crimininology
Follow
Find
16 views | +0 today
 
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
onto crimininology
Scoop.it!

When to shoot? Capitol shooting raises questions about force

When to shoot? Capitol shooting raises questions about force | crimininology | Scoop.it
When someone tries to ram through barriers at two of the nation's most highly protected facilities, do officers shoot? What if the driver's car is carrying a powerful bomb? Or what if the driver is unarmed and has a child?

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

It is hard to look at this situation from the rear wearing 20/20 goggles and say that officers used too much force. The officers acted appropriately, I can only say that I’m glade the child was ok. With this whole terrorist thing going on, it’s a wonder that more shots were not fired. People need to realize that a car is a lethal weapon, and when facing deadly force, the officer must act to preserve the life of others and themselves by using deadly force.

This is just another sheep versus sheepdog situation (see Col. Grossman).

more...
rex talcott's comment, October 6, 2013 8:03 PM
It seems that the agencies involved in this shooting showed the highest level of discipline when it came to shots being fired. Escalation of force was utilized, waiting till the very end when imminent danger and death was felt at a high degree. Kudos to the officers who were involved, they showed leadership and courage in which others should emulate. though it was unfortunate how the events turned out, it kept the rest of the community safe from any potential harm during our times of high risk activities occurring in the forms of terrorism.
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Hawaii legislators: No more prostitution exemption for police

Hawaii legislators: No more prostitution exemption for police | crimininology | Scoop.it
Hawaii legislators in both the House and Senate agree that it's time to end an exemption that allows police officers to legally have sex with prostitutes.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I am not even sure where to start so I will give both side to the situation.  It does provide protection to officers who have o choice but go all the way in order to maintain their cover, but the problem is police history. The public doesn’t trust the police to use this loophole only as a safety net, but thinks the police will abuse it. Let’s be honest here, police history does suggest that it will happen. So the best course of action is to take it away and deal with each incident on a case by case basis.

more...
Alysha Childs's comment, April 19, 7:44 PM
Okay, I don’t think Vice should be sleeping with prostitutes. I can almost understand how maybe a drug deal might go bad, and the vice is forced to in order to keep their cover, but that might just be something that happens in TV shows and smut novels. Honestly, I don’t feel like there should be an exemption for officers sleeping with prostitutes, and it kind of bugs me that the police lobbied to keep it.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Judges criticism of sex attack victim leads to complaint | Voxy.co.nz

Judges criticism of sex attack victim leads to complaint | Voxy.co.nz | crimininology | Scoop.it
The Sensible Sentencing Trust is lodging a formal complaint against a Judge who was reluctant to allow a sex abuse victim to read her victim impact statement in court saying the Judge showed an unacceptable bias towards the offender.
Full Story at:

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I do understand where the public is coming from with this one. It seems that the justice system is so afraid of violating a offender’s right that they lose their senses and instead, violates the victim’s rights in an effort to appear unbiased to the defense. How is that fair or sensible? The victim should be the priority and not the offender. Once someone has been convicted than all soft gloves should come off. I understand the need to hold a fair trial so innocents don’t get thrown in jail, but after a conviction this should no longer be an issue. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

When Did ‘To Serve & Protect’ Become ‘To Seize & Profit?’ | The Nation

When Did ‘To Serve & Protect’ Become ‘To Seize & Profit?’ | The Nation | crimininology | Scoop.it
Leon and Mary Adams had been living in their Philadelphia home for nearly five decades.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I do not like the tone of this article. It starts off very accusatory and there are no other sides but the narrow minded view that cops are stealing from the public to enhance their own personal departmental gains. There is no discussion on the good that comes from having civil forfeiture laws, the reasons behind it, and what actually requires it to take place. There is only hate and content for police departments that have them. I even doubt that most of what was stated is true or factual. You have to be careful of what you choose to believe.

more...
Dolli Koerber's comment, November 6, 2013 1:53 PM
This is not only corruption (or should be considered such) and at the very minimum, organized crime. They get valuable incentives to seize property, who is gonna draw the line? Legislation needs to be passed regulating this and other issues related to property that allows police department to gain from seized goods. If all the money seized in drug deals and other crimes were sold and the money put into state coffers, it would be more legitimized. This kind of power corrupts police agencies, and the whole ideal of law enforcement as viewed from the public.
Maria's comment, November 10, 2013 9:24 PM
Very interesting, first class flights and luxury car rentals... It just doesn't sound right. I do agree with Dolli, the legislative branch of the government should take care of that apparently huge problem. You can't just take people's money, houses, cars, etc. and use them for your own needs and even charge them with a crime. This is abuse of power.
Ruth O'Neal's comment, November 14, 2013 11:01 PM
I would have to agree with both Dolli and Maria these actions are very corrupt and the legislative branch should be taking care of the problems they are having with money. People’s property is theirs and seizing for whatever needs and auctioning off peoples things for money for departments is a huge upset for the communities.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Police Officer Claims McDonald’s Worker Deliberately Served Him Raw Burger - CBS Boston

Police Officer Claims McDonald’s Worker Deliberately Served Him Raw Burger - CBS Boston | crimininology | Scoop.it
Officer Rob Moore of Derry, New Hampshire became violently ill and believes it was no accident given the circumstances.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

