Author Topic: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action  (Read 298383 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Military vehicles for police?
« Reply #600 on: January 14, 2016, 05:47:01 PM »
I've bumped heads with GM on various aspects of the militarization of police issue various times, but in that I search for Truth, I post this one too, the contents of which I suspect will please him:

http://www.policeone.com/SWAT/articles/51458006-Why-cops-need-armored-vehicles-13-times-BearCats-saved-lives/


http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/SWAT-Rescues-Kids-During-Manhunt-273868641.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Good shot
« Reply #601 on: January 30, 2016, 09:44:21 PM »





DDF

  • Guest
Sad Day
« Reply #606 on: November 13, 2016, 02:17:36 PM »
I feel particularly bad, because I was just writing about this yesterday, and already, not even 24 hours later, another one.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/Stanislaus-County-Sheriffs-Deputy-Killed-Outside-Modesto-401010385.html
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 06:54:22 PM by DDF »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Sad Day
« Reply #607 on: November 13, 2016, 06:08:48 PM »
I feel particulalry bad, because I was just writing about this yesterday, and already, not even 24 hours later, another one.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/Stanislaus-County-Sheriffs-Deputy-Killed-Outside-Modesto-401010385.html

I expect many more in the days to come. Things are going to get a lot more violent and law enforcement will pay for the chaos in blood.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Sad Day
« Reply #608 on: November 13, 2016, 06:54:37 PM »
Indeed. Head on a swivel.

I feel particulalry bad, because I was just writing about this yesterday, and already, not even 24 hours later, another one.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/Stanislaus-County-Sheriffs-Deputy-Killed-Outside-Modesto-401010385.html

I expect many more in the days to come. Things are going to get a lot more violent and law enforcement will pay for the chaos in blood.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Sad Day
« Reply #609 on: November 13, 2016, 07:25:50 PM »
Indeed. Head on a swivel.

I feel particulalry bad, because I was just writing about this yesterday, and already, not even 24 hours later, another one.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/Stanislaus-County-Sheriffs-Deputy-Killed-Outside-Modesto-401010385.html

I expect many more in the days to come. Things are going to get a lot more violent and law enforcement will pay for the chaos in blood.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/13/marchers-chant-kill-the-police-during-anti-trump-protest/

The party of peace and love and tolerance!

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Sad Day
« Reply #610 on: November 14, 2016, 11:41:05 AM »
Indeed. Head on a swivel.

I feel particulalry bad, because I was just writing about this yesterday, and already, not even 24 hours later, another one.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/Stanislaus-County-Sheriffs-Deputy-Killed-Outside-Modesto-401010385.html

I expect many more in the days to come. Things are going to get a lot more violent and law enforcement will pay for the chaos in blood.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/13/marchers-chant-kill-the-police-during-anti-trump-protest/

The party of peace and love and tolerance!

With nothing but respect... US tactics and mentality might need to change.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Sad Day
« Reply #611 on: November 14, 2016, 07:00:22 PM »
I think there will be a need for change, and someone with firsthand knowledge and experience from Mexico might make a lot of money teaching LEOs the new TTPs. Just putting that out there...


Indeed. Head on a swivel.

I feel particulalry bad, because I was just writing about this yesterday, and already, not even 24 hours later, another one.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/Stanislaus-County-Sheriffs-Deputy-Killed-Outside-Modesto-401010385.html

I expect many more in the days to come. Things are going to get a lot more violent and law enforcement will pay for the chaos in blood.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/13/marchers-chant-kill-the-police-during-anti-trump-protest/

The party of peace and love and tolerance!

With nothing but respect... US tactics and mentality might need to change.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Sad Day
« Reply #613 on: November 17, 2016, 08:02:55 PM »
I've sent a letter. An important consideration regarding tactics... are the inherent value of "human rights." What is in writing and what is in practice, are often, two different things, but I hardly need to tell anyone here that.

The more brazen people become (walking up and executing officers qualifies), rules need to change, but at what cost?

On one hand, we're very effective here. OTOH, Mexico isn't swimming in freedom, still has bodies hacked in pieces laying in the streets, you can't even trust your own partners, because they might kill you for doing your job, there is a stunning amount of gun control, and in the last ten years, by some estimates, the body count here is higher than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined... so... what do we really know here? Some things, sure.... is it effective? At engaging heavily armed, combative enemies? Very much so. At fixing the problem as a whole? Not at all.

For once... and since I have been here, I really have no idea what the answer is. I do know... it isn't having good men murdered in their units. That's never the answer.


I think there will be a need for change, and someone with firsthand knowledge and experience from Mexico might make a lot of money teaching LEOs the new TTPs. Just putting that out there...


Indeed. Head on a swivel.

I feel particulalry bad, because I was just writing about this yesterday, and already, not even 24 hours later, another one.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/Stanislaus-County-Sheriffs-Deputy-Killed-Outside-Modesto-401010385.html

I expect many more in the days to come. Things are going to get a lot more violent and law enforcement will pay for the chaos in blood.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/13/marchers-chant-kill-the-police-during-anti-trump-protest/

The party of peace and love and tolerance!

With nothing but respect... US tactics and mentality might need to change.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 08:09:21 PM by DDF »

DDF

  • Guest
One Other Thing
« Reply #614 on: November 17, 2016, 08:20:09 PM »
One of us here, was shot 11 times tonight.... while not at work.

I had an instructor from GAFE one time tell me, that as long as we're not sleeping in the truck, like a bunch of idiots, with our training and weapons, the bad guys have no chance, which barring an ambush, is absolutely true.

What the bad guys do then, is either ambush us, always with a ration of at least 3 to one, or more popularly, hit us when we're not working (here most people can't carry off duty), and work also has a heavy social impact on all of us....

We're very close when working, but we won't even tell each other whether we're married or not, where we live and we basically (almost without exception) have no contact ith each other outside of work, or any friends for that matter. That's what happens here when you can trust no one. It's hard. I won't lie.... it's scared me more times than I can count.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« Reply #615 on: November 18, 2016, 07:48:24 AM »
Heavy import to those words.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« Reply #616 on: November 18, 2016, 08:48:52 AM »
Yup. The job is hard enough without those added stressors.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9592
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« Reply #617 on: December 10, 2016, 07:23:02 PM »
Unusual Michelle Malkin article about a police officer convicted despite in her view a reasonable doubt on the evidence:

Exclusive: What If the Convicted “Serial Rapist Cop” Is Innocent?
   
