Police Problems a...
Follow
4.0K views | +3 today
 
Scooped by Rob Duke
onto Police Problems and Policy
Scoop.it!

Police: Las Vegas officer kills wife, son and then himself in burning home

Police: Las Vegas officer kills wife, son and then himself in burning home | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
A 20-year police veteran killed his wife and son, set his home on fire and then killed himself, police said.
Rob Duke's insight:

This is one of our long-term legacies.  Since before Joseph Wombaugh started writing about both sides of the badge (the exciting good parts, and the hidden underbelly), we've been plague with the problem of police suicide.  Nancy Bohl, Ph.D., of the Counseling Team and others have recommended and implemented peer counseling, but what do we do about this type of officer who retired in 2005 and may not have had that resource?

more...
LaDonna Coghill's comment, January 23, 2013 11:48 PM
Wow! And i am saying that in regards to what the fellow officer had to say at the end. It makes one wonder what happened, the article says that the number of suicides were high, not that the killing and burning of family members had been a problem. I am so sad for all those involved. I also wonder why police suicide is so high what is it that they aren't able to work through, they've got to have resources available to them, I suppose it’s up to them whether or not they are used. If one of this man’s fellow officers can say that this is one of the most dishonorable things that can be done and that the memories mean nothing anymore, those are tough words. It seems that all the good work that this officer put in over the many years was written off and so quickly forgotten. Oooh this is a tough one to comment on because although i think that it is a horrific horrible tragedy, the counselor in me can’t help but wonder what else was going on and could this have been avoided?
Ixchelle Oleson's comment, January 24, 2013 4:15 PM
As it stated in the article, "the fact is that police suicides continue at a rate much higher than the number of police officers killed by felons", I could only imagine why this is the case. On a regular basis, police officers see and/or witness murders, domestic violence, other sorts of abuse, deaths, and many other traumatizing events. I would think that eventually these unfortunate events would often times get to your head psychologically, exhibit A, Lt. Walters. I feel as if his job got to him after all the crime he saw after his 20- year career and unfortunately he took all his psychological issues from work home with him and committed such a crime that murdered his own wife and son, the people who he probably loved most. So what can be done about the psychological issues regarding officers? If counseling was offered free to all police officers or any other career that has to deal with distressing events I feel that it would decrease the number of suicides or other harmful acts. However, I wonder why Walters took out his anger, stress, or maybe sadness on his own immediate family, extremely sad. I wonder if there were signs of any emotions that could have lead up to harmful actions prior to the suicide and murder in the station? There must have been! Did anyone try to help him? In the last statement of the article from the fellow officer, "the memories I have of him, they mean nothing to me anymore." Hmmm, well I would imagine so! If I was a teammate of another officer who committed two of the few worst crimes I would want all memories to be dead as well. Not only does it make Walters station look bad but also was an extremely selfish action. Some might say that suicide is the most selfish act you can commit, but so is murder and it appears Walters managed to commit 2-in-1 crimes. It's too bad.
Police Problems and Policy
Examining the possibilities of abuse of power without the constraint of New Public Administration.
Curated by Rob Duke
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Rob Duke from Rights & Liberties
Scoop.it!

Time is money: who's making a buck off prisoners' families?

Time is money: who's making a buck off prisoners' families? | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it

Video: How a web of prison bankers, private vendors and corrections agencies profit by shifting costs onto inmates' families.


Via dMaculate
more...
Alexander Yakovlev's comment, Today, 1:30 AM
It is interesting how prison officials are making money on prisoners and people who once did a mistake. Prison industry grows and makes new businesses, such as Jpay where 35% goes to the government and Jpay agency itself. I think it is ridiculous how much government and prison officials are ripping off prisoners. It is crazy that people who wants to send money to the prisoners actually paying three times more than they should, but they did nothing wrong. If someone should be penalized is prison4er not the people who sends them. In my opinion it’s another way of corruption. Some sort of legal corruption, where it’s protected by law. It’s just frustrated how officials are taking advantages of those families who already struggling.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

