tvc184

  A lot easier in a confined unit.    On the streets that may be armed and a guy is 6'5" 300........... 

  With 4-5 working at one time?

  Nowhere.

    What kind of admin?   We have departments under admin that might have openings like dispatcher. 

  ..... or he was 25 feet away lunging at you. 

  What does that have to do with the premise of the article? 

  Actually Michael Baden said it was from front to back. It entered near the right eye, existed at the jaw and went into the shoulder. That is not back to front. 

  One article said an "exchange" of gunfire. I think that implicates a shootout. 

Here is the Garrity Statement that we type on our internal investigations:   Garrity Statement On_________ (date/time) at ________________ (place), I was ordered to give this statement (report) by ____________________ (name/rank). I give this Statement (report) at his/her order as a condition of employment. I understand that I may face disciplinary action for disobeying this order so I have no alternative but to abide by the order.  It is my belief and understanding that the Department requires this statement (report) solely and exclusively for internal purposes and will not release it to any other person or agency. It is my further belief that this statement (report) will not and cannot be used against me in any criminal proceedings. For any and all other purposes, I hereby reserve my rights as provided by the United States Constitution and any other rights prescribed by law. Further, I rely specifically upon the protection afforded me under Garrity Vs. New Jersey 385 U.S. 439 (1967).

  On an interesting note (maybe), when the police are forced to give a statement for an internal investigation (such as a shooting), the officers normally types a notice on the statement that says the officer is being forced to give the statement for internal reasons only and he does not give up his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. It protects officers from being forced to give internal statements that may implicate them and being fired for invoking their constitutional rights.   The interesting part? It is called the "Garrity" warning.    [Hidden Content]

It has been said that starvation is a strong motivator.    I believe that is a very true statement. There has to be some motivation for people to do almost anything. When a person has a place to stay and has food in his stomach, he is less likely in my opinion to go the extra mile to find a job or other means of support. It is much easier to sit back when someone else is paying the bill.    The only point of this article was that the ending of many benefits motivated many more people to start working, maybe at lesser jobs than they left or would have taken if available. If you are not eating or have no roof over your head, how much will you struggle to make ends meet as opposed to having that means brought to your door free of effort or obligation?    The single time that Obama is mentioned in the article (and Democrats not at all) is that he it touting the decrease in the unemployment rate. The article said that no matter your politics, that is a good thing. It points out that it is possible that part of that decrease in unemployment is due to the ending of benefits.    I see that as nothing to do with Obama or politics except making a single point that unemployment benefits may tend to slow recovery rather than speed it up.    It poses this statement, "It’s worth wondering why".    The article appears to be me to be a statement of facts, that unemployment went down after some benefits ended and pondered whether the two are linked. I can't see that as inflammatory or very political and mainly states that it is a valid topic for debate. It certainly wasn't some hammering of Obama who is only mentioned once and the article agreed with him that it is good that unemployment went down no matter which party you support. 

    I would be willing to bet that all shots were fired in less than 2 seconds. 

When something sensational happens in the news or even when it happens on a personal level, people tend to make up or believe  their own statistics.    A few years ago a guy fled from one of our officers in a vehicle, a felony. He called a couple of hours later to complain on the officer and give his explanation of why he ran (he was still not in custody). The man said that he fled in fear of his life because that officer is well known for beating up and killing people. He followed up with a statement something like, "Everyone knows that". As part of my preliminary investigation as a supervisor, I asked him to name the people that he has killed and beaten up because to my knowledge our department had not gotten a single report or complaint of abuse by the officer and we hadn't been involved in a deadly force situation in several years.... the last being before that officer was hired. The caller then went on to say that I was twisting his words and taking up for the officer. I said quite to the contrary, I have not said a single thing to take up for the officer and ask for his information to start what sounded like a serious investigation. I then told him that to verify that what he said, our entire conversation was on a recorded phone line (and it was). The next thing I heard?   CLICK!!   While that is but a single incident and has no bearing on any other investigation, it shows what I see at work no so infrequently. It is easy to spit out lies, accusations or even believed to be true assumptions. It is quite different to have facts to back them up.     And what about valid abuse complaints? I witnessed abuse by an officer and he was terminated almost immediately and charges were submitted to the DA against the officer. 

So the preliminary autopsy results are released and all wounds to Brown were in the front. That kind of negates many of the witnesses that claim Brown was walking away with his hands in the air.   Then it shows the round entered near his right eyes but exited at the jaw showing that it was going downward and then it entered a shoulder. Since Brown was facing the officer and standing (according to witnesses), it tends to indicate that Brown's head was down as if he was leaning toward the officer.    The autopsy alone means nothing but now that facts are starting to come out it seems to look quite a bit different than the claimed "eye witnesses". Apparently some of them did not see what they stated and merely claimed to be witnesses or they outright lied.    It does not exonerate the officer as it still comes down to what the justifications were of using that amount of force but it sure shows another angle of the story. According to a report on CNN, Jesse Jackson calls the autopsy report "inflammatory". Why Jesse, because it might back up the officer's claim that Brown was coming back at him? 