By Michelle Malkin  •  December 2, 2016 08:20 AM

UPDATE: 12/10/16 Today is the one-year anniversary of the verdict in the Daniel Holtzclaw case. I’m reposting my feature op-ed from last week. Several radio talk show hosts have given me time to make my case (Pat Campbell in Tulsa, Chris Morales in Enid, and Lee Matthews in OKC). Oddly, local journalists in Oklahoma City have reported on our screening today in Enid–but none of them have reached out to speak with me directly about my findings. Instead, they keep quoting the accusers’ social justice advocates expressing their outrage–and police brass who have denigrated our work ad hominem as a “business project” without addressing a single exculpatory point of fact or evidence that we have introduced.
That’s a familiar tactic.
What are they so afraid of?
***
Exclusive: What If the Convicted “Serial Rapist Cop” Is Innocent?
by Michelle Malkin

Copyright 2016
“To hell with Daniel Holtzclaw, and his tears.” — MTV News correspondent Jamil Smith
“Drown in your tears, asshole.” — NYC playwright/actress Mara Wilson
“Where is the widespread outrage? Where is the media coverage? Why don’t we matter???!!?” — actress Gabrielle Union
Former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw’s emotional breakdown went viral one year ago this week in the worst way possible. He became a national punching bag when a jury convicted him on 18 of 36 counts of sexual assault-related crimes against eight black women. His sentence: 263 years.
But what if he didn’t do it — any of it?
To the casual observer, Holtzclaw’s tears looked like the tears of a man sorry he got caught.
But I am no longer a casual observer. For the past several months, I’ve reviewed extensive court records, accuser testimony, and discovery documents, video and audio. I visited the alleged crime scenes. I interviewed the two lead detectives who constructed the case against him, along with local community activists, a top DNA expert, Holtzclaw’s family and friends, and Holtzclaw himself.
The truth about the Holtzclaw case is that a monstrous miscarriage of justice has occurred in the courts of law and public opinion. Just raising the possibility of his innocence has caused an angry backlash. Last week, social justice activists forced a billboard company in Oklahoma City to yank an advertisement for my new investigative web-based TV series on the case for CRTV.com that simply asked: “What if he didn’t do it?”
Here’s what the protesters don’t want you to know.
Prosecutors failed to present a single, corroborating witness or a single piece of direct forensic evidence proving Holtzclaw committed any of the 36 alleged assaults allegedly perpetrated at 17 different crime scenes.
Holtzclaw never once asked for a lawyer during a two-hour interrogation by sex-crimes detectives — which came just 12 hours after he allegedly forced a 57-year-old woman to perform oral sex on him during his last overnight shift on June 18, 2014. (You can watch the full, unredacted video here.)

In fact, Holtzclaw was completely forthcoming and consistent in his description of the 15-minute traffic stop involving northeast OKC resident and star accuser Jannie Ligons. He readily agreed to take a lie detector test “anytime,” voluntarily submitted to a buccal swab, handed over his uniform for DNA analysis, and signed a waiver allowing detectives to search his home, computers and phone.
“I want everything” done, Holtzclaw told detectives — even when they falsely claimed to have incriminating video that “doesn’t look really good” and purportedly showed “a whole lot of action being performed.”
One surveillance video from a nearby commercial building did record Holtzclaw and Ligons’s cars on the side of the road. But the video is too grainy and distant to confirm anything other than the fact that a traffic stop took place. The video showed several cars pass by during the 15-minute encounter.

These are hardly the place and manner in which a serial predator would try to conceal his conduct from prying eyes.
A sexual assault nurse examiner test on Ligons, who claimed Holtzclaw forced her to put his penis in her mouth “for about 10 seconds,” came up empty for Holtzclaw’s DNA. Sex-crimes detective Kim Davis explained away the negative SANE results to me by noting that Ligons had told her that Holtzclaw “did not ejaculate.”
But in the police interrogation video, Davis had warned Holtzclaw: “Do you understand that you don’t have to full-blown ejaculate to get something out of the SANE exam?…We can get skin cells. We can get pre-ejaculate. We can do all that and still get DNA.”
Davis pressed him: “Did your penis go in her mouth?” Holtzclaw firmly answered: “No. It did not.”
The forensic evidence backed up Holtzclaw, not Ligons.
She claimed Holtzclaw forced her to put her hands on the hood of his car during the stop. She also alleged that he put his hands on the roof while purportedly assaulting her as she sat in the backseat as he stood on the rear passenger side with the door open. Extensive fingerprint and DNA tests all over Holtzclaw’s vehicle — again, just hours after the alleged assault — also came up empty.
The forensic evidence backed up Holtzclaw, not Ligons.
Holtzclaw’s demeanor during his interrogation is all the more remarkable and exculpatory when you consider that later in the investigation, detectives procured two other accusers who claimed Holtzclaw assaulted them on the same day as the Ligons’ stop. These women (and the vast majority of the rest of the accusers) were actively hunted down by detectives, who primed the pump by falsely stating in advance that they “had a tip” the women could be victims of a sexual assault by a police officer they had encountered in the past.
Prosecutors argued that Holtzclaw “targeted” these vulnerable women because they were the “perfect victims.” But my conclusion is that detectives targeted what Holtzclaw’s defense team called “the perfect accusers.” Outside of the courtroom, their stories became insulated from deeper public scrutiny because of their politically correct status. Now, 12 of 13 accusers (including four on whose charges Holtzclaw was acquitted) are suing for monetary damages. The litigation circus is being led by Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown family lawyer, Benjamin Crump.
Those women included:
–Convicted felon Sherry Ellis, who testified under oath at a preliminary hearing that her attacker was “black” and short (Holtzclaw is light-skinned and 6’1″ tall), and who could not identify that attacker as Holtzclaw while he sat in the courtroom.
–Convicted felon Tabitha Barnes, who described Holtzclaw as “dark-skinned” and had not reported any inappropriate behavior — until a sex-crimes detective informed her about the Holtzclaw investigation, supplied her with a date and she changed her story. Barnes testified positive for PCP on the morning she testified at trial. She had also ingested hydrocodone and marijuana.
–Carla Raines, who denied seven times she had been the victim of any inappropriate police conduct — until a sex-crimes detective informed her about the Holtzclaw investigation and she changed her story to claim that he had forced her to expose her breasts.
–Convicted felon Terri Morris, a drug addict diagnosed as a “paranoid schizophrenic with depressive features” who couldn’t pick out Holtzclaw from a line-up and described him as having skin with a “dark color,” either “Indian” or “Irish” or maybe “white” and in his “thirties, forties, I don’t know, fifties.” She also misidentified Holtzclaw’s patrol car, told the investigators to “leave me alone,” and called their questions “bulls—.”
–Convicted felon Shardayreon Hill, who had been rushed to the hospital in December 2013 at the behest of Holtzclaw and his assisting officers after she crushed a vial of PCP in her mouth and spilled more PCP on her skin. Hill called police in September 2014 alleging Holtzclaw had sexually assaulted her — only after the Ligons allegations went public and only after she faced felony charges for destroying evidence and intent to distribute PCP.
–A.G., a 17-year-old girl who excitedly told her mother that Holtzclaw was a “hot cop” with whom she was going to go on “dates.” She came forward to allege that Holtzclaw vaginally raped her — but only after her mother was contacted by sex-crimes detectives who told her in advance she may be a victim of police abuse and only after her mother searched the internet for news and a photo of Holtzclaw.
The discovery of A.G.’s DNA on the crotch area of Holtzclaw’s uniform pants was touted as the prosecution’s “smoking gun.” But the skin cells were derived from a minuscule sample that measured a billionth of a gram and this “evidence” continues to be brazenly mischaracterized. In closing arguments, prosecutor Gayland Gieger falsely asserted that the DNA came “from the walls of her vagina” and “was transferred in vaginal fluids.”
But the State’s own crime lab expert admitted on the stand that no testing was done to establish the presence of vaginal fluid on the pants.
“The only thing I can tell you is it is a biological material that originated from” the teenager, Oklahoma crime lab analyst Elaine Taylor testified. “(H)ow it was put there or how it got there, I wasn’t there, I didn’t see what happened so I can’t really tell you exactly what happened.”
As Wright State University biology professor and president of Forensic Bioinformatics, Dr. Dan Krane, a leading DNA expert, emphasized to me, indirect “transfer is a well documented and real possibility.” Yet, no testing was conducted anywhere else on the pants to rule out this phenomenon of secondary or even tertiary transfer due to casual interaction such as a handshake or other indirect contact. (Holtzclaw had searched A.G.’s purse.) Nor were the pants fluoresced or tested for other body fluids.
Furthermore, prosecutors failed to note the presence of at least three other sources of DNA on Holtzclaw’s pants, including an unknown male’s — a glaring omission now being raised on appeal that further bolsters the innocuous transfer theory. Prosecutor Gayland Gieger sneered at the transfer DNA phenomenon in closing arguments, again in direct contradiction to the State’s own crime lab expert, who acknowledged under oath the possibility of secondary transfer and its extensive documentation in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I’ve just shown you the tip of the iceberg of reasonable doubt that exists in this case. The truth matters because the tactics used against Holtzclaw could be used against anyone. But I don’t want you to just take my word on it. As Holtzclaw, who turns 30 on Dec. 10, the one-year anniversary of his convictions, told me in a phone interview from jail: “I want the world to read in detail about my case … I want the world to see that this can happen to you.”
“Daniel in the Den: The Truth About the Holtzclaw Case,” a two-part series, airs exclusively on CRTV.com’s new program, “Michelle Malkin Investigates,” beginning Dec. 5.
Posted in: Feature Story,Race relations
Printer Friendly


