Atlanta Police Fatally Shoot Black Man in the Back at Wendy's Drive-Thru

If you can hit them with a tazer you can nail them with a pharma equivalent then ride it out till they're flat....there's a HUGE range of dosages that are effective/not dangerous for various regularly used tranks in large animals that translate 1-1 for humans

While you pose an interesting question wrt using tranks, you don't have an understanding of how they work. To become an anesthesiologist, you need a BS degree, 4 years in medical school, and then completing another four years doing an anesthesiology residency. A minimum of 12 years all told. The anesthesiologist needs to know the person's age, weight, duration of surgery, etc. Then that person is monitored throughout the surgery

So now you're going to hand tranquilizer guns to cops? Is the cop going to guess the correct weight of the person to put down? Does the cop know all of the underlying medical issues that could cause a person to die? Is the cop going to be carrying a range of doses to use for different sized people and then expected to pick the right dose while under duress? Does the cop know if the person is addicted to chronic prescription painkillers because if he doesn't know this, he is going to underdose the person in question?

When an animal is tranquilized, it doesn't go down immediately. The same would happen with a person.

I read a story about a veterinarian that estimated a dog weighed 100 lbs, and after shooting it with a dart, the dog died of an overdose because it only weighed 85 lbs.

Tranquilizer guns for cops...just NO! And, I highly doubt a cop would want anything to do with the use of tranks.
 
To be clear/put into context

I'm not anti cop.....quite the opposite......popo serves a necessary function to ensuring liberty/freedom/preventing animals in society from destroying the former.......but I would really like to see popo's job incrementally move back to peacekeeper and away from the insanity of "Law Enforcement".....especially in light of the bs that donks and RINO's push thru the leg every year.

The fewer unnecessary interactions there are between popo and police = fewer negative outcomes......its nothing more/less than a numbers game.

Being a peacekeeper is a much harder job than hiding behind "Law Enforcement" if you know what I'm getting at.....there are a lot of people that can do the latter but the former is a much rarer breed/skill set.....and its not something that can be taught....you either have it or you dont.

I absolutely agree with you. I noticed and commented to a friend that during the corona shit, with all the cops told to basically stand down unless it’s a violent crime, the crime rate dropped immensely and they weren’t finding the stacks of dead bodies on every corner and all the granny’s weren’t being molested in their house dresses, all that stuff the pols would normally project to scare us if we ever said “Get rid of half the police. We don’t need them. And make sure it’s the half that suck too while you’re at it.”

The lawsuits will be much fewer and the regular Joes that before maybe just f***ed up with something or drank a little too much and is stumbling home after work but it’s not a regular problem for him, they aren’t being chased down and tased like lose cattle. I thought it was great and it was probably more along those lines way back in the day. I’d be thrilled it if reverted to that.

I’ll always remember one particular story my dad told me, he responded to assist another officer with a DUI arrest, this was back in the 80’s early 80’s I think. When he showed up the suspect was in cuffs and the arresting officer was smacking him around for some reason. My dad being the experienced and somewhat quiet and scary dude that he was, he was a pro boxer before joining the force back in the 50’s, told this other cop if you lay one more hand on that man I will knock you the f*** out right here and lock you up myself. He took the prisoner to make sure he was safe from there on.

Sadly as this goes, he and my uncles all retired only a couple years later because they didn’t like the direction it was going, it was changing for the worst they said and it was time to get out.

The officer that was beating the suspect, has been a CoP now for about 20 years. The fish rots from the head.
 
Cambridge PD has a civilian review board. You can guess how that goes. How would you make sure that they are not just as biased against as some people think the police admin is biased for?

Off Smiths 15 use of force complaints:

How does someone decide what is excessive if they are not actually on scene, or have FULL video from start to finish? It’s like trying to decide if there was pass interference without multiple camera replays and slo-mo, everybody thinks they saw something and ten people who saw it will tell you ten different ways it went down.

