“What part of ‘drop the gun’ is so hard to understand, especially after it’s shouted at you A DOZEN TIMES!” That’s YouTuber Mark Dice’s take in the comments section underneath his fisk of the Keith Lamont Scott “planted gun theory.” As Dice points out, the idea that cops would shout drop the gun when there wasn’t one?

desantis-blue-logo-no-back-4-smallAnd yet MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid pushed the frame job narrative on air. [Click here to view.] Other than ratings and social justice warrior PC positioning, what’s up with that? Nothing. On the more rational side, some of the MSM SJW’s and their pet “commentators” asserted that all officer involved shootings (OIS) should be investigated by someone other than the police. That makes more than a little sense.

Or does it? Who better than the police to investigate a crime? The Justice Department? FBI? I don’t know about you, but the less the feds have to do with anything the better. Perhaps the state police should handle investigations into OIS’s — unless it’s one of them who did the shooting. Ummm.

What about adding a civilian to the mix? Or leaving things as they are and hope that the court system does its job? Frankly, I don’t know how we as a society can guarantee a fair and impartial investigation into OIS’s. Your thoughts?

Recommended For You

167 Responses to DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Should All Police Shootings Be Investigated Independently?

    • Ideally, yes, another local or state agency should conduct the investigation. Many times this happens when the shooting involves a smaller department. Either sheriff’s department or the state police do it. Larger departments are more likely to have a police shooting unit that does the investigation. The unit is most often comprised of homicide detectives. Also, most police shootings are referred to the grand jury unless there’s absolutely no doubt that it was justified. As an aside advocated having the FBI do the independent investigation due to the politicalization of the Bureau and their lack of expertise in such things.

      • “…most police shootings are referred to the grand jury unless there’s absolutely no doubt that it was justified.”

        Actually from what I know most police shootings are not referred to Grand Jury, but most citizens use of armed force resulting in death are referred. The key with a Grand Jury is that you cannot bring your lawyer in the room to look out for you. Cops also usually have access to a free lawyer that can show up at the scene and run interference during the critical early minutes after the incident when most people will have the tendency to blurt out something that can be used against them later in court.

        Chicago city limits has about three million people, and I think the state of Illinois population is about twelve million. In Chicago no cop shooting goes before Grand Jury that I know of, they are all investigated by cops, then results are turned over to the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) which is composed of citizens.

        If anyone wants to see a movie that portrays the criminality around police shootings with coaching of witnesses and tampering with internal investigations, watch “Deep Blue” with Kurt Russell. Lots of cop tricks exposed on that one.

  1. I think it would certainly help with the credibility factor of the investigations. I know there’s a bill in the Senate on Military Sexual Assault that, in part, requires investigations to be done by someone OUTSIDE the unit. Not civilian, but an outside military lawyer. Seems pretty smart.

      • Retired 0311 from 3/3 here…

        Its far from a myth, there was one such case in either Lima or India company (don’t remember) where a new join had a mop handle rammed up his ass. Another initiation ritual, the people that did it were slapped down hard with hazing charges.

        I’ve personally experienced someone slap/grab my ass in Okinawa, fortunately for them I never saw who did It when I turned around.

        Its hard to go a few months without getting a four hour long sexual assault brief by the Battalion Commander because someone messed up with a prostitute, screwed up with one of the Navy / officer chicks, a base housing parasite, or even one of the barracks/base rats that are essentially village bicycles.

        Before DADT was repealed, there was and probably still is rampant ball slapping and other gay “jokes”. Of course, in those days, no one was actually gay, its all just a joke. If two ‘men’ wrestling naked in their barracks room isn’t gay then I don’t know what is.

        Unrelated but I’ll touch on suicides as well. Most of the military HATE THEIR LIVES, there is no way out, the living conditions are terrible, my own barracks was condemned, TWICE! It was re-opened due to lack of space and we were packed three to a room that was designed for two. Commands love to pretend that they don’t know the real reason behind the high rates, they know exactly why, everyone hates the way they are forced to live and have no way out. Drugs get you shit duty or the brig until the end of your contract and a DH boot, Deserting is its own can of worms, etc.

    • “I know there’s a bill in the Senate on Military Sexual Assault that, in part, requires investigations to be done by someone OUTSIDE the unit. Not civilian, but an outside military lawyer.”

      The concept of bias within the chain of command will not be understood by the commenters here which have never been in the military. The usual breakdown of sides on this site is: cops can never do anything wrong, or, a few knowledgeable citizens like yourself who defend the Constitution.

      Lower class and uneducated people usually feel threatened when the institutions that they choose to believe in are threatened. It’s an adolescent worldview, and like partially grown teenagers, they make angry crude comments because they do not fully understand the world around them.

      Very few of the people posting here have buried their friends in uniform for one of America’s endless “police actions” overseas, so they don’t really value or understand the Constitution, or the bigger picture that the expanding criminal police state is currently the greatest threat to all Americans no matter what their color or politics.

  2. The problem is we had such things in Chicago but they served at the pleasure of the mayor which the chief also serves at. That ultimately means you will not take the politics out of policing and it is there for appearance and little else .

  3. Google “Michelle O’connell” if anyone is naive enough to believe the cops can be trusted to investigate the murderers in their midst.

    And it turns out the “planted gun theory” was entirely unnecessary, as the victim was not holding any gun to begin with. Not good for the pigsters and the pigster cheerleader crowd.

      • Because having a holstered handgun on oneself is grounds for summary execution. On a site that relentlessly promotes carrying. The irony, it’s too much.

        • Not carry by a CRIMINAL MDC…how many think it’s kinda’ strange how quiet the media has been about the Turkish bastard picked up for the Washington mall shootings? Got a theory More Dead?

        • “Not carry by a CRIMINAL”

          Considering how the cops had no idea of who the man was and of his past, the distinction is irrelevant.

        • Oh, I didn’t know police academy taught telepathy and as such police procedures can be altered on the fly based on people’s records.

          Or maybe it’s more like the video game Watch Dogs.

          The only relevance here is in the minds of bootlickers who will defend the police regardless of circumstance.

        • Sometimes police know or reasonably suspect they are dealing with a felon prior to contact. Examples: stolen plates / stolen cars / known previous criminal / known criminal broadcast / BOLO, felony evading, etc. I’m not sure if that is the case in this instance, but it certainly does happen. There’s also prison / gang / hate group tatoos and / or paraphernalia, etc.

        • Absolutely none of those things were mentioned by the pigsters with this particular case.

          As an aside, one questions whether a BOLO constitutes reasonable suspicion. For example, Philando Castile was shot after supposedly matching a BOLO that is so vague, it could have been anyone. Yet another example of incompetent cops abusing the vast legal privileges given to them by pliant courts.

        • “…Philando Castile was shot after supposedly matching a BOLO that is so vague, it could have been anyone.”

          Baby boomers from all-white small towns don’t care about the dangers of Duty to Inform, thanks to the fact that NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put it there. Philando Castile was black, so he doesn’t matter to the racist hicks. Plenty more where he came from.

          Don’t hold your breath for NRA, Inc. to issue a statement about Castile and the danger of DTI to armed citizens from police criminals. He’ll get flushed down the toilet just like they did with Otis McDonald. Besides, if you’re white and don’t make any “suspicious movements” that will never happen to you. He must have deserved execution somehow.

        • Seriously Demo bloomberg deserves more for his money than the same old cut and paste job you keep pulling.

        • No matter how many videos they watch, you are interacting with people who will never get it for two reasons: they erroneously feel “it will never happen to me, because I’m one of the good guys” and they are stupid enough to believe that the piece of plastic in their wallet will get them different treatment from the police after they are involved in a use of force legal situation.

          This is the Ku Klux Klan/Freemason mentality of the low I.Q. crowd stupid enough to pay money to NRA, Inc. The existence of these lower class white folks is why Todd Vandermyde was able to put Duty to Inform in Rep. Brandon Phelps concealed carry bill and get away with it. The whole narrative only works if no one questions whether the Emperor is wearing any clothes.

  4. Yes. With the power to detain, arrest, and kill in the name of the state, comes accountability. Every bullet that leaves the barrel of my weapon is subject to that.

    • Most times there is no legal accountability when police kill. The numerous police unions have systematically infiltrated the state legislatures to the point that they have successfully created a class of persons that are above the law.

