LAPD Budget


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Can someone please explain to me why the police officer in the Rayshard Brooks shooting was fired?

I can see admin saying “officer, we appreciate what you did, but you should never have let the bad guy get your Taser in the first place”.

I suppose more details will come out eventually . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I wish there were a SMH reaction icon.

 

:ahntah: - Closest I have found. 
 

And honestly, it’s all going to come down to whether the officer is justified in shooting someone resisting arrest, under the influence, and using a taser in the process of trying to escape. 
 

As usual, the answer to that question greatly depends on your aligned attitude towards current events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Colirio said:

And honestly, it’s all going to come down to whether the officer is justified in shooting someone resisting arrest, under the influence, and using a taser in the process of trying to escape. 

If he were just trying to run away, the consensus is that an officer does not have a right to use deadly force.

But the moment he leveled a weapon at the officer, he lost that right.  Yes, it was non-lethal.  But it could have incapacitated the officer enough for the suspect to take the gun from the officer's holster and shoot him.

When you're in the middle of a scuffle, an officer should never have to put himself at the mercy of the suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I realize that is the story.  But I saw the video. I'm wondering how self defense was "unneccesary".

And therein lies the heart of the current debate around policing. I haven't seen any video that shows what led up to Brooks swinging at the officers and trying to run away with one of their tasers. The story is that he was passed out drunk in his car and they were trying get him to move. How did that escalate to a fist fight/shooting? Maybe Brooks was belligerent from the onset. Maybe the cops got unnecessarily rough with him and he fought back. Either way, the initial situation wasn't one that should have ended with Brooks losing his life. Same with George Floyd and his counterfeit money. Same with Eric Garner and his illegal cigarette sales. At a certain point, you have to question the ability of beat cops to handle non-violent offenders without escalation that could result in unnecessary death. Brooks, Floyd, and Garner didn't do anything worth being killed for. 

As for the self-defence argument, I don't see how a suspect running away with a non-lethal debilitating weapon warrants the use of lethal force. It's one dude with one taser against two cops, one of which presumably had a taser as well. Was a verbal warning given before lethal rounds were fired? At what point is it better to let a perp get away than to escalate to lethal force? I'll grant that this case is more convoluted than others that have been in the news, which makes it all the more important that we try to address some of the questions that have arisen over the last few weeks about the role of police in dealing with minor non-violent offenses, the procedures governing escalation in what should be a non-violent interaction, and systems of accountability when things do get violent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Godless said:

And therein lies the heart of the current debate around policing. I haven't seen any video that shows what led up to Brooks swinging at the officers and trying to run away with one of their tasers.

There was no lead up.  That was the crazy part of it.  The officers were very calm.  Brooks was very calm.  He was fully cooperating through the field sobriety test and the breathalizer.  When the breathalizer beeped over the legal limit, the officer said, that he was in no condition to drive, so they had to take him in.

The officer asked him to turn around.  And as he began to put the cuffs on him...

Seemingly out of nowhere, he suddenly started very forcefully trying to run away.

The officers were noticeably surprised such that all three of them went down.  It was in that scuffle that the officer's body cam fell off.  They were so surprised that this one, drunken man was able to get them on the ground, steal a tazer, and run away before he turned around and aimed the tazer at the nearest officer.

You didn't see the "lead up" to what set him off because there was nothing.  It really did come out of nowhere.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Godless said:

Maybe the cops got unnecessarily rough with him and he fought back. Either way, the initial situation wasn't one that should have ended with Brooks losing his life. Same with George Floyd and his counterfeit money. Same with Eric Garner and his illegal cigarette sales. At a certain point, you have to question the ability of beat cops to handle non-violent offenders without escalation that could result in unnecessary death. Brooks, Floyd, and Garner didn't do anything worth being killed for. 

How do you know? You confess you didn't see the Brooks video. What makes you qualified to render such a judgment?

As you note, all of these men were offenders. All of them. Why isn't that mentioned front and center? It's certainly relevant.

No one wants bullying cops (with the possible exception of the bullying cops themselves). That is not at issue. How many times have we heard the observation that most minorities are law-abiding? And why do we hear such an assertion at all? Obviously, because we are supposed to understand that the idea of "lawless racial minorities" is an unfair and harmful stereotype. Why is that same logic not applied to the police? After all, most policemen aren't bullying jerks. Right?