Probably a bad a analogy but it makes the point of very fine details that need to be seen before you make the call and the difference between a professional witness (a referee for example) as they say (someone who is trained and experienced in the events being discussed) and someone that’s possibly seeing something for the first time and doesn’t really understand what they’re seeing at all.

Most people see a fight or even a big melee on the street and they’re emotionally affected by it, it’s real life violence and it’s frightening to them even though they’re not personally involved, they’re not used to it so it’s disturbing. How will they then report accurately what transpired when they’re not accustomed to mentally recording such details and removing the emotions from it that could make or break a call?

How then would this civilian review board understand exactly what level of force is needed or exceeded for each particular incident, unless 1) it’s painfully obvious due to FULL and clear video of the incident again from start to finish or 2) they were actually there for the incident from its start to finish, and that’s just an impossibility.

There really is no easy answer to it, I’m not trying to be a dick with all of the above questions back at you, but those are only a small amount of things that need to be considered.

To your last point and question that “you’re sure the good cops know who the bad cops are”; this is just inherently not accurate, as much as some folks want to believe it is, it’s just not true.

You could work with someone for years and never see them do anything wrong, and then you see them on tv being arrested by the feds or IA for something. These dirty cops don’t flaunt their own breaking of laws or criminal activity in front of everyone and we just ignore it like “ya whatevs dude, it’s all good.” That’s ridiculous.

You’d be surprised just how many cops get into fights with each other over stupid shit they’re doing or have done on the street, not criminally but stupid just the same and dangerous.

I taught some classes at the academy for about 10 years, there’s recruits that I’ve noted should be removed from training and find employment elsewhere, stating point blank that they’re going to be a f***ing problem mark my words and it goes ignored by the chiefs. The DI’s at the academy have made numerous reports and sent them upstairs to be reviewed for immediate dismissal, for any number of reasons, be it incompetence, dangerousness on the range, arrogance, chips on their shoulder, or just not fit for this kind of duty, and most all of them are denied and continue in training, and the admins train of thought is well shit we paid all this money so far we can’t get rid of them now, we need numbers on the street and they need to keep numbers $$ down for their bosses so they let them stay and just pray the lawsuit doesn’t come eventually when they f*** up. And they do, and they come, and the chiefs still will not get rid of them. They’re too afraid of being sued themselves for discrimination these days if they let someone go so they try and bury them somewhere safe and hope nobody notices.

I would argue that it’s not the union at all making it difficult to remove bad or poorly performing officers, but the administration itself. The union would love to get rid of them because they end up paying so much money of our money in lawsuits and attorneys fees for bullshit over and over and it affects morale and discipline in all areas when we see someone who shouldn’t be there, continue to operate with impunity and continue to be a problem child because the chiefs are afraid to act out of political correctness and politics.

That’s my honest take of it from a street level perspective. I have no politics involved in it and no big desk to lose so I can see things clearly and it starts at the top. I spoke about this about a week ago somewhere here, the chiefs and the politicians are the biggest reason our depts are such clusterf***s these days. Because they promote test takers and yes men instead of promoting actual leaders, and once upstairs at the big table it’s protect ourselves at all costs while we smoke cigars and go play golf, ‘this is the life’ type of thinking, and we ain’t losing it for any of you loser street cops.

People think policing is all this thin blue line all day long stuff, 100% US V THEM, it’s not, well it might be US (cops) vs THEM (our own administration), but my description of it, at least where I worked, is like being on a sinking pirate ship. You can decide what that would be like.

I wonder if, SCOTUS modifies qualifies immunity, if some of this behavior is stopped at the academy level that you describe? It seems part of the change to the situation might begin at that stage of police training.

This is an interesting exchange and I appreciate hearing the police side of it. I agree it is an imperfect solution and there is no easy answer. What does an acceptable use of force look like? It's really hard to say.
 
