When Defending Cops Becomes Impossible

[jmsaari]

Not sure what the hiring criteria should be but most of my colleagues have D.Sc. degrees and IQ's probably well over 120, and i can easily think of more than one who'd be a lot more likely than the average person off the street to park their cars on train tracks ....

[rmgill]

Wow. Thats beyond stupid. 
 

First of all move your investigation off the tracks moron. 

[rmgill]

 

[JWB]

deleted

Edited October 20, 2022 by JWB

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Angrybk]

Police are pretty much dysfunctional here in Oakland (prob the same in SF proper) — too few of them per capita, they have to get paid ginormous salaries to because rents here are so high (which is why there are too few of them), and the Celeste Guap scandal, where a hefty proportion of the PD was utilizing one underaged prostitute, made nobody take them seriously anymore. That plus the perception that they’re just pouting and refusing to work because Chesa Boudin (who wasn’t even Oakland!) was a big meanie. Must be nice to have a six figure job with a pension and not have to do it because you’re crabby but I digress.
The enraging part is that the crimes in Oakland, especially the violent ones, very disproportionately affect the poors, who are actually screaming for more fire support. (the defund they police types are rich White kids). They really want more cops, just better ones. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Angrybk

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Murph]

Just remember when bashing police, who do they work for?  Generally the cities that demand defund, and hate police, are run by, and have been controlled by Democrats for decades.  Police Chiefs are appointed by the political masters, and do their bidding.  Period.  The interests of most Democrats is to use the police to bash heads, generate revenue (tickets, fines, etc), and ensure Democrat control plus because the Chief has NO accountability to the citizens, only City Hall, those forces can become disfunctional.  

Sheriff's tend to be more citizen oriented since Sheriff's are elected (in most places), and are responsible to the citizens.  My old Sheriff would regularly take phone calls from citizens on his CELL PHONE!  Working Internal Affairs for the last four years before I retired, I got to see how things work.  I have put one deputy and two jailers in jail during that time for doing things they should not do.  

[NickM]

On 10/28/2022 at 4:18 PM, Tim Sielbeck said:

 

NOLA cop? "Nuff said. As for NOPD cops on death row, wasn't there a case of a 'affirmative action wymmyn of color' hire who murdered her own off duty partner while leading a robbery crew at a restaurant her partner was a security guard for?

 

Lie-beral cities;

[MiloMorai]

Are cops bashed in other 1st world countries or is just American cops that are bashed?

Edited October 30, 2022 by MiloMorai

[NickM]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

Just remember when bashing police, who do they work for?  Generally the cities that demand defund, and hate police, are run by, and have been controlled by Democrats for decades.  Police Chiefs are appointed by the political masters, and do their bidding.  Period.  The interests of most Democrats is to use the police to bash heads, generate revenue (tickets, fines, etc), and ensure Democrat control plus because the Chief has NO accountability to the citizens, only City Hall, those forces can become disfunctional.  

Sheriff's tend to be more citizen oriented since Sheriff's are elected (in most places), and are responsible to the citizens.  My old Sheriff would regularly take phone calls from citizens on his CELL PHONE!  Working Internal Affairs for the last four years before I retired, I got to see how things work.  I have put one deputy and two jailers in jail during that time for doing things they should not do.  

Not just that, Murph! I"m convinced these Lefty DNC prog pols don't really know how to do anything (witness the mess SF is currently in); they can't show how they fought crime, cleaned up the streets, filled the potholes, picked up the garbage or made the place safer---they keep unsatisfactory PD officers, so they can point to them with they 'overdo' it, and squeal to their constituents how they're 'reining in the racist Po-Lees'.

[Tim Sielbeck]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

…I have put one deputy and two jailers in jail during that time for doing things they should not do.  

I wish there were more like you out there.

[Murph]

6 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

I wish there were more like you out there.

There are!  There are a lot out there who just want to do the right thing.  What I see with young officers is they are so scared of doing the job because they don't want to be the "next guy on CNN", they are terrified of being thrown to the wolves by lefty DA's or Lefty admins. They are terrified if they break one totally obscure policy they will lose everything, so they do nothing.  It is called "De-Policing", meaning that they drive by crime that three years ago they would have been all over like a chicken on a june bug.  Nowdays, it is just easier and safer to put on the blinders, and do nothing.  And who can we blame for that?  Who is screaming defund the police, take away their qualified immunity.

Qualified Immunity is one of the most mis-understood things in the world. You ONLY get it if you are right.  BUT the Supreme Court has laid out the rules for qualified immunity and makes the appellate and district courts obey those rules, even if they are messy.  Think about this: Prosecutors and Judges have ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.  No matter how much they mess up, violate the law, engage in selective and sometimes illegal prosecution, they have ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, NOT qualified immunity, they are literally ABOVE THE LAW.  

