** Calling On All Law Enforcement Agencies in the US **
As a 19 year career cop, I cannot remember a time when the mainstream news media has not misrepresented law enforcement interactions, especially when use of force was involved. Over the years, that misrepresentation has morphed from slightly misleading to intentionally inflammatory.
That sometimes accidental, often times intentional, misreporting of the incidents has done MUCH to fuel the anti-cop sentiment that is overflowing in some segments of our society.
It is my opinion that the intentional misrepresentation of the facts, especially in their reporting of law enforcement officer’s use of dead force, or alleged instances of police brutality, that has lead to the increase in completely unprovoked ambush attacks on us, the law enforcement officers in this country.
It is long past time for us, the Law Enforcement community across this nation, to do something to stem this tide. Just last night in Texas, Deputy Darren Goforth was ambushed and executed by a man as he stood pumping gas into his patrol car. Yet this morning, the Associated Press news story about and officer involved shooting in Las Vegas, where the suspect was armed, has a headline that reads “Las Vegas police shoot, kill man who ran from traffic stop.”
It is that sort of intentional misrepresentation of the facts that I am talking about. That right there fuels the anti-cop sentiment. That right there fuels the unstable, cop haters and drives them to ambush us.
It is time for us to STOP FEEDING the ENEMY!
I am calling on Police Chiefs and Sheriffs nationwide to officially stop providing information to news media outlets who are running those blatantly misleading news stories.
Until the media is willing to change their ways, they continue to not only to endanger us, the law enforcement officers nationwide, but they are endangering the entire country.
Please, if you are an administrator of a LE agency, please pass this on to the head of your agency. We need to start acting together to stop this irresponsible “journalism” before it gets us all killed.
-Matt
Clarification: Based on some of the comments on our Facebook page, it appears I may not have been clear in my original statement. I am not suggesting NOT talking to all the media. What I am suggesting is NOT talking the the media who intentionally edit what we tell them. We need to be selective in who we talk to.
While perusing the internet today I stumbled across a piece offered up by the Editorial Board of the Sacramento Bee (A major metropolitan newspaper). This opinion piece was offered up by the “Editorial Board” which either means they were all agreement or none of them had the spine to stand behind this piece alone.
I found the piece to be a pandering pile of crap put together by a bunch of self- aggrandizing unicorn worshiping pansies. This “Editorial Board” plays on the most recent tragedy of two reporters juxtaposed against the back drop a courtroom sentencing in Colorado. The stage is set, 3 hours after the Virginia murders a judge in Colorado sentences another murderer:
“’Get the defendant out of my courtroom,’ Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr. said in disgust as he instructed a deputy to banish the schizophrenic man from a society grown weary of gun crime.” http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article32589570.html
Did Judge Samour JR. really say society is weary of gun crime? NO, he ordered a murderer out of his courtroom but a little liberty is taken since it is an opinion piece. Rapidly the topic turns to “meaningful gun control” because as we know you never let a tragedy go to waste when you have an agenda to move. “Weary of one sided dishonest coverage about gun violence” may be a more apt statement.
The Editorial Board (E.B.) goes back to current events and describes the new celebrity as “a man who had been fired for his rage issues and urged to seek treatment, yet was able to buy a firearm legally in Virginia”—well, I might add, and in nearly every other state as well because he was not yet a criminal. Being a guy with a temper does not make you a homicidal maniac. There is not a direct correlation there, although the liberals would like you to believe there is. You cannot know if the dude blowing off steam is just losing his temper or dreaming of mass murder. Unless you are Tom Cruise and you have a pre-cog in your bathtub, then maybe. These disturbed individuals do not pop off at the drop of a hat. They plan these incidents, they obsess and detail, they write and publish…..and sometimes follow through.
For example, I had some rage issues just this morning while going to the store, and some more after reading the morning news. I have no intent to go gun anyone down, I may have a beer later. This is the same old tired argument of the chicken or the egg. Look around the world, gun control does not equate to the end of homicidal maniacs. Ask Sweden, ask Russia, and just this week ask France. People with severe mental health issues will find a way, a tool or a mechanism to do what they are going to do. China recently had a large scale knife attack, source? Someone with severe mental health issues.
The E.B. throw out numbers, “More than 8,500 people have died from gun violence this year.”…..sounds pretty scary. The current (2015) population in the United States is estimated at 320 Million people. That means that .0026% of the population has been killed by a gun. 312 of these as a result of “mass shootings” according to Shooting Tracker (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015) That is .000097% of the population. These 312 people were killed by 249 different shooters. In country of 320 million people, 249 people have killed 312 in mass shootings. The statistics used by shooting tracker appear a little loose by definition, many are shootings by “unknown” suspects and some are other sensationalized suspects. Included in these numbers are the killings related to domestic violence which have totaled 2 or more victims. Where do the other 8,188 people fall in this I guess they didn’t warrant a web site, not sensational enough.
In contrast weather related deaths in 2014 (according to National weather service numbers) were approximately 326, so far in 2015 more than 20 have died from lightening alone. Meanwhile on the highways and byways of America between January 2015 and June 2015 nearly 19,000 people have died due to accidents (newsweek.com) .0059% and yet cars are safer and more regulated that ever.
How about this tidbit…..nearly all of this gun crime (short of the legal guns used by some of the more famous shooters) has been committed by illegally purchased firearms, stolen firearms, banned firearms and by people who are already prohibited from owning firearms. Therefore the only “logical” solution must be more laws to penalize those who can legally own firearms, because this is the only way (short of pre-cogs) to prevent someone from slipping through the cracks like Mr. Colorado or our more recent example. Does this make the deaths of any of these people insignificant? Of course not, but statistically speaking, it is not the boogey man the media or the White House wants us to believe.
