|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Jun 23, 2020 9:01:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by minx on Jun 24, 2020 9:46:29 GMT -5
This is what should be trend.
Officer pulls someone over (in this case for a stolen car - could be a very dangerous stop).
He puts his body cam on immediately and makes sure it's working.
While he takes out his gun, he doesn't point it at the driver or passenger - instead he tells them firmly but politely to stay in the car.
He also tells them politely several times that the car has been reported stolen and to keep their hands where he can see them while they investigate.
He politely tells bystanders that they need to stand back because they are interfering and becoming a distraction to him - he needs to pay attention to the scene.
When backup arrives, he then approaches the car (with the gun still pointed downwards). He does not touch or interfere with the driver getting out of the car, and places her keys and cell phone on the roof in plain view.
He clearly explains that he's putting her in handcuffs because she is driving a stolen car.
He also clearly explains that she does not have the right to record because he is detaining her, but reassured her more than once that his camera is on.
When she becomes upset and yells, he does not respond in kind and refuses to escalate - he tells her calmly that the car has been reported stolen, and he has to detain her because it's now a stolen car - he understands that she's just the driver.
When she is in the back of his car and argues further, he calmly tells her he's not willing to keep arguing the same points.
At no time, does he or his backups tell bystanders they can't record. The backup tells people they can't block the road to record, but nothing further.
This should be used as an example of how policing should be done IMO. Professional, polite, clear explanations and refusals to engage in an escalation. And a nice clear recording of the entire incident.
Every damn police department and officer in the nation should be demanding that they have nice body cams like this one so they can show that they aren't doing bad shit.
As for the woman, yes she was unreasonable (I would be too in her situation). And the reality is that if you're black and you're pulled over for what seems like no good reason (she didn't realize the car was overdue at the rental agency and had been reported stolen), you're going to be very afraid. And if the cop pulls a gun after telling you something that seems bogus (THIS CAR ISN'T STOLEN! I RENTED THE DAMN THING!!!), you're really going to wonder if you'll be going home again.
And yes, that's the fault of the police. They have fucked up things so badly with the Black community that there is not only no trust, but the trust that is there is way down in the negative. I doubt there is a Black person in the nation who feels that the police are 100% on their side right now.
The police have the ability to stop this, and they can do it now without having to divert money
1) Have every police chief issue a policy effective immediately - Every traffic stop, and the results of that stop will be recorded.
--Date, time, officer name, reason for stop, make and model of vehicle, gender, age and color of driver. Result of stop (ticket, warning, verbal warning)
--At each stop, the officer will give the driver a card with their name, rank and badge number, along with instructions on how to contact the department if needed
--GPS data from each patrol car will be saved for a minimum of 90 days
2) Ask for an independent review board to be set up to review complaints
--The board will have police, lawyers, and civilians so there are several different points of view
--The board will have a set term limit, so people aren't on there to the point of becoming complacent
3) Have clearly defined rules of force and engagement that the public can view
Then
Body cams MUST be made mandatory, and having them on for ALL stops must also be mandatory.
There needs to be a team of independent auditors who are not part of police hierarchy who audit the cameras within 24 hours of use. So I would pull cameras used the prior day at random. Make sure that every time the officer calls in a stop, that the camera is activated within 60 seconds, and clearly records the officer opening the door of the cruiser to leave. Then the camera records until the officer gets back into the car, and radios in that the stop has been completed. This person would be able to report objectionable content, but wouldn't be responsible for monitoring for that - their concern is that the camera recorded a clear video, and that every video matches a stop and vice versa
Camera footage would be monitored and reviewed by an officer's supervisors to make sure department standards were being met and policies were adhered to.
If you are pulled over, you would have the right to view the footage in private with representatives of your choosing (let's say 4 max) within 24 hours of the incident.
I feel this would at least be a start - say to people - "Hey, we do a tough job. We want you all to rest easy knowing that we are professionals. And like the professionals we are, we're not afraid to prove it to you."
Yeah, the 'experienced' officers will shit a brick, but perhaps we can start by cleaning house of them. And those damn cameras should be sold with this dude's video - "Record this shit and you won't be in trouble when someone complains!"