This is not about truth. This is not about clear thinking. This is not about cool rationality. This is not about solving a societal problem. This is only and purely and 100% about those with an ultimately antisocial agenda driving that wedge to further their cause. Everything and everyone else involved are just excuses and useful idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

At a certain point, you have to question the ability of beat cops to handle non-violent offenders without escalation that could result in unnecessary death.

That’s a fair question in a lot of cases, but in my line of work I send out social workers to execute warrants, fairly routinely.

They almost always want the cops to go with them, because they are acutely aware that what they do is not mind control.  If the client/perp tells them “no”—they’re not only pretty well stuck, but in many cases they’re dealing with someone who hates *all* authority (cop or otherwise) and they may be about to be assaulted or raped.  “Women who aren’t trained to use swords can still die upon them”, as Tolkien would say.

And if you make social workers do law-enforcement-type work, they’re going to insist on having backup from an armed cop.  And as long as a cop is there you have a risk of him shooting someone—maybe an amplified risk, since he sees himself as protection for the pretty young social worker six months out of college, and he may well be even more vigilant in protecting her than he would be for himself.

Every law is backed up by the threat of force, and if we aren’t willing to use force, then we’d better not pass the law.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That’s a fair question in a lot of cases, but in my line of work I send out social workers to execute warrants, fairly routinely.

Just curious, does your work cover more urban or suburban areas? I've seen it noted (without documentation, hence my question) that social workers are more likely to be deployed in suburban neighborhoods, often with LO support, while inner cities usually just send cops where a social worker might be useful. Even in 2020, many cities have stark racial disparities between inner cities and suburbs (not sure how true this is in Utah though). If it's true that suburban precincts are more likely to deploy social workers, it could be indicative of either a lack of funding for inner city social programs, or possibly indifference on the part of the people responding to those calls. Maybe both. 

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

They almost always want the cops to go with them, because they are acutely aware that what they do is not mind control.  If the client/perp tells them “no”—they’re not only pretty well stuck, but in many cases they’re dealing with someone who hates *all* authority (cop or otherwise) and they may be about to be assaulted or raped.  “Women who aren’t trained to use swords can still die upon them”, as Tolkien would say.

And if you make social workers do law-enforcement-type work, they’re going to insist on having backup from an armed cop.  And as long as a cop is there you have a risk of him shooting someone—maybe an amplified risk, since he sees himself as protection for the pretty young social worker six months out of college, and he may well be even more vigilant in protecting her than he would be for himself.

This is actually a "middle ground" solution that I've seen a considerable amount of support for. I've heard countless horror stories about cops horribly mishandling domestic disturbances, including those involving autistic and other special needs children. It seems like those situations should be handled by someone trained for it, and cops just aren't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Godless said:

[1]Just curious, does your work cover more urban or suburban areas? I've seen it noted (without documentation, hence my question) that social workers are more likely to be deployed in suburban neighborhoods, often with LO support, while inner cities usually just send cops where a social worker might be useful. Even in 2020, many cities have stark racial disparities between inner cities and suburbs (not sure how true this is in Utah though). If it's true that suburban precincts are more likely to deploy social workers, it could be indicative of either a lack of funding for inner city social programs, or possibly indifference on the part of the people responding to those calls. Maybe both. 

[2]This is actually a "middle ground" solution that I've seen a considerable amount of support for. I've heard countless horror stories about cops horribly mishandling domestic disturbances, including those involving autistic and other special needs children. It seems like those situations should be handled by someone trained for it, and cops just aren't. 

1.  Suburban now, rural two years ago.  But I do child welfare law; my warrants have to do with safety inspections of houses/forensic interviews of kids/removing children from parental custody; and I imagine that it’s mostly social workers doing that wherever you go since our agency is funded by the state and not the city or county.

2.  Maybe.  From what little I hear of this Brooks case, things happened so fast that there was no time for a social worker to do any sort of de-escalation; everything was fine until Brooks decided he just didn’t want to go to jail and suddenly there was a scuffle.  It would be an interesting tactical puzzle to figure out how to have cops and social workers working in tandem productively and safely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

This is actually a "middle ground" solution that I've seen a considerable amount of support for. I've heard countless horror stories about cops horribly mishandling domestic disturbances, including those involving autistic and other special needs children. It seems like those situations should be handled by someone trained for it, and cops just aren't. 

I have no problem with this.  I have no idea why people would call the police to handle something like this that is clearly for a social worker to handle.

Strike that.  I'm not sure that it is up to the individual calling.  I once called 911 on behalf of a woman who requested I do so.  The dispatcher sent the police.  Why?  I have no idea.

