l3ubba

We are just going in circles with this. I already stated about 15 times that he can order her out of the car if he wants to. Did he have to? No. Was he legally allowed to? Yes. In this situation that is all that matters. It doesn't matter that he didn't have to have her step out of the car, he was within his legal right to do so. I'm not even sure why this is a huge point of contention because it is almost completely irrelevant to what happened in her jail cell. Just because you have good things in your life doesn't mean you still won't kill yourself if you are suffering from depression. There are plenty of people who had lots of things going for them and they still killed themselves. There is no telling what was going through her head while she was in that jail cell. According to the witness in the cell across from her she was very upset the entire 3 days she was there, constantly crying, and very emotional. She also had approximately 30 cut marks on her arms and the medical examiner has stated there is no signs of a struggle or foul play and that everything is consistent with a suicide.

Yep and that is one thing I have an issue with when it comes to people's expectation of law enforcement. Most people only know what they see in the movies and on TV shows which is nothing like what actual law enforcement is like. And yes you are right, federal agencies typically have more resources and more extensive training than a local officer does but that doesn't make them exempt from the other factors I listed. Also it isn't like a local or state agency is just going to pull a random patrol officer off the street to investigate an officer involved shooting, they have trained detectives who do that and have lots of training and experience. I'm still confused as to where the idea that local or state officers are more likely to just brush the case under the rug and I also think that is incredibly unfair to those officers to just automatically assume that they would. No, you said it is a common trend so if it is such a common and well known trend then there must be something out there that gives people this idea. Where is this common knowledge coming from? Where can I look at it? I am having an open mind to this and I legitimately want to know. And you are right, there is a certain amount of objectiveness that goes into what is considered reasonable. That is why in court professional instructors will often be called in as witnesses to explain to the court how officers are trained and sometimes give their opinion on what they (the instructor) would have done. And on the contrary, it actually brings things like use of force policies and other policies and laws into question because those help shape what officers are supposed to do. Ok and why should we bow down to the court of public opinion? I couldn't give two shits what the court of public opinion thinks because the majority of people in the US have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the law. For as much as people like to go on about their rights and the law they really have no idea what they are talking about. You would not believe some of the crazy shit people think and how incredibly wrong they are; some of it is right here in this forum. So until we start having a better legal education for the general public the court of public opinion means almost nothing to me and the only reason I even give it any acknowledgement is because I care about educating people and trying to stop the mass amounts of misinformation being put out. So because we have a few bad departments or a few bad cops out there we should investigate every single agency across the country? Just put every officer on trial even if they haven't had any history of misconduct? Not to mention that we cannot even fathom the amount of time, money, and manpower that would take. Also look at what I said to Hystery, what makes a federal agency so much holier than state agencies? Why do you think federal officers are more likely to police up the police? Because don't forget, federal agents are still law enforcement officers too so as you stated earlier you have a problem with "police policing themselves" so what makes a federal officer different? That is still the police policing the police right? How does experience not have anything to do with it? And if that is the case then how come you can say "in most of the cases I've seen", isn't that the same as saying "in my experience"? Positioning is included in the training but not everything goes perfectly when you are out on the street. Should we say "well you didn't position yourself perfectly according to the textbook so you are now guilty of murder"? And that is fine if you don't agree with the case law but that doesn't change the fact that it is the law. I don't always agree with the law either but my personal opinion has no bearing when it comes to what actions I must take or enforcing the law. Police officers are not paid to enforce the laws based on their personal beliefs and opinions, they are paid to enforce the laws that are written by the elected and appointed officials of our government.