What to Do When Anger Takes Hold

What to Do When Anger Takes Hold | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Managing strong emotions is a necessary skill.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Beyond the law: Are encrypted smartphones too private for the FBI? | PBS NewsHour

Beyond the law: Are encrypted smartphones too private for the FBI? | PBS NewsHour | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
The debate over personal privacy vs. national security took a new turn earlier this week as the director of the FBI criticized the advent of encrypted smart phones that allow users to keep data on their devices private. For more, Julia Angwin of ProPublica joins Alison Stewart. Continue reading →
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Governor vetoes bill that would have limited police use of drones

Governor vetoes bill that would have limited police use of drones | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday vetoed a bill that would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants to use drones for surveillance.
more...
Ricky Osborne's comment, September 29, 2:18 AM
With the advancement of technology we see the shrinking of privacy in a dramatic fashion. These surveillance drones are going to make many feel uncomfortable in the state of California as the eyes in the sky will be constantly watching them. The intentions are just but the implementation wrong. One cannot be free at the cost of privacy. I feel that surveillance is going too far into the extreme and we are definitely headed towards a Big Brother state.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Officer: I wish I'd killed him - CNN.com Video

Lt. Betsy Randolph explains saying "I wish I had killed him" regarding her 2010 arrest of be-heading suspect Alton Nolan.
more...
Amanda McColley's comment, September 28, 10:21 PM
All I can think of is, "whoops!" on her part. It's a bit upsetting that law enforcement just discuss why they didn't kill someone based on a prior experience. Like the reporter said, you can't know what someone is going to do in the future so I am sure she feels remorse for the fact that someone died because she made a last second decision to not kill the individual. So I understand what she is feeling, BUT being in the position that she is, it was a mistake that she publicly declared that she wishes she had killed him.
Sarah O'Leary's comment, October 1, 11:05 PM
The fact that she declared she wished she had killed him is inappropriate only because it works against her image and works towards a police brutality image. She is obviously saying it because she is remorseful and feeling guilty as if she could have prevented this from happening. I'm sure the people that are close to her understand that she is not someone who wishes she could prevent recidivism by simply shooting them all. It is not fair for the media to paint her that way.
Alexander Yakovlev's comment, Today, 1:38 AM
I feel unsure about this video, because they are talking about the case that happened long time ago, and she wished she would have killed him. In my opinion, if she let him go back then, and she did a mistake, there is no reason to talk about it now, it’s all in the past. But she shouldn’t be in the police if someone can affect officer’s attitude and actions. She didn’t do what she was supposed to do, and she should be fired and never be in the law enforcement again.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Will police body cameras prevent the next Ferguson?

Accountability, delivered via Bluetooth
more...
Mamie Davis's comment, September 27, 1:31 AM
I think that body cameras are a great idea. Not only will they help prevent any inappropriate or illegal behavior on the part of the officer, thus better protecting citizens. At the same time, it can protect the officer from unfounded allegations of misconduct and keeping their name and badge from being dragged through the dirt.
Amanda McColley's comment, September 28, 10:03 PM
I like the fact that the article brings up that it will likely change peoples behaviors just due to the body camera being present. Not necessarily making sure that cops are acting accordingly but also if the general public knows they are being recorded then there will hopefully be a decline in all these police brutality claims. So while also doing this, it will also hopefully work in a way that will eliminate law enforcement who really do abuse their power which will help citizens feel safer.
Sarah O'Leary's comment, October 1, 11:01 PM
The use of dash cams has been widespread for a long time and have countlessly provided key evidence. I think the next logical step is to make body cameras just as widely used. It protects the officers in the way of accountability. It will also provide a deterrence for any illegal opportunities that an officer might face.
Rescooped by Rob Duke from socialaction2014
Scoop.it!

Only 15 States Have Drug Amnesty Laws to Protect Overdosers, Friends

Only 15 States Have Drug Amnesty Laws to Protect Overdosers, Friends | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Georgia is the 15th U.S. state to pass a law ensuring those who call 911 in case of an overdose will not face criminal charges. These so-called Good Sam laws, the first of which was passed in New Mexico in 2001, aim to save lives by getting medical help, not criminal charges, for someone who has overdosed. The laws also protect the friend who calls 911 and stays with the person.