Here's the story:

I was driving into work.  Our company has a rather large driveway entrance to our parking garage.  I noticed a car parked in the lane no one drives in.  I happened to be there as the woman was getting out and looked quite distressed.

I veered over and lowered my window.  I asked if she was ok.  She said that she was just in from out of town and got lost and ended up having an anxiety attack, and she was wondering if I could call for help.  At the time, I didn't know anything about anxiety attacks other than I had heard the term before.  So, I asked her what happened.

She shrieked at me,"I'M HAVING AN ANXIETY ATTACK!!!"

I was taken aback, but upon her request, I got my cell phone out (at the time I hadn't gotten a smart phone yet, so I couldn't get a map out).  I dialed 911 and told the dispatcher what I just said above.  They replied that they were sending a police car to my location.  I would have thought maybe an ambulance or paramedic.  But they sent police. 

I was on the 4th floor, but I got a look through the window.  The police assessed the situation.  I guess they called the paramedics because I saw them pulling in some time later.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2020 at 8:11 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

I can see admin saying “officer, we appreciate what you did, but you should never have let the bad guy get your Taser in the first place”.

I suppose more details will come out eventually . . .

This is the only argument I really can think of that would hold water with our current rules and regulations (well, that and the right to work laws).

The individual was fighting with the police, and then got hold of the taser and used it.  There is little doubt that if he used the taser, if he had been successful and able to get a gun, he probably would have used that too.

In our current regulations, I see no reason why deadly force would not have been approved in this instance.

On the otherhand, losing control of one's weapons (even a Taser) is a pretty big item in regards to keeping control of one's environment and tools for an officer.

PS: What I don't get is why they have to take him in after failing the test?  He was sleeping in the car, not driving it.  If he wasn't driving, he wasn't doing anything to be taken in that I can understand.  Perhaps there is more to it?  If one is not on the public roads (he was in a private parking lot) and is not driving, they aren't DUI for an arrest.  He may be accused of public drunkenness, but he wasn't wandering around. There literally does not appear to be a reason to take him in until he acts.

If they were that concerned about him driving the car, let him run away and impound the car until the next morning (or when he comes to claim it) so he can't drive off in it. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is the only argument I really can think of that would hold water with our current rules and regulations (well, that and the right to work laws).

The individual was fighting with the police, and then got hold of the taser and used it.  There is little doubt that if he used the taser, if he had been successful and able to get a gun, he probably would have used that too.

In our current regulations, I see no reason why deadly force would not have been approved in this instance.

On the otherhand, losing control of one's weapons (even a Taser) is a pretty big item in regards to keeping control of one's environment and tools for an officer.

PS: What I don't get is why they have to take him in after failing the test?  He was sleeping in the car, not driving it.    

If he wasn't driving, he wasn't doing anything to be taken in that I can understand.  Perhaps there is more to it?  If one is not on the public roads (he was in a private parking lot) and is not driving, they aren't DUI for an arrest.  He may be accused of public drunkenness, but he wasn't wandering around. There literally does not appear to be a reason to take him in until he acts.

If they were that concerned about him driving the car, let him run away and impound the car until the next morning (or when he comes to claim it) so he can't drive off in it. 

This made me laugh out loud...

Dude... he was passed out AT THE DRIVE THRU WINDOW AT WENDY'S.  

I almost fell out of my chair laughing while typing that.  :D

 

 

On 6/15/2020 at 8:38 PM, Carborendum said:

Given the conversation that Brooks had with the police, it is entirely possible that he basically did a "suicide by cop".

