Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

"Pigs" Have A Hard Job

Recommended Posts

I'm kind of torn on this, on several levels.  Because I'm trained in the Ontario Use of Force model, I'm really shocked when stuff like this: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/29/good-samaritan-sues-cop-opp-over-attackhappens, and the cop is still in good standing. As someone who understands the legal framework, specifically here in Ontario, I don't understand how the SIU ruled as it did and let the guy keep his badge.  Unfortunately, Police tend to get the benefit of the doubt when, I think with the level of training that they have been given, they should be held to a higher standard.

 

YMMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cops do have a tough job.

The problem is that stuff like this doesn't just come out of the ether:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt11f7p13f0

 

Nor, apparently, does stuff on your side of the pond.

 

Are... Are you trying to court my opinion with a constitutionality argument?

 

 

Did this guy get any prior training, btw?

Or were they just letting him wing it without a baton, taser or spray on the assumption that he'd make a fool out of himself?

 

I don't think he made a fool of himself. I think the situations were tough situations, where you need to react fast.

I know enough cops to know that this happens a lot. There are, of course, bad cops and whole bad police agencies, even, but in the US most protests against police are not the product of injustice. They're the product of opportunism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that if you don't try to lunge for an officer's weapon while on drugs and have multiple warrants for your arrest, the odds of being shot by police go down dramatically.

 

This is true, although given that police officers are (probably) a cross section of society at large, there's bound to be some shitheads. Also, as Bele said, they should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sturgeon: Nope.

 

If this is another of Sturgeon's asshatery of editing other people's post because he's too fucking stupid that he actually buys Fox New's bullshit then I am gone from this forum.

 

There is no excuse for this kind of power trip behavior. Especially when the "evidence" cited is nothing more than moronic Fox News strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is another of Sturgeon's asshatery of editing other people's post because he's too fucking stupid that he actually buys Fox New's bullshit then I am gone from this forum.

 

There is no excuse for this kind of power trip behavior. Especially when the "evidence" cited is nothing more than moronic Fox News strawman.

 

If you really think I'm such a bitch, Zinegata, you do not have to post on my forum; though I would be sad to see you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are... Are you trying to court my opinion with a constitutionality argument?

I don't think he made a fool of himself. I think the situations were tough situations, where you need to react fast.

I know enough cops to know that this happens a lot. There are, of course, bad cops and whole bad police agencies, even, but in the US most protests against police are not the product of injustice. They're the product of opportunism.

No, I'm arguing context. Marikana wasn't just this isolated incident where a bunch of miners appeared on a hill and charged a gun line of trigger-happy cops.

Similarly, reducing Ferguson et al to 'cops have a hard job, protesters don't know shit' is disingenuous.

I don't know the exact thinking behind the video, but from the outside it seems like a rigged game. The dude had no training, no backup and no tools other than a gun. And he was facing people who acted as if they were suicidally determined to ignore his voice and body language. How were any of those scenarios going to end except by him shooting or getting shot?

Which is probably the point, of course, but doesn't do anything to convince people that you're not just fucking with someone to make him look bad.

Worse, I think the inclusion of reporters simply meant that the PD managed to effectively insult the only person willing to reach out and break bread with them. So much for making bridges and building understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm arguing context. Marikana wasn't just this isolated incident where a bunch of miners appeared on a hill and charged a gun line of trigger-happy cops.

Similarly, reducing Ferguson et al to 'cops have a hard job, protesters don't know shit' is disingenuous.

I don't know the exact thinking behind the video, but from the outside it seems like a rigged game. The dude had no training, no backup and no tools other than a gun. And he was facing people who acted as if they were suicidally determined to ignore his voice and body language. How were any of those scenarios going to end except by him shooting or getting shot?

Which is probably the point, of course, but doesn't do anything to convince people that you're not just fucking with someone to make him look bad.

Worse, I think the inclusion of reporters simply meant that the PD managed to effectively insult the only person willing to reach out and break bread with them. So much for making bridges and building understanding.

