General Police Abuse Thread

[Rogue 9]

Officer does not shoot black man, is fired for it.

This is a ProPublica investigative piece, and extremely long. I'm not comfortable copying and pasting it, and not entirely unsure I wouldn't hit the character limit if I tried. But it's worth reading.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The title is a bit inflammatory and misleading. He was fired because he didn't act when the life of he and his coworkers was threatened not because he didn't kill a black man. I do not support the decision to terminate the officer though but this department probably could use some incident management training..more on that later.

I don't like the idea of terminating people that are effectively acting as the incident commander/negotiator. Mader had spoken to Williams and had begun to build a rapport so he had a better idea of what kind of threat William was and he articulated it so. Ultimately, had he been allowed to continue in the fashion he should have been then Williams would likely still be alive. I say likely because when he points the gun at the three officers that could have still resulted in him being shot regardless of how this was managed but there is a way to managed these incidents so that becomes unlikely.

On to incident management. One thing that helps in these situations is to let everyone know that you have incident command. So, in this situation I would get on the radio and say "I have incident command". That let's everyone know that I am in charge and I am dictating how this plays out and it also helps to remind you that you need to let everyone else know what you know. "He keeps telling me to shoot him but I don't believe he is a threat to us". Now a well trained group of officers will hopefully think of some other non-lethal tools to use like a 40mm extended range impact weapon. There are other things that would hopefully happen such as field supervisors ensuring that additional arriving officers are arriving at a distance because distance equals time, working to evacuate the family from a back door, and containment.

[Lonestar]

The judge in the "cop wanders into neighbors apartment and murders someone" case has advised the jury that they can apply castle doctrine on the side of the cop in this case

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/01/us/a ... ssion=true

(CNN) Jurors will be allowed to consider the so-called castle doctrine in the murder case against former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who said she mistakenly entered the wrong apartment and killed a 26-year-old man.

The castle doctrine is the legal notion that your home is your castle, and you have the right to use lethal force to defend your home and not retreat. A number of states have enshrined the castle doctrine in statutory law, sometimes with slightly different guidelines for when deadly force can be used. In other states, stand your ground measures extend self-defense protections to any place a person has a legal right to be, including their home.

Guyger, 31, was indicted on a murder charge after she killed Botham Jean, an accountant, in September 2018. Jurors, who began deliberating on Monday, were instructed to find whether Guyger is guilty of murder, manslaughter or neither.

Prosecutors objected to applying the castle doctrine because Guyger was in Jean's home -- not the other way around. But the judge allowed it and the defense leaned on it.

Guyger's defense attorneys argue it is reasonable that she thought she was in her home and that it's a mistake any ordinary person would make in such a situation.

Therefore, it's reasonable that she acted in self-defense, her attorneys argue.

Guyger testified she entered Jean's apartment thinking it was hers, and believed she encountered a burglar who might kill her. Jean's apartment was one floor above Guyger's.

"The law recognizes that mistakes can be made. It's always tragic. The law's not perfect. It's tragic, but you have to follow this law," Attorney Toby Shook said during closing statements on Monday.

As an aside, Shannon Watts, an Anti-RKBA activist who in the past has said only cops should have guns, had a long twitter thread yesterday about this advisement talking about how much castle doctrine sucks, and somehow linked a story that didn't mention the shooter was a cop and didn't mention in the thread that it was a cop coming off shift once.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Mistake of fact has generally be allowed as a defense so this isn't atypical really.

Besides, the jury convicted her of murder today. Thankfully.

[TheFeniX]

Mistake of fact has generally be allowed as a defense so this isn't atypical really.

Besides, the jury convicted her of murder today. Thankfully.

Provided she doesn't get the kids gloves at sentencing: This really needed to be a "win." Basically everything about her past, the shooting circumstances and what lead up to it, and how she acted after was just a clear cut case of "this is exactly the kind of person we need to make an example of."

