skycop

Yes, They are quite rare. Now I'm going scour the internet looking for doctors, lawyers, pilots, teachers, clergy members and other people in positions of trust who do dumb and/or illegal things. Almost happened to me, it was a bag of dope, it's a long story but if the woman (yes woman) had came up towards me with her arm with the silvery bag in her hand, instead of throwing it backwards, I'd have shot her. A kid was shot and killed in Columbus Ohio last night pointing a BB gun at officers. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tyree-king-13-fatally-shot-police-columbus-ohio-n648671 This job is mainly about driving around and writing reports, but when things go sideways, they can go very fast and very bad. Oh and here is a lawyer in all her glory.......... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c6d_1473900923 "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

And your point is? We'd both agree on this one. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

I was speaking of the officers run down in Phoenix. See other comments in reference to the West Virginia thing. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

As it is to me and statistically 99.9% of other officers. See above "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

I wasn't there, knowing (yes actually knowing) how these things can sometimes go, I try not to pass judgment based on media accounts. But since you asked twice, let me expand a bit.......... Many years ago there was an officer who shot a bank robber that had a hostage, he shot the guy in the arm while the bad guy was holding the hostage. The guy let the hostage go and was taken into custody, after dropping a knife he had in his other hand. The public and media fawned over this for a couple days. While working the desk, I received numerous phone calls of how great it was that we shot this guy in the arm etc.. What actually happened was (we think, he'd never admit it) the officer tried a headshot, missed, hit the guys upper forearm (which was right in front of the hostages head), and luckily the round traveled down his ulna and out his elbow. I had to guard the bad guy in the hospital, the first thing he said was, "man, I thought he shot her", he was relieved it was only him that got shot. Had this ended with her being shot, there would have been an entirely different outcome. A few years earlier, this same officer was told not to go into a room where an armed guy was. He did, got taken hostage, resulting in a SWAT stand-off. The department tried to fire him then, but the media had spun the story of him heroically going inside to try to save the mans life. Which simply wasn't true, I got this from the guys who were there. This was the reason they didn't fire him for the shooting. He later was fired for misconduct (not anything firearm related, just a series of REALLY stupid decisions). So my lengthy answer is blame? No, but sometimes they can play a major factor, either intentionally, or unintentionally. Lately, several national outlets have done it intentionally IMHO, social media certainly has. In the case in West Virginia, I wasn't there, I don't know the totality of circumstances, so I won't comment on it. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Wow, That's surprising. Here is another example of how easy police work is. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f97_1473820986 Yes, that guy would go in the "unarmed" category, because his gun wasn't loaded............... "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

This continues to fuel this.............. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-breaking/2016/09/13/police-three-phoenix-officers-injured-after-suspect-drove-into-them/90296078/ But I know, it's the cops who are standing there talking fault. Also that "military mindset", I mean the Chief said "staying in the fight". That officer shouldn't have kept fighting, he should have talked that guy down, because that bad guy, he was just changing his life around. Give the officers major kudos, if that was me, it most likely would have been a deadly force encounter. But the author of the earlier article would have included this guy in the "unarmed" category. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Oh no, it's Billion with a B. 96% of the surplus equipment was/is "non- military grade". There were no "tank(ers)", Humvees sure, but the vast majority of those are soft sided trucks, although evidently the trucks of oppression. There were no surplus Humvees or MRAPS used in the initial response in Ferguson. This equipment did not "just return from combat missions" either. No problem there, but she took it way beyond that. She stated in an editorial that they weren't armed, they were. It's not being disingenuous, that is a flat out lie She writes as if these things happened a vacuum, they didn't. I don't think you'd find many people who don't agree, including the officers involved. Mistakes are made, remember there are tens of millions of police contacts in this country yearly. Less than .001% end in a potentially unlawful use of force. This "editorial" is full of false narratives and a couple of outright untruths. It just goes back to simply being non-factual and disingenuous. If she wanted to editorialize on the initial response to Ferguson, no problem. But repeating Michael Brown as some type of victim has been proven false. Then regurgitating BLM talking points about unarmed people just makes it worse and less factual. In the current environment, facts simply don't matter, that is the bottom line. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Peaceful? Debunked, ad nauseam. Not sure what a "tanker" is, with the add-on "and more" Alton Sterling was armed, Philando Castile was armed. Tamir Rice and John Crawford possessed facsimile weapons. Walter Scott ran, fought, was tazed, then was ultimately shot unlawfully, the officer is currently in jail awaiting trial on murder charges. That leaves Eric Garner,we will agree to disagree on his demise. Implying "unarmed" killings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/ The facts say otherwise. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Exactly, But if one is going to editorialize, shouldn't the basis of the editorial be factual? In the case of Michael Brown, the basis of the entire editorial is based on a proven lie. I absolutely blame the media for spreading false narratives, it falls squarely on their shoulders. Just like misconduct falls on the cops shoulders, and I've said that repeatedly. Again, many of these "perceptions" are simply false, and reported again and again by certain media outlets. That's my only issue, factual reporting. The cops and media have always had competeting interests, and they always will. But bridging the gap happens all the time locally, nationally hardly ever. The national media have no real interest in bridging the gap, they seek to exploit it. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