Trump team’s inquiry has some at the Dept. of Energy sweating carbon-neutral, eco-friendly, taxpayer-funded buckets
December 10, 2016 02:24 PM by Doug Powers
thebobs
EPA, DoE hardest hit
Obama sure did a quick about-face on accusations of election shenanigans (something not go as planned?)
December 9, 2016 02:08 PM by Doug Powers
obamagotthis
A “threat to democracy,” by Hillary’s pre-election definition
Perfect: World’s foremost ‘fake news’ content provider says something needs to be done about spread of ‘fake news’
December 8, 2016 09:17 PM by Doug Powers
hillaryreid
Serial liar dislikes reporting of lies
Dems worried Trump’s pick to head EPA could spell end of life as we know it (a bigger threat than air conditioners!)
December 8, 2016 11:31 AM by Doug Powers
bodysnatchers
Invasion of the Regulation Snatchers?
Well done! Donors to Jill Stein have paid $3.5 million to help widen Trump’s margin of victory in Wisconsin
December 8, 2016 09:51 AM by Doug Powers
hillarycounting
Backfire
Allow Obama to describe how his admin’s denial about terrorists’ motivations has kept US homeland safe
December 7, 2016 02:36 PM by Doug Powers
obamayourewelcome
Yeah, right
She’s used to it: Hillary Clinton finishes 2nd behind Donald Trump for Time’s Person of the Year
December 7, 2016 09:23 AM by Doug Powers
bridesmaid
Recount?
The Messy Truth about Race-Baiting Radical Demagogue Van Jones
December 6, 2016 08:55 PM by Michelle Malkin
AWW: Manhattan PR firm cancels holiday party because Hillary lost
December 6, 2016 12:10 PM by Doug Powers
calloffchristmas1
Taking it pretty hard
Schadenfreude overload: Senate Dems lament fact Harry Reid’s leaving them powerless to stop Trump nominees
December 6, 2016 11:08 AM by Doug Powers
goodfellaslaugh
Koch brothers’ fault!
« Previous Entries


Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook

 Blogroll
AboutContactArchivesColumnsPhotosCRTV


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
DC LE vs. rioters
« Reply #621 on: January 23, 2017, 03:18:10 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
WSJ: Secrets of NYC Success
« Reply #622 on: January 30, 2017, 04:00:28 AM »
The Secrets of New York City’s Policing Success
The Big Apple’s new top cop on how to protect citizens from both street crime and terrorism.
By William McGurn
Updated Jan. 27, 2017 7:18 p.m. ET
240 COMMENTS

New York

When James O’Neill first put on the blue uniform and gold badge of law enforcement, it was 1983, and he was a rookie with the New York City Transit Police, riding the subways from 8 p.m. until 4 a.m. Those were the bad old days of buildings encrusted in grime and graffiti, parks and public places overrun by the homeless, and a murder rate rising relentlessly.

“In the 1980s and 1990s,” Mr. O’Neill recalls, “the police were just holding on.”
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
Photo: Ken Fallin

New York is different today. In 1983 there were 1,622 murders in the city—and the peak was still years away. In 2016 the city reported only 335 murders, and Mr. O’Neill says total shootings were below 1,000 for the first time in the city’s modern history.

As the journal City & State noted, New York now has “one-fifth the crime of 1990 with a million more people.” It’s not the only thing that’s changed. That rookie transit officer is now Gotham’s top cop.

On its own, the success of New York’s Finest in bringing down murder and other violent crime is a remarkable achievement. What makes it more extraordinary is how hard it seems to be for other big cities to replicate. A month ago The Wall Street Journal released a survey that found 16 of the nation’s 20 largest police departments reported more murders in 2016 than the year before.

The city grabbing the most attention is Chicago. Other, smaller towns (Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis) have even higher levels of murder relative to population, but there’s good reason to focus on the Windy City. The liberal Brennan Center for Justice reports that Chicago’s skyrocketing murder count—762 in 2016, up from 480 in 2015—accounts for nearly half the homicide increase in the nation’s 30 largest cities. This week President Trump focused attention on Chicago when he threatened on Twitter to “send in the Feds” if local officials fail to address the “horrible ‘carnage.’ ”

In a meeting Tuesday with Wall Street Journal editors, Commissioner O’Neill declined to comment on the Chicago police. But the Windy City’s troubles go beyond the cops. For example, while in New York someone convicted of carrying a loaded firearm faces a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 3½ years, in Chicago the law gives judges more discretion, which they use to give gun offenders lighter sentences.

In 2011 Mayor Rahm Emanuel brought in an NYPD vet, Garry McCarthy, as police superintendent. For 2014 Chicago police reported the lowest number of homicides in almost 50 years, though the total remained over 400 throughout Mr. McCarthy’s tenure and in 2012 had swelled to more than 500. In any case, Mr. McCarthy was sacked in 2015 after a horrendous video emerged showing a Chicago police officer firing 16 shots into a man who did not appear a threat.

The video set off a perfect storm that has contributed to the current mayhem. The officer faces charges of first-degree murder. On its way out the door, President Obama’s Justice Department dropped a report accusing Chicago cops of a “pattern or practice” of unconstitutional force.

In response, Chicago cops have shied away from enforcing the law, because they fear becoming the next face on the evening news. Mr. Emanuel said in 2015 that they had gone “fetal.” Carnage is exactly the right word for the result. Not a month into the new year, the Chicago Tribune reports there have already been 45 homicides.

Mr. Trump is probably wrong to believe the feds have the answer. But his tweet does point to a big question: What is the secret sauce in the NYPD’s recipe?

One big part of New York’s success is the acknowledgment that most violent crimes occur in poor and minority areas. That means people living in those neighborhoods will have more interactions with police, whether it’s a stop-and-frisk or an early morning raid on a neighbor’s apartment. It also means, because of demographics, that the stops, searches and arrests will disproportionately affect black and Latino men.

