General Police Abuse Thread

[TheFeniX]

I WILL LIGHT YOU UP, GET OUT OF THE CAR! comes to a close with The Cop getting fired and dealing with a minor perjury charge. Taxpayers (through some Risk Insurance) pick up the tab and the cops "agree" to take deescalation training.

The Waller County Commissioners Court Wednesday unanimously approved a $1.8 million settlement with Sandra Bland's mother who brought a federal wrongful death suit after her daughter committed suicide at the county jail.

"This was about risk management," said County Judge Trey Duhon, referring to the risk of a costly verdict and the cost of appeals and fees. "I cannot take a chance of gambling or rolling the dice with county taxpayer money." He said many of the non-economic portions of the settlement mentioned last week by Bland's mother, including improved accountability and medical assessment at the jail, are already in the works.

Bland, 28, was arrested in July 2015 for being combative after a controversial traffic stop. The Texas Department of Public Safety trooper who pulled her over -- for failing to signal a lane change -- now faces a criminal charge of perjury.

Her plight became emblematic among the Black Lives Matter activists, as an example of disparate treatment of African Americans by police.

Her mother, Geneva Reed-Veal, sued DPS, Waller County and a long list of jail employees who she said failed to respond properly to her medical and mental health history or to check her cell properly.

A former guard made a sworn statement, in preparation for the federal civil suit, admitting he falsified the jail log, according to Cannon Lambert, Reed-Veal's attorney.

On Wednesday, Duhon read from a prepared statement after the vote, saying, "Waller County is glad to put this lawsuit behind us so that we can focus on becoming a role model in Texas for improving how we deal with mental health issues in our jail system, in addition to putting our time and energy back into the community where it belongs."

He said he planned to work with state lawmakers to improve the conditions in jails across the state. He acknowledged that Bland's death brought many issues to light, although he said he did not specifically intend to ask that any new law for jail improvements be named after Sandra Bland.

In the tentative settlement announced last week by Lambert, DPS would be expected to pay $100,000.

However, DPS spokesman Tom Vinger said Wednesday there is no settlement in place and he said the de-escalation training for state troopers -- which Reed-Veal's camp said DPS had agreed to -- is nothing new for the agency.

For those that don't remember, she was found dead hanged in her cell with an extremely high level of THC in her system. The police tried to play it off like she was high before they brought her in, but experts shot that down. The falisified log was one of the jailers not actually checking in on her when he said he did. CYA baby.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Bullshit Flush Successful.

Be. Fucking. Adults.

[Patroklos]

The recent Charlotte shooting was more than justified. The witnesses, including the wife, lied. Not only did he have a gun but it was in his hand with a round chambered and disobeyed at least ten seperate lawful commands to drop it.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... mont-scott

[Block]

The recent Charlotte shooting was more than justified. The witnesses, including the wife, lied. Not only did he have a gun but it was in his hand with a round chambered and disobeyed at least ten seperate lawful commands to drop it.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... mont-scott

No, it wasn't. If the evidence shows, which the DA states it does, that he never raised the weapon, there was no need to shoot. The second he lifts that gun, sure, blow him away, but until then try to talk him down. I generally think the police try to get things right, but 12 of them, one of him, not actively threatening someone, just wait it out.

[Patroklos]

No, it wasn't. If the evidence shows, which the DA states it does, that he never raised the weapon, there was no need to shoot. The second he lifts that gun, sure, blow him away, but until then try to talk him down. I generally think the police try to get things right, but 12 of them, one of him, not actively threatening someone, just wait it out.

There is no requirement to wait for a gun to be pointed at you, and it would be ridiculous it there was one. Sure, it might make it more of an open and shut case, but then we have people on this board who insist cops must take the first bullet too.

[Dominus Atheos]

Name on person who has ever said that.

[TheFeniX]

No, it wasn't. If the evidence shows, which the DA states it does, that he never raised the weapon, there was no need to shoot.

This is a dangerously naive approach to law enforcement (or just general self-defense). The time required to get a gun up from your side and firing (accurately, mind you) can be measured in milliseconds. Even if you already have a gun trained on the attacker, his decision to act before you in of itself, puts him at an advantage because he's acting while your brain is still required to observe his movement, process it, decide your plan, then act.

