Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
safe & sound |
Still waiting for the day when those that cause the damage get to pay for it out of their pockets. | |||
|
| Gone but Together Again. Dad & Uncle  |
^^^ This was also interesting… St.Louis county was recused as a defendant a while back. As part of the settlement the judge allowed St. Louis county to be reinstated as a defendant and the two officers to be recused. Either way though it was St. Louis county, meaning the taxpayers, who had to pay. The really disturbing thing, these style “invasions” happen with regularity and thus my friends insistence of no gag order. He wanted this to be a lesson for others. I was at a party last night and the local sheriff for that rural county was in attendance along with my friend. He told my friend that his case was discussed at their PD. The sheriff told his force you better not do what the two St. Louis county officers did. Perhaps the start of a change? | |||
|
| Member |
One can hope things get better, but until there are direct consequences for the people involved there's no reason to expect them. | |||
|
| Grandiosity is a sign of mental illness |
That'll be a good day. | |||
|
Sigforum K9 handler |
Already happening. Policing is more risk averse than it was when this happened. Just this week, a bunch of cops didn’t go into a school because of risk aversion. They worried about “what if” they got it wrong, instead of just acting in good faith. You are getting the exact police you are demanding. Be patient, it won’t happen over night, but eventually cops won’t do anything even slightly risky. And if that doesn’t work, we’ll eventually die off and because no one wants to do the job, you’ll win by attrition. Well, until the feds “solve” the problem by installing unionized regional police forces. Chin up, you’re getting closer to what you desire! | |||
|
| Member |
^^^^ Agreed, sadly. Saw that writing on the wall a long time ago. Frustratingly saw the increased risk aversion in the Army up close in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go destroy a poppy field and take photos. Don’t mount a simple offensive operation to kill the local Taliban. Just convoy around buttoned up in armored vehicles waiting to get randomly attacked, don’t dismount! I think crime will have to get a lot worse and more widespread before the people demand and support the right kind of change. Swat cop I deployed to Kosovo with (and a damn fine officer military and LE) had a buddy, brand new to the team just up and quit and moved to ID when all the Covid lockdowns and riots started. He didn’t line up job 1st, just split from the whole program. Ballsy move, and in hindsight pretty damn good one. He left the Portland area. “People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik Be harder to kill: https://preparefit.ck.page | |||
|
| Savor the limelight |
You’re really drawing that conclusion? The average officer can’t figure out the difference between breaking into someone’s house over a $40 skipped cab fare and 4th graders being shot? | |||
|
| Sigforum K9 handler |
Do you think if half the facts are true it was an “average cop” Or management calling the shots? It was management. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that policing has changed forever based upon the calls like from people in this thread. Like Strambo said, things will get worse and maybe people will then support the right kind of change. | |||
|
| Member |
What's the right kind of change? | |||
|
| hello darkness my old friend  |
Yep, at this point I want cops to lose our qualified immunity like so many have demanded. It has to get worse before it gets better. Once the officers realize every decision they make will get them sued they will just sit in the PD like fire fighters do and we can all sit by and watch our society crumble. Everyone thinks they can do it better. Okay, let have their turn and make this happen. Should be some great TV. | |||
|
| Sigforum K9 handler |
States and communities will figure it out. Or they won’t and will continue to burn. I have solutions, but until people actual want change, none are realistic. Biggest thing is vote at the local level. | |||
|
| safe & sound |
There's a distinct difference between "acting in good faith" and "blatantly violating rights/laws". I doubt many of us here have any issue with the first, but we should all take issue with the second. When the second happens I would like to see that the person responsible gets treated as if they are responsible. I don't care which division of government they are employed under. With great power comes great responsibility. And what we saw in Texas has nothing to do with any of this. Those afraid to stand in the line of fire have existed long before any of us here were alive, and will exist long after we are gone. | |||
|
| Savor the limelight |
At what point would it be appropriate to hold an officer or department accountable for their actions? In this thread, you have two officers that entered someone’s home, dragged people out of bed, held them at gunpoint, searched the home, and didn’t file a report about it all because some drunk, not anyone in this home, skipped out on a $40 cab fare. They weren’t chasing someone who went into the home. There were no witnesses that said they saw anyone go into that home. It shouldn’t have taken a lawsuit to get an apology. Jones, the example you brought up is an even worse premise to support your argument. Anybody with a heart is going to question that man’s decision. | |||
|
Raptorman |
It's OK as long as they think they are "acting in good faith" at the time. Remember this is the police you DEMANDED! ____________________________ Eeewwww, don't touch it! Here, poke at it with this stick. | |||
|
Member |
Unfortunately, part of the issue of discipline is having that personal/professional trait in sufficient degree to follow the lawful orders of a superior officer. Telling a chief of police to pound sand sounds great on paper or when depicted on TV or a movie, but in reality it's a very difficult thing to do. I know because I've done it before and even IF you're 100% in the right, there's consequences to pay. Sometimes those consequences are matters of "discretion" that manager(s) don't need to justify or are impossible for the employee to prove were based on PROPER actions he/she took which were protected under civil service rules. While I certainly agree that going into an "in progress" active shooter event is one of those kinds of situations that can be justified by exigency and poor management decisions, "Progressive" managers are appointed by politicians and routinely promote "Progressive" employees they've hired and trained. These kinds of milquetoast officers are problematic at best and has been said before: Communities get the kind of law enforcement (government) they deserve. "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken." | |||
|
| Big Stack |
Let me ask a question to h2 and anyone else living in the STL area: If you hadn't heard about this incident here, including the recent settlement (for h2 this would mean if you didn't know the victims), would you known this happened, and that St. Louis county had to shell out $300K to settle it? | |||
|
| Gone but Together Again. Dad & Uncle |
^^^Yes. It was on local news, AP, and other sources as well. However I wouldn’t have known all the intimate details that made this a potentially deadly situation. Personally, I and I bet a number of you, would have ended up dead. We would have come around the corner in the hallway armed unlike my friend. Then either both the cops or one of us would have opened fire at the distance of a few feet. All because the two rookie cops entered my friends home unannounced about an hour after the unknown kid skipped the cab fare, without cause, with guns drawn. This could have ended very horribly. Note this is not a cop bashing thread. I couldn’t do what the police do. Whether the two rookies made their own decision to let themselves into the garage, then into the home, etc or it was their superiors decision, it was the wrong one. The subsequent denials, lies, etc made the situation worse. The original judge, the appellate court judges, and the judge overseeing the awards trial, all sided with my friend. That alone tells those without knowledge of all the details something. | |||
|
| Big Stack |
I'm not approaching this from the standpoint of trying to justify the entry, which was unjustified, and the settlement acknowledges that. I'm approaching this from the standpoint that, based on the local new coverage, would the average resident of St Louis County, who are actually paying for this, notice and/or care. Would this be on their radar at all. If you had not known the victim and had an enhanced interest in the case, would you have even noticed both the initial raid or the settlement based on only the news coverage? My take is that cases like this, unless they are very sensational (usually meaning someone was killed), fly under the radar of the average citizen.
| |||
|
| I Am The Walrus |
I wouldn't have settled for only $300k and they'll probably end up with less than half of that. _____________ | |||
|
| Gone but Together Again. Dad & Uncle |
BBMW, I probably would have not known about the situation at all barring the fact the victim is a very good friend. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024