In the name of all that is rational how do these people believe they are going to prevent these types of incidents by passing more “feel good” laws? How do they suggest they know what someone has in their heart months or years from now? Do they really believe they can protect us from ourselves? Protect us from the few monsters that lurk in the shadows? History, logic and sanity prove to us that the animals committing these high profile killings are not inspired by guns, they are not deterred by laws and they are not impressed by “gun free zones”. Their motivation comes from those before them, from the fame thrust upon them by the media.
In their own article the BEE E.B. writes “It’s said that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome”— so every time a crime is committed with a gun, they want a new gun law and they are shocked when another crime is committed with a gun.
More gun laws WILL NOT SOLVE THIS PROBLEM- EVERYTHING THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. So how about you stop the murder porn, do not give scumbags the satisfaction of going out in a “blaze of glory”. Don’t broadcast an endless loop of their crime, don’t give them a face or a name, end the motivation and the sensationalism associated with these atrocities.
Perhaps a better focus would be to expel this energy figuring why we have 35.4% of the population receiving some sort of government assistance. According to the US Census Bureau there are over 109 Million people on welfare in the United States, maybe some of this violence boils over from a lack of productivity. Instead of making up scary gun statistics lets figure out what is wrong with our economy that more than a third of our population is on welfare. Idle hands……..
Will this end these crimes? Of course not, but it will have an impact. The scumbags who have not taken the cowards way out have all said they were motivated by those before them, they were emboldened by pictures and deeds, they sought out the published manifestos and videos of other crazy scumbags. No matter what these people are trying to tell you it is still okay to go to the mall or the movies. You may need to be afraid of car wrecks and lightning but I think you will be just fine.
When I read a blog post that by a confused beta male* in which he describes all the thoughts and fears running through his head the moment he sees my NRA sticker on the back window of my car, or my wife’s minivan, I feel sad for his two sons who look to this “man” as their role model.
(*Since the confused beta male wussed out and removed his blog post entirely, you can only view it in a cached version which you can find here – the internet is forever buddy… Additionally, I have taken screen shots of the post just in case the cached version also disappears)
That you (the author) fear the driver of a car because of a sticker, and are thus trapped in a recurring series of thoughts and fears, based on lies and misinformation, has you so distracted as a driver that you are now a threat to yourself, a threat to any passengers in your car, a threat to all the other drivers sharing the roadway with you, and a threat to any pedestrians who happen to be nearby.
When nothing more than the appearance of a sticker on the rear of a car sends such fear through someone, does that say more about the person with the sticker, or the person who fears it?
The sad fact of the matter is that all those fears he has listed, which he not only feels himself, but is helping to spread by sharing his wussified musings, absolutely none of those fears are based remotely on reality.
All of this things that he “knows” about me, based on a sticker, are nothing more than his imagination, and him projecting his thoughts onto me. Not a single one of the things he “knows” about me is true, not remotely, yet he truly thinks they are, and that is sad, and says a lot about him.
The reality is that none of the cowardly murders that come to this man’s mind were committed by an NRA member. In fact, the vast majority of them were in fact committed by whiny, soft headed, beta males such as himself. Men who were unable to deal with the realities of life, unable to cope with normal setbacks or adversities, men who could not act like men and confront a situation head-on, and instead chose to handle their failures like cowards and take it out on others, using a gun.
Ask yourself this, if a single one of these incidents of a coward with a gun wantonly murdering random people , the very type of situation that comes rushing to this whiney person’s mind were in fact perpetrated by an NRA member, do you think the likes of “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America,” or “Everytown for Gun Safety,” or the “Violence Policy Center,” or the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” or the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” or “Stop the NRA,” or “Handgun Control, Inc,” or “Americans for Gun Safety,” or any of the other dozens (yes, quite literally dozens) of anti-gun organizations around the country, do you think for a second that they would not be constantly pointing to the incident committed by an NRA member?
Oddly enough, per capita, I see more NRA stickers on cars in the parking lot of the Sheriff’s station I work out of than I do most other places, aside from a gun store parking lot. Another profession that has a very high NRA membership is the US Military. Oddly enough, those people with the NRA stickers are the ones using guns to keep this soft-headed sissy safe from the many evil people out there, who use guns for evil, who are most definitely not NRA members.
The fact of the matter, besides constantly fighting for my rights, your rights, and yes, even this weak minded male’s rights, the NRA is one of the largest, longest running purveyors of gun safety education and training. Not only do they teach the safe handling and use of guns, but they also teach when gun use in self-defense is appropriate, and more importantly, when it is not.
In reality, his entire blog post is nothing more than his display of a lack of critical thinking, the inability to examine fact and serves as a perfect example of the reason why the NRA continues to fight for our rights. Clearly, the propaganda spewed forth by the dozens of well-funded anti-gun groups is working, and the vilification of the NRA and their millions of members is turning the dim-witted sheep out there into quivering shells of human beings, because they saw a sticker… God forbid people like this author should ever encounter an actual bad guy with a gun, because I suspect they would make George Costanza running from a kitchen fire look like an absolute hero!
In the meantime there “Dadscribe,” how about you suck it up, look away from the scary sticker and let those of us with enough intestinal fortitude, commonly referred to as “having a pair,” protect you and the rest of your cowardly, weak-kneed flock. For a man who claims to have learned parenting tips from Han Solo, you sure missed the biggest lesson he taught, which was having a spine! And by the way, Han Solo shot first!
NOT AN UPDATE: We will not be disabling the comments here because while we understand that not everyone may agree with us, the facts are actually on our side. Also, we are man enough to handle comments from people who might disagree with us.
