Author Topic: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action  (Read 342250 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13007
    • View Profile
Law Enforcement issues, Trial of the Minneapolis cop begins
« Reply #650 on: April 03, 2019, 06:17:29 AM »
Many threads this affects, so please guide me.  Days one and two so far are jury selection and media issues.

I am generally a big defender of law enforcement but once in a while they are in the wrong and of what we know so far this appears to be one of those cases.

Many will recall that Minneapolis' first Somali American cop, from the passenger seat of the squad car, reached across his partner and fatally shot the Australian national woman in her pajamas who was approaching the car unarmed to report further on what she called in as the disturbance (a few blocks from my own south Mpls property).

Mohammed Noor is about to get a fair trial and likely tell his side of the story for the first time.

Scott Johnson of Powerline is trying to get press credentials and writes about his difficulties with the court's denial: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/a-personal-note-on-the-noor-trial.php

More to come.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« Reply #651 on: April 03, 2019, 09:07:59 AM »
Looking forward to your continuing reports!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13007
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues, Trial of the Minneapolis cop begins
« Reply #653 on: April 16, 2019, 09:10:46 AM »
The trial goes on with the prosecution calling everyone who came to the scene and all they are finding is an absence of evidence of reason for a shooting.

Our man on the scene, Scott Johnson of Powerline, is in the courtroom and continues to report.  In summary he writes:  "Justine’s killing is inexplicable."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-10.php

I don't see how the larger issues find their way into this very specific trial.  This police shooting defies the narrative.  Black lives matter, cops are pigs, fry them like bacon, cops are trigger happy because they are white racist and shooting blacks, none of this fits here.  The officer is black, Somalian-American and the victim couldn't be more white, an Australian national engaged to an American.

There was no weapon on the victim, there was no threat or reason to perceive a threat.  She wasn't carrying something else that looked like a gun.  Her nightgown didn't conceal a weapon.  There was no explanation understood by anyone who came to the scene.
 He didn't jump out of the car.  There wasn't a startling sound.  There just wasn't a threat, and he pulled out a gun and shot her across

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13007
    • View Profile
Trial of the Minneapolis cop Mohammed Noor continues
« Reply #654 on: April 18, 2019, 09:10:49 AM »
"At the scene [morning after the shooting] Sergeant Barnette ordered him to take the Harrity/Noor squad car from which Noor had fired the gunshot to the carwash and have it cleaned.  He took it to Dan’s Nicollet Carwash. He saw fingerprint powder on the squad car that was not entirely removed by the carwash. He drove the car back to the fifth precinct headquarters parking lot to be returned to service."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-12.php

What??

The 30 second buffer on the partner's body cam should have included the shooting but only 14 seconds were captured.
https://twitter.com/LouRaguse



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
Re: Trial of the Minneapolis cop Mohammed Noor continues
« Reply #655 on: April 19, 2019, 01:09:14 PM »
"At the scene [morning after the shooting] Sergeant Barnette ordered him to take the Harrity/Noor squad car from which Noor had fired the gunshot to the carwash and have it cleaned.  He took it to Dan’s Nicollet Carwash. He saw fingerprint powder on the squad car that was not entirely removed by the carwash. He drove the car back to the fifth precinct headquarters parking lot to be returned to service."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-12.php

What??

The 30 second buffer on the partner's body cam should have included the shooting but only 14 seconds were captured.
https://twitter.com/LouRaguse

A forensic exam of the body cam should be done. The immediate return of the squad car to service is very strange.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« Reply #656 on: April 19, 2019, 06:59:58 PM »
Love the way you are following up on this Doug.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13007
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #657 on: April 23, 2019, 07:13:37 AM »
Love the way you are following up on this Doug.

My pleasure but there doesn't seem to be any evidence or issue to discuss.  The potential real issues are not in the trial.  Did Mpls negligently hire an unstable guy to be cop because they were so eager to get a black and get their first Somalian on the police force?  If so, doesn't matter; they aren't on trial.  Or is it worse, Noor is fully capable but wanted the badge and the gun for bad reasons.  Nothing of that sort is accused in the trial.

Is this the kind of story elsewhere that caused a wrongful shooting in Mpls:
"2 Florida deputies shot dead in suspected ambush"
Colorado officer killed in 'ambush-style attack'
Cops ambushed in Dallas
Cops ambushed in Ohio, and so on.  Google these stories and more.

Defense theory in the Noor trial is that both officers feared they entered an ambush.  Noor's partner also drew his weapon [although neither activated body cam until after the shooting].  They were startled by a sound and that is why he shot an unarmed women in her pajamas who approached the driver window.  Officers may or may not have invented the story of a rap on the police car.  There were no fingerprints of the victims on the vehicle.  Defense attorney suggests it could have been her knuckle or back of the hand.  So what?  Does that mean reasonable person in that situation shoots to kill?  No.  More likely fear than reason.