The First Amendment pretty much prevents it from being litigated as gross negligence. The standard is set very high, and rightfully so. Now to tackle the subject of ethics and journalistic integrity. There is a great divergence of opinion regarding this, and it has only grown worse over the 20yrs. One would expect a lack of standards from "tabloid" type outlets. However with the internet, social media and digital media, the number of outlets have grown exponentially. With that growth, IMHO comes a lack of journalistic integrity. I understand market forces, and what drives views, clicks and so on. The actual truth seems to mean little, involving police related controversies in the last few years. I'm speaking at a national level, local stations/outlets have immediate repercussions if they take liberties with the truth. National/internet outlets, not so much. Time after time, that false narratives are being promulgated by the some national media outlets. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/editorial-where-arc-justice-after-mike-brown-n626516 This is just one example, editorializing in fine, but doing so based on false narratives is simply disingenuous, that comes back to a environment of political influence and lack of objective integrity. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Yep, If it bleeds, it leads...................... "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-san-bernardino-homicide-20160823-snap-story.html "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

And this relates to the facts he quoted how? The rest isn't relative to the discussion at hand. He is evidently good enough to keep getting elected. Apples, apples, apples.............. But, but, but what about that rock on the beach? "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Propaganda video? This was a Tampa Investigative Reporters attempt to spring a "gotcha" moment for his story. He ended up looking like a fool. I'll give him some credit for posting the video, even when it made him look bad. The local media isn't the focus, it's the agenda driven national 24 hour cycle. I've said that numerous times in this and other threads. It's the AP level and above that take the most liberties with the truth. You must have also missed the post where I've stated the cops own some of this. I even posted a Frontline episode where it showed misuse of Terry Stops, and how it can lead to mistrust and other issues. The stats quoted are accurate, but facts confuse and anger some people. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

The sky is red, I see. "Hands up, Don't shoot"............. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

An example of proactive police work, and the results that can happen. A guy, riding his bike, in the street at 11pm in a residential area. When asked his info and where he lives, he's evasive and not from the area. Turns out he was wanted and was carrying a gun. I've done this prolly several hundred times, it's a legit Terry vs. Ohio stop. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=32d_1473206254 This happens all over the country, thousands of times each night (and day), luckily without this result. If this was your neighborhood, you'd want this officer out "doing his job". Unfortunately, in some areas of the country these type stops have all but dried up. Mainly because officers don't want to be the next Darren Wilson. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

You can't refute anything he says, so you call him names. I get it. Disinformation and false narratives are my issue. Police misconduct has been, and always will be a serious issue. I've never said it isn't, but assumptions and the like run rampant. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Look below Did you not read this? The Sheriff in the video says the same thing. Chicago has about 12,244 sworn officers and over 1,925 other employees. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

The truth, it hurts sometimes, especially when it interrupts assumptions and false narratives. But please, refute one thing the Sheriff said in the video. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Then you are simply wrong, again. But that is par for the course. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

I agree, but not nearly to the extent promulgated by the media and "activist" groups. Listen to the comments by the Sheriff of Polk County Florida I posted earlier in this thread. He speaks directly to these issues, his thoughts mirror mine and 99% of the cops I know. There are agencies (I would argue elements within those agencies) which have a culture that needs to change, I agree. But those are few and far between, and the stats prove it. But again, the truth in recent history really doesn't matter. Ask Darren Wilson. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

I'm speaking specifically to the use of force of Officer Wilson. You must have missed the numerous comments I've made on revenue-neutral policing and the (mis)use of municipal/mayors courts. Which was evidently the case in Ferguson Missouri. But it's okay. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Hyperbole, it's all you have; safe space, hardly. It's relevant to the false narratives, just keep repeating it, that'll make it true. Remember the whole hyperbole thingy...... "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Does this happen? It does, but in less than .001% of police contacts. MILLIONS of police contacts, yet you, the media, and other groups are leading the charge with false narratives. Did you watch the interview with the Sheriff? We don't want "bad cops" anymore than you do. But a "good cop" is one controversial incident away from being a "bad cop". There is an 86 page DOJ report saying that Darren Wilson was not a "bad cop", yet his professional life is ruined. In this argument, facts no longer matter. Read the narratives, then tell me about how bad cops are. You can cherry pick a very small number, but ignore the vast majority of others. The Sheriff in the video summed up my thoughts almost to the letter. https://www.facebook.com/noahpransky/videos/10154551853697518/?hc_location=ufi https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/ "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"