FINAL NOTE: Beta males, such as the author of that laundry list of unsubstantiated fears and irrational hatred, have been destroying the United States for decades. In fact, Bill Whittle put a good video out about that very thing several years ago. Watch, enjoy, learn, and for God’s sake, man up!
Clayton Froom somehow stumbled onto our page this morning and step by step, began using the same sad tactics many others have used in the past. It really is sad, and tiring.
The post that spawned this “conversation”
I’m just waiting for the next step, calling me names. I wonder how long until Clayton goes there?
UPDATE: It has been about 8 minutes and he is currently using the “shotgun approach” often employed. He is hitting every single post on the page and throwing in a comment or two, most with a snide tone and arguing the point of the post. I did not anticipate him going to this stage so quickly.
Wow! The #BlackLivesMatter organization has a new website where they are listing all sorts of policy change suggestions. I am going to attempt to offer an analysis of each of their policy suggestions, which they have broken down into 10 different categories. I apologize in advance, as this is going to be lengthy, really lengthy.
As a career cop, I was interested to see what they had to bring to the table so I took a look. Sadly, it appears they are only ready to step up to the kids table though. It is difficult to offer a serious analysis of their policy suggestions when one of the first paragraphs the page visitor encounters is this:
“A decades-long focus on policing minor crimes and activities – a practice called Broken Windows policing – has led to the criminalization and over-policing of communities of color and excessive force in otherwise harmless situations. Police killed at least 287 people last year who were involved in minor offenses and harmless activities like sleeping in parks, possessing drugs, looking ‘suspicious’ or having a mental health crisis.”
If that is the attitude they have, examining police policies with them is going to be like discussing physics with a developmentally delayed 5 year old with ADHD. If they can’t figure out that “Broken Windows” has been around for over 30 years, not 10, and they are suggesting that the cops just roll up on people sleeping in the park or looking “suspicious” and shoot them, it is going to be impossible to have a serious discussion.
With that said, where to start? Well, I guess I can go with my positive comments first. At least they, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement have tried to offer some suggestions instead of just chanting, complaining and burning down another city?
I think that is it. Uh, yup, that’s it, at least for now. If there are areas where I agree in each section, I will specifically note those.
Now on to the part that where I differ, and my examination of each of their 10 categories.
1. End Broken Windows Policing Before even clicking on that topic, I know I am going to disagree with it. The Broken Windows policing model has historically worked very well when it was employed. While it is no longer the primary policing model used by hardly any agency anywhere, it is a component of the more politically correct, more socially acceptable Community Policing model currently in favor all across the US.
For those unfamiliar with Broken Windows policing, the theory (which has been proven correct) is that when a neighborhood begins encountering an increase in minor crimes, such as vandalisms (ie: broken windows), petty thefts, littering, etcetera, and if left unaddressed by law enforcement, those minor crimes are followed by an increase in more serious crimes, like burglaries, robberies and homicides.
Now with that out of the way, their “Policy Solutions” in this area boil down to law enforcement ignoring “minor” offenses, to stop “profiling” (not racial profiling, profiling altogether) and to “Establish Alternative Approaches to Mental Health Crises.”
Area of Agreement: Of the three subsections, on a cursory level, I can agree with the last suggestion. I do agree that something needs to be done about the mental health crisis issues that are being dumped onto law enforcement, but that is where my agreement ends. Their suggestions are both fiscally and logistically unreasonable. Their suggestion demonstrates just how little BLM grasps the realities of how emergency services, to include law enforcement, fire and EMS, all work.
Their suggestion to ignore minor crimes is totally self-serving. The minor criminal behavior they list is what is often found in ghetto neighborhoods: people hanging out on street corners, in front of businesses, drinking alcohol, smoking weed and listening to loud music. That behavior is common to street gangs who want to demonstrate that the corner/street/neighborhood is their territory. It is extremely damaging to the entire neighborhood, not to mention what it does to the businesses they are hanging out in front of.
Let me see if I can channel their logic for just a moment: I like to drive fast, always have, and so do many others. Some people who were speeding have been callously murdered by the cops for nothing more than speeding*. Because I like to engage in that sort of minor illegal activity, I think the cops should stop enforcing speed limits. They are “arbitrary laws that really don’t hurt anyone” anyway.
(* I am using the same “logic” that suggests people are killed by cops for sleeping in a park or stealing a cigar.)
I’m not going to spend much time on this part, because suggesting that cops stop profiling is the same idiotic logic that has the TSA patting down 90 year old ladies and 3 year old children as they board airplanes. Like it or not, profiling works. It is a natural process in the human brain. We all do it every single day. To suggest that cops be preventing from doing it is completely asinine.
2. Community Oversight
“Police usually investigate and decide what, if any, consequences their fellow officers should face in cases of police misconduct. Under this system, less than 1 in every 12 complaints of police misconduct nationwide results in some kind of disciplinary action against the officer(s) responsible. Communities need an urgent way to ensure police officers are held accountable for police violence.”
“Establish an all-civilian oversight structure with discipline power that includes a Police Commission and Civilian Complaints Office with the following powers”
Everything I quoted above is completely ridiculous. They are demanding a group of people with no subject matter knowledge or expertise be the group solely responsible for judging whether or not actions taken by someone in that field were reasonable. And they base that demand on the misconception that cops cover for dirty cops. I have written extensively on this topic in the past, so in response to this, I will just say their perception is not remotely accurate. If you want to know why, you can read this.
“Remove barriers to reporting police misconduct. For all stops by a police officer, require officers to give civilians their name, badge number, reason for the stop and a card with instructions for filing a complaint to the civilian oversight structure.”
There are no barriers. Every agency in the US accepts complaints from the public. Demanding that we hand out a card for every contact with the information they are demanding is silly, would take up valuable law enforcement time, would prolong every single law enforcement contact/detention and would cost millions of dollars. Call me crazy, but this seems like a really dumb idea.
