Pulled out of my apartment at gun point by swat members

[Dave_pro2a]

This statement just begs for a "Cite". Can you show actual training curriculum or any syllabus where this behavior is "codified" or actually trained?

Just remember, any training material is actually subject to FOIA access.

If what you claimed is true, and such "training" was actually conducted, it would all be "Exhibit A" in the thousands of "abuse of force" lawsuits filed by attorneys. So many cases would be filed even new Law School Graduates would be joining in and getting rich in no time.

Since that doesn't seem to be happening I can only conclude that you are "Usted habla de su culo".

Gee, the city was so confident of their approved 'distraction technique' that they settled instead of allowing it to go to trial.

 

[oneeyeross]

"Nearly two years ago, a federal judge in Seattle denied the city's motion to throw out Kita's lawsuit, siding with his claim that the incident provided evidence of excessive force and that the Police Department supports a "local custom" of abuse by police." http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020081701_spdsettles08m.html

Now, if while that may not mean that they were "trained" that way, it certainly shows a pattern, doesn't it?
Also, if it was a department approved technique, doesn't that mean that it was taught?

 

[Dave_pro2a]

This statement above is so full of bs...
Our Military, Police and Citizens all play different roles in our society

We're all citizens*.

*except the non-citizens allowed to enlist in the military as a path to citizenship.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Also, if it was a department approved technique, doesn't that mean that it was taught?

That's the implication.

Wait, it's more than an implication - it made the city too afraid to take this to court and let a Jury decide the award.

 

[amlevin]

It may well have been a "Department approved technique" but if improperly applied???? Remember, one can just shoot someone and that too is a "department approved technique" under select circumstances.


But as my Granddaughter says "Whateeeever".

 

[amlevin]

"Nearly two years ago, a federal judge in Seattle denied the city's motion to throw out Kita's lawsuit, siding with his claim that the incident provided evidence of excessive force and that the Police Department supports a "local custom" of abuse by police." http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020081701_spdsettles08m.html

Now, if while that may not mean that they were "trained" that way, it certainly shows a pattern, doesn't it?
Also, if it was a department approved technique, doesn't that mean that it was taught?

The only "pattern" is that a small number take what they were trained to do and then apply it improperly.

They train cops to shoot as well and in the proper circumstance it certainly is a proper technique.

The reason the City got it's "Mammary Protuberance" in the wringer was the wrongful application, not the technique itself. I don't disagree that those who continue to abuse should be unemployed. That's something for the upper management to "pay" for, not the good officers on any police force.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Not improperly applied in the eyes of the police department, which defended the officers application of this "department approved distraction technique."

So the department endorsed the officers actions on this specific incident, they did not criticize or disavow them.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

We're all citizens*.

*except the non-citizens allowed to enlist in the military as a path to citizenship.

Some feel they are special citizens, because of their "role". So they invent protections other citizens don't get, they forget that those are our servants and the regular citizens are supposed to be the masters.

Of course DOJ, found only a minority that met their requirement of abuse, they promote their murderers.

 

[amlevin]

Of course DOJ, found only a minority that met their requirement of abuse, they promote their murderers.

Let's see now. Troy Meade was fired. Ian Birk resigned before he was fired. How do you see any "promotion" there?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Let's see now. Troy Meade was fired. Ian Birk resigned before he was fired. How do you see any "promotion" there?

Reread the sentence. Notice the commas and the subject of the sentence.

 

[OC for ME]

True, but regardless of the general sentiment here, the "bad guys" in most police forces are still the minority. Even when the Seattle PD was 'carefully sifted' by DOJ they found that 20 officers out of the entire department were the cause of almost all of the improper use of force complaints.

Please note my next comment. I find it ironic that some citizens cling to a misnomer. Where as "improper use of force" is used for cops. Aggrivated assault is used for citizens. The inclusion of a firearm ups the ante on the severity of the charge for a citizen, not so much for a cop, policy violation is a likely determination.

Blame the Union for it's protectionist stand towards these bullies, not the good officers that do go out to "protect and serve".

Well, are the "good cops" protecting us from the "bad cops?"