Via Darcy Delaproser
more...
Jennifer Slingerland's comment, September 28, 9:50 PM
This is a great step forward in the face of suicide prevention, one which allows victims to get help for problems created by the pressures of life. The last thing any person who has tried to commit suicide wants is to face criminal punishment for a personal choice to try and die. It's absolutely absurd. Hopefully this will open up debate about the accessibility of drugs and how easy it is to overdose if chosen as a preferred method. In Britain, for example, I could never purchase more than twelve pills to a box of any medication, and many which carried the risk of harmful side effects were sold behind the counter, by the chemist. Since the method has been implemented, the UK has seen a steep decline in overdose-related deaths, simply because it's too tedious to get enough medication for such an action. If we continue to protect those who are making the choice to end their lives, we'll be able to greatly reduce the number of those who succeed. Bravo to Georgia. Let's see everyone else get on board now.
Amanda McColley's comment, September 28, 10:09 PM
It's upsetting that there are not more states on board with this type of law. There are situations that shouldn't be judged just based on the fact that some people are under the influence of something if they notice a friend is overdosing or in general trouble with maybe a bad reaction to the drug. While I don't condone drug use, youth are going to experiment and what if someone isn't aware or educated enough and they OD and their friends freak out and this person dies due to the fear in their friends. But even in hard core drug users, those users and their friends shouldn't fear criminal charges if they notice someone may be overdosing.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

S.C. cop in trouble for shooting unarmed man: 'Sir, why was I shot?'​

S.C. cop in trouble for shooting unarmed man: 'Sir, why was I shot?'​ | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Video shows a South Carolina trooper shooting an unarmed motorist, as he reaches into his car to retrieve a driver's license. The kinds of police shootings historically seen in big cities also seem to be happening more in small town America.
more...
Amanda McColley's comment, September 28, 10:13 PM
I think this goes back to the article of wearing body cameras. So while it may seem that from this article, some cops may seem a bit too trigger happy, if cops know that they are recording the public then they may feel safer and feel more at ease when it comes to approaching someone who moves in a manner that makes the law enforcement official uncomfortable or threatened. There is just too much tension between cops and the public lately so it's not fair that the public has to walk on egg shells but cops should also realize that not every citizen is a criminal which these articles are making it seem like.
Heather Wiinikka's comment, September 30, 5:41 PM
This is exactly what I have been talking about in my concept paper. Police Brutality, first of all i think officers react before they think, I understand dangerous situations law enforcement faces but seriously come on guys lets think before we react, I also think are trigger happy. Amanda i agree with you anyone in Law enforcement automatically think everyone is a criminal and who cares about Human Rights.
Brittney Ward's comment, September 30, 11:53 PM
Heather, I agree that some cops are "trigger happy" however I feel like reaction is a double edged sword because while a cop may react too quickly without thinking, a delayed reaction in some cases could cost them their own lives. I think it is situational and depends on circumstance for sure. This article really makes me think about the training officers are being given.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Ferguson chief apologizes to Brown family: Late, but perhaps not too little

On Thursday, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson issued a video statement apologizing to the family of slain teenager Michael Brown: 'I am truly sorry for the loss of your son.'
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Rob Duke from Criminal Justice in America
Scoop.it!

Woman hit by California officer gets $1.5 million

Woman hit by California officer gets $1.5 million | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A woman punched repeatedly by a California Highway Patrol officer on the side of a freeway in an incident caught on video will receive $1.5 million under a settlement, and the officer has agreed to resign.