3. Limit Use Of Force
You know, because there are no limits right now. We can just use as much force as we want, whenever we want…
How do you have a rational discussion with someone who remotely suggests that there are no limitations on the amount of force cops can use?
Honestly, I really do not know how to approach this, because other than once again suggesting that cops stop doing cop work (“End traffic-related police killings and dangerous high-speed police chases”), everything they demand already exists.
Let me examine just one of their bullet points here:
“ – use minimum force to apprehend a suspect, with specific guidelines for the types of force and tools authorized for a given level of resistance”
The law already provides that officers can only use that level of force which is necessary to overcome the amount of resistance they meet. In fact case law, as ruled on by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, is pretty darn specific in that matter. But hey, if they acknowledge that there already are limitations on the use of force, then that destroys most of their argument…
As for the specific guidelines for what use of force tools to employ and when, every agency in the US has a use of force policy which discusses those specifics. Sadly there are actually some agencies that still use those old “use of force ladders” or “use of force continuums,” which are notorious for getting lots of cops hurt over the years. When someone in an office mandates specific steps that need to be followed on the street, where situations are volatile and unpredictable, they lock officers into following specific those steps before moving to the next, or face punishment. Use of force policies based on the “use of force paradigm” allow officers to choose the proper level of force out of the gate, without having to use lower, inappropriate levels of force before moving to the appropriate level.
As an example, a use of force ladder would mandate that an officer try the lowest level of force (mere presence, followed by verbal commands) first, before moving up the ladder to physical force. If I am confronting an armed subject, call me crazy, but my first level of force is going to be switching to guns.
Area of Agreement: They definitely have a point, one I’m sure every cop out there will agree with too, that officers guilty of use of force violations that are significant enough that they would result in firing, who are actually fired or who resign to avoid being fired, should be prevented from ever working in law enforcement again. I wholeheartedly agree! Bad cops, or even good cops who screw up big time, which in reality make up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of law enforcement, make everything worse for the rest of us.
4. Independent Investigations and Prosecutions “Local prosecutors rely on local police departments to gather the evidence and testimony they need to successfully prosecute criminals. This makes it hard for them to investigate and prosecute the same police officers in cases of police violence. These cases should not rely on the police to investigate themselves and should not be prosecuted by someone who has an incentive to protect the police officers involved.”
So, the people complaining about the cops are demanding the creation of yet another branch of law enforcement? I’m totally confused.
Logistically speaking, fiscally speaking, logically speaking, suggesting a new state agency that investigates “all cases where police kill or seriously injure civilians” fails to pass any sort of reality check.
For argument sake, I will use a small state as an example, say Maryland. Say the Baltimore PD shoots a suspect in a case, at the end of a pursuit on a busy street in a busy neighborhood. BLM is suggesting that this new state agency is going to respond and handle the entire investigation of that shooting, which not only includes processing of all physical evidence (all CSI stuff), interviewing all witnesses and officers involved, reviewing of the original call for service, any and all video, etc. That takes a significant amount of time and manpower.
Now, imagine that across town, another officer arrests a person and during that scuffle, the person gets face planted into the ground and suffers a broken nose and maybe a fractured orbital socket. Now that same state run agency has to respond to the second scene.
Then say somewhere in Cambridge, MD, a cop arrests a person and that person put up a fight, and got their arm broken while resisting. Now that state agency has to respond to there and handle that investigation.
And that is using a tiny little state as an example. Imagine a densely populated state like New York, or a geographically large state like California, or Texas, and you begin to see how utterly unreasonable this suggestion becomes.
5. Community Representation Can I just call them racists right now?
“While white men represent less than one third of the U.S. population, they comprise about two thirds of U.S. police officers. The police should reflect and be responsive to the cultural, racial and gender diversity of the communities they are supposed to serve.”
We’ve tried racial quotas in the past. We had a thing called “affirmative action” here in the US for decades. Hell, most agencies are still doing their best to hire as many non-white, non-males as they can. There are no hiring policies, by any agency in the US, that prevent the hiring of cops based on gender or ethnicity. If there were, you can bet your butt that agency would be on the losing end of a huge lawsuit.
You want better “community representation” by your local law enforcement agency?
APPLY FOR A JOB!
It really is just that simple.
Suggesting that law enforcement agencies do anything special to recruit or hire “minority” applicants is not only racist (showing preference to one person over another based on nothing more than ethnicity), but it results in disastrous consequences. Anyone familiar with what happened with LAPD’s Rampart Division?
6. Body Cams / Film the Police “While they are not a cure-all, body cameras and cell phone video have illuminated cases of police violence and have shown to be important tools for holding officers accountable. Every case where a police officer has been charged with a crime for killing a civilian this year has relied on video evidence showing the officer’s actions.”
Area of Agreement: Absolutely, 100%, Amen, Hallelujah!!!!!
While BLM seems to indicate cops do not want cameras, I would and have argued that the vast majority of us actually do want them. What we do not want is some mouthy jackass with his cellphone camera interfering with us as we do our job. You want to record, that is perfectly fine, but do it from a reasonable distance and do not get involved.
As for body cameras, Hell Yes! Just like in-car cameras, they have actually proven, repeatedly, that the cops are actually justified, and not lying about events, as compared to “committing police brutality” in the realm of 1000:1. Cameras save far more cops butts than they have ever hurt, especially when the entire incident is viewed, just not some carefully edited snippet that both BLM and the media like to show.
Yes! Absolutely Yes! Give us cameras, please!!!!!
7. Training “The current training regime for police officers fails to effectively teach them how to interact with our communities in a way that protects and preserves life. For example, police recruits spend 58 hours learning how to shoot firearms and only 8 hours learning how to de-escalate situations. An intensive training regime is needed to help police officers learn the behaviors and skills to interact appropriately with communities.”