I don't know Texas state law so I couldn't give you a specific criminal statute that she was being arrested for but I am sure there is some law (as there is in most states) for not obeying a lawful command. I can't believe you are still trying to argue whether refusing to get out of the car is an arrest-able offense after I just quoted the case law that says you have to listen to the officer. So yes, it is an arrest-able offense, the law is perfectly clear about that. And as I said in the other thread, Graham v. Connor looks at the situation from a reasonable officer's point of view, not the officer that was on scene but I'm getting tired of repeating myself so I will let you read that in the other thread. Really? People who are fighting depression wouldn't kill themselves? Not to mention the part of the autopsy report that just came out even says the injuries are consistent with a suicide and there are no signs of a struggle; and she had lots of cut marks on her arms and wrists. Another inmate that was in the cell near Bland said that Bland was very emotional during her stay in jail. And the sheriff's office released 3 hours of footage showing that nothing suspicious happened. The investigation isn't over yet but all of this evidence is already piling up and it is looking like she did commit suicide. It does happen to powerful people, it just doesn't make national headlines as often. Remember a couple years ago when Reese Witherspoon and her husband were pulled over? Her husband got arrested for DUI and Reese Witherspoon got arrested for disorderly conduct.

You are in luck, there is already an agency that does exactly what you describe! It is called the Federal Bureau of Investigation or FBI for short. While this isn't the FBI's sole responsibility they do lead or assist in investigations. There are plenty of state and local agencies that also assist in investigations. Something that people seem to forget is that these federal agents are law enforcement officers too so people who have an issue with the "police policing the police" but want federal agencies to investigate makes no sense to me. Secondly, what makes a federal officer so much better than a state or local officer? Are federal officers somehow exempt from being corrupt or wrong? Do they have some kind of magical power to uncover the truth as opposed to other officers? Next, you say you want to pick officers with "perfect careers" but who gets to pick these guys and how do we know that the people picking the people aren't biased or corrupt? People are always going to have an issue with whatever agency is the one doing the investigating and there will always be claims of corruption and bias. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the FBI is a bad agency or shouldn't be utilized however I don't understand where this "federal agencies are the gods" idea is coming from. And most of the problems people have with state or local agencies performing the investigation could just as easily be a problem with a federal agency. I get the feeling that people view federal officers as Judge Dredd or something where they are emotionless robots who are better than all other officers.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself, go read the previous comments referring to Pennsylvania v. Mimms. In short, the US Supreme Court ruled that an officer can order you out of the car during a traffic stop. Sometimes you don't tell someone the charges until you have them cuffed because some people get even more combative when they find out what they are being charged with (especially if they are already aggravated like this lady was). If you tell someone they are being charged with a felony they might get scared or angry and want to fight. There is less of a chance of them trying to escape when you already have them in cuffs. Bottom line, she shouldn't have been resisting in the first place. There was a reason to arrest her, she was told to get out of the car (which we have already established is well within the officer's rights) and she refused, she was disobeying a lawful order. When the officer tried to remove her from the car and detain her she kept on fighting so that is how she got a resisting charge. And before the video in my link got removed you could see immediately prior to the traffic stop the officer was actually finishing up a different stop on someone and he didn't treat that person any differently. The first traffic stop was actually on a car that was much older and more beat up than the one that Ms. Bland was driving so your suggestion that he was treating her that way because she was black or of a possible lower social class (which doesn't even appear to be true based on her clothes and car) is invalid. Not to mention this brings up the issue that I brought up with you in another thread where race is automatically brought up as an issue before there is even a shred of evidence to suggest that it played a factor. You are essentially calling that officer a racist for no reason. She also had a history of and was battling depression and wasn't in a good state of mind as seen in the dashcam video. I am not opposed to any kind of investigation and, in my opinion, based on the facts that are known right now I believe she killed herself. However, if an investigation reveals otherwise then the appropriate action should and will be taken. Didn't we just go over this? Remember that case law that I seem to be repeating over and over that started with a "P" and ended in a "ennsylvania v. Mimms"? He gave a lawful order to step out of the car and she refused. He attempted to pull her out of the car and she fought back that is resisting.