Via Randy L. Dixon Rivera
more...
Brittney Ward's comment, October 1, 12:01 AM
This makes me sad because it is cops like this that contribute to the bad reputation of police. By my understanding the woman in the clip was bipolar an was obviously suffering an episode at the time. The police officer was completely out of control here, all he needed to do was confine her in his car to ensure she didn't wander into traffic and take her to the hospital.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Justice Department Launches Effort To Establish Trust Between Police, Communities

Justice Department Launches Effort To Establish Trust Between Police, Communities | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Almost a year before Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, laying bare a raw nerve of distrust and hostility between the
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

NYPD Chief of Department skips out on 9/11 ceremony

NYPD Chief of Department  skips out on 9/11 ceremony | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Going on vacation was apparently more important to the NYPD’s highest-ranking uniformed officer than attending this year’s 9/11 ceremony at Ground Zero, where 23 of his brother officers perished, s...
Rob Duke's insight:

How big a symbolic management mistake is this?

more...
Rashaad's curator insight, September 25, 3:43 AM

After reading this article and understanding the importance of the day, I do not believe that it was okay for him to miss the ceremony taking into consideration his rank as a officer and the what he stands for. Although there were comments that supported each side of the argument, I think it was not a good thing for him to miss out on the ceremony. It’s an important day that I know he did not forget about. Therefore there is no excuse for missing it beside a family emergency, but that definitely was not the case. 

Brandon Jensen's comment, September 25, 4:41 AM
Agreeing with many of the other comments, 9/11 is a pretty well known date for our country and he should have taken that into account when planning his vacation, or at least pushed it back so those dates did not cross. It seems kind of sad that he would miss it being such a high ranking officer and having lost other officers on that day. I could understand missing it for something else if it were pretty important, but for a vacation? nah.
Rob Duke's comment, September 25, 2:01 PM
Melia, you do make an important point about people grieving in different ways. PTSD is marked now through some studies to test avoidance. Essentially, what is done is to show military recruits scenes of warfare and record eye movements toward and away from different scenes. As you can imagine, young recruits who have self-selected for military service most often move their eyes towards the "cool" action shots. However, many returning vets, avoid those scenes with their eyes, and it ends up higher percentages of those who avoid the scenes, have PTSD. Not surprisingly, there are much higher rates of suicides within the ranks of eye avoiders (however the researchers caution that 89% of the eye avoiders have no serious problems adapting). Here's a link on the subject: http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile/Day%2B6/ID/2443515202/
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Blacks Don’t Have a Corporal Punishment Problem

Blacks Don’t Have a Corporal Punishment Problem | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
“While 70 percent of Americans approve of corporal punishment,” wrote sociologist Michael Eric Dyson for the New York Times on Wednesday, “black Americans have a distinct history with the subject. Beating children has been a depressingly familiar habit in black families since our arrival in the New World.” Dyson was...
Rob Duke's insight:

For an excellent discussion of the "ghetto" behaviors as a legacy of slavery and not inherent Black culture, see Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks: White Liberals.  Sowell is another Hoover fellow who served with McNamara who I mentioned yesterday.  Sowell also wrote the quintessential book on Marx: Marxism: Philosophy and Economics.

more...
Jonathan Reed's comment, September 23, 11:24 PM
This article speaks directly to the assumptions that society as fashioned and hand feed to populace ideology. Let’s make clear that prejudice is an inherent human response, being that we all make assumptions of the present from previous experience or ideas of what it may seem like, but with that being said does that mean that we shouldn’t examine our first thoughts and look for deeper meaning within our inner beliefs. The article said it best, “the most nebulous of facts and inferences”, is that not all prejudice is? And again, “I don’t know if there’s a solution here, or if one is even possible. The idea of black pathology is embedded in our public discourse and national psyche.” What is true and evident, is the acts committed lately by police officers on and unreported by the news. Corporal punishment has been a part of black culture throughout history but when you step back and look at the issue as a whole all ethnicities and races fall within the same category of disciplining children, either by physical abuse (whooping) or psychological abuse (time out). Too much of either is an issue, so why is it headlined as a BLACK epidemic, regardless of context, when the real issue is that we all need to figure out ways that best discipline our children. Could the answer be that we seek to point blame and instead of solving the problem stress labels and create scapegoats?
Rashaad's curator insight, September 25, 3:49 AM

Taking into consideration that growing up his was something I see as a normal form of discipline, I do not see the big issue with this problem, unless it is taken over board. I hate the term “beating” because it sounds as if it is something that different than a spanking. I do not understand why this had to be an issue of race as well. There are plenty of different racial groups that go about disciplining in this fashion. 

