Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say

[Shaggy3.0 1,695]

...but is amber hot or not?

[Guest Lobo]

He didn't owe us anything, having saved a major American city from devolving into mass chaos, but would have been curious to hear from former DPD Chief, David Brown (Texas-Exes DAA winner) on this topic.  

[destroya 380]

1 hour ago, Kyle said:

Regardless, cops should not be treated differently than citizens. I don't think citizens get 72 hours after they shoot someone to be interviewed.

Do you even The First 48? The cops can interview someone but that doesn’t mean that person has to answer their questions. 

[woohorn 1,131]

He didn't owe us anything, having saved a major American city from devolving into mass chaos, but would have been curious to hear from former DPD Chief, David Brown (Texas-Exes DAA winner) on this topic.  

Didn't he start the 72 hour rule?

[Guest Lobo]

If he didn't start it, he implemented it in prolific fashion.  That said, I think it may have been more than 3 days since the incident.  Time flies when it takes the IA/Rangers disclosure of her toxicology report 17 months to fucking be released.  

[Kyle 207]

11 hours ago, destroya said:

Do you even The First 48? The cops can interview someone but that doesn’t mean that person has to answer their questions. 

I think you may be confusing the privileges of a cop performing as a officer of the law versus the privileges of a cop performing as a citizen. While I agree a cop and citizen should not necessarily have equal standing in a law enforcement situation, that does not mean a cop should be treated any differently than a citizen when the cop is on the other side of the table, acting as a cop or as a citizen. They should actually be held to higher standard IMHO because in theory their training should afford them more skills and thus more accountability.

[bernorange 8,362]

12 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Damn, that site is one ad after another.  multiple running with sound at the same time.

Would you stick your penis into a disease riddled whore without protection?  No?  Don't browse the internet without protection either.

Firefox + NoScript (free add-on) + Privacy Badger (free add-on)

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

17 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Would you stick your penis into a disease riddled whore without protection?  No?  Don't browse the internet without protection either.

Firefox + NoScript (free add-on) + Privacy Badger (free add-on)

 

Who'd stick their dick in a disease ridden white in the first place ?  

[bernorange 8,362]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Who'd stick their dick in a disease ridden white in the first place ?  

Very racist

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

7 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Very racist

D'oh..........

[destroya 380]

1 hour ago, Kyle said:

I think you may be confusing the privileges of a cop performing as a officer of the law versus the privileges of a cop performing as a citizen. While I agree a cop and citizen should not necessarily have equal standing in a law enforcement situation, that does not mean a cop should be treated any differently than a citizen when the cop is on the other side of the table, acting as a cop or as a citizen. They should actually be held to higher standard IMHO because in theory their training should afford them more skills and thus more accountability.

No doubt. I also wonder what if any difference there is between an administrative internal affairs questioning and a criminal investigation questioning and which side the new policy impacts. 

[bobcat1995 71]

The removal of the 72-hour rule is just going to make officers refuse to answer any questions after a shooting for the criminal investigation.  They will invoke their "Miranda" right to remain silent, just as a normal citizen can.  How many defense attorneys on this site would want their clients waving their right to remain silent?  DPD criminal investigations will rely on witnesses, body cam, in car cameras and other officer statements.  This should be just fine unless you have an off duty officer enter an apartment that belongs to someone else and then kill that person.  No body cam, no witnesses, no other officers. Since DPD does not run concurrent criminal and internal affair investigations (per chief Hall), the officer will not be compelled to tell their story until the IA investigation starts.  

[Brisketexan 105,182]

20 minutes ago, bobcat1995 said:

The removal of the 72-hour rule is just going to make officers refuse to answer any questions after a shooting for the criminal investigation.  They will invoke their "Miranda" right to remain silent, just as a normal citizen can.  How many defense attorneys on this site would want their clients waving their right to remain silent?  DPD criminal investigations will rely on witnesses, body cam, in car cameras and other officer statements.  This should be just fine unless you have an off duty officer enter an apartment that belongs to someone else and then kill that person.  No body cam, no witnesses, no other officers. Since DPD does not run concurrent criminal and internal affair investigations (per chief Hall), the officer will not be compelled to tell their story until the IA investigation starts.  

