Family declares war on off-duty cop in road rage shooting

a reply to: Shamrock6

Continued...

Immediate statement taken from officer -- and released to the public (along with video/audio)

- no. You can get your gore porn at a later time. The investigators, whomever they are, get first dibs on statements and evidence and interviews and statements.

"Gore porn" pretty much sums it up... at least for some folks. (I'm the wuss who can't watch this stuff! I can barely read it...) But it needs to be released as soon as possible. Too much is hidden from the public -- and therefore the court of public opinion -- which fosters distrust in and of itself, which is compounded by the revelations of wrongdoing that come out after the fact.

I know there is a balance of interests that must be found though. Of course investigators immediately need complete and unfettered access to all evidence and parties involved, and then that needs to be released to the public for examination -- no matter how distasteful. Perhaps a time limit? Something that would allow the gathering of evidence without public interference; then release the evidence to the public.

I don't know. What would you recommend?


-------------------------------

Immediate suspension of officer without pay pending investigation

- do you get suspended without pay at your job on the chance that you may have done something wrong? Thought not. You can take their pay when they've actually done something to merit punitive action. Even the military doesn't take your pay just because you MIGHT have done something.

Actually, I would probably just get fired. I don't have a union to back me up with specific conditions for termination. Plus, I live in a right to work state -- we can be fired at will (just as I can quit at will). I think this is true for most people, hence their disgust at the idea that while the rest of us are fired for far less reason, rogue cops get a "vacation with pay" for killing someone.

Perhaps that back pay could be paid retroactively upon being cleared? Or suspension with partial pay until cleared? And if/when cleared, retro pay to make up the difference?
--------------------------------

a reply to: Shamrock6

- the notion that agencies hire borderline cretins is a myth. Police officers come in at a slightly above average intelligence IQ score of 104. So...the average police officer already has an intelligence level slightly higher than the average. abcnews.go.com...

This one is a little problematic for me -- more than a little actually! I have no doubt that this is mostly true... for most departments... for now... but I'm also pretty darn sure that there are those who would like to make low IQs (and much lower than the average of 100) the rule, rather than the norm, for the worst reasons. And although your link cites "boredom" of higher IQ officers as their reasoning, others have reasons which create much room for abuse:

“We need officers who aren’t going to second guess the orders given to them. Multiple Harvard studies have shown that individuals with higher levels of intelligence are more prone to corruption and violence towards innocent civilians. It is simply a risk we cannot afford to bring amongst our ranks. The less our officers question the experienced commands of their superiors, the safer we are all going to be as a community.”

Law makers dropped the maximum IQ requirements a whole 30 points from an average score of 90 to 60, an IQ that is only marginally higher than that of a person with down-syndrome.

Source: Police Force In South Carolina Drastically Lowers Required Max IQ For New Officers

This is just so disturbing for so many reasons! Starting with officer safety... officers have to make split-second decisions based on their analysis of all the information at hand. Therefore, they need competent reasoning and critical thinking skills in order to competently evaluate the circumstances at hand and make competent decisions for their own sake, and their fellow LEOs' sake, as well as the public's.

But we cannot ignore the room for abuse by corrupt superiors who would knowingly and deliberately eliminate competent officers from the force to be replaced with mindless drones who will follow any order, no matter how heinous or horrendous.

ETA: I found an ATS thread that discusses the court decision:

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops

Note, this is about departments not just including lower IQs, but mandating lower IQs.

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm aware of the article about the court allowing agencies to not hire somebody because they're "too smart."

I'm also aware of how people like to twist that into "agencies look for borderline cretins to fill ranks!" as well. My point there was that across law enforcement, as an average, officers come in at an above average level of intelligence. Not that every last officer in America is above average.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm aware of the article about the court allowing agencies to not hire somebody because they're "too smart."

I'm also aware of how people like to twist that into "agencies look for borderline cretins to fill ranks!" as well.

Yes, some (many?) do -- and I didn't mean to, and I'm glad you made that point.

My point there was that across law enforcement, as an average, officers come in at an above average level of intelligence. Not that every last officer in America is above average.

Duly noted -- and worth repeating -- and keeping that way

a reply to: Boadicea

It depends on the agency. Some provide it, some don't. Some provide top shelf gear, some provide mid-range gear. There's not any real standard to it.

When I say things "cost money" it's simply a matter of budget. For example, my agency is running about ten years behind on staffing. We asked for a budget to hire around 100 new officers, which would've closed that gap to somewhere in the the three to five years behind range. And we got less than half of what we asked for. Our aviation unit has had its flight time cut significantly. I could go down a whole list of things that aren't at the level they should be, for the population size we serve. It's not just a matter of prioritizing. There's just not enough money, period, full stop.

a reply to: Boadicea

The system my agency uses works like this: the cam is activated, per policy, for any interaction with anybody that's of official nature. The camera sends the video to a box somewhere in the officer's vehicle, where its stored. The officer can't get to the data, short of taking a shotgun to the box. The data is automatically uploaded to a central server any time the vehicle goes to/near a station. Only a handful of people have access to the server.