Noor's partner Harrity testified they saw a silhouette approach the squad car, then heard a slap or thump sound on the car that made them fear danger

Crime scene investigators said you could read a book under that alley street light illumination.  Why did they drive into a place where they felt trapped is one question and with two people sensing danger in good illumination, why did they not keep awareness of everything around them.  I question further, don't you have better 360 degree awareness on foot, but sit in the car and roll down the window is what Minneapolis police often do.

We are waiting for defendant to testify and for the jury to sort it out.  The rightful result comes down to Minnesota definitions of 3rd degree murder and manslaughter.

The officer should not have shot and the woman died because of his mistake.  I can't imagine how the defendant argues he was right to shoot based on what he saw and heard and did not make a mistake.  More believable is that he drew his weapon but did not mean to shoot.

"it will be hard overcoming the defense that Noor’s team has invoked that police can legally shoot if they have a reasonable fear that they’re in danger. Noor’s attorneys have argued that he heard a loud noise and feared an ambush. But prosecutors say there is no evidence of any threat to justify deadly force."
https://www.twincities.com/2019/04/19/mohamed-noor-trial-charges-justine-damond-shooting-minneapolis-cop/
More coverage:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-14.php
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 08:35:44 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #658 on: April 23, 2019, 10:17:43 PM »
The correct response if you are being ambushed in a patrol car, is to jam on the gas pedal and get off the X.



Love the way you are following up on this Doug.

My pleasure but there doesn't seem to be any evidence or issue to discuss.  The potential real issues are not in the trial.  Did Mpls negligently hire an unstable guy to be cop because they were so eager to get a black and get their first Somalian on the police force?  If so, doesn't matter; they aren't on trial.  Or is it worse, Noor is fully capable but wanted the badge and the gun for bad reasons.  Nothing of that sort is accused in the trial.

Is this the kind of story elsewhere that caused a wrongful shooting in Mpls:
"2 Florida deputies shot dead in suspected ambush"
Colorado officer killed in 'ambush-style attack'
Cops ambushed in Dallas
Cops ambushed in Ohio, and so on.  Google these stories and more.

Defense theory in the Noor trial is that both officers feared they entered an ambush.  Noor's partner also drew his weapon [although neither activated body cam until after the shooting].  They were startled by a sound and that is why he shot an unarmed women in her pajamas who approached the driver window.  Officers may or may not have invented the story of a rap on the police car.  There were no fingerprints of the victims on the vehicle.  Defense attorney suggests it could have been her knuckle or back of the hand.  So what?  Does that mean reasonable person in that situation shoots to kill?  No.  More likely fear than reason.

Noor's partner Harrity testified they saw a silhouette approach the squad car, then heard a slap or thump sound on the car that made them fear danger

Crime scene investigators said you could read a book under that alley street light illumination.  Why did they drive into a place where they felt trapped is one question and with two people sensing danger in good illumination, why did they not keep awareness of everything around them.  I question further, don't you have better 360 degree awareness on foot, but sit in the car and roll down the window is what Minneapolis police often do.

We are waiting for defendant to testify and for the jury to sort it out.  The rightful result comes down to Minnesota definitions of 3rd degree murder and manslaughter.

The officer should not have shot and the woman died because of his mistake.  I can't imagine how the defendant argues he was right to shoot based on what he saw and heard and did not make a mistake.  More believable is that he drew his weapon but did not mean to shoot.

"it will be hard overcoming the defense that Noor’s team has invoked that police can legally shoot if they have a reasonable fear that they’re in danger. Noor’s attorneys have argued that he heard a loud noise and feared an ambush. But prosecutors say there is no evidence of any threat to justify deadly force."
https://www.twincities.com/2019/04/19/mohamed-noor-trial-charges-justine-damond-shooting-minneapolis-cop/
More coverage:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/at-the-noor-trial-14.php
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 10:20:03 PM by G M »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13007
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #659 on: April 24, 2019, 07:04:22 AM »
"The correct response if you are being ambushed in a patrol car, is to jam on the gas pedal and get off the X."

That makes sense to me.  For some reason I thought they were at the end of a dead end alley.  Looking at the property maps and re-reading the stories, that was not the case.  They could have surged forward or backward to thwart an ambush.  The driving error was the fault of the partner of Noor, who is not charged.  Had he jammed on the accelerator with weapons drawn, the accidental shooting might have been of themselves?

Had Officer Noor waited for the person approaching (woman in pajamas) to aim a weapon (she didn't have) at them, it may have been too late.  If he shoots first and gathers information later, he is guilty of at least negligent homicide.  The officers make $27/hr to risk their life and make these decisions.

