Jump to content

The Pigs outta the bag


Recommended Posts

What’s up everyone? I talked to a kid last year about creating this topic and I waited until now to move forward with this. 
 

A little background on me. I’m mixed race Black and Korean. My pops is from southern GA and my family was emancipated directly from the Plantation and were share croppers for a long time. My pops joined the Army and became very successful despite his child hold. 
 

I was in the Army for 12 years and now have been a cop for 7 going on 8. I’m a Field training officer and consistently one of the top guys in terms of felony arrests. 
 

I used to peep in here and see a ton of anti cop **** so my purpose in creating this thread is to give an honest breakdown of some of the stuff going on in the media without a spin from the media or the badge bunnies relentlessly defending cops. 
 

The majority of cops are good but like very career there are bad cops and those take the spotlight due to the negativity biases we have in society. 
 

I’ll make replies addressing some topics and I’ll be 100% real with y’all if y’all come with respect and keep things civil. I have to reason to lie or sugar cost anything. 
 

An informed society is a dangerous society. I make everyone I talk with aware of case law and what police can and can’t do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case Laws to know. 
 

Terry v Ohio (legal detention)

This case allows Police to detain and stop someone that reasonably matches the description of a suspect. WTH does reasonable mean. Reasonable in this case is essentially a 33.33% chance that this person may be involved in a crime. This is a very water downed definition for the sake of not writing a novel. This percentage can be based on appearance, clothing, race, or proximity to the location of the crime. 
 

in my opinion, Police do a crappy job of explaining why someone is detained. In my experience, this typically happens because people are pissed off and chirping so the mutual respect has gone out of the window. 
 

The purpose of a Terry stop is basic investigation. with that said, force is allowed on Terry stops. So this is why i. some videos, that show force being used on a personal not involved, nothing happens to the Officers. 
 

If you feel you’ve been illegally detained please call 911 and make a complaint 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graham v Connor (use of force)

This case spells out when an Officer can use force. Basically if the person is actively resisting or the person poses a threat to the public or Officers. But all of this is based around the severity of the crime. 
 

it’s not reasonable for a cop to body slam someone merely for jay walking because The severity of the crime is so low. This scale can change if you go from jay walking to resisting arrest to assault 

now if I grab on to someone and they start to resist then force can be used. A lot of videos show a person with cops trying to arrest them. The person is saying I’m not resisting but the cops are struggling to get them in cuffs so they start using strikes or a taser. I guess if you have kids think back to when your toddler used to tense up or go dead weight. But now picture an adults doing that. It’s called passive resistance and it’s done a lot to get the attention of video recorders. 
 

Anyways, with Graham v Connor i feel the media has a duty to let people know the reason for the police contact and what ensued after. That’s how you judge excessive or justified force 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tennessee V Garner (deadly force)

Deadly force can be used when probable cause exists that a suspect is the suspect of a violent crime or that person poses an imminent risk to present and or future lives (public or police). 
 

Reasonable suspicion is 33.33% and probably cause is 51%. It’s Very low threshold to be honest. 
 

The portion about future lives is what legally justifies shooting someone in the back. But of course, this must be weighed against Graham v Connor and the severity of crime must meet the standard. If it doesn’t then it’s a bad shooting. Oddly enough, there are a handful of bad shootings that occur every year but they never make the news. The ones that stir race without providing case law make the news because most of them will be considered legally justified once emotions are removed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, ya_boi_j said:

So with the b*tch cops that you've encountered, why would you say they're b*tch made? I've always been under the impression that most were bullied as kids

I wanted to knock out the quick case law stuff first. I’ll say some are having bad days. People will say some crazy **** to get cops to react so that they can sue. Even if it’s based on lies. The civil court system is really weird. 
 

say you make up a story and you sue. The city or state mostly likely will pay a settlement to avoid a jury trial. This is because if the jury awards even 1 penny to the defendant, the defense attorney can charge whatever rate he wants and the city will have to pay 

