Officer does not shoot black man; is fired

[Gaidin]

That's fine. Though I did explain why he would still be on the streets.

"What people here don't have experience with in the process it takes to get cops fired in locations with unions, etc. The department often has to create a case for termination showing multiple violations of policy and law. If the contamination of the homicide scene and illegal vehicle searches took place before this incident, which I imagine they did, then it is likely he was on a list for pending termination and this was just the final excuse they needed and they took it which is also often the case with departments that have strong unions or sympathies civilian government.
"

There's still ways of dealing with someone who's too much of a fuck-up to be trusted with anything important but not enough of a verifiable fuck-up to sack yet. Graveyard shift in a neighbourhood that's too middle-class for anything except the occasional domestic dispute after 6:30 in the evening, issuing parking tickets, giving road-safety talks to elementary school kids... I don't know. What does whoever's pissed your boss off get assigned to?

Is there even any reason in a neighborhood too middle-class for anything accept the occasional domestic dispute he won't occasionally end up the closest cop to something crazy?

[Zaune]

There's no guarantee, true, but the odds are a lot longer.

[Flagg]

KS, I don't buy that tampering with a homicide scene since they aren't forthcoming with which homicide and what exactly the tampering was. It could have easily been him trying to save the life of the guy he didn't shoot by administering CPR. And if this had happened before the topic of this thread, why was he still on the street and not riding a desk or unemployed? It doesn't add up to me.

That's fine. Though I did explain why he would still be on the streets.

"What people here don't have experience with in the process it takes to get cops fired in locations with unions, etc. The department often has to create a case for termination showing multiple violations of policy and law. If the contamination of the homicide scene and illegal vehicle searches took place before this incident, which I imagine they did, then it is likely he was on a list for pending termination and this was just the final excuse they needed and they took it which is also often the case with departments that have strong unions or sympathies civilian government.
"

That explains why he wasn't fired, but not why he wasn't on desk duty. But I defer to your knowledge.

[Patroklos]

That's not how unions work Flagg. In a union the most senior or otherwise golden boys (general the people with the most experiance and skill) get the cushy jobs like the patrols you are talking about. Its the rookies or those on the shit list that get the hard jobs. Its that way with teachers. Its that way with civil service workers (federal anyway). I can't even change a Navy civilians desk location without months of paperwork and union consultations.

[Flagg]

That's not how unions work Flagg. In a union the most senior or otherwise golden boys (general the people with the most experiance and skill) get the cushy jobs like the patrols you are talking about. Its the rookies or those on the shit list that get the hard jobs. Its that way with teachers. Its that way with civil service workers (federal anyway). I can't even change a Navy civilians desk location without months of paperwork and union consultations.

I didn't mention patrols. I was saying that I don't get how if he was so bad that he was fucking up crime scenes and interactions with the public, then I don't get why he wasn't riding a desk or suspended. Because this reeks of the Department playing CYA to try and defend themselves from a wrongful termination lawsuit. I mean like I said before, if they had a problem with his using profanity then they must be the only Department in the US where that's the case. All you need to do is watch COPS, Worlds Wildest Police Chases, or any number of similar and knockoff shows to know that police use profanity all the fucking time.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's fine. Though I did explain why he would still be on the streets.

"What people here don't have experience with in the process it takes to get cops fired in locations with unions, etc. The department often has to create a case for termination showing multiple violations of policy and law. If the contamination of the homicide scene and illegal vehicle searches took place before this incident, which I imagine they did, then it is likely he was on a list for pending termination and this was just the final excuse they needed and they took it which is also often the case with departments that have strong unions or sympathies civilian government.
"

There's still ways of dealing with someone who's too much of a fuck-up to be trusted with anything important but not enough of a verifiable fuck-up to sack yet. Graveyard shift in a neighbourhood that's too middle-class for anything except the occasional domestic dispute after 6:30 in the evening, issuing parking tickets, giving road-safety talks to elementary school kids... I don't know. What does whoever's pissed your boss off get assigned to?

That explains why he wasn't fired, but not why he wasn't on desk duty. But I defer to your knowledge.

I apologize. I didn't explain what I meant very well and through you both off when I said "pending termination". What would have been a better description is you end up on the admins radar when you fuck up like that but because they must build cause to fire you and/or satisfy the requirements for termination put in place by unions. If they haven't satisfied that then they are required to put you back to full duty. Which is why he would still be on the streets. Of course, there are still things that will result in your immediate termination. Most commonly these things are dishonesty, abuse of drugs, and sex while on duty.