      Look at LEOSA, a federal law that supersedes almost all state and local regulations re. carrying a gun. If you have been a cop for ten years, or are a retired cop, no Duty to Inform when you carry.

      Here in Illinois NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put DTI in Rep. Brandon Phelps 2013 concealed carry bill, and Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA let him do it. The IL Chiefs of Police wanted Duty to Inform, but they opposed any form of citizen carry for FORTY YEARS. NRA, Inc. constantly promotes the advancement of the criminal police state and feasts on the blood of it’s own membership.

      Until the traitors and police collaborators have been identified and removed, the legal structures that have been built to keep police above the law can’t be successfully removed.

      • Yes, there is corruption, even in the NRA, but if you villianize the NRA in a pro-gun forum you really come out as being in left field.

        • “Yes, there is corruption, even in the NRA…”
          Thanks for telling me that the sky is blue, too.

          “…but if you villianize the NRA in a pro-gun forum you really come out as being in left field.”
          By all means let me try harder to conform to the group (as defined by you.) Any dishonest lobbyist who writes legislation that will affect twelve million people in Illinois for the next fifty years requires scrutiny for the public good.

          Before Vandermyde was the NRA contract lobbyist, he worked for William Dugan at the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 in Countryside, Illinois. As lobbyist he reported directly to Dugan, when Dugan was president of the 150 union. In 2010 Dugan was convicted by our famous crime-busting U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Perhaps you’ve heard of him if you are a law enforcement professional?

          In 2011 Vandermyde no longers shows up in Illinois Secretary of State lobbyist records with the 150 union, only the NRA. They say a rat knows when to leave a sinking ship. If you think that an NRA lobbyist who worked for a union president that was taken down by the FBI & U.S. Attorney is not a problem, send your life membership to Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA. Supposedly he reports to them, although I can find no indication that either of them have ever set foot in the state of Illinois to see what Vandermyde is doing.

          You’re a cop, right? If you wish to research further into Vandermyde’s character and associations, look under the name Donald T. Vandermyde. Let us know what you find.

        • In case you haven’t noticed 9 times out of 10 when demo shows up he tosses out the same line. I think he has it on worddoc file and just cut an pastes it into the reply box.

        • You’re wasting your time with this Demo guy. He’s mad, he’s got an agenda, and he’s going to repeat the same things every time he posts here.

    • A jury? I’m not sure a jury trial ever time the popo shoot someone. So of then, perhaps most, need shooting.

      Or the perhaps the Fed Dept of Nojustice/Injustice? What a joke what a bunch of leftist buffoons.

  5. There have been police shootings which have certainly been questionable and where going outside of the affected agency to the next rung of the LEO ladder for investigation of it would allay the suspicions of conspiracy theorists. Then again, many of these conspiracy theorists will disregard the facts no matter WHO investigates if the facts revealed don’t fit their agenda. One thing the authorities SHOULD do which they haven’t done thus far is make those who blatantly and demonstrably LIE about what they saw face the consequences of their prevarications. Perhaps if those people who do this are charged, convicted, and do some jail time for their transgression there will be less of it.

  6. It should be done on a case by case basis. Most police shootings are obvious good shoots so there is no need for an outsider. If there is a question then it should be given to a DA from another jurisdiction.

    • every shooting, whether it’s a cop or a citizen in a dgu needs to be investigated with an impartial observer along to make sure no dirty dealings are done.

      And every riot, regardless of the rioters percieved justification, needs to be treated as a criminal entrprise and dealt with harshly.

      You have the right to peaceably assemble but not to loot and burn. Rioting is not a valid protest.

      • I’m not suggesting that all shootings don’t need to be investigated. The Bad guy running around a mall shooting people gets shot by the police does not need a special prosecutor to figure out it was a good shoot. If you look at the data most officer involved shootings fall into this category. You bring in the outsider when it is questionable.

        • Not only do our public servants have to avoid wrongdoing, they have to avoid the appearance of wrong doing. Having a neutral 3rd party watching the proceedings is not a bad idea. In every shooting. Including citizen dgu’s.

        • And you gets to determine who is an outsider?

          FYI every private citizen’s DGU gets investigated and judging from guneatch data most of them get adjudicated as good shoots with no charges brought.

  7. There is no good answer

    The PD involved in the shooting we have seen in other incidents have withheld evidence and in many states it is 72 hrs before you can even talk to the officer.

    In Baltimore, we saw that the AG was just out for a social justice motive and really did not care about the facts, thankfully the jury saw things differently

    Special prosecutors or community committees have their own agenda and the police more likely than not will not get a fair trail.

    The State PD? We have seen how like the case in Bridgeport with the office ND into street traffic and pedestrians was swept under the rug never to be seen again. And referring a case to the State Police is more less like making sure it gets lost.

    And here is were we are, there is nobody left with integrity to trust. At one time I thought the FBI could be trusted, but as we have seen with Comey and others, that is no longer true.

    There is really nobody left that you can trust because integrity has been lost. Everyone is out for their own political or personal agenda — the people are an after thought and the media watch dog holds nobody accountable because they want the ratings.

    Democracies depend on trust, right now we none at every level. Good cops will be unfairly screwed and bad cops will unfairly allowed to keep working. Nobody wins and the political machines are just happy to make it go away as quickly as possible and hope the next news cycle kicks in.

    • Well that was a whole lot of truth.
      All sides are compromised and have earned their low trust ratings.
      We’re pretty well fvcked.

    • “Democracies depend on trust, right now we none at every level. Good cops will be unfairly screwed and bad cops will unfairly allowed to keep working.”

      That’s nothing new. Go read the Book of Ecclesiastes. It says the same thing and was written somewhere around 2500 years ago. Same shit, different day. Neither the human condition nor human nature have changed much in the last 5000 years.

      • Our founding fathers knew that our liberty based system with a limited government would only work if the society had a strong moral compass. The Left has worked for the past century to smash that compass.

    • At one time I thought the FBI could be trusted

      Back in Bill Clinton’s days they were shown to be lying, perjuring sacks of human refuse. The Wen Ho Lee case showed us that. There’s a Border Patrol agent on this forum that could probably tell some FBI stories.

  8. I know one thing; withholding the tapes for ANY amount of time doesn’t help anyone. It may have at one time, but this is a different world. None of the old reasons make sense now when a riot can be organized from thousands of miles away with just a few tweets. If these incidents are going to be used to attack the fabric of society itself, it seems to me that society itself has a right to view the footage.

    • Except premature release could compromise a successful prosecution later. If all you want to do is prevent a riot why not just charge the officer immediately they way they did in Tulsa. By the time the case falls apart everyone will have forgotten about it.

    • Releasing video allows a bad cop to tailor his lies to the video and will help him avoid a successful prosecution.

      The idiot mob on the street has insufficient IQ to understand that basic idea.

      Maybe the “Tulsa flim flam” mentioned by tdiinva will become the norm with societies short memory.

  9. While independent investigations seem warranted in some cases, no matter who else you have investigate, they will have a political agenda and not be unbiased.
    Do you honestly think Comey wasn’t cowed by Obama (with hints that were plausibly deniable) to ensure Clinton wasn’t indicted? We cannot trust even the FBI.
    Someone mentioned a DA from another jurisdiction.
    If you were a police officer, would you want social justice warriors like Obama’s DOJ investigate any shooting already convinced you violated civil rights even if a jury acquits you?

  10. Regardless what agency runs the investigation, there should at least be specific protocols that take a lot of the political decision making out of the process and ensure availability of evidence.

    For example, how many times have heard that the body cam video isn’t available because the officer neglected to turn it on? How is that outcome different from the body cam having been on, but the officer later deleted the video? Different paths to the same place, which leaves the door wide open to speculation as to what really happened. Once there’s a cover up, or shading of the evidence, or even just the perception of such, then credibility craters, conspiracy theories spread, and people get hurt.

    How about we design body cams to turn on automatically when the officer leaves the vehicle? My car gives a sequence of warning beeps when it’s running and I exit the vehicle with my key fob. The proximity detection and actuation technology exists and is widespread. How about that video gets live uploaded to the cloud, instead in the vehicle or on the device itself? There are dozens of free apps that do that. There are countless cloud storage companies, too. This is yet another solution already in place.

    How about we get some rules on timely release of these videos, too? Sometimes police delay for a year or more release of the video. Not only does that just heighten the public’s frustration, it also provides fodder for evidence tampering theories.