There apparently was no rape or at least was no other report of it.  State crime lab failed to follow up on that.  Maybe neighbor's were having loud sex with windows open July 15 in Mpls but no report that anyone else heard it.  A rapist would not approach a squad car.  Officers were in a well lit alley, open in front of them, had no reason around them to sense danger except for the 9/11 report and a person approaching the squad car.  Either talk to the lady or step on the gas.  You don't have authority to discharge the weapon without some other information. 

From Noor's passenger seat, step on the gas wasn't an option and we have no record of conversation between them.  Harrity the partner also screwed up and is doing everything  he can in the trial to back up his partner. 

Race? Justine, white. Noor is black Somali-American, came here as a youth, had been with the department 21 months.  Harrity is white man, was 25 at the time, had been with the department 1 year.  Police chief was a white woman, was on vacation when this happened, resigned shortly after, was replaced by black man.  Mayor was white liberal woman who left for Los Angeles in the immediate aftermath of this for a scheduled campaign fundraiser.  She lost reelection.  New mayor is liberal white man.  Race played no known role in any of this.  Race only matters when the cop is white and the victim is black.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 07:09:48 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #660 on: April 24, 2019, 09:15:38 AM »
Ability: Does the person ACTUALLY have the ability to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon you or a third party? Would a reasonable person believe under the circumstances the person has the ABILITY to inflict SBI/death?

Opportunity: Do they have the opportunity to inflict SBI or death? They have an axe, but you are on the top of a building, 3 stories tall.

Jeopardy: Have they actually demonstrated the intent to do harm to you or others?

If you don't have the three factors above, you lack legal justification for deadly force.


"The correct response if you are being ambushed in a patrol car, is to jam on the gas pedal and get off the X."

That makes sense to me.  For some reason I thought they were at the end of a dead end alley.  Looking at the property maps and re-reading the stories, that was not the case.  They could have surged forward or backward to thwart an ambush.  The driving error was the fault of the partner of Noor, who is not charged.  Had he jammed on the accelerator with weapons drawn, the accidental shooting might have been of themselves?

Had Officer Noor waited for the person approaching (woman in pajamas) to aim a weapon (she didn't have) at them, it may have been too late.  If he shoots first and gathers information later, he is guilty of at least negligent homicide.  The officers make $27/hr to risk their life and make these decisions.

There apparently was no rape or at least was no other report of it.  State crime lab failed to follow up on that.  Maybe neighbor's were having loud sex with windows open July 15 in Mpls but no report that anyone else heard it.  A rapist would not approach a squad car.  Officers were in a well lit alley, open in front of them, had no reason around them to sense danger except for the 9/11 report and a person approaching the squad car.  Either talk to the lady or step on the gas.  You don't have authority to discharge the weapon without some other information. 

From Noor's passenger seat, step on the gas wasn't an option and we have no record of conversation between them.  Harrity the partner also screwed up and is doing everything  he can in the trial to back up his partner. 

Race? Justine, white. Noor is black Somali-American, came here as a youth, had been with the department 21 months.  Harrity is white man, was 25 at the time, had been with the department 1 year.  Police chief was a white woman, was on vacation when this happened, resigned shortly after, was replaced by black man.  Mayor was white liberal woman who left for Los Angeles in the immediate aftermath of this for a scheduled campaign fundraiser.  She lost reelection.  New mayor is liberal white man.  Race played no known role in any of this.  Race only matters when the cop is white and the victim is black.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13007
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #661 on: April 25, 2019, 02:14:26 PM »
Expert testimony yesterday went exactly along the lines of the GM post.

“The use of force was objectionable, unreasonable and violated police policies … and training,” said expert witness Derrick Hacker. “No reasonable officer would have perceived a threat by somebody coming up to their squad.”

“I don’t believe they were logical or rational at all,” Longo said of Noor’s actions. “This was an unprovoked, violent response.”
---------------------
Hacker, who has served as a use-of-force instructor since his days in the Marines in the early 1990s, said accounts of the noise that apparently startled the officers were “vague” and didn’t meet the threshold for using deadly force. Officers are taught to apply a “force continuum” that starts with none and escalates up to deadly force when an officer feels lives are in danger, or to stop a suspect who has committed or is committing a felony, he said.

“You need to identify the target: who it is, is it a male, is it a female?” he said. “If an officer cannot see that, then the officer is not allowed to use deadly force.”

Noor, Hacker concluded, should have known better after undergoing “use of firearms in lowlight” and “pre-ambush awareness” training during his stint at the police academy.

“Is being startled or spooked the same as fearing death or great bodily harm?” asked Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton.

“No, it is not,” Hacker responded.

The officers should have taken greater steps to investigate Damond’s call, he said, making the connection between her call about a woman possibly screaming in her alley and an earlier incident involving an apparently disoriented woman who was wandering through the area.