By the way, police do get in trouble for using profanity. Profanity is usually categorized in the least serious section of policy violations. However, language does exist which makes it possible to terminate an officer that uses profanity excessively. It's pretty difficult though because violations of the least serious policy can also come with an expiration and profanity is generally one of the most likely to have an expiration. So, if I got in trouble for profanity in march of 2012 this violation would be deleted from my record on march of 2013, 2014, or whatever the policy says. Even if you do get in trouble again for profanity even before the other incident disappears they still have to follow the chain of discipline. Here is an example, traffic accidents are generally categorized somewhere in the middle. At my department a sustained traffic accident policy violation will stay on your record for five years and that time is reset every time you get into a sustained traffic accident. So, if you get in an accident in March 2012 then another in March of 2014 the 2012 one won't drop off until 2017...if you managed to give five then your job is up for review. Though if you stay clean for three years then you are back at zero.

I didn't mention patrols. I was saying that I don't get how if he was so bad that he was fucking up crime scenes and interactions with the public, then I don't get why he wasn't riding a desk or suspended. Because this reeks of the Department playing CYA to try and defend themselves from a wrongful termination lawsuit. I mean like I said before, if they had a problem with his using profanity then they must be the only Department in the US where that's the case. All you need to do is watch COPS, Worlds Wildest Police Chases, or any number of similar and knockoff shows to know that police use profanity all the fucking time.

You could still be right. Like I said above I was just giving some perspective.

[Flagg]

Well, I appreciate the detailed information.

[Zaune]

Likewise. I still don't think it's a perfect system, but I see what you're getting at now.

[TheFeniX]

To point out what I mean Fenix said "outside the mentality of U.S Police training of the mere potential for the existence of a gun means everyone is armed." I've never attended any police training that pushed that message. Even when they display indicators that they may have a weapon the response has never been trained to "point guns at them". The trained response is tell them to remove their hands from their pockets and then ask to check them for weapons. That's the trained response.

When you have cops defended by the police force (for good reason, you don't immediately throw an employee under the bus) when it happens, they get exonerated, and the police force is like "yay, the system worked, policy ++good" after "I shot a kid with a Wii-mote because I thought it might be a gun and my catlike reflexes kicked in:" training doesn't mean much to me.

The point of (professional) training is when exercising it you have responsibilities and consequences for fucking up. Cops want their cake, etc, etc. Like years back some cop tasered a dude to death because, whereas they had issued tasers, they didn't train on them. So "dur, I dunno that electricity is bad because reasons" so he wasn't at fault, the department was.

But also it's "I'm trained to know civil rights and when to use force. But I just use it whenever!" And people end up dead, but since those people aren't cops, nothing changes. Bu hooooooo boy, a cop gets killed and watch the fuck out.

Sorry not picking on you Fenix it's just easier. "U.S. Police act like they live in a country where rights don't exist and they have carte blanche to react with lethal force the moment they feel the least bit threatened" Again, we get training weekly on civil rights and what we can and cannot do. Furthermore, opening fire on someone for failure to follow commands has only be trained when someone is actually armed WITH A FIREARM. I have attended training around the country and not once has the subject material been "When that suspicious person refuses to follow your commands to show you their hands you open fire on that son of a bitch".

Then why are unarmed people being shot so damned much, especially if they are black? Why are kid gloves for the shooting officers a given?

I get most criminals blasted by police (upwards of 90%) were armed and threatening. But that 10%, or even lower, of unarmed people getting blasted worries me.

Not because it happens: shit happens all the time. What's worrisome is that consequences are nil in all but the most extreme cases. And even then, which is why I harp on the Wii-mote case: That woman is still working a beat. They're "talking" about putting her at a desk, but she could easily file a grievance with the union and get reinstated to be back on the street.

And the fault is obviously always on the citizen:

"The tragedy of this is the noncompliance to the directions of law enforcement officers," said Sheriff David Morgan of Escambia County, Florida. "Had that occurred we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's a tragedy all the way around. He is both a suspect and a victim."

Black man shot in his own driveway for the crime of.... smoking cigarettes?

Cops were exonerated and the only way I know that is because I found an article where the original victim was arrested for something worthwhile.

Last year, a grand jury found that two deputies who fired about 15 rounds at Middleton, hitting him twice in the leg, had not committed any criminal actions.

Probably race related for the jury. But even if they voted to indict, they could just convene another Grand Jury for "reasons" and get a better result.

