Use of Force 101

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by TBO, Oct 7, 2008.


  1. ICARRY2

    ICARRY2 NRA Life Member

    So the judge ruled that 6 baton strikes were unreasonable out of fifty-plus baton strikes and he sentenced them to prison. So much for not being a Monday morning quarterback.

    Those officers should have never been fired, prosecuted or much less sent to prison.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. TBO

    TBO Why so serious?
    CLM

    View the video link below of a Police Shooting:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7At5RyV_yo&feature=related


    After viewing this what does it look like? Grounds for shooting, no grounds for shooting, undetermined? This is what is often presented in a News article on TV, paper, or Online.

    For more information there is a second video link below of the same incident from the 2nd squad on the scene. This would the the squad/officer to the right of the first video. What, if anything, does this information add/change. Does video really "show it all". Did video 1 show it all. These are things that need to be contemplated upon each and every "breaking" event.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPEiRQoALcs&feature=related
     

    #82 TBO, Feb 24, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2011
  3. Those are great videos. They truly illustrate that events don't always appear as they seem to someone looking in from the outside.

    This is why we must piece the puzzle together from the video, the officers' reports, and the evidence at the scene to determine what really transpired.
     
  4. TBO

    TBO Why so serious?
    CLM

  5. txleapd

    txleapd Hook 'Em Up

    This thread should really be a sticky....
     
  6. Agreed!
     
  7. BTT for stickyness.
     
  8. And the judge was also a no-balls POS for not having the spine to move the trial to a venue where a fair jury could be gotten, one that wasn't terrified of what was going to happen if they acquitted. And he also could have thrown out that "dual sovereignty" BS out the window.
     
  9. 1950 - tell, make.

    1960 - tell, tell again, make.

    1970 - ask, tell, make.

    1980 - ask, tell, tell again, make.

    1990 - ask, ask again, tell, tell again, make.

    2000 - ask, ask again, ask again, tell, tell again, ask once more, make.

    2010 - ask, ask again, tell, ask again, tell again (in a firm but non-disrespectfull voice), ask one more time, tell them this time you mean it, beg, make (if you're not already dead).
     
  10. I like that....sad, but true.
     
  11. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    Corrected it for you.
     
  12. RussP

    Moderator

    Done, thanks to Mrs. VR!
     
  13. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    We had a much shorter use of force process.

    Tell

    call and ambulance to transport for treatment or transport to jail whichever was required.
     
  14. ICARRY2

    ICARRY2 NRA Life Member

    What is dual sovereignty? Never heard of it before.
     
  15. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    It's a way for the government to get two bites at the apple, so to speak. Double jeopardy prevents you from being tried for the same crime twice by the same government entity, such as a state or federal court. If you got acquitted or case dismissed once jeopardy has attached, you are good to go and cannot be guilty of that crime in that jurisdiction's court of law.

    This is also part of public policy for the government to bring all charges forward at the same time because they can't come back and keep charging you for different things out of the same action.

    However, as the state and the Feds both may have jurisdiction over something, then you have two sovereign entities with separate courts and both can try you for the same thing and not violate double jeopardy.

    Case in point, Rodney King. The state has jurisdiction over the state crimes against the officers, which then acquitted them. The Feds have jurisdiction over the civil rights part, which convicted them, even of it was out of the same transactional occurrence. No double jeopardy occurred even though the officers were tried twice for the same action.
     
  16. DaBigBR

    DaBigBR No Infidels!

  17. Not all of us civilians are completely ignorant of reasonable use of force. My first exposure to it was Rodney King, and the first thing that came to mind was, "I guess that dude should have done what he was told." I started talking to friends that were cops at the time and they began to educate me a bit on some of the use of force tactics and rules. (I have a MUCH greater understanding now as I have several friends and family members in law enforcement, and we "war game" regularly). Then the riots came, I could see fire from my house, (I lived in Long Beach at the time) NOT a real good thing to see. I was disgusted with the second trial, first, for the fact that it was filed, (this was when I learned that there is a "work around" for double jeopardy). Second, that the officers were found guilty. This was SO obviously done to prevent another riot. Later, when the O.J thing was going on, I saw a woman on T.V. say that if O.J. was found guilty that they would riot again.
    Just my $0.02, and you probably got ripped off.
     
    #97 coyote_bait, Jun 1, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2011
  18. In the Roney King incident there were at least two times when the officers would have been justified if they used deadly force.

    In other words: Those Officers got in trouble for saving his sorry life.
    Needless to say, that lesson has been well learned by a lot of Officers.
     
  19. Yep, good thing they didn't because he went on to be such a fine, upstanding citizen....:whistling: Sorry, my sarcasm got away from me for a minute there.
     
  20. lawman800

    lawman800 Juris Glocktor

    Hey, Rodney went on to move to the exotic upscale city of Rialto where there is only 1 or 2 murders a week and the police force experiences 100% turnover every few years and who is your Chief changes depending on the whim of the City Council.

    But I digress... he also has a nice, successful marriage to one of the original jurors in the civil trial who voted to give him the millions of dollars. Can anyone say, Gold DIGGAH!?!?!
     

Share This Page