And now it's OK to rough up SUSPECTS

[Guinevere]

I'd bet it's that they're entitled to a full hearing before they can be terminated; I know that's the case in many teacher's contracts, so I presume it's the same with cops. I've been involved in some teacher hearings, and there is even a limited discovery period.

But so far as I can see, there is no reason they should not be arrested for assault and battery. But somehow I'd bet they won't be.

Correct. They have substantive and procedural due process rights in their civil service jobs that requires a hearing before deprivation of those rights. And any appointing authority worth its salt will also conduct a full and complete investigation prior to taking action - they would be fools not to.

For example, in Massachusetts, a Chief may only award up to a 5-day suspension without a hearing first. Anything beyond that must go the appointing authority for a full hearing before action can be taken. So you put them on paid administrative leave, investigate, then call a hearing.

Further complicating the process is the layer of potential criminal charges and criminal investigation. Often an internal investigation cannot be completed if criminal liability is involved because the respondent will not answer any questions, asserting his or her fifth amendment rights. Victims also may not want to cooperate with both the internal investigation and with the criminal process, and typically we defer to the AG and their proceedings. Letting the criminal proceeding play out first also makes sense because if there is a plea or conviction, it makes the subsequent employment proceeding more streamlined (but not always, and if there is an acquittal then it gets more complex).

So yes, it takes time and patience to do it correctly. But usually worth it in the end because only by doing it correctly will you properly document and support the reasons for termination and have that upheld by the reviewing arbitrator or court.

[BoSoxGal]

This incident took place in November 2016 - any administrative process should have run its course by now. Beyond that, contracts for law enforcement are not uniform all over the country, nor are state laws regarding employment. My county fired a deputy while I was in office, and a few of my CA colleagues went through the same experience, based on similar brutality evidence (yes, on tape in the jail - many cops are indeed stupid thugs) and there was no long drawn out administrative process required because the deputies had engaged in behavior that was not only in clear and indisputable violation of all department regulations, but was also criminal.

I think it's shameful if that kind of incident, caught on video, wouldn't result in a very swift process of termination here in Massachusetts. I'm all for employee rights, but it's disgusting to think the taxpayers would have to continue paying salary to such persons for a year or more after engaging in such brutality under color of a badge. I'll admit Montana could be redneck in some ways, but the ability to swiftly boot such a person from the county payroll wouldn't be one of them, IMHO. Some municipal employee protections go way too far.

[BoSoxGal]

I based my comments on the text, not having watched the video. Now that I have, I'm even more shocked that those officers are on paid administrative leave almost a year after this incident occurred - they were dealing with an inmate in a mental health crisis who was taken to a mental health facility after this torture session!

As a reminder, people DIE from being tazed. These incidents are deemed as 'relatively rare', but here's a November 2015 WashPo article which mentions 48 taser-related deaths in the US between January and November of that year. (The article details a similar incident and is worth reading; Taser International specifically advises in product guidelines against use of tasers on persons suffering a mental health crisis, due to diminished pain response of such persons.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... 6367f32a36

Repeatedly tazing (40 times!!) a restrained inmate who poses no physical threat to officers as a punishment for 'still flinching and 'resisting'', when said inmate hasn't done anything more than curse at fellow inmates and banged his head against his cell wall/door - that's fucking unconscionable!! The deputies I know of who were fired in Montana were fired 'merely' for physically striking restrained inmates - this is so grossly negligent it blows my mind that those fuckwits are still collecting salaries while an investigation is pursued. What's to fucking investigate?! It's on video, it's indisputable, there is no possible justification for that use of force! This is simply a case of incompetence in leadership within the sheriff's office, and an obvious unwillingness of the county commission and attorney to put appropriate pressure on the sheriff to do the right thing. They should be balancing the (unlikely) cost of paying back salary to any involved individual who is terminated for this clear violation of department policy versus the more likely payout to the victim and the incalculable cost of loss of public trust.