Again, I get why you think this is the way it is because of the seemingly endless examples. Of course, I could counter each story talked about here with my own personal stories of my own conduct and the conduct of officers I work with that completely contradict your narrative here. This highlights the problem with this type of approach. It's not science. It's the equivalent of sharing anecdotal stories to back your position on something.

Get me better info. Law enforcement reporting on who they actually shoot and why is so bad and so uncentralized, no one really knows how many people they shoot. I do know that unarmed shootings are "rare" in the greater scheme of things. But that's no excuse to hush the whole thing up and say "We support this officer" because, yea, only one guy did the shooting, but you shouldn't be protecting murderers.

However, we all know how cops react to whistle-blowing officers or even those that don't tow the line. Especially in places like New York or LA (and even Houston from stories I've heard).

[Zaune]

Kamikaze Sith, I have a follow-up question. When someone is "pending termination", as you put it, are they made aware of the fact they're effectively on probation?

[Kamakazie Sith]

When you have cops defended by the police force (for good reason, you don't immediately throw an employee under the bus) when it happens, they get exonerated, and the police force is like "yay, the system worked, policy ++good" after "I shot a kid with a Wii-mote because I thought it might be a gun and my catlike reflexes kicked in:" training doesn't mean much to me.

The point of (professional) training is when exercising it you have responsibilities and consequences for fucking up. Cops want their cake, etc, etc. Like years back some cop tasered a dude to death because, whereas they had issued tasers, they didn't train on them. So "dur, I dunno that electricity is bad because reasons" so he wasn't at fault, the department was.

But also it's "I'm trained to know civil rights and when to use force. But I just use it whenever!" And people end up dead, but since those people aren't cops, nothing changes. Bu hooooooo boy, a cop gets killed and watch the fuck out.

There are certainly unacceptable shortcomings with accountability of police officers. Like I said the decision on the shooter of the Christopher Roupe pisses me off and is unacceptable.

However, I was responding to your comment about police training.

Then why are unarmed people being shot so damned much, especially if they are black? Why are kid gloves for the shooting officers a given?

In 2015 there are 94 known instances of unarmed people being shot by the police in the US. To answer your question why so many were shot would require a more thorough breakdown of unarmed shootings than is currently being done to figure out why.

I get most criminals blasted by police (upwards of 90%) were armed and threatening. But that 10%, or even lower, of unarmed people getting blasted worries me.

Not because it happens: shit happens all the time. What's worrisome is that consequences are nil in all but the most extreme cases. And even then, which is why I harp on the Wii-mote case: That woman is still working a beat. They're "talking" about putting her at a desk, but she could easily file a grievance with the union and get reinstated to be back on the street.

This is also my problem with the justice system in the US as it relates to law enforcement. It isn't due to type of training but lack of training and quality of people.

Get me better info. Law enforcement reporting on who they actually shoot and why is so bad and so uncentralized, no one really knows how many people they shoot. I do know that unarmed shootings are "rare" in the greater scheme of things. But that's no excuse to hush the whole thing up and say "We support this officer" because, yea, only one guy did the shooting, but you shouldn't be protecting murderers.

This falls under the accountability area. Tracking shootings, uses of force, traffic/ped stops, arrests...all this should be reported by every law enforcement agency in the country without exception.

However, we all know how cops react to whistle-blowing officers or even those that don't tow the line. Especially in places like New York or LA (and even Houston from stories I've heard).

Actually, you know how places like New York and LA react to whistle blowers. You don't know how they react in say Dallas, Salt Lake City, Ogden, etc. This is my problem with the other narrative and there is a consequence for thumping in all cops like we belong to some centralized hive mind.

Kamikaze Sith, I have a follow-up question. When someone is "pending termination", as you put it, are they made aware of the fact they're effectively on probation?

Yes, they are. We call it a "last chance" letter. To reiterate calling it a pending termination was not the best choice. That implies that they will eventually be fired. This is not the case for those that have received a last chance letter. If they abide by policy and law then they will not be fired.

[TheFeniX]

There are certainly unacceptable shortcomings with accountability of police officers. Like I said the decision on the shooter of the Christopher Roupe pisses me off and is unacceptable.

However, I was responding to your comment about police training.

Fair enough. But my point stands: training without consequences is next to worthless. Even more so for cops since they are rarely even physically accountable to failures in training. And police are almost unique in this regard when it comes to a profession. In nearly any other field, ignoring your training gets you or your coworkers killed.

"Hey man, did you grab the 4-gas?"
"Nah, forgot it."
"No big deal."

NBC news: "Two Texas men were found dead today in a hole because they were morons."