“Would you pull your gun out?” Lofton asked regarding Damond’s call.

“No, absolutely not,” Hacker said.

Hacker argued that the officers’ decision to pull out their guns inside their SUV was “unreasonable and is unacceptable.” The matter is a point of contention with the defense.

Officers are trained to draw their guns quickly when a threat emerges, Hacker said, precluding them from needing their firearms unholstered.

“By driving around with a handgun, there’s a higher propensity for other things to happen,” he said, pointing to the possibility of an accidental discharge. “I would say, even in an active shooter call, it isn’t needed.”

Lofton asked him whether Damond “did anything wrong” by approaching the officers.

“No, Ms. Ruszczyk did nothing wrong — police are approached daily, this happens routinely,” he said, adding that he didn’t find it unusual that 911 dispatchers didn’t instruct her to stay put.

Longo said officers should know how to handle people approaching their squad cars, and not the opposite.

“That just defies logic to me that we would have to train citizens from approaching police cars,” he said.


http://www.startribune.com/use-of-force-expert-none-needed-in-encounter-with-damond/509008502/
----------------------------------

Defendant Noor is on the stand.
Snippets follow via twitter begins after prosecution expert witness.
https://twitter.com/LouRaguse
@LouRaguse  #NoorTrial #JustineDamond

The prosecution is expected to wrap up its case today (for real this time) in the Mohamed Noor trial. Their second use-of-force expert, Tim Longo, is still on the witness stand awaiting cross examination. Could Mohamed Noor testify this afternoon? It's possible.

THey went back and forth with Plunkett talking about how Harrity perceived an ambush in prior testimony so they should be able to go into it. Judge will rule further after the break.  See you later this afternoon.

Noor had begun mentioning the Dallas incident from 2006 which Judge Quaintance had already ruled that they can't go into. When jury left, Judge said, "I don't understand the relevance of ambush training"

It was pretty obvious what they were getting at with this testimony and how it would relate to the shooting of Justine Ruszczyk Damond. Before lunch Plunkett asked about them being warned of ambushes -- and the prosecution objected.

Then on counter-ambush training in patrol car, Noor said "As long as your partner is safe, you can shoot out of the squad car in any direction. The key takeaway is saving your partner's life in a safe manner."

Then Noor got choked up talking about counter ambush training relating to MPD Officer Jerry Haaf who was killed in 1992. Noor was holding back tears talking about scenario at restaurant where they learn to trust partner to protect you.

Then they spent time on Noor's counter-ambush training. Noor said, "The most important take for me was actions are better than reactions. If reacting, that means it's too late."
Plunkett: What happens?
Noor: "You die."

"You can get days off, up to termination if you talk to an officer involved at the scene or attempt to interview him," Noor testified.

Noor then talked about his officer involved shooting training where he learned how it affects perception of officers. And what he learned about officers at scene of one, Noor said they can't talk to the officer who shot.

I wonder now if the prosecution thinks the door is open to ask about the traffic stop where he appeared to point a gun at the driver's head.

Noor says when he stepped back with a loaded weapon - he got in trouble but learned from it. "that was in a safe training environment with my instructor behind me." Noor said some other cadets "shot the floor, shot the ceiling, shot the carpet" so mistakes weren't uncommon

And defense attorney Plunkett proactively had Noor talk about something the prosecution wanted to raise -- an incident when he improperly pointed a loaded gun. Noor described he unloaded the weapon in reverse - the chambered round before the magazine which chambered another round

It was "Very stressful," Noor testified. 29 weeks of classes and physical training. "Very demanding. It requires a lot of learning." Then he began talking about his firearms training.

Noor became an American citizen in 1999. His parents gained citizenship and he said that automatically applied to he and his siblings too. After going through his schooling, Noor got to part where he started Police Cadet Academy.

Noor is the oldest of 10 siblings. He was born in Somalia, fled to Kenya with his family at age 5, then to America when 7. When reached MN in 7th grade, Noor testified, "When I moved here, no one liked Somalis."

Noor's testimony has not yet reached the night of the shooting. Defense attorney Tom Plunkett has been going over Noor's life story with him, which we first heard in Opening Statements.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13007
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #662 on: April 29, 2019, 04:27:02 PM »
Closing arguments done, it's in the hands of the jury. 
https://twitter.com/LouRaguse

Plenty of people including some on the jury will disagree but guilt at some level is clear to me.  There was unauthorized use of a weapon that led to a death.  He intentionally shot to kill(?).  It wasn't reasonable to think their life was in danger.  It seems to me that in the moments before they had no idea a person was approaching the car in good lighting, they weren't fully paying attention.  For some reason they missed that or failed to react appropriately to it.  It isn't fair in my mind to respond to being startled by pulling the trigger without identifying a treat.  They should have seen someone approaching and responded to it.  Absent that he should have waited for evidence of danger, not act with deadly force only out of fear.