While you pose an interesting question wrt using tranks, you don't have an understanding of how they work. To become an anesthesiologist, you need a BS degree, 4 years in medical school, and then completing another four years doing an anesthesiology residency. A minimum of 12 years all told. The anesthesiologist needs to know the person's age, weight, duration of surgery, etc. Then that person is monitored throughout the surgery

So now you're going to hand tranquilizer guns to cops? Is the cop going to guess the correct weight of the person to put down? Does the cop know all of the underlying medical issues that could cause a person to die? Is the cop going to be carrying a range of doses to use for different sized people and then expected to pick the right dose while under duress? Does the cop know if the person is addicted to chronic prescription painkillers because if he doesn't know this, he is going to underdose the person in question?

When an animal is tranquilized, it doesn't go down immediately. The same would happen with a person.

I read a story about a veterinarian that estimated a dog weighed 100 lbs, and after shooting it with a dart, the dog died of an overdose because it only weighed 85 lbs.

Tranquilizer guns for cops...just NO! And, I highly doubt a cop would want anything to do with the use of tranks.
Fun story ...

My dad started his biology career working for one of the richest persons in Latin America. The dude had so much money, he had biologists doing research as a hobby. This worked out great for my dad because he got paid good money to do a PhD while working for a private corporation.

This rich dude had these rams, they were very expensive, imported from Australia. He had a ton of fields, some rams were used for research and the lab was in the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere. I used to go there on weekends when my dad had to work and hang out.

One day they had to perform surgery on one of these rams (these were over $150K animals back in 1998, not cheap). The rich guy decided his lab workers would put the ram to sleep and do the procedure (I cant remember why the vet was not around), so my dad and the rest of the lab were reading on how to perform this procedure (I swear this is a true story [laugh] ), they had everything ready to put the animal to sleep and one of the guys shot himself with the tranquilizer.

The guy was asleep for something like 3 days and no one told his wife.

The ram died.
 
I wonder if, SCOTUS modifies qualifies immunity, if some of this behavior is stopped at the academy level that you describe? It seems part of the change to the situation might begin at that stage of police training.

This is an interesting exchange and I appreciate hearing the police side of it. I agree it is an imperfect solution and there is no easy answer. What does an acceptable use of force look like? It's really hard to say.

Of course, being able to ask and answer is the only way to start building some understanding of what people see as ‘the other side’, when it shouldn’t be viewed that way. I think a lot of cops here just gave up trying to explain things because of the trolls disrupting a decent conversation and it devolves into a shitshow so why bother? They get treated like that at work everyday, they don’t need it here too on their downtime while just trying to learn more about their hobby and shooting sports.

So yes, to your point, being able to weed some of these knuckleheads out at the academy would be a great start.

But that still won’t stop those that are weak minded from all of the temptations put in front of them daily. It’s easy to fall prey to it when you’re acting in a position of authority, you have a lot of freedom during your shift and a lot of power that can be tempting to take advantage of and hide behind a badge. It can easily consume someone or leave them locked into a situation where someone else is now blackmailing them into working for their organization because they took the first easy 100.00 to turn away.

Those that don’t have the right mindset to keep it clean for the sake of all the others will always find a way in and work their way into more trouble for easy money, p*ssy or dope, and it’s hard as hell to know who they are usually until it’s too late.

And the use of force? You’re right, it’s very hard to say, unless it’s blatantly obvious of course, but each violent incident is going to be different, have different actors, different outcomes and different witnesses. So you can’t really nail down one particular problem with it unless it becomes more evident that that tactic is being used incorrectly or in the wrong circumstances, like the chokehold thing we’re seeing more and more of going wrong.

I don’t know how depts ever allowed that to begin with. With all the small bones in and around the neck, plus the airway being crushed so easily, or the oxygen to the brain, man, crazy, if you don’t know what you’re doing it’s a pretty dangerous and maybe stupid thing to attempt.
 
Last edited:

View: https://youtu.be/mCvca3Qo664


Just in case anyone was wondering how you can get shot in the back....

Just turn and fire a cops taser at them while you are running.


