IGX

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Let's not lose track of the ball...

It's not about serving justice it's about insuring compliance.

Nobody's losing track of the ball. It's both.

Contribute or GTFO.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
It's not about serving justice it's about insuring compliance.

All we need are perfectly just laws and cops who ensure perfect compliance. Then we're good to go.

johno wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
It's not about serving justice it's about insuring compliance.

All we need are perfectly just laws and cops who ensure perfect compliance. Then we're good to go.

or rather fewer and more reasonably understood laws so that human beings can perform the job of law enforcement.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
It's not about serving justice it's about insuring compliance.

All we need are perfectly just laws and cops who ensure perfect compliance. Then we're good to go.

or rather fewer and more reasonably understood laws so that human beings can perform the job of law enforcement.

I'm all for fewer & more reasonable.

But let's go back to your link above. In our New World, with 75% fewer laws that are written in English, a cop gets dispatched to check on an assault in a household. The home owner says, "Dave's not here, man. No, you can't come in and check." And the home owner is going to get physical.

What's a cop to do?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Let's not lose track of the ball...

It's not about serving justice it's about insuring compliance.

Nobody's losing track of the ball. It's both.

Contribute or GTFO.

See the WaPo article above. Either point on the doll where bad officer touched you or eat your applesauce.

johno wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
It's not about serving justice it's about insuring compliance.

All we need are perfectly just laws and cops who ensure perfect compliance. Then we're good to go.

or rather fewer and more reasonably understood laws so that human beings can perform the job of law enforcement.

I'm all for fewer & more reasonable.

But let's go back to your link above. In our New World, with 75% fewer laws that are written in English, a cop gets dispatched to check on an assault in a household. The home owner says, "Dave's not here, man. No, you can't come in and check." And the home owner is going to get physical.

What's a cop to do?

Come Back With A Warrant.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Let's not lose track of the ball...

It's not about serving justice it's about insuring compliance.

Nobody's losing track of the ball. It's both.

Contribute or GTFO.

See the WaPo article above. Either point on the doll where bad officer touched you or eat your applesauce.

Sad no one gave two fucks about your puff piece? HTFU cunt.

Go back to bumping crusader threads.

Either exigent circumstances/no warrant or warrant.
But let's say cops get a warrant. Homeowner says, "Dave's not here, Man. Fuck off." Now we're back to the use of force. It will always come back to that.

You miss a lot when you get like this. Take your meds and some deep breaths.

johno wrote:Either exigent circumstances/no warrant or warrant.
But let's say cops get a warrant. Homeowner says, "Dave's not here, Man. Fuck off." Now we're back to the use of force. It will always come back to that.

That's quite easy. Then they have lawful authority to use force...How Much force? Well, the first and MOST IMPORTANT metric is...is the amount of force needed commensurate with the danger posed by NOT KNOWING the whereabouts of the person being sought? In this case...do your own math, in the case of the Boston Bombers, it's a different threat level, in the case of service a CPS notice or a warrant for failure to appear then ask yourself, "Is it worth putting my life and the life of this family in potentially deadly situation?" OR...are there other alternatives...like wait, like come back again in the morning, like post an officer...but turning ministerial matters like this into Ruby Ridge is driven by one thing...one thing only, desire to maintain the Appearance of Control.

Need further evidence of this? what happens when officer are facing a potentially lethal active shooters? Do they breach the door? rarely...Do they try to overwhelm them with force? Nope. They wait because they realize deescalating is more important than Appearance of Control .

Turdacious wrote:You miss a lot when you get like this. Take your meds and some deep breaths.

Oh shit...am I missing more of your extrusions of useless bullshit and masturbatory fantasies of relevance?

Should you ever stumble across an original or interesting thought I'm sure someone will bring it to our attention...but until then you will remain the inert gas of IGX.

It's been a while since your last episode. I guess that's progress. Take your meds.

Turdacious wrote:It's been a while since your last episode. I guess that's progress. Take your meds.

Go ride your bike chufferboy. Your cunt is falling out again.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:Either exigent circumstances/no warrant or warrant.
But let's say cops get a warrant. Homeowner says, "Dave's not here, Man. Fuck off." Now we're back to the use of force. It will always come back to that.

