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 393

post #5881 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

All she said was "he has a TBI," and you said she said he was disabled. How am I supposed to take that?

 

You're just making things up. I, literally, never said that his wife said he was disabled. I said, like five times, that his wife said he had TBI.

 

- "I've heard no more than the guy's wife saying that he has TBI in the now released video."

- "The officers had reason to know that he may have TBI, because his wife was telling them."

- "The jury may still be out on whether he had TBI or not. As I said, I only have heard his wife's comments."

- "The officers were told he had TBI."

- "I said TBI CAN be a disability, not TBI = disability."

 

Geez.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

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.

 

You should try to meet more people. I've met plenty of people with TBI, including veterans, who actually just want to make it through life as productively as possible and have no desire just to get a check.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

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.

 

This is an exaggeration of what I'm saying. No, an officer doesn't just defer to bystanders. They assess for credibility, though. And, as I explained, his wife's excited uttering that he has TBI tends to give credibility. It's not like it was some well concocted plan to scheme for money. She was trying to provide the cops very relevant and potentially very useful information that could help deescalate the situation.

 

When interacting with someone and you have credible reason to believe they have a disability, then it is good practice to assume that is, in fact, true. Erring on the side of caution generally makes everyone safer, including the officers, because it generally leads to deescalation. It also is for the officer's OWN safety. If you have credible information that someone has TBI, there are certain precautions that you likely can take to protect yourself from getting injured. You automatically jumped to assuming that this is some sort of defense of the bad guy when deescalation is also about protecting the officers too.

post #5882 of 6081
Remember when you said this?
Quote:
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.

So you meant to use disabled here as just an illustration, another example of a comparable thing a person might disclose to a police officer that they ought to credit. Okay, sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you ought to be more careful after the media, the family, and the protesters all said the guy was disabled, and this entire conversation started over my skepticism that the guy was, in fact, disabled. Not to mention that "having TBI" is basically meaningless in and of itself since the symptoms range from headaches and irritability to severe retardation and blindness.

I hope you can see how my reading of your post was reasonable and not just "making things up."
Quote:
This is an exaggeration of what I'm saying. No, an officer doesn't just defer to bystanders. They assess for credibility, though. And, as I explained, his wife's excited uttering that he has TBI tends to give credibility. It's not like it was some well concocted plan to scheme for money. She was trying to provide the cops very relevant and potentially very useful information that could help deescalate the situation.

When interacting with someone and you have credible reason to believe they have a disability, then it is good practice to assume that is, in fact, true. Erring on the side of caution generally makes everyone safer, including the officers, because it generally leads to deescalation. It also is for the officer's OWN safety. If you have credible information that someone has TBI, there are certain precautions that you likely can take to protect yourself from getting injured. You automatically jumped to assuming that this is some sort of defense of the bad guy when deescalation is also about protecting the officers too.

I'm still fuzzy about this one. I asked you for specifics and you really haven't given any. The woman says he has TBI. Assume that she's credible even though she's denying he had a gun when he almost certainly had one (and she still denies it to this day which makes her a pretty bold liar if she turns out to be fibbing). But, whatever. He's armed. What exactly do the cops do if they assume has a TBI? "Oh, he might be crazy. I guess we'd better let him get away that gun, then."
post #5883 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.

Duh, the fact that he was black was practically screaming that.
post #5884 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I hope you can see how my reading of your post was reasonable and not just "making things up."
I'm still fuzzy about this one. I asked you for specifics and you really haven't given any. The woman says he has TBI. Assume that she's credible even though she's denying he had a gun when he almost certainly had one (and she still denies it to this day which makes her a pretty bold liar if she turns out to be fibbing). But, whatever. He's armed. What exactly do the cops do if they assume has a TBI? "Oh, he might be crazy. I guess we'd better let him get away that gun, then."

This!

Scott's wife said, "He doesn't have a gun, he has TBI and just took his medicine."

Which part of this "excited utterance" are they to believe? Why would the TBI part of her utterance be more credible than the "He doesn't have a gun" part?

What if someone in the crowd had said,'He's an undercover cop, don't shoot him". ( about Scott ). Should they have believed an excited utterance like that, while Scott was getting the drop on them?
post #5885 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

So you meant to use disabled here as just an illustration, another example of a comparable thing a person might disclose to a police officer that they ought to credit. Okay, sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you ought to be more careful after the media, the family, and the protesters all said the guy was disabled, and this entire conversation started over my skepticism that the guy was, in fact, disabled. Not to mention that "having TBI" is basically meaningless in and of itself since the symptoms range from headaches and irritability to severe retardation and blindness.

I hope you can see how my reading of your post was reasonable and not just "making things up."

You misconstrued a statement that was clearly a reference to a general concept and not this particular incident, ignored that there was no attribution to his wife, and forgot the five other statements I made in direct contradiction. So, no I don't really see how your reading was reasonable. You had a notion about what I was saying in your head and ran with it. That's cool. I do it too sometimes. But I'm the one who needs to be more careful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I'm still fuzzy about this one. I asked you for specifics and you really haven't given any. The woman says he has TBI. Assume that she's credible even though she's denying he had a gun when he almost certainly had one (and she still denies it to this day which makes her a pretty bold liar if she turns out to be fibbing). But, whatever. He's armed. What exactly do the cops do if they assume has a TBI? "Oh, he might be crazy. I guess we'd better let him get away that gun, then."

There's no magic answer. However, an officer who recognizes a potential TBI or other mental health issue can be more committed to deescalation tactics than in a situation where you don't have information about a possible mental health issue. A person with TBI is often going to increase the likelihood of a misreading of the situation, a misunderstanding of intent, etc. That puts the officers in danger, which they want to avoid.