I know cops deal with a lot of bullshit and get numb to it, but when you've just gunned down a man in his own home, and you're freaking out you're about the "get fired" because your job GIVES you that luxury? Fucking oof.

I get the whole "Kid MAY/MAY NOT have had gun, situation resolved fast, it was dark, etc etc" but this is straight up: "Dude murdered while eating ice-cream on his couch." If you can't convict on that, there really is no hope. And kudos for the jury not taking the Castle Doctrine out they were given and instead handing down a conviction. I know I'd be scared as a juror sending even the shittiest cop to jail.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Provided she doesn't get the kids gloves at sentencing: This really needed to be a "win." Basically everything about her past, the shooting circumstances and what lead up to it, and how she acted after was just a clear cut case of "this is exactly the kind of person we need to make an example of."

Oh yeah. I personally thought this conviction was very important for law enforcement in the United States, even if some don't realize it. Hopefully the conviction will at least be equivalent to what is given to others in similar circumstances.

I know cops deal with a lot of bullshit and get numb to it, but when you've just gunned down a man in his own home, and you're freaking out you're about the "get fired" because your job GIVES you that luxury? Fucking oof.

If you're the numb you should leave. By numb I mean - "Omg I just shot some dude and this isn't my place! Quick call me boyfriend!"

I get the whole "Kid MAY/MAY NOT have had gun, situation resolved fast, it was dark, etc etc" but this is straight up: "Dude murdered while eating ice-cream on his couch." If you can't convict on that, there really is no hope. And kudos for the jury not taking the Castle Doctrine out they were given and instead handing down a conviction. I know I'd be scared as a juror sending even the shittiest cop to jail.

What would make you scared of it?

[Elheru Aran]

I get the whole "Kid MAY/MAY NOT have had gun, situation resolved fast, it was dark, etc etc" but this is straight up: "Dude murdered while eating ice-cream on his couch." If you can't convict on that, there really is no hope. And kudos for the jury not taking the Castle Doctrine out they were given and instead handing down a conviction. I know I'd be scared as a juror sending even the shittiest cop to jail.

What would make you scared of it?

Off the top of my head: jurors aren't super anonymous, and it wouldn't be hard for an aggrieved cop to maybe remember a face from the jury when he pulls someone over for speeding or whatever. While improbable, certainly it's enough to make people paranoid, which happens over dumb stuff already. There's a certain fear of the police as it is.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Off the top of my head: jurors aren't super anonymous, and it wouldn't be hard for an aggrieved cop to maybe remember a face from the jury when he pulls someone over for speeding or whatever. While improbable, certainly it's enough to make people paranoid, which happens over dumb stuff already. There's a certain fear of the police as it is.

Alright. I can see that. Especially when you consider the fact that there is no law stopping a fired officer from getting hired at a different department.

[TheFeniX]

What would make you scared of it?

Cops have friends. Many of those friends are likely also cops. The court knows who you are. Putting together the pieces is not exactly Holmes level stuff, even if you ignore it's 2019 and doxxing someone is hilariously easy. So, I could see someone else "not wanting to rock the boat" being given an "out" like the Castle Doctrine and justifying their fear by saying "well, the judge said it's an option."

[Tiriol]

I get the whole "Kid MAY/MAY NOT have had gun, situation resolved fast, it was dark, etc etc" but this is straight up: "Dude murdered while eating ice-cream on his couch." If you can't convict on that, there really is no hope. And kudos for the jury not taking the Castle Doctrine out they were given and instead handing down a conviction. I know I'd be scared as a juror sending even the shittiest cop to jail.

On Twitter, several lawyers seem to think that the judge put the whole Castle Doctrine as an option because the defense cannot claim afterwards in the appeals that the jury did not consider all possibilities.

[RogueIce]

Alright. I can see that. Especially when you consider the fact that there is no law stopping a fired officer from getting hired at a different department.