Obviously the ability is still there for an officer to not turn it on, but there are certain instances when it's not feasible for it to be a live, continuous feed. When I visit the restroom would be one of those. That's why it's a sticky, gray area.

As for drug testing- I don't have a problem with random drug testing. Never have.

a reply to: Boadicea

As soon as possible isn't the same as immediate.

The at will thing doesn't apply really, nor is it the union. Being suspended without pay is a punitive action. Being fired is a punitive action. So if the officer that killed somebody did nothing wrong and it's a good shoot, you've just taken punitive action without cause.

Therein lies the problem with comparing a job working in a retail store (just an example) and working in law enforcement. The jobs aren't the same. At all. In any way. Saying "well I'd get fired/arrested/jailed if I shot somebody like that as a civilian!" doesn't wash because a civilian doesn't have the same responsibilities or duties as law enforcement.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I know funding is a problem for many departments -- not just yours. Not long ago a police chief was accused of "double-dipping", and there was an attempt to stop the practice, and one article I read about it highlighted the many ways our LE departments are grossly under-funded while the few suck it dry... it's despicable. I'm one of those who thinks we need to put LE and their needs first. We do what we have to do.

Perhaps this a good time to point out the stupidity of not taking care of our LEOs and inspire an attitude adjustment from the taxpayer.... especially those who scream the loudest for protecting them: Let them put their money where their mouth is. Including -- nay, especially! -- police unions.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Boadicea

As soon as possible isn't the same as immediate.

Fair enough -- important distinction.

The at will thing doesn't apply really, nor is it the union. Being suspended without pay is a punitive action. Being fired is a punitive action. So if the officer that killed somebody did nothing wrong and it's a good shoot, you've just taken punitive action without cause.

I understand that; but I also understand the opposite: If the officer that killed somebody did do something wrong and it's a bad shoot, we are paying a murderer.

I generally feel that I'd rather see 10 murderers get a "paid vacation" than to punish one good cop for just doing what he had to do, but I think some middle ground is going to have to be sought here.

Therein lies the problem with comparing a job working in a retail store (just an example) and working in law enforcement. The jobs aren't the same. At all. In any way. Saying "well I'd get fired/arrested/jailed if I shot somebody like that as a civilian!" doesn't wash because a civilian doesn't have the same responsibilities or duties as law enforcement.

Not exactly the same, but similar in many ways. Not necessarily the same responsibilities, but the same risks and rights. Someone working in a retail store is also subject to bad guys -- robbers, including armed robbers -- threatening their lives. They also have a right to protect and defend their lives.

If a store employee notices a "suspicious" person in the store and approaches that person and that person reaches for "something," does that employee enjoy the same right to shoot first and ask questions later because they were afraid that person was reaching for a gun? (I really don't know -- I'm sincerely asking)

a reply to: Boadicea

To be blunt, not if they want to keep their job. The media is full of stories of employees that have been fired for reacting to a violent crime while on the clock. Yes, of course you have the inherent right to defend yourself. But neither your employer nor the state has given you legal authority, much less responsibility, to do anything to stop a robbery in progress. And that's the difference I'm referring to.

Say you're a grocery store checkout clerk. Man comes in and says I have a gun, open your register and give me all the money, don't scream. You don't see a gun, but his hand is in his pocket. Depending on how your state laws are written, you probably have the right to respond with lethal force. You also have the right to do exactly what the robber has told you to do. And that's what the grocery store wants you to do, and anything other than that results in your loss of employment. Now flip that to an officer is in the next line and hears what the robber says. He doesn't have the right to take no action. He's in fact required to take action. And he would be completely justified in shooting.

That's the kind of difference I'm referring to. Yes, you have the right to defend yourself. Or cooperate and roll the dice. But option two isn't there for the officer.

As for the paid vacation thing: keep in mind that there's the whole back end liability issue. If what is widely recognized to be punitive action is taken after every use of deadly force encounter, it won't be long till lawsuits start getting filed. And likely won. I'm not a very big fan of the overly litigious society we have but if I got suspended without pay for something that turned out to be wholly and completely justified, I'd sure as hell consider a lawsuit.

That's not to say that I don't understand the appearance it gives. I do. I just don't think it's as simple as "suspend him without pay and everybody will be okay with it."

a reply to: Shamrock6

That's the kind of difference I'm referring to. Yes, you have the right to defend yourself. Or cooperate and roll the dice. But option two isn't there for the officer.

Gotcha -- now. You're right, that is a big difference. And no, I hadn't even thought of it in that sense before.

Okay. Suspension with pay.

From the ACLU:

A Model Act for Regulating the Use of Wearable Body Cameras by Law Enforcement

And a discussion of the principal issues raised by police body cameras:

Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win For All

(Thanks to Lucidity's thread for these links: N.C. governor signs bill restricting release of police video footage)