Yes, the DOJ did report that but under a separate report. The report they did on the Michael Brown case found that there was no wrong doing on Officer Wilson's part. That is the point I am trying to make about the media, they automatically started reporting it as a racial issue when it wasn't. If they wanted to report on the issue the DOJ brought up in their second report then they should have done that, but they didn't. They wanted to use Officer Wilson as the scapegoat when he did nothing wrong. As for Officer Wilson's description, I don't see an issue with it. He described what he saw from his point of view, he didn't use anything racial he just described his appearance and demeanor from his point of view. If an officer describing a suspect running from him fast like a cheetah would that mean the officer thinks the suspect is an animal? No, he is just trying to describe the suspect's speed in his own words. Please show me this common and well-known trend because apparently I have my head in a hole. Am I missing all these stories and reports of officers covering stuff up for other officers? I would think that if it is so common I would hear about it at least every once and awhile. Graham v Connor says the perspective from a reasonable officer so the state of mind of the officer(s) that were actually there does not fall under that case law, it would be something on its own. The officer's state of mind is often examined and scrutinized and if the defense can find evidence that suggests the officer's state of mind was questionable then they will try to use that in court and they will also heavily scrutinize the officer's past to try and see if they can find any history of questionable states of mind. Like I said though, that is something completely separate from Graham v Connor which solely looks at what a reasonable officer would do in the same situation to help determine whether or not what the officer did was justified or not. I'm not saying that people in New Jersey should care about every police shooting across the nation. What I am saying is the media needs to put some contrast to what they are reporting because most people do not do a lot of research into these topics, they just take what the media feeds them. So if we want people to have a balanced view on an issue then there needs to be a complete picture painted. I don't expect the media to cover every police shooting but when they do cover police shootings and want to try and spin the "police are out of control" story they need to show the entire picture. They need to show how many police shootings are there total, how many are cleared as justifiable, etc. I think people would then realize that these controversial shootings are a very small percentage of the total number of shootings. In 2012 the BLS said there was an estimated total of 780,000 law enforcement officers employed in the US. With that many officers employed you are going to hear about it regularly but that is very different from it happening regularly. Again I point back to my issue with the media coverage. Just because we hear about it all the time doesn't mean that all police officers are running around shooting people like crazy 24/7. So yes, we hear about it on a regular basis but when compared to the total number of use of force cases out there the percentage of controversial uses of force is pretty small. So that brings the question as to whether or not this is a nation-wide, systemic issue with US law enforcement or something that is an issue with the individual officer or individual departments? I think it is more important to look at it on a case by case basis because you might have some agencies such as Ferguson PD that do have systemic problems in the department like the DOJ identified in their report. Then you might have an officer on the other side of the country who does something wrong and it doesn't have anything to do with the department or training he received it is just that he is a bad person and shouldn't be a cop. The difference was when I was asking you about your training and experience I was actually wanting an answer. You, on the other hand, questioned my experience then said you have no interest in knowing what my experience is which is fine, I really don't care if people are interested in my experience but I will use it if it is relevant to what I am talking about. I don't recall you ever asking me if I thought the Gardena officers should be cops (and scrolling back through the comments on that thread confirms this), but if you want my opinion I think that despite the fact I wouldn't have done the same thing that officer should still be a police officer. I would say the biggest thing that went wrong was the victim constantly moving and putting his right hand down by his waistband out of sight from the officers. Things that could have been done differently? Maybe the officers could have positioned themselves a little better to have better over watch of all the individuals. To be honest, other than shooting the guy I would have done pretty much everything the same way if I were in their shoes. They conducted a felony stop of multiple individuals suspected to have just committed a robbery. He was a robbery suspect reaching towards his waist band, what else would a reasonable officer think? Why wait for the suspect to get a shot off before returning fire? This is where Graham v Connor comes into play.