With almost no facts or evidence to work with, both prosecutors and defense attorneys seem to have done a great job representing their side's interests.  It will be interesting to learn what the jury decides.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #663 on: April 29, 2019, 07:57:17 PM »
Closing arguments done, it's in the hands of the jury. 
https://twitter.com/LouRaguse

Plenty of people including some on the jury will disagree but guilt at some level is clear to me.  There was unauthorized use of a weapon that led to a death.  He intentionally shot to kill(?).  It wasn't reasonable to think their life was in danger.  It seems to me that in the moments before they had no idea a person was approaching the car in good lighting, they weren't fully paying attention.  For some reason they missed that or failed to react appropriately to it.  It isn't fair in my mind to respond to being startled by pulling the trigger without identifying a treat.  They should have seen someone approaching and responded to it.  Absent that he should have waited for evidence of danger, not act with deadly force only out of fear.

With almost no facts or evidence to work with, both prosecutors and defense attorneys seem to have done a great job representing their side's interests.  It will be interesting to learn what the jury decides.

"He intentionally shot to kill(?)."

Police training, as well as civilian self defense training teaches "shooting to stop", not shooting to kill. There is an important legal concept of reasonable fear vs. bare fear. Bare fear means unreasoning fear, If you have ability, opportunity and jeopardy, then you reasonably feared for your life, or the life of a 3rd. party. That is justifiable. Employing deadly force based on bare fear isn't. Typically, causing the death of a person without malice aforethought is manslaughter. Which it what appears to be what happened based on the information available to me at this time.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13007
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor trial
« Reply #664 on: April 30, 2019, 10:21:10 AM »
"Police training, as well as civilian self defense training teaches "shooting to stop", not shooting to kill."

Good point G M.  On one shot the threat stopped and then they both tried desperately to keep her alive. 

"There is an important legal concept of reasonable fear vs. bare fear. Bare fear means unreasoning fear, If you have ability, opportunity and jeopardy, then you reasonably feared for your life, or the life of a 3rd. party. That is justifiable. Employing deadly force based on bare fear isn't."

Yes, that is the issue of the case. 

"Typically, causing the death of a person without malice aforethought is manslaughter. Which it what appears to be what happened based on the information available to me at this time."

This is what I think is the right vote for a juror but I don't see anyone predicting how this jury will decide.

I think he accidentally pulled the trigger out of the bare fear described above, but before that unjustified action he unholstered and aimed.  We don't have all the facts but it seems that both of them were surprised that he shot.

The alleged slap on the car maybe added to the bare fear but added nothing rational or reasonable to identifying the threat. 

I posted some links to police ambushed in other places, some were shortly before this happened.  I suspect his fear came more from those incidents elsewhere than from the sounds and sights that were heard and seen in the alley that night.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13007
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action, Noor verdict Guilty
« Reply #665 on: May 01, 2019, 05:22:35 AM »
Not guilty on the highest charge, 2nd degree intentional murder.  Guilty on the next two, third degree murder and manslaughter.  Also most certainly guilty in civil suit coming, wrongful death damages.  Sentencing June 7, he will get the lighter sentence available out of sympathy, but everyone looking at this finds the shooting "inexplicable".

Attorney Scott Johnson of Powerline was in the second row, made 20 posts through it.  This short podcast is his reaction coming out of the verdict:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/the-power-line-show-ep-122-scott-on-the-noor-verdict.php

The trial was not about race.  Something in his profile might indicate he was psychologically a poor fit for the job was kept out of evidence.  4 of the jurors were immigrants including a Pakistani woman.  [Ofc. Noor, 33, came from Somali as a child.]  Obviously all of them voted guilty. 

But the aftermath most certainly is about race.  The narrative is that white cops shoot victims because they are black and never get charged or convicted.  This cop was black, victim white and the cop was charged and now convicted.  Victim was from Sydney Australia.  Here is the coverage this morning in Sydney:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/why-not-everyone-is-celebrating-the-justine-ruszczyk-damond-verdict-20190501-p51iy2.html
Why not everyone is celebrating the Justine Ruszczyk Damond verdict


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
Re: Not quite sure how to react to this one
« Reply #668 on: May 11, 2019, 11:32:34 PM »


https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

I have seen multiple police administrators that would be hard pressed to break 100.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
The controlled demolition of American law enforcement
« Reply #671 on: January 10, 2020, 07:09:31 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/atlanta-pd-will-no-longer-chase-criminals-if-they-flee-from-cops/

You are really on your own to protect you and yours. Plan accordingly.