Well there is a lot to be said about that. First, I would not go into any fast food restaurant drive-through and order food in a marked police vehicle and wearing a police uniform. It is well known this kind of thing happens. However, I do not agree with what happened and I am outraged by it. A police officer should be able to go to any restaurant and order whatever they want without having to worry about their food getting them sick. I wonder what McDonalds will do about this little mishap? I guess only time will tell.

more...
Sawyer Skiba's comment, October 27, 2013 1:42 AM
It comes with the profession. I do believe that the employee probably served the burger raw, they have to take it out of a cooker and physically put it on the bun. Some people do not like cops, it comes with the profession. It suck that he ate the burger, but dressed as an officer, I feel like he should probably check that. That being said, it's not the officers fault and I hope that the employee gets in some serious trouble, that could make someone very sick.
Robert Tanner's comment, October 27, 2013 11:44 PM
The inherent risk of the occupation is understandable, but to assume that the officer should check his food is outrageous. It is despicable that someone would do that.
Brix Hahn's comment, December 10, 2013 2:47 AM
In this article, the officer claims that a lot of people don’t like police officers, this is totally old news. While I think the officer may be correct in saying that the cook did this on purpose, I think that he would have an extremely hard time proving this in the courtroom, unless the defense can get access to video cameras in the restaurant from the time the event occurred.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

'Finding Forrester' star, other black shoppers claim racial profiling at Macy ... - Detroit Free Press

'Finding Forrester' star, other black shoppers claim racial profiling at Macy ... - Detroit Free Press | crimininology | Scoop.it
BET (blog)
'Finding Forrester' star, other black shoppers claim racial profiling at Macy ...

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

 

You would think this kind of thing doesn’t go on anymore, but it does. It is still surprising to hear this kind of news of people of color being profiled and thought of as not having money. I wonder is there more to it than the color of their skin, perhaps the way they were dressed had something to do with it as well. If a white person were dressed the same way and purchased the same items, would they have been approached? Another question is whether it is the police or the store that is making these assumptions based on race.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Here’s why cops should be required to wear a lapel camera while on duty

Here’s why cops should be required to wear a lapel camera while on duty | crimininology | Scoop.it
The ACLU wants police officers to wear cameras that would record their interactions with the citizens they serve.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I do not agree with this. I can understand the good in having police wear lapel cameras during every contact with the public, but to say it should be on the entire shift is ridicules. Cops joke around a lot with each other, and if a defense attorney could access some of those jokes, nothing would ever get prosecuted. People see this as a way to police the police, but it’s really just a way to justify not believing or trusting the police. If an officer’s word is not good enough for court, then that person should not be a police officer in the first place. Instead of trying to fix what is broken in out police, just ensure that we hire ethical and honest people.

The very idea of having punishments for officers who don’t have their lapel cameras on in the form of not accepting evidence only hurts the victims. Sure it my upset the officer, but the real person who is being punished is the victim. The courts are already geared towards helping the suspect as it is, there should not be any more favor towards them. As I stated in the beginning, I think that lapel cameras have their place and purpose, but let each agency decide how to apply them. All day and everyday use has too many variables that don’t benefit the victims of crime for it to work.

more...
Lisamarie Kolster's curator insight, February 3, 11:08 AM

While I was looking for articles to scoop I came across many dealing with officers and how they interact with black males and females. This article however talked about police officers having cameras placed physically on them at all times as interacted with everyone in their everyday work duties. Two departments were already testing it out and the community already had less complaints. Some officers do not like they idea though of carrying a camera on them at all times but I don’t understand why? If they have nothing to hide and they are doing their job correct then I don't see what the problem is. I understand not having the camera on for basic calls such as noise complaints or else but in some situations it could be helpful not just for the officer but for the citizens as well. I'm not saying all cops abuse their power but if a situation came down to it I think it would be helpful, even in situations where the cop is in danger I think it would be helpful. At the end of the article it said “the cops and the citizens behave a little better when being watched" and definitely agree that anyone acts even the slightest bit better when they know they’re being watched.

Ryley Wyrwitzke's comment, February 4, 3:15 AM
I believe that officers wearing cameras is a grand idea. I know for a fact that there are already some PD's participating in this. With all these various stories of police brutalities everywhere, this would give a final answer to the accusations. Plus, superiors to officers should see that the officers are doing their job the right way, and not bending the rules as a small percentage do (I believe.). Investigations on shootings would be a lot easier if this camera motion was put into effect. If an officer has nothing to hide, why whould he/she disagree to this? I see nothing wrong with this motion and feel like it would better law enforcement and communities bond with each other.
Erin Madden's comment, February 4, 5:12 PM
Great discussion, Ryley and Lisamarie. It seems like what you're both getting at is these cameras could improve the quality and fairness of social control. Or, at least the elements of formal social control that cops do (remember there are other kinds of social control like semiformal and informal). It would certainly add more accountability for police officers to treat people fairly (did you all read marcus' article on the police officer who sexually abused women he stopped? Maybe this would not have happened if he had been wearing a camera!).
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

When to shoot? Capitol shooting raises questions about force

When to shoot? Capitol shooting raises questions about force | crimininology | Scoop.it
When someone tries to ram through barriers at two of the nation's most highly protected facilities, do officers shoot? What if the driver's car is carrying a powerful bomb? Or what if the driver is unarmed and has a child?