I'm not saying don't report on it. The way they are reporting on it isn't controversial, it is just altogether wrong. Look at the Michael Brown case, within hours of that story coming out the media was already reporting it as a white vs black issue then after the months of investigation by the FBI and DOJ they came out with their final report that said Michael Brown's race played no part in the way Officer Wilson decision making and was cleared of all wrong doing. That didn't matter though, in the public's eyes Officer Wilson was a racist murdering cop, the damage to his reputation was already done and there was little he could do to reverse that. That is the kind of reporting I am talking about and it is becoming more and more common. Every incident involving a black suspect and a white officer is reported as "white officer kills black man", doesn't matter how much evidence or facts have come out yet, that is the first thing that is reported. I would send a friend to jail if I had to, it is called integrity. Luckily I will most likely never have to face that problem because police officers call another unit if they know the suspect or victim. The facts I was talking about was case law and legal standings. I gave you case law from the supreme court and you called it out as me saying "police officers have a tough job so don't judge" which not anywhere close to what I actually said. The media should care about justifiable shootings because it will give contrast to the controversial ones and show people how small of a percentage those shootings actually make up. Because now there are people like you who say "look at all the videos the media plays showing this stuff, this proves there is a systematic problem with law enforcement" when in reality these are only a few controversial (and usually still justifiable) shootings out of hundreds of obviously justifiable shootings. And how does CNN's top story have anything to do with my point? I'm not saying that they don't care about cops, I'm saying the way they are reporting on it is giving a severely skewed view (intentionally or unintentionally). My analysis is based on frequent patterns and what is almost considered to be common knowledge. And you are still missing my point about the use of military equipment. I am saying that why should we wait for someone to get hurt to call out a SWAT team? If the person has a felony warrant for their arrest (regardless if it is a violent crime or not) then they have more than likely done something pretty serious. Add on the fact that you are trying to arrest them in their home where they have access to everything they own and have the defensive advantage it just adds to the danger. The person who has committed a felony obviously has no problem committing serious offenses so how do I know they aren't willing to commit another one against me? You were the one calling me out on my experiences and telling me "unless you've done it yourself" that I should shut up, so if you aren't interested in hearing about it then don't ask. But don't worry I won't bore you; I am not interested in sharing my resume with you, I was being sarcastic when I made that comment. Most of the time when I don't agree with what a police officer has done I think it is an individual issue with the police officer and not a training issue. Also just because I don't agree with the way they handled it doesn't mean that the way they did it was wrong, it is just not the same way I think I would have handled it if I were in his shoes. I am also not against improving training, I am always for improving training because training requirements always change. My whole point out of that was that even though I don't agree with officers all the time I don't think it proves there is a systemic problem. So now you are changing the scenario? Originally you said that if a police officer asks you to step out of your car he is "overstepping his bounds", you didn't say anything about searches. Don't back pedal on what you said now. And here you go with the "based on the case I've seen", how many cases have you actually saw? What is your sample size? I am willing to bet at most you have seen 50 of these cases out of god knows how many traffic stops that happen each year. Based on the a lot of the cases I've seen on Youtube and in the media nearly every call firefighters respond to are fully engulfed house fires does that make it true? As Senatov said, the reason for that is because the way our government is set up and how we put an emphasis on states' rights. However I don't think it is nearly as bad as people try to make it out to be. In a lot of cases agencies will call in other state or federal agencies to investigate police shootings in their department to make sure there is little chance of bias. I am not sure where this idea of this huge nation wide "good ole boy" system came from because in reality that is far from the truth. Obviously you can point to a couple of cases that received a lot of media coverage and say "look there is a perfect example" the only problem with that is those are a couple of cases out of many and even those stories are pretty rare. I think for the most part the people who think it is a rampant problem across the nation and that all police officers are just watching each others backs are just conspiracy theorist. Is it really that hard to believe that the majority of police officers are doing the right thing?

Like I said to someone in another thread here just because I am giving a justification for the officer's actions doesn't mean I agree with it I am simply stating what the law says. Do I think he handled it appropriately? Some of it, but there were definitely some things that he could have done a lot better. You obviously didn't read the case law I told you about. It pretty much says that if an officer asks you to step out of the vehicle you have to comply. Glad you have those things going for you, I really don't care about any teams or whatever you have going on. I know that you are trying to troll me so I'm just going to go on my merry way, have a nice day.

Here is the full dashcam video http://www.leoaffairs.com/video/raw-video-full-official-dashcam-video-of-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/ The first 16-17 mins is the actual interaction with the driver, the other 40 mins are just them waiting for a tow truck to take the car. I believe the suspect was transported to the jail by another unit during that time. You can clearly see that she is being belligerent and uncooperative. The entire time the trooper kept his cool until she started resisting arrest. At no time during the traffic stop was he rude or disrespectful. Yep that is right. Basic case law, it is one of the most stressed things in the police academy because it is the courts telling you (the officer) what you can and cannot do. I only wish constitutional law and case law were taught in schools as those are the most important things to study when you want to know what your rights are and what police can and can't do.

