A New Mexico cop shot another cop with no provocation.


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Article

Quote:

The number of signs that Albuquerque Police Lieutenant Greg Brachle ignored or didn’t see before putting nine .45-caliber bullets into his fellow officer’s body are simply staggering.

There was the fact that Brachle knew Detective Jacob Grant was involved in a drug buy last January, a sting the superior officer walked up on while Grant sat in an undercover police car. There were Grant’s clothes, an outfit specially worn according to a safety protocol to prevent friendly fire incidents. Even Grant’s position in the car—behind another undercover narcotics agent in the driver’s seat—was to signal to other officers that the two men were cops.

But most damning—and the most confusing part of it all—is that Brachle and Grant were well-known to each other. For nearly two years, they worked in the narcotics division of the department.

The lieutenant and the detective had “substantial, frequent, and almost daily interactions with each other,” said the civil lawsuit filed last week against the city of Albuquerque and the police department.

According to Bernalillo County court documents filed by Grant’s lawyer, Grant was taking part in a drug buy with another undercover officer while the sting was being monitored by Brachle and others. A briefing was held before the bust and officers in attendance learned not only of Grant and his fellow undercover cop’s presence in the car, but also of descriptions of their clothing and seating positions. Brachle didn’t attend the briefing, Grant’s lawyer says, but nonetheless took an “active and aggressive role in the operation.”

“Please stop shooting,” the detective pleaded as the lieutenant kept firing.
Brachle went against protocol by approaching the driver’s side of the car Grant was sitting in. The lieutenant again broke the rules when he ripped open the door and started firing into Grant, alleging without offering a single “hands up,” or “freeze,” according to the complaint.

Brachle’s actions were called “overzealous and aggressive,” in Grant’s lawsuit. Another way of saying it might be that Brachle went John Wayne, swooping into a situation he apparently knew little about, guns blazing. Even if Grant wasn’t a cop, Brachle’s alleged zealousness to fire on a suspect presenting no apparent threat would be disturbing.

Brachle first put two bullets into Grant’s torso at point-blank range. The detective’s body slumped over in the back seat. Brachle then fired seven more times as Grant tried to crawl away.

“Please stop shooting,” the detective pleaded as the lieutenant kept firing.

The damage was substantial: Almost all of Grant’s vital organs were struck and he lost 80 percent of his blood that day, nearly dying. After several surgeries, Grant can expect a lifetime of more medical work and costs to recover.

The lawsuit filed by Grant’s lawyer says not only did Brachle ignore training, protocol, and all manner of common sense while firing on his fellow officer, but he also violated Grant’s constitutional rights by using an excessive amount of lethal force.

The same charge can be found in just about every lawsuit filed by people shot by police.

“A reasonable officer should have known” that shooting someone at point-blank range with the largest caliber handgun police are allowed to carry was overkill, the complaint states. Furthermore, when the person is “trying to crawl away while leaving a heavy trail of blood and while requesting for the shooting to please stop,” Brachle should have let up.

In addition to this charge, Grant’s lawyer notes that Brachle didn’t even live by his own words. As a firearm-safety instructor for the police department, Brachle knew a shooter should be aware of objects and persons behind his target. Brachle apparently ignored this maxim, firing indiscriminately into Grant as he crawled away. A bullet or bullet fragment traveled through the detective’s torso and struck the other undercover officer in the car.

“Moreover, Lt. Brachle use lethal force in a McDonald’s restaurant parking lot during the start of the lunch hour at a location frequented by children, families and other non-suspecting individuals,” the complaint states.

Perhaps worst of all, as Brachle shot his fellow cop, the two suspects in the drug bust were busy surrendering peacefully to officers on the other side of the car.

Brachle’s trigger finger has long been itchy. The detective’s lawyer found a previous incident in which Brachle was accused of using excessive force, thus implicating the Albuquerque Police Department for allowing the lieutenant to continue working in the “highly dangerous APD narcotic unit.”

There was a glaring similarity between Brachle’s apparent past use of lethal force and his encounter with Grant. Both times, Grant’s lawsuit contends, Brachle “simply fired until he ran out of ammunition.”

Whether Grant’s lawyer was referring to a 2000 lawsuit that names Brachle as a defendant is unclear, and the lawyer could not be immediately reached for comment. A judge eventually decided in favor of Brachle, who admitted to shooting a man he said was holding a gun and who had previously been seen pouring gasoline near a home and threatening to set it on fire.

Grant’s lawsuit also makes mention of the 2012 Department of Justice report that found Albuquerque police were overly aggressive and regularly used lethal force. That judgment came after an especially violent few years beginning in 2010; from January of that year through February 2015, Albuquerque police shot 42 people, one of the highest rates of shootings by law enforcement officers in the country.

“The City’s failure to stop these deficiencies was a moving force behind Lt. Brachle’s actions,” Grant’s lawyer wrote of his client’s shooting.

But the city is standing by its man—or at least one of them.

