Police State USA

http://www.policestateusa.com/

Sober woman framed with ‘drunk driving’ charges after cop crashes into her vehicle
The victim of a horrible accident was charged with OWI to cover for a deputy's faulty driving.

Federal court rules that stiff driving posture is suspicious behavior
A panel of judges unanimously ruled that having hands at "ten-and-two" is suspicious enough to stop drivers inside the USA.

Man says officer ‘fought back a smile’ after shooting friendly dog in the head
"How can people have so much hate in their heart? I'm sick with grief."

Somebody done bought a big ol' spoon and is a'stirrin' that pot big time today.

Interesting site but I kind of suspect it has an agenda.   It isn't too well hidden. I didn't read all the posts, I just scanned through them but the one I thought was interesting was the one about farming in your own back yard. I don't have anything against a neighbor with a garden but if they bring goats or pigs into my subdivision and I can smell them, it is a detriment to my enjoyment of my own home.

Teo, I see lots of stuff like that, especially on the LiveLeak video site.

I usually don't post that because MW thinks I pick on LEOs.  

In all fairness to LEOs, Teo, the headlines don't grab much attention if it is just a LEO rightfully arresting a perp.  But, if the LEO exceeds his authority in making an arrest, shoots someone without a gun, or batters a cooperative suspect, it makes for good headlines and gets folks riled up... rightfully so.

Otter wrote:

Somebody done bought a big ol' spoon and is a'stirrin' that pot big time today.

Interesting site but I kind of suspect  it has an agenda.   It isn't too well hidden.  I didn't read all the posts, I just scanned through them but the one I thought was interesting was the one about farming in your own back yard.  I don't have anything against a neighbor with a garden but if they bring goats or pigs into my subdivision and I can smell them, it is a detriment to my enjoyment of my own home.

And not great for property value....

Eric wrote:

Teo, I see lots of stuff like that, especially on the LiveLeak video site.

I usually don't post that because MW thinks I pick on LEOs.  

In all fairness to LEOs, Teo, the headlines don't grab much attention if it is just a LEO rightfully arresting a perp.  But, if the LEO exceeds his authority in making an arrest, shoots someone without a gun, or batters a cooperative suspect, it makes for good headlines and gets folks riled up... rightfully so.

     MW....only complained when you continually told/posted untruths about my comments...When your posts are as they are...they speak for themselves and doesn't need anyone to point out the biased attitude that expressed..

mediawatcher wrote:

Eric wrote:

Teo, I see lots of stuff like that, especially on the LiveLeak video site.

I usually don't post that because MW thinks I pick on LEOs.  

In all fairness to LEOs, Teo, the headlines don't grab much attention if it is just a LEO rightfully arresting a perp.  But, if the LEO exceeds his authority in making an arrest, shoots someone without a gun, or batters a cooperative suspect, it makes for good headlines and gets folks riled up... rightfully so.

     MW....only complained when you continually told/posted untruths about my comments...When your posts are as they are...they speak for themselves and doesn't need anyone to point out the biased attitude that expressed..

I don't believe I posted untruths about your posts.  Tell me exactly what I said that you didn't say.  I am not a liar and don't make shit up.

GREAT SONG

Eric wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

Eric wrote:

Teo, I see lots of stuff like that, especially on the LiveLeak video site.

I usually don't post that because MW thinks I pick on LEOs.  

In all fairness to LEOs, Teo, the headlines don't grab much attention if it is just a LEO rightfully arresting a perp.  But, if the LEO exceeds his authority in making an arrest, shoots someone without a gun, or batters a cooperative suspect, it makes for good headlines and gets folks riled up... rightfully so.

     MW....only complained when you continually told/posted untruths about my comments...When your posts are as they are...they speak for themselves and doesn't need anyone to point out the biased attitude that expressed..

I don't believe I posted untruths about your posts.  Tell me exactly what I said that you didn't say.  I am not a liar and don't make shit up.

Been down that road before...have commented and pointed out the untruths...not going to continue with the subject
it's there and is what it is....

I may be guilty of making conclusions based upon what was said, but I do not speak untruths, lies and such and do not like seeing you bring that back up.  As long as you bring it back up (like on the 5th post in this thread), I WILL defend my honor.

Eric wrote:

I may be guilty of making conclusions based upon what was said, but I do not speak untruths, lies and such and do not like seeing you bring that back up.  As long as you bring it back up (like on the 5th post in this thread), I WILL defend my honor.

Didn't much care to see that the [whatever you want to call them] repeated and yet they were..so guess the point has been made...

You assert that I lied and I assert that I did not lie.

Clear as mud.  Nothing is resolved, but we can let it die... until I am called a liar again.

Eric wrote:

You assert that I lied and I assert that I did not lie.

Clear as mud.  Nothing is resolved, but we can let it die... until I am called a liar again.

 
   Refer to the Injured in Jailhouse explosion thread.....
 
    Eric:  "Coming from someone that believes a cop is justified for emptying his gun into someone who has something in his hands"
 
    With an explanation that's not what I said or posted and explained my post was based on the statutes/policies  pertaining to the use of force.
 
     Eric:  C'mon. You may not have said that "in those words"but you made it perfectly clear how you feel about LEO's taking shots at people.
 
      MW:   Yes I've explained anytime I comment about a situation like this and those explanations are based on the Florida Statutes.  
 
      This is what was posted and not the first time either...now if you didn't post then I apologize... but if you did my posts/comments/opinions were intentionally misrepresented even after taking the time to explain and to say that what was being posted was incorrect....You've posted that you didn't appreciate people putting words into your mouth...then it shouldn't be a shock to realize that others don't care for it much either...