This is starting to look very probably after finding out the guy is out on parole for a 7-year jail sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JUST IN: Statement from former APD Officer, Garrett Rolfe's new criminal defense team:
"I’ve been prosecuting or defending Georgians in the criminal justice system for 25 years. But never in my career have I seen a District Attorney act so unethically without regard for his professional obligations in pursuit of reelection. Twice in the past few weeks Paul Howard has put his own ambitions ahead of the good of his constituents as he seeks to capitalize on a series of national tragedies. Under Georgia’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8, Paul Howard is prohibited from making “extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” In fact, he is only permitted to inform the “pubic of the nature and extent” of his actions “that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” He has violated that rule today and also made blatant false statements. He has also acted rashly, before the official investigation has been completed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). Had Paul Howard waited for the GBI to complete its investigation he would have learned that while Rayshard Brooks’ death was tragic, Officer Garrett Rolfe’s actions were justified under Georgia law and that there is no legal basis to charge him with 11 felonies. On June 12, 2020, Officer Brosnan responded to a call that a person was passed out in a car at a Wendy’s. Suspecting that the driver, Rayshard Brooks, was drunk, Officer Brosnan requested the assistance of an officer with specialized training in conducting DUI investigations: Officer Rolfe. The DUI investigation that followed was routine, and at the end of it, Officer Rolfe determined that he had probable cause arrest Mr. Brooks. No one is disputing that probable cause existed for Mr. Brooks’ arrest. And there is no argument that Officer Rolfe was anything other than courteous to Mr. Brooks over the course of their encounter. There is also no dispute that, up until the moment of his arrest, Mr. Brooks, too, was polite and cooperative. Suddenly, something changed. Mr. Brooks began to struggle with, and attack, both Officer Brosnan and Officer Rolfe. Under Georgia law, Mr. Brooks’ forceful resistance to arrest, and his attack on the officers, constituted felony obstruction. All Georgia citizens, including police officers, are entitled to use force to defend themselves from forcible felonies. Over the course of the encounter, Officers Brosnan and Rolfe attempted to use the least amount of force necessary to end the encounter and ensure their safety, while Mr. Brooks continued to escalate, until he at last he punched Officer Rolfe in the face, a second felony. Then, Mr. Brooks took Officer Brosnan’s TASER, a third felony. A TASER is an offensive weapon under Georgia law and has been declared to be a deadly weapon by Paul Howard; in fact, one of his investigators swore that a TASER is a deadly weapon before the Honorable Belinda Edwards on June 2, 2020.
- 2 -
One video shows Mr. Brooks pointing the TASER at Officer Brosnan’s head, and Officer Brosnan’s lawyer stated that Mr. Brooks shot Officer Brosnan with the TASER, a fourth felony. At that point, Officer Rolfe deployed his TASER, but it had no effect. Mr. Brooks began running through the parking lot armed with Officer Brosnan’s TASER. But he wanted to deter pursuit. So instead of continuing to run, he paused, reached back, pointed, and fired what we now know was Officer Brosnan’s TASER at Officer Rolfe; this was an additional aggravated assault, a fifth felony. Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him, and so he did what any officer in that situation would do: he dropped his TASER, pulled his gun, and fired it at Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks fell to the ground, Officer Rolfe gathered himself, and then he immediately called for EMS and began life-saving measures. That Officer Rolfe was justified is clear under Georgia law. A police officer may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. When Mr. Brooks chose to attack two officers, to disarm one of them, and to point and fire a deadly weapon at Officer Rolfe, he took their lives, and his own, into his hands. He took the risk that their justified response might be a deadly one. Nobody is here to applaud the death of Mr. Brooks. He was a father, he was a member of his community, and his death was a tragedy. But not every tragedy is a crime. Time and again in this country, we have used tragic deaths to push for new and harsher prosecutions and for less empathy for the accused. But following every sad event with yet another prosecution isn’t an end to this cycle— it is simply another aspect of its continuation. Although we can all understand the grief of Mr. Brooks’ family, Officer Rolfe’s actions were justified by the law. But Paul Howard’s choice to charge him is justified only by his hopes to improve his performance against Fani Willis in the upcoming runoff election. I will be joined by Bill Thomas of the W.H. Thomas Firm in defending Garrett Rolfe in reference to the criminal charges and we will announce the rest of our team at a later date."
Noah H. Pines Ross & Pines, LLC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

In all this racism and politics, can we take a moment and think about the police who have been murdered since Floyd's death?

Note: the link here is ALL 2020 police deaths.  But as we get further into the year we see more and more.  A great number of them COVID deaths.  They are pretty much always out in the public.  They have to expose themselves.  But how many gunfire deaths?   A LOT.

https://www.odmp.org/search/year

At the same time, all across the country, police are not only applying for retirement benefits at record rates, but they are experiencing PTSD and similar mental incapacitation problems in record numbers.

https://meuserlaw.com/

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... at least they stated they're also cracking down on violence caused by their own community members.

On a side note... I find it super stupid for investigative reporters to report on camera with a mask on.   It drastically reduces my ability to understand what he's saying.  It's you and your cameraman... the camera has a zoom lens and you're holding a microphone.  He obviously was not worried about the guy being interviewed not wearing a mask.  If your camera man is worried about your virus he can stand 20 feet out and still video capture.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share