“We know this is a very difficult situation for Detective Jacob Grant and his family,” City Attorney Jessica Hernandez said in a statement provided to The Daily Beast via the police department. “We take Detective Grant’s attorney’s claims very seriously. However, at this point, we have a duty to fully defend against the allegations made by Detective Grant’s attorney and believe the judicial process will prove the facts to be otherwise. The claims are under careful review by the City Attorney’s Office.”

Like many situations in which people who are shot by police—rightfully or wrongfully so—the powers-that-be appear to have taken law enforcement’s word above all else. This time it just happens to be a cop who is suing, and like those who have died in police custody for relatively minor charges, Grant was nearly killed over for a maddeningly petty sum.

The estimated value of the narcotics involved was $60.

If this isn't completely and utterly unjustified and violating every single rule that exists regarding police use of lethal force, I don't know what is. He walked up to a car door, opened it, and started shooting with no sort of warning given and no commands shouted, and kept plugging the guy while he begged him to stop. There was no threat to the shooter's safety that justified the use of force. Why did the cop feel any need whatsoever to pull the trigger? What possible threat did he absolutely have to eliminate right then and there? We can set aside that he knew the guy and knew he was an undercover cop, because if a civilian had been shot it would be just as unjustified. Of course, the department is treating this cop like he did nothing wrong, because that just makes all the sense in the world apparently. Of course, can't really dismiss the victim as a thug this time like what all too often happens when an innocent civilian gets shot. Maybe that will open some eyes as to how out of control police use of force has gotten.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This happened just up the street, so let me make just a few comments.

The Albuquerque Police Department is currently under DOJ "supervision", at the time of this incident and indeed for about the previous 2 years or so APD has been under an active DOJ investigation.

The above is a quote of the officer's claim against the city, which is understandable given his current medical condition. And represents HIS point of view.

Thus far, this appears to be less of a "cop out of control" type incident and more of a "work place violence" type of incident.

The investigation of this incident is being conducted by DOJ, not APD or any other NM law enforcement agency.

Please research ALL the facts concerning these sort of things before making such a hasty conclusion and sterotyping people.

And if you are interested, I am not connected with anyone or any organization involved in this. I just happen to live nearby.


Hm.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Queen Moragan wrote:

This happened just up the street, so let me make just a few comments.

The Albuquerque Police Department is currently under DOJ "supervision", at the time of this incident and indeed for about the previous 2 years or so APD has been under an active DOJ investigation.

The above is a quote of the officer's claim against the city, which is understandable given his current medical condition. And represents HIS point of view.

Thus far, this appears to be less of a "cop out of control" type incident and more of a "work place violence" type of incident.

The investigation of this incident is being conducted by DOJ, not APD or any other NM law enforcement agency.

Please research ALL the facts concerning these sort of things before making such a hasty conclusion and sterotyping people.

And if you are interested, I am not connected with anyone or any organization involved in this. I just happen to live nearby.

I challenge anyone to come up with a scenario that makes this anything less than a heinous act against a fellow officer. There isn't anything that's going to sugar coat this.


LazarX wrote:
Queen Moragan wrote:

This happened just up the street, so let me make just a few comments.

The Albuquerque Police Department is currently under DOJ "supervision", at the time of this incident and indeed for about the previous 2 years or so APD has been under an active DOJ investigation.

The above is a quote of the officer's claim against the city, which is understandable given his current medical condition. And represents HIS point of view.

Thus far, this appears to be less of a "cop out of control" type incident and more of a "work place violence" type of incident.

The investigation of this incident is being conducted by DOJ, not APD or any other NM law enforcement agency.

Please research ALL the facts concerning these sort of things before making such a hasty conclusion and sterotyping people.

And if you are interested, I am not connected with anyone or any organization involved in this. I just happen to live nearby.

I challenge anyone to come up with a scenario that makes this anything less than a heinous act against a fellow officer. There isn't anything that's going to sugar coat this.

I don't think she was saying that. Just that it's more of a "workplace violence", ie. "cop tries to murder another cop" than the usual abuse of in the line of duty.

The problem with that theory is that the department seems to have treated it as a "good shoot" rather than attempted murder. Or at least that's what I'm guessing from the fact we're talking about a civil suit and not murder charges.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

NO ONE IS TRYING TO SUGARCOAT ANYTHING!

The United States Department of Justice is the ONLY law enforcement agency investigating this.

The United States Department of Justice is NOT allowing any other law enforcement agency to investigate this.

I was only interested in trying to stop any useless ranting about... another senseless police shooting.

What is being reported here is the shot officer's case against the city. Not the results of the shooting investigation.

Those are two very different things.

Yes, I hope the officer wins, he's facing problems for the rest of his life now, he needs it, and I'll end up paying for it.

What EXACTLY are the facts? I far as I know, the investigation is still ongoing, along with dozens of other DOJ investigations into APD right now. Not to mention the current ongoing "supervision" of APD by DOJ.