Another thing is hiring standards have been lowered. The anti cop movement has made a lot of good cops quit (I’m quitting in two years) and retire early. Good candidates no longer want this job because they’ll be vilified and cussed at for no reason other than their uniform so we hire a bunch of candy canes. 
 

the police academy is like community college so the first time some of these cops get into a fight or face adversity is when they’re on a call. It’s dangerous 

 

We used to counter this by providing reality based training with simunitions. We would go thru real life shoot no shoot scenarios. But now that every one hates cops and wants to defund, these training have gone away. Police training is very expensive. 
 

now this training is done online to fulfill the required additional training hours legislation of accountability requires at a budget cost yet the quality has gone down a ton. 
 

And like every career some ****** and hoes always make it thru. 

Edited by NWFALCON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NWFALCON said:

Case Laws to know. 
 

Terry v Ohio (legal detention)

This case allows Police to detain and stop someone that reasonably matches the description of a suspect. WTH does reasonable mean. Reasonable in this case is essentially a 33.33% chance that this person may be involved in a crime. This is a very water downed definition for the sake of not writing a novel. This percentage can be based on appearance, clothing, race, or proximity to the location of the crime. 
 

in my opinion, Police do a crappy job of explaining why someone is detained. In my experience, this typically happens because people are pissed off and chirping so the mutual respect has gone out of the window. 
 

The purpose of a Terry stop is basic investigation. with that said, force is allowed on Terry stops. So this is why i. some videos, that show force being used on a personal not involved, nothing happens to the Officers. 
 

If you feel you’ve been illegally detained please call 911 and make a complaint 

Philando Castile was a passenger in a car that was stopped because (in the words of the murdering officer) he had a "wide-set nose" and that matched the description of someone involved in a recent robbery. He was then asked for his ID and when he advised the cop to be aware that he was a legal CCP holder and armed, the cop freaked out and shot him several times.

For some reason, the bull🤬 reason for the stop was never an issue for his superiors or the media. Stopping a Black man for having a "Black nose" is analogous to a cop stopping random blond men after a blond man committed a crime. Yet, his fellow officers and police administrators rallied around him. They refused to release the video to the public until after the trial because it looked so bad for the cop involved in the killing.

I truly understand most cops don't have an itchy trigger finger. But I don't understand why they protect the worst of their ranks who do. The Twin Cities are about to erupt once again because literally every year, there is a suspicious police-involved shooting. The fact that a bad cop (like Derek Chauvin, who had 17 infractions in 18 years, including a shooting) has the support of his union and police administration is the reason why I don't like to hear that most cops are good. If anything, most don't engage in corrupt behavior in the way they do their job. But if a badge is a get out of jail free card, then those permitting it aren't "good".

I say this with no disrespect to you. God bless you to be safe in the administration of your service. If I need a cop, I'm calling a cop. But I'm praying when I do that I don't get one who's having a bad day and therein lies the rub.

(Below is Philando Castile and his suspicious nose)

Philando Castile Family Reaches $3 Million Settlement in His Death

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JayOzOne said:

Philando Castile was a passenger in a car that was stopped because (in the words of the murdering officer) he had a "wide-set nose" and that matched the description of someone involved in a recent robbery. He was then asked for his ID and when he advised the cop to be aware that he was a legal CCP holder and armed, the cop freaked out and shot him several times.

For some reason, the bull🤬 reason for the stop was never an issue for his superiors or the media. Stopping a Black man for having a "Black nose" is analogous to a cop stopping random blond men after a blond man committed a crime. Yet, his fellow officers and police administrators rallied around him. They refused to release the video to the public until after the trial because it looked so bad for the cop involved in the killing.

I truly understand most cops don't have an itchy trigger finger. But I don't understand why they protect the worst of their ranks who do. The Twin Cities are about to erupt once again because literally every year, there is a suspicious police-involved shooting. The fact that a bad cop (like Derek Chauvin, who had 17 infractions in 18 years, including a shooting) has the support of his union and police administration is the reason why I don't like to hear that most cops are good. If anything, most don't engage in corrupt behavior in the way they do their job. But if a badge is a get out of jail free card, then those permitting it aren't "good".