Shit like that means, yea, your reactions might kick in a get your rounds off, but I guarantee he's going to get at least one round off as well. It doesn't matter how many cops there were: that man had access to the means to kill at least one of them, even more if we was lucky.

The second he lifts that gun, sure, blow him away, but until then try to talk him down. I generally think the police try to get things right, but 12 of them, one of him, not actively threatening someone, just wait it out.

Guns aren't knives or some angry big guy. You can't just create some distance to defuse the situation. Handguns are less effective at longer ranges, but they are no less deadly.

Let me ask you something, you and I are having an argument. It gets heated. I draw a gun and hold it at my side: Am I not threatening you?

[Block]

You are, but until you point it at me, it's an implied threat, not an active one. You're talking to someone who has repeatedly been in much more threatening situations than this in Iraq, so please don't try to feed me this garbage about being naive about self defense. 12 officers can easily drop someone without any problem if he so much as twitches his arm up, he's not getting a round off at anything but the floor.

[Block]

No, it wasn't. If the evidence shows, which the DA states it does, that he never raised the weapon, there was no need to shoot. The second he lifts that gun, sure, blow him away, but until then try to talk him down. I generally think the police try to get things right, but 12 of them, one of him, not actively threatening someone, just wait it out.

There is no requirement to wait for a gun to be pointed at you, and it would be ridiculous it there was one. Sure, it might make it more of an open and shut case, but then we have people on this board who insist cops must take the first bullet too.

I don't find it ridiculous at all to force police to wait until there's an active threat. Otherwise they should just go around shooting everyone who is open carrying, because they might kill someone too. I'm not advocating waiting until they're being shot at, I've operated under those RoE and it's not fun, or particularly useful because the other side is always going to claim we shot first anyways.

[TheFeniX]

You are, but until you point it at me, it's an implied threat, not an active one. You're talking to someone who has repeatedly been in much more threatening situations than this in Iraq, so please don't try to feed me this garbage about being naive about self defense. 12 officers can easily drop someone without any problem if he so much as twitches his arm up, he's not getting a round off at anything but the floor.

So, pointing a gun at someone is an active threat and only when you should shoot? Why are cops allowed to shoot if he so much "as twitches his arm up?" After all, in the less-than-a-second his arm was in motion, you don't know he was actually going to point the gun at you. Even if he was, what if the gun never got pointed at you before you gunned him down? Are you a murderer now?

I don't find it ridiculous at all to force police to wait until there's an active threat. Otherwise they should just go around shooting everyone who is open carrying, because they might kill someone too. I'm not advocating waiting until they're being shot at, I've operated under those RoE and it's not fun, or particularly useful because the other side is always going to claim we shot first anyways.

A holstered gun is not the same thing as a drawn one. Your talk about "Active threat" by focusing only on the position of the handgun, ignoring everything else leading up to the shooting is bullshit.

There's a thing called "expectations." If a game warden comes upon hunters holding shotguns, he doesn't gun them down because the expectation of them having guns drawn is already there. If a cop sits at a table in a restaurant with a holstered pistol, no one cares. If a cop eats at a table with his gun in hand or even on the table, people get nervous. If a cop disarms me during a stop by saying "put your gun on the hood," he can't legally shoot me for drawing my gun. If I draw the gun, then refuse to lay it down and instead ignore the officer's commands, that's a different story.

If someone has repeatedly ignored your commands, drawn a gun, then ignored more commands, at some point expectations aren't going to suddenly swing in his favor.

[TheFeniX]

This is an older one, but I don't think it was posted. Like all good angry Internet guys, I remember hearing about this one, then forgetting about it. Cracked had to remind me:

From Here

Uncategorized
L.A. Sheriff’s Deputy Pulls Gun On Man Who Was Working In His Car
September 25, 2016 12:31 pm by M. David (Editor In Chief)

ken-sheppard

Ken Sheppard is a private investigator. He was innocently sitting in his car, working a routine workers’ compensation fraud case when Los Angeles Sheriff’s deputies showed up and put their hands on him.

On March 3, 2014 the renowned private investigator who is best known for busting reality TV series “Bridezillas” star Anita Maxwell for insurance fraud, was threatened with murder by a deputy even though he had done nothing illegal whatsoever.