The answer is not to deny this reality, but to make extra efforts to enlist the law-abiding on the side of the police. That’s why Ray Kelly, the NYPD commissioner under Mayor Mike Bloomberg, spent almost all his Sundays in the city’s black churches.

Mr. O’Neill is building on that outreach in his own way. “After we do a takedown”—an arrest—“we go in the next day and have a briefing with the community,” he says. “We let them know exactly what transpired—why we came in there at 4:30 in the morning, why we took out 30 people, and what they were up to.”

It comes under the larger heading of what he calls “neighborhood policing.” For the commissioner, it’s the next logical stage in the revolution in strategy and tactics the NYPD kicked off in the 1990s: helping cops get better at identifying who the bad guys are, where they live, and how to stop them before they can commit more violence. “A very small percentage of the population,” Mr. O’Neill says, is committing most of the violent crime. Which means the key to keeping cities safe is to figure out who they are, and focus cops and resources on them.

Bill Bratton took the first big step toward smarter policing during his first stint as New York’s police commissioner from 1994 to 1996. Mr. Bratton introduced CompStat, a computerized system that tracks even the smallest crimes. Over the years it has been refined with more data. Officers constantly analyze and debate what it reveals about crime trends and how the police should respond.

“If you talk to any of the precinct commanders,” says Mr. O’Neill, “they now know down to the block and the house who is causing the problems and the last time they had contact with the police.” Recent statistics, he adds, show that shootings and arrests are trending down while gun seizures are up—suggesting that the NYPD is focusing its efforts on the right people.

In the past, the commissioner says, a new officer would graduate from the academy and be dropped in a tough location without connections or knowledge. Though the presence of uniforms helped drive crime down in the short term, in the long term it reduced cops to little more than “wooden soldiers.”

Today about one-fifth of the city’s uniformed officers serve as “steady-sector cops,” meaning they are assigned to a particular locale and expected to interact with the community. “The beauty of neighborhood policing is that you have the same cops in the same places every day,” says Mr. O’Neill. “So they know whether the kids coming down the street are coming home from high school or about to sell weed or narcotics.”

Because of their roots in the neighborhood, Mr. O’Neill says, these cops “are the ones who take it most personally” when they see, say, graffiti on the side of a school or gang markings on street signs.

The other part of smart policing is recognizing when the facts on the ground have changed. Take gangs. “In 2015 we found the No. 1 shooting motive was gangs,” the commissioner says. “First time that ever happened. So we had to figure out what we were going to do about it.” The police say gangs have also shifted their emphasis from selling drugs to stealing credit cards and other forms of identity theft.

But it turns out the gangbangers have a weakness. “These gang members, that’s their whole life,” says the commissioner. “They have nothing else.” Often that means bragging about their exploits on social media, especially Facebook—which makes it easier for cops monitoring those sites to know which bad guy is doing what.

Along with ordinary street crime, the NYPD faces a special challenge from terrorism. Whatever else has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, New York’s attraction as a target for radical Islamists has not diminished. Four months ago a bombing in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood wounded 31 people. In 2010 a car bomb in Times Square might have killed hundreds but failed to go off. Since 9/11, the commissioner says, 21 terror plots on New York have been recorded—with all but these two thwarted before anything could happen.

Terrorists themselves have changed too. The kind of attack executed on 9/11—by operatives sent in from abroad—has yielded to homegrown terrorists who are either enabled (e.g., instructed on techniques) or simply inspired by Islamist groups.

Again, the key to good policing is more-precise knowledge of who’s likely to act. Visitors to radical websites may leave clues. Police say the homegrown terrorist is generally someone who hasn’t succeeded in his career, in romance or in some other life goal.

Take Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the elder Boston bomber brother, who wanted to box for the U.S. Olympic team—but could not because he was a permanent resident, not a U.S. citizen. In a similar way, the Orlando shooter wanted to be a policeman. Young men, angry when their dreams are thwarted, go searching for an alternative path to valor, says John Miller, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism: “The scientific term for it is ‘loser.’ ”

But as the NYPD gets smarter, so are the Islamists. Al Qaeda has Inspire, an online, English-language magazine that publishes instructions on bomb-making and other terror skills. Islamic State has a similar periodical, Rumiyah.

“After the Chelsea bombing, Inspire came out with an after-action report,” Mr. Miller recalls. He sums up its take on the bombing as “good to do in New York, good to do during U.N. General Assembly, and good to do in Chelsea, a hot, up-and-coming neighborhood.” But the attacker was criticized for placing the bomb in a dumpster, “because people don’t hang out by garbage cans.”

Mr. Miller is understandably troubled by such sophistication. “When you see this level of inspiration, instruction and critique,” he says, “that’s way more useful info than we’d like to see out there.”

Then again, nobody ever said policing a big city would be easy. The department often faces lawsuits from groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union. Mayor Bill de Blasio campaigned in 2013 on an anticop line, and in December 2014, when two officers were assassinated after days of antipolice protests, some cops turned their backs on the mayor at the hospital. Things have since calmed down, and Mr. O’Neill says the mayor has given police the resources they’ve asked for.

In the decades since Officer O’Neill first donned the uniform, cops have gone from tapping their nightsticks to communicate to using smartphones for the latest crime intel in real time. Commissioner O’Neill promises more is coming. “It’s not going to happen overnight—big ships turn slowly—but if we stop evolving, we won’t be able to do our jobs.”

Mr. McGurn is a Journal columnist and member of the editorial board.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: POTB: California arrests declining sharply
« Reply #624 on: April 01, 2017, 01:02:11 PM »

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-police-slowdown-20170401-story.html

You get paid the same if you are out pro-actively policing as if you are doing the minimum, but by doing the minimum you seriously reduce your risks of IAs, lawsuits and being prosecuted. Funny enough, cops respond to to disincentives and will do less because that's the system as it is now.
 
Hey, perhaps we should decriminalize violence and just treat it as a public health issue. Think of all the prison space we could free up!




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
This will change, as the euro-insurgency grows
« Reply #628 on: June 07, 2017, 10:26:21 AM »
http://neoneocon.com/2017/06/05/even-now-why-do-only-one-in-ten-london-police-officers-carry-guns/

Even now, why do only one in ten London police officers carry guns?

To me this is surprising, considering the enemy the Brits now face:

…[M]ore than 90 percent of the capital’s police officers carry out their daily duties without a gun. Most rely on other tools to keep their city safe: canisters of mace, handcuffs, batons and occasionally stun-guns.

This is no accident…

Giving everyday police officers guns sends the wrong message to communities, so this thinking goes, and can actually cause more problems than it solves.

British police apparently have a philosophy of engagement that comes from a lengthy tradition of not carrying guns. They do have specially trained gun-wielding police units which are called to the scene if needed, which seems to me to involve an almost inevitable delay. And every time they fire a gun and injure or kill someone, the incident is investigated to the hilt:

Some police have complained that officers are reluctant to sign up for firearms training because they fear being dragged through years of lengthy investigations in the unlikely event they have to use their weapon.

“Officers have seen what happens to their colleagues who have had to use lethal force to protect the public,” outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe told reporters last month. “Increasingly, they seem to be portrayed as suspects, based, I can only assume, on an underlying belief that they must have acted in a criminal fashion if someone has died.”