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

It is hard to look at this situation from the rear wearing 20/20 goggles and say that officers used too much force. The officers acted appropriately, I can only say that I’m glade the child was ok. With this whole terrorist thing going on, it’s a wonder that more shots were not fired. People need to realize that a car is a lethal weapon, and when facing deadly force, the officer must act to preserve the life of others and themselves by using deadly force.

This is just another sheep versus sheepdog situation (see Col. Grossman).

more...
rex talcott's comment, October 6, 2013 8:03 PM
It seems that the agencies involved in this shooting showed the highest level of discipline when it came to shots being fired. Escalation of force was utilized, waiting till the very end when imminent danger and death was felt at a high degree. Kudos to the officers who were involved, they showed leadership and courage in which others should emulate. though it was unfortunate how the events turned out, it kept the rest of the community safe from any potential harm during our times of high risk activities occurring in the forms of terrorism.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

School asks officer not to wear uniform on campus

School asks officer not to wear uniform on campus | crimininology | Scoop.it
He's not the type of armed man on campus you'd expect parents to be concerned about -- but apparently a police officer dropping off his daughter at school was just too scary for some parents in Mesa.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I can’t believe that a principal would even think of asking a police officer not to wear his uniform while dropping off his kids to school. It’s like the worse thing a principal could say considering all of the school shootings lately. You would think he would have asked the officer to do it more often so parents and children could feel safe. However, I would like to add that I do understand what it must be like to have parents complaining about everything you do and what their kids are seeing and learning in school. To the parents I would say, if you care so much about your kids seeing a uniformed police officer at school (with a gun), then you should home  school your kids like so many other parents do.  

Overall, this is a pretty ridiculous situation that should not have happened in the first place had the principal had some backbone and came up with all of the “teaching” methods to explain to the children why police carry guns in the first place. Or, the parents could have done their jobs and explained it.

more...
James Greer's comment, October 11, 2013 1:09 AM
Reading the article again, it sounds like this might have blown up a bit past what actually happened. "Some" parents, so I'd wager all of maybe one family, called the principal to complain (because there's always at least one idiot in a large group of people), and the principal tried to rectify the situation. I'd imagine he fairly kindly asked the officer if he wouldn't mind not showing up in uniform with his gun (a reasonable request, in this case, not in my opinion being a correct request). The officer, rightfully upset at being accused of scaring children, vented his frustration at the ignorance of some people on facebook, and then the news grabbed the story. Meanwhile, the school has redacted their request to the officer, and actually done exactly what I mentioned in my first post: have the officer come meet the kids and explain what he does for them.
Shasta Pomeroy's comment, October 11, 2013 2:47 AM
I don't understand the "rationale" of the school or the parents who complained. This elementary school is a place of learning and yet they are wanting an individual to change their appearance to keep the children ignorant. Both police officers and guns will be in the world in which all of these children grow up into. By keeping the children blind to these factors will in no way help them (only my opinion). I agree with the one parent who was interviewed. I would personally think that having a parent who was a police officer showing up at the school would be a positive factor rather than a negative one. I would think that the children and parents would feel safe knowing that there was an officer so close by.
Brittan Childress's comment, October 14, 2013 2:25 PM
What is this, the UK? Cops in America carry guns. This is a widely known fact. Kids see a guy in uniform with a gun, they know he's a cop, that he's a "good guy." (Though this may not be the case for kids of lower socio-economic standing, and could potentially be a hayday for a kidnapper with a halloween costume). Still, this seems a bit ridiculous. It seems like this request is making cops into something scary, when kids are supposed to feel safer with police officers around.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

The Cops Amaze Me | Bob Lonsberry

The Cops Amaze Me | Bob Lonsberry | crimininology | Scoop.it
(Photo Courtesy: www.cnn.com)

The cops amaze me.
Some days I honestly don’t know how they do it.
Like yesterday, at the Navy Yard.
We kn

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

It’s refreshing to see something positive being said about the every cops that risk their lives to serve and protect. However, it is a shame that it takes actions, risk, and tragedies like this to get some support. I guess it’s easy to take cops for granted and take your angers, frustration, and hostilities out on them, but remember who it is that you are calling in your hour of need.

more...
Mark Tuttle's comment, September 19, 2013 9:05 PM
It was a very somber moment following the attack at the Navy yard. I think the police officers did an amazing job is responding and executing quickly. If it were not for their fast actions this incident could have been far worse. It is remarkable that the men and women in the police force show courage and sound judgment when responding to incidents such as the one at the Navy yard.
Zach White's comment, September 24, 2013 7:03 PM
This reminds me of the Infantryman's creed
"Always will I fight on
through the foe, to the objective, to triumph over all.
If necessary I will fight to my death.
By my steadfast courage I have won 200 years of freedom."
I'm glad that the cops showed up and turned that place into a two-way range.
Kristie Major's comment, September 26, 2013 9:09 PM
I like it that someone wrote this because it is nice to hear people in support of the police because there are almost always articles about negative things that have happened involving the police. It reminds people that no matter how dangerous the situation is, the police will be there to help.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Bodyguard for Jay Z and Lady Gaga tasered to death by police, naked