If people here want to brand all cops as "bad" then why shouldn't all of us be subject to a similar brand by the public? One that brands us as Gun Nuts. Just like an average Police Department we here, as supporters of gun rights, have about the same number of "members" that are poor representatives of our "culture".

I'm not well convinced that all cops are bad, or even a majority of cops are bad. However, I am well convinced that I am not able to make a "good" or "bad" determination by mere visual observation.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Please note my next comment. I find it ironic that some citizens cling to a misnomer. Where as "improper use of force" is used for cops. Aggrivated assault is used for citizens. The inclusion of a firearm ups the ante on the severity of the charge for a citizen, not so much for a cop, policy violation is a likely determination.

Well, are the "good cops" protecting us from the "bad cops?"

I'm not well convinced that all cops are bad, or even a majority of cops are bad. However, I am well convinced that I am not able to make a "good" or "bad" determination by mere visual observation.

I disagree with much of his and other cop rationalizations.

"Blame the Unions", well aren't they all members of their unions, why are they not changing it?

There are no single bad apples, the whole barrel is rotten. They do very little to change their own organization, so they are just as guilty.

Also the continual comparison to private individuals or groups is just illogical. Private groups don't have huge resources stolen from the public for their defense, they don't have the backing and power of the state behind them.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Well, are the "good cops" protecting us from the "bad cops?"

Standing around watching a supposedly racist cop kick a handcuffed 'suspect' (innocent) in the head and doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

Or actually lying by omission imho, to protect their own:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/115682874.html

Officer Garth Haynes threatened several people with his gun before kicking the man who was lying on the ground under police watch... The police reports made absolutely no mention of this assault

Like an iceberg, most incidents like this remain unseen imho.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I am well convinced that I am not able to make a "good" or "bad" determination by mere visual observation.

Truth. Bold, scary, undeniable truth. It should shape how every citizen views every LEO.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

However, I am well convinced that I am not able to make a "good" or "bad" determination by mere visual observation.

There was a time when I took all LEOs as "good guys" on sight. I have come in contact with enough of the so called 'bad apples' to be suspicious of the intentions of all LEOs that approach me or come into my AO.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

There was a time when I took all LEOs as "good guys" on sight. I have come in contact with enough of the so called 'bad apples' to be suspicious of the intentions of all LEOs that approach me or come into my AO.

I remember those days.......

 

[amlevin]

Also the continual comparison to private individuals or groups is just illogical. Private groups don't have huge resources stolen from the public for their defense, they don't have the backing and power of the state behind them.

What? Attempting to preempt a comparison of dishonest contractors with good ones?

Bad Contractors have the power of the "State" behind them as well. They just form a Corporation, go out and steal what they can, then go bankrupt. Since it was the "corporation" that stole, rarely if ever does anyone pay.

When one tends to use a broad brush to paint others bad, sometimes some of the "paint" can slop back.

I can't wait for your rationalizations regarding Contractors. FWIW, I've run into far more "bad apple apple contractors" than "bad apple cops".

 

[sudden valley gunner]

What? Attempting to preempt a comparison of dishonest contractors with good ones?

Bad Contractors have the power of the "State" behind them as well. They just form a Corporation, go out and steal what they can, then go bankrupt. Since it was the "corporation" that stole, rarely if ever does anyone pay.

When one tends to use a broad brush to paint others bad, sometimes some of the "paint" can slop back.

I can't wait for your rationalizations regarding Contractors. FWIW, I've run into far more "bad apple apple contractors" than "bad apple cops".

Wasn't preempting it at all contractor aspect didn't even come to mind since the analogy presented was cops to gun rights activist.

Still a fallacy logic you can choose not to deal with bad contractors, can you choose not to deal with bad cops? No rationalization needed, contractors are not state protected agents.

Besides most contractors don't form corporations. And ones who get state protection (mostly union ones) don't get my support either. You simply lack experience in the small (majority) of contractors or are purposefully ignoring the reality, that they are victims of the state way more than they are protected from it.

I would be the first to point out bad contractors, where are the cops pointing out the bad cops. So your broad brush analogy falls flat. You are attempting your usual tactic of generalizing what we are saying and presenting a straw man argument than actually arguing the points being made.