It appears that British police have reason to fear that they will be considered guilty till proven innocent. Fortunately for them (and the terrorists), the British citizenry also has a very low incidence of gun ownership, and so the police can often get away with not having firearms themselves and not get blown away by armed criminals.

There also seems to be a philosophy, even among police, that a certain amount of terrorism is acceptable, and that this is a fair trade-off to make for the sake of having a kinder, gentler police force, at least according to the following quotes:

While British officials have long since accepted that [a terrorist] attack is “highly likely,” they believe that intelligence-gathering and stronger links with the community — rather than gun-toting cops — will do more to keep the city safer.

“In a free and democratic society, there is going to be a balance between democracy, freedom and openness, and a police state — and none of us want to live in a police state,” said Brian Dillon, former head of the Met’s firearms command who now runs the counterterrorism consultancy Rubicon Resilience.

“Therefore at some point some attacks are regrettably going to hit home, that’s inevitable,” he added. “Not everything can be stopped.”

It’s an odd definition of “police state” that equates it with police officers having guns. To me, out-of-control surveillance and intelligence-gathering runs a greater risk of turning a place into a “police state,” but I guess the Brits don’t see it that way.

So, how many terrorist attacks are acceptable to the British? There have been two major ones in just the last two weeks, and one a few months ago. I think the British attitude towards this represents a pipe dream, a dangerous case of wishful thinking and a failure to come to turns with the reality of the world they now face.

In the London Bridge attack on Saturday, it took the police eight minutes after the first call to come to the scene and kill the terrorists. Some people have suggested that’s a very short time, but it seems to me it’s a relatively long time in a big city like London that has many police. In fact, there were apparently police on the scene much earlier than that, but they were hamstrung by their lack of lethal firepower. For example:

A British Transport Police officer who was seriously injured in the terror attack at London Bridge has been hailed for his “outstanding” bravery.

Armed only with just a baton, the unnamed officer tackled the attackers and suffered injuries to his head, face and leg.

“Although he is seriously unwell, he was able to recount how he faced the attackers armed only with his baton, outside London Bridge station,” Crowther said in a statement.

“It became clear that he showed enormous courage in the face of danger, as did many others who were at the scene and rushed to help.”

So British authorities think it’s a good idea to bring a baton to a knife fight? This seems like madness to me. Why should this officer be in the position of defending himself and the crowd with such an inadequate weapon?

Some civilians seem unaware of the extreme unlikelihood of the police in London being armed:

“As [the terrorists] left [a pub] I was going “Oi, oi, cowards!” Vowles said. “I was just trying to get their attention by throwing things at them … I thought if I throw bottles or chairs they can come after me. If I can get them to come to the main road then the police can stop them, they can obviously shoot them.”

They could obviously shoot them—if they were armed with guns, that is. Otherwise, it’s not so obvious.

And if you read this account from eyewitnesses, some describe the amount of time the attackers were rampaging as having been ten minutes or more. That’s a long time, and there were a lot of injured people; the terrorists had time to go into many restaurants and pubs. What’s more [emphasis mine]:

A chef from Fish restaurant said: “I saw two men with big knives downstairs outside Roast. They were stabbing people. The police were running away, they were normal officers, they were running away.

“Normal officers”—that is, essentially unarmed officers.

There is a plan to increase the number of police officers at stations, including armed officers:

British Transport police said travellers may notice an increased police presence following the attack.

In a statement, the force said: “Members of the public should expect to see extra police officers patrolling stations in London and the south-east following the attacks. You may also see some of our armed police officers at stations.”

I would certainly hope so.

During Saturday night’s attack, the police killed the three perpetrators. But this action by police was actually highly unusual in Britain, so much so that the police feel the need to explain why they did it:

Armed officers responding to the London Bridge terror attack fired an “unprecedented” number of rounds at the three attackers because they were wearing what appeared to be suicide belts, police said.

Eight officers fired 50 shots at three attackers to ensure they were neutralized, said Mark Rowley, assistant commissioner for specialist operations in the Metropolitan Police Service. Rowley is Britain’s most senior counterterrorism office.

The suicide belts were later determined to be fake…

“The situation these officers were confronted with was critical, a matter of life and death. Three armed men, wearing what appeared to be suicide belts, had already attacked and killed members of the public and had to be stopped immediately,” he said.

But “immediately” isn’t going to be so immediate if police aren’t usually armed with guns. And I wonder: if the terrorists had not been wearing fake explosive belts, would the police who killed them have had more trouble justifying their own lethal actions, under British law?

Not only does Britain have extremely strict gun control for private citizens, but it’s only in Northern Ireland that police are regularly armed:

In 2012, the BBC reported that just five percent of officers in England and Wales were authorized to carry firearms. Former Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick told the BBC that the officers want to appear “approachable” to the public.

This relic of 19th Century philosophy has survived to the 21st Century. Why the exception for Northern Ireland? You’ll have no trouble whatsoever guessing: their experience with IRA terrorism.

Some more history:

The issue of routine arming in Great Britain was raised after the 1952 Derek Bentley case, in which a Constable was shot dead and a Sergeant severely wounded, and again after the 1966 Massacre of Braybrook Street, in which three London officers were killed. As a result, around 17% of officers in London became authorised to carry firearms. After the deaths of a number of members of the public in the 1980s fired upon by police, control was considerably tightened, many officers had their firearm authorisation revoked, and training for the remainder was greatly improved. As of 2005, around 7% of officers in London are trained in the use of firearms. Firearms are also only issued to an officer under strict guidelines

And now, as noted earlier in this post, the percentage of armed police in London is up again but only to 10%. Part of the reason the number is still so small is quite obviously the fear of accidental killing of innocent civilians. These days the armed police are brought to the scene in an Armed Response Vehicle. Originally, the weapons were kept locked and needed special orders to be distributed to the officers, but more recently, the officers have finally been allowed to wear their weapons.

However, the rank and file police officer is very very much against carrying a gun him/herself:

Surveys by the Police Federation of England and Wales have continued to show police officers’ considerable resistance to routine arming. In the Federation’s most recent (2006) Officer/Arming survey, 82% of respondents were against the routine arming of police…

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why:

As with all use of force in England and Wales, the onus is on the individual officer to justify their actions in court.

To me as an American, the entire situation seems to be a form of extreme denial.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, latest Mpks incident
« Reply #631 on: July 19, 2017, 07:19:52 AM »
I wonder what G M and others speculate happened, Somali born cop shot white Australian woman for no apparent reason.
See startribune or powering.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, latest Mpks incident
« Reply #632 on: July 19, 2017, 09:08:27 AM »
I wonder what G M and others speculate happened, Somali born cop shot white Australian woman for no apparent reason.
See startribune or powering.

It seems strange, for sure. I am waiting for the investigation to be completed, but it doesn't make much sense with what has been reported.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Garrity and Internal/Professional Standards Investigations
« Reply #633 on: July 19, 2017, 10:08:48 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/19/malcolm-turnbull-demands-answers-from-us-authorities-over-justine-damonds-death

A preliminary investigation by Minnesota officials suggests the fatal shooting of an Australian woman, Justine Damond, by a Minneapolis police officer may have been sparked by a “loud sound” near the police car.

In a statement, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) confirmed the identity of the two Minneapolis police officers involved in the incident as Matthew Harrity and Mohamed Noor, who has been identified in local media as the officer who allegedly shot Damond.

The bureau said it had interviewed Harrity but Noor had declined to be interviewed by BCA agents.