So please, if anyone has any problems with this, feel free to contact DOJ about how THEY are handling EVERYTHING involved in this.


While I admit you're closer to the scene, I don't see evidence of what you're saying. There is a long term DOJ investigation of the Department, but I haven't seen anything saying the DOJ specifically is investigating this case.
In fact

Quote:
The reports released Tuesday don’t include information about what Brachle has told police investigators about the shooting. Officer Tanner Tixier, an APD spokesman, said an internal affairs investigation into the shooting to determine whether policies were broken hasn’t been completed. Brachle is currently working on administrative assignment, Tixier said.

That shows there is an internal investigation, which I would expect. There may a DOJ one as well, but I couldn't find a report of it. Do you have one?

My guess was wrong, I'll admit. The internal investigation seems to be incomplete at this point.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Frankly, it's difficult to see how the internal investigation can be incomplete and the officer still on the force eight months after the incident. There were half a dozen witnesses and one very simple question to be answered... was there a valid justification for this officer to have fired his gun nine times, or at all?

That's all the police department needs to determine. If the answer is no then this officer should be off the force and maybe the district attorney needs to be looking in to charges (depending on other factors)... but the question for the police department is really quite simple. Think of some of the other police incidents we've seen recently where behaviour was caught on film and the officer was fired within days. Either the facts are radically different than described or this department should have ousted this officer months ago.


Queen Moragan wrote:
The Albuquerque Police Department is currently under DOJ "supervision", at the time of this incident and indeed for about the previous 2 years or so APD has been under an active DOJ investigation.

That makes me less inclined to trust the APD, not more.

Queen Moragan wrote:
Thus far, this appears to be less of a "cop out of control" type incident and more of a "work place violence" type of incident.

What, pray tell, would it take for this cop to be out of control?

Queen Moragan wrote:
The investigation of this incident is being conducted by DOJ, not APD or any other NM law enforcement agency

What TheJeff said.

Queen Moragan wrote:

The above is a quote of the officer's claim against the city, which is understandable given his current medical condition. And represents HIS point of view.

Please research ALL the facts concerning these sort of things before making such a hasty conclusion and sterotyping people.

Hasty? This happened in January. There has yet to be anything resembling a plausible explanation for why the cop felt like he had to shoot. There never will be, because there is no reason to walk up to a car in the middle of a drug buy, pull the door open, and start shooting without comment. There just isn't. That he shot an undercover cop is besides the point, aside from the fact that if he shot a gangbanger people would be even more willing to defend him. Yet the officer who did this is already back on the streets patrolling. That's not a hasty conclusion, that's something incredibly worrying, especially because you don't send a cop out on patrol when they are under investigation. Also, there were several witnesses.

There is plenty of reason to believe that this is a very bad situation, and to believe that this cop was completely out of line.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
That's all the police department needs to determine. If the answer is no then this officer should be off the force and maybe the district attorney needs to be looking in to charges (depending on other factors)... but the question for the police department is really quite simple. Think of some of the other police incidents we've seen recently where behaviour was caught on film and the officer was fired within days. Either the facts are radically different than described or this department should have ousted this officer months ago.

I remember a guy getting strangled to death on video while begging for some room to breathe and the cops getting away with it. Even getting something on video isn't necessarily enough to get justice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rosita the Riveter wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
That's all the police department needs to determine. If the answer is no then this officer should be off the force and maybe the district attorney needs to be looking in to charges (depending on other factors)... but the question for the police department is really quite simple. Think of some of the other police incidents we've seen recently where behaviour was caught on film and the officer was fired within days. Either the facts are radically different than described or this department should have ousted this officer months ago.
I remember a guy getting strangled to death on video while begging for some room to breathe and the cops getting away with it. Even getting something on video isn't necessarily enough to get justice.

I remember a video of four officers just wailing on a single guy as he pleaded for a reprieve from the ceaseless beating. I'm pretty sure one jury said they did nothing wrong.

Video hasn't ever been a failsafe in the justice process.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This investigation is being conducted by APD internal affairs and the Multi-Agency Task Force.

“Multi-Agency Task Force” refers to the investigative body comprised of, at a minimum, the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, the New Mexico State Police, the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office, and the Albuquerque Police Department that is charged with conducting criminal investigations of critical incidents involving officer actions, such as officer-involved shootings. The Multi-Agency Task Force is governed by an inter-governmental agreement among participating jurisdictions and is responsible for consulting, as appropriate, with prosecuting authorities in New Mexico, including the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office, the State Attorney General’s Office, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Under the DOJ Agreement, the above conduct their investigations subject to review/consultation with the other agencies.

These are subject to oversight by the Impartial Observer appointed by the District Court.

This incident occurred very early into the DOJ supervision, right before/after a change in Chief of Police.

Thus far as of today...

The investigation is still ongoing.
The LT. is still suspended.
The Detective just filled a law suit.
DOJ, the Agreement & the Observer are here.