 IA is hard work, and you become the most hated man in a department quickly unless they know that you are there to be fair.  I was well liked because the guys knew I was fair.  All my IA's were worked with the Texas Ranger, so there was a second set of eyeballs on the case.  But look at where the problem cops seem to congregate:

San Antonio- Strong Union almost impossible to get rid of an officer even after he feeds a homeless guy a turd sandwich due to their collective bargaining agreement.  Run by Democrats.

Austin- Strong Union, almost impossible to fire officers who violate the rules.  Run by Democrats.

Houston PD- Same as above.  Run by Democrats

Dallas PD- Same as above. Run by Democrats

El Paso PD- Same as above.  Run by Democrats

ETC, ETC, ETC.......

DO you see the pattern here?  Democrat run cities have extremely strong police unions/civil service rules/collective bargaining and as a result the good cops are disgusted that they cannot get rid of the bad apples.  

But you also have lefty DA's that throw good cops under the bus for political reasons of pandering to George Soros, or whatever lefty trend is fashionable.  See the Cities above all have lefty DA's.  

I also did background checks, and I can tell you we are hiring people that five to ten years ago we would never had hired but we are now because there is NO, and I mean NO applicant pool, thanks to the Democrats/BLM/etc NO ONE wants to be a cop.  Thank G_d at least in my county the citizens still like us because we ARE the guardians of the Public Trust.  But I worked for a Sheriff's Office, and the Sheriff put public service to the citizens first, not tickets, not arrests, but taking care of out citizens.  My agency has chosen to be short handed rather than hire unqualified candidates.  Trust me there are a lot of them out there.  Cops are voting with their feet and leaving the cities listed above and going to work for smaller agencies where they are respected, treated well, and can do their job.  

I retired, and I am not and will not ever take another cop job, it is just not worth it in this day and age.  I have had lots of offers but my answer is always the same: NO.  I had lunch a week ago with one of my old prosecutors and he made the comment that with as much law as I had to learn, I could pass the criminal law portion of the bar exam better than some attorneys.  He is right, I constantly had to read case law to figure out what was going on.  But Courts write case law for lawyers, not cops, and they write in such obscure terms, that most cops who have a high school education can not figure things out.  This is on purpose to provide employment for lawyers.  But lawyers (and judges) expect a cop out there in a life threatening situation to in the 1-5 seconds it takes to deal with a deadly force episode to review in their minds all precedents and rules of law before making their decision.  It isn't happening.  

Our last shooting lasted 15 seconds from arrival till finish.  15 seconds.  One before that lasted 11 seconds from arrival till it was over.  Both were deemed "good shoots" by the Grand Jury.  How much can you process in that time frame?  

 

 

 

 

 

[rmgill]

14 minutes ago, Murph said:

Our last shooting lasted 15 seconds from arrival till finish.  15 seconds.  One before that lasted 11 seconds from arrival till it was over.  Both were deemed "good shoots" by the Grand Jury.  How much can you process in that time frame?  

Such shooting are easy to process from the safety of your office of a major city's Justice building complex. 😉

[Murph]

41 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Such shooting are easy to process from the safety of your office of a major city's Justice building complex. 😉

True.  The Supreme Court has continuously admonished courts to not look at shootings from 20/20 hindsight, but from the perspective of the "reasonable officer" at the time of the incident.  Qualified Immunity invokes on the "reasonable officer" standard, which is defined by the Supreme Court, and is only those facts and circumstances known to the officer AT THE TIME of the incident.

There are more than enough "bad shoots" out there, too many for my peace of mind, but they happen and this is almost nothing on heaven or earth that can be done to make them never happen.  You can train, educate, and train some more, but it is always those deadly 1-10 seconds where it all goes out the window.  

[rmgill]

I have long thought that firearms training courses should be an important factor for prosecutors and defense attorneys to undertake in order to understand what factors are at issue.

And good/no good shoots are not involving just officers. But also citizens. 

[Murph]

3 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I have long thought that firearms training courses should be an important factor for prosecutors and defense attorneys to undertake in order to understand what factors are at issue.

And good/no good shoots are not involving just officers. But also citizens. 

True that.  At least in Texas, it goes to a Grand Jury, and having been in and testified in front of many of them, I am continually amazed at the really, really good questions Grand Jurors ask, and how much common sense they have.  Unlike trial juries, Grand juries get to see ALL the evidence, instead of maybe 50%.  My last Capital Murder trial 90% of the crime scene photos were excluded because they would "inflame the jury".  Same with the autopsy photos.  

[rmgill]

I've tried to put myself in every shooting I've looked at and think about how I could have done things and how I'd have seen things. Some shoots are obviously bad, some are obviously good other are scary bad after you see the other factors that were not obvious until looked at after the fact. 

[Skywalkre]

11 hours ago, Murph said:

Just remember when bashing police, who do they work for?  Generally the cities that demand defund, and hate police, are run by, and have been controlled by Democrats for decades.  Police Chiefs are appointed by the political masters, and do their bidding.  Period.  The interests of most Democrats is to use the police to bash heads, generate revenue (tickets, fines, etc), and ensure Democrat control plus because the Chief has NO accountability to the citizens, only City Hall, those forces can become disfunctional.  