Betsy Hodges, mayor of Minneapolis, told a press conference in Minneapolis on Tuesday night: “We cannot by law compel Officer Noor to make a statement. I wish that he would.

“I wish that he would because he has a story to tell that only he can tell.”


http://www.aele.org/interviews.pdf

Because public entities function with the consent of the governed, there is a duty to
internally investigate allegations of official and employee misconduct. All but the
smallest law enforcement agencies have established a formal protocol for investigating
complaints, whether they originate from a citizen, a member of the agency, or from an
anonymous source. [4]
The two leading Supreme Court decisions that apply to IA interviews of public
employees are Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and NLRB v. Weingarten (1975). In a few
states, such as Illinois, a police officers’ “Bill of Rights” law also provides statutory
rights to covered officers. [5]
Police officers who are interviewed in a disciplinary setting should be warned that they
are under investigation for violation of departmental rules, that they are obligated to give
statements for internal purposes, and their answers may not be used against them in a
criminal proceeding. Without that admonition, persons who are interviewed are likely to
assume that the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause applies, and that they can
decline to answer questions without any lawful penalty.
Absent a statute on point, a warning is technically unnecessary unless the employee
declines to answer a question. However, state Bill of Rights laws, where applicable,
might require a written warning. For example, 50 Illinois Compiled Statutes 725/3.8(a)
reads:
“No officer shall be interrogated without first being advised in writing that
admissions made in the course of the interrogation may be used as evidence of
misconduct or as the basis for charges seeking suspension, removal, or discharge;
and without first being advised in writing that he or she has the right to counsel of
his or her choosing who may be present to advise him or her at any stage of any
interrogation.”
Constitutionally, the warning is essential before any disciplinary action can be taken for a
refusal to cooperate in the interview. Lybarger v. Los Angeles (1985).
Reciting a disciplinary warning is also a good practice, because it clarifies the purpose of
the interview and delineates rights and responsibilities. A typical “Garrity Warning”
follows:

Employee Disciplinary Interview – Advice of Rights

“You are being questioned as part of an administrative investigation of the Police
Department. You will be asked questions that are specifically directed and
narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office.
You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the
constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States, including the
right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. You also have the have right to
an attorney of your choice, to be present during questioning.
“If you refuse to answer questions relating to the performance of your official
duties or fitness for duty, you will be subject to disciplinary charges which would
result in your dismissal from the Police Department.
“If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence which
is gained by reason of such statements can be used against you in any subsequent
criminal proceeding. However, these statements may be used against you in
relation to subsequent departmental charges.”

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
How bad is the rioting and looting in the Twin Cities?
« Reply #634 on: July 21, 2017, 06:02:58 PM »
I figure both Minneapolis and St. Paul are burning now, right?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: Garrity and Internal/Professional Standards Investigations
« Reply #635 on: July 21, 2017, 07:03:18 PM »
Just to clarify my points on what appears to be happening:

Law Enforcement Officers DO NOT have the right to remain silent as far as an Internal Affairs/Professional Standards investigations goes. If the Minn. Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is conducting a criminal investigation of the shooting, Ofc. Noor can lawyer up and refuse to speak to them. HOWEVER, he does NOT have the right to refuse to speak to MPD investigators conducting an IA/Professional Standards investigation. Failure to comply with the investigation can and almost always is cause for termination. There is a requirement that there be a wall between the criminal and internal investigation. The IA investigators are not permitted to share compelled testimony and the fruits of the compelled testimony with the criminal investigator. This wall is not absolute. In a criminal trial, the compelled statements for the IA investigators can be introduced in trial to impeach the testimony of the officer, should he/she decide to testify.

The statements from the mayor imply that she is either ignorant of this, or they have decided to protect Ofc. Noor.





https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/19/malcolm-turnbull-demands-answers-from-us-authorities-over-justine-damonds-death

A preliminary investigation by Minnesota officials suggests the fatal shooting of an Australian woman, Justine Damond, by a Minneapolis police officer may have been sparked by a “loud sound” near the police car.

In a statement, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) confirmed the identity of the two Minneapolis police officers involved in the incident as Matthew Harrity and Mohamed Noor, who has been identified in local media as the officer who allegedly shot Damond.

The bureau said it had interviewed Harrity but Noor had declined to be interviewed by BCA agents.

Betsy Hodges, mayor of Minneapolis, told a press conference in Minneapolis on Tuesday night: “We cannot by law compel Officer Noor to make a statement. I wish that he would.

“I wish that he would because he has a story to tell that only he can tell.”


http://www.aele.org/interviews.pdf

Because public entities function with the consent of the governed, there is a duty to
internally investigate allegations of official and employee misconduct. All but the
smallest law enforcement agencies have established a formal protocol for investigating
complaints, whether they originate from a citizen, a member of the agency, or from an
anonymous source. [4]
The two leading Supreme Court decisions that apply to IA interviews of public
employees are Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and NLRB v. Weingarten (1975). In a few
states, such as Illinois, a police officers’ “Bill of Rights” law also provides statutory
rights to covered officers. [5]
Police officers who are interviewed in a disciplinary setting should be warned that they
are under investigation for violation of departmental rules, that they are obligated to give
statements for internal purposes, and their answers may not be used against them in a
criminal proceeding. Without that admonition, persons who are interviewed are likely to
assume that the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause applies, and that they can
decline to answer questions without any lawful penalty.
Absent a statute on point, a warning is technically unnecessary unless the employee
declines to answer a question. However, state Bill of Rights laws, where applicable,
might require a written warning. For example, 50 Illinois Compiled Statutes 725/3.8(a)
reads:
“No officer shall be interrogated without first being advised in writing that
admissions made in the course of the interrogation may be used as evidence of
misconduct or as the basis for charges seeking suspension, removal, or discharge;
and without first being advised in writing that he or she has the right to counsel of
his or her choosing who may be present to advise him or her at any stage of any
interrogation.”
Constitutionally, the warning is essential before any disciplinary action can be taken for a
refusal to cooperate in the interview. Lybarger v. Los Angeles (1985).
Reciting a disciplinary warning is also a good practice, because it clarifies the purpose of
the interview and delineates rights and responsibilities. A typical “Garrity Warning”
follows:

Employee Disciplinary Interview – Advice of Rights

“You are being questioned as part of an administrative investigation of the Police
Department. You will be asked questions that are specifically directed and
narrowly related to the performance of your official duties or fitness for office.
You are entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the
constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States, including the
right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. You also have the have right to
an attorney of your choice, to be present during questioning.
“If you refuse to answer questions relating to the performance of your official
duties or fitness for duty, you will be subject to disciplinary charges which would
result in your dismissal from the Police Department.
“If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence which
is gained by reason of such statements can be used against you in any subsequent
criminal proceeding. However, these statements may be used against you in
relation to subsequent departmental charges.”


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« Reply #636 on: July 22, 2017, 01:29:47 PM »
Good info.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the rioting and looting in the Twin Cities?
« Reply #638 on: August 09, 2017, 07:28:27 AM »
I figure both Minneapolis and St. Paul are burning now, right?