Sorry, but all I am hearing in every single one of their bullet points here is “the cops need to be nice and understanding and caring and cuddly and fluffy.”
Cops go through a significant amount of firearms training because their ability to handle a weapon safely is a huge liability. Many academy recruits have never held a gun before. Not many of those same recruits have never spoken to a person of a different cultural view before. Most of us in life have had at least 18 years of “training” of how to interact with other human beings.
Furthermore, suggesting that we “Intentionally consider ‘unconscious’ or ‘implicit’ racial bias” is yet another load of progressive liberal hogwash. This is just more of the “white privilege” that they have been trying to stuff down our throats.
Perhaps, in order to solve these problems, perhaps they could consider training the public that the best way to not become a victim of “police brutality” is comply with officers commands if and when they are contacted by the cops?
Call me crazy, but as a kid who drove too fast and hung out with some really stupid friends, I encountered the cops far more often than the average kid my age. Oddly enough, I never was the victim of any form of “police brutality.” The best training they could receive would be to watch the following two videos (both videos are NSFW due to language).
8. End For-Profit Policing “Police should be working to keep people safe, not contributing to a system that profits from stopping, searching, ticketing, arresting and incarcerating people.”
What did I miss? Do we get bonuses for tickets? Did I miss out on that free toaster for my 100th arrest? Seriously, does anyone believe this stuff?
First, ticket quotas are already illegal. Agencies that fail to figure that out, end up on the losing end of very expensive lawsuits.
Second, law enforcement agencies neither set the levels of the fines nor do they benefit financially from the money collected from said fines. Suggesting that failure to appearing for traffic citations not incur fines or warrants is once again suggesting that 1) cops stop doing cop work and 2) suggests law breakers be ignored.
Area of Agreement: I do agree that in some states, civil forfeiture has taken a rather bizarre turn for the worse. I do think that civil forfeiture laws need to be reexamined and changes similar to what they suggest should be put in place. Seizing money or property should only be done if criminal charges are accompanying, period.
9. Demilitarization I hear lots and lots of dog whistles and “trigger words” here.
“The events in Ferguson have introduced the nation to the ways that local police departments can misuse military weaponry to intimidate and repress communities. Last year alone, militarized SWAT teams killed at least 38 people. The following policies limit police departments from obtaining or using these weapons on our streets.”
First, in order to demilitarize something, it has to have been militarized in the first place, and as I have written extensively on this topic, there is no such thing actually taking place. Suggesting that because 38 people were killed by SWAT teams last year is in no way, shape or form any sort of evidence of militarization, nor does it even indicate that any, let alone all, of those deaths were not justified.
What in fact has been going on in law enforcement is modernization, not militarization. Law enforcement is not using tanks, they are not running around in “full battle rattle,” we do not have machine guns, and we are not running around if fire teams. Armored cars are not new and have been employed by law enforcement as early as the 1920’s. An external, load bearing vest is not a plate carrier. A semi-auto AR-15 is not a “machine gun.” Nearly everything that goes into the “militarized cops” argument is just emotionally charged BS.
10. Fair Police Union Contracts Ah yes, “fairness”… The new rallying cry from the left. The whole “life has to be fair” argument that is so touted by the progressive socialists.
“Police unions have used their influence to establish unfair protections for police officers in their contracts with local, state and federal government and in statewide Law Enforcement Officers’ Bills of Rights. These provisions create one set of rules for police and another for civilians, and make it difficult for Police Chiefs or civilian oversight structures to punish police officers who are unfit to serve.”
Apparently, according to BLM, it is:
unfair that cops are given certain protections when they are forced to give testimony in a police investigation, you know because the average person cannot be forced to testify (that whole silly 5th Amendment thing), where as we can be…
unfair that the average citizen is prevented from “having the power to discipline, subpoena or interrogate police officers,” you know, because they currently have the right to do that with other average citizens…
unfair that cops can appeal their internal departmentally prescribed discipline with their employer, because the average citizen can appeal discipline at their job so some other outside ruling body, or something…
unfair that cops cannot be forced to take a lie detector test, just like the rest of the country can also not be forced to take one…
unfair that cops can have unsustained complaints against them removed from their personnel files…
unfair that cop’s personnel files are not routinely subject to freedom of information act requests (they can be subpoenaed in court, just not released to the public under a FOIA request)
unfair that an officer be paid while they are forced to be off the job while they are subject of an investigation into a shooting they were involved in (guilty until proven innocent now?)
Yeah, all of those things sound really “fair” to me…
Conclusion While there may have been a few (4) things that I could find common ground with in this laundry list of “policy suggestions,” most of the items they listed are based on their warped perception of reality, and all really boil down to the fact that they want cops to ignore illegal activity and that when someone gets hurt by the cops, it is all the cops fault no matter what.
Here are some policy suggestions I have for BLM which I can absolutely guarantee will solve 99.9% of their problems:
Obey the law.
If you fail to follow #1, and are contacted by the cops, obey their commands.
If you break the law and are caught, man up and acknowledge your mistakes.
If you think you can do this job better than us, please, PLEASE join the ranks and show us first hand.
The media bias in this country has long leaned to the left (lean is an understatement), but they lean further left by the day. Take for instance these headlines regarding a recent event in Iowa where Senator Marco Rubio was tossing footballs to some kids. While technically accurate, these headlines are extremely misleading.
1) Sen. Marco Rubio throws a beautiful pass. 2) Boy fails to catch it. 3) Headline: “Rubio hits kid in face with football”
Broaden the concept a bit.
1) America provides opportunity to pursue happiness.
