Crime Sacramento County Sheriff deserves a tip of the hat

[irish_thug]

When did I say I write fiction? I have posted short stories before when some in the old OT crew requested something that wasn’t police stories. But that one thread about my experiences had over 50k readings and none of it was fiction. That one thread garnered more reads than anything you have ever posted here.

That thread made me an OT regular.

 

[Joshuaace]

It must really suck to be so gotten to that you can’t help but run your cocksucker even when you’re not involved in the conversation.

The thread is about a shooting by the Sacremento Sheriff. I looked, but failed to see where you made a single comment about the thread topic.

I called this video out for being a distraction away from the real issue and being a shit briefing in post #10. The high speed chase over a traffic infraction endangered multiple lives needlessly. Including the innocent civilian biker who was crashed at high speed, damn near stabbed, and had a dozen bullets fly by him just because some ego driven shithead with a badge prioritized apprehending the traffic violator over the safety of the public at large.

You care to defend the chase?

 

[nhbbear]

If there is an officer involved shooting, this is the type of community outreach post that needs to occur to keep the faith in the deputies/officers. After watching this post there was no doubt in my mind that the right actions occurred and for the right reasons.

I agree with your assessment that critical incident briefs are the right way to go. I don’t have an issue with the actual use of force, especially the second volley of shots when he was obviously trying to kill the biker.

I am glad the biker survived, but it shouldn’t have even happened in the first place. Unless the traffic violation was putting the community in danger aside from the initial infractions, this pursuit shouldn’t have occurred for several reasons. There is no information on what the traffic infraction that prompted the attempted traffic stop and the pursuit, but a traffic infraction should never be the reason a police pursuit occurs. The suspect reached speeds of 122 mph and put the general public in more danger than a driver committing traffic violations. Those speeds are insane, and aside from the biker that was seriously injured, many others on that busy highway were also placed in serious jeopardy as well as the officers themselves.

Another issue is that you have a motorcycle cop initiating and remaining in a vehicle pursuit. Motorcycle cops shouldn’t be used in pursuits because of the potential risks of wrecking the motorcycle. If he wrecks at those speeds, he would most certainly be at the very least, very seriously injured and probably killed. My old department even had policy restrictions against pursuing suspects on motorcycles because of the risk of serious injuries or death unless they are being pursued for a very serious crime. It is simply not worth it for a traffic violation.

I used to be opposed to terminating pursuits because the idea of some asshole fleeing in a vehicle and willing to risk the lives of others getting away. Once I became a supervisor and basically became responsible for the actions of other officers, I became very reluctant to allow pursuits unless the crime was serious and the suspect would pose a greater risk should he/she be allowed to get away than the risks associated with a vehicle pursuit. I am talking about crimes like murder/attempted murder, armed robbery, or kidnapping.

I have ordered the termination of quite a few pursuits and have even terminated pursuits I was involved in. A couple of times, when I ordered my officers to terminate a pursuit, the officers got really pissed off at me. One in particular was a traffic violation that was high speed chase and was headed into another state and I called it off. The officers knew who he was, a big time shithead that is currently serving a life sentence for murder. Anyway, a couple of the officers were running their mouth about it and I walked in the room to tell them to stow it and explained why I called it. One officer continued to mouth off and it was one of the few times I wrote an officer up, this time for insubordination. A couple of the guys didn’t speak to me for almost a week because they were so pissed off, playing the “what if” game-as in “what if he had guns and drugs in the car? What if he just murdered or shot someone? You can’t play the what if game, you can only act on the information you have at the time of the incident-in this case, it was a traffic violation and driving on a suspended license. Plus, we knew who he was and just got warrants for him. Of course it sucked to have to let him get away, but I wasn’t going to allow officers under my command to pursue a traffic violation that was entering another state because it would be really hard to justify that to another agency over traffic violations and we knew his identity.


One of the last pursuits I was involved in was a guy that stole a vehicle and drove right at me and I had to get out of the way or he would have hit me head-on. I began the pursuit and he got onto some narrow roads in a residential area. He was driving like an absolute maniac and I was so caught up in the pursuit that I didn’t quite realize that the risks outweighed the need to catch him. Often, when officers get into vehicle pursuits, they are so focused on apprehending the suspect that they don’t realize that they are putting the public at serious risk. I was a lieutenant at the time and was the highest ranked officer working that shift. Again, blinded by the pursuit, I wasn’t thinking about anything other than catching this asshole. My first sergeant actually advised terminating the pursuit and even though I outranked him, I heeded his advice on this particular incident, especially after the guy drove off a two foot wall and began driving on a walking path. We eventually figured out his identity when his ex reported that he had stolen her vehicle and when he eventually returned it, the vehicle had a lot of damage from driving off the wall and even had a big chunk of mud and grass wedged in the front bumper from the landing off the wall. Also, when I was telling my wife about the pursuit, my oldest who was probably 5 or 6 at the time came up with a plan to catch the bad guy by putting out a plate of chicken and hiding behind a tree and when he was eating the chicken, he and I would jump on him. Years later, my son became friends with the guy’s son and it felt awkward when he came to our house to hang out, but the guy had very little to do with his son because, well, shitheads are often dead-beat fathers.

