The police in the US really don't seem to want to do themselves any favours.....

[Sarpedon]

Jesus Christ! Why can't they make the damn things operate differently? Like the pistol has the index trigger and the tazer has a thumb press or something?

And shouldn't he have the safety on? Just so this doesn't fucking happen?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Jesus Christ! Why can't they make the damn things operate differently? Like the pistol has the index trigger and the tazer has a thumb press or something?

And shouldn't he have the safety on? Just so this doesn't fucking happen?

Or how about he ... like ... not have a gun in the first place? That would seem to solve the problem perfectly.

 

[ksen]

Or how about cops don't take armed donors out on patrol?

 

[bilby]

Or how about cops don't take armed donors out on patrol?

How about cops don't have 'donors' at all.

Where I come from, giving money to the cops is called 'corruption'. That doesn't stop it from happening; but at least everyone has the decency to recognize that it is nothing to be proud of. When the 'donations' or their consequent favours become public knowledge, people go to jail for it. They don't get compared to benefactors of the Red Cross.

Simple rule: Cops are funded from taxes. They should never ever get money, goods, services, discounts or gratuities of any kind, and their government funding should be high enough to minimise the temptation to take those things 'under the counter'. For the police to be effective they must not only be above corruption; they must be seen to be above corruption.

Even such 'mostly harmless' perks as getting discounted food at McDonalds is unacceptable. Any person or organisation might at some time be investigated by the police; and if and when that happens, the police need to be able to honestly say that they are impartial.

If a rich man donated half the police department's equipment, just how confident can we be that he will be shown no special favour if accused of a crime?

I know it goes against everything the USA stands for, but the law really should not consider a person's bank balance when investigating their possible involvement in crime.

 

[SimpleDon]

Or how about cops don't take armed donors out on patrol?

How about cops don't have 'donors' at all.

Where I come from, giving money to the cops is called 'corruption'. That doesn't stop it from happening; but at least everyone has the decency to recognize that it is nothing to be proud of. When the 'donations' or their consequent favours become public knowledge, people go to jail for it. They don't get compared to benefactors of the Red Cross.

Simple rule: Cops are funded from taxes. They should never ever get money, goods, services, discounts or gratuities of any kind, and their government funding should be high enough to minimise the temptation to take those things 'under the counter'. For the police to be effective they must not only be above corruption; they must be seen to be above corruption.

Even such 'mostly harmless' perks as getting discounted food at McDonalds is unacceptable. Any person or organisation might at some time be investigated by the police; and if and when that happens, the police need to be able to honestly say that they are impartial.

If a rich man donated half the police department's equipment, just how confident can we be that he will be shown no special favour if accused of a crime?

I know it goes against everything the USA stands for, but the law really should not consider a person's bank balance when investigating their possible involvement in crime.

A large part of the problem is that the US has about 17,000 different police agencies and twice as many police officers as the next largest police state, Germany, computed per capita. Professionalism is low, training in many of the smaller police forces range from merely inadequate to none. Conservatives fight establishing standards and regulations on the level of training as undesirable federal government interference in local government.

 

[ksen]

well, well, well

Tulsa County reserve deputy charged with second degree manslaughter

Second-Degree Manslaughter charges were filed against Robert Charles Bates, 73, in the shooting death of Eric Courtney Harris, 44. Bates has been a reserve deputy since 2008, and was assigned to the sheriff’s Violent Crimes Task Force.

 

[bilby]

How about cops don't have 'donors' at all.

Where I come from, giving money to the cops is called 'corruption'. That doesn't stop it from happening; but at least everyone has the decency to recognize that it is nothing to be proud of. When the 'donations' or their consequent favours become public knowledge, people go to jail for it. They don't get compared to benefactors of the Red Cross.

Simple rule: Cops are funded from taxes. They should never ever get money, goods, services, discounts or gratuities of any kind, and their government funding should be high enough to minimise the temptation to take those things 'under the counter'. For the police to be effective they must not only be above corruption; they must be seen to be above corruption.

Even such 'mostly harmless' perks as getting discounted food at McDonalds is unacceptable. Any person or organisation might at some time be investigated by the police; and if and when that happens, the police need to be able to honestly say that they are impartial.

If a rich man donated half the police department's equipment, just how confident can we be that he will be shown no special favour if accused of a crime?

I know it goes against everything the USA stands for, but the law really should not consider a person's bank balance when investigating their possible involvement in crime.

A large part of the problem is that the US has about 17,000 different police agencies and twice as many police officers as the next largest police state, Germany, computed per capita. Professionalism is low, training in many of the smaller police forces range from merely inadequate to none. Conservatives fight establishing standards and regulations on the level of training as undesirable federal government interference in local government.

