CarlPierce wrote:When the carer asked why did you shoot me the reply was 'I don't know'.

Why do these racist thugs get to be policemen ? clearly with no meaningful training.

Briton wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:When the carer asked why did you shoot me the reply was 'I don't know'.

Why do these racist thugs get to be policemen ? clearly with no meaningful training.

If they are thugs then no amount of training is going to change that. To me the real problem is recruitment.

Briton wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:When the carer asked why did you shoot me the reply was 'I don't know'.

Why do these racist thugs get to be policemen ? clearly with no meaningful training.

If they are thugs then no amount of training is going to change that. To me the real problem is recruitment.

Bullet that struck caregiver was meant to protect him, police union prez says

The North Miami police officer who shot an unarmed, black mental health worker caring for a patient actually took aim at the autistic man next to him, but missed, the head of the police union said Thursday.

It was a stunning admission from the police officer and from John Rivera, who heads up Miami-Dade’s Police Benevolent Association. But it was one meant to calm the fears of a nation besieged with cellphone videos of police shooting and sometimes killing unarmed black men.

In this case, Rivera said, the officer ended up wounding the man he was trying to save.

The chief didn’t take any questions and refused to name the officer. The city said he is a 30-year-old Hispanic male who has been on the force for four years. As Eugene was leaving the podium, he refused to answer even more questions.

Rivera called the officer who shot Charles Kinsey, “decorated” and said he was a member of city’s SWAT team. The name of the autistic man hasn’t been released. He appears to be a white Hispanic on the video.

On Monday, a North Miami police officer shot Kinsey, 47, after, police said, mistakenly believing that Kinsey was going to be killed by the 23-year-old autistic man playing with a toy truck who was sitting on the ground next to him. Rivera said the officer feared the autistic man had a weapon.

(continues)

In an interview with WSVN-Channel 7, Kinsey said that after he was shot, officers approached and flipped him over and handcuffed him.

Pulsar wrote:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91160077.html

Bullet that struck caregiver was meant to protect him, police union prez says

The North Miami police officer who shot an unarmed, black mental health worker caring for a patient actually took aim at the autistic man next to him, but missed, the head of the police union said Thursday.

It was a stunning admission from the police officer and from John Rivera, who heads up Miami-Dade’s Police Benevolent Association. But it was one meant to calm the fears of a nation besieged with cellphone videos of police shooting and sometimes killing unarmed black men.

In this case, Rivera said, the officer ended up wounding the man he was trying to save.

The chief didn’t take any questions and refused to name the officer. The city said he is a 30-year-old Hispanic male who has been on the force for four years. As Eugene was leaving the podium, he refused to answer even more questions.

Rivera called the officer who shot Charles Kinsey, “decorated” and said he was a member of city’s SWAT team. The name of the autistic man hasn’t been released. He appears to be a white Hispanic on the video.

On Monday, a North Miami police officer shot Kinsey, 47, after, police said, mistakenly believing that Kinsey was going to be killed by the 23-year-old autistic man playing with a toy truck who was sitting on the ground next to him. Rivera said the officer feared the autistic man had a weapon.

(continues)

Oh great, so he's trigger-happy, a lousy shot, a bad judge of situation, and part of the SWAT team. This is fucked up on so many levels. Just one more question, officer:

In an interview with WSVN-Channel 7, Kinsey said that after he was shot, officers approached and flipped him over and handcuffed him.

Why exactly did you handcuff the man you were "saving"?

Cuevas said officers received a 911 call indicating a man was in the street with a gun threatening to kill himself. They responded to Northeast 127th Street and about 14th Avenue and began barking orders. When the autistic man didn’t comply, an officer fired three times, striking Kinsey once in the leg. He was transported to Jackson Memorial Hospital.

Teague wrote:What a massive crock of shit. US police are shit, have been for decades if they were ever good at all. Look how much worse it's getting except this has been going on decades and I would hazard a guess that it's happening more than is being recorded.

Pulsar wrote:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91160077.html

Bullet that struck caregiver was meant to protect him, police union prez says

The North Miami police officer who shot an unarmed, black mental health worker caring for a patient actually took aim at the autistic man next to him, but missed, the head of the police union said Thursday.

It was a stunning admission from the police officer and from John Rivera, who heads up Miami-Dade’s Police Benevolent Association. But it was one meant to calm the fears of a nation besieged with cellphone videos of police shooting and sometimes killing unarmed black men.

In this case, Rivera said, the officer ended up wounding the man he was trying to save.

The chief didn’t take any questions and refused to name the officer. The city said he is a 30-year-old Hispanic male who has been on the force for four years. As Eugene was leaving the podium, he refused to answer even more questions.

Rivera called the officer who shot Charles Kinsey, “decorated” and said he was a member of city’s SWAT team. The name of the autistic man hasn’t been released. He appears to be a white Hispanic on the video.

On Monday, a North Miami police officer shot Kinsey, 47, after, police said, mistakenly believing that Kinsey was going to be killed by the 23-year-old autistic man playing with a toy truck who was sitting on the ground next to him. Rivera said the officer feared the autistic man had a weapon.

(continues)

Oh great, so he's trigger-happy, a lousy shot, a bad judge of situation, and part of the SWAT team. This is fucked up on so many levels. Just one more question, officer:

In an interview with WSVN-Channel 7, Kinsey said that after he was shot, officers approached and flipped him over and handcuffed him.

Why exactly did you handcuff the man you were "saving"?

aban57 wrote:

Briton wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:When the carer asked why did you shoot me the reply was 'I don't know'.

Why do these racist thugs get to be policemen ? clearly with no meaningful training.

If they are thugs then no amount of training is going to change that. To me the real problem is recruitment.

Didn't I read here that at least one state refused applicants because they were too smart ?
Maybe it's time to reverse the process.

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barr ... y?id=95836

Acetone wrote:In order for police to fire the firearm they have to reasonably believe ending the threats life there and then is necessary to prevent harm or loss of life to themselves or others.

So the cop shot at the autistic man and missed. Why didn't he continue shooting to neutralize the target like he's supposed to? Surely after firing and missing the threat isn't magically neutralized.

Also why did they handcuff the guy on the ground and tilt him on his side bleeding from his wound without treating it?

proudfootz wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Briton wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:When the carer asked why did you shoot me the reply was 'I don't know'.

Why do these racist thugs get to be policemen ? clearly with no meaningful training.

If they are thugs then no amount of training is going to change that. To me the real problem is recruitment.

Didn't I read here that at least one state refused applicants because they were too smart ?
Maybe it's time to reverse the process.

You may have heard about it here, and it is real:

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barr ... y?id=95836

purplerat wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Briton wrote:

If they are thugs then no amount of training is going to change that. To me the real problem is recruitment.

Didn't I read here that at least one state refused applicants because they were too smart ?
Maybe it's time to reverse the process.

You may have heard about it here, and it is real:

A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barr ... y?id=95836

This gets cited every so often but it's really not all that compelling. If you read it all the way through you see the floor is average to slightly above average of the upper limit a bit more above average. It's not like they are hiring people with limited intelligence.

Excluding applicants who are "over qualified" is not an unusual practice and the reasoning in this case is fairly practical. And it's hardly as if highly intelligent people can't be violent assholes.

Similar to the pay argument this is largely a red herring. These problems are about culture first and foremost.

monkeyboy wrote:I keep seeing American police using one approach to nearly everything and it's always to be in total control. Bark orders that must be obeyed, back up those orders with force until they are complied with and if they feel there is too much risk, shoot.