Decertification needs to be more of a thing when officers are fired for misconduct.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about: generally speaking you need to be certified by the state in order to be hired as a sworn law enforcement officer. I haven't looked at all 50 states, but I'm pretty sure most if not all have their equivalent to the POST Commission. It lays out the standards of training and you're required to be certified by that body before you can be hired as a LEO. It's basically a two-step process to become a cop:

1) Become POST certified
2) Be hired at a recognized Law Enforcement Agency (the POST certification, by itself, does not give police powers)

If you get yourself decertified, you can no longer be hired as a sworn LEO, at least in that state. That would tend to solve the problems of the "nomad cops" because you can't be a cop without that certification. And even if being decertified in one state doesn't automatically bar you from certification in another - though I tend to think it should, barring very unusual circumstances - it at least forces the person to go through police training again because they would no longer have that valid equivalency training, which if nothing else makes them that less attractive to hire over somebody with no prior LE history.

Why it's not used more, I'm not sure. Maybe other states aren't like Florida, here it's pretty clearly written into the law that police officers must be certified* or agencies are unwilling to pursue decertification for various reasons. Being a cop I suppose Kamakazie Sith would have better insight than me on that front.

*The only exception, so far as FL goes, appears to be the elected Sheriff themselves. Most are career LE officers anyway, and so certified. But there's a couple that are not. Still, it's pretty rare that the Sheriff would be out 'in the streets' doing normal police work, so it's a minor issue really. I'm also not 100% sure if non-certified Sheriffs retain full LE powers or are restricted in that sense, while still being able to serve subpoenas and other civil processes. I think they have police powers per the State Constitution but again, they're a) only one person anyway and b) unlikely to be doing regular LE work.

[Kamakazie Sith]

First thing. Guyger was sentenced to 10 years. I've read that in Texas if you're convicted of murder you must serve at least ten years.

Cops have friends. Many of those friends are likely also cops. The court knows who you are. Putting together the pieces is not exactly Holmes level stuff, even if you ignore it's 2019 and doxxing someone is hilariously easy. So, I could see someone else "not wanting to rock the boat" being given an "out" like the Castle Doctrine and justifying their fear by saying "well, the judge said it's an option."

I get it. It's a possibility and not unreasonable. What I was mostly thinking about is if there have been recent stories or enough stories of cops seeking revenge to motivate this mindset.

Decertification needs to be more of a thing when officers are fired for misconduct.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about: generally speaking you need to be certified by the state in order to be hired as a sworn law enforcement officer. I haven't looked at all 50 states, but I'm pretty sure most if not all have their equivalent to the POST Commission. It lays out the standards of training and you're required to be certified by that body before you can be hired as a LEO. It's basically a two-step process to become a cop:

1) Become POST certified
2) Be hired at a recognized Law Enforcement Agency (the POST certification, by itself, does not give police powers)

If you get yourself decertified, you can no longer be hired as a sworn LEO, at least in that state. That would tend to solve the problems of the "nomad cops" because you can't be a cop without that certification. And even if being decertified in one state doesn't automatically bar you from certification in another - though I tend to think it should, barring very unusual circumstances - it at least forces the person to go through police training again because they would no longer have that valid equivalency training, which if nothing else makes them that less attractive to hire over somebody with no prior LE history.

Why it's not used more, I'm not sure. Maybe other states aren't like Florida, here it's pretty clearly written into the law that police officers must be certified* or agencies are unwilling to pursue decertification for various reasons. Being a cop I suppose Kamakazie Sith would have better insight than me on that front.

*The only exception, so far as FL goes, appears to be the elected Sheriff themselves. Most are career LE officers anyway, and so certified. But there's a couple that are not. Still, it's pretty rare that the Sheriff would be out 'in the streets' doing normal police work, so it's a minor issue really. I'm also not 100% sure if non-certified Sheriffs retain full LE powers or are restricted in that sense, while still being able to serve subpoenas and other civil processes. I think they have police powers per the State Constitution but again, they're a) only one person anyway and b) unlikely to be doing regular LE work.

