Should it make sense that the actions of a crazy person in Arizona should impact what accessories I can legally purchase for my rifle? Police Sheriff Dupnik thinks so.
I'd like to consider myself as being reasonable. My Uncle was in LE and was someone I always looked up to. When I was hired he gave me a piece of advice; "Work hard, be fair to the public and support the people you work with". I had that advice laminated on a piece of paper which has ridden behind the LE ID in my wallet every day since I have had a badge.
I know I've said this before but I repeat it because I am proud of it. I have 12 years on the job. I have worked four years in undercover narcotics, three years on a high activity uniformed patrol unit and eight years on SWAT. I have never received any discipline, received a complaint or been sued. I have been in two vehicle pursuits (and numerous shorter) that lasted more than twenty minutes with no crashes other than the bad guys car and no innocent people were injured. I have had a Taser for ten years and have never used it. I have also never been given an award of any kind which is just how I like it. If I can maintain that record until I retire I will have accomplished my goal. The law can be enforced vigorously and without overstepping the authority granted. There are a lot more officers like me than there are like you read about in the news.
ETA: Thanks for the rep Rambone
Never mind. I already know what you think, or at least what you attempt to get others to think.
Matters not what I think. Matters only what we see on the video.
At deposition and trial we will hear that the officer was only doing as trained.
The whole combative, "people are the enemy, I want to go home" attitude is hurting our society. This training needs to be corrected.
I would imagine his insurance is paying for it, if it's been kept up. Otherwise it's quite likely that the family is footing the bill. There's a chance that it could be a medicaid case by now. The only sure thing should be that the city will, in all likelihood will have to pick up the bill. Well, their insurance carriers and the taxpayers, anyway. I think we can be reasonably certain that the cop who did this and his department won't be paying anything towards this poor man's upkeep.Another question, who is paying for the hospital bill, how much is it costing per day, who is paying the family bills while the guy is in the coma? I tend to ask these questions from time to time.
Not sure who's training you are referring to. There is nothing wrong with the mantra "I'm going home every night." It is taught in 2 ways. First, "Be safe." Meaning, conduct yourself in a safe manner...watch the hands, read the body language, do a good search of the person when you arrest them, basic officer safety. Second, if they fight you...YOU WILL WIN! We will prevail within our legal bounds. Recruits are required to read "On Combat" which is part their training in forming the proper mindset. Nothing wrong with wanting to go home safely every night. Those who step over the line do so at their own will. Because they twist the training to fit their own ideals does not make the training evil. If I was actively fighting a BG and I had to shove him in a manner that inadvertently caused severe injury/death to him I would have A LOT of explaining to do but I COULD be ok...however, from what I saw (based solely on that snippet of video) it appears to be indefensible. Not saying that they could not put up a defense but rather I cannot see any defense convincing a jury.The whole combative, "people are the enemy, I want to go home" attitude is hurting our society. This training needs to be corrected.
he was not doing what he was trained to do
Police training needs the warm, disinfecting impact of sunlight.
This nonsense must stop.
There is nothing wrong with the mantra "I'm going home every night."
Second, if they fight you...YOU WILL WIN!
Recruits are required to read "On Combat" which is part their training in forming the proper mindset.
Not saying that they could not put up a defense but rather I cannot see any defense convincing a jury.
phylodog said:You mean the departments need to hire an attorney to tell them what, who, where, when and how to train, right? No thanks.
Actually, phylo there is a well respected law firm that specialises in just that. Many departments around the country use them and their advice is indispensable for cops who'd like to stay on the right side of things. Legal and liability risk is something all cops should have an interest in, even though they don't have to pick up the tab for a lawsuit. Shoot, LLRMI offers some seriously good advice on numerous subjects of interest, from Tasering people to stopping them properly. Any cop with an interest in doing things right could benefit from folks like these. Perhaps there'd be fewer lawsuits for the taxpayers to pick up the tab for and fewer incidents to create those suits.You mean the departments need to hire an attorney to tell them what, who, where, when and how to train, right? No thanks.
Actually, phylo there is a well respected law firm that specialises in just that. Many departments around the country use them and their advice is indispensable for cops who'd like to stay on the right side of things. Legal and liability risk is something all cops should have an interest in, even though they don't have to pick up the tab for a lawsuit. Shoot, LLRMI offers some seriously good advice on numerous subjects of interest, from Tasering people to stopping them properly. Any cop with an interest in doing things right could benefit from folks like these. Perhaps there'd be fewer lawsuits for the taxpayers to pick up the tab for and fewer incidents to create those suits.
Legal & Liability Risk Management Services & Training: Law Enforcement, Jails, Insurance Pools & Risk Managers
I went to the link and it appears that more than half of their staff at least has some experience in law enforcement and several have both prior LE experience and are now attorneys. An organization like that would make sense. Remove the LE experience on staff and forget about it.
Just like I mentioned earlier, American law enforcement is not responsible for what that officer did on that day.
You mean the departments need to hire an attorney to tell them what, who, where, when and how to train, right? No thanks.
That officer is responsible for what that officer did that day.
That remains to be seen. We shall see.
However, it remains a valid topic of political discussion and something all voters should keep in mind and hold their employees into account.
Not in particular, but police departments should tell us what they are doing.
The more sunlight injected into a police department the less corruption, brutality and Bisardesque hide the football tactics will transpire.
Yes, without question, but others could be responsible as co-conspirators. E.g. his department which taught him to do that, Chief Wiggum who is obviously covering for him (did you know if you repeat "probable cause" it makes excessive force just ducky?), his fellow officers who will tell us how he was just following his training.