2) Man fails to grasp it, or intentionally avoids it.
3) Headline: “Poor Hardest-Hit by Culture of Greed”
If you want, you can watch the video where in “Rubio intentionally beaned a small child in the face with a football” here:
That is how the American media handles the reporting of such a trivial event when it involves a conservative presidential candidate. For a contrasting view, I wonder how they would handle coverage of a minor event, such as the improper handling of top secret government emails and cover up of said handling, by a progressive liberal politician?
Well, wonder no more:
Notice, the “presser was testy” and Clinton is “fighting back” about the email server. No mention of her totally cavalier dismissal of valid questions regarding the national security risks that were posed by her illegal actions.
If you missed how Clinton responded to questions about the intentional wiping of her personal email server, you can see that here:
Yep, no media bias here… Nothing to see folks, keep moving, and trust your “news” sources for they are unbiased and totally reliable…
Some of the reader comments, both here and on our Facebook page, regarding the recent officer involved shooting in Arlington, TX have tried to place an undue amount of blame on the Field Training Officer (FTO), Cpl. Wiggins, who was training Officer Miller. I don’t know how long the training program is for Arlington PD, or when Officer Miller started it, but all accounts say that Officer Miller had been hired in September 2014 and was nearing the end of his field training.
I was an FTO for a number of years, and I still fill in that role from time to time when FTO’s take time off and their trainees need someone to ride with, so I do have a little personal knowledge on the subject matter.
Here are a few things to consider when we are talking about this subject. By the time a trainee reaches field training, they have met certain requirements.
They are over the age of 18 (21 in some states) and are legally an adult
They have completed a full police academy and are, legally speaking, a full peace officer
They have passed the background check and are presumably not a convicted criminal
They have passed a psychological exam and are presumably not a psychotic nut job
They found the station, their locker, the briefing room and their FTO, so they can apparently follow simple instructions
Considering all of the above, it is reasonable to assume that a person in training, even a fresh trainee right out of the academy, can follow simple directions. As trainees continue through the program, and especially as they near the end of their training, it becomes reasonable to assume that they can handle more complex tasks without immediate supervision. To remotely suggest that an FTO has to keep their trainee under constant supervision, and is responsible for their every action, is insane.
Here are some examples of common tasks given to trainees on a daily basis, which are often times completed without any supervision whatsoever.
“Go over there and take that person’s statement.”
“Go stuff this bad guy in the back seat.”
“Book this evidence.”
“Snatch that guy up and cuff him.”
“Fill out the booking paperwork for the arrest.”
“Go over to that side of the building and establish a perimeter spot.”
Some of the comments, some even made my people purporting to be field training officers (FTO) themselves, saying that the FTO was at fault because he allowed his trainee to leave his side, or that he screwed up because he was not constantly monitoring his trainee, made me remember a term about parents that don’t give their kids any room to make mistakes, to learn on their own: Helicopter Parents
Their comments make me want to coin a new term: the Helicopter FTO
I thank God that I did not have any Helicopter FTOs as I went through the training program, although to be honest, I can think of a few I have known over the years. Not surprisingly, they were the FTO the trainees did not want to get. Trainees cannot learn when they are under constant, microscopic supervision. No one can. That is not how adults learn, and a patrol trainee is an adult.
So, unless the FTO gave the trainee bad instructions, such as “go over to that open door, enter by yourself and go snatch dude up,” or unless he sat there watching his trainee going into the building solo, and decided to watch and see how it would play out (which we know by the account of the incident, that is not remotely what happened since he ran to catch up and was there with his Taser out when the shooting occurred), then the FTO is not responsible for the actions of the trainee.
Please don’t take this as me bashing Officer Miller. That is not my intent, not remotely. Trainees make mistakes, hell, FTO’s make mistakes. We all do. That is part of being human. But, to try and assign blame to the FTO for a series of mistakes his trainee made in a matter of a minutes, if not seconds, is the same thing as say, blaming a cop for shooting a bad guy who is beating him to near unconsciousness and trying to take his gun. It is blame shifting, and it has absolutely no place in society, let alone in law enforcement.
On a related side note, during my time as an FTO, I had a number of trainees who seemed to have the ability to magically disappear at a moments notice. I know many other FTOs have encountered the same thing, because a number of us have jokingly discussed putting a cow bell on our trainees so that we could keep track of them. So, in addition the the Helicopter FTO, we can have the Cowbell Trainee.
A couple days ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed the current state of the investigation taking place in Arlington, TX where a burglary suspect had been shot by the cops. At the end of that article, I laid out what I clearly stated was my guess as to what might have occurred inside the dealership, out of the view of the surveillance video.
As much as I hate being wrong, I have to admit my educated guess was Entirely Incorrect. What I surmised might have happened, was far from what actually occurred.
With that said, please take the time to watch this press conference given by Chief Will Johnson of the Arlington Police. It is long, but it is absolutely worth the 28 minutes. He discusses all the details that they can release at this point, and surprisingly they released quite a bit of information. But he goes beyond that and describes how the case is examined on a number of levels, and he describes how both the reasonableness and legality of an officer involved shooting is measured.
For those of you reading this whom are not on the job; for those who enjoy analyzing and scrutinizing the actions of cops from the safety of your couch or desk, please pay special attention to Chief Johnson’s explanation of Graham v Connor (begins at 1:55 mark), which is the supreme court case that establishes the standard by which all deadly force uses by law enforcement are measured. His explanation is outstanding!
The Facts That Were Revealed
During the press conference, Chief Johnson ran through the series of events. I am going to summarize them here in bullet points, and am not including everything. Please watch the video for more details.