That's quite easy. Then they have lawful authority to use force...How Much force? Well, the first and MOST IMPORTANT metric is...is the amount of force needed commensurate with the danger posed by NOT KNOWING the whereabouts of the person being sought? In this case...do your own math, in the case of the Boston Bombers, it's a different threat level, in the case of service a CPS notice or a warrant for failure to appear then ask yourself, "Is it worth putting my life and the life of this family in potentially deadly situation?" OR...are there other alternatives...like wait, like come back again in the morning, like post an officer...but turning ministerial matters like this into Ruby Ridge is driven by one thing...one thing only, desire to maintain the Appearance of Control.

Need further evidence of this? what happens when officer are facing a potentially lethal active shooters? Do they breach the door? rarely...Do they try to overwhelm them with force? Nope. They wait because they realize deescalating is more important than Appearance of Control .

It almost never goes from Zero to Waco in 20 seconds. Take the assault hypothesis above (not uncommon). Cops have no way to gauge the potential harm...could be nothing to a bloody nose to an open skull fracture. Once cops decide they need to get in, they will get in. And they will use graduated force, if they're following SOP.
Remember the shitstorm that ensued when the Minneapolis PD gave a cursory questioning to a kid who had momentarily escaped Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment? They wrote it off as a drunken gay spat. The kid wound up in Dahmer's freezer.

Another scenario where I totally support the use of force: a political clown show blocks a freeway (not unheard of in the PNW). After a few verbal orders, I want to see those folks moved off the freeway using the continuum of force. And yes, it's fine that the protesters video record the whole thing. And yes, it will look ugly. Nevertheless, Fuck Them, get off my road.

IMO, the US will never go to a place where, when presented with a valid warrant or under exigent circumstances, a citizen gets to tell the police to "Fuck Off, I might let you in later, when I'm in a better mood. Or not."


*****

On an Active Shooter, cops will go in almost immediately because the assumption is that serious harm is ongoing.
From my Armchair, I fault the Orlando PD for downshifting from Active Shooter to Hostage Mode (waiting & talking) in the gay nightclub deal...people were bleeding out on the dance floor and they didn't get needed aid because of the several hour delay.

*****

OTOH, I think you & I would agree on stuff like pretextual vehicle stops that are parlayed into searches. The broken tail light that is escalated to a drug search. Bullshit.

*****

Finally, I have no problem with the "appearance of control," assuming just laws. Citizens have a responsibility to comply with lawful orders and they aren't entitled to run the cops in endless circles, trying to catch the citizen in a compliant mood. In any sizable population, this would simply amount to just laws going unenforced.

EDP's are a separate issue, IMO. But again, EDP or not, if you are recklessly brandishing a samurai sword in public, expect the PD to stop that.

johno wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:Either exigent circumstances/no warrant or warrant.
But let's say cops get a warrant. Homeowner says, "Dave's not here, Man. Fuck off." Now we're back to the use of force. It will always come back to that.

That's quite easy. Then they have lawful authority to use force...How Much force? Well, the first and MOST IMPORTANT metric is...is the amount of force needed commensurate with the danger posed by NOT KNOWING the whereabouts of the person being sought? In this case...do your own math, in the case of the Boston Bombers, it's a different threat level, in the case of service a CPS notice or a warrant for failure to appear then ask yourself, "Is it worth putting my life and the life of this family in potentially deadly situation?" OR...are there other alternatives...like wait, like come back again in the morning, like post an officer...but turning ministerial matters like this into Ruby Ridge is driven by one thing...one thing only, desire to maintain the Appearance of Control.

Need further evidence of this? what happens when officer are facing a potentially lethal active shooters? Do they breach the door? rarely...Do they try to overwhelm them with force? Nope. They wait because they realize deescalating is more important than Appearance of Control .

It almost never goes from Zero to Waco in 20 seconds. Take the assault hypothesis above (not uncommon). Cops have no way to gauge the potential harm...could be nothing to a bloody nose to an open skull fracture. Once cops decide they need to get in, they will get in. And they will use graduated force, if they're following SOP.
Remember the shitstorm that ensued when the Minneapolis PD gave a cursory questioning to a kid who had momentarily escaped Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment? They wrote it off as a drunken gay spat. The kid wound up in Dahmer's freezer.

