Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's just BS. I grew up in public school in LA. There were busts all the time, but they weren't akin to a 4th ID raid. And they weren't fishing expeditions either. The cops merely came to the class, grabbed the student/suspect, walked him (yes it was always a him) out, searched his person and locker, and took appropriate action.

This is just some stupid fucks who are not conditioned to dealing with these issues, so they overreached.

Granted, this school, and the accompanying cops and admins, weren't your basic inner-city, or even sophisticated suburb, types.

But, they watched the activity for weeks on vids, apparently seeing what they thought were drug sales going on at certain times.

Plus, the snitch word was, drugs were being bought and sold at that certain time of day, in that hallway.

So, they basically swarmed that hallway at that time. Sounds at least defensible to me.

(But, like I said, if you're really arguing with the "guns drawn" bit, I can't go there, 'cuz I think they fucked up bad in that respect.)

(Re: LA - which schools? So did I.)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree. Totally not called for and IMHO a violation of civil rights due to being overbroad.

Two things, and I'm serious here...

1.) In my vast experience, I've never heard of a cop being charged with a civil rights violation merely for pulling his gun out of his holster and pointing it at someone. Never.

2.) In the world of professional policing, a specific guideline that is told to someone is that they are only to pull their gun if they already have reason to fire it.

I too was appalled to see these guys with their guns drawn for an extended period in a school, given that not one of them had been given any reason to open fire on anyone. Of course, the milage may vary for the guideline, like if you are a state trooper in the south and your closest backup is 5 or 10 minutes away on a traffic stop.

I've got stories too. Someone I know once rolled up on a mexican firing a tec 9 in the air in front of a house, with about 20 people standing around. Her and her partner were not on a call, they just on-viewed it. They skid to a stop just down the street and jump out. While the partner has her gun out covering the crowd for a few minutes, the person I know ran up on the person who had the tec 9. He has his back turned on her and the gun isn't in sight, but neither are his hands (its wintertime and he's wearing a puffy jacket). She yells at him to drop the gun and turn around. She hears "no entiendo, no entiendo", but she doesn't see his hands and he's not turning around.

They had called it in, so out of the corner of her eyes she sees numerous backups roaring towards her from every direction.

She keeps her gun on the guy.

One of the first backups jumps out and an absolutely huge coworker (6'3, 230, well built) jumps out, runs over, and pounces on the guy whose hands still weren't showing.

The tec 9 is tucked into his waistband.

Meantime, 10 or 15 other units had shown up. They bring the guy with the tec 9 into custody by, of course, cuffing him.

9 of the first 10 backup officers, ever sergeant on the watch, the field lieutenant and the watch commander all told the person I know that she not only had the right to shoot the guy, but that she affirmatively should have have shot the guy since he wouldn't show his hands and she knew he had a machine-gun-of-sorts 5 seconds before she jumped out of her car.

The way it was explained to her, just like her training, was that she had her gun out (properly), so she damn well better be willing to use it.

Like the rest of you (apparently), I'd be pissed if someone was pointing a gun at my kid for no good reason. I'd be more than pissed.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Two things, and I'm serious here...

My bil held a guy at gunpoint one night, same kind of situation, and the guy ended up spinning, pulling out a 9, and taking someone's hand off at the wrist before he got shot down. bil got a reprimand.

But then, this year, bil shot and killed a guy in a meth lab bust who refused to take his hand out of a drawer. Sounds bloodthirsty, right? Turns out, guy had killed a cop down south in the same situation three years ago, and had his gun in the drawer next to his hand. bil got a promo and a medal, and a convert to this new way of thinking - me.

[baltassoc]

So I don't frequent this board much, but I'm wondering, how many people here have had a gun pointed at them by a police officer without provocation*? For me, it's been twice. But then again, I grew up in the South. I also had my locker in high school quasi-randomly** searched for drugs.

These events have lead me to have strong feelings. First is that most cops shouldn't have guns. Second is that the Fourth Amendment, to the extent it exists in the United States, is a good thing.

Guns drawn needlessly are about intimidation. Intimidation is about fear, and every good Star Wars fan knows that fear leads to hatred. People wonder why youth hate cops; all they have to do is look at that tape.

I'm with bilmore. If I ever find out a cop points a gun at the baltspawn without provocation, I'm going off the hook.

*By provocation I mean something on the order of hello's standard, i.e. the officer has some rational reason to believe his or someone else's safety is threatened. I'm assuming there are few people who are going to say that yes a cop pointed a gun at him, but he deserved it.