Indeed. I would suggest that there should be no more than 51 police forces in the USA - one for each state plus the feds. In the case of smaller states, you might even want to have a single force with jurisdiction over multiple states - for example there could be a New England force headquartered in Boston, with jurisdiction over Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as Massachusetts; Washington DC, Delaware, Maryland and the two Virginias could reasonably have a single force; as could the two Dakotas plus Minnesota; and (perhaps) the two Carolinas. None of those four regional police forces would cover a particularly large land area by comparison with other states; except in the case of the Dakotas+MN, where they might cover a lot of ground, but not a lot of population.

Of course, this idea would work best with uniform laws across jurisdictions, which might not be popular locally, but having thousands of smaller county or city forces leads to far more problems than it solves. Larger forces tend to be better trained and equipped, and resources can be allocated on the basis of need, rather than the current state of affairs where wealthy locations with little crime get the cream, and poor locations with high crime get the dregs. Laws that are specific only to small areas are just needlessly confusing in the modern world of high mobility, where a uniform legal code at least within each state would be much more sensible.



Of course, I won't be holding my breath waiting for the US policing system to be reformed along these lines; but it will probably happen sooner than effective gun control, and might help to reduce the number of needless shootings by cops.

 

[Axulus]

Actually, there is one other issue, he was struggling with other officers at the time. If someone shoots the suspect with a taser while another officer is in contact with him, wouldn't they both get shocked?

Yet another reason why you don't need an untrained civilian volunteer on your team.

The police department said he had over 500 hours of training and over 3,000 volunteer hours logged, plus annual continuing education. If he passed the minimum competency requirements, then I don't see the issue with allowing him to be on this task force. The problem may be that the competency requirements aren't stringent enough - that would be a legitimate criticism.

 

[Axulus]

Nope, he was a local rich guy who donated money to the sheriff's department, and was rewarded by being made a deputy and allowed to ride along on chases.

Yes, that is what our democracy has come to. Buy a badge, shoot a guy, have the sheriff's department clear you.

Hopefully, higher authorities will have something to say about this. I'm not holding my breath.

False - anyone could sign up to be a volunteer and be put on a task force so long as they passed the required training and met the minimum competency requirements. There has not been any favoritism demonstrated. Now, if someone can show that he failed the competency requirements or did not obtain the minimum required training and they put him on a task force anyway, that would be something else entirely.

 

[bilby]

Nope, he was a local rich guy who donated money to the sheriff's department, and was rewarded by being made a deputy and allowed to ride along on chases.

Yes, that is what our democracy has come to. Buy a badge, shoot a guy, have the sheriff's department clear you.

Hopefully, higher authorities will have something to say about this. I'm not holding my breath.

False - anyone could sign up to be a volunteer and be put on a task force so long as they passed the required training and met the minimum competency requirements. There has not been any favoritism demonstrated. Now, if someone can show that he failed the competency requirements or did not obtain the minimum required training and they put him on a task force anyway, that would be something else entirely.

His demonstrated inability to tell the difference between a gun and a taser does strongly suggest inadequate competency.

 

[Axulus]

False - anyone could sign up to be a volunteer and be put on a task force so long as they passed the required training and met the minimum competency requirements. There has not been any favoritism demonstrated. Now, if someone can show that he failed the competency requirements or did not obtain the minimum required training and they put him on a task force anyway, that would be something else entirely.

His demonstrated inability to tell the difference between a gun and a taser does strongly suggest inadequate competency.

Did this show up when they tested him? It's one thing to say that they showed him favoritism because he is a donor by letting him bypass the training and the competency testing, it's another thing to say that their competence testing is flawed. One is an accusation of corruption, the other is an institutional deficiency. Do you understand that the difference between the two scenarios?

 

[bilby]

His demonstrated inability to tell the difference between a gun and a taser does strongly suggest inadequate competency.

Did this show up when they tested him? It's one thing to say that they showed him favoritism because he is a donor by letting him bypass the training and the competency testing, it's another thing to say that their competence testing is flawed. One is an accusation of corruption, the other is an institutional deficiency. Do you understand that the difference between the two scenarios?

A distinction without a difference. Corruption is an institutional deficiency.

 

[Axulus]

Did this show up when they tested him? It's one thing to say that they showed him favoritism because he is a donor by letting him bypass the training and the competency testing, it's another thing to say that their competence testing is flawed. One is an accusation of corruption, the other is an institutional deficiency. Do you understand that the difference between the two scenarios?