Ya that’s a tough call to make on the run. If I’m fighting with a violent suspect, he breaks and runs, 20 yards, 30 yards, 40 yards, adrenaline sky high, vision being affected by being in a sprint and in the dark and then he turns and points at me with some type of weapon, I’d prolly take the shot too. It’s pretty easy and fairly common for a fleeing suspect to reach into his pants and pull a secreted firearm to either toss away or take some shots at you while running to further his escape.

Was there a 100% surety in the officers mind that he was pointing only the taser or an actual firearm that he possibly had in his pants. That will be the 1K question. And I’m glad it’s not me that had to make that call.
 
I don’t know if you’ve ever tried it, but it’s a lot harder than it looks. Seriously. I’m no slouch when it comes to fighting and I’ve needed all the help I could get before trying to get 16yr old girls into cuffs. It’s not like you can just punch the crap out of them into unconsciousness to get cuffs on.

You’re trying to do it with the least amount of force possible. Trying to do it without breaking any of their limbs, which is fairly easy to do if you go too hard on them, trying to do it while being filmed by 10 people standing around you in a circle screaming at you, and worrying if you’re going to get kicked in the face or stabbed in the back and they are using every bit of strength that they have against you.

It would be a lot easier to get them cuffed IF it’s just a downright beat down because you’re actually afraid for your life for whatever reason, but that’s a lot less common than a typical arrest where the suspect is just resisting physically and not violently.

I think anybody thats ever been a cop, or a medical type job where you have to subdue patients or juvi’s with the least amount of force and trying not to bruise them up too bad will tell you it can be a real MF, it’s not like tv, not even close.
Females that are resisting are definitely the worst.
The guys will usually give up when they know they are beat.
The girls keep fighting like the Tasmanian devil.
 

View: https://youtu.be/mCvca3Qo664


Just in case anyone was wondering how you can get shot in the back....

Just turn and fire a cops taser at them while you are running.


Really? That’s punishable by death? Cops use tasers so frequently it’s laughable. “don’t taze me bro!” I also recall hearing from multiple sources that tasers are unreliable with regards to incapacitating people, at least that’s usually the response when people ask “why didn’t they just tase him instead of shooting him?”, maybe I’m wrong. But, homeboy grabs it and runs and now it’s super killy and necessitates lethal force. I dunno, I don’t think the popo can have it both ways. I assume the chief of police stepped down because it was a good shoot as well? That certainly doesn’t look great.
I’m not trying to be a dick, just armchair quarterbacking and asking (what I think are) legitimate questions.
 
This is what you posted: "You’re not forgetting are you, that the courts also decided long ago, that should you choose to use or attempt lethal force to resist being brought before them, then you are subjected to having the same lethal force used against you. I’m pretty sure the entirety of the country understands this."

What lethal force was used by the criminal in this case that caused the cop to return lethal force as he shot the guy in the back when he was running away? Was the cop's life in danger of serious bodily harm or death by the perp running away?

Check out post #118
 
As I said, at the end of the day, it's yet another police interaction resulting in death. And that's a big big problem at any time, but especially right now.


Good post, and there's very seldom a right answer. I get that.

But there's a wrong answer, and it's a dead citizen. My sense is that, too often, modern officers go to the gun too quickly. Perhaps that's a misperception on my part, but there must be stats on LEO use of guns, and you LEO types (I would hope) know those stats. My hope is that training and TACSOP decisions are made in accordance with stats like that, rather than on some sort of "officer safety vs citizens' rights" rubric. Because my unshakable belief is that my rights trump your safety every time, and that that's why you're well paid (which is something I don't complain about): for doing an inherently unsafe job.
From Fox: In the Brooks incident, police had been called late Friday about a man allegedly sleeping in a car that was blocking a Wendy’s restaurant drive-thru. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation was investigating reports that the man, later identified as Brooks, had failed a sobriety test and was shot in a struggle over the stun gun.

So this is the new "norm" for a police interaction???? You know how I avoid getting shot by a cop??? Well in this particular example I would not be passed out drunk in a Wendy's drive though and then get into a fight over gun/stun gun with cop. All the due process you preach about goes both ways. If the individual thought he was in the right and could take a nappy nap in said drive threw, fight with cop, go for cops weapon HE should have taken the pinch and gone to court. I am no "boot licker" but JFC at what point do you say WTF???
 