Watch the video below…

Jasmynea Cannick writes the following:

On location in Montrose, California, a city with just under 20,000 residents and less than one percent of them African-American, Mr. Sheppard was conducting regular surveillance of a subject while parked in his black Chevy Tahoe.

It wasn’t long before a black and white, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department cruiser materialized while Mr. Sheppard was in his car working in this city of very few Blacks.

The Tahoe Mr. Sheppard was sitting in had side and rear tinted windows and was registered and insured for $three million dollars in policy coverage.

It’s important to note that in subsequent court documents filed in federal court, Deputy Plunkett, as he was identified, had not been called to the scene by a neighbor or any other witness. No person alerted Deputy Plunkett’s station of suspicious activity in the area. He was just there.

Deputy Plunkett exited his vehicle walking along the drivers’ side of the Tahoe, with his weapon drawn. Upon seeing Deputy Plunkett’s approach, Mr. Sheppard rolled the driver’s side window down and exposed his hands, demonstrating that there was no cause for alarm.

In response to Deputy Plunkett’s question concerning his activities, Mr. Sheppard advised that he was sitting in his vehicle working. Deputy Plunkett asked, “why?” making no mention of having noticed tinted windows, nor any issue with license plates. Deputy Plunkett next asked if Mr. Sheppard was engaged as a “P.I. or something.”

Mr. Sheppard next asked Deputy Plunkett whether it appeared that Mr. Sheppard was doing something wrong to which the deputy admitted that he “did not know.”

With his weapon still drawn, Deputy Plunkett then placed his left hand on Mr. Sheppard’s left wrist. Mr. Sheppard asked Mr. Plunkett to “please remove” his hand from Mr. Sheppard’s person. Deputy Plunkett refused this request, used his radio and proceeded to ignore Mr. Sheppard’s repeated demands for the intervention of Deputy Plunkett’s Watch Commander.

The video clearly shows that Mr. Sheppard asked Deputy Plunkett no less than eight times to call in a Watch Commander to the location.

While holding Mr. Sheppard’s wrist, Deputy Plunkett was visibly shaking, to the point that Mr. Sheppard could feel and observe the tremors emanating from Deputy Plunkett’s hand. Mr. Sheppard repeated his request that Deputy Plunkett holster his weapon.

According to Mr. Sheppard, in order to make sure that he could properly hear any commands from Deputy Plunkett, he raised his left hand in full view of the deputy and removed a Bluetooth earpiece, from his left ear. His ear was also facing Deputy Plunkett.

It’s at this point that Deputy Plunkett points his Beretta 92F at the side of Mr. Sheppard’s head toward his left temple while shouting “do not fucking be reaching.” At some point, prior to holstering his weapon, Deputy Plunkett “cocked” the hammer of his weapon, while continuing to point the weapon less than one foot from Mr. Sheppard’s temple.

At this time the video shows a second deputy arriving at the location and joining Deputy Plunkett’s side.

Deputy Rodriguez also draws her weapon, though in a low ready position.

A few moments later, Sergeant Hollis arrived at which point Mr. Sheppard informed Deputy Rodriguez and Sergeant Hollis of everything that had transpired to that point in time. Mr. Sheppard also advised Sergeant Hollis that he was “Code 5,” a reference to his work as a private investigator and the fact that he was actively involved in a legal investigation.

Through all of this, as the video shows, Deputy Plunkett continues to shake with his Beretta still pointed at Mr. Sheppard’s left temple. No one tells him to lower his weapon or to stand down.

Mr. Sheppard told Deputy Rodriguez and Sergeant Hollis that Deputy Plunkett still had his gun pointed at his head, despite the fact that Deputy Plunkett had neither identified nor articulated a crime in commission.

A second female deputy, later learned to be Deputy Hanson, approached the scene with Mr. Sheppard with her taser drawn. Deputy Plunkett continued to point his weapon, hand shaking, Mr. Sheppard’s left temple. Mr. Sheppard continued to strictly comply with all directives, to the best of his ability. He did have a gun pointed at his head and now a taser.

