60 Minutes Wonders Why Chicago Police Doing Less

[Hagar]

I'm sitting here watching this now.  CBS is incredulous that the Chicago Police are not confronting the gangs, are not increasing their activity in the City.  Reporters?  They must have been asleep since the Media, the Justice Dept, and BLM, have made it open season on Police Officers.  They wonder who to blame.  Well let this dumb old country boy tell you Mr. Reporter, research CBS News, and you'll see one of the big causes.

In fairness to 60 Minutes, they did show a confrontation when a female Police Officer was trying to arrest a big gangbanger and he attacked her and knocked her down on the pavement and fell on top of her.  She suffered neurological damage, which may cost her her job, and she didn't initially shoot the guy because she didn't want to end up on a viral video.

[Remmus]

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the cops are standing down until they get some respect.  BLM didn't make it open season on cops (Righty lies).   A handful of cops killing unarmed African-Americans had more to do with it.  This doesn't justify civilians killing cops, but some of these perps just popped after being hyped up watching the videos.

[Englebert]

35 minutes ago, Remmus said:

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the cops are standing down until they get some respect.  BLM didn't make it open season on cops (Righty lies).   A handful of cops killing unarmed African-Americans had more to do with it.  This doesn't justify civilians killing cops, but some of these perps just popped after being hyped up watching the videos.

How many of these cops unjustly killed a Black person but was not prosecuted?

[stevenash]

41 minutes ago, Remmus said:

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the cops are standing down until they get some respect.  BLM didn't make it open season on cops (Righty lies).   A handful of cops killing unarmed African-Americans had more to do with it.  This doesn't justify civilians killing cops, but some of these perps just popped after being hyped up watching the videos.

Am hearing that 135 cops have been killed this year.  How does that number compare to the number of unarmed and/or innocent black folk killed by cops?

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, Remmus said:

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the cops are standing down until they get some respect.  BLM didn't make it open season on cops (Righty lies).   A handful of cops killing unarmed African-Americans had more to do with it.  This doesn't justify civilians killing cops, but some of these perps just popped after being hyped up watching the videos.

BLM chanting pigs in a blanket, fry like bacon not inciting acts of violence against cops.  You may really need to crawl back into your hole.  Hands up don't shoot (now that is a proven lie), whether you are a righty or lefty.

[tvc184]

The police are doing what I suspect they did in Baltimore and that is to not be proactive.

When you have no backing, you don't go out of your way. I think the police will respond correctly to all calls given but between those times, hiding in alleys, looking for street dope deals, checking doors and night, stopping cars with a headlight out to see if the driver or passenger has warrants, etc., will be a thing of the past. 

Timothy McVeigh was stopped by a state trooper for a license plate violate and the largest terror attack in the country at that time was solved. Good luck today.

An overwhelming percentage of officers do the right thing. If they make a mistake then that is exactly what it was, a mistake. There is very little intentional abuse of rights but it does exist. According to FBI stats the police make about 35,000 arrest each day. That is 35,000 not only confrontations but where a person's liberty, potentially for life in some situations, it taken away in handcuffs and being placed in a cell. That is not nearly all contacts or confrontations. That is just the most serious.

When you are doing a quarter of a million arrests per week, there will always be chances to point out issues. Even most of those are legal but they sure don't look good on camera. It is hard to hit someone, throw the person on the ground or shoot someone and make it look nice. If only 1 tenth of one percent of arrests are questioned, that is over 1,000 per month. You can see where the huge numbers make it easy to find viral videos. If an appalling 1% of arrests came into question, that is over 10,000 per month. With those fairly large numbers we will always see officer doing the wrong thing and they should be punished. 

Let one cop in 500 do something wrong not every day but in a year and the entire profession is slammed. If the Chicago cops are backing off and not being aggressive, I understand completely. 

[Remmus]

8 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

BLM chanting pigs in a blanket, fry like bacon not inciting acts of violence against cops.  You may really need to crawl back into your hole.  Hands up don't shoot (now that is a proven lie), whether you are a righty or lefty.

Oh stop it.  There you go getting your panties in a bunch.  Lets not compare body counts.  It's all wrong.

[Remmus]

4 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

The police are doing what I suspect they did in Baltimore and that is to not be proactive.

When you have no backing, you don't go out of your way. I think the police will respond correctly to all calls given but between those times, hiding in alleys, looking for street dope deals, checking doors and night, stopping cars with a headlight out to see if the driver or passenger has warrants, etc., will be a thing of the past. 

Timothy McVeigh was stopped by a state trooper for a license plate violate and the largest terror attack in the country at that time was solved. Good luck today.