One of the firings that took place in a Montana county that I'm intimately aware of (a close friend and colleague was the CA and we talked extensively about the process as she dealt with it) involved a redneck sheriff who at first refused to terminate the deputy who engaged in the brutality - but after pressure from the CA and her referral of the incident to the AG's office for criminal prosecution, he finally relented and terminated the deputy. That process took at most a couple of months, and was noteworthy for taking so long and being such a mess. The gutless AG prosecution bureau chief declined to prosecute on BS reasoning - it was all political, they just didn't want to mess with a police brutality case involving holding a former deputy criminally responsible, how fucked up is that?! But there was some 'justice' in that the sheriff was voted out at the next election.

This is just a disgusting example of everything that is fucked up in our law enforcement system in this country, and implicating the local politicians and DAs/CAs who do next to nothing to bring any accountability to bear. Fucking shameful.

[Econoline]

(In case you didn't notice the logo in the upper-right-hand corner, or watch until the end when the logo becomes larger: it's from The Onion.)

[RayThom]

(In case you didn't notice the logo in the upper-right-hand corner, or watch until the end when the logo becomes larger: it's from The Onion.)

'The Onion' or not, I'm sure you know it was totally unnecessary for this disclaimer. I sure hope I'm right, anyway.

[BoSoxGal]

Sad to say I've had conversations with cops who basically bitched about videotaping of their interactions with citizens for pretty much the same reasons - civilians just don't understand the context, you see.

[Crackpot]

And they once again relaxed the rules for cops to buy military surplus.

[Sue U]

And they once again relaxed the rules for cops to buy military surplus.

Because it's apparently always a good idea to make your police department look and act like an occupying army at war with the neighborhood. Community relations, how does it work?

[Bicycle Bill]

And they once again relaxed the rules for cops to buy military surplus.

Because it's apparently always a good idea to make your police department look and act like an occupying army at war with the neighborhood. Community relations, how does it work?

Does anyone remember the videos of the standoff/shootout between the cops and the bank robbers in North Hollywood twenty or so years ago?  The cops made up their minds, and rightly so, that if the bad guys were going to go around in body armor, heavily armed and extremely dangerous, against cops in short-sleeve shirts packing nothing more powerful than their police-issue .38-caliber revolvers, then they needed to do whatever was necessary to not be at such a disadvantage again.

And if it took surplus military-grade material like body armor, M-16s, flash-bang grenades, armored vehicles, and maybe even the odd RPG or two to guarantee this, then so be it and I'm OK with it.

-"BB"-

[dales]

Those outgunned North Hollywood cops had to make use of AR-15's which they procured from a local gun shop.

Finally SWAT arrived with the proper armaments.

Over 1200 rnds were fired that day.

From Wiki:

Standard issue sidearms carried by most local patrol officers at the time were 9 mm pistols or .38 Special revolvers; some patrol cars were also equipped with a 12-gauge shotgun.

Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic Norinco Type 56 S-1s (an AK-47 variant), a Bushmaster XM15 Dissipator, and a HK-91 rifle with high capacity drum magazines as well as a Beretta 92FS pistol.

The bank robbers wore heavy plate mostly homemade body armor which successfully protected them from handgun rounds and shotgun pellets fired by the responding officers.

A police SWAT team eventually arrived bearing sufficient firepower, and they commandeered an armored truck to evacuate the wounded. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles from a nearby firearms dealer.

The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their firepower in preparation for similar situations in the future.[3] An officer was heard on the LAPD police frequency approximately 10-15 minutes into the shootout, warning other officers that they should "not stop [the getaway vehicle], they've got automatic weapons, there's nothing we have that can stop them."[4]

Due to the large number of injuries, rounds fired, weapons used, and overall length of the shootout, it is regarded as one of the longest and bloodiest events in American police history.[5]

Both men had fired approximately 1,100 rounds, while approximately 650 rounds were fired by police.[6] Another estimate is that a total of nearly 2,000 rounds were fired.[1]

[Burning Petard]