Bodyguard for Jay Z and Lady Gaga tasered to death by police, naked | crimininology | Scoop.it
Prior to Monday night, Norman Oosterbroek was known as the founder of RAD Security, described by Variety as one of the largest global music celebrity protec.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

Wow. I can’t believe that the media is still pulling the same old stunts. Is it possible that the man died from the Taser? Possibly. However, it is so unlikely that it did and it is almost a lie to state that a Taser killed a man it did. Especially when there is information about the man taking drugs and fighting people naked. The toxicology hasn’t even been completed yet! All this type of media does is place fear into the hearts and minds of people about tools that police use to prevent from actually shooting them with a gun. This stuff has serious effects on people, yet it is perfectly legal.

more...
Kyle Maines's comment, September 13, 2013 6:11 PM
The title of this article is misleading I think. The title just says the man was tazered to death, and makes no mention of the drugs the man was on. Just trying to get views to their site maybe? They'll have to wait to find out the results of the tox report, but it sounds like it was probably whatever drugs he was on that killed him. Maybe the tazer played a part, but without those drugs in his system he'd probably still be alive. I don't think the police were at fault here.
Maria's comment, September 15, 2013 7:28 PM
"Markus fighting a naked Oosterbroek", seen "ingesting an unknown substance", and "violently resisted the officers"- I am not an expert, neither seen his toxicology reports, but from what it seems to me, looks like another drug related death. A reasonable person won't be "fighting naked" or resisting the officer unless they are under the influence. The tazer might have played role in his death, however, I think it's not the tazer that ended his life...
Dom Eubank's comment, September 17, 2013 12:04 AM
I think this entire article is based off the entire presumption that the taser led to the death of the bodyguard. I agree that the death appears to be drug related due to the fact that he was naked, fighting with another man, and ingesting more of an unknown substance. Reasonable people don't get naked, resist police and fight others in the street. Also Taser has never had a documented case that shows that the Taser was the true cause of death without a major unknown cause in the persons condition.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

UNC prof ignites 4th Amendment debate after being pulled over by fire truck

UNC prof ignites 4th Amendment debate after being pulled over by fire truck | crimininology | Scoop.it
Can an on-duty firefighter legally stop a driver they suspect of drunk driving?That’s the current debate in a North Carolina appeals court.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

Well at first sight, I agreed that her rights were violated by the fire department acting as peace officers. The fire department should have treated this situation as any other citizen and called 911 and reported the crime unless immediate action was required.

 

However, as I read and learned that the firemen was essentially conducting a welfare check on the driver, asked about her wellbeing, and made a suggestion that she have someone pick her up. To me, this means that the firemen had no intention to act as an LEO, but as a concerned citizen and thus, the “stop” should have been considered legal. The firemen did not attempt to detain her until police arrived, but let her go and called police after ward. If anything the firemen was trying to do her a favor.

 

I wonder how this would have read had the driver killed someone after being stopped by the firemen, or if the firemen had done nothing and the driver hurt someone. I bet if a citizen learned that a city official stood idly by why this serious crime of DUI was occurring and made no attempt to intercept, people would be criticizing them for their failure to act. There were damned either way if you ask me.

more...
Tessa Butterfield's comment, September 17, 2013 10:50 PM
I feel that the firefighter did the right thing. He did not intentionally pull her over and arrest her himself or even ask if she were drunk. He simply turned on his lights, whether it was because of her or not, he did just that. It's her fault that she crashed and then instead of just listening to him, she drove off. If she had just done what he asked of her, she wouldn't be in this mess right now. Any citizen, whether a firefighter or not, has the right to do this exact thing. Would we be having this issue right now if it had been any of us that found her? No because we have the right to call on drunk drivers. Well, so does this firefighter. He just happened to be on duty when he saw her so now it's all of a sudden a big deal.
Andrew Heckman's comment, September 18, 2013 4:20 PM
I dont think it matters who he was. If anybody suspects any drunk driving, they have a right as a human being to protect that person, and prevent any future danger. The firefighter saw this problem, lucky had equipment to pull this person over, and he of course did the right thing. If he didnt pull him over, the drunk driver might have killed somebody, or himself. So it doesnt matter who you are; if you see a problem you suspect is on that level, you shouldn't even have to think twice about checking it out.
Sarita Spindler's comment, September 24, 2013 3:03 AM
I feel the firefighter was in the right, he did not try to arrest her, he only turned on his lights to warn others of her dangerous driving, then when she hit the curb, got out to see if she was okay and urged her to park her car. He made no attempt to arrest her, and did not pursue her when she sped off. She may believe that her arrest was not a lawful one, but the policemen made the official arrest. If the firefighter hadn't turned his sirens on and checked on her, the woman most likely would have kept driving dangerously, possibly seriously injuring someone. This firefighter was acting purely to keep everybody safe.
Rescooped by Mel C from Criminology and Economic Theory
Scoop.it!