An overwhelming percentage of officers do the right thing. If they make a mistake then that is exactly what it was, a mistake. There is very little intentional abuse of rights but it does exist. According to FBI stats the police make about 35,000 arrest each day. That is 35,000 not only confrontations but where a person's liberty, potentially for life in some situations, it taken away in handcuffs and being placed in a cell. That is not nearly all contacts or confrontations. That is just the most serious.

When you are doing a quarter of a million arrests per week, there will always be chances to point out issues. Even most of those are legal but they sure don't look good on camera. It is hard to hit someone, throw the person on the ground or shoot someone and make it look nice. If only 1 tenth of one percent of arrests are questioned, that is over 1,000 per month. You can see where the huge numbers make it easy to find viral videos. If an appalling 1% of arrests came into question, that is over 10,000 per month. With those fairly large numbers we will always see officer doing the wrong thing and they should be punished. 

Let one cop in 500 do something wrong not every day but in a year and the entire profession is slammed. If the Chicago cops are backing off and not being aggressive, I understand completely. 

Agree 100%.  My point is 5, 10, 15 of these video surface its going to seem like "a lot" to people that don't know numbers.  I believe that 99% of cops do the right thing and are true professionals.  We also have evidence of a handful that are shooting first and asking questions second.  

[BS Wildcats]

2 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Oh stop it.  There you go getting your panties in a bunch.  Lets not compare body counts.  It's all wrong.

You're the one making comments about BLM not advocating violence toward police.  Don't like it when someone refutes your narrative?

[Remmus]

46 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Am hearing that 135 cops have been killed this year.  How does that number compare to the number of unarmed and/or innocent black folk killed by cops?

How far do you want to go back?  It's all wrong whether its a cop or an innocent citizen.  When I say innocent I mean unarmed and not proven of any crime during that particular incident.

[stevenash]

36 minutes ago, Remmus said:

How far do you want to go back?  It's all wrong whether its a cop or an innocent citizen.  When I say innocent I mean unarmed and not proven of any crime during that particular incident.

Like Michael Brown in Ferguson?

[tvc184]

20 minutes ago, Remmus said:

How far do you want to go back?  It's all wrong whether its a cop or an innocent citizen.  When I say innocent I mean unarmed and not proven of any crime during that particular incident.

Unarmed is sometimes meaningless. If a guy is kicking in the front door of your home at 3:00AM and you feel threatened and you shoot him, what if he turns out to be unarmed? You go to prison for life or was that reasonable under the circumstances? Remember that almost no confrontation with the police is unarmed because the officer has a firearm. When I started police work about half of all officers were killed with their own guns. Half of the officers were killed by unarmed people. Hmmm....... 

There is also the landmark case from the SCOTUS in Graham v. Connor. In that case the high court ruled that an officer's use of force must be made from his perspective and not in 20/20 hindsight. They got rid of the "totality of circumstances" standard and went to "objective reasonableness" from the officer's viewpoint. They said that an officer must make a "split second" decision and it must be judged from that viewpoint and not someone sitting in a room months later. So even if someone feels that an officer might have used a different tactic or level of force as we find out later after the dust has settled, it might have no bearing on the case. As an example what if an officer shoots a guy that he feels has a gun and it later turns out that it was a cell phone that the guy was pointing like a gun? The officer killed a guy over a cell phone? Well just such a case happened and it was all on video. The truth is that Marquis Hudspeth in Shreveport, LA was in a high speed chase and when it ended, Hudspeth got briefly into a shooting stance and "pointed" the cell phone at officers who shot and killed him. You can clearly see what happened on video but the "totality of circumstances" turned out to be that he was no danger to officers and he was unarmed. The officers were rightfully cleared however. 

What if the guy breaking into your home that you kill at 3:00AM turns out to be your next door neighbor that had a few beers and was at the wrong house and was trying to get into what he thought was his home. Hmmm.... now you've killed an unarmed man that was committing no crime. 

It is far easier to make a decision sitting in your living room, watching something on a helicopter video when you don't think your life might end in the next couple of seconds. 

 

[Remmus]

56 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

You're the one making comments about BLM not advocating violence toward police.  Don't like it when someone refutes your narrative?

I have no issue with anyone challenging my views.  I welcome it.  BLM has done a lot of good work to bring much needed awareness to the issues.  They get scapegoated for police shootings, but I blame the cops that broke procedure and killed unarmed citizens.  Those videos are why we even have a BLM movement and the videos did far more to incite violence against cops.  We can agree to disagree.

[Remmus]

23 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Unarmed is sometimes meaningless. If a guy is kicking in the front door of your home at 3:00AM and you feel threatened and you shoot him, what if he turns out to be unarmed? You go to prison for life or was that reasonable under the circumstances? Remember that almost no confrontation with the police is unarmed because the officer has a firearm. When I started police work about half of all officers were killed with their own guns. Half of the officers were killed by unarmed people. Hmmm....... 

There is also the landmark case from the SCOTUS in Graham v. Connor. In that case the high court ruled that an officer's use of force must be made from his perspective and not in 20/20 hindsight. They got rid of the "totality of circumstances" standard and went to "objective reasonableness" from the officer's viewpoint. They said that an officer must make a "split second" decision and it must be judged from that viewpoint and not someone sitting in a room months later. So even if someone feels that an officer might have used a different tactic or level of force as we find out later after the dust has settled, it might have no bearing on the case. As an example what if an officer shoots a guy that he feels has a gun and it later turns out that it was a cell phone that the guy was pointing like a gun? The officer killed a guy over a cell phone? Well just such a case happened and it was all on video. The truth is that Marquis Hudspeth in Shreveport, LA was in a high speed chase and when it ended, Hudspeth got briefly into a shooting stance and "pointed" the cell phone at officers who shot and killed him. You can clearly see what happened on video but the "totality of circumstances" turned out to be that he was no danger to officers and he was unarmed. The officers were rightfully cleared however. 

What if the guy breaking into your home that you kill at 3:00AM turns out to be your next door neighbor that had a few beers and was at the wrong house and was trying to get into what he thought was his home. Hmmm.... now you've killed an unarmed man that was committing no crime. 

It is far easier to make a decision sitting in your living room, watching something on a helicopter video when you don't think your life might end in the next couple of seconds. 

 

Hey if someone is breaking in, they get the cold steel legally in Texas ...correct?  Unarmed or armed.  I don't need to tell you that cops have incredibly difficult jobs.  Those videos sure do show some that need more training.  I will agree that a few videos may not tell the whole story.  Whatever happened to shooting a guy in the leg?

I've seen my local police at work on a few occasions.  The cops I saw were real pros.  They totally took control and did everything possible to DE-ESCALATE the situation and not escalate it.  They accessed, collared, and rolled out.

[Remmus]

24 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Like Michael Brown in Ferguson?

If MB was fighting the cop and got shot...I will say it had it coming, but there are other reports that say the cop was the aggressor.

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Hey if someone is breaking in, they get the cold steel legally in Texas ...correct?  Unarmed or armed.  I don't need to tell you that cops have incredibly difficult jobs.  Those videos sure do show some that need more training.  I will agree that a few may not tell the who story.  Whatever happened to shooting a guy in the leg?  

Shooting anywhere other than center mass is a much greater risk. It is extremely difficult to shoot accurately enough to hit someone in the leg and even if a person manages it, it will likely only stop the attack if you hit a bone like the femur. Hitting a target that is less than 1 inch wide while it is moving and you are under stress seems like a very long shot at best. 

 

[stevenash]

Yea, sure.  That's why the phalanx of feds sent to Missouri were unable to come up with anything.  Do you like the name Remmus better than EnlightenedChosenOne?

[Remmus]

2 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Yea, sure.  That's why the phalanx of feds sent to Missouri were unable to come up with anything.  Do you like the name Remmus better than EnlightenedChosenOne?

No idea who that is.  I'm a noob here.  It is possible that Texas has more than one person with centrist views.  Also that name is sorta LGBT IMO, lol.

[tvc184]

4 minutes ago, Remmus said:

If MB was fighting the cop and got shot...I will say it had it coming, but there are other reports that say the cop was the aggressor.

NEWSFLASH: The officer is supposed to be and has the authority to be the aggressor. 

A general definition of the meaning of "police" is "non-negotiable coercive force". It is non-negotiable. When an officer hits you with his overhead lights while you are driving, it is not a request for you to pull over. It is a demand to pull over and the law sides almost completely with the police. The officer has the burden of justifying the detention but from the citizen's standpoint, it is not up for negotiations. It is also coercive. The officers can use force or the threat of force to carry that out. 

Only as an example I will show part of TX law on resisting arrest. Part of it says....

"Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION.....

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful."

As you can see, you have no right to resist even an unlawful arrest. The place you contest that is in court whether it be at a criminal trial or if you sue the officer. 

Officer Wilson would not have been doing his job if he was not the aggressor. Michael Brown was the suspect in a robbery. He then tried to take the officer's gun. If a robbery suspect is in your neighborhood and an officer confronts him right after the crime, do you want him to be the aggressor and try to protect your neighborhood and potentially your family? Perhaps you want him to be passive and ask the felony suspect if he wanted to go to jail and if not, oh well have a nice day. You can come back and terrorize the neighborhood another day. 

Therein lies much of the problem when people point out the police as the person pushing the issue. You darn right they are. Heck, I'll bet when the US military goes into combat, they push the issue. 

[tvc184]

18 minutes ago, Remmus said:

If MB was fighting the cop and got shot...I will say it had it coming, but there are other reports that say the cop was the aggressor.

This entire thread was started about the police in Chicago not being the aggressors and strangely enough, perhaps the very liberal CBS is siding against the police not doing more.... I supposed so they will have more stories when the police do. 

[Remmus]

13 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

NEWSFLASH: The officer is supposed to be and has the authority to be the aggressor. 

A general definition of the meaning of "police" is "non-negotiable coercive force". It is non-negotiable. When an officer hits you with his overhead lights while you are driving, it is not a request for you to pull over. It is a demand to pull over and the law sides almost completely with the police. The officer has the burden of justifying the detention but from the citizen's standpoint, it is not up for negotiations. It is also coercive. The officers can use force or the threat of force to carry that out. 

Only as an example I will show part of TX law on resisting arrest. Part of it says....

"Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION.....

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful."

As you can see, you have no right to resist even an unlawful arrest. The place you contest that is in court whether it be at a criminal trial or if you sue the officer. 

Officer Wilson would not have been doing his job if he was not the aggressor. Michael Brown was the suspect in a robbery. He then tried to take the officer's gun. If a robbery suspect is in your neighborhood and an officer confronts him right after the crime, do you want him to be the aggressor and try to protect your neighborhood and potentially your family? Perhaps you want him to be passive and ask the felony suspect if he wanted to go to jail and if not, oh well have a nice day. You can come back and terrorize the neighborhood another day. 

Therein lies much of the problem when people point out the police as the person pushing the issue. You darn right they are. Heck, I'll bet when the US military goes into combat, they push the issue. 

Do police have an obligation to de-escalate?  I mean, I've seen cops tackling people when it sure looked like there was no reason to do so.  

[Remmus]

8 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

This entire thread was started about the police in Chicago not being the aggressors and strangely enough, perhaps the very liberal CBS is siding against the police not doing more.... I supposed so they will have more stories when the police do. 

Yeah, that seems like damn if you and damned it you don't.  Something has to be done in Chicago to restore law and order.  It sure seems like this is south central L.A. pt 2.  

[tvc184]

3 minutes ago, Remmus said:

Do police have an obligation to de-escalate?  I mean, I've seen cops tackling people when it sure looked like there was no reason to do so.  

No, they have no such obligation. Many police departments have a policy (not to be confused with law) that says they have no duty to retreat in any situation but they may if they wish. 

Tackling a person without justification is illegal. You have to see it through the eyes of the officer who should know why he is tackling the guy. A witness on the other hand, even with video, probably has no clue. The officer still has to justify it but way too many people hear about something or see a one viewpoint video and make a decision. Adding insult to injury is that they usually have no clue about the law. 

[Remmus]

2 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

No, they have no such obligation. Many police departments have a policy (not to be confused with law) that says they have no duty to retreat in any situation but they may if they wish. 

Tackling a person without justification is illegal. You have to see it through the eyes of the officer who should know why he is tackling the guy. A witness on the other hand, even with video, probably has no clue. The officer still has to justify it but way too many people hear about something or see a one viewpoint video and make a decision. Adding insult to injury is that they usually have no clue about the law. 

I'd agree that people will rush to judgement without knowing the all the facts (like what happened before the camera started).  I place a higher burden on a trained officer to exercise discretion and seek to use the least amount of force necessary.  On flipside I think there's some that believe if you ever question a cop you're some sorta communist...lol.  I still wonder what would of happened if some of these incidents weren't caught on video or dash cams.  The perp really has no chance of refuting a cops testimony.

[tvc184]

3 minutes ago, Remmus said:

I'd agree that people will rush to judgement without knowing the all the facts (like what happened before the camera started).  I place a higher burden on a trained officer to exercise discretion and seek to use the least amount of force necessary.  On flipside I think there's some that believe if you ever question a cop you're some sorta communist...lol.  I still wonder what would of happened if some of these incidents weren't caught on video or dash cams.  The perp really has no chance of refuting a cops testimony.

The police are questioned all the time from their supervisors who review arrests and uses of force to the district attorneys who review the same including all justifications used by the officer and then to any civil action brought by any person. I am a police supervisor and I review and question officer's actions on almost a daily basis. 

Again, it is easy to judge when a person isn't there to see it or know and understand the laws.