This is what appeared to happen that day...

The undercover detective was shot by his own Lt. AFTER the drug bust had removed the drug dealers from the undercover car, WHILE another undercover detective was still in the car, she was also wounded.

It appears the Lt. saw something and reacted to that.

I honestly think that the Lt. will be facing some kind of charges unless the detective is very opposed to it.

Rosita: The lawsuit report is new and incomplete, responses to it appear to be hasty.

Even I was hasty, I WAS convinced that only the DOJ was investigating this since that is all we hear about with over 20 shootings. After reading the whole freaking thing, its "Oh, DOJ is monitoring things."

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rosita the Riveter wrote:
Even getting something on video isn't necessarily enough to get justice.

No, I wasn't trying to imply that. Just cited those recent cases as evidence of how quickly this kind of investigation can and should be done;

Ok, you did something extremely violent and dangerous. Did you have a very good reason for that? No? Ok, you're fired.

Not exactly a difficult or highly involved process. The fact that this has dragged out for eight months is indeed ITSELF evidence of the fact that justice isn't always done... because one way or another the 'use of force' portion of this investigation should be long over by now.


Man.

Apd just can't seem to keep themselves out of the papers.


WOW...9 Shots!?

I don't know this situation at all, but I'd think that's going to be a hard one to try to make an excuse for, especially if there are witnesses that agree the detective was asking for him to stop and trying to crawl away.

Perhaps 1 or 2 one could say there was some sort of mistake or something...but NINE?

No idea about the case, but that seems like a pretty shocking question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Every boy I ever met who wanted to be a cop was a bully in school. So police violence doesn't really surprise me. Some number of weeks of training isn't enough to take the mean out of the kid.

(And yes I realize they aren't all like that, but enough of them are to constantly make the news)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The city has decided to support it's cops... well one of them, at least, and it's not the cop that was shot.

Logical of course, they're looking to avoid the lawsuit that's surely coming if they don't defend Mr. Trigger-Happy.


While this is a horrible incident and I feel for the victim there is an element of dark humor to the fact that it isn't just innocent blacks the cops can gun down without consequence, apparently they can empty their guns into each other and still have the system do it's best to cover their ass's.


Yuugasa wrote:
While this is a horrible incident and I feel for the victim there is an element of dark humor to the fact that it isn't just innocent blacks the cops can gun down without consequence, apparently they can empty their guns into each other and still have the system do it's best to cover their ass's.

Yeah, it removes a fair amount of doubt as to the motives/actions of the person who was shot. It seems unlikely that the undercover officer was a threat to the uniformed officers, or even acting in a threatening manner.

The other part that worries me is how much I had to refine my search to start finding information on this specific case. There were multiple different stories of killings by the APD not involving an undercover detective.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I found a very much more 'pro shooter' article... which, if accurate, should STILL have resulted in him being fired by now.

Basically, the article tries to blame the undercover officer by saying that he "broke cover" and pulled his gun on the suspects... which led to the shooter thinking he was a suspect with a gun and opening fire in response. Not sure how that squares with other reports that the suspects had already been removed from the car when the shooting started... or the fact that both of the officers in the car were shot (the other apparently had a minor injury from a bullet that first went through the targeted cop), but NOT the actual suspects.

If this is the account they are going with then the department is presumably going to make an argument that firing into the car was an appropriate response to the 'perceived danger' of a suspect with a gun. However, while that might (depending on other facts) be an argument against criminal charges, it is NOT an argument for the officer keeping his job. That's exactly the kind of mistake which should bar someone from serving as a police officer.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Yuugasa wrote:
While this is a horrible incident and I feel for the victim there is an element of dark humor to the fact that it isn't just innocent blacks the cops can gun down without consequence, apparently they can empty their guns into each other and still have the system do it's best to cover their ass's.

Oh dont worry they shoot black / latino cops too, especially here in NYC.

Desmond Robinson

Omar Edwards

Despite a Diverse Police force Black cops face Special Peril


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Welcome to the reality of the para-military police state. No one is safe, not citizens, not officers, no one.

Its not a lack of or poorly constructed training. The problem is simple, some of the people your tax dollars pay to protect you are psychopaths. They are primed to kill, they live to un-holster their weapons and use them. And in their sick minds, there is little or no need for provocation.

Hell, back in 2001 in college one of the campus security (not even a real cop at the time, but private security) often talked about how much he hoped he would get to shoot and kill someone. This same guy hit me in the face with a mag-lite flashlight for asking him a question! Not an offensive question, I was not drunk, or doing anything wrong. But he decided that I was, and attacked me. Thankfully a real Fredonia police officer (guess one of the good ones) came to my defence.

While my incident (one of several I have had to deal with) did not leave me dead or permanently disabled, it has coloured my perception of law enforcement. I no longer trust police to protect me, my property, or my rights as an American citizen.