If you can hit them with a tazer you can nail them with a pharma equivalent then ride it out till they're flat....there's a HUGE range of dosages that are effective/not dangerous for various regularly used tranks in large animals that translate 1-1 for humans
That could be very dangerous as well.
You have no idea of what is already in that persons system and how it may react .
Medical condition
Drug allergies
Ect.
All it takes is one and you are right back to "The Cops murdered the guy "
 
While you pose an interesting question wrt using tranks, you don't have an understanding of how they work. To become an anesthesiologist, you need a BS degree, 4 years in medical school, and then completing another four years doing an anesthesiology residency. A minimum of 12 years all told. The anesthesiologist needs to know the person's age, weight, duration of surgery, etc. Then that person is monitored throughout the surgery

So now you're going to hand tranquilizer guns to cops? Is the cop going to guess the correct weight of the person to put down? Does the cop know all of the underlying medical issues that could cause a person to die? Is the cop going to be carrying a range of doses to use for different sized people and then expected to pick the right dose while under duress? Does the cop know if the person is addicted to chronic prescription painkillers because if he doesn't know this, he is going to underdose the person in question?

When an animal is tranquilized, it doesn't go down immediately. The same would happen with a person.

I read a story about a veterinarian that estimated a dog weighed 100 lbs, and after shooting it with a dart, the dog died of an overdose because it only weighed 85 lbs.

Tranquilizer guns for cops...just NO! And, I highly doubt a cop would want anything to do with the use of tranks.

We're not talking about anethesia

We're talking about tranquilizers

There are tons and tons of varients used regularly and safely by animal/pet owners

I'm not suggesting I've got it all worked out.......but isnt it time we started thinking outside of the box instead of being the same trained bears holding up "training" and "procedure" as justification for doing the same shit over and over and expecting a different result?

I'm pretty sure that if we can manage to drop ordinance via remote control on a tango from 10,000 miles away via drone or have that new-ish mini shuttle land/handle re-entry mostly autonomously that we can figure out effective delivery/dosage of trank to a violent person with reasonable safety to all parties

How many people die/have massive complications as a result of tazers every year?

 
That could be very dangerous as well.
You have no idea of what is already in that persons system and how it may react .
Medical condition
Drug allergies
Ect.
All it takes is one and you are right back to "The Cops murdered the guy "

You mean like this?

 
Its what they resort to when they cant bully you with their badge. Ad hominem attacks from our heros in blue. Its laughable to take the positions they have taken. I think it's actually panic that they know how bad cops behave, to the point that they have lost the support of the majority of civilians and they know change is coming.
Cops are civilians too, they are not the Army. [pot]
 
We're not talking about anethesia

We're talking about tranquilizers

There are tons and tons of varients used regularly and safely by animal/pet owners

I'm not suggesting I've got it all worked out.......but isnt it time we started thinking outside of the box instead of being the same trained bears holding up "training" and "procedure" as justification for doing the same shit over and over and expecting a different result?

I'm pretty sure that if we can manage to drop ordinance via remote control on a tango from 10,000 miles away via drone or have that new-ish mini shuttle land/handle re-entry mostly autonomously that we can figure out effective delivery/dosage of trank to a violent person with reasonable safety to all parties

How many people die/have massive complications as a result of tazers every year?


Interesting stats.
So the dude was firing a lethal weapon at the cop when he got shot.
 
Interesting stats.
So the dude was firing a lethal weapon at the cop when he got shot.

I guess that depends

We know the numerator in the equasion.....(1005 fatalities)

We dont know how many people are hit by tazers every year) hence the fatality rate is unknown.....as well as how MANY times an individual is hit repeatedly or for how long

Police need tools to do their job.......but I think all of us (and them) are best served by REDUCING the number of interactions with people and cut the nanny approach to law enforcement/laws
 
From Fox: In the Brooks incident, police had been called late Friday about a man allegedly sleeping in a car that was blocking a Wendy’s restaurant drive-thru. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation was investigating reports that the man, later identified as Brooks, had failed a sobriety test and was shot in a struggle over the stun gun.