I work in software support. Under no stretch of the imagination am I saving lives here, nor are lives going to end or be marred forever if I'm obnoxious. Yet every one of my incoming and outcoming calls are recorded and attached to my case notes. If anyone complains about me, the first thing that my manager does is to look for and listen to that recording. And my calls are routinely monitored, and at least every other week, my calls are looked at to make sure that they all have a case associated with them. And I have to be civil, professional and polite in the face of abuse.
Remember, my work isn't shit to the power a police officer has. Shouldn't we at least hold them to the standard I'm held to?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Jun 24, 2020 10:35:56 GMT -5
I agree with you 100% on all points except one. The part where you dedicated only one sentence to her and the rest of the essay to the responsibilities of the LEOs. I get it. I really do. And that's why the other stuff you wrote about is spot on and I wouldn't argue a word of it. BUT. She was driving a car that was reported stolen. It started with her, not the police. Brooks was piss drunk, passed out in the drive thru line, and grabbed the cops tazer, fleeing arrest, and trying to fire it at officers. The vast majority of these cases start the same way, cops respond to someone breaking the law. At that point the individual has to decide what their responsibility is since they can't control the actions of police. Not breaking the law is a really great way to avoid these encounters. Not trying to run when you have is a good way to avoid serious injury or death. Not pointing weapons is an excellent choice of avoiding certain death.
Not one thing I said here justifies or is even the slightest attempt to justify the actions of the cops, especially in the case of Brooks, and most especially in the case of George Floyd... To me, that's a separate issue for the sake of this argument. That said, I completely understand and insist that when a person is on the ground, handcuffed, and unarmed, he is in custody of police and therefore the entirety of the responsibility falls on the police. Any harm that comes to a person in custody, there is no justification for harm coming to them.
Just my thoughts. Don't whack me with a switch. I'm honestly glad we don't get cable or sat here. I'm already avoiding the few streaming news channels and most internet news because it's so over the top that, as I pointed out in another thread, we're fixated on only a part of a much larger issue. And in another thread I'm surprised not to have drawn any responses and for what it's worth, I'm greatly disappointed that the media, social media, liberal media especially, MSM, but what disappoints me most is that BLM is a farce and by all accounts has no interest in black lives unless they have been lost at the hands of white cops. 5 kids killed in Chicago over the weekend, 3 of them under the age of 10. Once city, one weekend, no white cops involved, no marches, no protests, no looting, no riots, and no 24/7 news coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by minx on Jun 25, 2020 11:13:03 GMT -5
Yes, she was driving a car reported stolen (which she didn't realize).
And yes, she was totally pissed off and obnoxious about it.
BUT, the cop responded just the way you want a cop to respond in this situation.
He didn't approach the car since it was stopped in a driveway, and his car was blocking it from leaving easily.
He took out his gun to be prepared, but didn't aim it directly at the driver or passenger.
He clearly told them why they were stopped and repeatedly told them to just hold still and wait
And he did this all clearly, calmly and professionally
Now look at Brooks.
He was blackout drunk in the drive-thru line
First officer who responds wakes him up, has him pull into a parking spot. He talks with Brooks for a few minutes and calls in a back-up
Second officer arrives - talks with Brooks, who is calm and compliant
A sobriety test is administered, which Brooks fails (Brooks does admit to drinking, but insists he is not too drunk to drive)
Brooks asks if he can just walk to his sister's house which is a few blocks away & is told no by officer #2
At this point, both officers have been talking to Brooks for about 30 minutes with no problems
Officer #2 administers a second sobriety test and when Brooks fails that, officer #2 tells Brooks that he's 'too drunk to drive' and tries to handcuff him
This is the point where Brooks starts to struggle, and is thrown to the ground by officer #2, who tells him that officer #1 is going to tase him
Brooks breaks free, grabs officer #1's taser and runs. Officer #2 shoots Brooks
So, let's break this down
Officer #1 doesn't know how to handle a drunk driver, who is articulate, but still clearly drunk
--This is a huge problem. Why is officer #1 on patrol unsupervised if he can't handle something this routine?
---However, officer #1 does do the right thing in this situation, which is to call a back-up
Officer #2 arrives and seemingly escalates the situation.