[Black Somalian cop shoots white Australian woman.]  I can tell you it's gone crazy.  I haven't seen anything like it - since last summer.   I don't know if a photo of a recent weekend can capture the level mayhem here in MN.  The mayor of Minneapolis is asking us to embrace the discomfort of transformation.  At the MacG compound, people were seen in a state of panic, fleeing in life rafts, utilizing boats of all types, wind and gas powered, paddling, some pulled by a rope behind a speed boat with only a ski underfoot, others under water, some running, biking, swimming for their lives.  Some accepted the defeat and just sat taking alcohol internally rather than flee.  Will try to keep you updated.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 07:32:11 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the rioting and looting in the Twin Cities?
« Reply #639 on: August 09, 2017, 07:44:05 PM »
Any chants of "No justice, no peace!"? Sporadic looting?

I figure both Minneapolis and St. Paul are burning now, right?

[Black Somalian cop shoots white Australian woman.]  I can tell you it's gone crazy.  I haven't seen anything like it - since last summer.   I don't know if a photo of a recent weekend can capture the level mayhem here in MN.  The mayor of Minneapolis is asking us to embrace the discomfort of transformation.  At the MacG compound, people were seen in a state of panic, fleeing in life rafts, utilizing boats of all types, wind and gas powered, paddling, some pulled by a rope behind a speed boat with only a ski underfoot, others under water, some running, biking, swimming for their lives.  Some accepted the defeat and just sat taking alcohol internally rather than flee.  Will try to keep you updated.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Minn newspaper gets Garrity partially right (Ofc. Noor)
« Reply #640 on: August 09, 2017, 08:57:23 PM »
http://www.startribune.com/will-officer-mohamed-noor-ever-have-to-give-a-statement-on-the-justine-damond-shooting/436781813/

Will officer Mohamed Noor ever have to give a statement on the Justine Damond shooting?
High court ruling means internal affairs interview not useful for criminal trial.
By Brandon Stahl Star Tribune  JULY 26, 2017 — 9:20PM

Mohamed Noor has a constitutional right not to talk with anyone pursuing potential criminal charges in the shooting death of Justine Damond on July 15.

But he'll still likely have to talk with investigators.

If the Minneapolis Police Department opens an internal investigation into the shooting, the law requires him to talk if he wants to keep his job. But even if he does that, what he says to internal affairs can never be used in a criminal case. (GM Not true. If Noor should testify in a criminal trial, the Garrity compelled statements can be used to impeach his testimony)

"That's the trade-off the Supreme Court made," said Twin Cities employment attorney Marshall Tanick.

Tanick is referring to a 1967 ruling, Garrity vs. New Jersey, involving police in the Garden State accused of corruption. When the officers were questioned, they were told they could invoke their constitutional right not to talk, but if they stayed silent, they'd be fired. Prosecutors later used their statements to convict them.

The officers appealed, with the U.S. Supreme Court saying anything that public employees say as part of an internal investigation cannot be used in a criminal case.

"The Supreme Court wanted to encourage people to talk," Tanick said.

In Minnesota, public employees under internal investigation are now read a Garrity Warning, which says that though they are not legally required to say anything, their employer requires it. If an employee doesn't cooperate, or fails to tell the truth, they could get fired.

But the statement makes clear that any information gathered during an interview can't be used in a criminal case.

"Because you are being required to provide information under the threat of disciplinary action, the information you provide, and any evidence resulting from the information you provide, cannot and will not be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding," the warning reads.

Any use of information provided to internal investigators could derail a criminal case. Defense attorneys for two Minneapolis police officers charged with felony crimes unrelated to the Damond shooting are trying to use the Supreme Court's Garrity decision to help their clients.

For Christopher Reiter, who faces a felony third-degree assault charge for allegedly kicking a man in the face in May 2016, his attorney is arguing that police and prosecutors used information from Reiter's internal affairs interviews to help the criminal case. Reiter wants a hearing that could see the charges get dismissed.

Efrem Hamilton wants the Hennepin County attorney's office tossed from his case as he faces felony assault charges for allegedly shooting at a car. In May, his attorney filed a motion arguing that prosecutors used internal information gathered as part of their case.

Judges for both cases have not ruled on the motions.

It's worth noting that Garrity rights do not apply to private companies and employees. The constitution only protects people from the actions of government, said Don Taylor, a labor professor at the University of Wisconsin.

Garrity rights, Taylor said, are "a manifestation of the [U.S. Constitution's] Fifth Amendment rights that everybody has that you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself."

brandon.stahl@startribune.com 612-673-4626 b_stahl

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
More on Garrity
« Reply #641 on: August 09, 2017, 10:49:48 PM »
http://www.corrections.com/news/article/39796-the-garrity-rule-know-understand-your-rights

The exception to the Garrity Rule is that if an officer testifies in a criminal proceeding inconsistent with the 'compelled' statement, that statement may be used as a basis for impeaching the officer.

Therefore, as suggested above, a truthful statement is required under the Garrity Rule. Members should be aware that a 'compelled' statement may be used in any civil proceeding and may be used in any criminal proceeding except against the person that made the statement, subject to the impeachment provision.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11270
    • View Profile
Re: How bad is the rioting and looting in the Twin Cities?
« Reply #642 on: August 10, 2017, 07:19:59 AM »
"Any chants of "No justice, no peace!"? Sporadic looting?"

They were able to correct past kitchen looting mob issuess by over-serving meals and beverages on a regular basis.  In technical political economic jargon, it's called free sh*t.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
That SLC arrest of a nurse
« Reply #643 on: September 04, 2017, 12:31:37 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Re: That SLC arrest of a nurse
« Reply #644 on: September 04, 2017, 12:50:58 PM »
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/salt-lake-nurse-arrest-video/

Unless there are elements currently unknown that will vindicate the officers, SLC will be writing a very big check to the nurse and the officers involved are in some very deep kimchee.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16935
    • View Profile
Pro Tip: Don't get snarky with the Sheriff when you have an illegal grow
« Reply #646 on: September 26, 2017, 01:50:17 PM »
https://www.alamosanews.com/article/bonanza-pot-bust-nets-estimated-5-million-in-plants

Bonanza pot bust nets estimated $5 million in plants

 © 2017-Alamosa News
By: Teresa L. Benns - Updated: 1 week ago

BONANZA — The Saguache County Sheriff’s office and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officials executed a search warrant Thursday afternoon in rural Bonanza arresting six individuals illegally growing marijuana and confiscating between 1200-1500 plants.

Estimated worth of the confiscated plants was $5 million, Saguache Sheriff Dan Warwick said. The product filled 10-12 pick-up trucks and was then loaded into a Saguache County Road and Bridge dump truck for disposal at an undisclosed location.

The execution of the search warrant followed a two-month investigation after the Saguache Sheriff’s office received a tip from local Bonanza residents about unusual traffic on the roadways. Warwick says it is his intention to send a message to those growing illegally in the county.

Warwick said one individual told him at a meeting held earlier this year to discuss marijuana regulations that if the sheriff’s office wanted to know what they were growing, to get a search warrant. “So that’s exactly what we did,” Warwick said, warning residents to follow the laws regarding marijuana growth and cultivation or face the consequences.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile
Ten Commandments for LEOs after Deadly Force
« Reply #648 on: October 30, 2018, 09:55:33 PM »

I. Police attorney’s 10 Commandments for cops after deadly force

Your first priority in using deadly force is to survive the life-threatening circumstances that prompted you to pull the trigger. Then there’s surviving the aftermath....
Some officers claim that can be even more stressful, and certainly it’s a more extended test of survival skills of a different kind, considering that shooting cases can drag on for years before they’re finally resolved.