So this is the new "norm" for a police interaction???? You know how I avoid getting shot by a cop??? Well in this particular example I would not be passed out drunk in a Wendy's drive though and then get into a fight over gun/stun gun with cop. All the due process you preach about goes both ways. If the individual thought he was in the right and could take a nappy nap in said drive threw, fight with cop, go for cops weapon HE should have taken the pinch and gone to court. I am no "boot licker" but JFC at what point do you say WTF???
I always find the "don't do something stupid while drunk" argument pretty funny. And this is coming from someone who has never tasted alcohol. We, as a society have determined that being intoxicated impairs your ability to function. So much so that it is a crime to do certain activities while being intoxicated (driving in this particular case). But yet we feel that this impaired person has the mental capacity to not grab a taser and try to flee.

I do not think this cop was out to kill, and with the struggle that happen 15 seconds before the shots he could have honestly feared this guy could have done damage if he did land a good shot with the taser.

But I also believe there is a major issue with "comply or die" in this country with the police.. We are not talking about a serial killer fleeing the police. We are talking about a suspect drunk driver who resisted arrest. Police need better training to determine the threat to society when someone is fleeing. Is this person a serious threat to society that he must be stopped at all costs from getting away?
 
You mean like this?

If you haven't already watched it, I highly recommend the documentary Killing Them Safely.
 
I always find the "don't do something stupid while drunk" argument pretty funny. And this is coming from someone who has never tasted alcohol. We, as a society have determined that being intoxicated impairs your ability to function. So much so that it is a crime to do certain activities while being intoxicated (driving in this particular case). But yet we feel that this impaired person has the mental capacity to not grab a taser and try to flee.

I do not think this cop was out to kill, and with the struggle that happen 15 seconds before the shots he could have honestly feared this guy could have done damage if he did land a good shot with the taser.

But I also believe there is a major issue with "comply or die" in this country with the police.. We are not talking about a serial killer fleeing the police. We are talking about a suspect drunk driver who resisted arrest. Police need better training to determine the threat to society when someone is fleeing. Is this person a serious threat to society that he must be stopped at all costs from getting away?
In the big picture of life did he deserve to die for this? F no. Let him go sell the stun gun on Ebay. But in the same token it could have played out badly for the cops also. I guess my point is DON'T be so f n stupid to put yourself in this position and give a possibly poorly trained, equally retarded cop this opportunity.
 
In the big picture of life did he deserve to die for this? F no. Let him go sell the stun gun on Ebay. But in the same token it could have played out badly for the cops also. I guess my point is DON'T be so f n stupid to put yourself in this position and give a possibly poorly trained, equally retarded cop this opportunity.
Did he die because he was running away with the stun gun, or did he die because he fired it at the cop?
 
Well....the atlanta chief of police headed for the lifeboat pretty much immediately at the first sign of trouble

I cant say I blame her. Mayor was out condemning the shoot before they even bagged the guy. Theyll replace her with a black woman and everything will be alright.
 
Cambridge PD has a civilian review board. You can guess how that goes. How would you make sure that they are not just as biased against as some people think the police admin is biased for?

Off Smiths 15 use of force complaints:

How does someone decide what is excessive if they are not actually on scene, or have FULL video from start to finish? It’s like trying to decide if there was pass interference without multiple camera replays and slo-mo, everybody thinks they saw something and ten people who saw it will tell you ten different ways it went down.

Probably a bad a analogy but it makes the point of very fine details that need to be seen before you make the call and the difference between a professional witness (a referee for example) as they say (someone who is trained and experienced in the events being discussed) and someone that’s possibly seeing something for the first time and doesn’t really understand what they’re seeing at all.