"Nothing we can do to stop them" Not even drive a ton of steel cop car into them. The cops had short sleeve shirts and no body armor because they chose to not wear it--it's too hot. The Beretta 92FS pistol is a 9mm pistol. Those police shotguns need not be loaded with number 7 bird shot. They could just as well been loaded with .30cal buck shot. This incident is a long lesson in bad marksmanship on the part of both sides and lousy tactics on the part of the cops. Both sides have learned alot since this incident. For example, it is a much better tactic now for bank robbers to do it from a distance with a computer.

snailgate

[BoSoxGal]

The problem is that incidents like that are exceedingly rare, and rather than leave the heavy armaments in storage until they are needed only for an incident like that, the psycho cops go toy crazy and use that shit to bulldoze into innocent people's homes or into crowds of innocent people exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Nothing good has come of the militarization of our police forces over the past 30 years, and the proof of that is in the news every single week.

Over 500 civilians killed by cops so far this year, well on the way to the 1000+ that has become the new normal in recent years.

[Econoline]

And now it's OK to rough up SUSPECTS NURSES??!!!?

(Oh, well...at least she didn't have to worry about being shot, since they "only shoot black people.")

Yeah, let's give these guys some more military weapons.

• Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being handcuffed after refusing to take blood from unconscious victim
  
  A nurse says she was assaulted and illegally arrested by a Salt Lake City police detective for following a hospital policy that does not allow blood draws from unconscious patients.
  
  Footage from University Hospital and officer body cameras shows Detective Jeff Payne and nurse Alex Wubbels in a standoff over whether the policeman should be allowed to get a blood sample from a patient who had been injured in a July 26 collision in northern Utah that left another driver dead.
  
  
  Wubbels says blood cannot be taken from an unconscious patient unless the patient is under arrest, unless there is a warrant allowing the draw or unless the patient consents. The detective acknowledges in the footage that none of those requirements is in place, but he insists that he has the authority to obtain the draw, according to the footage.
  
  At one point, Payne threatens to take Wubbels to jail if he doesn’t get the sample, and he accuses her of interfering with a criminal case.
  
  “I either go away with blood in vials or body in tow,” Payne says.
  
  After Wubbels consults with several hospital officials and repeats the policy, Payne tells her she is under arrest and grabs her, pulling her arms behind her back and handcuffing her. The footage shows the detective dragging Wubbels out of the hospital and putting her inside a patrol car as she screams, “Help! Help! Somebody help me! Stop! Stop! I did nothing wrong!”
  
  A University of Utah police officer and other officers, who provide security for the hospital, were present at time of the arrest and did not intervene.
  
  As he stands in the hospital parking lot after the arrest, Payne says to another officer that he wonders how this event will affect an off-duty job transporting patients for an ambulance company.
  
  “I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere,” Payne says.
  
  Parts of the footage were shown Thursday at a news conference at the office of Karra Porter, a Salt Lake City attorney representing Wubbels.
  
  Salt Lake police Sgt. Brandon Shearer said the department started an internal investigation, which is ongoing, in response to the incident.
  
  Payne was suspended from the department’s blood-draw program — where officers are trained as phlebotomists so they can get blood samples — but he remains on duty with the Police Department, Shearer said. The department also has held training for the officers in the program as a result of the incident, he said.
  
  In a written report, Payne said he was responding to a request from Logan police to get the blood sample, to determine whether the patient had illicit substances in his system at the time of the crash. Payne explained the “exigent circumstances and implied consent law” to Wubbels, but, according to his report, she said “her policies won’t allow me to obtain the blood sample without a warrant.”
  
  Payne — who says he wanted the blood sample to protect the patient, not punish him — said he was advised by Lt. James Tracy, the watch commander on duty that night, to arrest Wubbels for interfering with a police investigation if she refused to let him get the sample, according to his report.
  
  Tracy said in his report that he spoke on the phone with Wubbels and told her he believed that they had implied consent to get the sample, but she cut him off and said she would not allow the draw without a warrant. He then went to the hospital and tried to tell the nurse why she was in custody, but “she appeared to not want to hear my explanation,” Tracy wrote.
  