And that's also stupid.  It should be a condition of employment as a LEO that in any incident of use of force, you provide an immediate statement to the appropriate internal supervisory/investigative body.  Failure to do so, or invocation of your 5th amendment right in refusing to do so, should be grounds for termination.

We the people have a right to demand that folks carrying and using weapons on our behalf act as dutiful employees who follow all applicable policies, and who fully discuss all such matters with management.  If they don't do so, they are not entitled to that job.

[bigup2dahorns 3,343]

DMN:

The family of 26-year-old Botham Jean plans to sue the city of Dallas and the former Dallas police officer who shot him in his own apartment earlier this month.

Attorney Lee Merritt said Allison and Bertrum Jean plan to file a federal lawsuit claiming excessive use of force by Amber Guyger.
The city will be named as a defendant because Guyger was operating "under the color of state authority" even though she was off the clock, Merritt said.

"She is in uniform, she was wearing a badge, she purports to give commands which he allegedly failed to comply to," he said. "Clocking in or clocking out has no bearing on that analysis."
Merritt said he didn't know when the lawsuit would be filed.

Legal experts have said Dallas could be held liable for Jean's death if attorneys can convince a court that Guyger was acting in the scope of her employment when she killed Jean.

The Dallas Police Department fired Guyger on Monday, more than two weeks after the Sept. 6 shooting at the South Side Flats apartment complex in the Cedars. She was charged with manslaughter three days after the shooting and turned herself in to the Kaufman County Jail. She posted bond within an hour and is free, awaiting trial.

https://buff.ly/2Ijzu0o

[Kyle 207]

2 hours ago, destroya said:

No doubt. I also wonder what if any difference there is between an administrative internal affairs questioning and a criminal investigation questioning and which side the new policy impacts. 

That's a great question. Regardless, I do not think the rule should be applied. To the points above, I think that if they believe they committed a criminal offense and want to claim Miranda / 5th, so be it but at the risk of professional discipline, i.e. if they refuse to respond to IA immediately they should face termination. Cops should be held to a higher standard because of their training and responsibility.

[Kyle 207]

5 minutes ago, bigup2dahorns said:

DMN:

The family of 26-year-old Botham Jean plans to sue the city of Dallas and the former Dallas police officer who shot him in his own apartment earlier this month.

Attorney Lee Merritt said Allison and Bertrum Jean plan to file a federal lawsuit claiming excessive use of force by Amber Guyger.
The city will be named as a defendant because Guyger was operating "under the color of state authority" even though she was off the clock, Merritt said.

"She is in uniform, she was wearing a badge, she purports to give commands which he allegedly failed to comply to," he said. "Clocking in or clocking out has no bearing on that analysis."
Merritt said he didn't know when the lawsuit would be filed.

Legal experts have said Dallas could be held liable for Jean's death if attorneys can convince a court that Guyger was acting in the scope of her employment when she killed Jean.

The Dallas Police Department fired Guyger on Monday, more than two weeks after the Sept. 6 shooting at the South Side Flats apartment complex in the Cedars. She was charged with manslaughter three days after the shooting and turned herself in to the Kaufman County Jail. She posted bond within an hour and is free, awaiting trial.

https://buff.ly/2Ijzu0o

We knew this was coming, but I do not support this. I wish the city would hold firm, but it will buy off the special interests. On principle, I do not think employers should be accountable for their employees actions while off the clock. The special interests will get paid, but I disagree.

[TwiceHorn 31,514]

1 minute ago, Kyle said:

We knew this was coming, but I do not support this. I wish the city would hold firm, but it will buy off the special interests. On principle, I do not think employers should be accountable for their employees actions while off the clock. The special interests will get paid, but I disagree.

There's two theories of liability here. One is Texas tort law, the allegation that she was negligent in her actions.  Under that theory, yes the city would be liable under respondent superior if she was acting within the scope of her employment.  However, liability is capped at $250k by the Texas Tort Claims Act.

She probably was acting within the scope of her employment, even if off-duty, because even an off-duty officer has the ability to make arrests if crimes are witnessed and are felonies or involve a breach of the peace.  So, for a lot of purposes, a cop is always acting within the scope of employment.