Police Atty. Scott Wood, a former officer, a certified Force Science Analyst, and a Force Science instructor has helped scores of officers navigate the perilous post-shooting passage, including some who’ve dominated national headlines.

Based on his experiences, he has compiled what he considers the 10 Commandments for surviving what lies in store after the smoke clears. Here’s what he urges you to remember:

1. REMEMBER YOUR OATH.

When you became an officer you swore to defend the Constitution with your life, if need be. You also agreed to know and uphold the law.
Now that you’ve used deadly force, can you fulfill your oath by justifying your legal presence at the time of the incident and explaining your legal foundation for using deadly force?

2. REMEMBER YOUR USE-OF-FORCE TRAINING.

Right after a shooting that probably was over in a matter of seconds, you may have little or no detailed recall of your thought process leading up to and during the event. It may seem like you acted on “auto pilot.” This can lead to immediate doubts about possible errors in your decision-making.

This is the time to recall your countless hours on the range and in use-of-force simulation training where an appropriate split-second response to a lethal threat was drilled into your mind.

After things have settled down and you have a period of sleep, you’ll be able to begin recalling and articulating many factors you were aware of that prompted your shooting decision. They may have flashed into your consciousness for mere milliseconds, but with time you will be able to discern what many of those were.
If you’ve had good training, trust your objective instinct and don’t let unfounded second-guessing or uncertainties undermine your confidence that you did the right thing. You’ll need faith in yourself to face what may be difficult days ahead.

3. REMEMBER THE LEGAL PROBABILITIES.

If you’re involved in a shooting or an arrest-related death, your use of force has a high probability of being litigated—regardless of the legal justification for your actions. Unfortunately, that’s the reality in today’s litigious culture.

Criminal prosecution of officers has been historically rare because the vast majority of OISs are justified under criminal statutes. Far more likely, you’ll be named in a civil lawsuit, probably a Section 1983 Civil Rights claim (42 U.S.C.A. 1983), alleging that you used excessive force.

As you work your way through the aftermath of a shooting, remain cognizant of the potential legal threat. Don’t fear it, but use the guidelines outlined here to best position yourself and your family for successfully weathering that storm. This will require effort on your part, during a time that will no doubt be psychologically and physically draining on you. But there’s much you can do to avoid self-sabotage.

Keep in mind, too, that you may have some legal options that could be pursued against the offender or his estate. Getting an attorney who is well-versed and experienced in police litigation is essential.

4. REMEMBER TO AVOID GIVING AN IMMEDIATE STATEMENT.

If you’ve been in law enforcement for any length of time, you should already have read the book Deadly Force Encounters by Dr. Alexis Artwohl, a Force Science instructor and former police psychologist.

The information she conveys about the psychological impact of a critical incident and the potential for creating lingering perceptual distortions of what occurred make it clear that the best time to give an official statement about your shooting is not immediately afterward. You need time to emotionally decompress and for your memories of the event to consolidate, because this statement will likely be the most important you’ll make in your career. In any litigation, it will be key evidence, so you want it as complete and accurate as possible.

Even if you are allowed to supplement an immediate statement later, doing so could possibly create huge problems for you in civil litigation when the suggestion will be made that you “conveniently” remembered some important facts a few days after your shooting in order to bolster your position of legal justification.
Make sure you are refreshed, physically well, and psychologically ready before giving your account of what happened.

5. REMEMBER TO DISCIPLINE YOUR “UNOFFICIAL” COMMENTS.

Discipline yourself against spontaneous outbursts or casual comments and conversations about your incident outside of “protected” settings.

Anyone you talk to about the shooting who does not enjoy a recognized legal privilege of confidentiality with you can be called as a potential witness in civil litigation. At that later time, they may remember all of what you said, some of what you said, or think they remember all or some of what you said.

Before you speak, ask yourself: Is this the kind of evidence I want a jury to hear and use to determine the propriety of my shooting decision?

6. REMEMBER TO KNOW YOUR DEPT.’S INVESTIGATIVE POLICY.

Be familiar with your department’s policy on deadly force investigations before you become involved in one. 

Do you know if policy allows you to review video and audio recordings before you make your statement? Are you required to submit anything in writing before you go off shift or go home on administrative leave? If you have body-cam evidence, do you know how that is to be handled? 

Anxiety over the unknown is common in everyone, so knowing the drill ahead of time will alleviate some extra stress. If you haven’t prepared ahead of time for a critical incident and are suffering from added anxiety, don’t be bashful about asking your union rep or your attorney what is going to happen in the course of the investigation. 
7. REMEMBER TO MAKE YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS WORK FOR YOU.

After you use deadly force you will be a suspect in a homicide. But remember that by becoming a law enforcement officer you did not give up any of your constitutional rights.

Under the Fifth Amendment you have the right to an attorney and you have the right to remain silent until you are ready to give your detailed account of how your shooting occurred. Remember, though, that you must affirmatively invoke this right by telling the investigator(s) that you want to exercise your right to remain silent based on the Fifth Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Salinas v. Texas. [For more details on invoking this right, see Force Science News #360 (3/22/18).]
Knowing the percentage of shootings that result in litigation and the fact that your statement will be a key exhibit in any type of case, the statement you give should be as complete and as accurate as possible. This will require effort on your part, during a period that will no doubt be psychologically draining on you.

8. REMEMBER TO DRAW ON RESOURCES YOU HAVE AVAILABLE.

After the incident, take advantage of peer support, union representation, legal representation, and psychological counseling. The latter two have a recognized legal privilege attached to them, which frees you to talk about the event to those individuals with assurance of confidentiality.

Taking the life of another is commonly and understandably a life-changing event. The aftermath, with major administrative, legal, physical, and psychological ramifications, is undeniably stressful. Help yourself by using available resources of support.

9. REMEMBER TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN FULLY ARTICULATE.

Before giving your official statement, be certain you can fully articulate—honestly and to the best of your ability—the totality of circumstances that led to your decision to use deadly force.

You and you alone must be able to explain the appropriate legal standards regarding reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify your contact with the suspect. You must also be able to articulate the appropriate legal standards on the use of deadly force set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor.

That means you must be able to recount the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. You must describe why you were in fear of your life, and/or for the lives of others, or why you believed the suspect was a continuing and immediate threat to the public if not apprehended.

You must be able to recreate what happened from your perspective to educate those who will judge your actions but were not there to face the challenges you faced first hand. This requires serious thought and thorough preparation. It’s not something to try to wing in the moment, however confident you may be of the “righteousness” of your position. .

10. REMEMBER TO ALWAYS BE TRUTHFUL.

When you do give your statement, the worst mistakes you can make are to shade details in your favor, fill gaps in your memory with what you believe “must” have happened rather than admit you don’t know, or to outright lie.   Forensic evidence and today’s omnipresent camera coverage will eventually give investigators much detail about what happened, and concocted stories will not survive scrutiny.

Even in our currently contentious atmosphere, most juries and judges most of the time are willing to believe an officer’s version of events. But it doesn’t take much to weaken that faith. Don’t help those who want to discredit you by shooting yourself in the foot. That’s a shooting that can be tough to survive. For more information, Atty. Scott Wood can be reached at: okcoplaw@aol.com.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 47733
    • View Profile