I say this with no disrespect to you. God bless you to be safe in the administration of your service. If I need a cop, I'm calling a cop. But I'm praying when I do that I don't get one who's having a bad day and therein lies the rub.

(Below is Philando Castile and his suspicious nose)

Philando Castile Family Reaches $3 Million Settlement in His Death

So I’ve spoken to a lot of friends about this case. The reason for the stop is because the vehicle or he matched the description of a robbery suspect. So there is your 33% for you Terry stop. All good there. 
 

The tactics employed were piss poor. For felony crimes, we use a high risk stop where we position behind the car and call the occupants out. Pistols will be drawn but that’s procedural due to the danger associated with the crime being investigated. 
 

Lack of training from the get go made this unravel. Traffic stops and DV calls are the most dangerous in this line of work. Defunding will make more of this happen, same **** with the Army Lt that got pepper sprayed. Anyways , I digress. 
 

the correct tactic would have been to stand back and call everyone out. Detain and identify then investigate. If it’s not the suspect, let everyone go with an explanation. 
 

But due to lack of training or adrenaline, the cops approach a vehicle that they believed was involved with an armed robbery. stupid. 
 

They begin talking to him and he tells them he has a CPL. The Officer tells him to stop teaching yet he continues to reach in an area where pistols are concealed. That’s why the shooting was justified. Police have been shot many times by people doing the same thing and saying they’re reaching for their wallet. 
 

This was a tragedy and should have been avoided had the cops used proper tactics and had Philando listened to the commands. 
 

I’ll add that no cop wants to be in a shooting in this day and age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry i didn’t address your comments on Chauvin. I was going to promote but I’m a lil tired of the #######. But when I was looking to promote, I attended a pre supervisor training course. 
 

I always thought just fire the turds and be done. Well liberal states and cities are super huge on unions. Cops in almost every state have unions and contracts with the cities. Within the contracts are when and how people can be disciplined and fired. 
 

The unions in every career whether sports or construction, are very skilled and negotiating and getting stuff into contracts. These political movements that gave Unions power, are what make it difficult to fire someone. I haven’t looked at all of Chavins record but some of the stuff I saw was him being an *******. That’ll get a suspension but rarely fired. 
 

Unions are a gift and a curse my man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NWFALCON said:

So I’ve spoken to a lot of friends about this case. The reason for the stop is because the vehicle or he matched the description of a robbery suspect. So there is your 33% for you Terry stop. All good there
 

 

Sorry, but if someone's nose in the absence of other delineating features can match the description of a robbery suspect, I don't have to read the rest of your reply. He didn't suggest that he was (for example) a heavy-set man with dreadlocks, a 'wide-set nose' and a Minnesota Twins cap. If you're stopping Black people for having brown skin or an African nose or any other feature that is typical in most Black people, then I don't want you on my police force.

You or I would be fired the first time I stopped a white person for having thin lips that "matched the description" of a suspect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, JayOzOne said:

Sorry, but if someone's nose in the absence of other delineating features can match the description of a robbery suspect, I don't have to read the rest of your reply. He didn't suggest that he was (for example) a heavy-set man with dreadlocks, a 'wide-set nose' and a Minnesota Twins cap. If you're stopping Black people for having brown skin or an African nose or any other feature that is typical in most Black people, then I don't want you on my police force.

You or I would be fired the first time I stopped a white person for having thin lips that "matched the description" of a suspect. 

I’ve stopped and arrested plenty of white folks for that stuff. The reason for me explaining case law was to remove emotion from this yet everything still boils down to race.
 

But I’ll admit fault on this  the wide nose isn’t enough for a stop like that  

i explained why the shooting was justified. If you don’t want to accept those facts, the that’s your choice. 
 

I just went back and I guess he was stopped for a broken tail light too.  So if it were a weak Terry stop then that can be a civil rights violation. The initial contact was good until the gun came into play.
 

I’ll admit I didn’t follow the trial but watching the video, I knew he wouldn’t be convicted when the video is balanced off of the three cases I mentioned above. 