It is long past time some serious measures were taken to remove ALL corrupt, dangerous, psychopathic, bigoted, racist, gun happy law enforcement officers around the country from their positions. Let them shout all they want and cry to their union. The lives and safety of the American people is far more important than the livelihood of people who in all likelihood are far more criminal that the people they arrest and sometimes harm and kill. If officers can't even avoid killing each other, how can we expect them to not kill the rest of us, who are not of "the brotherhood."


Jeff Harris 982 wrote:

While my incident (one of several I have had to deal with) did not leave me dead or permanently disabled, it has coloured my perception of law enforcement. I no longer trust police to protect me, my property, or my rights as an American citizen.

It is long past time some serious measures were taken to remove ALL corrupt, dangerous, psychopathic, bigoted, racist, gun happy law enforcement officers around the country from their positions. Let them shout all they want and cry to their union. The lives and safety of the American people is far more important than the livelihood of people who in all likelihood are far more criminal that the people they arrest and sometimes harm and kill. If officers can't even avoid killing each other, how can we expect them to not kill the rest of us, who are not of "the brotherhood."

Welcome to the club.

I manage a cash counting and processing facility. One of my employees was caught stealing and fired. The company didn't think it was cost beneficial to press charges and they let the matter go... Now that same man is a police officer.

The problem with cleaning up the system is that these types of people are the only ones willing to work such a job "protecting the people". We could fire them all but then what? Protect ourselves?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a fan of protecting oneself. Not quite to the point of a gun in every hand, but I'm getting there. I am a fan of open carry for all weapond, and I feel melee weapons would be better than guns for that purpose. Still, that's just me.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Policing in the US only attracts bullies and criminals because we have allowed police to get away with being bullies and criminals. If they were held to high standards of professional conduct and jailed (or at the very least fired) at the slightest sign of misconduct then the job wouldn't be at all attractive to the dregs of society that often seek it out now. There ARE still places in the US where the police are decent and professional people. However, so long as police are held to lower standards of behaviour than the population at large many of them will inevitably seek out the job precisely because they aren't fit for decent society without the protection it affords.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Policing in the US only attracts bullies and criminals because we have allowed police to get away with being bullies and criminals. If they were held to high standards of professional conduct and jailed (or at the very least fired) at the slightest sign of misconduct then the job wouldn't be at all attractive to the dregs of society that often seek it out now. There ARE still places in the US where the police are decent and professional people. However, so long as police are held to lower standards of behaviour than the population at large many of them will inevitably seek out the job precisely because they aren't fit for decent society without the protection it affords.

It's more than that, though that's part of it. In many places the attitude that the police are like an occupying force and the populace is the enemy is encouraged. Or the police (and the rest of the judicial system) are used to extract revenue from the populace in the form of fines (and penalties for not paying the fines, etc). Or in the form of civil forfeiture.


thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Policing in the US only attracts bullies and criminals because we have allowed police to get away with being bullies and criminals. If they were held to high standards of professional conduct and jailed (or at the very least fired) at the slightest sign of misconduct then the job wouldn't be at all attractive to the dregs of society that often seek it out now. There ARE still places in the US where the police are decent and professional people. However, so long as police are held to lower standards of behaviour than the population at large many of them will inevitably seek out the job precisely because they aren't fit for decent society without the protection it affords.
It's more than that, though that's part of it. In many places the attitude that the police are like an occupying force and the populace is the enemy is encouraged. Or the police (and the rest of the judicial system) are used to extract revenue from the populace in the form of fines (and penalties for not paying the fines, etc). Or in the form of civil forfeiture.

hm.

When I was mugged, I went to the cops to try to identify the guys. The cops in dealt with were distantly professional, but annoyed that I was interrupting their watching-porn-on-company-time time. They didn't seem upset when I couldn't identify the guys and were all smiles when I left.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Policing in the US only attracts bullies and criminals because we have allowed police to get away with being bullies and criminals. If they were held to high standards of professional conduct and jailed (or at the very least fired) at the slightest sign of misconduct then the job wouldn't be at all attractive to the dregs of society that often seek it out now. There ARE still places in the US where the police are decent and professional people. However, so long as police are held to lower standards of behaviour than the population at large many of them will inevitably seek out the job precisely because they aren't fit for decent society without the protection it affords.
It's more than that, though that's part of it. In many places the attitude that the police are like an occupying force and the populace is the enemy is encouraged. Or the police (and the rest of the judicial system) are used to extract revenue from the populace in the form of fines (and penalties for not paying the fines, etc). Or in the form of civil forfeiture.

hm.

When I was mugged, I went to the cops to try to identify the guys. The cops in dealt with were distantly professional, but annoyed that I was interrupting their watching-porn-on-company-time time. They didn't seem upset when I couldn't identify the guys and were all smiles when I left.

