Joe Guy wrote:Everybody, not just cops, should assume a firearm is loaded whether they or someone else is holding it - and especially when some nut job is carrying one. The probationary cop was wrong, not because he didn't kill the suspect but because he didn't follow orders and proper police procedure. Apparently, it's not the first time he's done that so he was fired for it.
If the media had reported the event like this: Today a suicidal man with a gun was shot dead, it wouldn't have gotten enough attention. Throwing in the fact that a cop was fired for disobeying orders gets a lot more people riled up and complaining about cops - which is the motive for the article.
Cops bad.
Suspects acting out with guns are just having a bad day and need coddling.
Joe Guy wrote:Everybody, not just cops, should assume a firearm is loaded whether they or someone else is holding it - and especially when some nut job is carrying one.
He did not assume that the gun was not loaded. He judged that neither he nor anyone other than the suicidal man was an intended target of violence. If the guy began running back into the house where his ex-girlfriend and her child were for the moment safely ensconced, or if he had made some motion to point the gun at the cop, then the cop's response would obviously had been very different.
And I don't buy that "proper police procedure" dictates that anyone with a gun in their hand be shot on sight irrespective of any assessment of the potential danger to others, that's bullshit.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
I suspect that he will soon be hired by a different department with wiser supervisors who value officers with judgement and better 'people skills'. He took a risk and saved a life doing so. That is a hero.
Scooter wrote:
He did not assume that the gun was not loaded. He judged that neither he nor anyone other than the suicidal man was an intended target of violence. If the guy began running back into the house where his ex-girlfriend and her child were for the moment safely ensconced, or if he had made some motion to point the gun at the cop, then the cop's response would obviously had been very different.
And I don't buy that "proper police procedure" dictates that anyone with a gun in their hand be shot on sight irrespective of any assessment of the potential danger to others, that's bullshit.
That's not my point. The cop was not fired because he failed to kill someone. He was fired because he had a history of not following orders and/or proper police procedure and this was his third strike.
The article was written to incite people to criticize the police like it appears to have done with you. It worked.
Show me this "history of not following orders", because I have read several articles about this and have never seen anything that could remotely be characterized in this way.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Scooter wrote:Show me this "history of not following orders", because I have read several articles about this and have never seen anything that could remotely be characterized in this way.
In one of the documents that you linked there was a letter from the Chief to the Mayor that referenced other incidents of "conduct unbecoming" an officer.
No, you said specifically that he had a history of "not following orders". Show me.
ETA - on second thought, spare me the next iteration of the tap dance, because there is nothing you can find that will say that he ever disobeyed an order, which is what you claim he did.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
"Not Following Procedure" Procedure is the result of combined experience which produces 'best practices' for similar situations, to inform individuals so they need not rely on their own judgement in their performance of work activities. BUT. They should not be written in stone. When a worker finds a better way, it should be incorporated into those procedures to accomplish better results in the future.
There was a management system developed in Japan after WWII based on the work of a US government engineer and statistician. It had some popularity about 30 years ago in the USA as American managers began to note the improvement in success of Japan across the world. A key factor in that system was that exceptional workers were bad for management. 'Everybody' knew lousy workers were bad and had no trouble firing them. But this system included idea that really great workers should also be fired. The really good ones also messed up your overall planning by doing better than expected.
There was in the USofA a program established to recognize and reward with big trophies and news stories those companies that achieved the greatest degree of compliance to these wonderful management principles. Things began slipping when it was also noticed that those award-winning companies also were falling behind the competition after winning the award. This management system quietly slid into obscurity. W. Edwards Deming is still held in high esteem in Japan but in the USA remembered today mostly for his work on the importance of representative samples in statistical controls.
The local police in American are a quasi-military organization. There is little room for the probationary newbie who has better grasp of what is needed in a shoot/don't shoot situation than is provided by existing procedures. The examples of poor judgement prior to this shooting were an unverified complaint that he used impolite language during a traffic stop and that he followed the advice of two more experienced officers when he reported a death as not likely due to wrong-doing. Yes, the system has every right to fire him. That is what it means to be a probationer. You don't embarrass the boss and make the system look bad if you are the newbie and expect to survive.
Scooter wrote:No, you said specifically that he had a history of "not following orders". Show me.
ETA - on second thought, spare me the next iteration of the tap dance, because there is nothing you can find that will say that he ever disobeyed an order, which is what you claim he did.
It doesn't matter whether or not I can find evidence that he disobeyed an order. You're not addressing my response to the statement that you made. He was not "fired for refusing to slaughter suicidal man". He had been disciplined several times prior to this incident and afterwards his superiors decided he wasn't fit for the job.
Burning Petard wrote:"... A key factor in that system was that exceptional workers were bad for management. 'Everybody' knew lousy workers were bad and had no trouble firing them. But this system included idea that really great workers should also be fired. The really good ones also messed up your overall planning by doing better than expected. ..."
...
snailgate.
I've never seen the idea in Deming's work that exceptionally good workers should be fired. Do you have a reference?
Deming's ideas about Quality have become embedded in many areas of business like TQL, Six Sigma, and even ISO.
I don't think either of those are a consensus here, and I especially don't think anyone has said either (but feel free to point out where either was said if you can find it).
personally, I think the two camps here are:
Nothing went wrong, so he should not be fired (for a variety of reasons from suggesting he is one of the only good cops who is not bloodthirsty to he showed up his superiors and their blood lust)
Nothing went wrong, but something could have, and this guy took a chance with other lives that he should not have taken (maybe justifying his firing, maybe less of a penalty).
The real problem is that we don't know any details of the cop's record and any lapses in judgment, nor do we really know what happened here--did he freeze and force the other cop to take the shot? Did h.is failure to act force the other cop to take another shot that might have injured someone else? Was he really trying to save the guy from his bloodthirsty partners? We just don't know
We also know that the chief withheld vital information about the incident from the press for several days, then stalled an investigation into the incident by appointing an investigator who immediately went on vacation, then lied to the press about the status of the officers involved. That makes him objectively untrustworthy and calls his judgment into question.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
rubato wrote:I suspect that he will soon be hired by a different department with wiser supervisors who value officers with judgement and better 'people skills'. He took a risk and saved a life doing so. That is a hero.