Policy and training failures for police usually get other people killed. Which makes it no wonder they are so slow to change their policies. Even worse, you can catch them on tape planning to commit crimes and nothing happens, nor does the news not bother covering it for any given length of time. YOU'D THINK this would be worth one of their FULL COVERAGE ALL DAY EVERY DAY binges, but no.

In 2015 there are 94 known instances of unarmed people being shot by the police in the US. To answer your question why so many were shot would require a more thorough breakdown of unarmed shootings than is currently being done to figure out why.

Which is fought on such a level, Freedom of Information Act requests are almost a requirement even in larger districts who have the money and manpower to track these things.

For years, examining the full scale of the problem in Chicago was impossible because the city refused to release most details about police-involved shootings. Before the release last year of the video of Laquan McDonald's killing brought pressure for transparency, the only information made public in the hours after a shooting came in comments from a police union spokesman at the scene and perhaps a short statement from the Police Department. As investigations dragged on for months or years, the details remained hidden.

This is also my problem with the justice system in the US as it relates to law enforcement. It isn't due to type of training but lack of training and quality of people.

And lack of repercussions.

Actually, you know how places like New York and LA react to whistle blowers. You don't know how they react in say Dallas, Salt Lake City, Ogden, etc. This is my problem with the other narrative and there is a consequence for thumping in all cops like we belong to some centralized hive mind.

Probably the same as anywhere else

A Dallas police officer thought he was doing the right thing by reporting a fellow officer who tried to fight a handcuffed youth and a supervisor who egged it on.

But instead of being praised for coming forward, Officer Christopher Worden and his supervisor, Sgt. Jason Scoggins, believe they were punished, according to a whistleblower lawsuit they filed Oct.1 in Dallas County Civil District Court.

Really though, blaming this all on cops IS unfair. The U.S. takes a very dim view of whistleblowers in general.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Fair enough. But my point stands: training without consequences is next to worthless. Even more so for cops since they are rarely even physically accountable to failures in training. And police are almost unique in this regard when it comes to a profession. In nearly any other field, ignoring your training gets you or your coworkers killed.

Agreed.

Which is fought on such a level, Freedom of Information Act requests are almost a requirement even in larger districts who have the money and manpower to track these things.

This is something will take a federal/state government mandate to get accomplished.

A Dallas police officer thought he was doing the right thing by reporting a fellow officer who tried to fight a handcuffed youth and a supervisor who egged it on.

But instead of being praised for coming forward, Officer Christopher Worden and his supervisor, Sgt. Jason Scoggins, believe they were punished, according to a whistleblower lawsuit they filed Oct.1 in Dallas County Civil District Court.

Really though, blaming this all on cops IS unfair. The U.S. takes a very dim view of whistleblowers in general.

Let's back up to your statement. You said "However, we all know how COPS react..."

My issue is with the broad brush you engage in when you say "cops". Maybe you're just referring to those particular officers that react poorly to whistle-blowers. I'll allow you to clarify.

[TheFeniX]

Really though, blaming this all on cops IS unfair. The U.S. takes a very dim view of whistleblowers in general.

Let's back up to your statement. You said "However, we all know how COPS react..."

My issue is with the broad brush you engage in when you say "cops". Maybe you're just referring to those particular officers that react poorly to whistle-blowers. I'll allow you to clarify.

Ok, that's fair. I am painting too wide a brush. There's too much "give" in how departments are run. Some literally do NOT have the resources to track all the data (it might be 10 beat cops total in a huge geographic area) and large departments deal with Futurama levels of bureaucracy. Policies range way to far and wide for my taste.

But out of all the whistleblowing cases I've seen over the years, and you can find dozens on even a cursory Google search, the near-guaranteed end result is the officer who ratted someone out gets shittcanned. And it's not like it's something that's tracked in any given form. The only reason we will even find out is if the media thinks it's worth interviewing the officer about it.

I still say whistleblowing cops should expect to get run out of the force, no matter the size or location of their department. And I grant fully, I can't back that up with hard data because none is ever really offered. I don't even think Internal Affairs has to tell the public shit due to the laws protecting the accused and the Police Union. So, I don't even know how many good cops are run out of town for reporting corruption. But considering the amount of stories with the "reported abuse > got fired days later" narrative when dealing with a system that doesn't seem to want to fire cops for any "good" reason: it makes me think.

I admit I can't back this up. Maybe if I had the time and resources to find what little data their actually is, but I respect good cops more and more each year I get a bit older because the system itself seems designed to weed them out and only keep the assholes.