There are still a whole lot more good cops than bad ones, but you will only hear about the sensational stories on the news. Even then, good people can go bad. Cops have a hard job, they generally do not get to deal with the best people, as in not many criminals are like the characters on Leverage, and they don't get to deal with people who are at their best, drugged out of their minds, violently angry, dangerously insane, etc.

I work on airplanes, and I know that you only hear the sensational news stories about air travel. Yes, an airplane caught fire in Las Vegas because the engine malfunctioned catastrophically, but did you know that this engine type is the most powerful commercial engine and has over 40 million flight hours as of 2014, and this is the first time for such a catastrophic failure?

I'm not wanting to minimize or defend the bad cops, but please don't paint the whole with a broad brush colored by the vast minority. I lived in ABQ, graduated HS there, and even went to school with and I personally knew Matt Griffin, cop turned "Ninja Bandit" and murderer, but my mom was a dispatcher for the NM State Police (in ABQ), Torrance Co. Sheriff, and other local forces, so I also knew a lot of fine officers, as well as a few bad ones.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It really shouldn't be about good cops vs bad cops, but about the system. The system that protects and encourages the bad cops in many places. The blue wall that keeps the good cops from dealing with the bad ones many times.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:
While this is a horrible incident and I feel for the victim there is an element of dark humor to the fact that it isn't just innocent blacks the cops can gun down without consequence, apparently they can empty their guns into each other and still have the system do it's best to cover their ass's.

Oh dont worry they shoot black / latino cops too, especially here in NYC.

Desmond Robinson

Omar Edwards

Despite a Diverse Police force Black cops face Special Peril

When they can't see your blue the only color that matters is your skin's.


Manwolf wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Policing in the US only attracts bullies and criminals because we have allowed police to get away with being bullies and criminals. If they were held to high standards of professional conduct and jailed (or at the very least fired) at the slightest sign of misconduct then the job wouldn't be at all attractive to the dregs of society that often seek it out now. There ARE still places in the US where the police are decent and professional people. However, so long as police are held to lower standards of behaviour than the population at large many of them will inevitably seek out the job precisely because they aren't fit for decent society without the protection it affords.
It's more than that, though that's part of it. In many places the attitude that the police are like an occupying force and the populace is the enemy is encouraged. Or the police (and the rest of the judicial system) are used to extract revenue from the populace in the form of fines (and penalties for not paying the fines, etc). Or in the form of civil forfeiture.

hm.

When I was mugged, I went to the cops to try to identify the guys. The cops in dealt with were distantly professional, but annoyed that I was interrupting their watching-porn-on-company-time time. They didn't seem upset when I couldn't identify the guys and were all smiles when I left.

There are still a whole lot more good cops than bad ones, but you will only hear about the sensational stories on the news. Even then, good people can go bad. Cops have a hard job, they generally do not get to deal with the best people, as in not many criminals are like the characters on Leverage, and they don't get to deal with people who are at their best, drugged out of their minds, violently angry, dangerously insane, etc.1

I work with many of the same people, and without the ability to defend myself in any way. If I mess up on the job, I get fired. Not time off with pay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Policing in the US only attracts bullies and criminals because we have allowed police to get away with being bullies and criminals. If they were held to high standards of professional conduct and jailed (or at the very least fired) at the slightest sign of misconduct then the job wouldn't be at all attractive to the dregs of society that often seek it out now. There ARE still places in the US where the police are decent and professional people. However, so long as police are held to lower standards of behaviour than the population at large many of them will inevitably seek out the job precisely because they aren't fit for decent society without the protection it affords.
It's more than that, though that's part of it. In many places the attitude that the police are like an occupying force and the populace is the enemy is encouraged. Or the police (and the rest of the judicial system) are used to extract revenue from the populace in the form of fines (and penalties for not paying the fines, etc). Or in the form of civil forfeiture.

hm.

When I was mugged, I went to the cops to try to identify the guys. The cops in dealt with were distantly professional, but annoyed that I was interrupting their watching-porn-on-company-time time. They didn't seem upset when I couldn't identify the guys and were all smiles when I left.

There are still a whole lot more good cops than bad ones, but you will only hear about the sensational stories on the news. Even then, good people can go bad. Cops have a hard job, they generally do not get to deal with the best people, as in not many criminals are like the characters on Leverage, and they don't get to deal with people who are at their best, drugged out of their minds, violently angry, dangerously insane, etc.1
I work with many of the same people, and without the ability to defend myself in any way. If I mess up on the job, I get fired. Not time off with pay.

You can thank unions for that. There should be a method to quickly get rid of those that are either incompetent or just plain crazy like this guy, and make sure they can never be a cop again, but it's hard to fire union employees, even in cases like this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's as simplistic as "unions bad, non unions good!".


Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.


Manwolf wrote:
Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.

It can, but I don't think it's the real problem. The Blue Wall is far more of an issue and not directly related to unions.

Some protection is needed - cops do face false accusations all the time.


This seemed relevant to this discussion.