Officers were dispatched to a burglary in progress
A total of 6 officers in 5 cars were sent
Officers saw a single suspect inside the building
One officer verbally engaged suspect through a closed, locked glass door
Same officer noted a large bulge in the suspect’s pants pocket (others also saw it as noted later)
The suspect showed the initial contact officer keys to a car and said he was going to steal it
The officer ordered the suspect to get on the ground, but the suspect refused to comply
Corporal Wiggins (training officer) and Officer Miller (trainee) began to pass the officer who was speaking to the suspect
Wiggins stopped to talk to officer who was engaging the suspect, but Miller continued to the open/broken doors
Miller entered the building by himself, with his gun drawn
Miller verbally engaged the suspect who fled to the rear of business and tried to break through a glass door
Miller, still solo, chased the suspect to the back and verbally engaged him again
Suspect again refused to comply and began to charge Miller
Wiggins entered the building attempted to catch up to his trainee
Wiggins got to within approximately 4′ of Miller and Wiggins drew his Taser
As the suspect charged Miller, Miller fired one shot but the suspect continued advancing
Wiggins fired his Taser but the suspect continued advancing
Miller firesd three more shots
Shots fired broadcast on radio, emergency medical requested
At no point did the suspect physically engage any of the officers
Investigation Results Thus Far Chief Johnson was clear to point out at the onset of his press conference that there are two investigations that are going on simultaneously in any officer involved shooting. There is an administrative investigation and a criminal investigation. This is true no matter the jurisdiction, and the results of the two investigations are independent of one another.
Administrative Investigation – Officer Miller screwed up, badly, a number of times. His screw ups ultimately lead to the confrontation that occurred. His mistakes were both officer safety in nature as well as tactical errors. Not only did his mistakes put both he and the suspect in danger, but they put all the other officers in danger too. Officer Miller has been fired (released from his probationary employment) as a result of those grievous errors.
Criminal Investigation – Still proceeding. Results will be given to the District Attorney and will then be presented to the Grand Jury to determine if charges will be filed. If I were a betting man, based on the facts that were revealed in this press conference, I would put money that this case will be going to trial.
Stupid Media Questions, and Outright Bias
As is the case at nearly every law enforcement press conference for a high profile incident, especially those involving officers using deadly force, there were a number of stupid questions. However, beyond that, there was a couple that really display a bias by the media. I’m going to summarize a few of those below (not verbatim, unless in quotes).
21:38 mark – Did the first shot fired strike the suspect?
How on earth would we know that? Bullets aren’t numbered. We have no way of identifying which slug was from which casing and in what order they were fired.
24:28 mark – Did Officer Miller explain why he continued to shoot after the Taser was deployed?
Chief Johnson handled this much better than I would have. Does this guy think that this was some long, drawn out thing? From the first shot until the last shot was only seconds.
23:52 mark – Did Corporal Wiggins ever try to question Officer Miller, or intervene and ask him what he was doing?
OMG, seriously? Is this person for realsies?
Let me see, my trainee has disappeared on me, where did he go? Holy crap! There he is, he went inside by himself and is engaging the suspect. (runs to catch up) Trainee has suspect, who is now charging him, at gunpoint and suspect if failing to follow all verbal commands. This is where we call “TIME OUT” – okay trainee, why are you doing what you are doing?
The utter lack of a grasp on reality displayed by some reporters is sometimes quite amazing
24:21 mark – BIAS ALERT – Do you think the outcome of this investigation would have have been different two years ago?
In other words, did this outcome only happen because of all the scrutiny law enforcement is under right now?
Chief: “No sir, I do not”
Let us just say even if he did, which none of us who know what really happens in these investigations would ever think, but even if he did think that, does this reporter think he would say it would have been different? This is a BS, gotcha question asked so that they can say the “Chief denies investigation would have had different outcome without public outcry.”
25:30 mark – BIAS ALERT – Does Corporal Wiggins face and punishment for “allowing” his trainee to be separated from him?
Chief: “Absolutely not”
Follow up question: “Why did he allow him to go in there by himself?”
When I heard this question, I actually yelled at my computer screen. What an arrogant ass. The Chief explains it politely, I won’t.
Because, mister “reporter,” here on planet earth, grown adults have not only free will, but we also have limited abilities. As a training officer at an in progress crime scene, like this was, he is not only trying to do his job as a training officer, but he is also doing his job as a cop, which involves not only trying to keep track of the suspect and his trainee, but also all the other officers at the scene. Additionally, as a mere mortal human being, I highly suspect he was unable to freaking read the mind of his trainee and know what the trainee was planning on doing…
He and his trainee were supposed to be moving to the open area to establish a perimeter position, in order to contain the suspect. When he stopped to talk with the other officer (I can only presume to discuss their plan of action) , the trainee continued. The trainee upon reaching their perimeter position, screwed up and took it upon himself to enter the building, solo, which goes against all officer safety and tactical training he would have received to that point. Apparently, the training officer’s superpowers were not working, and his assuming the trainee, who was nearing the end of his field training, would have followed basic protocols is the same thing as “allowing” him to do something.
Training officers and trainees are all only human. Sometimes humans make mistakes. This question, in the way it is worded, blatantly tries to assign blame on the training officer, and thus the department. This “reporter” should be forced to attend force on force and shoot/no-shoot training before being allowed to attend another law enforcement press conference.
27:11 mark – Have you spoke to the former officer in person, and how was that interaction?
Chief Johnson: “Difficult”
Followed by a long pause, after which he goes into a little more depth after politely shushing a reporter who was trying to interrupt.
Summary
Based on all the facts known at this point, this appears to be a bad shoot. The officer involved has had his probationary employment terminated. The criminal investigation is still ongoing. Once that criminal investigation is complete, the case will be given to the District Attorney who will present it to the Grand Jury. They will determine whether or not the case goes to criminal trial. As I said already, I suspect it will.