Edited by NWFALCON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, achilles return said:

lmao barely four posts in and we're already doing "philando castile?? justified shoot"

all cops are ********

There’s a difference been legally justified and a good shoot. I’m not sure if read everything but I guess this is what was expected in this environment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, achilles return said:

it is amazing how even the supposed "good cops" will find themselves defending the system without hesitation. 

Haha. I’m not defending anything. Go watch the video of Officer Yanez. Then look at the case laws I explained. That’s why it was legally justified. 
 

The movement of his hand and clear commands is why it was a justified shooting. 
 

It’s pretty obvious that the Officer hasn’t dealt with CPL folks a ton, but the hand movements is what made the shooting justified in the eyes of the courts. 
 

To really see what’s excessive and not, emotions have to be removed and the facts of the case must be weighed against the present case law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, achilles return said:

look at this good cop defending murder

it's almost like cops shouldn't have guns

 

Not defending. Merely explaining why there was no conviction. 
 

Murder was never on the table. There must exist intent for murder to go thru. That’s why I think Chauvin will get convicted of Manslaughter and not murdered. 
 

I guess I failed to put the last percentage.  33% is what’s required for legal detention. 51% for probable cause/arrest. 99.99% beyond a reasonable doubt/conviction. 
 

Based upon the facts, the prosecution was unable to get to 99.99%. 
 

The recent shooting with the chick cop will land in a conviction. I’m guessing manslaughter (I’ll have to look at Minnesota law) because of her blatant negligence. Based on her reaction, I don’t think her intent was to murder someone but that doesn’t change the fact that she totally ****** up
 

That type of shooting shouldn’t occur. Police get training on deploying less lethal and lethal weapons. The taser feels and weighs nothing close to a loaded pistol. 
 

So how the **** did she make that mistake? I’m not sure if any of y’all are readers but while I was in the military, I read LTC Gossman. He goes over the different levels of awareness or stress the body goes thru during different situations. 
 

This female cop was in condition black. Total loss of cognitive function and reason due to stress, fear, or something else. It’s difficult to explain to people that haven’t experienced it or read the book but it’s real. 
 

As a training Officer, I try to stress my students and to present them with scenarios they have to mentally work thru. Training and exposure are the two ways to avoiding condition black. 
 

The hiring pool is vastly shrinking and we are getting a buncha scary folks that melt down super quick so it’s a ton of effort to try to prevent that. 
 

But then why did this happen to a cop with 25 years on?? My guess is she hasn’t been put in a lot of tense situations and hasn’t experienced this level of stress before.  Many cops actively avoid work and making arrests. This has gone up in the last 5 years. This active avoidance reduces the level of exposure. 
 

i think most folks here played sports. Imagine your first big game in a tournament with a huge crowd. But multiply that by 100. It’s tough. But as you play in more games and tournaments, the nerves get less and less. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, achilles return said:

"no, you don't understand - the police state we live in has concluded this murder was a justified shooting! please consider the decades of legal precedent and media propaganda that clearly cannot be biased towards letting agents of the state get away with murder!"

There are cops that go away every year for murder. I briefly mentioned it but the media has focuses on shootings like this that they know will not result in a conviction. 
 

if you’d like We can Pm and i can go over more details on these case laws. I don’t know if people want to be bored by that but it’s like a soccer fan trying to understand penalties in a football game. The rules have to be understood. 
 

i have no desire to defend **** cops. The level of hatred and resentment their actions create make my job more dangerous. 
 

My goal of this thread is to provide explanations of case law and why some people haven’t been convicted. Some folks will accept that and some won’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, achilles return said:

look at this good cop defending murder

it's almost like cops shouldn't have guns

 

I received a well-deserved ban for my responses to a thread like this one. I'm checking out. With that being said, imagine being stopped and questioned because you had brown eyes. Or for being short. Or were bald. Or because you had a mustache. Any excuse will do as long as you didn't say it was specifically due to race. And then, being shot dead as a result. FOOH with all of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...