The second theory of liability, that implied by "excessive force," is the civil rights or 42 USC 1983 claim, also known as a Bivens claim.  Under that theory, the use of excessive force is a violation of civil rights.  There is no cap on liability.  However, the City is not liable for her actions under respondeat superior.  The plaintiff would have to prove a policy of this kind of action to make the City liable.

Apparently, both the City and Guyger are insured for these claims by the Texas Municipal League, but I don't know what policy limits.  It may be the statutory $250k for the tort claims.

[bobcat1995 71]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

And that's also stupid.  It should be a condition of employment as a LEO that in any incident of use of force, you provide an immediate statement to the appropriate internal supervisory/investigative body.  Failure to do so, or invocation of your 5th amendment right in refusing to do so, should be grounds for termination.

We the people have a right to demand that folks carrying and using weapons on our behalf act as dutiful employees who follow all applicable policies, and who fully discuss all such matters with management.  If they don't do so, they are not entitled to that job.

Officers do not have the right to assert their 5th amendment rights to an internal investigation.  They do have "Garrity Warnings" which in a nut shell say, that if they are compelled to give a statement in reference to an administrative investigation, that statement can not be used as evidence in a criminal investigation.  I thought Chief Hall said they had to wait for the criminal investigation to be complete before the internal started?  An officer can invoke the 5th for the criminal and then be compelled to ask questions or write a statement during the administrative. 

Makes me wonder if DPD is going to allow officers to review body cams or in car cams before writing a statement for the criminal or admin investigations?  

[Reagan1k 3,024]

21 minutes ago, bobcat1995 said:

Makes me wonder if DPD is going to allow officers to review body cams or in car cams before writing a statement for the criminal or admin investigations?  

Why would they ever in a million years need to do that......they were their for goodness sake and witnessed it all 1st hand.  No need to review........

[irockalltherocks 55]

3 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

Why would they ever in a million years need to do that......they were their for goodness sake and witnessed it all 1st hand.  No need to review........

To get their story straight?

[Kyle 207]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's two theories of liability here. One is Texas tort law, the allegation that she was negligent in her actions.  Under that theory, yes the city would be liable under respondent superior if she was acting within the scope of her employment.  However, liability is capped at $250k by the Texas Tort Claims Act.

She probably was acting within the scope of her employment, even if off-duty, because even an off-duty officer has the ability to make arrests if crimes are witnessed and are felonies or involve a breach of the peace.  So, for a lot of purposes, a cop is always acting within the scope of employment.

The second theory of liability, that implied by "excessive force," is the civil rights or 42 USC 1983 claim, also known as a Bivens claim.  Under that theory, the use of excessive force is a violation of civil rights.  There is no cap on liability.  However, the City is not liable for her actions under respondeat superior.  The plaintiff would have to prove a policy of this kind of action to make the City liable.

Apparently, both the City and Guyger are insured for these claims by the Texas Municipal League, but I don't know what policy limits.  It may be the statutory $250k for the tort claims.

Thanks. Really interesting. I'm not qualified to discuss the legal POV, so I was just contemplating my own moral / ethical perspective. Obviously not a lawyer, but it does seem like a really interesting gray area (or maybe not) that she was acting on her own behalf vs. interceding on behalf of a third party, which then would make more sense to me in terms of liability. The city will settle, the special interests will get paid. I hope his family gets something. Nothing that will cover the loss of their son.

[Reagan1k 3,024]

11 minutes ago, irockalltherocks said:

To get their story straight?

I was kidding.

[irockalltherocks 55]

1 minute ago, Reagan1k said:

I was kidding.

Figured.

[4th and 5 4,915]

8 hours ago, destroya said:

No doubt. I also wonder what if any difference there is between an administrative internal affairs questioning and a criminal investigation questioning and which side the new policy impacts. 

http://www.garrityrights.org/basics.html

[TwiceHorn 31,514]

3 hours ago, Kyle said:

Thanks. Really interesting. I'm not qualified to discuss the legal POV, so I was just contemplating my own moral / ethical perspective. Obviously not a lawyer, but it does seem like a really interesting gray area (or maybe not) that she was acting on her own behalf vs. interceding on behalf of a third party, which then would make more sense to me in terms of liability. The city will settle, the special interests will get paid. I hope his family gets something. Nothing that will cover the loss of their son.