Go read Pennsylvania v. Mimms, I already had this discussion with someone else. The US Supreme Court ruled that it is legal for an officer to ask you to step out of the car and you have to comply. I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your posts as they are absolutely absurd and most likely just a troll attempt to get a reaction from people. The sole piece of "evidence" this case relies on is the family saying "she would never do this". I am sorry for their loss but that is no reason to accuse the officers of a crime with no evidence. If you truly believe the conspiracy theories you are posting then I feel sorry for you.

I never said there wasn't a problem with police and the African American community. I was simply saying that the media's coverage on recent stories was completely irresponsible in most cases. Wait, so I suggest that there could possibly be another reason for the an increase in police shooting which you immediately shoot down and demand evidence then you turn around and say it is "more logical" that the bar has just been set lower for deadly force yet you offer no evidence. How are you going to say that since I have no evidence that my possible explanation is less logical than your possible explanation that also has no evidence? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statements? So you are saying that it is impossible for police to investigate their own people honestly? The article you posted actually helps prove my point. I say that there is only a small percentage of bad cops out there and the article you linked says about 8% of complaints against officers are sustained nationwide. Why is it that so hard to believe that what police do is often not illegal or incorrect? What you seem to forget is that in both the Eric Gardner and Michael Brown cases was that those officers both went to a grand jury and the grand jury decided there was not enough evidence to convict them at trial. So the jurors were the ones who decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute, not the DA. And yet again you completely twist what I said. Please quote where I said we shouldn't judge police officers? I think you are just getting upset at the fact that I am giving you laws and indisputable facts. What I actually said (since you apparently didn't read it) you are basing your assumption on the videos you have seen in the media and on Youtube, that is only a very small percentage of police shootings and most people only see the controversial ones because that is the only ones the media wants to cover, it gets them ratings. Nobody wants to hear about the police shooting where a guy pulls a gun and shoots a police officer in the neck and the suspect is killed by return fire (if you really do follow police shootings as much as you claim to you will know which shooting I'm referring to). Those are completely justified shootings, the media and the general public, for the most part, don't care about those. Next, and I think the most important part, is that I referenced case law that says when judging a police officers action it must be done based on the perception of a reasonable officer at the scene, not 20/20 hindsight. No where in there did I say we shouldn't judge police officers. If you have as much knowledge in law enforcement as you say you do then you would be very familiar with Graham v. Connor because it is one of the biggest case laws in law enforcement. You are right, I have no statistics to back up what I said. I am simply basing my opinion off of what I have seen and I have seen that the majority of big time drug dealers have at least one weapon in their home. And I see you completely missed the point I was trying to make with the two St. Pete officers. My point was that there are still lots of warrants that are served without using all this military equipment and that we shouldn't have to wait until someone gets injured or killed to call in a SWAT team. If someone has a felony warrant that should be reason enough to use a SWAT team. I have cleared buildings before and know exactly what my experience is. What is it that you want to hear? Do you want me to tell you stories? Do you want to see my resume? I'm going to guess the answer to that is no, because it wouldn't help your argument. I didn't say that I know what is in people's subconscious, I stated my opinion and that is all it is, an opinion. And no, I don't automatically side with the officer I use the guidance issued by the US Supreme Court in the case law I already referenced (the one you seemed to ignore) that says when judging an officer it must be done from the perception of a reasonable officer at the scene rather than 20/20 hindsight. So when I am looking at these cases I try to place myself in that officer's shoes and think what would I do if I were in that situation based on the knowledge that officer had at the time. Sure, I think lots of things could have been done differently in many of those cases but most of the time when I think that it has been after I have thought about the entire situation and analyzed everything. There are plenty of times where I think that a situation wasn't handled in the best way possible but based on what they knew at the time their use of force was justifiable. And please note that no where in the paragraph (or this entire post) do I say that "cops have a tough job and you shouldn't judge them". What I have said is that it is more difficult for people to judge the actions of an officer because they do not have the training or experience the police officers do and as I have already proven with your stepping out of the car example there is no "base of knowledge" when it comes to law enforcement, it is not something that you just automatically know, people go to school and train for years to gain that knowledge it isn't simply handed out.