Sheriff's tend to be more citizen oriented since Sheriff's are elected (in most places), and are responsible to the citizens.  My old Sheriff would regularly take phone calls from citizens on his CELL PHONE!  Working Internal Affairs for the last four years before I retired, I got to see how things work.  I have put one deputy and two jailers in jail during that time for doing things they should not do.  

Where I've lived most of my life it's been solidly R and efforts to reign in abusive and wasteful monetary policies around police payroll was always met with "but public safety is in danger!"  Wasn't Ds running those campaigns, was the police themselves.  On top of that, just stop to think of what this says about the police in question when reforms are put in place to reign in ridiculous abuse around loopholes in pay and retirement and police threaten that public safety is in jeopardy.  That's some real quality folks there...

Your comment about sheriffs also seems off from personal experience.  I think good sheriffs beholden to the people has more to do with being a sheriff in a lower populated area than it has to do with political affiliation.  You may have heard of a local sheriff we had here in Maricopa County a few years back named Arpaio.  Was an R... and more obsessed with scoring political points than in actually having his men do their damn job and investigate crimes.  Shit got so out of hand even Maricopa, which has always leaned right, booted him for a D sheriff instead.

[rmgill]

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy still stands there. 

[Rick]

7 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Where I've lived most of my life it's been solidly R and efforts to reign in abusive and wasteful monetary policies around police payroll was always met with "but public safety is in danger!"  Wasn't Ds running those campaigns, was the police themselves.  On top of that, just stop to think of what this says about the police in question when reforms are put in place to reign in ridiculous abuse around loopholes in pay and retirement and police threaten that public safety is in jeopardy.  That's some real quality folks there...

Your comment about sheriffs also seems off from personal experience.  I think good sheriffs beholden to the people has more to do with being a sheriff in a lower populated area than it has to do with political affiliation.  You may have heard of a local sheriff we had here in Maricopa County a few years back named Arpaio.  Was an R... and more obsessed with scoring political points than in actually having his men do their damn job and investigate crimes.  Shit got so out of hand even Maricopa, which has always leaned right, booted him for a D sheriff instead.

Reference to bolden parts, can you give us examples?  If you have not already, reference Murph's experience with police chiefs and unions in a post.  Sorry, I can't remember which one. 

[Murph]

11 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Where I've lived most of my life it's been solidly R and efforts to reign in abusive and wasteful monetary policies around police payroll was always met with "but public safety is in danger!"  Wasn't Ds running those campaigns, was the police themselves.  On top of that, just stop to think of what this says about the police in question when reforms are put in place to reign in ridiculous abuse around loopholes in pay and retirement and police threaten that public safety is in jeopardy.  That's some real quality folks there...

Your comment about sheriffs also seems off from personal experience.  I think good sheriffs beholden to the people has more to do with being a sheriff in a lower populated area than it has to do with political affiliation.  You may have heard of a local sheriff we had here in Maricopa County a few years back named Arpaio.  Was an R... and more obsessed with scoring political points than in actually having his men do their damn job and investigate crimes.  Shit got so out of hand even Maricopa, which has always leaned right, booted him for a D sheriff instead.

Smaller counties, better service.  Bexar County Sheriff is bat sh*t and is always looking to score points.  But he is a "D".  

[Murph]

I am not really a fan of police unions and collective bargaining.  My experience with it is that it prevents the IA people from getting rid of the bad apples, but on the other side of the coin, it also prevents the Administration from getting rid of good officers who piss them off or are politically inconvenient.  I am unsure of the correct answer on police Unions/Civil Service.  

[Skywalkre]

On 10/31/2022 at 3:45 AM, Rick said:

Reference to bolden parts, can you give us examples?  If you have not already, reference Murph's experience with police chiefs and unions in a post.  Sorry, I can't remember which one. 

I've commented on these over the years in greater detail as they were happening but I imagine the various technical difficulties the site has had over the years probably pruned them.

The one that I recall the best was something about a loophole where police could save their vacation days, cash them all out the day they retire, then receive a drastically higher retirement.  The argument being pushed by the police was something along the lines of "these officers had planned for this for years and it wasn't fair to take it away, getting rid of it would kill morale and lower public safety."  The argument was hogwash and just highlighted the greed of so many of these officers (who have always been paid decently here in the Valley).  If something is broken and unsustainable you fix it, period.  The cost of this loophole and the unsustainability of it was in the news for years yet police still pushed back against fixing it.

[Skywalkre]

On 10/31/2022 at 7:45 AM, Murph said:

Smaller counties, better service.  Bexar County Sheriff is bat sh*t and is always looking to score points.  But he is a "D".  

So... like I was saying.  It's less about the letter behind the name and more to do with where they serve.