U.S. Prison Populations Decline, Reflecting New Approach to Crime

U.S. Prison Populations Decline, Reflecting New Approach to Crime | crimininology | Scoop.it
Tightened state budgets, plummeting crime rates, changes in sentencing laws and shifts in public opinion have helped contribute to the biggest decline in the nation’s history.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I disagree that the decline in the U.S. prison population is due entirely or in any way to the new approach to crime conducted in the U.S. I say this because it seems that crime rates are not dropping, victims are still being victimized, but the offenders are just not being sentenced to jail as they used to. Probation and parole are over used even when they know the offender is an extreme risk to society. I remember reading just a few weeks ago about an Anchorage, Alaska man who had broken into someone’s home and sexually assaulted their small female child just to be placed on probation. He did the same thing again and was, for a second time, released from jail where he for the third time did the same crime, but this time he killed the grandparents who were watching their grandchild.

This is just one example that makes it really hard for me to think that the decline in prison rates have anything to do with our new approach to crime, unless of course they mean our lack of actually punishing those who need it.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Mel C from Criminology and Economic Theory
Scoop.it!

Authorities Report DUI Arrests Over Fourth of July Weekend

Authorities Report DUI Arrests Over Fourth of July Weekend | crimininology | Scoop.it
Both Anchorage police and State Troopers had funding for extra patrols, specifically to look for impaired drivers.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

add your insight...

This should have been common sense information. If the police have the time and funding to conduct proactive patrolling, they will find unsafe behavior. The scary part about this is that there were a lot more than those 49 (total) impaired drivers out during the weekend, but they just didn’t get caught.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Police Charge High School Student with Disorderly Conduct for Using an iPad to Prove He's Being Bullied

Police Charge High School Student with Disorderly Conduct for Using an iPad to Prove He's Being Bullied | crimininology | Scoop.it
The teen sought proof that school administrators were ignoring his plight. So they had him arrested.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I don’t even know where to start in this obvious disservice done this kid. What kind of crime has he committed by trying to capture evidence of other students bullying him? This is the kind of stuff that kind of goes against the whole zero-tolerance policies designed to prevent bullying. The purpose of these policies is to prevent the victims from feeling they have no choice nut shoot the ones who bully them, but the victim in this case is being punished. The statements made by the judge was almost incoherent and the rational used was comical. I fully disagree with what the ultimate decision was made here and I have to believe that there is more to the story than just that.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Cop in this video charged with a felony - CNN.com Video

A police officer is facing felony charges after allegedly pushing a woman into a jail cell causing her to hit her head.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

This video is very subjective and can easily go either way. It appeared as if the offender grabbed the edges of the door which would show some resistance, but the video does look bad for the cop. It is important to remember that the video clip only shows a very small and narrow part of what really happened in the police station and people should not jump to conclusions and start prosecuting the officer until all the facts are made clear. The offender was intoxicated and just arrested for DUI; some intoxicated people who have been arrested are very resistant, both verbally and physically, and there could be facts similar to this that will exonerate the officer. If there are none and the officer did cross the line then he should be held accountable.

more...
rex talcott's comment, November 10, 2013 9:42 PM
Officers get aggressive with people all the time like this. Im sure most cases go un noticed because there isn't severe injuries most of the time. Due to the severity of the womens injuries, the officer will likely be blasted all over the media, and let go of his job. pretty crappy situation for him, seeing how he was on the force for 19 years. The video only showed the small clip of her being pushed into her cell, which caused the injuries. like the lawyer mentioned in the video, id like to see the video of the women being arrested, and booking. Regardless of how she acted, the officer crossed the line by pushing her. Many infractions like this get swept under the rug, but it still sucks because this officers career is likely to be over.
James Greer's comment, November 22, 2013 2:11 AM
Mark: I'm pretty sure that the original video of this, from several weeks ago, included her being uncooperative when they tried to take her picture/finger prints, and so they brought her back to the cell and he threw her into the cell. I'm the kinda guy that will always defend the cops in a video or scenario until I know exactly what went down and why things happened, but I think it's pretty clear this cop got fed up with a drunk female who was being belligerent and uncooperative, and so he used force on her--maybe more than intended, but he fully intended her to go into that room the hard way. I don't think the gloves should stay on with him in this scenario--he definitely should lose his job over this, at the least, having proven he doesn't have the patience for it.
Maria's comment, December 2, 2013 2:41 AM
Well whatever the real story is, the video looks pretty bad and puts the officer in a bad spot. Officers should take care of the offenders in their police departments or in correctional facilities and as much as I think that he probably did not want to send that woman to the hospital, he should have been more careful as to how he handles her and puts her in her cell. It does look like he went over board and I am sure he knows better.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Former Arlington cop admits to using police computer to tip off his steroid dealer

Former Arlington cop admits to using police computer to tip off his steroid dealer | crimininology | Scoop.it
Former Arlington police Officer Thomas Kantzos pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a charge of improperly using a department computer to help tip off his steroid dealer. Kantzos, 45, remains free on bond. A sentencing hearing was scheduled for February.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

Well if you do the crime you have to pay the time. I hate that some officers lose sight of what their promise and responsibility to society is. This officer is basically a spy for the enemy and placing his fellow officers in harm’s way. I think he should get what he gets.