Some examples of when an officer would not be within the scope of employment when off-duty would be while working private security and doing something, even law-enforcement related, within the scope of that employment.  Or something in a personal capacity, where they aren't going to rely in any way on their peace officer powers.  Here, her initial story that she thought she was apprehending/shooting an intruder, and issued commands, probably puts her within her peace officer jurisdiction, and probably on the job for employer liability purposes.

[TwiceHorn 31,514]

3 minutes ago, thestud said:

That depends on what her job description requires of her doesn’t it?

My employer requires me to stop and render aid whether I’m off duty or not, IF I’m in the city limits of my employer. It is referred to as a “Duty to act”. Some cities don’t have that stipulation in the job description, so that would change things wouldn’t it?

That's taken from a quick survey of Texas law.  They seem to find the general peace officer jurisdiction (Article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) to put a peace officer within the scope of their employment any time they are acting arguably within that jurisdiction and not at the sole behest of someone else (another employer) or themselves.

[Kyle 207]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Some examples of when an officer would not be within the scope of employment when off-duty would be while working private security and doing something, even law-enforcement related, within the scope of that employment.  Or something in a personal capacity, where they aren't going to rely in any way on their peace officer powers.  Here, her initial story that she thought she was apprehending/shooting an intruder, and issued commands, probably puts her within her peace officer jurisdiction, and probably on the job for employer liability purposes.

Thanks. As a lay person, it feels gray given she (thought) she was entering her own home and thus was acting as (I think) another citizen could legally do, i.e. defend her property / home from danger; versus, she entered a third-party domicile or business because she was an off-duty cop and intervened. All academic I get - feels as complicated as the actual crime because she was a cop but acting completely as a citizen (ostensibly). Without knowing the details, in my legal simpleton mind I would draw a line between "what would Joe Q. Public rightfully do" vs. "what would Jane Q. Cop do because she is a cop."

Horrible story - makes for an interesting academic question on myriad fronts as unfortunately many tragedies do.

[Kyle 207]

Just now, Kyle said:

Thanks. As a lay person, it feels gray given she (thought) she was entering her own home and thus was acting as (I think) another citizen could legally do, i.e. defend her property / home from danger; versus, she entered a third-party domicile or business because she was an off-duty cop and intervened. All academic I get - feels as complicated as the actual crime because she was a cop but acting completely as a citizen (ostensibly). Without knowing the details, in my legal simpleton mind I would draw a line between "what would Joe Q. Public rightfully do" vs. "what would Jane Q. Cop do because she is a cop." (in terms of the city's liability vs. her own)

Horrible story - makes for an interesting academic question on myriad fronts as unfortunately many tragedies do.

 

[bigup2dahorns 3,343]

Keep in mind she was wearing her police uniform, supposedly giving “police-like” commands and also inside the jurisdiction of Dallas. An argument can be made she was acting in a capacity of a police officer. It’s a topic that seems likely to be fought over in the courts, as we have discussed here.

[Deej 76,861]

39 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Thanks. As a lay person, it feels gray given she (thought) she was entering her own home and thus was acting as (I think) another citizen could legally do, i.e. defend her property / home from danger; versus, she entered a third-party domicile or business because she was an off-duty cop and intervened. All academic I get - feels as complicated as the actual crime because she was a cop but acting completely as a citizen (ostensibly). Without knowing the details, in my legal simpleton mind I would draw a line between "what would Joe Q. Public rightfully do" vs. "what would Jane Q. Cop do because she is a cop."

Horrible story - makes for an interesting academic question on myriad fronts as unfortunately many tragedies do.

Her mistake in not knowing where she was shouldn't give her a pass. A man is dead because of her lack of awareness, and responsibility falls solely on her shoulders.

[Kyle 207]

10 minutes ago, Deej said:

Her mistake in not knowing where she was shouldn't give her a pass. A man is dead because of her lack of awareness, and responsibility falls solely on her shoulders.