Rescooped by Rob Duke from socialaction2014
Scoop.it!

U.S. Drug Enforcement Is Still Despicably Racist

U.S. Drug Enforcement Is Still Despicably Racist | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Everyone smokes weed. Everyone does drugs. And yet, somehow--in this great nation!--black people seem to be the only ones getting arrested for it.

Via Darcy Delaproser
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Body cam helps justify fatal South Salt Lake police shooting | KSL.com

Body cam helps justify fatal South Salt Lake police shooting | KSL.com | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
With the help of video from a body camera, the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office ruled that Salt Lake police officer Bron Cruz was justified in shooting 20-year-old Dillon Taylor.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Hong Kong protesters mimic Ferguson's 'hands up, don't shoot'

Hong Kong protesters mimic Ferguson's 'hands up, don't shoot' | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Police in Hong Kong warned that they will use "a higher level of force" against the crowds of thousands if "public order" is not restored.
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Rob Duke from socialaction2014
Scoop.it!

Police Brutality has deep roots in US Slavery -


Via Darcy Delaproser
more...
Jason Robo's curator insight, September 29, 9:39 PM

Legit, when people talk about police reform it is like saying slavery reform.

 

Jason Robo

strictlyrevolutionary.com

comedic insights on news with a political science/economics educated background

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ekeTn08OP_Y#t=582

Alexander Yakovlev's comment, Today, 1:44 AM
Those cases are crazy examples of police brutality. They shoot people when you do exactly what they are telling you to do. I don’t think we can trust police nowadays. Before, police was protecting us; nowadays, we have to protect ourselves from police. If they will see any reason to shoot you they will use it, even though it is not necessary at all.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones

FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
The agency director’s criticisms echo the frustrations of law enforcement officials nationwide.
more...
Ricky Osborne's comment, September 29, 2:21 AM
I love the fact that these encryptions are advanced enough that they are able to keep law enforcement from searching them. This does however, pose a problem when they do have the necessary search warrants and need to solve or prove a crime. I feel that these encryptions are necessary but a system needs to be put into place that allows law enforcement to bypass them when solving a legitimate crime. Who knows how long it will be before such a problem becomes non-existent.
Zach Bohan's comment, October 1, 7:33 PM
It seems silly that Apple, Android, Google, etc.does not have a backdoor programmed into their devices that would allow police access to the phone. It is understandable that many people would prefer that the data on their ponds remain private, I can understand the need for total privacy to not be a good thing. For those that can be trusted with privacy to not hide anything illegal, preventing anyone from getting into your phone is a good thing. At the same time, there are many who misuse and abuse such a degree of privacy and ruin it for everyone else. Ultimately, these companies should have ways to provide police access to their phones. If they do, they would not flaunt it because that would hurt their marketing strategy of selling the ultimate in cellular data protection.
Sarah O'Leary's comment, October 1, 11:11 PM
I think in this world of increasing civil issues, phones are the centers for organization and resistance. There is a fine line between protecting peoples privacy and resisting the authorities because they think they are still protecting people. There should obviously be some sort of situational rule so that the police can have access to the things that they need to help the justice system.
Rescooped by Rob Duke from socialaction2014
Scoop.it!

DID POLICE TAMPER WITH KEY EVIDENCE IN KILLING OF AIYANA JONES, 7, TO BACK UP KILLER COP WEEKLEY?