    I know, I know, “hasty release of videos can interfere with the investigation.” Really? How? That’s never explained. Ever notice how this claim is only made in cases when a cop shoots someone? When it’s the cop who’s been shot, the alleged shooter’s mug is splashed across every screen possible. No cause for concern about the integrity of the investigation there, huh? Curious, that.

    If the rules of investigation were more objective and transparent, and backed by serious criminal sanctions for violations, then the specific agency conducting the investigation would be less of a factor.

    • Lots of good suggestions. I think that the body cams are apt to be the biggest part of the solution. The public will take a lot of comfort from the fact that the cop knows that his body cam is apt to evidence the basis for his decision. In some cases the video won’t be clear enough to be dispositive; nevertheless, the cop won’t know that until after he pulled the trigger. (Necessary to get the video out of the cop’s hands immediately after the body-cam detects gunfire; e.g., a tamper-proof lock or cloud upload.)
      Conversely, the public will regard the cops avoiding body cams as a false economy. What are they hiding?

      • ” I think that the body cams are apt to be the biggest part of the solution.”

        Be careful, here. Legislation is reportedly floating around to require storing every bit and byte of video from body cams, for six to eighteen months. The cost is mind-boggling, and the taxpayer (not the police forces) will absorb that cost.

    • Jonathan, there you go, thinking again! For some of the cop suckasses around here, this much thinking could make their heads hurt. It takes effort to bring justice into existence.

      When Illinois state Rep. Brandon Phelps put up the first version of his “NRA backed” concealed carry bill which failed in May 2011, we still had a felony eavesdropping law that made it illegal to record the police. Yet NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde was assuring his pet rubes that the eavesdropping law was going to be overturned in court, so in the future armed citizens would be able to record police encounters if there was “any problem” with the criminal Duty to Inform he put in the carry bill. Selling lies and pipe dreams to the NRA members he supposedly represents is the game plan of this crude moron.

      After Phelps garbage carry bill became law in 2013, the Illinois legislature passed a Body Cam bill in 2015. One little problem, no criminal penalties for deleting or altering the recordings. Everything you have noted here. How did that happen? The same police unions that opposed citizen carry in IL for the past FORTY YEARS snuck around the corridors in Springfield and convinced the white racist hick legislators from small towns like Brandon Phelps that police would never delete the vids, we should just trust them to be “the good guys.”

      The police unions got it bargained down to a departmental charge, which is what went in the final bill. Police agencies can now investigate their own officers and give them a paid day off when they kill a citizen and then delete the evidence. The legislature and NRA, Inc. are basically encouraging cops to kill and destroy the evidence later, just like they handed the cops legalized murder with criminal Duty to Inform. It’s always the same players, the police unions and the NRA.

      “When it’s the cop who’s been shot, the alleged shooter’s mug is splashed across every screen possible.” Usually when police kill, you never see the officer’s face in the news reports. The MSM still largely has a “gentleman’s agreement” to shield cops from the consequences of their actions, but you can be sure there would be cameras outside your house if you ever shot anyone as a private citizen.

    • How about a rail mounted light and camera unit that records when the gun is drawn. It would see where the gun is pointed at and largely from the perspective of the officer, and not from a dash cam that might be facing just the wrong way.

      They could be set to save any video that includes the gun firing plus the 30 seconds prior, inaccessible to the officers themselves.

  11. It doesn’t matter who does the investigation. You’ll never please these people.

    They will always find a way to accuse the watchers of being in league with the watched. It’s not about the truth. It’s about advancing an agenda.

    “What do you do when the assassins accuse the assassin?”

    • So the producers (taxpayers) who pay cops (parasites) which produce nothing, should not control and remove the parasites from the body politic? Okay then, let’s just all give up and not even try to obtain justice by legal means. I hope you don’t carry such a negative mentality into a gunfight, you’re going to lose.

      So many he-men around here who turn into screaming fairies at the sight of a badge. Or maybe it’s the blue uniform. Have you seen the foldout spread “Officers in the Raw?” It may interest you.

  12. “What part of ‘drop the gun’ is so hard to understand, especially after it’s shouted at you A DOZEN TIMES!”

    They finally released the audio?
    Or Mark is assuming facts not in evidence?
    The silent movie I saw shows them shooting him in about ten seconds, did they really shout “drop your weapon” a dozen times during those ten seconds, as he backed away from the guys in the flak vests aiming guns at him? (I won’t call them cops, because they weren’t in uniform and I wouldn’t have assumed they were cops if I were Scott)

    • The video of him backing out of the truck was supposedly after he had exited the truck previously and then went back inside the truck. There was significant interaction before this dashcam arrived on the scene. AT least thats what I heard on a couple stations. See how easy it is to get a wrong impression when you dont wait for all the facts?

  13. Yep. Even uttering “drop the gun” doesn’t mean the perp has a gun. And how many shootings come from rookies or women ? Like in OK…

    • I’d love to see the correlation between shootings like this and the introduction of women to the general police ranks and the changing of ROE to accommodate their reduced physical capabilities.

      Since 95%+ of the media is on the Left, I can rest assured that nobody will pursue the thought.

  14. Yes, there should be external investigations.

    As for the idea that there had to be a gun because police repeatedly yelled, “Drop the gun!”, pffffttttttt … police make up stuff all the time like that. How many times have we heard of traffic stops where a cop pulls someone over for “failing to use a turn signal” (fabricated) and then says, “I smell marijuana.” (fabricated) as an excuse to “detain” someone and ransack their car? And it’s not like police have never planted evidence on someone.

    What cops say on their dash/body camera is pretty much irrelevant unless there is physical evidence and video that shows the police did not plant that physical evidence.

    • “What cops say on their dash/body camera is pretty much irrelevant unless there is physical evidence and video that shows the police did not plant that physical evidence.”

      Like a toddler trying to order a cocktail that’s an impossibly high bar.

  15. Our shootings are investigated by outside agencies having primary jurisdiction with a concurrent investigation by our own Department. That makes the most sense to me. All cases are referred to the DA’s office. I believe that police / citizens / taxpayers should all be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in self defense or alleged self defense shootings. Our last shooting was about three weeks ago. I wasn’t on duty or involved in case anyone is wondering. Also, it looks completely justified. Thank God.

    I have no interest in Social Justice Warriors or the Obama administration DOJ (but I repeat myself) evaluating shootings. Barack Hussein and Hillary Clinton have clearly laid in bed with the Black Lives Matter movement and their judgement is as sound as the rest of the Democratic Party ideologies. I wouldn’t trust either to lead a Boy Scout troop.

    I fear the idiots in the White House, Democratic Party, and the mainstream media more than I fear the criminal on the street. That’s how much the Obama Administration has “improved race relations” in our nation.

      • Our union has literally said to vote Republican nationally and Democrat locally. For the benefits. Personally, I only vote for Republicans, Indies, and the rare non-communist Democrat. For example, Sheriff Clarke out of WI was on the Democratic Party ticket – so technically he’s a Democrat unless he’s changed affiliation. In reality, he’s a right wing badass. I’ve contributed to his campaign as well as Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, etc. I don’t think I’ve given any other “Democrat” besides Clarke a single dime. Willingly, anyways.

        In general, I suppose TX and AZ police unions go for Republicans and LAPD and LASO go for Democrats, although I really don’t know. I’m so right wing that I’m surprised that I still have a job in the LA Area.

        Totally unrelated – Black Rifle Coffee Company is pretty decent, and their mugs are really cool.

  16. During the Q&A session with Keith Scott’s lawyers after the video was released I would have given someone $100 to ask…

    “Were you the lawyer for Mr. Scotts 14 previous arrests and the one involving assault with a gun?”

      • While his prior record was irrelevant during the incident, it sure is a factor when weighing the credibility of conflicting claims in the aftermath.

        • How so? The man is dead, he is not claiming anything at all.

          Moreover, what makes the cops any more trustworthy? Recall the shooting of another man named Scott, where the murderous cop lied about the entire incident from beginning to end until he was exposed by a hidden samaritan with a cameras. Cops are protected by an entirely separate set of legal conditions which makes them immune from perjury. They have no reason to be honest, other than for publicity reasons.

        • The incident is San Antonio turns out to be nearly identical to this one. Stand off, in a car, windows batoned, he fired. After pistol whipping a guy. My guess is he was on his way to his next pistol whipping when the officers saw him. Yay, irrelevant past!

        • Nice, using irrelevant record to conjure up your own hypothetical future.