The video shows Sergeant finally advising Deputy Plunkett to stand down. Sergeant Hollis specifically asked Deputy Plunkett to explain what happened but Deputy Plunkett refuses to answer.

The deputies then decide t inspect the contents of and even enter Mr. Sheppard’s vehicle, even though they had no warrant, nor even probable cause.

Mr. Sheppard was then placed into the backseat of Deputy Plunkett’s cruiser. Deputy Hanson gets into the front seat of the cruiser and asks Mr. Sheppard what he was doing in the area because, she claimed, he “did not belong in the area.”

Court documents and video later revealed that Los Angeles Sherriff’s deputies then conspired to fabricate charges against Mr. Sheppard after realizing he had committed no crime.

“During the course of the next several minutes, the Deputies on scene conspired to concoct a citable offense against Mr. Sheppard. These law enforcement officials attempted to justify Deputy Plunkett’s actions, ex post facto. Most critically, Deputy Hanson and Deputy Ramirez drafted a citation that was ultimately signed by Deputy Plunkett. Neither Deputy Hanson nor Deputy Ramirez was willing to personally sign the citation, after engaging in a lengthy discussion concerning the contents of said citation. As she was attempting to creatively fashion charges to be brought against Mr. Sheppard within the aforementioned citation, Deputy Hanson stated, ‘please, just let me taser him!’”

None of this would be known today if Mr. Sheppard had not been a P.I. on a surveillance job. For whatever reason, once the deputies learned that he was a legitimate private investigator in the middle of a legal investigation—they never thought that he might have devices recording audio or video.

Mr. Sheppard was not arrested. He was given one ticket for tinted windows and no license plate. His Tahoe did have a temporary registration in the windshield and paper license plates on the back of the vehicle as required by law at the time of the incident.

On April 20, 2015, Mr. Sheppard filed a civil lawsuit in federal court for violation of his constitutional rights, assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and various other charges.

The trial took place last week in Los Angeles September 13 through September 15 before the Honorable S. James Otero. After hearing the evidence and viewing a small portion of the video evidence provided by Mr. Sheppard, a jury of 8 persons found in favor of the sheriff’s department.

Mr. Sheppard plans to appeal the verdict. He is currently working on the Suge Knight murder case and two high profile cases of deaths involving the Los Angeles Police Department—Ezell Ford who shot and killed in South L.A. in 2014 by the LAPD and Wakiesha Wilson who died while in the custody of the LAPD on Easter Sunday.

It is unknown whether any of the Crescenta Valley Station deputies on scene faced disciplinary action.

The videos are in the link.

Cops pull gun on black guy based on nothing. Cuff him and search his car for "reasons." Then, to cover their asses, they trump up whatever little they can get away with, once officer saying "please let me taser this guy." Open and shut case: obvious rights violations. Oh wait no. A jury of 8 found no rights violations.

[Dominus Atheos]

On Oct. 29, Evansville, Ind., police officers Nick Henderson, Mark DeCamps and Marcus Craig confronted 36­year­old Mark Healy while investigating a garage burglary. According to the officers, Healy resisted when they confronted him, and a physical altercation ensued. During that altercation, Healy broke free and began to run away. When again confronted, he stabbed one of the officers with a syringe filled with liquid methamphetamine. The officers then physically restrained Healy and arrested him.

That, according to local media reports, is what the police use­of­force report said. It was filed by the officers involved about three hours after the incident. A fourth officer, a sergeant, reviewed the report and deemed the officers’ actions justified.


But body camera footage from the incident obtained by the Evansville Courier & Press shows something quite different. In the
footage, Healy doesn’t resist at all. And the officer who was stuck by the syringe wasn’t stabbed by Healy, he was pricked by the
needle while Healy was handcuffed. Contrary to department procedure, the officer failed to ask Healy if he had anything in his
pockets before searching him. As you can see in the video, as one of the officers searches Healy, he pricks himself on the
syringe. He then calls Healy a “motherf—–” and strikes him. As Healy lays on the ground, Henderson and another officer then
spend about three minutes beating him, yelling at him and threatening to kill him. The third officer just watches.

