I guess we'll see what his defense is soon enough.

Defund the police is a terrible slogan but I see their point. Having hundreds of thousands of government hit men on the tax rolls isn't really making us a better people.

There may have been a bullet in the chamber. There may have been a clip on a nearby desk. There may have been another gun in the other room.

What should matter is that everyone was warned in advance that a man who took the clip out of a gun SAID he was going to commit suicide by cop and the first cop who showed up understood that a nd tried to talk him down. The next cops that showed up said 'move aside, we are more than willing to grant him his wish', not with words but with actions. If you come across a suicidal person and say do X or I will kill you ... guess what happens?

But if you are horribly murderous you ignore all that and say the cops were justified because... reasons.

The training is intentional and it's being implemented as part of a general militarization of police, a transition from their conventional role to that of managing a maladjusted underclass which is predicted to become increasingly subversive. They are getting these techniques from the Israelis, administered by private companies as supplementary training. The Israelis are masters of urban warfare and the violent suppression of agitated populations. The military equipment local police units are getting comes from the federal government as does the agenda emphasizing active drug enforcement, a front for political motives, to the detriment of solving real crimes.

These tactics also serve to intentionally deepen cultural divides and further suppress the prospects for solidarity among the working class. The people caught up in the grist are likely to be minorities or marginalized groups. Being handicapped certainly qualifies you as "the other" to some pig like the shooter as well as to the broad cross section of conservatives who are all about the social Darwinism.. I've said this years before (and I'm sure ITF) the Floyd protests and look how that functioned politically.

This **** is the worst and it's really unbelievable how well known it is and openly abused. I want to say this law is really on the citizens. How big of pussies are we that this is acceptable?

Why do you dismiss the fact that a drunk and suicidal man is pointing a gun at police that may have a bullet in the chamber as being no big deal? I don’t mind the first cop making a judgment call that it’s unlikely to have a round and I don’t mind the judgment call by a cop that the gun could be loaded, the guy is erratic and many people have committed suicide by cop not just by pointing a gun at police but actually shooting at them.

Whatever policies and actions you do to help a person that is suicidal has to happen before that point. This can be anything from increases in efforts to help mentally ill people, to tactical considerations before confrontation (is it necessary to confront at this point, is the person isolated and unable to harm someone else right now etc).

Once guns are waved around or pointed you have no secure or safe way to know a person's intent, it has to be treated as if the person is willing to pull the trigger or kill someone.

I don't dismiss anything but full context should always matter.

The women called in that the guy was trying to commit suicide by cop and had a gun with no clip in it.

The cop arriving on scene is faced with a guy just saying over and over 'Just shoot me' which is both an appeal to put him out of his misery but also a call for help. It is similar to the guy on the ledge who is willing to talk to any one before actually jumping.

If this guy was totally committed to suicide he could have killed himself or better yet just remained silent, walked directly towards the cops, gun in hand and forced them to shoot. Instead he kept vocally saying 'just shoot me'.

So all of this calls for caution and understanding. The police, imo, owe this man a chance to be talked down and surrender and not an execution as he won't immediately follow every command.

You seem to be one of those people who believe police should have zero risk in their job and if they face anything greater than 0 they are fine to shoot. So that leads you to believe a series of POTENTIAL dangers are always enough to shoot.

- Sure he has no clip but POTENTIALLY there is a single round in chamber ...so shoot
- sure it is unlikely with a single round he is going to hit at all, let alone a lethal shot on officers almost certainly wearing vests, but still 'I've watched Westerns and seen guys trick shot kill 3 guys with one bullet', ...so shoot.


I guess i would put another way because America is the most likely jurisdiction where the police would act so quickly and callously when faced with someone clearly suicidal. I've prior seen some stats showing 'suicide call engagement by cops end in death' far more in America. Why do you think other police, in other countries often handle this without killing?

I think there is a less complicated solution (or better yet 'helper') if there simply was some will.

It would not be uncommon for a group like Police to seek out volunteers in their ranks and get them trained and credited as some form of 'Crisis Office'. Make this training and accreditation something that gets them a pay bump. Seek out 10% (X%) of officers who want to volunteer.

You then ensure that on any given patrol day the shift schedulers make sure 10% (X%) are out on the shift.

These officers would be given a certain amount of authority to take control in encounters with the public that fit the following _____ definitions. Not absolute control as a Supervising or higher ranking cop on sight can over ride them but any time that is done that superior knows they will be deeply scrutinized.

I think you would get a good number of cops happy to get this training, accreditation, and pay bump.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/us/ch...ote/index.html

Not as bad as a lot of the other things that have happened. Of course no one will even lose their jobs. But in a sane society the officers would go to jail over this.

They didn't even grope her? The city should be parading these guys around as proof all that extra training is paying off!

Or since you seem incredibly thoughtful and able to handle a crisis...join.