You are correct, MW. I don't like people putting words into my mouth either. For my rudeness, I apologize.

However, we do disagree on what justifies a threat worthy of lethal force. Sure, the statutes grant an officer the right to defend himself. That point is not in dispute. Determining that threat is up to the officer, is somewhat subjective and isn't so black and white.

Human life is precious, and I believe that some adrenaline-charged officers make the wrong call and fire an inordinate amount of rounds. If the subject CLEARLY has a gun and is threatening to shoot, I can see where an officer is justified in firing multiple rounds with lethal intent.

I have compassion for people that are unarmed and are shot or are killed by LEOs. I cannot recall an instance where a LEO has expressed regret or sympathy over such a shooting. They only seem to care about covering their ass in justifying the shooting. Surely, there are some LEO accounts of remorse, but they are few and far between.

The LEO comments and remorse do NOT sell papers or make headlines.... For every driver that kills someone in a traffic accident, there are untold thousands that didn't, but they are never mentioned in the media except an occasional short story about the police OCCASIONALLY stopping someone to give them a reward for safe driving.. YES, there was a short story about it happening a few weeks ago..

Eric wrote:

You are correct, MW.  I don't like people putting words into my mouth either.  For my rudeness, I apologize.

However, we do disagree on what justifies a threat worthy of lethal force.  Sure, the statutes grant an officer the right to defend himself.  That point is not in dispute.  Determining that threat is up to the officer, is somewhat subjective and isn't so black and white.

Human life is precious, and I believe that some adrenaline-charged officers make the wrong call and fire an inordinate amount of rounds.  If the subject CLEARLY has a gun and is threatening to shoot, I can see where an officer is justified in firing multiple rounds with lethal intent.

I have compassion for people that are unarmed and are shot or are killed by LEOs.  I cannot recall an instance where a LEO has expressed regret or sympathy over such a shooting.  They only seem to care about covering their ass in justifying the shooting.  Surely, there are some LEO accounts of remorse, but they are few and far between.

 
    I've been around officers that were involved in shootings....I can tell you without a doubt that I've NEVER spoke to any of them that weren't tore up over taking another human life...They are told NOT to make comments to the media and they themselves have to struggle with their religious beliefs as well as their respect for human life....NEVER met an officer that goes to work and wants to take a life but to protect their lives and the lives of others they have to make those decisions.   Also for the record the % of officers that have to use their weapon over a 20+ year career is extremely  low and departments strive and train for the use of deadly force to be the LAST RESORT taken.  Officers are not trained to shoot to kill (like seen and heard on Tv) but rather to STOP.  Once again this is not a one fits all situation and crimes/aggression are not specified as to the number of shot allowed.  In a perfect world there would be no reason for a single shot...but it ain't perfect....  Seen some that this ends their law enforcement careers.  
 
     Tried to explain that this isn't so cut and dry where a suspect has a gun and is threatening to shoot....Of course human life is precious but it is also precious for those in law enforcement also.  If you think that it seems that they only care about covering their asses to justify a shooting then that's very sad to strip good people of human emotion...That's why the job is so difficult and almost impossible...human beings are expected to make split second decisions and be perfect everytime...even if justified doesn't make it any easier.  That would be like making service members out to be robots and they have no regard for human lives...maybe that's why there's such an increase in PTSD cases because it does matter to the individual and also that's why most vets don't or WON'T even speak about such things they were involved in or witnessed...

 
     Lastly, there are resistance/ compliance standards that every officer is trained in regularly.  These include verbal instruction...open hand compliance...intermediate weapons (batons, tasers)...Lethal strikes/Non-lethal strikes, all the way up to deadly force.  Believe it or not things can go to ____ in what most would think was a routine call or traffic stop...Yes officers fill out forms/reports (mandatory) on every situation where force is used.  You know as pointed out that officers don't normally get the pats on the backs for doing their jobs and most don't expect it either...but they don't deserve to be kicked in the teeth either.  Some support...some tolerate...some hate/distrust...some categorize them all as crooked/corrupt...what a hell of an occupation...

Jake92 wrote:

The LEO comments and remorse do NOT sell papers or make headlines....  For every driver that kills someone in a traffic accident, there are untold thousands that didn't, but they are never mentioned in the media except an occasional short story about the police OCCASIONALLY stopping someone to give them a reward for safe driving..  YES, there was a short story about it happening a few weeks ago..

Love it when after a trial the media says the killer showed no remorse!...So if they did would everything be OK then?...

mediawatcher wrote:

Jake92 wrote:

The LEO comments and remorse do NOT sell papers or make headlines....  For every driver that kills someone in a traffic accident, there are untold thousands that didn't, but they are never mentioned in the media except an occasional short story about the police OCCASIONALLY stopping someone to give them a reward for safe driving..  YES, there was a short story about it happening a few weeks ago..

    Love it when after a trial the media says the killer showed no remorse!...So if they did would everything be OK then?...

Nope, everything wouldn't be okay. But if the killer was a public servant, the public's perception of all similar public servants wouldn't be so callous.

If officers cannot express remorse, perhaps the spokesperson for that department should express the human side of the incident in a PR fashion. Surely this can be done in a tactful manner without increasing liability.

Something like "The department is saddened by the loss of human life and has sympathy for his family during this time, however... (then cover their butt, by saying something like "our officers were threatened by Mr. (name) and the officers had to protect themselves (and others in the vicinity).

If the killer wasn't a public servant and was really guilty (and convicted as such), expressing guilt and remorse might make the difference between "death" or "life in prison". If I were a judge, however, it would be difficult for me to determine if said remorse was genuine. It might make a smidgen of closure for the grieving family.