To his credit, upon viewing the video, Evansville Police Chief Billy Bolin immediately suspended all three officers at the scene
as well as the sergeant who reviewed the case. He also recommended the three at the scene be fired and that the sergeant be
demoted. That seems appropriate. But in addition to the beating the officers applied to Healy, they also clearly lied in their
report. Both would seem to merit criminal charges.

It has now been six weeks since the incident, and all four officers remain on paid leave while their appeal is under review.
Meanwhile, according to the Courier & Press, the Indiana State Police (ISP) investigated the incident and sent a report
to Vanderburgh County Prosecutor Nicholas Hermann. Last Thursday, Hermann announced that he will not press charges
against the officers involved. I asked an ISP information officer for a copy of the report. By email, he replied that “our criminal
investigations are not available to the public.”

From the Courier & Press:
During the news conference, Hermann explained at length his reasoning behind the decision — without
outright saying he wasn’t pressing charges until several minutes in. He said his office could not prove
Henderson purposefully struck Healy in a malicious manner. According to talks with Henderson and his
attorney, Hermann said the officer struck the suspect with his elbow after pricking his hand on a needle that
was in Healy’s pocket.

He said there was no evidence Healy was ever punched. Hermann played a statement Healy gave to police
immediately after the incident in which he said there were “no punches thrown.”

This is meaningless parsing posing as legal jargon. The video clearly depicts Henderson striking Healy to the ground. That you
don’t see what specific body part Henderson used to initiate that strike isn’t particularly relevant. If this video had been of a
citizen striking a police officer, I doubt Hermann would have had much problem filing charges.

But let’s give Hermann the benefit of the doubt here. So what about the police report, which clearly contradicts what we see in
the body camera footage? Surely that merits criminal charges, right?

Hermann was also asked about possible perjury charges related to a section of the report that
states Henderson, Craig and DeCamps were all working to handcuff Healy while he struggled to get away.
That section directly contradicts the video, which shows one officer handcuffing Healy without incident.
Hermann acknowledged the contradiction but characterized it as a “discrepancy” during the news
conference, citing the three hours between the incident and the time the report was filed as a possible cause.
He also speculated the officers who wrote and signed the probable cause affidavit under penalty of perjury,
Craig and DeCamps, may not have watched the body camera footage before writing the affidavit.

Because of this, Hermann said it would be difficult to prove the officers intended to give false information.
“I have to show that they knowingly or intentionally lied for some reason,” he said. “It’s common that they
not watch the video prior to writing supplements. That’s an issue that we get all the time. And if we start
going after police officers because there’s a line in a probable cause affidavit that contradicts what we see in
the video, quite frankly we wouldn’t have any more Evansville police officers.”

As I’ve written before here at The Watch, we should be careful about charging police officers with perjury simply because a
police report isn’t entirely consistent with body camera footage. We know that eyewitness testimony is flawed at best, is further
degraded by trauma and that we tend to remember incidents in which we were involved in ways that reflect well on us.

But these aren’t discrepancies. They’re lies. The police claimed Healy resisted. He didn’t. They claimed he broke free and tried
to flee. He didn’t. They claimed Henderson was struck by the syringe as Healy attempted to flee. He wasn’t. He was struck while
searching Healy, while Healy was stationary and handcuffed.

Under Indiana law, “A person who makes a false, material statement under oath or affirmation, knowing the statement to be
false or not believing it to be true commits perjury.” Under Hermann’s interpretation of the law, the only way to prove the
“knowing” part of the law would be if the officer submitted a false report after viewing body camera footage. Because
Evansville officers are asked to submit reports before viewing footage, Hermann’s interpretation would seem to suggest that
no Evansville officer could ever be charged with perjury for mischaracterizing a use­of­force incident in a police report. And
this case only underscores the point. If this isn’t perjury, there is no perjury.

Hermann also could have charged the officers with “official misconduct.” Again from Indiana law: “A public servant who
knowingly or intentionally commits an offense in the performance of the public servant’s official duties commits official
misconduct.”

Here again, Hermann has set the bar to meet the “knowingly” component high enough to render the law useless.
He also could have charged the officers with obstruction of justice. From Indiana law:

“A person who makes, presents, or uses a false record, document, or thing with intent that the record,
document, or thing, material to the point in question, appear in evidence in an official proceeding or
investigation to mislead a public servant, commits obstruction of justice . . . “
Indiana’s “false informing” law might also apply:

“A person who gives a false report of the commission of a crime or gives false information in the official
investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false, commits false
information, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it substantially
hinders any law enforcement process or if it results in harm to another person.”