Another scenario where I totally support the use of force: a political clown show blocks a freeway (not unheard of in the PNW). After a few verbal orders, I want to see those folks moved off the freeway using the continuum of force. And yes, it's fine that the protesters video record the whole thing. And yes, it will look ugly. Nevertheless, Fuck Them, get off my road.

IMO, the US will never go to a place where, when presented with a valid warrant or under exigent circumstances, a citizen gets to tell the police to "Fuck Off, I might let you in later, when I'm in a better mood. Or not."


*****

On an Active Shooter, cops will go in almost immediately because the assumption is that serious harm is ongoing.
From my Armchair, I fault the Orlando PD for downshifting from Active Shooter to Hostage Mode (waiting & talking) in the gay nightclub deal...people were bleeding out on the dance floor and they didn't get needed aid because of the several hour delay.

*****

OTOH, I think you & I would agree on stuff like pretextual vehicle stops that are parlayed into searches. The broken tail light that is escalated to a drug search. Bullshit.

*****

Finally, I have no problem with the "appearance of control," assuming just laws. Citizens have a responsibility to comply with lawful orders and they aren't entitled to run the cops in endless circles, trying to catch the citizen in a compliant mood. In any sizable population, this would simply amount to just laws going unenforced.

EDP's are a separate issue, IMO. But again, EDP or not, if you are recklessly brandishing a samurai sword in public, expect the PD to stop that.

I don;t find muc h to disagree with here...which puzzles me. At it's core, using the specific NC example, there was a clear course of action.

Go to door, request a legal search
Request denied
Go get a warrant....

what happens after that should of course follow SOP? I take it we agree here?

Next step...

Warrant obtained and served...
Meet with resistance?
Here's where it gets tricky.

Force should be commensurate with the actual threat to the public, not just the threat to the ego of Piglets One and Two.
If somebody barricades the door, you have to begin making some fairly reasonable assumptions about his willingness to harm others and go from there...but i fundamentally and totally disagree that most of these no warrant serving/active threat altercations with NON EDP's are brought to head by anything other than hubris and physical and mental incompetence...the frequently cited example of an LEO who has neither the mental and verbal skills to deescalate nor the physical ability to use basic grappling.

I see stupidity and lack of confidence on the one side and "contempt of cop" on the other as the most common reason we see shit go wrong.


**************************

legal protests et al...total agreement. The right to protest without harming others is inherent..blocking freeways endangers 1,000's...If graduated force is needed..go for it.

***********************

No person who's ever been threatened with a knife or sword or gun would have anything but sympathy for the LEO who uses reasonable and deadly force..maybe more people need to get threatened with swords for this to sink in. That said, the lions share of the ugly work seems to be dealing with EDP's and yet we see very poor and inconsistent practices with it. I see it nearly every single day with SPD Beat cops doing really pretty well and County Transit Pigs being the most dangerous people in DT Seattle. Thyue are pathologically stupid as a near universal. I'm sure my experience is not unique.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:It's been a while since your last episode. I guess that's progress. Take your meds.

Go ride your bike chufferboy. Your cunt is falling out again.

Calm down Celeste Guap.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: I don;t find muc h to disagree with here...which puzzles me.

This aggression will not stand, Man!

johno wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: I don;t find muc h to disagree with here...which puzzles me.

This aggression will not stand, Man!

I'm sure it'll clear up.

But do tell....have you ever had to deal with those County boys within the City limits? Jesus Fuck it's a caricature of buffoonish cop behavior. SPD is visibly disgusted whenever you see them interact.

This has been an excellent and very reasonable discussion for the last two pages.I actually agree with a lot of what has been said on the "other side".