more...
Andrew Heckman's comment, November 5, 2013 6:15 PM
How is it that the police computers do not have history checks or something. Or that nobody noticed the activity. I feel like thats pretty scary that there can be activites such as this going on, and we ususally only find out when former cops come out and reveal these facts. I dont think it matters why he was using the steriods, its pretty obvious why, but the fact that this was goin on for this time is weird. I also feel like he's not alone on this. Just a feeling I have.
Mark Tuttle's comment, November 7, 2013 2:29 PM
Illegal drug use is a serious problem for everyone. It is especially serious when someone who is sworn to protect the community from this type of behavior is actually participating in the behavior. It said that the he was taking the steroids in order to give himself an edge in dealing with dangerous people. But while taking steroids it can make him dangerous as well as it can cause increased aggression as well as health problems. Those that experience an addiction will stop at nothing in order to fulfill their goals. In this case it led to the officer tipping off his dealer in order to secure the officers future supplies of the drugs. I hope that the jail time that this officer will receive will teach him a lesson and allow him to get help for his addiction.
Maria's comment, November 10, 2013 9:32 PM
That must have been going on for a while. Substance abuse, dealers, looking up plates for his supplier- all of the above look like things that have been around for a while in that department. It might be a good idea if officers are supervised better in order to prevent those illegal activities. I just don't understand why the feds or the department higher-ups did not catch that earlier, if an officers commits suicide it might also mean that there is something even bigger going on.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Colorado theater gunman coerced into incriminating statements, defense says

Colorado theater gunman coerced into incriminating statements, defense says | crimininology | Scoop.it
CENTENNIAL, Colo.(Reuters) - Police coerced movie theater gunman James Holmes into talking about explosives found in his apartment after he shot 12 people to death, and those statements should be barred...

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

This is the most frustrating thing about our adversarial justice system. It is very pro-defendant. On one hand, we don’t want to sentence an innocent man to hang and it is better to let guilty men walk free than have one innocent man locked up. But on the other hand, what about the victims, the dead, and wounded? Our system only seems to account for the victims after the defendant is found guilty. The police and prosecution are under a lot of pressure from the public to “make the arrest” and charge the suspect, so mistakes are going to be made. This does not excuse any constitutional rights that may have been violated, but it should at least be considered before people start passing judgment.

more...
Brix Hahn's comment, December 10, 2013 2:42 AM
This article is interesting, but I don’t think it really gives the reader any new information that we haven’t heard before. Of course the defense is going to try to get some evidence thrown out of court, but was that evidence obtained illegally? The article really doesn’t specify one way or another.
Dom Eubank's comment, December 10, 2013 5:12 PM
I want this done the right way but this man is far from innocent. I hope the motions are suppressed and they are able to convict the coward.
Dom Eubank's comment, December 11, 2013 2:01 AM
Its just sad to me that the man who can walk into a crowded theater and launch an attack on unarmed civilians has a group of attorney's protecting him and saying that the police overstepped their bounds. What about him, he was lucky that he walked away I was surprised that he didn't get shot and all this has become an issue because he may or may not have been coerced into stopping IED's he made to harm police and it protected the public too. I hope the motion is suppressed and he is convicted.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Guy annoyed that he was stopped by police

Click here to edit the title


Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I understand both points of view here and agree with some of both.

From the driver’s point of view: It is scary to have some guy (police or other) pull you over with a gun drawn and pointing at you for no apparent reason. In this guy’s point of view, being a black male and having a white cop pull him over, I’m sure it was even more so stressful with all the stereotypes and rumors going on about how cops are racist. He did the right thing by following the police officer’s orders and I agree that the officers should have at least explain the situation in some kind of detail and try to help him understand what was going on, why he was suspected, and the importance of their situation. I also agree that the officers should have offered some form of an apology for violating his rights, pointing a gun at him, and placing him in great fear.

From the officer’s point of view: I absolutely under why he did what he did and I won’t even began to why he took those actions because there are so many possibilities. The only thing I will add is that there should have been some form of an apology and attempt to help the subject understand why thing had to happen the way they did.

more...
Brix Hahn's comment, October 16, 2013 1:02 AM
This article is a sincere example of guilty until proven innocent. I’m not a fan, by any means, of police assuming a person is guilty until the police have a reasonable cause to bring forth these accusations. Furthermore, from the way this article is presented, the police had no business assuming this man was guilty of a crime. Additionally, it is an entire invasion of privacy and to add insult to injury they not only accused this man, they scared him to basically thinking he was going to assume he was going to be seriously injured. Now, I’m not a professional but I’m pretty sure this is assault and battery.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Supreme Court Hears Anonymous Tip, Traffic Stop Argument -

Can officers stop a car if they did not observe erratic driving but are told about it?

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I think that this is a tricky one, after all police are citizens that just have a bit more training and legal authority. If a complainant wants to report a reckless driver, that complainant should chose to be listed as the complainant and not anonymous. However, most people don’t like getting involved in other people’s business and in the end, it only makes the police job that much harder.

more...
Joshua Livingston's comment, October 1, 2013 5:12 PM
This raises some questions of walking on the thin line of officers abusing their powers. Don’t get me wrong I’m glad that they caught people trafficking drugs, but what problems do you think would have been caused if the person hadn’t been carrying when the officer searched the truck. This comes back to the question what weighs more people’s private rights or catching the bad guys?
Sarita Spindler's comment, October 4, 2013 3:18 AM
This definitely puts the decision of the police into the spotlight, because in this case they're not going off of evidence of erratic driving, but the word of somebody who claimed to have been driven off of the road. If they had not found drugs in the truck, they would definitely have been met with more negative responses from the community.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Man jailed 41 years in solitary dies