A distinction without a difference. Corruption is an institutional deficiency.

You are quiveling over terminology - do you not understand the salient difference between the two scenarios, one of showing someone favoritism and corruption vs. one of inadequate ability to weed out insufficiently competent volunteers, whether they be black, rich, white or poor?

 

[bilby]

A distinction without a difference. Corruption is an institutional deficiency.

You are quiveling over terminology - do you not understand the salient difference between the two scenarios, one of showing someone favoritism and corruption vs. one of inadequate ability to weed out insufficiently competent volunteers, whether they be black, rich, white or poor?

I understand; I just don't care. The victim is just as dead either way; and there is no dichotomy here - it is not only possible but plausible that both factors apply. Inadequate ability to weed out the incompetents, can be combined with a desire not to upset a donor to produce this result - the one need not exclude the other.

 

[Axulus]

You are quiveling over terminology - do you not understand the salient difference between the two scenarios, one of showing someone favoritism and corruption vs. one of inadequate ability to weed out insufficiently competent volunteers, whether they be black, rich, white or poor?

I understand; I just don't care. The victim is just as dead either way; and there is no dichotomy here - it is not only possible but plausible that both factors apply. Inadequate ability to weed out the incompetents, can be combined with a desire not to upset a donor to produce this result - the one need not exclude the other.

But the question is would they also let in an equally incompetent person who has donated zero? The people who are accusing the department of corruption are saying no, they would not have. This guy got special treatment because he was a rich donor. Where is the evidence of that? This department has over 100 volunteers as part of this program, and not all of them are wealthy donors (in fact, most of them are not).

 

[bilby]

I understand; I just don't care. The victim is just as dead either way; and there is no dichotomy here - it is not only possible but plausible that both factors apply. Inadequate ability to weed out the incompetents, can be combined with a desire not to upset a donor to produce this result - the one need not exclude the other.

But the question is would they also let in an equally incompetent person who has donated zero? The people who are accusing the department of corruption are saying no, they would not have. This guy got special treatment because he was a rich donor. Where is the evidence of that? This department has over 100 volunteers as part of this program, and not all of them are wealthy donors (in fact, most of them are not).

How many of them accidentally shot someone dead?

How many volunteers get rejected during training, and of those, how many are major donors to the force?

It is possible that the force is not corrupt. But given their readiness to accept large donations from wealthy individuals, they have at the very least failed in their duty to maintain public confidence by avoiding the appearance of corrupt practices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, there is one other issue, he was struggling with other officers at the time. If someone shoots the suspect with a taser while another officer is in contact with him, wouldn't they both get shocked?

Oddly, it is hard to find why they were chasing him. Apparently unconstitutional laws regarding firearms sales was the reason.

No, because the shock will go between the contact points. Someone touching them isn't grounded and will get only a small portion of the energy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yet another reason why you don't need an untrained civilian volunteer on your team.

Dude, he was 73 so he clearly had several decades of experience to help guide him in order to not make a mistake like shoot a man with a gun instead of a Taser.

No--what counts is how long he trained with a taser.

What's going on here is very likely pattern capture (there's probably a better medical term for it but I don't know it.) You start to do something that is related to an action you have done many, many times. If you're distracted while doing it it's quite possible for your brain to head down the common path rather than the one you intended to do. We're all vulnerable to it.

It's certainly what happened with the BART cop shooting case--he had just been issued a taser a few days before and he was carrying it on the wrong side. His intention was "draw taser" but the mental path of "draw gun" won out.

Being a police officer for a long time won't help you, if anything it will make this mistake more likely (by making the "draw gun" path more ingrained due to more practice time.)

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus Christ! Why can't they make the damn things operate differently? Like the pistol has the index trigger and the tazer has a thumb press or something?

And shouldn't he have the safety on? Just so this doesn't fucking happen?

I think the entire grip has to be changed to make it more different although exactly how to handle this I would leave up to the psychologists.

The safety won't help--taking it off is going to be muscle memory.

 

[braces_for_impact]

What I find interesting is how many times we are told that these are split second decisions under intense pressure (and it often is), that things happen too fast to use pepper spray, a taser, or other non-lethal means of stopping a perpetrator. Yet we allow men over 70 to perform these actions?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yet another reason why you don't need an untrained civilian volunteer on your team.

The police department said he had over 500 hours of training and over 3,000 volunteer hours logged, plus annual continuing education. If he passed the minimum competency requirements, then I don't see the issue with allowing him to be on this task force. The problem may be that the competency requirements aren't stringent enough - that would be a legitimate criticism.

For an undercover mission?!