It's a 3-hour interview condensed into a half-hour. Later on in the vid, he talks a bit about the level of training the police get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.

It can, but I don't think it's the real problem. The Blue Wall is far more of an issue and not directly related to unions.

Some protection is needed - cops do face false accusations all the time.

But who built this "Blue Wall", the police or everyone else? It does, as they say, take two to tango. Do we have as much responsibility for the situation as they do?

In the last 3 weeks I've seen reports that there have been 7 or 8 cops murdered. Where's the outraged citizenry? Where's the comfort and call for justice? If all lives matter then please make all of them matter. I saw video of one lady, using the term loosely, being given a ticket for going over 50 thru a school zone, cursing out the officer and telling him how horrible a person he was and that she understood why people would want to murder cops.

I believe Police should not be persecuting citizens for any reason, they should just do their jobs in a legal and professional manner. I believe too that we have the same responsibility to act civilly, respect legitimate authority, and protest abuse. Let's make it better, instead of constantly dividing ourselves into us vs then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Manwolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.

It can, but I don't think it's the real problem. The Blue Wall is far more of an issue and not directly related to unions.

Some protection is needed - cops do face false accusations all the time.

But who built this "Blue Wall", the police or everyone else? It does, as they say, take two to tango. Do we have as much responsibility for the situation as they do?

The police built it. That's what it is. The blue wall of silence. The unwritten rule not to rat out fellow officers.

Omerta by another name.


thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.

It can, but I don't think it's the real problem. The Blue Wall is far more of an issue and not directly related to unions.

Some protection is needed - cops do face false accusations all the time.

I think the Blue Wall and the Union end up working together in a vortex of suck (at least for accountability). Together they make the issue far worse than if only one of them existed. In New York it's even worse, as legally an officer can't even be questioned until he talks to his union rep.


thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.

It can, but I don't think it's the real problem. The Blue Wall is far more of an issue and not directly related to unions.

Some protection is needed - cops do face false accusations all the time.

But who built this "Blue Wall", the police or everyone else? It does, as they say, take two to tango. Do we have as much responsibility for the situation as they do?

The police built it. That's what it is. The blue wall of silence. The unwritten rule not to rat out fellow officers.

Omerta by another name.

I always thought it was kinda strange that both sides of the law have a similar honor code, a major one being 'don't rat.' On the criminal side it kinda makes sense but why do the police have that code when ratting should be part of their job description?


Yuugasa wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.

It can, but I don't think it's the real problem. The Blue Wall is far more of an issue and not directly related to unions.

Some protection is needed - cops do face false accusations all the time.

But who built this "Blue Wall", the police or everyone else? It does, as they say, take two to tango. Do we have as much responsibility for the situation as they do?

The police built it. That's what it is. The blue wall of silence. The unwritten rule not to rat out fellow officers.

Omerta by another name.

I always thought it was kinda strange that both sides of the law have a similar honor code, a major one being 'don't rat.' On the criminal side it kinda makes sense but why do the police have that code when ratting should be part of their job description?

Human nature?

You're working with an elite group that's isolated from the civilians around them and to whom you may have to trust your life. It's a war out there against the criminals and you're fighting the good fight and if you have to cut corners sometimes to win, you do what you have to do and those outside can't understand.

Or that's my guess anyway. A lot of it is just ingrained in the culture and probably varies from one area to another, but gets passed along in the informal training.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Manwolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.

It can, but I don't think it's the real problem. The Blue Wall is far more of an issue and not directly related to unions.

Some protection is needed - cops do face false accusations all the time.

But who built this "Blue Wall", the police or everyone else? It does, as they say, take two to tango. Do we have as much responsibility for the situation as they do?

In the last 3 weeks I've seen reports that there have been 7 or 8 cops murdered. Where's the outraged citizenry? Where's the comfort and call for justice? If all lives matter then please make all of them matter. I saw video of one lady, using the term loosely, being given a ticket for going over 50 thru a school zone, cursing out the officer and telling him how horrible a person he was and that she understood why people would want to murder cops.

I believe Police should not be persecuting citizens for any reason, they should just do their jobs in a legal and professional manner. I believe too that we have the same responsibility to act civilly, respect legitimate authority, and protest abuse. Let's make it better, instead of constantly dividing ourselves into us vs then.

I'm sure the people who attacked the cops are going to be hung by the neck until dead, if they even get arrested. Cops who do the same to civilians rarely see the inside of a courtroom, and the ones that do are given gold plated defense attorneys. You want this to be less us v them? Then stop coming up with sob stories when cops mess up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Manwolf wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Policing in the US only attracts bullies and criminals because we have allowed police to get away with being bullies and criminals. If they were held to high standards of professional conduct and jailed (or at the very least fired) at the slightest sign of misconduct then the job wouldn't be at all attractive to the dregs of society that often seek it out now. There ARE still places in the US where the police are decent and professional people. However, so long as police are held to lower standards of behaviour than the population at large many of them will inevitably seek out the job precisely because they aren't fit for decent society without the protection it affords.
It's more than that, though that's part of it. In many places the attitude that the police are like an occupying force and the populace is the enemy is encouraged. Or the police (and the rest of the judicial system) are used to extract revenue from the populace in the form of fines (and penalties for not paying the fines, etc). Or in the form of civil forfeiture.

hm.