 

Arguing with you about this will cause problems, I think. I will PM you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is room for positive discussion on it, but it is a VERY polarizing subject.  Again, I say that from a point of view from someone who may have to use force in their job and is trained to do so if needed.  But I'm also highly critical of abuse of power by the police.  Mainly because I am trained in the legal use of force model in use here in my province, and I understand when that has been exceeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that cops have a difficult job. I think they are tasked with rolling around town and sticking their nose into everyone's dirty laundry. That's a dangerous job.

Cops are only human, and some don't even rank that high, but I think denying that in the US we are quick to roast any officer who's had a Bad Day over a spit is mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cops are humans that are placed into a position of power and authority which can ruin and end other people's lives within a very short amount of time. Cops should be held to a very high standard and those who don't hold to those standards should be removed from service and be dealt with by the law if they are guilty of abuse of power. In a perfect world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cops are humans that are placed into a position of power and authority which can ruin and end other people's lives within a very short amount of time. Cops should be held to a very high standard and those who don't hold to those standards should be removed from service and be dealt with by the law if they are guilty of abuse of power. In a perfect world...

 

Doesn't this ignore the ambiguity that by is indivisible from the job itself? Of course police should be held to a high standard, but how can simple standards like "don't shoot an unarmed man" possibly be applied to a job like that? How is it even conceivable to try and idealize the conduct of police officers, who as part of their day-to-day world stick themselves into messy, ambiguous, and dangerous situations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once of the problems that I see fairly frequently come up (Happened here in Toronto with the G20 Summit) is that cops cover for each other a lot.  And when it comes out that they lied about it, it looks really bad.  The 'thin blue line' is very real.  As a security guard, I understand it.  I cover for my buddies too when shit gets fucked up.  But a cop has a lot more power than I do, and as I said earlier, with that power, comes responsibility. It's a cliché, I know. But I think it's true. 

 

On shoot/no shoot decisions, I'm ok with any officer taking a shot when someone's life is in danger, if that is his own or an innocent bystander.  But cases like the Sammy Yatim shooting here in Toronto, where the guy is contained and no immediate threat to anyone else, well... I want the book thrown at the cop. 

 

I also think that a lot of police could benefit from shoot-house type training.  I'm given to understand that a lot of police forces don't do this type of training due to lack of facilities and budget.

 

Anyhow, YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once of the problems that I see fairly frequently come up (Happened here in Toronto with the G20 Summit) is that cops cover for each other a lot.  And when it comes out that they lied about it, it looks really bad.  The 'thin blue line' is very real.  As a security guard, I understand it.  I cover for my buddies too when shit gets fucked up.  But a cop has a lot more power than I do, and as I said earlier, with that power, comes responsibility. It's a cliché, I know. But I think it's true. 

 

On shoot/no shoot decisions, I'm ok with any officer taking a shot when someone's life is in danger, if that is his own or an innocent bystander.  But cases like the Sammy Yatim shooting here in Toronto, where the guy is contained and no immediate threat to anyone else, well... I want the book thrown at the cop. 

 

I also think that a lot of police could benefit from shoot-house type training.  I'm given to understand that a lot of police forces don't do this type of training due to lack of facilities and budget.

 

Anyhow, YMMV.

 

Don't you think a lot of these shootings - maybe not the Sammy Yatim shooting, dunno about that one - are caused fundamentally by people not respecting the situation? If an officer is called to involve himself in your situation, he is - fundamentally - a human who is surrounded by unknowns who has a gun. I think a lot of people fail to realize that, and in some cases it results in them getting shot.

And in some of those cases, the social warhawks in the US will use that as an opportunity to twist the arm of the police in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think a lot of these shootings - maybe not the Sammy Yatim shooting, dunno about that one - are caused fundamentally by people not respecting the situation? If an officer is called to involve himself in your situation, he is - fundamentally - a human who is surrounded by unknowns who has a gun. I think a lot of people fail to realize that, and in some cases it results in them getting shot.

And in some of those cases, the social warhawks in the US will use that as an opportunity to twist the arm of the police in general.