I don't have any real groundbreaking knowledge to impart. It's just about officers being aware of mental health issues to help them know when deescalation may be more wisely used.
post #5886 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

This!

Scott's wife said, "He doesn't have a gun, he has TBI and just took his medicine."

Which part of this "excited utterance" are they to believe? Why would the TBI part of her utterance be more credible than the "He doesn't have a gun" part?

What if someone in the crowd had said,'He's an undercover cop, don't shoot him". ( about Scott ). Should they have believed an excited utterance like that, while Scott was getting the drop on them?

This isn't complicated. You believe the stuff that protects you. As I've said repeatedly, believing he has TBI is the safe approach that protects the officer. Err on the side of caution to protect yourself and the individual.

It's not incongruous for a cop to assume he has TBI, but also to not believe he's unarmed. Assume the stuff that makes you act more cautiously. Assuming mental health issue and the presence of a gun both make you more cautious, even if one entails believing a bystander and the other entails not believing a bystander.

I also said to assess credibility. If you are observing the dude and you see he's got a gun, then the person screaming, "he doesn't have a gun" ain't so credible. While someone screaming "he's got TBI" isn't the typical shit you just make up in the heat of he moment, which makes it more credible.
post #5887 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

You misconstrued a statement that was clearly a reference to a general concept and not this particular incident, ignored that there was no attribution to his wife, and forgot the five other statements I made in direct contradiction. So, no I don't really see how your reading was reasonable. You had a notion about what I was saying in your head and ran with it. That's cool. I do it too sometimes. But I'm the one who needs to be more careful?

I was happy to let it go, but this is ridiculous. None of the five statements you cited are "in direct contradiction." Not even close. One of them is something you said after the post I was talking about. Do I need to go down the list? This is intolerable. Take responsibility for your shitty writing or fess up to just saying something dumb. It happens.
Quote:
There's no magic answer. However, an officer who recognizes a potential TBI or other mental health issue can be more committed to deescalation tactics than in a situation where you don't have information about a possible mental health issue. A person with TBI is often going to increase the likelihood of a misreading of the situation, a misunderstanding of intent, etc. That puts the officers in danger, which they want to avoid.

I don't have any real groundbreaking knowledge to impart. It's just about officers being aware of mental health issues to help them know when deescalation may be more wisely used.

But we still haven't heard anything the cops could or should have done different in this situation. She says he has a TBI and fifteen seconds later he's out of the car with a gun. Then she's yelling "Keith, don't do it" (which, I guess, she now says meant don't throw the book at them or whatever).
post #5888 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I was happy to let it go, but this is ridiculous. None of the five statements you cited are "in direct contradiction." Not even close. One of them is something you said after the post I was talking about. Do I need to go down the list? This is intolerable. Take responsibility for your shitty writing or fess up to just saying something dumb. It happens.
But we still haven't heard anything the cops could or should have done different in this situation. She says he has a TBI and fifteen seconds later he's out of the car with a gun. Then she's yelling "Keith, don't do it" (which, I guess, she now says meant don't throw the book at them or whatever).

She said "He doesn't have a gun, he has a TBI". Which do they believe? If they are wise, they believe neither.

And what about "Keith, don't do it". How many of you think Keith didn't have a gun at this point? Even with Keith's TBI, how many believe she didn't know he owned a gun ( which we don't know if it was stolen or whatever ). Her credibility is about as good as Tanisha Williams, which is zero.

And I won't say that she was cooking up a conspiracy while she was filming her video. But I believe she was absolutely aware of the $6,000,000 paydays of Eric Garner and Freddie Gray.
post #5889 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post


I also said to assess credibility. If you are observing the dude and you see he's got a gun, then the person screaming, "he doesn't have a gun" ain't so credible. While someone screaming "he's got TBI" isn't the typical shit you just make up in the heat of he moment, which makes it more credible.

Isn't this what likely happened? She said first he doesn't have a gun. The police saw the gun before she was claiming TBI. Most initial reports said that the police saw the gun and Scott got back in his car. This was before her utterances and her video.

Oh well, all the tapes and evidence are not all in. I'll take the high road and admit it's possible the police planted the gun, and tampered with fingerprints and DNA as some claim. And as Tanisha Williams says, I'll withhold judgement on whether it was really a white cop that killed Scott.
post #5890 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

 

Damn that is pretty dirty.

 

How did the jury side with the sherrifs? I dont get it.

post #5891 of 6081

Last night on Bill Maher they played this video, except they started it after he had been warned six or seven times to drop the gun. I'm wondering what the wife was referring to when she said "Keith, don't do it. Don't you do it, don't you do it."
post #5892 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.

Its relevant for exactly the reason I said it was: it could explain Scott's behavior.
post #5893 of 6081
I watched the cop video: I like how they shoot him and then handcuff him. Is that what the boys in blue do these days as standard operating procedure? Nice. If an ambulance arrives, will they uncuff him right there for the medics, or do they have to book his corpse down at the station house first before he gets medical treatment? I honestly don't know.
post #5894 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats View Post

I watched the cop video: I like how they shoot him and then handcuff him. Is that what the boys in blue do these days as standard operating procedure? Nice. If an ambulance arrives, will they uncuff him right there for the medics, or do they have to book his corpse down at the station house first before he gets medical treatment? I honestly don't know.

Welcome to stuff we were talking about in this thread in 2014.
post #5895 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Welcome to things ataturk has been defending since 2014.
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?