--Brooks agrees to take a sobriety test and fails. He then admits to drinking, but not to being drunk. He asks to walk to his sister's house.
---At this point, officer #2 doesn't seem to feel a crime has been committed, as he doesn't arrest or try to arrest Brooks. But he escalates by telling Brooks he can't lock the car and walk to his sisters
----Brooks says his sister was within walking distance, yet neither officer asks him to call her, or offers to call and talk with her on his behalf. My brother lost his license for DWI (he was beyond shitfaced), and was told to call a ride to get him and drive him to the station to be formally charged.
--Officer #2 then asks Brooks to take a breathalyzer, and Brooks agrees
---Again, why is a second test needed? He already failed test #1, so if he was going to be arrested, he should have been
--Officer #2 escalates again by pulling out handcuffs and telling Brooks he's too drunk to drive
--When Brooks resists, Officer #2 pushes him to the ground and tells him he'll be tased
So how is Brooks to blame for this? He was compliant and trying to be calm - just asking to be allowed to leave.
We put a lot of blame on those being arrested, especially when those folks are Black. If only they had been respectful. If only they had listened. If only they hadn't chosen to break the law.
Yet we don't seem to want to place the same level of responsibility onto the police
Why weren't they respectful?
Why didn't they stay calm?
Why didn't they follow their training?
I feel we need more accountability along with training - a lot of the training should be reviewing real-life situations. What was done correctly, what wasn't done correctly, and what could be changed?
And contrary to what others think, I think we actually need MORE officers on the street.
It's hard to weed out the 'bad apples' when there are no good ones in the pipeline to replace them
It's hard for an officer to take the time to talk with someone and de-escalate things when there are 20 calls waiting for a response
It's hard for an officer to stop and simply hang with folks and shoot the shit when everything is backed up
It's hard to be polite and stay calm when you're working your third 12 hour day in a row
It's hard to make time for training and pay attention to it when you're coming off of a 10 hour shift, or you've been working for the past 6 days
It's hard to stop and think when you get paid crap for dealing with obnoxious people
So we need to make policing more attractive to people
--offer more pay
--offer better benefits
--have a more rigorous screening process - it shouldn't be easy to get accepted - you should have to pass attribute tests showing your intelligence, psychological tests, and physical fitness tests
--have a more rigorous training process - it should take at least a year to come out of the academy, not 3 months
--have a reasonable work schedule - no more than 5 hours on the street per shift - the remaining 3 hours can be devoted to paperwork, training, and other things needed
--have a rotation - one day you're out on patrol, one day you might be doing 'routine' visits to businesses, churches, schools, one day you might be in the office handling reports that come in but don't require an in-person visit, one day you may be going out to community events to speak with organizations about police work
--hire people who aren't sworn officers, but have specialized training who can go out with officers on specific calls
---social workers
---addiction counselors
---conflict and mediation specialists
---child therapists
Because right now, we ask the police to do too much with too little. But the answer also isn't to simply hire more police either - it's to hire AND update policies
And it's also to update laws to make them both more reasonable (legalize weed!), and to take things like new technology and changes in society into account.
But as usual, that means MONEY! And heaven forbid, we ask the rich to pay their share! Much easier to let people protest.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Jun 25, 2020 16:47:19 GMT -5
I crashed my car into a telephone pole, shit faced drunk. We'd been smoking weed, hutting nitrous, and drinking at the party I'd left.
I left the crash scene (to phone, this was before cellphone telephones) and returned. The youngish cop who was there when I returned could easily tell I was drunk. He told me so. He waited for the tow truck then drove me home. Oh no, almost home. He just left drunk-ass white boy on the side of the road. No leaving the scene, no public drunk charges, no DUI/DWI or even careless driving.
|
|
|
|
Post by minx on Jun 26, 2020 10:19:09 GMT -5
I got wasted and drove my car into another one, killing 4 people.
I was arrested, but walked because I told the judge that I couldn't be held responsible, because I was white, rich and spoiled.
Hahahahahaha! They bought it and let me go!
I'm sure we could go on all day, but I want to hear the stories of the black folks who were pulled over for serious shit and let go....
|
|