          Bootlickers will stoop to any level to defend their gangster heroes. 🙂

      • How so? Cause his family made claims on his behalf that he didn’t carry guns, was a peaceful person, etc. His record is indicative that such claims are a whitewash. I’m fully aware police are known to lie, and also to tell the truth, that is why his record of violence is a “factor” when considering the totality of the evidence. Just can’t ignore it.

        • I find it amusing that you are claiming a whitewash by the victim’s relatives (whose words have zero relevance to the facts of the actual event, much like the victim’s record), even as the pigsters themselves are whitewashing everything and anything (while claiming investigative discretion).

          “totality of the evidence”

          You obviously have no idea what that term means.

  17. If anything, police should be held to a higher standard than that of the public…As it stands now, police can commit crimes with impunity because, in most situations, they investigate themselves…Behavior that would get an ordinary citizen charged, convicted and incarcerated is routinely ignored by “the powers that be” because police are considered to be “above the law” as the “law” is whatever they say it is, the Constitution be damned…
    Ever notice that police unions are “fraternal”? This should tell you something. The “thin-blue-line” is a gang, little different than street gangs–at least when it comes to “covering-up” their questionable and quite often, illegal and criminal behavior.
    In today’s day and age, “officer safety” trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the “us vs. them” attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a constant “war footing”, and by necessity, its police tactics are very different.
    There are too many instances of police being “given a pass”, even when incontrovertible video and audio evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those police officers who abuse their authority.
    Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their own brethren…When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, “stop resisting” THAT is but one reason police have a “bad name” in many instances…this makes the “good cops” who are standing around, witnessing their “brethren in blue” beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well…
    Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
    1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
    2. Eliminate both “absolute” and “qualified” immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be “bonded” by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job.
    3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen–no exceptions.
    5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers “bulk up” with the “help” of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
    6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers–NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
    7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
    8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established–a “blacklist” of abusive (former) police officers.
    9. Most people are unaware that police have special “rules” that prohibit them from being questioned for 48 hours. This allows them to “get their stories straight” and makes it easier to “cover up” bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
    10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired–no excuses. Today’s body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel “on the cloud” for public perusal.
    11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police…fair? I think not…
    12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
    Police work is not inherently dangerous…there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
    A little “Andy Taylor” could go a long way in allaying fears that citizens have of police.
    That being said, I have no problem with police officers who do their job in a fair, conscientious manner…however, it is time to call to task those police officers who only “protect and serve” themselves.

  18. There is much angst and consternation against prosecutors and grand juries who refuse to bring charges against police officers, even when incontrovertible evidence is presented. Even with incontrovertible audio and video evidence, prosecutors are loath to prosecute rogue law enforcement personnel.
    Let’s examine the reasons why it is so difficult to prosecute thug cops:
    Most prosecutors are former police officers or have extensive dealings with police departments and have ongoing relationships with police departments in their respective jurisdictions. They are friendly with the judges in their jurisdictions, as well. This, along with “absolute immunity” makes it easy for them to “cover up” police abuses and behavior. Prosecutors cannot be sued for malfeasance…it takes a judge (who prosecutors are friendly with) to bring charges on a rogue prosecutor (which almost never happens).
    In addition, prosecutors guide the actions of grand juries. Prosecutors are not required to introduce any evidence to grand juries, (can and do) easily “whitewash” the actions of rogue cops. On the other hand, prosecutors can (and often do) go after honest citizens who seek justice outside official channels…prosecutors have ultimate power and are not afraid to use it…their immunity sees to that.
    Another aspect to a grand jury’s inability to prosecute bad cops is the fear of retribution…cops drive around all day, have nothing but time, have access to various databases, and can easily get the names and addresses of grand jurors…this, in itself can be a powerful deterrent against grand jurors who “want to do the right thing” and prosecute bad cops. There are many cases of cops parking in front of grand jurors’ residences, following them around, and threaten to issue citations to them, in order to “convince” them to “make the right decision”…the “thin blue line” at its worst…
    The whole system has to change.
    Eliminate absolute and qualified immunity for all public officials. The fear of personal lawsuits would be a powerful deterrent against abuses of the public.
    Any funds disbursed to civilians as a result of official misconduct must be taken from the police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    Grand juries must be superior to the prosecutor; ALL evidence must be presented to grand jurors. Failure to do so must be considered a felony and subject prosecutors to prosecution themselves.
    No police agency can be allowed to investigate itself. Internal affairs departments must be restricted to minor in-house investigations of behavior between cops. All investigations must be handled by outside agencies, preferably at the state level.
    Civilian police review boards must be free of police influence. Members of civilian review boards must have NO ties to police departments. Relatives of police would be prohibited from serving…Recently, the “supreme court” threw police another “bone”. The court ruled that police are not responsible for their actions if they are “ignorant of the law”…now, let’s get this straight–honest citizens cannot use “ignorance of the law” as an excuse, but cops can??
    Revolution is sorely needed…..non-violent, of course…

  19. Yes, I’d support an independent group having a role in investigating police shootings – if, and only if, the members of that group actually know their ass from a hot rock.

    I would not support a commission/group of political know-nothing appointees, racially-motivated grievance mongers spouting their twaddle into these issues, nor a bunch of left-wing, broom-riding harridans using the spotlight to shriek and shout their way into political office.

    • “– if, and only if, the members of that group actually know their ass from a hot rock.”

      Yeah, there’s the ‘crux of the biscuit’, so to say, you need someone competent.

      Who competent would want to put up with the crap that position calls for?

      Until very recently, I would have suggested the FBI. We’ve seen the corruption they are associated with now. *Particularly* this administration.

      The USA is in worse shape than I believed. There is no impartial justice to be had…

    • Amen to that, sir.

      I’d add: someone who has actually been punched in the face, or has some sort of combat / fighting experience without a referee. Fights just don’t look good. Neither does dealing with a suspect who doesn’t want to show his hands, get out of a car, or otherwise cooperate with legitimate orders. I have no problem with police accountability. In fact, I am officially part of that process. I just need that accountability to be reasonable, just like the actions of the officers I’m supervising.

      • Someone who has been in a physical fight, taken unarmed combat training, has knowledge of firearms and edged weapon combat, etc – all come under the qualification of “know their ass from a hot rock.” I fully agree that the people on a review board/commission need to have a real understanding of what is going on in these situations.

  20. Here are “police” practices that deserve to be exposed:

    #1. During a traffic stop, the police officer will touch the back of your car. The reason for this “touch” is that, quite often, the police officer will have a small quantity of narcotics (marijuana or cocaine) on him (in his hand) that he will rub on the car in order to help “justify a search”. When the dog is brought in, it will react to “cues” from its handler as well as the drug residue on the vehicle and help “justify a search”. This tactic is mostly used against young people. Drugs can also be “planted” on a “suspect”.
    The “touch” used to be a way for police officers to “prove” that they had an interaction with a citizen, but no more . . .

    #2. Most (if not all) cops possess a “throwdown” weapon. This “helper” is obtained from a criminal who is then “let go” without his weapon and is always used to justify a questionable police situation and to “sanitize” a “crime scene to absolve police on the scene of criminal police behavior.

    #3. If you are in the back of a police car, LIE DOWN on the seat. Police use the concept of “screening” to abuse their unwilling “passenger”. This involves, driving at high rates of speed, violent turns and other antics to get the passenger to “hit the screen” separating the front from the back with his face. Hence the act of “screening”.

    #4. If you are being handcuffed, quite often the police officer will wrench you arm behind you, forcing you to “turn around”. Another “trick” is a foot to the instep, forcing the individual to involuntarily “pull away”. The officer will then add a charge of “assault” to whatever other charges they concoct against you (just for being forced to turn around). They “pile on” charges, hoping you will plead guilty to at least one.

    Remember–NEVER CONSENT TO SEARCH . . . You must be polite, but firm in your refusal. You can state that “you NEVER consent to searches” as well as using these “magic” words–“am I free to go?” The police officer MUST answer your question . . . If you are being detained and an illegal search takes place, you have legal recourse.

    Remember–police are not your friends . . .

    That being said, not all “law enforcement” is criminal, but the “thin blue line” that they so jealously guard (and “look the other way” when rogue cops abuse their authority) does much to taint ALL “law enforcement” with having ulterior motives.