I agree 100%. Responsibility should fall solely on her shoulders.

[immortal13 4,059]

Was there ever any indication of her drinking before the incident? Did they take a blood specimen from her at the scene or immediately afterwards at the station?

[TexasEd 8,067]

10 hours ago, destroya said:

No doubt. I also wonder what if any difference there is between an administrative internal affairs questioning and a criminal investigation questioning and which side the new policy impacts. 

The difference I read is that nothing found in the IA interview can be used against them in a criminal trial.  This is what the Chief was trying to say but really just confused everyone.

I think that's why she wasn't fired until after the Rangers finished their interviews and then the DPD got their IA interview in.  They wanted to avoid a conflict of collecting info in the IA that could taint the criminal investigation.  

[TwiceHorn 31,514]

46 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

The difference I read is that nothing found in the IA interview can be used against them in a criminal trial.  This is what the Chief was trying to say but really just confused everyone.

I think that's why she wasn't fired until after the Rangers finished their interviews and then the DPD got their IA interview in.  They wanted to avoid a conflict of collecting info in the IA that could taint the criminal investigation.  

She may not have known what she was talking about.  There is a tension between the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the need for police departments and other governmental employers to be able to investigate and discipline employees.  Garrity seems to resolve that tension by making self-incriminating statements made under threat of termination inadmissible in criminal proceedings.  I was not aware of that line of cases until bobcat and 4th and 5 mentioned them.  The Texas Civil Service Code implicitly indicates that an officer may only be suspended pending the outcome of a criminal proceeding.  So there's room for confusion about what Texas and federal law require.

['stache 21,825]

If her defense is that is she gave “lawful commands” which he failed to comply you’re damn right the department is liable. She’s acting as a cop. Add in that he was shot with her service pistol. Who are these “special interests” you think are getting rich? The family would get the money with some to their attorney. Attorneys get paid in all types of plaintiffs cases including car accidents. Not sure I consider that a “special interest.” And the pot is limited to $250,000. The departments insurance should just pay it and be done with it. I can see the family rejecting it though and fighting for a day in court to see what really happened.

[irockalltherocks 55]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

The departments insurance should just pay it and be done with it. I can see the family rejecting it though and fighting for a day in court to see what really happened.

I agree. I think the DPD will settle out of court on the civil case. The family can hopefully find out what really happened when the criminal case against the former officer commences.

[bobcat1995 71]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

She may not have known what she was talking about.  There is a tension between the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the need for police departments and other governmental employers to be able to investigate and discipline employees.  Garrity seems to resolve that tension by making self-incriminating statements made under threat of termination inadmissible in criminal proceedings.  I was not aware of that line of cases until bobcat and 4th and 5 mentioned them.  The Texas Civil Service Code implicitly indicates that an officer may only be suspended pending the outcome of a criminal proceeding.  So there's room for confusion about what Texas and federal law require.

There is debate among law enforcement about how far Garrity reaches once it has been read to an officer.  Some say any statement to IA or CID after Garrity is read is inadmissible in criminal proceedings.  Some say that if there is a clear line between what is criminal and administrative, you can obtain a statement for CID after the Officer has given a statement under Garrity to IA and use that CID statement in criminal proceedings.  So what does an agency do?  Exactly what DPD did.  You finish the criminal case and then start the IA investigation.  This means there are two clear separate investigations and the officer can't say I thought I was protected by Garrity.  Once the criminal is finished,  an agency must make sure they follow all the steps in the IA so the officer can't say in an appeal that they were denied their due process on appeal and get their job back.  I think DPD has a history that favors officers on appeal.  I also believe that they are civil service but not State 143 civil service.    

[Zavala 1,384]

Have any more details come out? I can almost guarantee this woman was deranged and this is her ex-lover.

[Zavala 1,384]

On 9/26/2018 at 7:12 PM, Deej said:

Her mistake in not knowing where she was shouldn't give her a pass. A man is dead because of her lack of awareness, and responsibility falls solely on her shoulders.

Lack of knowledge of the law doesn't make the law non-existent. We all know she knew murder is illegal.

