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.