LOL...this was taught in my Statistics and a number of other classes as the BIG LIE way of using Numbers. An old, but great book is HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS. You take two totally unrelated and uncorrelated statistics/numbers and try to make a huge generalization between the two that a really uneducated person or someone who won't fact check you will swallow. So if you are going to argue against it...don't make a bad one...



Prosecutors choose civil forfeiture not because of the standard of proof, but because it is often the only way to confiscate the instrumentalities of crime. The alternative, criminal forfeiture, requires a criminal trial and a conviction. Without civil forfeiture, we could not confiscate the assets of drug cartels whose leaders remain beyond the reach of United States extradition laws and who cannot be brought to trial. Moreover, criminal forfeiture reaches only a defendant's own property. Without civil forfeiture, an airplane used to smuggle drugs could not be seized, even if the pilot was arrested, because the pilot invariably is not the owner of the plane. Nor could law enforcement agencies confiscate cash carried by a drug courier who doesn't own it, or a building turned into a "crack house" by tenants with the knowing approval of the landlord.

— Gerald E. Mcdowell Chief, Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section, Dept. of Justice, 1996, writing in The New York Times[27]

And that is where the majority of the money comes from that makes up your number...many states have made positive changes...I think the big one would be eliminating the Police getting the lion's share of the money.

I'm fine for confiscating assets from a criminal enterprise but how about a trial 1st?
Did you ever read Viffer's account at the airport? Cops can literally just take your money and burden of proof of innocence is on you.
Keep guzzling that boot.

officer suspended for engaging prostitute on duty

okay, but...

Did I miss something? Did they create this unit or department? As 'joining' the force as it is does not give one the power to implement any of that.

And you do not see a big problem with this? Confiscation without any accusation someone can defend, any trial to test that defense, and any conviction?

Confiscation based on a hunch?

You are pointing at the worst of the worst examples but you understand this is being used far more broadly. The example being the guy with cash in his truck and actual bank receipts and a good explanation as to why he has so much cash on him.

Should a police hunch that 'this looks fishy' be enough for them to simply take it because, as you say, some Cartels might get away with bigger things?

A great many and likely most of the Civil forfeitures are in inner cities where the presence of any wealth can be claimed to be under suspicion of being crime proceeds... are you ok with a gov't who does not have to present any evidence or proof of that and instead basically says 'prove it is not or we are keeping it?'

Let's check in on how police reform is going: As violent crime leaps, liberal cities rethink cutting police budgets

May 2020:
Last month:
That's quite a turnabout.

Yup. All sorts of stories like that one.


US Law Enforcement Seizing Cash from Poker Pros

Basically the game they play is to 'take the money given any chance or reason' knowing that for every $X taken only so many will know the procedures and time frames to fight back, to get it back.

They are not, in instances like this seeking crime. They are literally just seeking a RAKE.


If they don't end this then they should simply remove the aspect that the Stations that charge this get half of the rake and instead send it 100% into general revenue with the Fed's. You would see local law enforcement simply not care to make these cases if they were not sharing in the proceeds of this crime (err forfeiture).

I wonder if this is still happening to them while using TSA Precheck/CLEAR. Since I've had both, I haven't had to take my shoes off, remove my laptop, and even got a few bottles of water I forgot to dump out in my carry-on, through the x-ray scanner. Far more ambivalence overall compared to when I was going through the regular security.

Well, I never!

I'm hoping for some updates on the rapid response mental health teams that were supposed to replace uniformed officers for your typical domestic call.

police dont prevent crime any more so than mental health workers would prevent crime in your narrative.

Disrupting open air drug and stolen goods sales and brazen car break ins = responding to a residence where known mental health issues are in play.

(Yes, defund the police is a stupid slogan. Yes, society needs well trained leos. No, you're not making a point about 'liberal hypocrisy' in that post.....although you could probably do so easily if you weren't so incurious.)

While police should have mental health professionals available that idea didn't seem practical to me.

It seems much easier to demilitarize the police and take that training time and teach them about basic mental health situations.

The fact that they taze people for non compliance should really bother people in a country that pretends to be 'free'. lol. Free....in America.

police are notoriously terrible in domestic violence situations as in inso's narrative. other than the 1 time in a million that they make law and order episodes about where they deify the system..

i worked a domestic violence docket for a year and a half and from reading the reports and seeing the cases, the police simply dont give a **** about it, probably because so many of them and their colleagues are abusers themselves they dont take it seriously. so many situations of them failing to even take the most basic of information down or investigations, too many situations of them just deciding to arrest both parties rather than do any actual police work, which then makes it much harder for the victim to successfully obtain a protective order from the abuser since it muddies the water. not to mention the additional trauma of being taken to jail after being the victim of domestic abuse.

That seems about right. They really don't like to get involved. It has to be the worst aspect of the job too. Just a no win for everyone. Case workers would make them get involved and that wouldn't be very popular either. lol