Then I see something like this and I get, "triggered". Is this guy a fucking skell? Yes. Does he deserve to be arrested? Yes. Felony level hate crime? This is why people hate Law Enforcement, the Criminal Justice System, Prosecutors, etc.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/blue-l ... ate-crime/

Smith and a security supervisor for the Sonesta then flagged down two Louisiana State Troopers, who brought the ornery man to the New Orleans Police Department’s 8th District station — where he called a female officer “a dumb c__t” and another officer “a dumb n____r.”

Police charged Delatoba with “simple criminal damage to property, disturbing the peace, and a felony-level hate crime” — by ineptly and incorrectly invoking the new law to grossly enhance his otherwise minor charges.

tonkadtx wrote:This has been an excellent and very reasonable discussion for the last two pages.I actually agree with a lot of what has been said on the "other side".

Then I see something like this and I get, "triggered". Is this guy a fucking skell? Yes. Does he deserve to be arrested? Yes. Felony level hate crime? This is why people hate Law Enforcement, the Criminal Justice System, Prosecutors, etc.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/blue-l ... ate-crime/

Smith and a security supervisor for the Sonesta then flagged down two Louisiana State Troopers, who brought the ornery man to the New Orleans Police Department’s 8th District station — where he called a female officer “a dumb c__t” and another officer “a dumb n____r.”

Police charged Delatoba with “simple criminal damage to property, disturbing the peace, and a felony-level hate crime” — by ineptly and incorrectly invoking the new law to grossly enhance his otherwise minor charges.

That's charge stacking and any attorney worth a shit will get that bullshit tossed out quick.

That's charge stacking and any attorney worth a shit will get that bullshit tossed out quick.

No doubt, in the article it is already being reviewed. But the fact that the law exists and they thought they could get away with charging this dude with a felony hate crime (probably, what 10 years minimum?) for calling them names is bad enough.

That's Louisiana for you.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: But do tell....have you ever had to deal with those County boys within the City limits? Jesus Fuck it's a caricature of buffoonish cop behavior. SPD is visibly disgusted whenever you see them interact.

We share borders with County and Seattle, so we see both. I haven't seen enough of county guys to form an opinion, except the ones that taught us Defensive Tactics. And those guys were pretty good, both technically and professional persona-wise. (Then again, we firefighters are part of the Good Guys, so I'd expect that.)

IME, it's an individual cop thing. There are a lot of good TukPD officers, then there are a few excitable boys who can make any call a crisis.
OTOH, I have been truly moved by how caring & compassionate some of our cops are with "perps" once the dust settles. To me, that is the mark of a great cop...to do what you have to do without demeaning someone...to be able to calm a situation or to throttle back after things are under control.

*****

Also a Big City snob thing, possibly. My fire dept. has a bit of contempt for the Seattle FD...they take twenty-some guys to accomplish what we do with seven. I'm sure they think we're hicks. We think we're awesome.

tonkadtx wrote:This is why people hate Law Enforcement, the Criminal Justice System, Prosecutors, etc.

Many folks hate cops, etc. simply because they don't like being told what to do or what to not do.

Or because they watch too many police use of force YouTube videos on Repeat. One of my FB Friends was marinating himself in the Baton Rouge & Minnesota vids, working into a froth.

*****

Anyone see any departments that embody Best Practices?
For the most part, probably not sexy enough for many YouTube hits. Although the NY cop buying the homeless guy shoes went viral.

johno wrote:Many folks hate cops, etc. simply because they don't like being told what to do or what to not do.

I'd grant that but you'll have to admit for the vast number of people who've been on the receiving end or the dishing end of police misconduct, hate and mistrust of the cops stems from very real and very legitimate reasons. I'll grant you all the other "it's complex"..bad apple this, ghetto behavior that, "most of these guys are JUST DOING THEIR JOB," "I don't make the laws"...ETC.....Sure, a solid majority of cops are "pretty good guys" a very small minority are legit heroes and another smaller minority are criminals, or criminally stupid or just such useless burnt out pieces of human garbage that they are no longer fit to direct traffic. Let's make up numbers call those 90%,9% and 1% respectively.

Yet even with those imaginary and beneficent numbers WRT the sliding scale of LE goodness, at the end of the day for a great many people in this country, having a healthy distaste and at the very least a profound mistrust of LE, is not just rational, the reverse would be pathologically irrational.