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
Re: Is the previous post is an example of this?
« Reply #677 on: June 05, 2020, 04:07:38 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile
Bust the Police Unions to Rank and Yank the Bad Cops
« Reply #679 on: June 06, 2020, 09:48:24 PM »
Bust the Police Unions to Rank and Yank Bad Cops
Officials need the ability to fire low-performing officers and reward ones who go above and beyond.
By Saqib Qureshi
WSJ
June 5, 2020 7:43 pm ET

The police officer who killed George Floyd had been the subject of more than a dozen complaints about his conduct. In two previous incidents, Derek Chauvin had been disciplined with letters of reprimand. Tou Thao, who stood by as Floyd died, previously had a lawsuit brought against him over excessive use of force. The lawsuit was settled for $25,000. How can such men be allowed to “serve and protect”? Unions.

Public-sector unions, including police unions, will do almost anything to protect their members. These unions create a culture of impunity. Even police officers who are terminated can be reinstated, “often via secretive appeals geared to protect labor rights rather than public safety” as a 2014 piece in the Atlantic put it.

A Jobs Surprise / Jim Mattis Fires Back


SUBSCRIBE
The Minneapolis police union has signaled it will fight to ensure the officers fired over George Floyd’s killing get their jobs back. The union’s Lt. Bob Kroll said he’d “worked with the four defense attorneys that are representing each of our four terminated individuals under criminal investigation, in addition with our labor attorneys to fight for their jobs.” This should be a warning of the difficulties inherent in reforming police departments and ending police violence.

But it is clearly time to rethink public-sector unions, and one good place to start would be more and better information. There will be no improvement until officers are no longer protected at all costs by unions.

Take an example from Canada. In 2017, the Fraser Institute found that employees in Canada’s private economy were five times as likely to be removed from their jobs as public-sector employees were. Public-sector workers were almost five times as likely to be unionized.

Increasing turnover of public-sector jobs could help root out toxic employees. A first step would be to let go of the lowest-performing 2% of public-sector workers—in this case, police officers—each year. That would help ensure that the most violent, disrespectful and incompetent officers are dismissed each year.

Yet we should also acknowledge officers who exceed standards of behavior and policing. In recent days videos have emerged of cops and National Guardsmen interacting with peaceful demonstrators. Some have shown solidarity or engaged in polite conversations to hear real grievances. It would make sense to reward the top-performing 5% of public employees, including police officers.

Sheriff Chris Swanson of Flint, Mich., has attracted praise for laying down his gear and joining protesters in a peaceful march that defused a potential confrontation. “We’ll walk all night,” he says in a video. Mr. Swanson has received praise from the Trump White House and former President Barack Obama for his handling of the incident. Flint has seen multiple peaceful protests since that night. Sheriff Swanson, who holds an elected position, faces a level of accountability that many other law-enforcement officials don’t. Accountability matters.

These reforms are hardly sufficient to change longstanding cultures of violence or uproot racism, but they can go a long way toward accomplishing our shared goals.

Mr. Qureshi is CEO of Building Capital, a Toronto real-estate firm, and author of “The Broken Contract: Making Our Democracies Efficient, Representative and Accountable.”




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile
Section 1033 and militarization of the police
« Reply #689 on: June 15, 2020, 07:15:55 AM »
How to Address Concerns About ‘Militarization of Police’
Congress could reform the 1033 program, which lets the Pentagon give surplus equipment to law enforcement.
By Jack Riley and Aaron C. Davenport
June 14, 2020 12:49 pm ET
WSJ

Police officers equipped like soldiers have appeared on the streets of American cities amid the protests over George Floyd’s killing, renewing concerns about “militarization of police.” Some federal lawmakers have called to overhaul or terminate the 1033 program, named after a section of the U.S. Code, which allows the Defense Department to transfer surplus equipment to federal, state, local and tribal law-enforcement agencies. But legislators should consider options short of elimination.

Concerns about the program have persisted, resulting in at least eight reports by the Government Accountability Office since 2000. After the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Mo., we conducted a congressionally mandated independent review of the 1033 program. We found that the program was professionally managed and beneficial to law enforcement but little known and poorly understood by the public.

The Defense Logistics Agency’s Law Enforcement Support Office, or LESO, runs the 1033 program. Only about 3,000 of the nation’s 17,000 law-enforcement agencies participate in it regularly. Those that do run the gamut, from the New York State Police to the Big Horn County, Wyo., Sheriff’s Office.

LESO equipment falls into two categories: uncontrolled and controlled equipment. The former includes things like hand warmers, generators, desks and office supplies. From 2015-17, about 2.2 million such items were distributed, worth about $1.2 billion.

Controversy stems from the controlled items. This equipment—including firearms, armored personnel carriers and night-vision goggles—is more expensive and technically sophisticated. It also tends to be more visible and can be used in situations involving deadly force. From 2015-17, the Pentagon transferred about 3,000 controlled items worth about $775 million to law enforcement.