Man jailed 41 years in solitary dies | crimininology | Scoop.it
Herman Wallace, a Louisiana man released from prison on Tuesday after 41 years in solitary confinement, dies of liver cancer.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

Everyone is so worried about how this man spent the last 41 years of his life, about how his rights were violated when he had an all-male grand jury, and about how he died from liver cancer. I ask this; what about the armed robbery and the death of the prison guard. I do understand having rules and laws that we must play by, but there needs to be a line where the victims are the number one priorities and not the suspect. The trial itself did not violate his rights and the Grand Jury doesn’t decide if anyone is guilty. Our legal system is so caught up on making sure that the suspects are treated fairly and justly, that we forget about the victims of these crimes and the justice they deserve. It makes you really look at criminal justice and realize that it just that, criminal justice and not victim justice.

more...
Kristi Gray's comment, October 10, 2013 5:26 PM
Mel, I get what you are saying, but I do not think there was enough evidence to even convict him in the first place. I think you are focusing too much on the victim and the fact that he is dead, and not the offender’s rights, amount of evidence gathered, or the facts of the case. This article talked about Miller’s widow having doubts about the case against the Angola Three. One thing that we are doing is comparing a case from 1974 to how it would be dealt with today. Today, women would not be barred from serving on any jury.
BridgetM's comment, October 14, 2013 6:15 PM
Whether this man was innocent or not, nobody deserves solitary confinement for 41 years. I have done a lot of research about the damaging effects it can have including a much higher risk of suicide and more reports of mental illness. The widow herself didn't think there was that much evidence, and with the technology we have today it is unfortunate he was not retried years ago so that if was proven innocent, he would've had more time to enjoy his freedom.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Local Groups Oppose DPD Use of Stop And Frisk - CBS Local

Local Groups Oppose DPD Use of Stop And Frisk - CBS Local | crimininology | Scoop.it
Local Groups Oppose DPD Use of Stop And Frisk
CBS Local
DETROIT (WWJ) – Is it racial profiling — or just good police work? The controversy surrounding the policy known as “Stop and Frisk” has come under fire in Detroit.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I don’t know how I feel about this one. One hand, there are some people who need to be frisked for dangerous weapons and contraband, but on the other, at what point are we violating people’s rights? The answer isn’t easy. It could potentially be used as a racial profile or other type of profile technique, but at the same time it could be used to make a difference and possibly deter crime. For this to work, it would have to be used on anyone who legitimately is acting, doing, or providing some evidence of reasonable suspicion (RS) and the cops need to be able to prove the RS beyond a reasonable doubt. To clarify, the officer would only need to be able to prove his reason behind frisking a suspect that makes sense to a reasonable person. Perhaps there could be a type of jury system that could decide if the RS was there or not.

more...
Ruth O'Neal's comment, September 12, 2013 11:42 PM
I like the ideas of this. I think it is great police work other than 'racial profiling.' If they have a suspicion that some is carrying something illegal or that they are going to be a danger to the public they should be able to further investigate.
Kyle Maines's comment, September 13, 2013 5:09 PM
I agree with Josh. From the sounds of the article there are a lot of people who try to resist and will attack officers, it's only a matter of time till an officer gets seriously hurt by someone. I understand the desire for safety, but this might not be the best way to do it.
Maria's comment, September 16, 2013 6:52 PM
This is a great article and I also agree with Josh. There should be another way to better the police work rather than stopping everyone on the streets that look suspicious. It does seem more like a racial profiling to me than anything else. No cop will pull over middle age folks driving a Taurus, but can we say the same about an African American or a Hispanic man in their 20's, driving a nice vehicle? And since a federal judge has already ruled the New York's stop and frisk techniques being unconstitutional, maybe it’s time for the NYPD and DPD to figure out a different way to an effective policing before someone gets seriously hurt.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Verdict reached in trial of ex-Phoenix officer

Verdict reached in trial of ex-Phoenix officer | crimininology | Scoop.it
PHOENIX (AP) — Jurors in the trial of an ex-Phoenix police officer charged with fatally shooting an unarmed suspect and his dog reached a verdict in the case after about four days of deliberations.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

Well I don’t really know what to say about this one because I wasn’t there. I can add that perspective is everything and even his partner can’t be expected to have been thinking and feeling what Richard Chrisman was at the time. I am not saying I think he is innocent, but there needs to be some give to recognize that, as the president of the police board said, cops make life and death decisions in a split seconds time, yet they are judged from a slow and deliberate perspective.

more...
James Greer's comment, September 18, 2013 12:14 PM
I find it interesting that the officer's own partner is the one that called Chrisman out on the incident. Without any further details, I'd like to think that that alone should signify that something is wrong with the situation at hand. On the other hand, the victim's own mother called the police and gave the information that her son was violent and out of control--hence why she called 911. Combined with the detail that both officers attempted stun-guns and Chrisman attempted pepper-spray, drawing the gun seems like a reasonable escalation of force. Unfortunately at that point, things can't really get much better if the 'bad-guy' is still using force against a now lethally-armed LEO. Can't say much about the bike and actual shooting without having been there or some better evidence.
Sawyer Skiba's comment, September 18, 2013 7:49 PM
It seems that the evidence is against him. I sympathize with him, when you're in the field you have to make split second decision, and unfortunately this didn't end well for anyone. It is easy to judge the situation from an article, but unless you were there you have no idea what happened and how it should have been dealt with. I also find it interesting that his partner was the one to turn him in, that leads me to believe that the ex-officer did something truly horrible and that they were not the best of partners.
Genece Cooper's comment, September 25, 2013 8:25 PM
It is the duty of police officers to keep the peace and keep situations from escalating like this, but by utilizing violence -he in fact doing did exact opposite of what police seek to uphold.
Rescooped by Mel C from Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Why does America have such a big prison population?