**A say quasi-randomly because it was supposed to be random, but for some reason only the lockers of the the people I hung out with were searched. One principal just really couldn't stand us (I suppose it had something to do with a friend who called him a cocksucker in the middle of a school assembly), and was very disappointed when the search didn't turn up any of the drugs he just knew were there. The irony is that none of the group of friends touched drugs until college.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
So I don't frequent this board much, but I'm wondering . . .

I frequent it too much, and I'm still wondering.

. . . how many people here have had a gun pointed at them by a police officer without provocation*?

Me, probably fifteen times at least, mostly pre-teen in great parts of LA.

These events have lead me to have strong feelings. First is that most cops shouldn't have guns.

Strongly disagree. We are not all nice, polite suburbanites. I have fought off people with long kitchen knives, small arms, and pipes who merely wanted money. My money, or my employer's money. Cops need to be armed. But, cops need to be qualified, and smart, and correctly motivated.

Second is that the Fourth Amendment, to the extent it exists in the United States, is a good thing.

I don't know. I remember praying that they wouldn't shoot me. Does that count?

Guns drawn needlessly are about intimidation. Intimidation is about fear, and every good Star Wars fan knows that fear leads to hatred. People wonder why youth hate cops; all they have to do is look at that tape.

Guns drawn are about power, and, in a civilized society (which is sometimes civilized against its individual will), the individual anarchist needs to be controlled with power, if it is threatening others. We give cops the discretion to determine when that's happening. We have to. I still buy the Thin Blue Line theory. But, we need to value cops more, and pay them more, and attract a more reliable and comforting class of people.

I'm with bilmore. If I ever find out a cop points a gun at the baltspawn without provocation, I'm going off the hook.

I'll be there out of simple tribalism/spawn-protection, while acknowledging the utility of armed cops.

(I will add - never speed through a very small town in northern Wisconsin late at night/early in the morning on a motorcycle going somewhere over 120 mph if you haven't shaved for a few days. You WILL test this "good cops don't shoot first" theory.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think this principal should be woodshedded for having thought that a bunch of cops with guns drawn posed less of a threat to students' health and safety than any other alternative.

I agree that the administration is principally to blame. You can't expect a bunch of cops called in to conduct an putative drug bust to behave too much differently when the venue is a high school hallway than when it is a crack house. They are trained to follow certain procedures for good reason, and their lives force them to assess everyone as a potential threat and view any situation with an eye towards spotting and preempting the danger.

If the admin. really had reliable word that students on that buswould be bringing drugs to school -- it might have been much smarter and less disruptive/intrusive to simply bring in the dogs to sniff all the lockers while the kids are in class. And/or to set up a team by the entrance to the cafeteria. (or just about anything other than putting 200 kids on the ground with their hands up and their bookbags in the middle of the hall, in front of other students not being searched, while the principal struts up and down the hall and shouts orders.

Then the weak-ass claim is that the principal had no idea the cops would handle it that way. B.S.

If that was my local school, you can guarantee my children would never go there under that administrator. Lousy judgment.

I'll have to discuss this case with my little brother (who is now Vice-Principal of a public H.S. in charge of discipline -- talk about a cosmic irony). I'm sure he's horrified.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you know, constructive criticism does include a helping component...

You should have used "tenet." Like, George Tenet or Tenet Healthcare Corp.

I look forward to you now turning around and accusing me of patronizing you. All in a fun Wednesday evening. It is Wednesday, is it not?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Granted, this school, and the accompanying cops and admins, weren't your basic inner-city, or even sophisticated suburb, types.

But, they watched the activity for weeks on vids, apparently seeing what they thought were drug sales going on at certain times.

Plus, the snitch word was, drugs were being bought and sold at that certain time of day, in that hallway.

So, they basically swarmed that hallway at that time. Sounds at least defensible to me.

(But, like I said, if you're really arguing with the "guns drawn" bit, I can't go there, 'cuz I think they fucked up bad in that respect.)

(Re: LA - which schools? So did I.)

If they had vids, then they knew who was selling, right? So tailor your response to those that are dealing. You know what classes they have and when, pull the kids out (under what ever pretences you need) and search them and their locker.

