes ago, Murph said:

Purely based on the evidence in the video it looks bad, really really bad, and since he has already been indicted, there must also be more that we do not know (I hope).  

After the many cases over the years, I'm skeptical of the racially charged cases. We saw NONE of this sort of discussion from the same people over the Ashligh Babbit shooting. I did see assertions of comparisons to breaking into one's home, which for any of us doing that in DC would ALSO get us indicted as a shooter. 

And yes, it DOES look bad. But we have the benefit of hindsight. Like I noted, I try to steel man the shooter's perspective to see if it's reasonable. But then again that's the test, is it something that 12 of your peers would agree with? 

 

[Mr King]

18 minutes ago, Murph said:

Gypsy cops are the curse of my profession.  I know because I did background checks for 20 years.  We tried to weed them out and were pretty successful in keeping them far far away from us.  The only one hired was because SAPD sealed all the records and refused to allow anyone to see them.  It finally took a District Court judge issuing an order for SAPD to cough up the records on this one guy (he was fired, and indicted).  

What is a gypsy cop? Is that a cop who floats from one department to the next because of poor performance?

[Murph]

Just now, Mr King said:

What is a gypsy cop? Is that a cop who floats from one department to the next because of poor performance?

A gypsy cop is one who leaves a department before receiving a punishment, or demotion for cause, or is a bad apple that leaves just before being fired.  They are a curse.

[Murph]

12 minutes ago, rmgill said:

After the many cases over the years, I'm skeptical of the racially charged cases. We saw NONE of this sort of discussion from the same people over the Ashligh Babbit shooting. I did see assertions of comparisons to breaking into one's home, which for any of us doing that in DC would ALSO get us indicted as a shooter. 

And yes, it DOES look bad. But we have the benefit of hindsight. Like I noted, I try to steel man the shooter's perspective to see if it's reasonable. But then again that's the test, is it something that 12 of your peers would agree with? 

 

I totally agree, the racial rush to judgement makes me leery about some jurisdictions.  

[Mr King]

9 minutes ago, Murph said:

A gypsy cop is one who leaves a department before receiving a punishment, or demotion for cause, or is a bad apple that leaves just before being fired.  They are a curse.

Thanks Murph.

[Murph]

1 minute ago, Mr King said:

Thanks Murph.

No problem.  Gypsies are a menace.

[rmgill]

That is true. 

[R011]

54 minutes ago, rmgill said:

This is why I bring up the Tueller drill.

I mean slinging the contents from the pot. It's a splash weapon. It tends to spread out.

Go fill up a 5 quart saucepan of water. Take it outside, sling it around. How far can you sling it? Can you get it across the width of a room (outside, pace it off so you don't make your spouse or family irate because the walls are dripping). Yes, arm strength can factor in here. So figure a 150lb woman and not a 250lb man. 

Tueller because a ten pound pot of water is exactly the same as a knife and a holstered gun is just like one out and aimed. Try again.

Sling a ten pound pot without telegraphing from a crouch close behind a barrier without getting nearly all of it on me?  Not a danger to anyone but me

 

[NickM]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

I totally agree, the racial rush to judgement makes me leery about some jurisdictions.  

I'm more bothered by how these 'incidents' seem to always come to light before elections....'galvanize the base'?

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

Tueller because a ten pound pot of water is exactly the same as a knife and a holstered gun is just like one out and aimed. Try again.

The point of the Tueller drill is someone with a weapon in hand can reach you before you can draw. 21 foot is the rule. So the assertions that she was too far away are bumf. 

 

2 hours ago, R011 said:

Sling a ten pound pot without telegraphing from a crouch close behind a barrier without getting nearly all of it on me?  Not a danger to anyone but me

Which we can't see because she's behind the counter and there's crap all over it. 

So, again I ask, how do we figure that out short of faith based belief or a ouijia board? 

[R011]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

The point of the Tueller drill is someone with a weapon in hand can reach you before you can draw. 21 foot is the rule. So the assertions that she was too far away are bumf. 

 

Which we can't see because she's behind the counter and there's crap all over it. 

So, again I ask, how do we figure that out short of faith based belief or a ouijia board? 

"before you can draw".  So Tueller wasn't applicable.

And she was some sort of magic ninja able to disregard basic physics.

[Stefan Fredriksson]

@rmgill From what can be seen and heard in the video, do you think Grayson was justified in using deadly force? If possible, just a yes or no answer.

[rmgill]

22 minutes ago, Stefan Fredriksson said:

@rmgill From what can be seen and heard in the video, do you think Grayson was justified in using deadly force? If possible, just a yes or no answer.

Honestly, no, I cannot answer yet. I need more information before I make a firm judgement.
 

I would like to see an articulation from both officers and details of the crime scene and Post Mortem. Was the water on the floor? Ie was she still holding the pot when shot and dropped it?  Were there any burns on her from the pot if she was holding it when shot. That would confirm or refute the hazard. 

It doesn’t go to knowledge of the officers for deadly force in that moment but it does go to her mindset and could confirm some details we cannot see in the video, like body language and more details of facial expressions, but was there a reason she may have been evasive? Was she a previously visited frequent flier for the SO? Was the SUV owned by an estranged BF she was on and off again with? 
 

 

 

Edited July 25 by rmgill

[rmgill]

55 minutes ago, R011 said:

"before you can draw".  So Tueller wasn't applicable.

And she was some sort of magic ninja able to disregard basic physics.

Just because you’ve drawn doesn't make it not a threat any more. The point is the hazard range is not obvious. 
 

As to basic physics, how hard do you think it is to sling a 4 quart sauce pan of water? I guess thats the size. 