I don't totally disagree with your point of view. Tweaking anyone who is visibly armed is dumb.  And frankly, a lot of criminals are, well... dumb.  And, yes, these are a lot of overly polarized people in the US, and here in Canada that will take up any opportunity to stir up shit. 

 

But the police also get a free pass a lot of the time when sometimes they shouldn't.  I'm not fully filled in on the details, as it isn't my country or state, but from some of the reading I've done, Joe Arpeio (sp?) from the looks of things should have been locked up for civil rights violations years ago, and is still Sheriff and re-elected time and time again. 

 

Specifics of the Sammy Yatim shooting here in Toronto.  Disturbed individual, contained in a streetcar, armed with a knife.  Not in the drivers seat or anything, so it's not like the vehicle was a threat. And the police shot him 8 times.  The Officer was eventually charged here, but there was a lot of talk about how it was justified. Again, under the use of force model here in Ontario, there is no way the shoot was justified, as there was no immediate threat of harm to anyone.  Our G20 summit here in Toronto a couple of years back also massively damaged police credibility here in Toronto.  Canada is generally a pretty pro-police environment.  Canadians like their law and order.  But police credibility here in Toronto is about as low as I've ever seen it after a few incidents over the past couple of years.

 

 

ugh, rambling... 

 

Anyhow, my point.  Cops are armed.  They have the power to ruin your life. Treat them with extreme caution.  YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't totally disagree with your point of view. Tweaking anyone who is visibly armed is dumb.  And frankly, a lot of criminals are, well... dumb.  And, yes, these are a lot of overly polarized people in the US, and here in Canada that will take up any opportunity to stir up shit. 

 

But the police also get a free pass a lot of the time when sometimes they shouldn't.  I'm not fully filled in on the details, as it isn't my country or state, but from some of the reading I've done, Joe Arpeio (sp?) from the looks of things should have been locked up for civil rights violations years ago, and is still Sheriff and re-elected time and time again. 

 

Specifics of the Sammy Yatim shooting here in Toronto.  Disturbed individual, contained in a streetcar, armed with a knife.  Not in the drivers seat or anything, so it's not like the vehicle was a threat. And the police shot him 8 times.  The Officer was eventually charged here, but there was a lot of talk about how it was justified. Again, under the use of force model here in Ontario, there is no way the shoot was justified, as there was no immediate threat of harm to anyone.  Our G20 summit here in Toronto a couple of years back also massively damaged police credibility here in Toronto.  Canada is generally a pretty pro-police environment.  Canadians like their law and order.  But police credibility here in Toronto is about as low as I've ever seen it after a few incidents over the past couple of years.

 

 

ugh, rambling... 

 

Anyhow, my point.  Cops are armed.  They have the power to ruin your life. Treat them with extreme caution.  YMMV.

 

A strong argument for mandatory cameras for cops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A strong argument for mandatory cameras for cops.

Oh hell yes.

 

I support mandatory body cams for cops 3000%.

 

Protects the cops, protects the people.  Any missing footage during a shift = automatic suspension until the cause is found. If it could be done technologically, I'd say it automatically flags footage or broadcasts to the station when a weapon is drawn.

 

Edit:  47% drop in use of force and 41% drop in complaints in San Diego.  31% drop in use of pepper spray.

 

http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2015/03/26/body-cameras-shown-to-limit-use-of-force-by-san-diego-police/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've known great cops. 

 

I've seen shit cops. 

 

Cops are people.  People given power.  That can do different things to different people.  

 

Then mix in life-threatening situations.  Some cops just want to make it home unscathed. 

 

Some cops are shit. 

 

Some cops are great. 

 

We see plenty of the shit ones thanks to this new wondrous age of instant information.  And those stories get more readers/viewers/ad money than feel good stories of cops. 

 

I don't trust cops, but I don't hate them. They are employed by our tax dollars, and should be held accountable as employees of the state. But I do understand the stresses, and I'll never hold judgement until I've seen both sides of the story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×