    • “#1. During a traffic stop, the police officer will touch the back of your car. The reason for this “touch” is that, quite often, the police officer will have a small quantity of narcotics (marijuana or cocaine) on him (in his hand) that he will rub on the car in order to help “justify a search”.”

      This is absolute bullshit.

      You should very definitely stop listening to whoever told you this.

      There is a very good reason cops touch the car at traffic stops. What you described ain’t it. At all. No way, no how.

      • “This is absolute bullshit.”
        – Citation, please.

        You should very definitely stop listening to whoever told you this.
        – Why?

        There is a very good reason cops touch the car at traffic stops. What you described ain’t it. At all. No way, no how.
        – And the reason is?
        – – Citation please.

        • I’m not going to provide you citations but the claim is, on it’s face, bullshit.

          Cops touch the car so that if it all goes sideways they’ve left a fingerprint/maybe DNA on the vehicle that can be used to identify the vehicle if the stop goes sideways. Now if you find the person later on it’s nearly impossible to claim you have the right make/model but the wrong actual car. Can they remove this? Yes. Will they? Highly unlikely since most people don’t know their ass from their elbow.

          Also, merely having marijuana or cocaine in your hand and touching it to the car would certainly leave a trace that a dog could find but it would be impossible to pull off because your hand would smell like the substance far more strongly than the car would so the dog would alert on the cop as well as the vehicle.

        • A drug dog will not react to its handler in the same way as being given a command by its handler…so-called “drug dogs” are not infallible and are DO react on cues from their handlers. You see, if they react on cues from its handler, even when no drugs are present, they are still rewarded by their handlers. Drug dogs have been used to justify unconstitutional searches. What happens if a drug dog “alerts” yet nothing is found? It happens all the time…
          Here is an instance of a so-called detection dog being proven to act on cues from its handler:

          A firefighter from a certain midwestern community claimed to have a “arson dog”–one that could detect accelerants.
          This “firefighter” and his dog were instrumental in ruining many peoples’ lives by his testimony alone.
          Insurance companies LOVED this guy as he was able to get them out of paying (valid) claims. People were denied valid insurance claims and prosecuted for arson on the testimony of this “arson dog’s” handler.
          Those who were “burned” by this supposed arson dog’s “handler” had no recourse, because of “qualified immunity”. The firefighter (and fire department) could not be sued.
          Finally one citizen who had been accused of arson fought back by suing to prove the “arson dog’s” ability. The dog was found to have NO special ability. It was proven that the dog was acting on cues from its corrupt handler…The “arson dog” and his human master’s career was finally over. How many innocent people were convicted of arson and lost everything they owned?? Of course, this corrupt public official was allowed to retire with full pay…no punishment for his criminal behavior “under color of authority”…

          Drug dogs are an excuse for unconstitutional searches…

        • Got that part…theoretically. But if there is no published procedure/policy to cite, how do we know DNA is the reason. And what assurance do we have that police would/have never fudged the evidence?

        • There are two main reasons.

          1. To physically ensure that the trunk / tailgate is closed. The DC snipers aren’t the only criminals who have launched attacks from the trunk / tailgate area.

          2. To place a finger print on the vehicle for potential future forensic use. License plates are easily changed.

          Nice conspiracy theories, though.

        • FWIW multiple oinksters have been caught bribing K9 trainers to provide false certifications, and having them teach the dogs to react to hand signals. That is why drug dogs average below 50% accuracy rates.

          Apparently that is good enough for the Supreme Court to rule that dogs can provide cause for a coerced search.

        • Where are the citations for your claims? They are more outlandish than the claims you are requesting citations for.

        • I made no claims, at all; asked for something more than blatant claims. When you (collective ‘you’) throw the BS flag, be prepared to back it up. Stating someone does not know something, then leaving out the correct information is the same as the statement which generated the BS flag.

    • You seem to know quite a lot about police work. Did you read the book “Everything I Know About Law Enforcement” by everyone on the internet?

      • You and the three previous posters who have taken issue with my statements are either cops or copsuckers. Let’s face it, most cops are honest and want to make it through their shifts. They deserve that much. However, when the “good” cops stand around and watch the abuses of the citizenry by their “brethren in blue” taking place, and DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, and help them fabricate a good “story”, that implicates them as well.
        Lethal force is used in far too many situations…
        I stand by my statements…

    • We don’t like it when the lefties use terms like “quite often” and “most (if not all)” – e.g. “quite often gun owners belong to the KKK” or “most (if not all) gun owners have single digit IQ’s”. We know that such statements are nonsense. When the same “quite often” and “most (if not all)” generalizations are used in reference to any group of people or any profession they’re simply not true.

      Most people on TTAG know that I’ve served as a law enforcement officer for 25 years. I’m a member of a sheriffs department in Oklahoma and I am a reserve officer so in many people’s viewpoint I’m not a “real big city cop.” I have a full time job and I have put in thousands of hours over the years for free to contribute to betterment of my community. I’ve served at numerous disasters, provided security for public events, and hauled a few people off to jail who richly deserved it.

      I will state in a public forum that I have never done any of the things that you accuse “most (if not all)” law enforcement officers of doing “quite often”. I have never planted evidence on anyone. I do touch vehicles, but – and here’s the big magic secret that I was taught – we were taught to do so to check if the trunk is open and to leave our fingerprints on the vehicle. In the days before dash cams a set of your prints on a car might tie you to a vehicle if you’re found dead in a ditch somewhere.

      I’ve never carried a throw down gun. I’ve never known anybody who carried one. I do carry a backup LCP .380 but that pistol is on record at the department and I shoot a qualification round with it every year.

      I have fired officers who I perceived were trouble waiting to happen. These were other reserves who were under my supervision. All deputies in Oklahoma serve “at the pleasure of the sheriff” and can be let go for about any reason. Are people in my department – even full time ones – fired? Yes. Unfortunately they may not be fired as quickly as some people would like, but over 25 years I’ve seen the bad ones and the stupid, incompetent and lazy ones go. Do they get jobs with other agencies? Sometimes but the word gets around at least locally.

      So yeah I am a cop. You might feel that I shouldn’t defend law enforcement from my personal perspective but its somehow okay for others to make broad accusations from their experiences.

      I don’t do bad stuff and I’ve done everything in my ability to keep other people in my unit from doing bad stuff. I get a bit put out when I hear people make generalizations and use words like “all” and “every” because those words simply ain’t true. And no matter what I’ll put on my gear and do what I can the next time a tornado blows through town or some bad guy breaks out of jail.

      • Thank you for your service, sir. There are a lot of people who dispense Use of Force and tactical advice without any experience. Some of the commentors on TTAG do that as well. I figure it’s not worth it to take it personally. I get a paycheck, and that’s good enough for me. Actually a paycheck and an LE discount on guns and ammo, so I’m pretty excited about that. So if what I do isn’t appreciated, that’s just fine. I don’t get upset (unless perhaps I’m already upset from something that happened at work and / or I’ve been drinking a lot).

        Think of some of the most screwed up people you’ve ever worked with, and some of the people here may have had contacts with them. I’ve had some contacts with messed up police officers and found it truly disturbing. Some cops really suck at shooting – like most of the NYPD. And there are some very tidy police departments that do a pretty good job and shoot well – like in Texas. I greatly appreciate the Brea, CA PD and have helped them catch criminals and thieves. I’ve bought a few of their guys overpriced coffee at Starbucks as well.

        • “So if what I do isn’t appreciated, that’s just fine. I don’t get upset”

          If what you say is true, sir, you are due mucho respect for your attitude.

      • Your personal anecdotes might hold more weight if bad cops aren’t defended every day with the claim that they followed official procedure, which is indicative of a systemic issue.

        The failure of personal anecdotes is that most of the bad cops aren’t going around bragging about their misdeeds, so your anecdotes prove nothing against the rich evidence of systemic malfeasance by this nation’s badged gangsters.

        • It sounds like you’ve had some really bad experiences with police. By your general tone and attitude, I wonder how much of that was due to “operator error.”

        • Are you saying cops are so thin-skinned that they will react violently to words and criticisms? Thanks for proving my point. 🙂

        • More Dead,

          I’m not thin skinned, sir. I’m just recognizing that you are resolutely stuck on the anti-cop theme, and I’m curious as to why. The real reason, and not necessarily your stated reasons.