DID POLICE TAMPER WITH KEY EVIDENCE IN KILLING OF AIYANA JONES, 7, TO BACK UP KILLER COP WEEKLEY? | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it

Via Darcy Delaproser
more...
Mamie Davis's comment, September 27, 1:22 AM
This is a prime example of how militarized police put people on edge, not to mention the reputation the Special Response Team holds in many of these minority low income communities. The fact that many of these men on the force served in the military worries me a little bit. The mindset that men have to be in to get deployed and kill on command without consideration for the situation, morals, and evidence (not in all cases but in general) and are then put into a situation where they need to use discretion in their use of force and give people they encounter the benefit of the doubt must be difficult. I’m not sure how easy of a transition that would be, nor how safe the general public is with these post-military men working on quasi-militarized teams. I think they would have trouble shaking the military/war mindset.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

The U.S. Forest Service Wants to Fine You $1,000 for Taking Pictures in the Forest

The U.S. Forest Service Wants to Fine You $1,000 for Taking Pictures in the Forest | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
The Forest Service oversees 193 million acres of wilderness. In a month, you won't be able to take a picture in them without getting a fine -- even if the new rules are unconstitutional.
Rob Duke's insight:

Wait--What?  What gives?  And they say cops are unreasonable...they have whole campaigns about "shooting" animals with cameras over guns and now they don't allow it?

more...
Amanda McColley's comment, September 28, 10:25 PM
I guess I can sort of understand where the parks are coming for wanting to enforce this. The steps that some people take can be really disrespectful to the environment and possibly harmful to the ecosystem within. Granted I am sure most nature enthusiasts are respectable of their surroundings, there are always going to be people who ruin it for the people who follow the laws. Plus to ensure the safety of people in the park, there are some pretty courageous people who get all too close to animals they shouldn't just to get that one good shot. So it'll be interesting to see how this pans out, but I can see the good that MIGHT come from it.
Heather Wiinikka's comment, September 30, 5:56 PM
Wow i think this is a little much fine someone a $1,000 dollars for taking pictures. I do not see what the problem is. If they are so worried about people getting to close to the animals then have a person out there watching for people violating the rules but seriously it looks like a beautiful place to go and taken pictures of the scenary and such.
Zach Bohan's comment, October 1, 7:39 PM
a) its a victimless crime and b) since when is taking a photo of nature a crime? It literally would not hurt anyone and would actually cause more harm to pass a bill such as this would undoubtably cause loss in revenue for the state. Not to mention, that developing this bill was a huge waste of taxpayer money. The only reason I can think of is that there is something worth hiding such as bigfoot in the area, but no... that would be so ridiculous it just might be true.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Woman beaten by CHP officer settles, but activists 'want him in prison'

Woman beaten by CHP officer settles, but activists 'want him in prison' | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Civil rights activists plan to launch a new campaign Thursday for the criminal prosecution of a C alifornia Highway Patrol officer c aught on video repeatedly punching a woman on the 10 Freeway in Los Angeles, saying the officer's resignation and a $1.5-million settlement do not go far enough.
Rob Duke's insight:

This happened the week I was flat on my back recovering from surgery, so I watched the full video over and over and over.  The homeless woman had apparently been walking in busy L.A. traffic and the Highway Patrol officer tackled her.  In the video, he looks at traffic and she begins to hit him and squirm away.  His response: to pummel her repeatedly.  Too much? yes, but when that brain stem lizard man is in charge, sometimes you hit a few times too many.  Ever tasted that copper taste in your mouth after being popped in the nose?  Ever had your eyes water up from it?  You're not exactly hurt, but you see red.  I think....I think...this was an appropriate outcome (it's dangerous to Monday morning quarter back--we all get 10 years to debate what an officer decides in a tenth of a second); but, I know putting him behind bars would not be justice for this officer.  What do you think?

more...
Heather Wiinikka's comment, September 30, 5:47 PM
This is horrible, I do not understand why cops think they can just do this and get away with it, this officer resigning and giving a 1.5 million settlement is nothing. I don' care if he is an officer or not this woman did nothing to deserve this attack and he just be put behind bars. If it was just a regular guy not in a police uniform he would face serious charges so why should that be any different for this officer. UGH this stuff makes me so angry.
Zach Bohan's comment, October 1, 7:48 PM
I can understand the anger the cop felt when he was struck, but that is a risk on the job that cops must undertake. As a society, we hold them to a higher standard than other professions. We expect that if a cop gets hit in an altercation, he is supposed to subdue the assailant with reasonable force, not excessive force. He hits back once? Sure, thats appropriate and can be viewed as self defense. Any hits after that are not acceptable. Police have training to ensure that they do not go overboard like this. I work in the mental health field and have been stuck many times, even bitten, by those I am attempting to calm down. I have never once lost my temper and become aggressive back. If I would, I would lose my job and face criminal charges; just like what should happen to this officer. He made a mistake, yes. He was clearly emotional, yes. This does not excuse his actions of severe consequences.