When I was mugged, I went to the cops to try to identify the guys. The cops in dealt with were distantly professional, but annoyed that I was interrupting their watching-porn-on-company-time time. They didn't seem upset when I couldn't identify the guys and were all smiles when I left.

There are still a whole lot more good cops than bad ones, but you will only hear about the sensational stories on the news. Even then, good people can go bad. Cops have a hard job, they generally do not get to deal with the best people, as in not many criminals are like the characters on Leverage, and they don't get to deal with people who are at their best, drugged out of their minds, violently angry, dangerously insane, etc.1
I work with many of the same people, and without the ability to defend myself in any way. If I mess up on the job, I get
...

A union isn't some mythical force. It is an organization that represents its members, who are able to vote on their leaders and changing their policies.

Police officers as a whole ARE responsible for the union's rules, because majority votes typically decide most issues. So if union rules prevent bad cops from being fired, the good cops have no one to blame but themselves.

I also don't care about the excuse that only some cops are bad. All cops have a sworn duty to uphold the law. I'm unaware of any oath that makes an exception for their fellow officers.

I'll buy the "not all cops" line when I hear more cops calling out their fellow cops.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.

It can, but I don't think it's the real problem. The Blue Wall is far more of an issue and not directly related to unions.

Some protection is needed - cops do face false accusations all the time.

But who built this "Blue Wall", the police or everyone else? It does, as they say, take two to tango. Do we have as much responsibility for the situation as they do?

The police built it. That's what it is. The blue wall of silence. The unwritten rule not to rat out fellow officers.

Omerta by another name.

I've yet to find a more compelling.. and quite chilling account than Frank Serpico's autobiography. It's a deep exploration into the interior of cop culture, and the complex realities behind the interaction of "good" and "bad" cops.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
I'm sure the people who attacked the cops are going to be hung by the neck until dead, if they even get arrested. Cops who do the same to civilians rarely see the inside of a courtroom, and the ones that do are given gold plated defense attorneys. You want this to be less us v them? Then stop coming up with sob stories when cops mess up.

I do not disagree. This guy that shot the other officers is a piece of work and anyone that does anything like that too another person should hang. I don't defend him at all and don't want to appear to. The letter of the law gets used to distort the spirit of the law, and justice isn't served. Innocent people on both sides are dieing, needlessly, and I agree with you that if the perpetrators are government workers, police, CIA, NSA, or whatever, they aren't paying for their crimes. That has to change. That doesn't give anyone the right to commit more crimes for payback. I don't think that's a sob story.


Manwolf wrote:
That doesn't give anyone the right to commit more crimes for payback.

Who specifically has advocated this? Anyone in this thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Manwolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Manwolf wrote:
Of course it's not, it just makes it harder for the superiors to take timely action. Like you said, if you, or I, screwed up at work we'd be gone. Can't do that with a union. The idea is to protect people's jobs from bad people and bad situations, but it can unfortunately protect a bad person's job too.

It can, but I don't think it's the real problem. The Blue Wall is far more of an issue and not directly related to unions.

Some protection is needed - cops do face false accusations all the time.

But who built this "Blue Wall", the police or everyone else? It does, as they say, take two to tango. Do we have as much responsibility for the situation as they do?

In the last 3 weeks I've seen reports that there have been 7 or 8 cops murdered. Where's the outraged citizenry? Where's the comfort and call for justice? If all lives matter then please make all of them matter. I saw video of one lady, using the term loosely, being given a ticket for going over 50 thru a school zone, cursing out the officer and telling him how horrible a person he was and that she understood why people would want to murder cops.

You shoot a cop, and you get hunted down like an animal. You are pretty much ended, regardless of whether they shoot you or arrest you. You will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and the book will be thrown at you. Outpourings of sympathy do come pouring in from the local community, and I know very few who actually want cops dead, regardless of bluster. Cops lives do matter in the current system. Can't say the same for a lot of other groups.

Quote:
I believe Police should not be persecuting citizens for any reason, they should just do their jobs in a legal and professional manner. I believe too that we have the same responsibility to act civilly, respect legitimate authority, and protest abuse. Let's make it better, instead of constantly dividing ourselves into us vs then.

Define "respect legitimate authority".


Sorry, I'm not trying to offend or be part of an argument. I'll not be posting on these forums any longer.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Black woman ends up in Psych Ward because cops don't believe that she owns BMW


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Black woman ends up in Psych Ward because cops don't believe that she owns BMW

I remember that story. Lots wrong with it, and I work in mental health

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / A New Mexico cop shot another cop with no provocation. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.