Keep in mind that Healy was initially charged with resisting arrest, based on the false police report. Had there not been body
camera footage, or had it been corrupted, he’d still be facing that charge.

In short, a prosecutor who wanted to hold these cops accountable had a lot of options. Hermann didn’t choose any of them. It’s
also telling that in his press conference announcing that he wouldn’t be seeking charges, he complained about local media
showing the clip “over and over.” That is apparently the real outrage here.

A local attorney who is familiar with this case tells me that Hermann has a rather cozy relationship with local police — that he
considers law enforcement his political base. Indeed, Hermann was first elected with support from the local police union and
from victims’ rights groups. If true, that might explain his decision. But perhaps Evansville’s cops could use some better
friends. In his vigor to defend these particular cops, Hermann suggests the discrepancies between their report and the camera
footage are no different from discrepancies one might find in any other report filed by an Evansville police officer. I’d think a
conscientious Evansville police officer would find that notion pretty offensive.

To their credit, officials at the Evansville Police Department dispute Hermann’s characterization of the incident. As you might
imagine, they also object to the notion that such clear contradictions between police reports and camera footage are common.

But while senior officials at Evansville PD seem to be at odds with Hermann over this particular case, the prosecutor’s
unfortunate defense of police culture in Evansville may not be so far off after all. Consider this letter to the editor of the
Courier & Press, written by a retired local deputy chief who worked as a cop for 39 years. In response to the Healy beating, he
writes:

When a criminal takes to the streets to commit crimes he should realize the risk of being beaten or shot by a
homeowner, business owner or police officer. Criminals have no immunity to the use of force …
While the suspect probably did not resist in that fashion he did injure the officer and it is only natural for
the officer to get angry and take the suspect to the ground. In my day if any problem occurred during an
arrest it was standard procedure to take them down, secure them and then proceed. In my day I am sure
that in most cases where something like this happened there would have been a stop by the Emergency
Room on the way in to get the suspect’s head stitched up.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up

… As a young officer I was told by a judge that I was arresting too many people. He told me that I should
handle a lot of the more minor cases on the street, which meant I should give them a whipping and send
them on their way.

Note that Healy was never charged with the burglary. His only offense was drug possession. Yet this longtime local cop and
former deputy chief thinks that was more than enough for Healy to have been beaten silly, or even shot.

Perhaps this attitude explains why Evansville cops seem to be in the news so often. A sampling of headlines:

This year, Evansville officers shot and killed a homeless man who they said was approaching
them with a knife. While the man had just stolen a police cruiser and led police on a chase,
video — which the department released six months later — shows the man at least 30 feet
from the officers when they opened fire.

Last year, a federal appeals court refused to grant immunity to members of an Evansville PD
SWAT team who mistakenly raided an elderly woman and her granddaughters in 2012. The
raid included flash grenades, a battering ram and one kicked cat. It was in response to a
series of Internet posts that allegedly threatened the police. The cops traced the IP address
associated with the posts to the house but failed to realize that the family had an open WiFi
connection. The posts were written by a neighbor. The court compared to the SWAT team to
Keystone Cops.

In an incident last year, the son of a police officer who was allowed to accompany his father
on a ride­along assaulted and threatened a man who attempted to record an aggressive arrest
with his cellphone.

In 2002, several Evansville cops were disciplined in a relatively short period of time for
incidents involving a Ku Klux Klan drawing, fondling female dispatchers and reporting a
false shooting to cover up for the fact that several male officers were watching an adult video
while on duty.

In 2013, an officer was accused of severely beating a man after confronting him about a noise complaint. A witness — a friend of the alleged victim — disputed the officer’s account. The alleged victim claimed that after arresting him, the officer also handcuffed him to a police bed and taunted him. The officer was cleared of any wrongdoing.