Imagine calling the police and getting this insane woman coming to help you. Horrible that she was even still on the force with obvious mental issues.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Zavala

[Kyle 207]

19 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Lack of knowledge of the law doesn't make the law non-existent. We all know she knew murder is illegal.

Imagine calling the police and getting this insane woman coming to help you. Horrible that she was even still on the force with obvious mental issues.

I respect the pressure cops are under. I also believe it is imperative they be trained and held accountable to the job at hand. I do not understand the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. Seems like the smart thing to do would have been to, I don't know, run outside and call the cops. Where was he going to go? She could have arrested him when he exited the apartment ... guessing by then she would have figured out she was on the wrong floor and apologized profusely.

Not to chase a rabbit, but I think police since the 1980s have gotten way to militaristic and way to aggressive. I realize in many cases, they may be out-gunned, but it feels like some common sense is in order, i.e. serving warrants and arrests. Does not feel like the SWAT team needs to bust down doors every single time. Sometimes a cautious but polite knock on the door could de-escalate discrete and community violence and feelings between cops and the community. I get it is a chicken-egg argument, but I think generally cops over-reacted to the 1980s gang situation by moving from police work to military work. (realize it has been discussed ad nauseam).

[TwiceHorn 31,514]

3 minutes ago, Kyle said:

I respect the pressure cops are under. I also believe it is imperative they be trained and held accountable to the job at hand. I do not understand the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. Seems like the smart thing to do would have been to, I don't know, run outside and call the cops. Where was he going to go? She could have arrested him when he exited the apartment ... guessing by then she would have figured out she was on the wrong floor and apologized profusely.

Not to chase a rabbit, but I think police since the 1980s have gotten way to militaristic and way to aggressive. I realize in many cases, they may be out-gunned, but it feels like some common sense is in order, i.e. serving warrants and arrests. Does not feel like the SWAT team needs to bust down doors every single time. Sometimes a cautious but polite knock on the door could de-escalate discrete and community violence and feelings between cops and the community. I get it is a chicken-egg argument, but I think generally cops over-reacted to the 1980s gang situation by moving from police work to military work. (realize it has been discussed ad nauseam).

Yeah, partly related to the drug war, in the 80s or so, crime and safety became a major political football.  The electorate is easily frightened and doesn't know much about crime or criminals, or drugs and drug users/addicts for that matter.  It's gone absolutely nuts since then.

[52-80 19,206]

On 9/26/2018 at 7:16 PM, TwiceHorn said:

There's two theories of liability here. One is Texas tort law, the allegation that she was negligent in her actions.  Under that theory, yes the city would be liable under respondent superior if she was acting within the scope of her employment.  However, liability is capped at $250k by the Texas Tort Claims Act.

She probably was acting within the scope of her employment, even if off-duty, because even an off-duty officer has the ability to make arrests if crimes are witnessed and are felonies or involve a breach of the peace.  So, for a lot of purposes, a cop is always acting within the scope of employment.

The second theory of liability, that implied by "excessive force," is the civil rights or 42 USC 1983 claim, also known as a Bivens claim.  Under that theory, the use of excessive force is a violation of civil rights.  There is no cap on liability.  However, the City is not liable for her actions under respondeat superior.  The plaintiff would have to prove a policy of this kind of action to make the City liable.

Apparently, both the City and Guyger are insured for these claims by the Texas Municipal League, but I don't know what policy limits.  It may be the statutory $250k for the tort claims.

This guy pre-laws

[South Austin 52,523]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

This guy pre-laws

I thought he was pre-med.

[Zavala 1,384]

3 hours ago, Kyle said:

I respect the pressure cops are under. I also believe it is imperative they be trained and held accountable to the job at hand. I do not understand the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. Seems like the smart thing to do would have been to, I don't know, run outside and call the cops. Where was he going to go? She could have arrested him when he exited the apartment ... guessing by then she would have figured out she was on the wrong floor and apologized profusely.