It is interesting to wonder how people would view this story if it were a man. It is also interesting to see that race seems to have not been a factor, which so often in our society is a main talking point.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Eric Holder to Resign as Attorney General, Official Says - NBC News

Eric Holder to Resign as Attorney General, Official Says - NBC News | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce Thursday that he will resign after nearly six years, White House and Justice Department officials tell NBC New...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Dead LAPD officer found in Thousand Oaks residence after disturbance report

Dead LAPD officer found in Thousand Oaks residence after disturbance report | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
A deceased LAPD officer was found in a Thousand Oaks residence hours after a domestic-disturbance call.
Rob Duke's insight:

This is a double risk area: 1. Officers experience huge stress loads and are susceptible to PTSD; and, 2. Domestic Violence is often a career ending serious violation.  DUI was once something officers lost jobs over and we saw this kind of angst, as well as, corruption because other officers who would look the other way.  We built a road back for these DUI officers that involves therapy and monitoring.  We still have to let officers go for this, but it's usually months later now after officers, through therapy, self-identify the issues that sometimes include PTSD that cause them to drink.  By that time, the decision is a relief and we routinely avoid the loss of suicide--former officers look forward to a second life after cop.

We need to find a road back for officers who commit DV crimes.

more...
Amanda McColley's comment, September 28, 10:29 PM
Its sad to see things like this, especially within jobs where the individuals risk their lives for the general good of the public. Jobs like law enforcement or military can turn the greatest person in to an evil that shouldn't be on the planet but that's not who they really are. There clearly isn't enough done to ensure that these individuals get the help they need. Not only do the cops suffer but it then trickles down to the families and these families deserve a chance for a normal life.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Officers abusing the charge of "Resisting Arrest" in Florida

Recording Police - A Palm Bay Police officer abuses a teenager and threatens to hurt her during an arrest. He lies in his report ...
Rob Duke's insight:

This is why we have trials because the video raises as many questions as it answers.  A trier of fact needs to have the issues raised and argued before being able to make the kinds of statements the judge makes.  While the judge had the benefit of briefs for the charges filed against the suspect(s), he had no briefs on the appropriateness of the officers' behaviors given considerations of officer safety.  The officer appears rude, but there's so much that the body camera doesn't show us (in the last minute of the video, she admits to sitting on the dope and trying to get it under the seat--we couldn't see that on the video, but evidently the officer could).  I've often come into contact with people who complied verbally and resisted physically--we can't say what's happening here without full discovery.

Intended as commentary only as I am not an attorney: Under Federal law, the search the officer makes once she's handcuffed and under arrest appear to be legal, but Florida may be more restrictive--Alaska would be, but inevitable discovery during a booking search might still apply.  The search of the car is also ok under Fed law, but Florida may also be more restrictive (as is Alaska).

As to having a resisting arrest law, it's actually defined much more broadly under Florida law as obstructing justice.  I don't know how you operate as police without having some statute that tells people that they can't resist, delay or obstruct you in the course of the law.  If you didn't, every derelict or activist could stymie your best attempts at enforcing the law.  There's just so much feet dragging and fake "I didn't know what you wanted" that is reasonable, though I can't draw a line to say what's too much, but like the courts have said "I know it when I see it".  Sometimes there's no way to put all the nuances into a form that the court can agree, so there needs to be some flexibility as to what goes on in the field and what actually gets charged.  I told my officers that the "tie goes to the customer", but if it comes to me as a complaint as a "tie", I'll back you up because of the intangibles that I can't possibly know from the real time event.  I always ended with a caution, "but, I don't want to see every one of your complaints as a tie: if I do, I'll have to rule against you".