A 2010 study conducted at the request of then­Police Chief Brad Hill found that black and Latino residents of Evansville found “a consistent lack of respect shown by EPD Officers to Black Citizens,” and that EPD officers used “harsh and disrespectful language” when interacting with black people. The report found that black residents reported harassment, surveillance and profiling, and it detailed numerous incidents of bogus traffic stops, searches without explanation, and wrongful arrests to back up their claims. The report concluded that there was a “a schism in the Community­Police Partnership for African Americans and Latino/Hispanics. At this historical juncture, there is a breach of trust that characterizes the Community­Police relationship in Evansville. The moral authority that is ideally associated with status of Police Officer has been eroded by a perceived, persistent abuse of power, especially in conducting home searches and traffic stops.”

In 2011, Hermann did press charges against an Evansville officer who punched a 60­year­old man after an altercation at a FOP post — the other man happened to be a retired police
officer.

In 2014, a 59­year­old woman who had just been sideswiped in a car collision was struck, tackled, repeatedly tasered and then arrested by an Evansville police officer after a dispute
over her insurance card.

In 2013, two Evansville cops roughed up, cuffed and threatened to taser a local church pastor. The pastor had waved at the officers while riding on his bicycle. The officers had
mistaken his wave for a middle finger. The pastor, who is also a firefighter, was in fact a friend of Evansville Police Chief Bolin.

In 2011, a black Navy veteran says two EPD officers pulled him over as he drove his RV through Evansville. He was taking the RV to North Carolina to sell it. According to the man,
one officer asked him, “Why would a black man be driving a motor home with no utensils, no personal effects, nothing, why would he be driving it by himself unless he had drugs?” After a drug dog “alerted” to the presence of drugs in the RV, the police searched the vehicle top to bottom. They found nothing. Shortly after, one of the officers involved was promoted to
sergeant. In 2013, he was named “officer of the year.”

Despite all of this, Chief Bolin said in 2014 that the nationwide protests against police killings of black men had “absolutely” affected the morale of his officers. “The guys feel like no one appreciates them,” Bolin told the Associated Press. “They feel like they’re made out to be enemies.”

Maybe — just maybe — there’s some justification for why some Evansville communities aren’t that fond of local law
enforcement. But those communities probably aren’t part of Hermann’s base.

Posted because this article has nearly every example of what is wrong with american policing. The only thing its missing is an APC with a machine gun turret.

[Flagg]

I got 1/4 of the way through until I wanted to bust my tablet on the table.

[Dragon Angel]

Sherriff, in response to people protesting him, posts a meme featuring someone he harassed for merely shaking his head.



So, a not so subtle threat that he could possibly disappear his critics. Uh, yay?

[The Romulan Republic]

Sherriff, in response to people protesting him, posts a meme featuring someone he harassed for merely shaking his head.



So, a not so subtle threat that he could possibly disappear his critics. Uh, yay?

So, Sheriff implicitly threatens to murder his opponents. Want to bet nothing will happen to him?

We'll probably be getting a lot more of this sort of thing too, as people like this probably feel (not without reason, unfortunately) that they have a license to use force against critics and dissenters, thanks to Trumpolini's "law and order" (for everyone but himself and his rich buddies and cronies) Presidency.

I fully expect we'll see a growing culture of police violence against political opponents that is tacitly (if not openly) endorsed by the regime.

[TheFeniX]

So, a not so subtle threat that he could possibly disappear his critics. Uh, yay?

Just imagine for a moment if someone posted a picture of the officer in question and subtitled it: "If I really wanted to make trouble for you, I'd grab a rifle and reenact the Dallas shooting." Then imagine what would happen to the person who posted that photo.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So, a not so subtle threat that he could possibly disappear his critics. Uh, yay?

Just imagine for a moment if someone posted a picture of the officer in question and subtitled it: "If I really wanted to make trouble for you, I'd grab a rifle and reenact the Dallas shooting." Then imagine what would happen to the person who posted that photo.

The problem with verbal threats is that they have to be really specific. In your example when you talk about getting a rifle and reenact Dallas it is pretty clear what you mean and whether or not something happens to you has a lot to do with the local prosecutor. For example, people threaten to shoot cops all the time and nothing happens to them. I've personally be threatened "I'm going to get a pistol and kill you and your family" and nothing happened to that guy. The prosecution declined to charge him. On top of this we have usually have several people a year that makes these type of specific threats towards specific law enforcement officers, sometimes by name, and nothing happens to them.