To receive controlled items, a law-enforcement agency must demonstrate it has a need for such equipment and civilian executive support for the acquisition—for example, a mayor’s or board of supervisors’ approval. Controlled equipment remains the property of the Pentagon and must be returned when it’s no longer needed.

LESO compliance audits have revealed that some law-enforcement agencies have lost controlled equipment and, as a result, they’ve been suspended or terminated from the program. The GAO once found that LESO approved transferring equipment to a fictitious organization. After these failings, LESO implemented measures to strengthen program management.

We surveyed U.S. citizens about the 1033 program in August 2017. We found that 48% of Americans weren’t familiar with the program. Once the program was explained to respondents, a plurality—including 46% of black respondents, 38% of Hispanics and 37% of whites—said transfers should be limited to nonlethal equipment.

How should lawmakers reform a program that makes use of excess equipment and is popular with police departments, but that also raises substantial concerns about the militarization of policing?

We identified three potential courses of action. The first was to leave the program unchanged. This is largely the path chosen by the Trump administration, which overturned modifications the Obama administration made after 2014.

A second approach is to modify the program’s emphasis. Currently, 1033 gives preference to applicants that will use the equipment in drug enforcement, counterterror and border control—all associated with aggressive policing tactics such as no-knock warrants. Eliminating those preferences—or creating new ones, such as support for community policing or search and rescue—could reduce perceptions of militarization.

Congress could also stipulate that 1033 won’t be the first provider of potentially controversial equipment. Police departments would have to buy their own night-vision goggles, for instance, before applying for more. This might place a financial burden on smaller agencies, but it would ensure that agencies think hard before requesting more equipment.

The third option is to shift responsibility for controlled equipment—including management of applications, allocation and monitoring—to the Justice Department, which has more frequent interactions with most law enforcement agencies than the Pentagon does. Justice also has broad responsibilities for tracking, evaluating and improving the performance of American law enforcement. While LESO could continue to manage the physical distribution of equipment, Justice would be better at performing oversight.

It’s appropriate that the 1033 program is part of America’s long-overdue debate on policing. We think the program still adds value—but reforming it could improve oversight while allaying concerns about the militarization of U.S. police.

Mr. Riley is vice president and director of the National Security Research Division at the RAND Corp. Mr. Davenport, a senior policy researcher at RAND, served as White House special adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism, 2007-09.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile
Bola Wrap
« Reply #690 on: June 15, 2020, 08:15:26 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
Re: Bola Wrap
« Reply #691 on: June 15, 2020, 08:44:23 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile
Re: Law Enforcement issues and LE in action
« Reply #692 on: June 15, 2020, 10:47:03 PM »
Me too.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
In case you missed the "Death Wish" NYC
« Reply #695 on: July 08, 2020, 10:20:19 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile
Heather Mac Donald
« Reply #696 on: July 09, 2020, 12:35:30 PM »
I Cited Their Study, So They Disavowed It
If scientists retract research that challenges reigning orthodoxies, politics will drive scholarship.
By Heather Mac Donald
July 8, 2020 7:17 pm ET

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a peer-reviewed journal that claims to publish “only the highest quality scientific research.” Now, the authors of a 2019 PNAS article are disowning their research simply because I cited it.

Psychologists Joseph Cesario of Michigan State and David Johnson of the University of Maryland analyzed 917 fatal police shootings of civilians from 2015 to test whether the race of the officer or the civilian predicted fatal police shootings. Neither did. Once “race specific rates of violent crime” are taken into account, the authors found, there are no disparities among those fatally shot by the police. These findings accord with decades of research showing that civilian behavior is the greatest influence on police behavior.

In September 2019, I cited the article’s finding in congressional testimony. I also referred to it in a City Journal article, in which I noted that two Princeton political scientists, Dean Knox and Jonathan Mummolo, had challenged the study design. Messrs. Cesario and Johnson stood by their findings. Even under the study design proposed by Messrs. Knox and Mummolo, they wrote, there is again “no significant evidence of anti-black disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by the police.”

My June 3 Journal op-ed quoted the PNAS article’s conclusion verbatim. It set off a firestorm at Michigan State. The university’s Graduate Employees Union pressured the MSU press office to apologize for the “harm it caused” by mentioning my article in a newsletter. The union targeted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for Mr. Cesario’s research. MSU sacked Mr. Hsu from his administrative position. PNAS editorialized that Messrs. Cesario and Johnson had “poorly framed” their article—the one that got through the journal’s three levels of editorial and peer review.