My critiques of the officer:

As the officer, I'd have been polite and said things like: "if I can't be absolutely sure that you don't have intent to do me harm, I'll be forced to use appropriate force against you to make you comply--do you understand?  1. keep your hands where I can see them at all times. 2. don't make furtive movements or even fidget in your seat. 3. don't attempt to communicate with one another; or with me until I ask you for information; 3. when additional officers arrive, I will secure you and make sure you don't have weapons, and then you will get a chance to tell me your side of the story.  Do you understand?  Will you cooperate?  Thankyou, that will make things easier for all of us."

He did good by reiterating several times that trying to hide small quantities of dope was just a misdemeanor, which may have kept the incident from escalating (his gruff manner may have done that also and it's a probable explanation for why he used that approach--though it might just be his "style", too).

 

Bringing in the second case of the citizen with a kidney stone and officers getting mad about him filming them with a smart phone was a dirty trick and logical fallacy designed to heighten the readers' anger for this event when the two should have been reviewed as separate and distinct.  It turned this from a news story about an incident into an editorial. The power of the word is just as dangerous as the power of the sword, but we hold the power of the sword to a higher scrutiny.

 

Let me know what you think.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

When Should We Start Forcibly Resisting Police Tyranny?

When Should We Start Forcibly Resisting Police Tyranny? | Police Problems and Policy | Scoop.it
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”
-President John F. Kennedy
Rob Duke's insight:

Whoa! WTH! So you think you want a revolution? We have a system that allows a bloodless coup every 2 years--and, that's at the Fed level.  At the local level, you can have a bloodless coup any time you need it.  It's called a recall election or a referendum (we call it an "initiative" if you need a law passed not one overturned).  We also have a tradition of local grand jury watch dogs.  It's just plain reckless to call for forcible resistance like this.  The problem with anarchy and revolution is that you never, NEVER! know what you'll be left with, and that's why a bloodless coup is such a wonderful device for radical, but orderly change.  This means that we put truth over justice, which is appropriate: truth is the precursor of justice and everyone gets a chance to contribute and negotiate the truth.  Revolution puts justice over truth and is a very one-sided version of truth.  In the end, justice alone or first is no justice at all and no revolution with this as the base can last long.  That's why every revolution "eats its own children".  We have the system for nearly perfect change if we search for truth, reasonableness, and human dignity.  Use the tools--don't be tempted by the shortcuts--and throw the bums out.  The other bums will take note and change or you can throw them out, too.  

 

End of rant.

more...
Rob Duke's comment, September 21, 2:46 AM
Coercive power is easy to attack because as one becomes powerful or uses power, it's scaled against four paradoxes: 1. paradox of Dispossession; 2. paradox of Detachment; 3. paradox of face; and 4. paradox of irrationality (see William Muir for the model). In other words, if you have something, they can take it from you (possession); or, if you care about something they can hold those things hostage (attachment). We have both of those in our lives, our property, and our communities. Also, in order to appear to be able to use force, sometimes you have to use it (saving face in order to maintain it); so, we're forced to use force in order to maintain the first two things we value possessions and attachments. Finally, irrationality, we're extremely susceptible to claims that we're irrational, thus, we have to be hyper-rational which weakens the first three paradoxes. How can I value and protect possessions when, in order to exercise power, I must sometimes use force that appears irrational? So, we see entire "ghetto" neighborhoods devolve as the folks in the community see cops withdraw literally and metaphorically, which means the citizens are forced to cope with the same paradoxes. Is it any wonder that no one has anything nice? You can't upset me by stealing or vandalizing when I don't have anything; and, I won't form attachments, so you can't hold me hostage. In order to keep you from intimidating me, I'll grow more fierce myself and do things to protect what little I have by appearing to be irrational (maybe more crazy than just pretending--your power over me is reduced when I'm irrational--how easy is it to intimidate the psycho homeless dude?). Pretty soon tit for tat and eye for an eye begins to take an enormous toll. Again, I think, and it's just one man's opinion, but the answer is truth first. It's a team sport, so we need to nurture those opportunities for teamwork and input. We need to do this way before the emergency so we have the trust to sustain us through these paradoxes.