        • Heh. The thickness of your skin is not the issue here. Your suggestion that my criticisms of police is the result of my “attitude” causing cops to treat me poorly means these hypothetical cops are thin-skinned. Pigsters drone on endlessly about being professionals, and yet you, a cop, just admitted that cops will mistreat people who demonstrate contempt of cop. Nice.

          You ask for the “real reason”. There are dozens of reasons listed by multiple people in this thread alone detailing legitimate criticisms of today’s police and their methods, but instead of addressing them, you and every other cop simply attribute the criticism to the undesirables. Is this “only criminals criticize cops” line of thinking due to thin skin or thick skulls? I say it is both, plus it is a completely transparent defense mechanism against one’s own faults.

        • “I figure it’s not worth it to take it personally.”
          So don’t take it personally. You seem disturbed by More Dead Soldiers comments, and you are exhibiting a need to control and talk down to him. This is typical cop behavior.

          “I get a paycheck, and that’s good enough for me.”
          So then what are you complaining about? Every crumb on your table is a piece of bread taken from the life and labor of the producers in this society. Cops produce nothing, they only provide a necessary service, but so do garbagemen and the guy who siphons out my septic tank.

          “Actually a paycheck and an LE discount on guns and ammo, so I’m pretty excited about that.” Every cop I’ve ever known is a mooch with his hand out. My buddy went to the same Dunkin Donuts almost every day for ten years to get his coffee and got to know the owner quite well. The owner gave the local cop free coffee ONCE, and the next week he showed up with three more cops! My friends’ impression alone of the East Indian owner with his accent kicking the coppers out of his shop had us both in stitches. I only wish I could have been there to see it in person to have a laugh.

          “So if what I do isn’t appreciated, that’s just fine.” Wahhh, everyone doesn’t love me, wahhh. Please. Eighteen year old guys are doing tours in Afghanistan and sleeping in foxholes, but your job is sooo hard. That lifetime health care and all is hard to take. Police work is no longer in the U.S. Labor Dept. top ten list for injuries or death. Fishermen, lumberjacks, and farmers have more fatalities in their line of work, and you don’t hear them whining about it all the time either.

          “I don’t get upset (unless perhaps I’m already upset from something that happened at work and / or I’ve been drinking a lot).”
          Police recruits as a group have vastly higher rates of alcoholism, drug use, spouse abuse, and suicide than the general population from the same age group. Cops are generally not the best and the brightest in society.

          “It sounds like you’ve had some really bad experiences with police.”
          I care about you and I’m your friend. Now just tell me what really happened here tonight with your wife/roommate/guy you just shot, and we’ll see if we can work this out (if I can find a way to charge you with a crime and slap the cuffs on.)

          “By your general tone and attitude…”
          Yes, “attitude” the favorite word of every cop and fifth grade teacher too. Translation: you’re the problem, I’m the good guy and you’re giving me a hard time by not letting me control you.

          “I wonder how much of that was due to “operator error.”
          In other words, it’s all your fault, or, “I’m sorry you feel that way” the ultimate bullshit reverse psychology rap. Well give the man credit for throwing in almost every one of the entire “poor me” cop self pity rap pointer list in one comment.

        • Demo and More Dead,

          Nope, you can relax, I’m not “trying to control you” via the internet. I’m just wondering what you guys are about, and making an effort to tell it like it is. If you think all police are bad, you’re just simply not as intelligent as you think you are. I’m not insulting or attacking your personally. There’s no need. I’ve met people with your attitude on the side of the road on a pretty regular basis. It’s worked out just fine for me, since I record my stops religiously precisely because of the “all police are bad / pigs / etc.” schtick that people like you have.

          Still, a few points. If police are civilians, then the 2nd Amendment applies to them. Secondly, I’m curious if you’ve ever encountered a police officer who has helped someone on the side of the road, tracked down a hit and run driver, arrested the suspect with a murder warrant, caught the guy who’s blown the red light, arrested the carjacker, tracked down the vehicular homicide suspects, apprehended stabbing suspects, etc. And done a good job in doing so. I’ve done all those things. If you don’t think that that happens, then nothing I say or do will change your mind, so I won’t bother.

          I’ve convinced judges, juries, and (most) of the general public, and their opinions are a lot more important than yours. More reasonable, too.

        • I’m afraid that simply doing your job properly (and others like you doing so, as well) does not counter-balance the damage done by the bad cops (and you know who they are in your precinct/squad room) who are not culled from the department. The power exercised by “public servants” (who are mostly self-serving) who are armed is too important for the public to tolerate any, any malfeasance. Police, like any organization, earn their reputation. Allow criminals with badges to flourish and you cannot demand the citizenry respect the uniform, the badge, the cop. How are we to know which cop is out of control, and which is not? “Trust me” doesn’t work.

        • “It’s worked out just fine for me, since I record my stops religiously precisely because of the “all police are bad / pigs / etc.” schtick that people like you have.”

          Cute, you are actually implying that somehow your victim is the danger, even though every imbalance of power in these scenarios rests in your favor. Naturally these encounters worked out fine for you, because any sort of resistance on their end will be met with lethal force, then said application of force is in turn backed by the full power of the state in the form of privileged laws for police.

          Remember, you didn’t convince judge and jury, the law is written to provide the police with special legal privileges and all the benefit of the doubt.

          “If you think all police are bad, you’re just simply not as intelligent as you think you are.”

          Are you smart enough to figure out what a strawman is? Or to respond to the whole host of criticisms against modern policing practices? Obviously not.

          “If you don’t think that that happens, then nothing I say or do will change your mind, so I won’t bother.”

          OK you answered the strawman issue yourself. But seriously, do you honestly believe that your supposed good deeds make up for the criminality practiced by your cohorts, often as a matter of official policy? No wonder cops don’t change, they actually believe their own BS.

        • More Dead,

          You seriously think every use of force will result in a lethal encounter? I give up. There’s no point in discussing with you further. My last Use of Force was just control holds and a Taser deployment.

          You remind me of the last ride along / police applicant we had at our office. He was formerly a security guard for Securitas, and then he got let go for an unspecified reason. So he subsequently became an Uber driver. Well, the 23 year old had a serious attitude issue. He was all about dispensing advice about police tactics, despite never serving. He had a Marine Corps tattoo, but never served in the Corps, either. The officer I assigned him to ride with brought him back to our office early since he wouldn’t stop talking when our officer needed to listen to radio calls from dispatch. I tried to counsel the rider about the issue, but he just couldn’t seem to take any advice. So I escorted him out of the office, and sent out notice so that he is not welcome back. He’s still very much alive, although his professional success given his attitude is highly unlikely.

          Best of luck to you, sir.

        • “You seriously think every use of force will result in a lethal encounter?”

          No, but we would be unnecessarily risking our lives if we were not 100% wary of every encounter with a cop.

        • Relax, I’m not wasting my time giving cops advice. I prefer simply to point out the criminality for the world to see. 🙂

          “You seriously think every use of force will result in a lethal encounter?”

          More strawmen. Since you automatically dismiss all criticisms of police, here’s a tip: one of the big complaints against today’s police is that the use-of-force continuum is either completely dead or highly skewed towards force and against de-escalation. The state has, without exception, indulged the discretion of police to escalate force as they see fit, as demonstrated by the lack of tracking on police shootings, and the fact that the police are allowed to investigate themselves.

          Here is another tip: try responding to rebuttals instead of using logical fallacies like strawmen and appeal to authority (yes, I know cops love the authority). Let’s hear you make one coherent argument against the fact that police-civilian encounters are an example of massive power disparity in favor of the police so all your BS about the “pigs schtick” is just the usual officer safety fanaticism (and by extension, total contempt for civilian safety).

  21. In truth, most police departments are not resourced to investigate use of force. For a good summary of this, refer to the excellent book by Kevin R. Davis – “Use of Force Investigations: A Manual for Law Enforcement” https://www.amazon.com/Use-Force-Investigations-Manual-Enforcement/dp/1470500124

    Reading this will give you a more balanced perspective into the issues faced by the cop on the street. As mentioned above, internal investigations is usually not competent to attend to these reviews, but not for reasons of “covering up”.

    Despite our feelings about unions, the individual cop is easily hung out to dry but for the local FOP.

  22. Go for the whole enchilada; independent, national police. Maybe UN?

    Can’t trust any local government to objectively rule on any police enforcement action? Convert ’em to feds. It worked well when airline private security was federalized into the TSA. Let’s just get it over with: states become simple precincts of the central government (like France, and all). We can call the former states “cantons”, “parishes”, “counties”, “duchys”, “land holdings”, or pick something even more humorous.