[sunday]

6 hours ago, Mr King said:

What is a gypsy cop? Is that a cop who floats from one department to the next because of poor performance?

To add to what Murph wrote, there is what looks like a good wikipedia article on the matter.

Edited July 25 by sunday

[Stuart Galbraith]

So, this happened the other day at Manchester airport. On the one hand, yes the young man has a cist on the brain now. OTOH, the female officer had her nose broken, and there is a claim that the guy on the floor had tried to grab the officers gun (they were armed police btw).

Worth pointing out, they had a gun, they had a taser, and didnt use either of them.

 

Edited July 25 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

Do UK police use the force continuum? 

As to not using tasers, I can clearly see a taser in the officer kicking and stomping. It's the yellow thing in his right hand. You can also see a yellow object in the hands of the blonde female officer. As the camera pans around you can see another officer with a taser in hand, also another female, you can clearly see wires from that unit. 

So, how do you get "they didn't use tasers" from that report? Seems an outright fib to me. Wires from the tasers clearly indicate taser deployment. 

I'd greatly like to see what the background footage showed and not just the one shocking part as news is oft to just show. 

From a US use of force law perspectives. 
The subject is on the ground. He appears incapacitated, so the kick to the head and the stomping seems over the top.

However, if the subject had been on top of another officer OR has a weapon he HAS seized, then the kicking and stomping might be justified if the threshold is at deadly force levels. A booted foot to the head is argaubly deadly force. But in a pinch that would be entirely justified if deadly force was warranted. 

Again, full video would be useful without the breathless narration by the Sky News or AP or other reporters and bugs and other stuff on the bottom. Slow motion would be nice too. 




 

[Stuart Galbraith]

He was certainly holding a taser, I just have read nothing about it being used.

Yes, I too want to see the whole thing, because if he indeed went for a gun, this arguably restraint. They would have been justified in plugging him.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Here is a bit more, though there is clearly a bit in the middle missing. Police entirely within their rights to make a search of course.

 

[rmgill]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

He was certainly holding a taser, I just have read nothing about it being used.

What's my rule about initial reports of a contentious, kinetic incident? The reports are usually wrong or inverted from the reality in the first 24-48 hours of the reporting? So, hold on before you pass judgement and look closely at the evidence. 

I can see 3 deployed tasers. At the video resolution it looks like I see wires from all three. I don't know of the Manchester units are 2 shot with a dry/contact mode or not. If they have 1 ranged shot and a contact mode then they could still be usable in that, but requires you have physical contact with a subject, hard to do unless you're superior or in parity in strength. 

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, I too want to see the whole thing, because if he indeed went for a gun, this arguably restraint. They would have been justified in plugging him.

Justified, so long as he was a threat, the moment he stopped being a threat then a coup de grace is off the table. But a gun to the head to control the subject after such a set of attempts probably IS in play. At least once you've gone beyond stunner tag. 

I once rolled up in traffic on an altercation that was an apparent car-jacking. A car was stopped in an intersection, a woman was sitting on the ground crying, supporting herself with her arms behind her, a bicycle was on the pavement nearby and a cop was sitting astride a black man with his gun pressed to the back of the man's head. I saw, took a moment to process and was about to step out to assist when EVERYONE from Zone 5 showed up and so I cleared the area. I surmised that the woman had been stopped by the black man in traffic, he had reached in, opened the door, pulled her out, windmilled her onto the pavement and then, unbeknownst to him on an Atlanta Police officer who was on a bicycle was nearby in traffic more or less jumped him and put him on the ground under threat of blowing his head off. In such a context, deadly force to stop a car jacking and restrain is ENTIRELY correct. If he'd twitched and tried to fight, I'd be fine with a coup de grace. 

So, I want to know more about the Manchester incident. If he HAD been trying to force a gun from a female officer and the officer doing the kicking had JUST stopped that, then yeah....kicks to the head so that the subject was neutralized are probably ON the table and reasonable force. 

 

[Ivanhoe]

16 hours ago, sunday said:

To add to what Murph wrote, there is what looks like a good wikipedia article on the matter.

The US also has a serious problem with gypsy public school teachers as well, though I've not seen the gypsy moniker applied to teachers.

Of course, we are all going to burn in Heck for using the "gypsy" pejorative for Romani*.

* Who just won't eunt domus.

[Skywalkre]

On 7/24/2024 at 6:40 PM, NickM said:

I'm more bothered by how these 'incidents' seem to always come to light before elections....'galvanize the base'?

You're looking at it the wrong way.  The issue is why are so many of these instances still going on that it's inevitable one happens around important events?

How the hell did this cop have a job?  He was clearly unhinged.  We know he was bouncing from dept to dept.  In all my years when a soldier/coworker had a major negative incident there was always indicators that were clearly evident that happened before.  Why were those ignored here?  It's too bloody hard to fire people... and when someone is walking around with a gun like this PoS it's even more important that signs are noticed and crazies kicked to the curb before they do something like this.

[Mr King]

52 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

 It's too bloody hard to fire people

Typically that is the nature of unions, especially civil service unions.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

In all my years when a soldier/coworker had a major negative incident there was always indicators that were clearly evident that happened before.  Why were those ignored here?  It's too bloody hard to fire people... and when someone is walking around with a gun like this PoS it's even more important that signs are noticed and crazies kicked to the curb before they do something like this.

And you want to accrete MORE power to federal agents whom are impossible to fire? 
 

Please, given the thread, explain Lon Horiuchi’s continued employment after he shot a woman holding a baby. 

[JWB]