Most people see a fight or even a big melee on the street and they’re emotionally affected by it, it’s real life violence and it’s frightening to them even though they’re not personally involved, they’re not used to it so it’s disturbing. How will they then report accurately what transpired when they’re not accustomed to mentally recording such details and removing the emotions from it that could make or break a call?

How then would this civilian review board understand exactly what level of force is needed or exceeded for each particular incident, unless 1) it’s painfully obvious due to FULL and clear video of the incident again from start to finish or 2) they were actually there for the incident from its start to finish, and that’s just an impossibility.

There really is no easy answer to it, I’m not trying to be a dick with all of the above questions back at you, but those are only a small amount of things that need to be considered.

To your last point and question that “you’re sure the good cops know who the bad cops are”; this is just inherently not accurate, as much as some folks want to believe it is, it’s just not true.

You could work with someone for years and never see them do anything wrong, and then you see them on tv being arrested by the feds or IA for something. These dirty cops don’t flaunt their own breaking of laws or criminal activity in front of everyone and we just ignore it like “ya whatevs dude, it’s all good.” That’s ridiculous.

You’d be surprised just how many cops get into fights with each other over stupid shit they’re doing or have done on the street, not criminally but stupid just the same and dangerous.

I taught some classes at the academy for about 10 years, there’s recruits that I’ve noted should be removed from training and find employment elsewhere, stating point blank that they’re going to be a f***ing problem mark my words and it goes ignored by the chiefs. The DI’s at the academy have made numerous reports and sent them upstairs to be reviewed for immediate dismissal, for any number of reasons, be it incompetence, dangerousness on the range, arrogance, chips on their shoulder, or just not fit for this kind of duty, and most all of them are denied and continue in training, and the admins train of thought is well shit we paid all this money so far we can’t get rid of them now, we need numbers on the street and they need to keep numbers $$ down for their bosses so they let them stay and just pray the lawsuit doesn’t come eventually when they f*** up. And they do, and they come, and the chiefs still will not get rid of them. They’re too afraid of being sued themselves for discrimination these days if they let someone go so they try and bury them somewhere safe and hope nobody notices.

I would argue that it’s not the union at all making it difficult to remove bad or poorly performing officers, but the administration itself. The union would love to get rid of them because they end up paying so much money of our money in lawsuits and attorneys fees for bullshit over and over and it affects morale and discipline in all areas when we see someone who shouldn’t be there, continue to operate with impunity and continue to be a problem child because the chiefs are afraid to act out of political correctness and politics.

That’s my honest take of it from a street level perspective. I have no politics involved in it and no big desk to lose so I can see things clearly and it starts at the top. I spoke about this about a week ago somewhere here, the chiefs and the politicians are the biggest reason our depts are such clusterf***s these days. Because they promote test takers and yes men instead of promoting actual leaders, and once upstairs at the big table it’s protect ourselves at all costs while we smoke cigars and go play golf, ‘this is the life’ type of thinking, and we ain’t losing it for any of you loser street cops.

People think policing is all this thin blue line all day long stuff, 100% US V THEM, it’s not, well it might be US (cops) vs THEM (our own administration), but my description of it, at least where I worked, is like being on a sinking pirate ship. You can decide what that would be like.

Don't think you're being a dick at all. Questioning is how things get worked out. Cambridge was a good counter example of the civilian review board. I did not consider that half a city might have an agenda. A couple of your examples, though, reinforce my belief that the good guys know who the bad guys are. Your dad knew a bad cop when he saw one during his DUI incident.
You and your fellow instructors also recognized trouble from the start. However, you were stymied by the upper echelons.

I think most cops would cover for other cops regarding small stuff. I think most people in any job will cover for their peers regarding small stuff. It's human nature. But I also think that those within any profession know who shouldn't be there. I know xray techs who shouldn't be xraying luggage at an airport. I'm sure picton knows of teachers who shouldn't be in the classroom.

A system needs to be developed that puts greater weight on the thoughts of those on the shop floor level personnel.
 
Back
Top Bottom