Mr. Cesario told this page that Mr. Hsu’s dismissal could narrow the “kinds of topics people can talk about, or what kinds of conclusions people can come to.” Now he and Mr. Johnson have themselves jeopardized the possibility of politically neutral scholarship. On Monday they retracted their paper. They say they stand behind its conclusion and statistical approach but complain about its “misuse,” specifically mentioning my op-eds.

The authors don’t say how I misused their work. Instead, they attribute to me a position I have never taken: that the “probability of being shot by police did not differ between Black and White Americans.” To the contrary, I have, like them, stressed that racial disparities in policing reflect differences in violent crime rates. The only thing wrong with their article, and my citation of it, is that its conclusion is unacceptable in our current political climate.

This retraction bodes ill for the development of knowledge. If scientists must disavow their findings because they challenge reigning orthodoxies, then those orthodoxies will prevail even when they are wrong. Political consensus will drive scholarship, and not the reverse. The consequences for the policing debate are particularly dire. Researchers will suppress any results that contravene the narrative about endemic police racism. That narrative is now producing a shocking rise in shootings in American cities. The victims, including toddlers, are almost exclusively black.

Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile
Mac Donald: I cited their study so they disavowed it
« Reply #697 on: July 11, 2020, 09:15:42 AM »


I Cited Their Study, So They Disavowed It
If scientists retract research that challenges reigning orthodoxies, politics will drive scholarship.
By Heather Mac Donald
July 8, 2020 7:17 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT

Law-enforcement officers in Washington, June 3.
PHOTO: SHAWN THEW/SHUTTERSTOCK
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a peer-reviewed journal that claims to publish “only the highest quality scientific research.” Now, the authors of a 2019 PNAS article are disowning their research simply because I cited it.

Psychologists Joseph Cesario of Michigan State and David Johnson of the University of Maryland analyzed 917 fatal police shootings of civilians from 2015 to test whether the race of the officer or the civilian predicted fatal police shootings. Neither did. Once “race specific rates of violent crime” are taken into account, the authors found, there are no disparities among those fatally shot by the police. These findings accord with decades of research showing that civilian behavior is the greatest influence on police behavior.

In September 2019, I cited the article’s finding in congressional testimony. I also referred to it in a City Journal article, in which I noted that two Princeton political scientists, Dean Knox and Jonathan Mummolo, had challenged the study design. Messrs. Cesario and Johnson stood by their findings. Even under the study design proposed by Messrs. Knox and Mummolo, they wrote, there is again “no significant evidence of anti-black disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by the police.”

My June 3 Journal op-ed quoted the PNAS article’s conclusion verbatim. It set off a firestorm at Michigan State. The university’s Graduate Employees Union pressured the MSU press office to apologize for the “harm it caused” by mentioning my article in a newsletter. The union targeted physicist Steve Hsu, who had approved funding for Mr. Cesario’s research. MSU sacked Mr. Hsu from his administrative position. PNAS editorialized that Messrs. Cesario and Johnson had “poorly framed” their article—the one that got through the journal’s three levels of editorial and peer review.

Mr. Cesario told this page that Mr. Hsu’s dismissal could narrow the “kinds of topics people can talk about, or what kinds of conclusions people can come to.” Now he and Mr. Johnson have themselves jeopardized the possibility of politically neutral scholarship. On Monday they retracted their paper. They say they stand behind its conclusion and statistical approach but complain about its “misuse,” specifically mentioning my op-eds.

The authors don’t say how I misused their work. Instead, they attribute to me a position I have never taken: that the “probability of being shot by police did not differ between Black and White Americans.” To the contrary, I have, like them, stressed that racial disparities in policing reflect differences in violent crime rates. The only thing wrong with their article, and my citation of it, is that its conclusion is unacceptable in our current political climate.

This retraction bodes ill for the development of knowledge. If scientists must disavow their findings because they challenge reigning orthodoxies, then those orthodoxies will prevail even when they are wrong. Political consensus will drive scholarship, and not the reverse. The consequences for the policing debate are particularly dire. Researchers will suppress any results that contravene the narrative about endemic police racism. That narrative is now producing a shocking rise in shootings in American cities. The victims, including toddlers, are almost exclusively black.

Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52180
    • View Profile
Rand Paul
« Reply #698 on: July 23, 2020, 10:17:39 AM »
I would like to see an end to military style camos for LE.

Citizens deserve clear visual distinctions between military and civilian.

https://reason.com/2020/07/21/rand-paul-its-time-to-demilitarize-the-police/

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18297
    • View Profile
Re: Rand Paul
« Reply #699 on: July 23, 2020, 07:13:01 PM »
I would like to see an end to military style camos for LE.

Citizens deserve clear visual distinctions between military and civilian.

https://reason.com/2020/07/21/rand-paul-its-time-to-demilitarize-the-police/

Weird how despite all the "militarization" of police, cities (Including police stations) are burning down.