Not to chase a rabbit, but I think police since the 1980s have gotten way to militaristic and way to aggressive. I realize in many cases, they may be out-gunned, but it feels like some common sense is in order, i.e. serving warrants and arrests. Does not feel like the SWAT team needs to bust down doors every single time. Sometimes a cautious but polite knock on the door could de-escalate discrete and community violence and feelings between cops and the community. I get it is a chicken-egg argument, but I think generally cops over-reacted to the 1980s gang situation by moving from police work to military work. (realize it has been discussed ad nauseam).

I agree, but this is simply a response to more violence they have to face. The shit cops have to deal with in the modern age is insane, and they have to do it on camera. I have a friend in LE that was charged with official oppression, had tons of death threats and had to move. His own personal body cam video is what got him off the hook, when they played it from his point of view it was obvious he was trying to prevent harm. He was eventually given an accommodation for bravery, after having to go through almost 2 years of constant harassment. The shit sucks, you either risk your life or you roll in hot and heavy, either way the media (and the lemmings) are going to go against you.

The modern era policing has gotten ridiculous, look at what the man did in Dallas to those police officers. I'm glad they had military style equipment to go after him.

https://interactives.dallasnews.com/2018/standoff/

[RPM 26,329]

31 minutes ago, Zavala said:

The modern era policing has gotten ridiculous, look at what the man did in Dallas to those police officers. I'm glad they had military style equipment to go after him.

Don't you think one thing drives the other causing a chain escalation?

[Zavala 1,384]

2 minutes ago, RPM said:

Don't you think one thing drives the other causing a chain escalation?

You are saying the police are causing the criminals to become more violent?

[RPM 26,329]

7 minutes ago, Zavala said:

You are saying the police are causing the criminals to become more violent?

Police shootings caused anti-police reactions which ramped up police military behavior that ramps up anti-police reactions. Things need de-escalation.

[Kyle 207]

42 minutes ago, Zavala said:

I agree, but this is simply a response to more violence they have to face. The shit cops have to deal with in the modern age is insane, and they have to do it on camera. I have a friend in LE that was charged with official oppression, had tons of death threats and had to move. His own personal body cam video is what got him off the hook, when they played it from his point of view it was obvious he was trying to prevent harm. He was eventually given an accommodation for bravery, after having to go through almost 2 years of constant harassment. The shit sucks, you either risk your life or you roll in hot and heavy, either way the media (and the lemmings) are going to go against you.

The modern era policing has gotten ridiculous, look at what the man did in Dallas to those police officers. I'm glad they had military style equipment to go after him.

https://interactives.dallasnews.com/2018/standoff/

I agree. I am very sympathetic to the plight of police and the pressure they're under. I agree that likely the gangs in L.A. and their firepower (and the Latin cartels) forced the increased criminal firepower and thus the police firepower. I realize it is impossible with governments (and many big organizations), but in a perfect world there is a bunch of gray between - I'm arresting a known cartel member with lots of weapons vs. I'm arresting a 35-year-old dad on a robbery charge. I also realize it's easy to criticize having never lived it.

[Zavala 1,384]

Just now, RPM said:

Police shootings caused anti-police reactions which ramped up police military behavior that ramps up anti-police reactions. Things need de-escalation.

🤣

I'm sure the criminals will volunteer to go first. You are blaming the escalation in violent interactions on the peace keepers. La La land.

[Zavala 1,384]

1 minute ago, Kyle said:

I agree. I am very sympathetic to the plight of police and the pressure they're under. I agree that likely the gangs in L.A. and their firepower (and the Latin cartels) forced the increased criminal firepower and thus the police firepower. I realize it is impossible with governments (and many big organizations), but in a perfect world there is a bunch of gray between - I'm arresting a known cartel member with lots of weapons vs. I'm arresting a 35-year-old dad on a robbery charge. I also realize it's easy to criticize having never lived it.

Go do a ride along with the police. Just say you are thinking about getting the training and joining. You sign a piece of paper saying you won't blame them if you die. 

You can spend all night watching all the fucked up situations police have to get into constantly, from the safety of the passenger seat of the car. You aren't technically allowed to get out. You also must be aware that everything is being recorded on the police mic, sometimes body cam, and the dashboard cam. You shouldn't talk enough to fuck up a case one way or another if something happens. 

It really does give you an idea what they go though.