[edited to add]

This is in no way to suggest I am not pro-cop. I am. They have an extremely difficult job to do, especially in the big cites, and especially in LA, where the sheer space they have to cover is impossible without at least adding another 20,000.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I agree that the administration is principally to blame. You can't expect a bunch of cops called in to conduct an putative drug bust to behave too much differently when the venue is a high school hallway than when it is a crack house. They are trained to follow certain procedures for good reason, and their lives force them to assess everyone as a potential threat and view any situation with an eye towards spotting and preempting the danger.


S_A_M

Again, I'm calling bullshit. This is not a friggin crack den. It is a school in a butt fuck town. You may have an argument if this was say, the south side of Chicago, but it's not. Hell, most of these cops are probably related to at least 2 students.

Most cops are not robots. They are professionals. I see this as just a bunch of toy cops happy to have an excuse to finally "draw."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Two things, and I'm serious here...

1.) In my vast experience, I've never heard of a cop being charged with a civil rights violation merely for pulling his gun out of his holster and pointing it at someone. Never.

I didn't mean they could be charged I meant they should be charged. And it wasn't just the gun thing, it was the privacy invasion (wait, did I just say that, I meant the indiscriminate search).

[Hank Chinaski]

Clark says Bush should be attending funerals; not clear if he means all of them, I mean he has his own jet and all, but still.

Bush says he feels that leaving the family to grieve privately would be better. I can appreciate this position. I wouldn't mind meeting Dan Rather, but not under those circumstances.

Why is this an issue? I think some of you have called this out. Could someone explain why this is anything more than a made up way to Bush-bash.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Clark says Bush should be attending funerals; not clear if he means all of them, I mean he has his own jet and all, but still.

Bush says he feels that leaving the family to grieve privately would be better. I can appreciate this position. I wouldn't mind meeting Dan Rather, but not under those circumstances.

Why is this an issue? I think some of you have called this out. Could someone explain why this is anything more than a made up way to Bush-bash.

I was under the impression that Bush attending funerals would be a really bad idea during war time. Bad for national morale, bad for troop morale, bad by giving publicity to any damage done by enemies, bad by advertising that the US is so casualty intollerant that the President goes to troop funerals, so killing more troops is a good way to pressure the US to cut it out. Presidents don't go to soldiers' funerals during conflicts. They just don't.

Or: anything that calls attention to or highlights troop casualties is, strategically, a bad thing. Meaning strategically in terms of military/war on terrorism strategy. That this also might serve Bush-reelection strategy is a perhaps unwelcome side-effect, but a side-effect nevertheless. I am pretty surprised Clark is the one saying this, but much of the distaste for him in the military runs along the line that he was politically, not militarily, motivated.

I don't think it is a made-up bush bash, but I think (i) it has been a long time since the US has been in any serious longer-term military adventures and people have forgotten how they happen and (ii) the US really has become pretty casualty intollerant and a lot of people think that every soldier death should occasion a national day of mourning. Not that every one of them isn't horrible, but the big picture gets missed.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
One rule... if you call someone a Nazi or Hitler, w/o card carrying proof, you lose here. We'll let you go this time.*

I'm not trying to win anything. In fact, from my post, I think it's pretty obvious that I've already given up. You nazis win. Middle America decides where this country is headed and apparently they want to go backwards. Fine. Dig your own grave.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I don't think it is a made-up bush bash, but I think (i) it has been a long time since the US has been in any serious longer-term military adventures and people have forgotten how they happen and (ii) the US really has become pretty casualty intollerant and a lot of people think that every soldier death should occasion a national day of mourning. Not that every one of them isn't horrible, but the big picture gets missed.

Agree with everything you said, except the "its not made up bashing"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ush/index.html

He added, "We've got a president who will go halfway around the world for a photo opportunity but won't go halfway across town for a funeral for an American serviceman.

"I've been to those funerals. I've comforted families. ... I don't think you can make good policy at the top if you don't understand the impact at the bottom of your organization."

Bush has on only two or three occasions met with the families of fallen servicemen and women, most recently at Fort Carson, Colorado, and he has not attended funerals or greeted caskets returning from Iraq.

A senior administration official told The Washington Post in November, "The president believes funerals are a time for grieving families to be together and mourn their loved ones and celebrate their lives, and he has not felt comfortable intruding on that."

This is a general saying this. He knows all of what you say is true, but he still says it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I'm not trying to win anything. In fact, from my post, I think it's pretty obvious that I've already given up. You nazis win. Middle America decides where this country is headed and apparently they want to go backwards. Fine. Dig your own grave.

My wife and children are Jewish. I don't think of myself as a Nazi. I must admit, I don't like my in-laws, but that's dislike as individuals, not the group.