Anyway, this pursuit shouldn’t have happened and definitely should have been terminated when speeds reached above 85, which was always my cutoff point. But the actual shooting was good-impressive actually, hitting him as he stabbed downward at an innocent victim. Just my $.02.

 

[nhbbear]

That thread made me an OT regular.

Don’t tell @Joshuaace that-he says I was never a cop and made shit up. But thanks, I put quite a lot of time into that thread and really enjoyed writing about those experiences and it was kind of cathartic and helped me process some of the more traumatic incidents

 

[nhbbear]

The thread is about a shooting by the Sacremento Sheriff. I looked, but failed to see where you made a single comment about the thread topic.

I called this video out for being a distraction away from the real issue and being a shit briefing in post #10. The high speed chase over a traffic infraction endangered multiple lives needlessly. Including the innocent civilian biker who was crashed at high speed, damn near stabbed, and had a dozen bullets fly by him just because some ego driven shithead with a badge prioritized apprehending the traffic violator over the safety of the public at large.

You care to defend the chase?

I was actually tagged in this thread and responded to those posts. I actually didn’t even realize this wasn’t the use of force thread until I responded to your last post running your mouth. When I saw the thread title, I went and watched the video and posted my thoughts on it. I actually don’t agree with the chase and was pretty clear about that. The actual shooting was good, but the chase wasn’t. I am sure you’re probably going to argue that the shooting was bad because the chase was bad and fruit of poisonous tree and all that. But I don’t agree with the chase involving a bike cop, I don’t agree with the chase for a traffic violation, I don’t agree that the chase wasn’t terminated-especially when it hit speeds over 100, and I don’t agree with the officers-or their supervisor, for probably violating quite a few policies involving chases.

 

[Joshuaace]

Don’t tell @Joshuaace that-he says I was never a cop and made shit up. But thanks, I put quite a lot of time into that thread and really enjoyed writing about those experiences and it was kind of cathartic and helped me process some of the more traumatic incidents

You openly bragged about posting on Sherdog on the taxpayers dime. At best, you were a lazy ass pos if you were a Government employee. A decade later you are bragging about how many "views" the thread got like it's a noteworthy life accomplishment being a lazy ass. lmao

Ok. I got five stories out yesterday on tax payer dollar. Going fo five mo today. I got coffee and nos, so I should be good for a while.

The actual shooting was good, but the chase wasn’t.

This aint a riddle about Chickens and Eggs. The out of policy chase clearly came first here. This aint the fotpt doctrine, that's about evidence derived from tainted evidence. Causal chain of events is what I believe you are getting at though,and you can't break it. This isn't a good shoot. It is necessitated in large part because the officers not following policy directly jeopardized lives. But then you've said you don't really give a shit about policy. You've also demonstrated as much by pounding out stories on Sherdog while on someone's time clock.

 

[nhbbear]

You openly bragged about posting on Sherdog on the taxpayers dime. At best, you were a lazy ass pos if you were a Government employee. A decade later you are bragging about how many "views" the thread got like it's a noteworthy life accomplishment being a lazy ass. lmao






This aint a riddle about Chickens and Eggs. The out of policy chase clearly came first here. This aint the fotpt doctrine, that's about evidence derived from tainted evidence. Causal chain of events is what I believe you are getting at though,and you can't break it. This isn't a good shoot. It is necessitated in large part because the officers not following policy directly jeopardized lives. But then you've said you don't really give a shit about policy. You've also demonstrated as much by pounding out stories on Sherdog while on someone's time clock.

Jesus, you’re whining about me posting at work again? As I told your douche ass the last time you thought you hit a home run with this point, the chief wanted the senior sergeant working the front desk instead of a lower ranking officer as had been done in the past. This was so a sergeant was at the station to handle officer complaints, call prosecutors (those would be the lawyers that aren’t scumbags trying to get criminals off) when needed, call out magistrates, have the keys to the gun safe, etc. eventually, this chief hired civilians and retired officers to work the front desk, but that took him a few years to do, and before that, he adjusted his rule of it being the senior sergeant so I was able to be back on the road again. I only wrote on midnights. I had Friday/sat off, so the only night where we were busy was Thursdays, but on day and afternoon shift, it was way too busy. Guys read books, played computer games, and the chief put a tv at the front desk, and ok’d solitaire/card games on the front desk computer. The station was basically a ghost town most midnights with very few phone calls coming in, very few people coming in to file reports, and nothing else to do-but you’re trying to claim some kind of scandal because I posted on a forum instead of watching reruns on the tv like everyone else did. Shut the fuck up about it already.

As far as being lazy, before I was a supervisor and had other duties, I picked the worst neighborhoods as my assignment six years in a row because I liked the action and I liked arresting the shitbags you love to defend and try to release back on the streets to victimize others. I was always in the top five for arrests and in the top 3 for most felony arrests. Per the constitution, everyone is entitled to a competent defense (not that you could mount one), but in my and most other Americans’ experiences, defense attorneys are the sleaziest next to personal injury lawyers that have billboards asking if you were hurt in an accident. Instead, your billboard would read “are you a criminal that enjoys hurting people? Rape, murder, child abuse-we do it all! Give us a call so we can get you back on the streets to victimize innocent people.”