  23. In NC all police shooting cases are investigated by the NC State Bureau of Investigation (SBI). It doesn’t seem to have mattered much in the Charlotte case, does it? People still think the police are covering it up.

  24. Hint for black guys (and anyone else) – stop walking/driving around with freaking pot in your pockets/vehicle/system. How freaking stupid are you? You a pothead? Growup.

    • People on uppers such as meth often can’t stand still. I don’t know how the toxicology on this one will play out – and I’m sure that nobody on either side will believe it anyway.

    • You have to laugh at the bootlicker’s definition of maturity: use and/or possession of government-approved chemicals and plants. Because the government totally got it right when they hijacked the study of drugs from medical professionals and started a politicized drug war.

      Drug warriors: holier-than-thou hypocrites, and also historical ignoramuses.

  25. Well unless he was pointing a gun in a threatening manner, “drop the gun” isn’t justification. Also what if he’s not holding a gun? What if it’s a drill or a sandwich or whatever the cop thinks looks like a weapon? “Drop the gun” might just confuse somebody. Especially if they are drunk , deaf, handicapped (mentally ) or just don’t speak the language the police are speaking.

    The guy in NC was a felon and from what I’ve seen my guess is that he was looking for a fight and got one. But many shooting (Tulsa) have been becuse cops made bad calls. And often they get away with this. We need reforms in training. And yes we need to put public safety BEFORE police safety by statute. Any cop not willing to do that can quit. Most are fine with it. We’ll be better off without the few that aren’t.

    • Why do police have “acting in good faith” exceptions that are forbidden joey baggadonuts? It would be entertaining to watch law enforcement squirm, complain and whine if they were held to the same standards as a private citizen, regarding injury, property damage and death.

  26. Here’s a hint for all you SJW’s. Calling someone who disagrees with you a “bootlicker’ or “copsucker” has about as much impact as hillary saying a gun is a penis substitute.

    If that’s the best you have your argument and you aren’t going to be taken seriously.

    • Calling someone who disagrees with you a “SJW” or “Liberal” has about as much impact as hillary saying a gun is a penis substitute.

      I hate all cops and with they would all be disarmed. There are no good cops, no not one. And I am far right and could give less than a damn about some snowflake’s feelings.

      • You’re not far right. You’re a nut job that with one breath proclaims we should disarm cops and with the other that we should seal our borders and deport anyone that wasn’t born here prior to, was it 1964?

        You’ve never explained how unarmed cops were supposed to seal our borders and deport American citizens.

        Taking you seriously would be an act of stupidity.

      • I believe you when you say that you hate all cops. When you say “there are no good cops,” I simply say: citation needed. I’m starting to think you’re so angry because you tried to join a department and got turned down.

  27. There should be some outside involvement in shooting incident investigation but please leave the public out of it. I’m sure I don’t have to explain to TTAG readers the overwhelming ignorance of the general public when it comes to guns. We all know what kind of “non-partial” civilians would be added to shooting boards, just look at NYC for examples. I know what these boards are like. My brother-in-law shot and killed three armed robbers attempting to hold up a bar in the North Bronx. His shooting board questioned why he didn’t “shoot to wound” when facing three armed men armed with a Smith 642. What idiocy! After eight months on “limited duty” he finally got his shield and gun back. Don’t advocate this “solution”, it only makes the cops’ job more difficult and dangerous than it already is.

    • Cops are civilians and they are already very partial to their thin blue line. I don’t care if a cop’s job is dangerous and difficult, good it should be. If they don’t like it , they are more than welcome to quit living off the sweat of my brow and find honest work.

      • Most of the commenters here have never been in the military so they have no understanding of the legal fact that a civilian is a U.S. citizen who is not in the military, period. They use terms like “civilians” as opposed to police because they pick it up on gun sites like this one.

        They secretly like the police background checks and privacy waivers associated with most state’s concealed carry laws, because the point is to join a group and be a junior policeman, not a free man.

        They look forward to Duty to Inform because they hope that they will be given a pass on a traffic ticket. It’s an immature and ignorant worldview that makes them feel like they are part of an in-group, sort of the way a biker gang has infantile rituals and symbols proclaiming them against the system, but basically being fascist in nature.

        • “They look forward to Duty to Inform because they hope that they will be given a pass on a traffic ticket.”

          This. So much this.

        • I guess I must be an exception to your rule. Texas doesn’t have a duty to inform law. If/when I’m pulled over I do inform the officer that I am armed, not because it’s required, because it’s courteous. I also turn off the vehicle, roll down all my windows (even when it’s 104 with 90% humidity), turn on the dome light (if at night), and keep my hands at 10 and 2. You can’t really call me out for saying sir because it’s just part of my upbringing. Everyone gets sir and ma’am. The point i’m trying to make is that I do these things because they’re proper protocol and gives me the best odds of having a safe, professional encounter.

          To date this approach has worked flawlessly. Even when my buddy and I were mistaken for armed car thieves. We were given the felony stop, told to lay on the ground with arms out wide while the Stafford PD held us at gun point with MP5s. It was at night, we came up on the car thieves, surprising them and us at the same time. The thieves reaction was to shoot at us (4 to 8 hots) then turn and run. We didn’t engage, we called the police. We were still on the phone with the dispatcher when Stafford PD rolled up and performed the felony stop. We listened, we complied and when they determined who we were they picked us up and dusted us off. It was that simple. Little scary, not gonna lie but we did what they asked and everything turned out fine.

        • ” Little scary, not gonna lie but we did what they asked and everything turned out fine.”

          That’s just racist. Your white supremacist privilege background makes it just so easy to follow instructions, and avoid trouble with police. Other cultures do not have that advantage. Your ready compliance with law enforcement demands perpetuates the unfair society that expects, no demands, minorities act respectfully when they know full well they are targeted for being criminals from a minority culture, rather thank getting the benefit of the doubt about their crimes (background and environment rule everything). White boys don’t get shot as often by police because they know that respect and politeness will get them a pass, or at least better treatment that those minorities who are fed-up with “the system”.

          And that’s the way it is; 26 September 2016

        • Not sure if sarcasm so I’ll treat your reply as genuine.

          Then how do you explain that my buddy that was with me at the time is as black as a struck match? We were treated exactly the same. Well actually after the officers ascertained that we were not the perps they got him up first then me 2 seconds later.

          Those bastard racists cops!!! How dare they let the black man up before me!!! As stupid as this comment is, this is how you sound to me. You made a gross assumption about a situation you know nothing about. Look I get it, you want to see racism everywhere so you do.

          I’m not saying racism doesn’t exist. I’m not saying corruption doesn’t exist. They will always exist as they are part of human nature. Show me a profession with neither.

        • Well, as long as we’re talking about racism in law enforcement…yes, it exists. Very much. It even exists between themselves. During the Dallas, TX officer-involved shootings protest where a sniper was shooting at cops and others, two black Dallas officers were interviewed on the radio at length as they were leaving their shift for the night. They talked about the rampant racism in the Dallas PD, and that most people don’t know that they actually have three police unions: one for whites, one for blacks, and one for Hispanics. They talked about the infighting between the races there. They also talked about the low pay and that they could make more money if they left to work at one of the suburb PDs, but they didn’t because the racism was even worse in those PDs than in the Dallas PD.

        • Funny how the standard for a professional encounter is “I was ordered at gunpoint to lie face-down on the ground and the cops didn’t kill me”.

          Land of the free 🙂

        • Well since you’re so smart, how should the officers have responded to a shots fired call? With flowers and hugs?

          We were still on the phone with the dispatcher and hadn’t even had time to give a description of ourselves or the thieves when the first unit arrived. We were on the ground for all of a minute. I’m not in law enforcement and a white collar worker, I didn’t have a problem with how it was handled. So how should they have handled it?

        • “I didn’t have a problem with how it was handled”

          Then it is your own fault for having zero self-respect and abasing yourself before government gangsters because they might let you be in their in-group.

          Treating everyone they encounter as a threat with guns drawn is the root cause of many problems in contemporary policing. Police firearm handling is atrocious (observe the case of Daniel Shaver), I bet you will change your mind when one of those cops accidentally pops you in the ass then walks by saying he ‘perceived a threat’.

        • I notice you didn’t answer the question of how it should have been done. Intellect too small? Surely one as smart as thee has all the answers. Please enlighten us, if nothing more than for our amusement.