Lol, nice troll attempt. Unless of course you are actually serious, in which case I would like to know what evidence you have that says this was a murder other than the family's evidence of "my son/daughter would never do that".

As others have already pointed out you can't be arrested for not using your turn signal alone, she was fighting a police officer so that is what she was arrested for. I don't think this story is worth the time. Just another case of a family saying that "my son/daughter would never do that" and "they were such a nice person turning their life around" which might be true but I think part of it is the denial during the grieving process that makes them think that something else had to be the cause of her death. What motive would a detention deputy have to murder a random woman? But this is no surprise to me, yet another story of the family of the suspect saying that the police murdered their child even when the only "evidence" they have for such accusation is "my son/daughter would never do that".

He isn't saying that it is being covered too much he is saying that the way the media is covering it is wrong. Look at any recent case of a white officer using force against a black suspect. The moment the story hits the media automatically jumps into the race aspect whether there is evidence that racism was involved or not. I am all for covering these stories but they should be responsible journalist (too much to ask for today) and report facts, not bullshit just to get ratings. And are we really able to conclude that officers are shooting suspects for less violent crimes? What if, for whatever reason, police shootings were low because police were able to arrest violent offenders without deadly force and today they aren't able to do that. And before you jump and say it (because I know you will) that isn't necessarily due to lack of training on the officers faults, it could be that the violent offenders that are out there are less willing to let officers take them into custody and want to go down fighting. My point being that you cannot automatically assume that the reason for those statistics is because police are shooting non-violent offenders. And how exactly do you know anything about internal investigators? This is essentially the same argument as "all cops are dirty", you don't know all internal investigators (I'd be surprised if you even knew one) and I'm willing to bet you know next to nothing about how IA actually works. What about agencies that have outside investigators either from another agency or civilians (or combination of both)? Are they crooked too? Show me some evidence that IA is a broken system and I will start believing you. Again you are making a huge assumption based on no evidence. You notice in almost all police shootings the officer just had to say the suspect posed a threat? And out of all the police shootings you have reviewed all or most of them? Don't worry, I already know the answer to that question. You are basing this huge assumption on the police shootings you have seen which have either received national media coverage and/or were posted on Youtube. Are all situations handled perfectly? No, police officers are not perfect. We have the luxury of sitting back and reviewing all of the facts and evidence and replaying the video 20 times in slow motion to Monday morning quarterback the officer's every move. Police officers don't have that luxury, they have to make decisions on the spot without hesitation and that is why if you are familiar with case law (Graham v. Connor specifically if you are interested) you would know that when a jury is looking at an officer's actions they must judge it from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than 20/20 hindsight. For the most part I have not seen any problem with the way police employ these tools. When doing a raid on a non-violent drug offender you are going to want to have these tools readily available because most of these guys do have weapons to protect themselves. Drug dealers get robbed so they typically protect themselves in some manner. Why wait for an officer to take an AK47 round to the chest to call in the SWAT team? And despite what the media tells you there are still lots of raids that are done without this equipment and without SWAT teams. One case that hits close to home for me was in February of 2011. Sgt Tom Baitinger and Officer Jeffrey Yaslowitz were shot and killed assisting a US Marshal serve a warrant on a violent offender who had a long and violent criminal record and had a warrant for a violent felony. There was no SWAT team, no armored vehicles, or other military style equipment. They went into the house where the suspect was staying and while searching the attic were ambushed and shot. Both Sgt Baitinger and Officer Yaslowitz were killed while the US Marshal was wounded. This resulted in a very long standoff and firefight with the responding SWAT team and eventual death of the suspect. So my point being is that there are still lots of raids that go on without this equipment and also that we shouldn't have to wait for someone to die to call in the SWAT team. I know you don't understand how dangerous clearing a building is (especially one that a suspect is familiar with and has time to set up) but I can assure you that it is extremely dangerous. First off, no. Again you are assuming he is saying that we shouldn't educate people. Like I said in my post, I am all for educating people and I would actually prefer it to be that way so that citizens understand better. The issue I see is that 1) there will always be people who refuse to open their mind to certain topics and 2) I think sub-conciously people don't really want to know what police officers see, I think they are scared of knowing (no shame in that if they are). Next, when it comes to law enforcement I would say very few people have a realistic base of knowledge. Why do you think you do? What education or experience do you have that gives you that knowledge? And for your future reference a police officer can ask you to step out of your vehicle for any reason when on a traffic stop. But I'm sure with your "base of knowledge" in law enforcement you are familiar with Pennsylvania v. Mimms where the US Supreme Court said that if an officer asks you to step out of your vehicle on a traffic stop you must comply. Just goes to prove my point that despite how much people think they know about law enforcement chances are they don't really know what they are talking about, they are usually basing their knowledge off of what they have heard from a friend, read on a website (without cross referencing), or saw on TV or Youtube. Where as police officers go to schools and learn this stuff from law books and lawyers (yes lawyers teach police officers in the academy). So while I am more than happy to educate people don't automatically assume that your "knowledge" is correct, especially when a professional in that field tells you that you are wrong.