It's not as black and white as you think but that being said Sheriff Clark is clearly unfit for office though. Unfortunately, I doubt his constituents see it the same way you do.

[Raw Shark]

Kamakazie Sith, you have a rough job with a somewhat adversarial relationship to mine and you handle it well. I give you a hard time sometimes, but you know me; I bust everybody's ass. You are a good man. If I saw you walking through the woods in winter, we'd be allies.

[TheFeniX]

The problem with verbal threats is that they have to be really specific. In your example when you talk about getting a rifle and reenact Dallas it is pretty clear what you mean and whether or not something happens to you has a lot to do with the local prosecutor. For example, people threaten to shoot cops all the time and nothing happens to them. I've personally be threatened "I'm going to get a pistol and kill you and your family" and nothing happened to that guy. The prosecution declined to charge him. On top of this we have usually have several people a year that makes these type of specific threats towards specific law enforcement officers, sometimes by name, and nothing happens to them.

That's fair: I don't know specifically what would happen given that situation. But there is precedent for any given "terroristic threat" getting way more attention than it deserves (such as prosecution leading to significant jail time), rather than a stern talking to by police after an investigation, maybe, possibly, some community service.

It's not as black and white as you think but that being said Sheriff Clark is clearly unfit for office though. Unfortunately, I doubt his constituents see it the same way you do.

I honestly don't believe one (even incredibly) stupid "joke" should immediately get you shitcanned, when proving direct harm would be difficult. However, there should definitely be consequences, termination being a possibility of those consequences.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Kamakazie Sith, you have a rough job with a somewhat adversarial relationship to mine and you handle it well. I give you a hard time sometimes, but you know me; I bust everybody's ass. You are a good man. If I saw you walking through the woods in winter, we'd be allies.

Keep it up. I credit this place and a few others with not letting my head get into the clouds. Also, thank you. By the way, what do you do that puts us at a adversarial relationship I don't recall hearing about your career choice.

That's fair: I don't know specifically what would happen given that situation. But there is precedent for any given "terroristic threat" getting way more attention than it deserves (such as prosecution leading to significant jail time), rather than a stern talking to by police after an investigation, maybe, possibly, some community service.

I've seen that as well and it is really quite bizarre to me when it goes that route. For example, clock (bomb) kid. I still can't wrap my head around how that became the clown show that it did. I mean I get that it is racism but you'd think even a racist would be able to see the national embarrassment such a case will bring.

I honestly don't believe one (even incredibly) stupid "joke" should immediately get you shitcanned, when proving direct harm would be difficult. However, there should definitely be consequences, termination being a possibility of those consequences.

Well, I side on the termination side of things when he's the Sheriff, Chief, CEO, etc. Though I suppose everyone should be given a chance to apologize and learn.

[Raw Shark]

Kamakazie Sith, you have a rough job with a somewhat adversarial relationship to mine and you handle it well. I give you a hard time sometimes, but you know me; I bust everybody's ass. You are a good man. If I saw you walking through the woods in winter, we'd be allies.

Keep it up. I credit this place and a few others with not letting my head get into the clouds. Also, thank you. By the way, what do you do that puts us at a adversarial relationship I don't recall hearing about your career choice.

Yeah, well. We may never be friends, but we don't have to be enemies, either. *handshake*

[Dragon Angel]

Oh hey this thread hasn't been posted in for a while.

Philando Castile's murderer acquitted.

Fuck this system.

[Flagg]

Oh hey this thread hasn't been posted in for a while.

Philando Castile's murderer acquitted.

Fuck this system.

Them <redacted> better stay in place or the troops'll be sent in on a good old fashioned <redacted> hunt. It the American way!

[Kamakazie Sith]

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

[Flagg]

When I first saw the video of this shooting it did not appear justified. I have heard there is an unreleased video that supports the officers position that the jury saw. It is worth noting that the video we saw began after the shooting so it is possible that something happened in the unreleased video that gave the jury reasonable doubt.

Hopefully they will release it to the public.

Honestly, I think if there were such a video it would have been released. Just for PR reasons alone.