Whether it is used or not, I believe, depends on the employee agency to forward a discipline issue to POST. It should be done far more but it is still done to some degree. Here is Utah's POST council meeting minutes. They usually include all the discpline information near the end.
https://post.utah.gov/post-council/

[Gandalf]

First thing. Guyger was sentenced to 10 years. I've read that in Texas if you're convicted of murder you must serve at least ten years.

That's... disappointing.

[Ace Pace]

First thing. Guyger was sentenced to 10 years. I've read that in Texas if you're convicted of murder you must serve at least ten years.

That's... disappointing.

I'd prefer we celeberate people spending less time in prison. We should ask why are some people spending _more_ than 10% of their life in prison for single acts.

[Darth Yan]

Yeah but it's murder. If you're going to throw someone in jail for a long time it should be at least for murder. John Burge only got 4 years for perjury (he committed a fuckload of torture but the city covered him until the statute ran out....fortunately one of Burge's victim's sued him and he got caught lying on the deposition which gave the feds rope to hang him. While he didn't die in jail like he should have his reputation was destroyed to the point where chicago cops are STILL bitching about it).

That said most cops who murder Blacks NEVER get punished so Guygur getting ANY punishment is a pleasant surprise.

[Elheru Aran]

First thing. Guyger was sentenced to 10 years. I've read that in Texas if you're convicted of murder you must serve at least ten years.

That's... disappointing.

I'd prefer we celeberate people spending less time in prison. We should ask why are some people spending _more_ than 10% of their life in prison for single acts.

What is your idea of appropriate legal punitive action for serious crimes by individuals, then? (EDIT: serious question, not trying to be argumentative)

[RogueIce]

Whether it is used or not, I believe, depends on the employee agency to forward a discipline issue to POST. It should be done far more but it is still done to some degree. Here is Utah's POST council meeting minutes. They usually include all the discpline information near the end.
https://post.utah.gov/post-council/

Yeah, I know it happens. My local paper did a special report publishing everybody who was ever decertified in the state.

Anyway, if agencies did this more, it would solve the nomad cop issue. Which is my thing with a lot of people who adopt the "tear it all down" mindset. I mean, a lot of the mechanisms are there for things people want: unified standards and training, getting rid of nomad cops, independent agency review, etc. There exists a mechanism for each of these:

Unified Standards: State POSTs. Technically state-by-state but there's definitely ways the Federal government could try and get some 'national standards' to be a baseline for every state.

Nomad cops: the aforementioned decertification. Have it follow you to a new state and there, problem solved.

Independent agency review: pretty much every state has a State Bureau of Investigation. Make them the default agency to review all uses of deadly force. I mean, technically "cops investigating cops" but realistically that's what it'll always come down to no matter how you set it up. Could also mandate that a District/State's Attorney outside of the home jurisdiction is required to decide on filing charges to eliminate that particular bit of conflict of interest. I've seen it happen for other cases, so no reason it can't be implemented as a default for these scenarios. Maybe even have the State AG step in, if you want to go that far with it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the reform proposals (that aren't "ban the police" levels of extreme) already have some form of existence already. It's just a matter of implementation, or looking at existing examples (such as Citizen Review Boards) to see what's working and what isn't.

I honestly don't think we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to US policing. Getting wide-spread adoption and better enforcement and implementation of existing programs and regulations is far more practical and likely to succeed.

[LaCroix]

First thing. Guyger was sentenced to 10 years. I've read that in Texas if you're convicted of murder you must serve at least ten years.

That's... disappointing.

I'd prefer we celeberate people spending less time in prison. We should ask why are some people spending _more_ than 10% of their life in prison for single acts.

Sentencing is not just done by the book. There is an idea that it circumstances are to be taken into account. Did she plan to murder someone? No. Was she being excessively brutal (torturing the victim)? No. Was she randomly shooting into a crowd? No. So there is no reason to believe she is a danger to society in general. So there is no need to lock her away to protect the public.