In real life there is pretty much never a time when an officer would take someone to jail lights and sirens and most agencies have a policy against running lights in sirens for any reason while transporting a person (suspect or otherwise) in the vehicle. Taking someone to jail with your lights or sirens on is something that is only done in movies and TV shows. That being said, it is a video game, you can do whatever you want.

That is a suggestive question. I think it is pretty obvious that I don't like people who don't know what they are talking about trying to tell professionals how to do their jobs but that is true of any profession, not just law enforcement. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and to ask questions since they pay taxes and are the ones receiving services from the police however they should also realize that they won't be able to understand everything since they don't have the same training, experience, or knowledge that police officers do.

I don't think that they (the public) don't need to know, I am more than happy to talk about stuff that I've seen and share my experiences, I just think they don't want to know.

I'm not going to get into to it much because it isn't relevant to this topic but I believe our "War on Drugs" has created a huge problem in our criminal justice system with the extremely harsh sentences for non-violent drug offenses, poor rehabilitation programs, and flooding our prison system with these people while violent felons get reduced sentences. Police officers aren't to blame for that particular problem because it isn't their decision to make, they don't write laws. You are basically using the "I ran because I was scared" argument which criminals try to use all the time. That argument is always bullshit too. How come law abiding citizens don't get scared and run or fight when they get stopped by the cops? The police don't ask you to do really complicated tasks or have crazy requests, their commands are very simple and straight forward so following them should not be too difficult. They actually cover giving commands in the police academy and instructors will ding you for using confusing or complicated vocabulary when giving commands. They teach officers to give very simple and easy commands to follow and not use weird verbiage. I used to think that military experience helped a lot with law enforcement before I joined the military, and I still think it does to a certain extent, but I can tell you that weapons training and tactics that is taught in the military is a lot different than law enforcement training and it should be. In the military you are training to fight other militaries, professionally trained soldiers, with different weapons and using squad tactics. These tactics are not always appropriate in law enforcement scenarios, therefore law enforcement comes up with its own tactics on the types of situations they deal with. Does military training and experience help in law enforcement? Yes. Does it make you more qualified or better than officers without military backgrounds? Not necessarily.

For the most part these topics have already been covered in other threads so I'll keep my answers short as I hate repeating myself all the time. 1. Yes 2. There is police brutality that occurs in this country but it isn't as rampant as the media would like you to believe. 3. For the most part no. There are a few agencies with equipment out there that I believe is a little excessive (MRAPs) but I also think they only took that equipment because it was free as opposed to buying something that would be more appropriate but also costing more money. 4. No, there isn't enough education and if people want to know more about law enforcement tactics and issues then I encourage them to educate themselves on it. However I don't think the public really wants to know everything because it is scary, it is gruesome, and it isn't nice. I have seen some horrible things on calls, things that no one in the public could even imagine and I'm okay with that. I respond to those calls and deal with those things so that others don't have to see that kind of stuff. What I would rather see education be spent on is criminal statutes, case law, and constitutional rights because there are far too many people telling police officers what the law is or what their rights are when 90% of the time they don't have a clue what they are talking about. What they are saying is either taken out of context or completely wrong. That is because our country is more violent than most other countries. We have a much larger population and more violent crimes than most other 1st world countries and as an American I am not proud of that and I definitely think it is an issue that needs to be addressed somehow.