Thus far, everything about this investigation is functioning Exactly As It Should, and just like it does in every case, with or without the media breathing down law enforcement’s neck.
It really sucks that this young man was killed, just as it would have sucked even if it were a justifiable shooting. I wish the death of a child upon no parent. No parent should have to outlive their child.
But, while the shooting is horribly regrettable, one must not dismiss the suspect’s role in his own demise.
Two people made very bad mistakes that early morning. One of those people who made mistakes instigated the entire event, and made it worse by making yet more mistakes along the way. The other person was a man working a very tough job, trying to make his community a safer place, who was put on the spot and forced to make a split second decision, and he made several mistakes as well.
The question that now remains is, did that second man’s mistakes rise to the level of a criminal offense? I suspect we will have to wait to see what a jury says about that.
As for how the Arlington, TX Police Department is handling this investigation, I have nothing but respect for them. They are quickly handling a very difficult investigation under the public microscope. Additionally, the sincerity and emotion in both Chief Johnson’s words and body language in this press conference tell it all. This is a man who not only cares about his department and the employees, but also cares about his community. He appears to me to be a man of honor and integrity. Chief Johnson appears to be a man I would be proud to work for.
Some more information has been released in regards to the shooting in Arlington, TX that the media is trying to turn into the next Ferguson. The media’s intentions should be abundantly clear in looking at the title of this AP article, and then the second paragraph of the article.
The man, legally an adult, is continually referred to as a “teen.” He was “killed at a car dealership”, not while committing multiple felonies. The cop was an old white guy while the suspect, sorry, “victim” was a young, unarmed black teen.
Yup, no agenda, no slant…
Press Conference The Chief of the Arlington Police, Will Johnson, gave a press conference yesterday. The department, very smartly so, recorded the whole thing and put it up on their YouTube page. The Chief makes some very good points during his presentation. I wonder how many of the “news” agencies edited his conference, for time of course, and inadvertently removed some of the noteworthy points he made?
Here is the full video:
Surveillance Video Next, the security surveillance video in full has been released. It shows everything from the moment the suspect arrives at the dealership until the cops arrive. The video covers the time frame of the shooting, but the shooting itself is not shown.
In the video, the suspect can be clearly seen committing multiple felonies. But beyond that, his behavior is bizarre. He appears to be high on something.
He can clearly be seen peeling open the broken windshield of a car with his bare hands. He then slides through the opening wearing nothing more than shorts and a t-shirt. Anyone who has even been in a car accident where a windshield was broken can attest to how windshield safety glass breaks leaving thousands of glass slivers. The suspect seems to be totally impervious to the pain caused by the glass slivers as he both peels open the windshield and then slides through it.
Here is the “full” surveillance video. I will say this in regards to the fullness: it is NOT the full video. There is no way to include all the camera angles into a single video, and the actual shooting is also not captured, so it is clearly a compilation video. Also, please note the title of the video… no agenda…
That said, here it is:
My Educated Guess Now that I have had a chance to listen to the information the Chief of Police put out, and now that I have watched the “full” surveillance video, I have some information on which to base a semi-educated guess on what occurred. I must stress, this is ONLY A GUESS.
Based on the suspect’s behavior in the surveillance video, I am going to go out on a limb and say he was high, and likely on some sort of drug that involves pain relief or elimination.
Knowing that only two officers entered the building to apprehend the suspect, who is high and not feeling pain, I suspect they were unable to overpower him, which is why a Taser was deployed. The Taser, as is often the case when used on people high on drugs that eliminate pain, proved useless.
The two officers, one being the officer who shot, is 49 years old, and from his photos, notably not a triathlete (not intended as an insult, I’m no triathlete either), and the other is a 19 year veteran (likely putting him in his 40’s as well). The suspect, is 19 years old, and a college football defensive back. I’m betting I am pretty safe in assuming that he, the suspect, was in far superior physical shape than either of the cops. Couple that with his being high and not feeling pain, I suspect the officers were quickly on the losing end of that physical confrontation.
Going even further into educated guess territory, most car dealerships I have been in over the years have brochure racks near all the exits. Additionally, there are chairs and all sorts of other items in a dealership showroom that can be used as weapons. It is quite possible the suspect may have grabbed something to use as a weapon, and with the Taser having no effect, the next step up is the handgun.
Now, I realize all of that is nothing but my guess. But that said, my guesses in the past (*cough, Ferguson, cough*) have proven far more accurate than all of the early media reports. Take what I am saying with a grain of salt, but please do the same with the bullshit the media is spreading.
My only motivation here is the truth, what is the media’s motivation?
We often get into discussions on the Facebook page with people who disagree, sometimes heated discussions. However, tonight was a first. I had someone trying to tell me what I meant when I posted something. I told them they were wrong, as did others. I even explained what I meant, but this person would absolutely not let it go. They were quick to point out that they were a retired cop with 28 years on, and that the rest of us were youngsters and knew nothing.
With his attitude, that he was right no matter what, I’d say law enforcement as a whole is better off now that he is retired. With that, I give you the entire conversation:
After all that, after all the times when he could have just stopped and walked away, but refused, he finally got the boot. So long Rudy.
How about this tidbit…..nearly all of this gun crime (short of the legal guns used by some of the more famous shooters) has been committed by illegally purchased firearms, stolen firearms, banned firearms and by people who are already prohibited from owning firearms. Therefore the only “logical” solution must be more laws to penalize those who can legally own firearms, because this is the only way (short of pre-cogs) to prevent someone from slipping through the cracks like Mr. Colorado or our more recent example. Does this make the deaths of any of these people insignificant? Of course not, but statistically speaking, it is not the boogey man the media or the White House wants us to believe.