As for this incident, no, I am referring to the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree. I know it refers to evidence, but I clearly meant it in the manner that because the chase was bad, the use of force had to be bad. That’s complete bullshit.

The chase shouldn’t have happened, but it did and after the crash and this shithead’s attempt to murder someone, I guess you would rather the cops not prevent that murder because they violated policy, or we are assuming they violated policy. I am not looking up this department’s policies to hunt for their pursuit policy, but most departments have nixed chases for most crimes because of the risks to the general public. I understand that, and as I mentioned in my response to the incident, I have called off many pursuits when I was a supervisor.

When I first became a cop, that wasn’t the case. If someone ran, you chased them. I very clearly remember my first two car chases-my first one was within my first week in uniform-also the first time I pointed a gun at anyone, so that was interesting. My second chase, I was the one driving this time, and it was basically a traffic violation plus some reckless driving as this dick ran two red lights at 80 mph in the downtown are with a speed limit of 25, and almost took out another vehicle-but this was 2003, and the criminal justice system was still concerned with arresting and convicting criminals for their actions rather than what we have now with either ignoring crimes, dropping charges, or no jail/prison time because….social justice reasons and catch and release policies pushed by progressive DAs, which is working out really great in places like Philly, for example. I was in that area last week, and while I avoided that shitty city, even the formerly really nice Doylestown is starting to become infested.

But I get and agree with not putting lives at risk in a pursuit because of minor crimes. If their policy is to not chase for minor crimes, then they violated policy unless they asked a supervisor for permission to chase, and if granted, they didn’t violate policy. We had to ask permission to chase and you would inform your supervisor of the crime committed, the area, the speed, and the traffic conditions and they/we made the call to continue or terminate. I very rarely ok’d the pursuits. Hell, in some cities like Shitcago, the officers now have to ask permission for foot pursuits because a couple of armed criminals got shot and unlike the 600 hundred other fatal shootings in that city including those of children, the protesters were out in the streets for lifelong violent felons placing candles, signs, and teddy bears in the area that they were shot.

And all the video and articles say is that it was a traffic violation, but it doesn’t indicate whether it was a tail-light, stop sign, or more serious issues that would put the public at risk and possibly justify the decision to pursue.

And here you go again with the “I don’t give a ahit about policy” bullshit. We were discussing a use of force incident and we were arguing the legality of the shooting and whether charges should be brought against the officer. It was the guy that threw the brick at the officer after threatening to smash a woman’s head with it because she had the audacity to call the police on him for stealing from her store. Before you and I ever even engaged in that incident, I said they utilized bad tactics by being too close and that there were better options or tactics they should have used, but the shooting itself was not criminal and was a justified shooting. You kept bringing up policy and claimed that they violated department policy by engaging. You wrongly claimed they didn’t try to deescalate, which they did and I correctly pointed out where they did. You made a stereotype that the guy probably didn’t understand English because he was Hispanic (it’s gotta be against defense attorney policy to make statements that are racist-but you guys don’t really have a soul, so maybe not). I pointed out that even a retarded defense attorney could understand that when a gun is pointed at you, whether you understand English or not, there is no language barrier that would prohibit even the dumbest motherfucker from not understanding that if you try to kill a cop, you could get shot-but then, I almost forgot, you tried to argue that the guy was justified in trying to kill the officer because he pointed his gun at him. I argued, rightfully, that the guy already threatened to kill the woman that called police, therefore, drawing a firearm was justified. You then tried to argue that that was also against policy claiming that a brick was not a deadly weapon and pulling a gun was against policy. I handed you your ass by providing several incidents proving that a brick can kill-which I didn’t even have to do because deadly force is anything that can cause serious injury or death, and only a troglodyte would argue that a brick can’t do either of those things.

And I said I didn’t give a shit what the policy said because we were discussing if the cops should be charged with murder, which is absurd. Policy violations are internal disciplinary issues and have nothing to do with criminal charges. You won’t get charged with a crime for violating departmental policy unless the violation of that policy ends up being a criminal act. You were trying to argue that because the officers engaged and were too close, they put themselves in jeopardy and “created the deadly force scenario” therefore, they are guilty of murder. I honestly don’t know how you can type some of the shit you do with a straight face, but then, your whole job and success is determined by getting violent criminals back onto the streets with as little accountability as possible, and hey, if they face no repercussions for their actions, even better.

 

[Joshuaace]

Brief did it's job of distraction, but it's a shit brief.

For lack of better words, Wolffscott does the Cops a favor here. If the police arrest him without incident after the crash, The conversation we would be having is whether the pursuit is good. An innocent civilian was almost killed in the process of the police apprehending someone for a traffic violation. He was going to be collateral damage whether Wolffscott got shot, or not.

@kyrieannas_mawm
(Caution, viewer discretion a man dies in the video in this thread)This is my reaction to the first critical incident brief I saw from SacSheriff. It is also why the YT algorythm suggested the video of KyrieAnna.