It would take me seeing these controversial shootings happening more common than they really are. As I said before, I think the media is the one to blame for all this up roar over an issue that isn't nearly as widespread as people want to believe it is. Are there systemic problems in the criminal justice system? Yes and they should be addressed but this is not one of them. I like how you always want to twist my words or change the meaning of what I said. I didn't say anything about being disrespectful to police. The suspects in most of these cases were not obeying a lawful command and/or resisting arrest. Why is it hard for you to accept that fact? The only reason I question his motives and credibility is because of the timing of his decision to go public. He left the police force in 2009 but didn't come forward until 2015? So apparently the stuff he saw didn't bother him for all that time he was a police officer or for the 6 years after he got out. He didn't want to speak up then so what is his motive for coming out now? I'm not saying that he is lying or that he doesn't know what he is talking about, I am just suspicious of a person who doesn't say anything for that long then when the media spotlight is out jumps right up. As for being a former Marine, I respect him for serving our country but that has no relevancy to law enforcement so it has no influence on my opinion of him.

Do you have evidence that connects them? If so please let me know because it would be news to me. Do you want to know another similarity in the majority of cases? The fact that the suspect was almost always not following the lawful commands of the officer. With the exception of a few cases the suspect was always moving around, resisting arrest, or doing something else that they were being told not to do. Am I saying that disobeying commands means you should be shot and killed? No, absolutely not. However, these situations would not be happening if people just did what they were supposed to do. No reason to lie? Everyone has a reason to tell their story. I don't have time to listen to 3 hours of interviews but the bits and pieces I did listen to already makes me suspicious of this guy's motives. He says he had to leave the police force due to an injury in 2009 yet doesn't decide to go public with his stories until now when all the media coverage is on law enforcement? I refuse to even watch the second video because The Young Turks have lost all of my respect as a reputable news agency. The amount of bullshit propaganda they have spewed and blatantly inaccurate statements they have made has made me lose all respect for any of their so called "journalist". TYT might just be the only news agency I hate more than Fox News.

It appears to be a common occurrence because the media decides to cover it non-stop. I can make anything sound like a common occurrence if my news channel covers it 16 hours a day. That is the problem today, the media only focuses on the negative aspects of police work and it makes people think that all cops are out of control. No where did I say that it doesn't happen or that it shouldn't be addressed when it does happen but to make it sound like it happens everyday is insulting to the 99% of officers who go out and do their job the right way. I look at each shooting individually and learn from it. Each officer is different and each situation is different, I don't watch 5 videos of police shootings and think "well that must be how all cops are trained and all cops must be fucked up". And a fact you seemed to have decided to omit from that video you posted was that trooper was fired and charged with a felony that could carry up to 20 years in prison, so clearly everyone agrees that he fucked up and that he should be held accountable for it but that part of the story doesn't help the point you are trying to make does it?

I didn't say it was a perfect example, actually if you read my original comment on this topic you will have noticed that I don't agree with this shooting or how the agency handled it afterwards. The thing that gets me is despite the fact that you are saying "I'm not saying all cops are bad" your first comment was "Another day in America" as if this is a common occurrence and that the police are just a roving gang shooting people for no reason. Then of course adding your expert knowledge on law enforcement tactics, but I've already covered that.

Here we go again. You sure know a lot about the job of a police officer for someone with no training or job experience in that field. You should apply to be the chief of police somewhere or apply to be an instructor at an academy, I'm sure you infinite knowledge and wisdom in all things law enforcement would be very appreciated by these paranoid thug cops.

Actually it isn't very hard to explain, there is clear cut evidence that Russia isn't the friendliest of places for journalist if you are critical of the Russian government. I will leave it at that though since that is not what this thread is about.