        • Let me provide an answer:
          – Police must, that is must, be assured of safely completing a watch, and arriving home unscathed (under no circumstances should police tolerate any condition that may pose serious bodily harm or death.

          – – Every time police encounter a citizen with intent to officially question (as opposed to merely asking a citizen which beer is the best), the officer(s) should command the suspect (if cops are not asking you about beer, you are a suspect being detained; you may not leave of your own accord) to lie on the ground, legs crossed, hands on back of head, face turned toward the officer. Non-compliance should result in whatever physical force will ensure compliance, or neutralize the suspect. After questioning the suspect will remain grounded until the officer and his/her car is out of sight. Should the suspect fail to comply with this last command, suspect will be afforded the opportunity for remedial education – on the spot.

        • Can you not read? What they should do is not point their guns at everyone they encounter without assessing the situation. Obviously, simply talking to you in person or via a bullhorn is not inclusive enough for you, you’d rather have them plant their boot on your face.

          Please sir, may I have another. 🙂

        • Sorry, I’m real slow. I not nearly as s-s-smart as you. I finally got it though. You’re solution is for the police responding to multiple shots fired, at night, in a not so well lit area, is to simply walk up to the two large men wearing coats and say “howdy, we heard there were some gun shots around here. Y’all know anything about it.” You’re right, that makes perfect sense. Why didn’t we all just think about that before.

          I’m hoping you’ll lead by example. Join your local PD and show us all how it’s done.

          I saw a movie once, and there was a great quote that fits this very moment. “Stupid is as stupid does”. You just keep on trucking…

          LMFAO

        • “is to simply walk up to the two large men”

          Still can’t read I see. Do you know what a bullhorn is? All the pig cars have them.

          Just because you’re a masochist who enjoys being abused, doesn’t mean everyone else is just as depraved as you are.

          “Join your local PD and show us all how it’s done.”

          That’s like saying one has to be a murderer to criticize murder. Epic logic. 🙂

        • LOL ok so your new approach is to drive up to us (5 yards?) sit in the car and use the bull horn. Let’s say that instead of being the innocent bystanders, we were the armed thieves. We know you’re sitting in the drivers seat and that it’s more difficult to draw your firearm while sitting in the car. Definitely gives me the opportunity to think “I bet we can take him”. I’m no super delta ranger special forces seal operator or anything but that just doesn’t sound smart to me.

          What’s your next reply? You’ll probably infer that I’m mentally challenged yet again and what you meant was to stop 100 yards away and use the bullhorn. Well in that case we just run. We have a nice 100 yard start. Yay us!

          At least you’re entertaining. A get a little sense of glee every time the notification of a new comment goes off.

        • “Join your local PD and show us all how it’s done.

          That’s like saying one has to be a murderer to criticize murder. Epic logic. 🙂”

          The point was twofold. If you know how to do it better you should join the PD and show everyone the better way (lead by example). The second more subtle point was “you have no idea what you’re talking about”. Which you have made abundantly clear.

        • You have no point, the “walk a mile in their shoes” argument is a basic logical fallacy that anyone with a middle school education should know to avoid. No wonder the courts ruled that police can refuse to hire persons with high IQ.

          That said, it is as if you actually believe you picked up policing pointers by eating concrete at police gunpoint. Bootlickers love vicarious abuse. 🙂

        • And you offer no solutions. You whine like a mule but won’t help in any capacity. So here we sit, me laughing and you bitching like a cat in heat.

        • If you can see past your masochistic fetish, you would see that solutions were offered (i.e. don’t threat everyone they run into as a threat with guns drawn). Alas you dismiss this solution because that would take away the abuse you crave.

        • LMAO I love the personal attacks, it lets me know I’m getting to you. Your solution is “be nicer”. That’s epic!!! OMG why didn’t we think of that. So insightful! No seriously, that really really really helps.

          Wait a sec, the police don’t already don’t this: “(i.e. don’t threat everyone they run into as a threat with guns drawn)”. I’ve been stopped numerous times for speeding (bit of a led foot) and no front license plate (looks terrible) and not once has an officer drawn their gun. In fact they were quite polite and even joked with me.

          Dude you did it!!!! You solved the problem for us!!! The police today don’t treat EVERYONE as a threat with guns drawn. Congratulations!!! You’re amazing!!! This Halloween I’m dressing up as you, my hero.

          On a completely unrelated note: Anyone know where I can get a huge vagina costume?

          Dude, you’ve been a big hit at the office today. This thread was hilarious. People I work with didn’t think nut jobs like you existed until they saw this. You made me quite the hit today so thanks. But seriously, you may want to look into some therapy.

        • Awww, the cops took your money and didn’t blow your brains out. How nice of them. 🙂

          “be nicer”

          More like, try to de-escalate and don’t use force as a first resort. But force-first is standard protocol these days. As mentioned before, there is a systemic problem at work.

          “The police today don’t treat EVERYONE as a threat with guns drawn”

          You were saying: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/video-trigger-happy-cops-tinted-windows/

        • Dude!!! Chris burned you up, Demo Man!! Keep up the good work, Chris. It is good that someone on this comment section has not bought into the liberal idiocy agenda of “police-are-evil-and-I-know-how-to-do-their-job-better.” Dummies like the one that you are responding to here are totally full of it. All they do is criticize people for “taking away their rights,” when all they are really advocating is anarchy. Anyone with any amount of common sense has to realize that in a civilized society, there must be laws; and laws exists, they must be enforced, or they are powerless. If Demo Man was in the society that he is advocating here, he would no doubt be taken out by the same kind of armed felons that he is advocating were “gunned down” by the police, as if the police have no right to protect themselves against an armed, non-compliant suspect.

          Thanks again, Chris. It is always good to see some deluded internet philosopher like Demo Man get a good grounding.

    • “Don’t advocate this “solution”, it only makes the cops’ job more difficult and dangerous than it already is.”

      OK, you opened the door on this, so I am just driving through….

      If the job is too difficult and dangerous, go elsewhere. There is no mandate that anyone accept a position in law enforcement.

  28. Maybe if I had a camera on me all the time, I would shout “drop the gun” loud and often, gun present or not. Never underestimate the possibility that the cops play to the camera too.

  29. I think that yes, there should be an outside agency that investigates police shootings, but that it should be a state agency that does the investigation. State Police, a state bureau of investigation, Etc. would be better able to provide a dispassionate, less biased investigation and help reduce that any appearance of a cover-up.

    Federal agencies should be a last resort.

  30. SC ANY discharge of your weapon even if it’s just a negligent discharge blowing the bottom of your holster out is investigated by the state, prosecutor & the department; unless it’s a 1-2 officer. Then state, county solicitor & Sheriff + usually Feds because it’s the south are up you with a microscope. WV pretty much the same but you get a grand jury appearance also for.

  31. I believe that this issue along with the many other problems that have given law enforcement a blackeye could be significantly throttled back by eliminating any immunity from liability or prosecution of officers and police agencies. When the law does not apply bequally to all, then there is no law.

  32. There should be independent objective investigators after an officer related shooting even before accusations and lies. I’m sick of hearing about legal shooting resulting in destruction of property and more unneeded violence. There has been enough killing from both sides but we also have to remember that when you point a gun at a cop your going to be shot. Why in gods name are those stupid people destroying their own neighborhoods? Wouldn’t be because they will use any excuse to break the law and terrorize good people would it? Dumbasses!

  33. Yes, there should be a non-leo based independent investigation that has teeth.

    Because, cops are allowed to and they do lie on official documents.

    http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2016/01/ex-cop_sent_to_prison_for_false_police_reports_str.html

    There’s a dash cam video related to the above where the driver clearly has his hands on the ceiling of his car and the cop is yelling, “Stop going for my gun!” all the while punching and elbowing him inside the car and outside.

    • That cop, who’s now serving five years in prison without parole, had an overlapping case of police brutality brought against him by someone else. In fact, that cop had 47 instances of official misconduct as a police officer. One wonders how someone like that remained on the police force. The answer is the other cops were like that, too, and they all lied together. In all three were fired just because of that one case.

      It’s not just one bad apple.

  34. For the last decade or so, American police departments have been trained in Israeli police tactics–not a good idea. As Israel is on a constant war-footing, their tactics are unlike what American law enforcement should be…
    I guess, that nowadays, we are all Palestinians…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *