or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 392

post #5866 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I assume you know that lingering disability is really easy to fake after a real head injury, as there's often no way to prove or disprove the claims. I never said I doubted he claimed to be disabled before he was shot, I just suggested that I expected it to turn out to be BS. Jury's still out on that one.

Turk, as an Attorney you should wait until all the facts come in.

Already, the cop killer has turned out to be white,

Witnesses Say White Cop Killed Keith Lamont Scott, Cop Shot Charlotte Protester

http://www.colorlines.com/articles/witnesses-say-white-cop-killed-keith-lamont-scott-cop-shot-charlotte-protester

Who are you going to believe Turk? Chief Kerr Putney or citizen Taheshia Williams?
post #5867 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

My apologies to contributing to getting us off track.
I've heard no more than the guy's wife saying that he has TBI in the now released video. If true, TBI can be a very real disability. She was saying it in real time of the shooting, not just talking after the fact. I haven't seen documentation or anything, but that kind of excited utterance lends some amount of credibility to the claim of disability.

More importantly to the case itself, TBI could have been very relevant to how he was acting and could have impacted how officers viewed him and the situation. TBI can cause people to react unusually to stressful situations, like being encountered by a police. It also is important for officers to be aware that someone informing you of an individual's TBI could be very important to your analysis of the situation.

Another thing that could be relevant to the way he was behaving was his multiple convictions for assault with a deadly weapon.
post #5868 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by AldenPyle View Post

Another thing that could be relevant to the way he was behaving was his multiple convictions for assault with a deadly weapon.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/23/felony-record-casts-doubt-black-lives-matter-narrative-nc-shooting/

And the cover up continues. Now the evil police are planting hero Scott's fingerprints and DNA,

Loaded gun found in North Carolina had fingerprints matching victim: CNN

https://www.yahoo.com/news/family-sees-video-charlotte-police-shooting-black-man-000556982.html
post #5869 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by AldenPyle View Post


Another thing that could be relevant to the way he was behaving was his multiple convictions for assault with a deadly weapon.

 

It's relevant if the officers had reason to know about it. The officers had reason to know that he may have TBI, because his wife was telling them. If there was someone telling the officers that he had multiple convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, then that too would be a relevant factor too.

post #5870 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Turk, as an Attorney you should wait until all the facts come in.

Already, the cop killer has turned out to be white,

Witnesses Say White Cop Killed Keith Lamont Scott, Cop Shot Charlotte Protester

http://www.colorlines.com/articles/witnesses-say-white-cop-killed-keith-lamont-scott-cop-shot-charlotte-protester

Who are you going to believe Turk? Chief Kerr Putney or citizen Taheshia Williams?

This wouldn't have happened if the cops had released the videos immediately! I mean, she would have made up a better story. It's disappointing but not surprising that people just don't seem to get that there's often a good reason not to release the videos immediately.
post #5871 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

It's relevant if the officers had reason to know about it. The officers had reason to know that he may have TBI, because his wife was telling them. If there was someone telling the officers that he had multiple convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, then that too would be a relevant factor too.

Watching that video, can you honestly say with a certainty that the officers heard her quickly say Scott has TBI, and they processed that while the incident was going down in real time?

Watch it again. I don't think the officer can be disbelieved if he says he didn't hear her. His mind might have been on other things.
post #5872 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I assume you know that lingering disability is really easy to fake after a real head injury, as there's often no way to prove or disprove the claims. I never said I doubted he claimed to be disabled before he was shot, I just suggested that I expected it to turn out to be BS. Jury's still out on that one.

 

For numerous years, I worked on legal issues related to how law enforcement officials interact with people with disabilities, including those with TBI and other issues that impact cognitive and mental ability. I have reviewed countless documents where I had to make legal determinations about whether someone had a disability that impacted their mental capacity and awareness and have frequently found them to be exaggerated. So, yeah, I know about it.

 

I also have traveled around the country and to foreign countries and provided training to and worked with law enforcement officials on the legal implications of their interactions with people with mental health issues, including the use of appropriate force. I'm pretty familiar with the issue.

 

The jury may still be out on whether he had TBI or not. As I said, I only have heard his wife's comments. Regardless, it's almost irrelevant. The officers were told he had TBI. When we trained law enforcement officials, we told them to take those statements as the truth and act accordingly. They are not medical professionals, and it's not their job to decide, on the spot, whether a person is disabled or not. You're told he's disabled. You assume he's disabled. These officers were told he had TBI. They now should act as if he has TBI. If it turns out he doesn't, no biggie. You acted out of an abundance of caution.

post #5873 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

For numerous years, I worked on legal issues related to how law enforcement officials interact with people with disabilities, including those with TBI and other issues that impact cognitive and mental ability. I have reviewed countless documents where I had to make legal determinations about whether someone had a disability that impacted their mental capacity and awareness and have frequently found them to be exaggerated. So, yeah, I know about it.

I also have traveled around the country and to foreign countries and provided training to and worked with law enforcement officials on the legal implications of their interactions with people with mental health issues, including the use of appropriate force. I'm pretty familiar with the issue.

The jury may still be out on whether he had TBI or not. As I said, I only have heard his wife's comments. Regardless, it's almost irrelevant. The officers were told he had TBI. When we trained law enforcement officials, we told them to take those statements as the truth and act accordingly. They are not medical professionals, and it's not their job to decide, on the spot, whether a person is disabled or not. You're told he's disabled. You assume he's disabled. These officers were told he had TBI. They now should act as if he has TBI. If it turns out he doesn't, no biggie. You acted out of an abundance of caution.

Nice to be on the same side of an issue.
post #5874 of 6081
It's really irritating that you keep referring to a TBI as "disabled." Just because someone has or claims to have some lingering symptoms associated with a head injury doesn't mean they're disabled in any significant way, or that they're incapable of responding to instructions from police officers.

And if you've actually trained cops I hope you know that they take those PC lectures with a grain of salt. A guy with a gun's wife says he has unspecified lingering symptoms from a head injury, and what does your training tell the cops they're supposed to do? Let him go? Let him shoot them?
post #5875 of 6081

Cop approaches PI, hassles him, removes him from the car.  Then other cops try to trump up charges against him not realizing that they are being recorded.  Man files a civil lawsuit in federal court for violation of his constitutional rights, assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and various other charges.  Jury finds in favour of the sheriff department

 

 

 

 

post #5876 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Nice to be on the same side of an issue.

We are more than you think. Sometimes I get bored at work and like to argue and debate. Sorry.
post #5877 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

We are more than you think. Sometimes I get bored at work and like to argue and debate. Sorry.

No apologies needed as I feel you.
post #5878 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It's really irritating that you keep referring to a TBI as "disabled." Just because someone has or claims to have some lingering symptoms associated with a head injury doesn't mean they're disabled in any significant way, or that they're incapable of responding to instructions from police officers.

And if you've actually trained cops I hope you know that they take those PC lectures with a grain of salt. A guy with a gun's wife says he has unspecified lingering symptoms from a head injury, and what does your training tell the cops they're supposed to do? Let him go? Let him shoot them?

It's irritating that you misconstrue what I said. First, I said TBI CAN be a disability, not TBI = disability. Although, talk to our wounded veterans. They may feel more strongly. Also, I said I've personally dealt with many instances of people exaggerating disabilities, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Next, not sure why you are questioning the veracity of my experience, but whatever. These aren't PC lectures. I've worked FOR federal law enforcement agencies. I'm on their team! I'm sure they don't like the lawyers who have no real experience telling them how to do their job. It's usually the first thing I tell them. But the training is intended to give them additional tools to do their job better and not get themselves in trouble.

My experience is more with national security officials than local cops. Their experiences are different, but not entirely dissimilar. There is no magic answer about how to react. The training is meant to raise awareness to blind spots that these law enforcement officials may have. Guy can't maintain eye contact, palms are sweating, mumbling, and shifting around a lot. Terrorist? Or maybe he's just autistic. It's tricky. It's complicated. Officers don't have it easy. That doesn't mean they should just ignore potential disabilities, though.
post #5879 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

It's irritating that you misconstrue what I said. First, I said TBI CAN be a disability, not TBI = disability.

All she said was "he has a TBI," and you said she said he was disabled. How am I supposed to take that?
Quote:
Although, talk to our wounded veterans. They may feel more strongly. Also, I said I've personally dealt with many instances of people exaggerating disabilities, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

So have I, and it's not just people I've met professionally. Coincidentally (actually, not) many of them are veterans. They're hoping for a check for life like all the rest.
Quote:
Next, not sure why you are questioning the veracity of my experience, but whatever. These aren't PC lectures. I've worked FOR federal law enforcement agencies. I'm on their team! I'm sure they don't like the lawyers who have no real experience telling them how to do their job. It's usually the first thing I tell them. But the training is intended to give them additional tools to do their job better and not get themselves in trouble.

My experience is more with national security officials than local cops. Their experiences are different, but not entirely dissimilar. There is no magic answer about how to react. The training is meant to raise awareness to blind spots that these law enforcement officials may have. Guy can't maintain eye contact, palms are sweating, mumbling, and shifting around a lot. Terrorist? Or maybe he's just autistic. It's tricky. It's complicated. Officers don't have it easy. That doesn't mean they should just ignore potential disabilities, though.

You said the cops had to accept her claim as true (and, apparently, assume she meant he had some severe disability). I just can't imagine anyone telling cops that they have to automatically defer to bystanders about... anything... and be taken seriously. It's absurd. Now you're backing away from that, I think. Great. Otherwise, I'm still not saying I'm doubting you. Not when Obama's president. I just hope no one takes your prior post as some kind of standard of care.
post #5880 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Cop approaches PI, hassles him, removes him from the car.  Then other cops try to trump up charges against him not realizing that they are being recorded.  Man files a civil lawsuit in federal court for violation of his constitutional rights, assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and various other charges.  Jury finds in favour of the sheriff department



www.youtube.com/embed/FLTpLmgRu4w

www.youtube.com/embed/wsd2HJKAi9U

What a piece of shit, little dicked pig. Disgusting behavior.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?