Why does America have such a big prison population? | crimininology | Scoop.it
“TOO many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law-enforcement reason.” The person who said that was neither a defence...

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

It makes sense, but now how do we get low level drug dealers to turn on their big bosses when they have nothing to gain from helping. I guess it’s another one of those damned if you don’t and damned if you do situations. Perhaps if drugs were legal this whole thing could be prevented.  

more...
BridgetM's comment, September 8, 2013 3:51 PM
The statistics in this article are staggering, "5% of the world's population and 25% of it's prisoners." That rate is obscene and it is still a wonder to me why local state politicians aren't doing more to encourage rehabilitation over incarceration. I can understand the courts desire to be fair in sentencing, but every crime committed and every criminal is different and it's hard for me to agree with mandatory minimums. If the parties involved cared more about making the world a safer place, than making money, this wouldn't be an issue.
Ruth O'Neal's comment, September 12, 2013 11:31 PM
I find it interesting that America holds 25 percent of the world’s prison population, but what is their crime? Violent or non-violent? It does make sense that stricter laws result in higher incarceration. I’m hoping that with alternative punishment for drug possession or alternatives other than jail/prison it will help the problem since incarceration very expensive punishment
Alex Stitch Harrington's comment, September 13, 2013 2:49 AM
I'm unsure how to take this new policy change. I understand that yes it would eventually/hopefully lower the prison population, however I feel that prisons loose their deterrence of crimes because of it. I know that if I got caught with a small amount of drugs and all they did was send me to "reform" I would think of it as a rather nice vacation. To me it doesn't really seem like we are being as strict as we should be. What Eric Holder really needs to do is to come up with a policy that stays strict or even stricter on drug laws but that could still eventually lower the prison population.
Rescooped by Mel C from Criminology and Economic Theory
Scoop.it!

Book salesmen were pushy, but not burglars, Alaska State Troopers say

Book salesmen were pushy, but not burglars, Alaska State Troopers say | crimininology | Scoop.it
FAIRBANKS — Alaska State Troopers say a pair of encyclopedia salesmen from Estonia who upset several residents in Fairbanks and North Pole with their aggressive selling tactics earlier this month have evidently moved on to Anchorage.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

This is very interesting to me. I think that due to all the burglaries in the North Pole area, residents have become very suspicious and ready to act without proper cause. This is just the typical human behavior. Someone says something based purely on speculation and another person takes it as the gospel and acts on it. Someone always ends up getting hurt.

more...
Danya Schimmack's comment, July 28, 2013 7:17 PM
In this day and age when salesmen are very rare, especially in Alaska, I can understand the home owners’ suspicion towards the men. Not only is there a strange man knocking on their door, but they also are being aggressive as it sounds. The men, being from Estonia, would also most likely have an accent which would also lead to heightened suspicion as it would be out of place in Fairbanks or North Pole. Hopefully the men can learn from their experiences and can adapt their methods in order to not pose as a threat.
Sabrina Clemenson's comment, August 5, 2013 1:37 AM
I can understand why homeowners in Fairbanks and North Pole would be wary about these salesmen coming to their door. We hear so many frightening stories about people lying about who they are to gain your trust and then overpower you, it would be very easy for these homeowners to be suspicious that these encyclopedia salesmen were actually burglars or rapists or murderers. I also think that although it is a sad reality, it is good that people are being cautious of strangers on their doorstep. That doesn't mean that you should be so suspicious that you assault strangers who approach your house without cause, as someone in North Pole apparently did. But the differences in cultural norms could make a misunderstanding very likely to occur. I agree with what Danya said, that hopefully they can adjust their methods to avoid this perceived threat.
Rob Duke's comment, August 5, 2013 1:58 AM
Yes, and I suspect the salesmen probably knew enough to pull in their horns when visiting a home with a trooper vehicle in the driveway...
Rescooped by Mel C from Criminology and Economic Theory
Scoop.it!

Is income inequality 'morally wrong'?

Is income inequality 'morally wrong'? | crimininology | Scoop.it
John Sutter talks to philosophers about the morality of extreme income inequality.

Via Rob Duke
Mel C's insight:

I wish I could say something to the effect that I am surprised or astounded, but I can’t because I’m not. This isn’t news, this is reality and I agree that I am glad to see a president call it like it is, morally wrong. I am just waiting to see what will happen to change this. I am not expecting anything to change, but I would be happy to see it change.

more...
Rob Duke's curator insight, July 26, 2013 3:14 AM

This is one of the big questions of our age...what do you think?

Seth Dinkel's comment, July 28, 2013 3:22 AM
Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. What is a communist? One who hath yearnings for equal division of unequal earnings.
Ebenezer Elliott (1781-1849), Epigram.