There is also no indication that she would do the same right again. It was a mistake. If she had been honest about it, contrite, and hadn't tried to weasel out, she might have been slapped with voluntary manslaughter (10 years maximum) instead of murder, and most likely 3-5 years, maybe with a probation period..

But minimum sentencing for murder is the correct sentence under these circumstances.
This is in part a symbolic sentencing. You could have given the max sentence for manslaughter, emphasising the accidental nature, while still accounting for the gross overproportial reaction to the situation. They chose to go for murder, to make it clear that it is in no way an accident to pull a gun on, and proceed to immediately shoot someone who is not even remotely conceiveable as a threat.

[Gandalf]

I'd prefer we celeberate people spending less time in prison. We should ask why are some people spending _more_ than 10% of their life in prison for single acts.

For less destructive crimes (like some drug offences), most certainly. But she busted into someone else's house and shot a guy.

All the hugging is weird. If the races/genders were reversed, would there have been as many hugs in the courtroom?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yeah, I know it happens. My local paper did a special report publishing everybody who was ever decertified in the state.

Anyway, if agencies did this more, it would solve the nomad cop issue. Which is my thing with a lot of people who adopt the "tear it all down" mindset. I mean, a lot of the mechanisms are there for things people want: unified standards and training, getting rid of nomad cops, independent agency review, etc. There exists a mechanism for each of these:

Frankly, and this will be harsh to maybe a few on this board, but those people are more interested in self gratification than justice.

You're right. Those mechanisms are in place. The other part of this equation is the voter. People need to get out and vote. Not happy with how the DA cleared a shooting. You better have voted for someone else.

Unified Standards: State POSTs. Technically state-by-state but there's definitely ways the Federal government could try and get some 'national standards' to be a baseline for every state.

Nomad cops: the aforementioned decertification. Have it follow you to a new state and there, problem solved.

Independent agency review: pretty much every state has a State Bureau of Investigation. Make them the default agency to review all uses of deadly force. I mean, technically "cops investigating cops" but realistically that's what it'll always come down to no matter how you set it up. Could also mandate that a District/State's Attorney outside of the home jurisdiction is required to decide on filing charges to eliminate that particular bit of conflict of interest. I've seen it happen for other cases, so no reason it can't be implemented as a default for these scenarios. Maybe even have the State AG step in, if you want to go that far with it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the reform proposals (that aren't "ban the police" levels of extreme) already have some form of existence already. It's just a matter of implementation, or looking at existing examples (such as Citizen Review Boards) to see what's working and what isn't.

I honestly don't think we need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to US policing. Getting wide-spread adoption and better enforcement and implementation of existing programs and regulations is far more practical and likely to succeed.

I would also add local government certification. If you want to form your own law enforcement agency that's fine but it needs to be these standards and failure to do so with result in your certification being terminated and then disbandment of that law enforcement agency.

[TheFeniX]

So, a bit of possibly interesting news: the key witness in the Amber Guyger murder trial was gunned down.

A man who was a key witness in the murder trial of former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger was fatally shot Friday in the parking lot of his apartment complex, according to attorney Lee Merritt.
Joshua Brown was a neighbor of shooting victim Botham Jean, who was sitting in his apartment in September 2018 when Guyger walked inside and shot him to death. Brown says he lived directly across the hall from Jean.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Frankly, and this will be harsh to maybe a few on this board, but those people are more interested in self gratification than justice.

You're right. Those mechanisms are in place. The other part of this equation is the voter. People need to get out and vote. Not happy with how the DA cleared a shooting. You better have voted for someone else.

This is where we run into a bind. Yes, you can reform the system by utilizing mechanisms that are already in place. And yes, police have a place in public safety and crime investigation I have no desire to get rid of. However, the police also exist to enforce the often-oppressive laws of the state which is controlled largely by Capital, and have never in the entire history of policing been a force for positive social or economic change. The institution of policing has always been there ready to break up strikes, disperse even peaceful protests, suppress civil rights marchers, and have done far far worse. It is inaccurate to say that law enforcement has been infiltrated by white supremacists for example. They've always been there. And even when they don't make up the majority, they still enforce the laws of a country built by white supremacists literally on the backs of black people. Hell, the people you send to prison right now are de facto enslaved - and I know you object to that but white supremacy is a tool of capitalism so... look what capitalism makes you do.