  Porter, however, said “implied consent” has not been the law in Utah since 2007, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the Constitution permits warrantless breath tests in drunken-driving arrests, but not warrantless blood tests. She stressed that the patient was always considered the victim in the case and never was suspected of wrongdoing.
  
  No claim or lawsuit has been filed, Porter said, but she has had discussions with Salt Lake City police and she believes the department will educate its officers.
  
  Wubbels said she has heard anecdotally of other health care workers being bullied and harassed by police, and that these videos prove that there is a problem.
  
  “I can’t sit on this video and not attempt to speak out both to re-educate and inform,” she said. Police agencies “need to be having conversations about what is appropriate intervention.”
  
  Wubbels, who was not charged, said she has watched the footage four or five times and said, “It hurts to relive it.”
  
  She never said “no” when Payne asked to take a blood sample; she merely explained the blood draw policy to him, according to Wubbels, who also said she was trying to keep her patient safe and do things the right way.
  
  Porter and Wubbels declined to release information about the patient, but Payne’s report identifies him as 43-year-old William Gray, a reserve officer in the Rigby, Idaho, Police Department, who suffered burns during a July 26 crash in Cache County.
  
  Gray is a truck driver when he is not serving as a reserve police officer, according to the Idaho State Journal. At about 2 p.m. on July 26, Gray was driving a semi north on State Road 89/91 near Sardine Canyon when a man fleeing from the Utah Highway Patrol crashed a pickup truck into him head-on, according to Logan police, who investigated the collision.
  
  The crash caused an explosion and fire, Logan police have said. Gray was on fire when he exited the semi. The driver of the pickup truck, Marcos Torres, 26, died at the scene.

[RayThom]

(Blood Nazi) Payne — who says he wanted the blood sample to protect the patient, not punish him..."

Bull fucking shit. Believe that and I got a bridge to sell you.

No entities lie more to the public or in court than the police. Police culture must change otherwise we are all doomed.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Don't be so sure, Ray. The patient is a reserve cop doing driving jobs otherwise. So is the Vampire Detective - cop and part-time driver. Might as well accuse him of wanting the blood to ensure that it was contaminated to make it useless as evidence - protect the brother in blue.

[BoSoxGal]

I can think of no good reason to demand a blood sample from the semi driver, who was clearly not at fault.

In any case, the nurse followed the law and the policy of the law enforcement agency, and now the arresting deputy is under criminal investigation.

Maybe, somehow, the recording of police misconduct by smartphone will someday bring about needed reforms. Keep recording and sharing, citizens!

[Lord Jim]

The statistics clearly show that the reform that would have the most immediate and dramatic impact on reducing instances of police misconduct would be to change the labor agreements that make it so difficult to get rid of problem cops.

I've posted stats like this before :

After years of litigation, a Chicago journalism group has unveiled a database of more than 50,000 misconduct cases dating back several years.

This week, the Invisible Institute made public its Citizens Police Data Project, which includes information about 56,361 misconduct cases made public last year by a court decision.

The website features information about cases filed against 8,559 police officers from 2002 to 2008 and from March 2011 through March 2015...

...Most officers, around 80 percent of the total force, have zero to four complaints, and approximately 90 percent receive zero to 10 complaints. But officers with more than 10 complaints — just 10 percent of all officers — have four times the amount of misconduct complaints per officer as the rest of the force.

http://www.austinweeklynews.com/News/Ar ... e-public-/

Sure, there are plenty of other things that can and should be done...

Better vetting at the time of hiring, better training and supervision, universal use of body cams, etc....

But when just 10% of the polices officers are garnering four times as many complaints as the other 90% combined, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the 800 pound gorilla in the room is if you really want to seriously address police misconduct...

It has to be made easier to get rid of problem cops...

That has to be #1 on the police reform list...

If you did everything else you could and didn't do that, you'd be lucky just to make a small dent in the problem...

Conversely if you did that, and didn't do anything else at all, (which I am not suggesting; there are certainly other things that need to be done.) you'd have a huge impact...