Both have been used successfully many times. Some of those times have saved lives.

In about 1985-86 our entire department was trained in riot tactics after a lot of union unrest in the area back then. We carried the same equipment back then (riot batons, shields, helmets, rubber bullets, wooden rounds/knee knockers, tear gas, etc.). The difference between then and now is the uniforms.    We used to wear our regular duty gear is that it all we had. We had to wear the $35 dress shirts with the creases sewn in made for all the jewelry we hang on them and dress uniform pants. Today they wear over-the-counter BDU style uniforms. That is the difference, the cop wear utility gear instead of dress uniforms to riots. That for some reason offends the public and makes the same police officers now "militarized" because they took off their dress blues for riots. I am assuming that if they wore the blues again like in the 1968 Chicago riots, it would be okay. Even many of the helmets were blue.    Google 1968 Chicago Riots and click on images and see what the officers in a riot looked like back then. Almost nothing has changed except the training the officers receive and the uniforms. 

  In some instances I have seen the opposite of what some people might believe as far as the race of the officer.

  The police force has now been turned into a political force and doesn't want to offend anyone...... except maybe the store owners that they are no longer protecting.    At least quit using "military" tactics.    From the last military actions that I saw on the news, the military lobbed artillery rounds or rockets into the enemy and when they sent in troops, they tossed in fragmentation grenades into structures to try and take out any survivors and then went in shooting anyone that was left. I guess it is a good thing the police in MO quit doing that.    Hmmmm.... wait....... looking at the MO riots, I think the police mostly had riot batons and sidearms, gave many warnings over the loud speaker to move and gave people a long time to move away and then finally launched tear gas on those that refused a lawful order. Yeah, I guess that is the same as "military" tactics. These police are getting out of hand.  Just ask the store owners..................... 

  Again, the definition of "chaos". Chief Has Arrived On Scene   When they get to be chiefs, they are no longer cops and are politicians. That is the nature of the job but it is what it is. 

  Not exactly.    SWAT took a long time to get there. Once they arrived, they have a close in shootout between vehicles and one of them and the other was shot by an officer but also shot himself in the head, committing suicide when he saw he had no way out.    In any case, it took SWAT to be there and the 100 or so patrol officers that responded had no answer for two guys that shot several people including officers. That is the same SWAT that saved the day that people are now saying is too much policing.    A lot of people don't want the cops to have big guns or armored vehicles unless they are being held hostage, then they want the cops to have every tool available.    I spent 10 years on SWAT and they are no more military like today than they were 30 years ago. What we have today is 24 hour news and social media. 

  Looters are what looters always are. They are criminals looking for some incident to take advantage of. I am sure that some are from out of the area but just as sure that there are plenty of locals in the St. Louis County area that are just as low life as anyone else.

  Anyone can investigate it. It is concurrent jurisdiction. For example let's say there is an accusation of a crime happened in a city in Jefferson County and it had a possible federal violation also (all laws are not federal for example DWI). The city has jurisdiction, the county has jurisdiction, the state has jurisdiction and the federal government has jurisdiction. Any of those four could investigate a crime independently or work with any or all of the others in a joint investigation.   Under most circumstances crimes are investigated at the local level. In some high profile cases or under their jurisdiction, the federal government with its dozens of investigative law enforcement agencies might get involved such as this case. Rob a7-11 at gunpoint and you will have the local cops after you. Rob the local bank and you will likely see the FBI breathing down your neck as it is both a state law crime and a federal law crime.    I have no clue how they are investigating the shooting in Ferguson but the Ferguson PD, St. Louis County PD, the MO State Police (Highway Patrol) and the FBI could all look into it. I "think" right now at the state level it has been turned over to the MO Highway Patrol and probably the FBI at the federal level. 

Does who called 911 matter? These tweets are nothing but a smokescreen. There appears to be plenty of evidence that the officer made a lawful stop. That is of no consequence because what happened after the stop is what matters. Did the officer have a legal authority to use deadly force in what he did or was it unjustified? The rest is just fluff.

Let's play what if. What if the video is what the police were going out to when broadcasting a description? Looking at the video, there was only one suspect they push the clerk so all he wants us back in the robbery. Simply being with the person does not mean you're involved. If that was true a passenger could get a ticket for speeding when he is in the car.

  On a similar case, we had an officer's patrol vehicle shot one night in the windshield. I went to that area and was blocking a road and had stopped a vehicle for something entirely different. Other officers were at the scene a block or so away.    There was some radio traffic but I wasn't paying attention to it as I was dealing with three or four guys that I had detained. Then I saw police units heading my way and heard my badge number on the radio and an officer saying something like, "TVC has them stopped".   That is why the units were screaming in my direction. I had inadvertently stopped the suspects in an officer almost being shot. What if I had been in a shootout right there with suspects that may have fired at officers? I did not stop them for that reason.