So in order to have our cake and eat it - because we do need specialists who are trained to intervene in sticky situations and investigate crimes - there's more than just the reforms mentioned that will have to be done. We have to break capitalism on the wheel for starters. So much has to change - from the economy to government, to the very culture of policing institutions... that it is highly probable that there won't be a lot of resemblance to what we have now when we're done. Except the badges.

That's gonna take a while, so by all means we need to do all the other stuff... but until that does happen, it's going to be a constant battle to keep the reforms in place, and we're still gonna be playing Racist Cop Whackamole.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, a bit of possibly interesting news: the key witness in the Amber Guyger murder trial was gunned down.

A man who was a key witness in the murder trial of former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger was fatally shot Friday in the parking lot of his apartment complex, according to attorney Lee Merritt.
Joshua Brown was a neighbor of shooting victim Botham Jean, who was sitting in his apartment in September 2018 when Guyger walked inside and shot him to death. Brown says he lived directly across the hall from Jean.

I mean, that could be a coincidence. But who the hell is actually going to believe that?

Definitely puts the preceding comments about juries being potentially afraid to rule against a cop in a new light.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, I know it happens. My local paper did a special report publishing everybody who was ever decertified in the state.

Anyway, if agencies did this more, it would solve the nomad cop issue. Which is my thing with a lot of people who adopt the "tear it all down" mindset. I mean, a lot of the mechanisms are there for things people want: unified standards and training, getting rid of nomad cops, independent agency review, etc. There exists a mechanism for each of these:

Frankly, and this will be harsh to maybe a few on this board, but those people are more interested in self gratification than justice.

Self gratification in what way?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Frankly, and this will be harsh to maybe a few on this board, but those people are more interested in self gratification than justice.

You're right. Those mechanisms are in place. The other part of this equation is the voter. People need to get out and vote. Not happy with how the DA cleared a shooting. You better have voted for someone else.

This is where we run into a bind. Yes, you can reform the system by utilizing mechanisms that are already in place. And yes, police have a place in public safety and crime investigation I have no desire to get rid of. However, the police also exist to enforce the often-oppressive laws of the state which is controlled largely by Capital, and have never in the entire history of policing been a force for positive social or economic change. The institution of policing has always been there ready to break up strikes, disperse even peaceful protests, suppress civil rights marchers, and have done far far worse. It is inaccurate to say that law enforcement has been infiltrated by white supremacists for example. They've always been there. And even when they don't make up the majority, they still enforce the laws of a country built by white supremacists literally on the backs of black people. Hell, the people you send to prison right now are de facto enslaved - and I know you object to that but white supremacy is a tool of capitalism so... look what capitalism makes you do.

You bring up an interesting point. I think you're right. White supremacists have always been in law enforcement which vary among departments, however, that's more of an issue with the people that exist in this country as a whole. Have you considered that?

Who do you think I send to prison? Most of the stuff I work on is crimes of violence and property crimes. I haven't written a moving violation in nearly seven years and the same is true for drug arrests.

So in order to have our cake and eat it - because we do need specialists who are trained to intervene in sticky situations and investigate crimes - there's more than just the reforms mentioned that will have to be done. We have to break capitalism on the wheel for starters. So much has to change - from the economy to government, to the very culture of policing institutions... that it is highly probable that there won't be a lot of resemblance to what we have now when we're done. Except the badges.

Like I said above you have one problem with your dream here. White supremacy might be the majority in this country. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we shouldn't try but I think your solution to move from capitalism to communism is missing the point.

Self gratification in what way?

The tear is all down crowd, the All Cops Are Bastards crowd, the no good cops crowd. Those people that say those things say it for self gratification. It makes them feel good to say it.