Police shootings: Fact vs. Hollywood.

[JMoses]

With all the LEO hate and criticism here, I think many need to watch this.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-G1ApUEXcbo[/video]

 

[Denny347]

I watched this EXCELLENT video during our Leadership Academy. I will assume that those that really should watch this...will not.

 

[JMoses]

I watched this EXCELLENT video during our Leadership Academy. I will assume that those that really should watch this...will not.

I'd say that you're right, they won't WANT to watch it.

 

[Denny347]

That Institute does a lot of great work in their studies and experiments regarding police work.

 

[88GT]

What does Hollywood have to do with it? I can't recall the last time I evaluated the actions of LEO shooting based on what I saw from a Hollywood production?

Gawd. This is for the low-information idiots. Not INGOers. When was the last time an INGOer criticized a LEO shooting with the "Why didn't he just shoot the gun out of his hand?"

 

[Denny347]

What does Hollywood have to do with it? I can't recall the last time I evaluated the actions of LEO shooting based on what I saw from a Hollywood production?

Gawd. This is for the low-information idiots. Not INGOers. When was the last time an INGOer criticized a LEO shooting with the "Why didn't he just shoot the gun out of his hand?"

Ok, so not the ENTIRE video applies to ALL INGOERS. Regardless, there is still great information to take away from it.

 

[in625shooter]

What does Hollywood have to do with it? I can't recall the last time I evaluated the actions of LEO shooting based on what I saw from a Hollywood production?

Gawd. This is for the low-information idiots. Not INGOers. When was the last time an INGOer criticized a LEO shooting with the "Why didn't he just shoot the gun out of his hand?"

Hollywood is related because the gumps that won't get their own info believe what the different groups and media with an agenda pushes and those same ones jump on the bandwagon. Just like when a gun control story airs and they show film of someone shooting a full auto AK 47. You, me and the rest of INGO knows you can't just buy that at Gander Mountain and there are great lengths and costs you have to jump through to get one of which most of us mere mortals can't or wouldn't spend that much money.

 

[Que]

I don't believe this imfoation is anything new or unknown. It's really just common sense. As for verbal skills, I know first-hand there are officers who use terms such as "dirtbag" in my case, as opposed to "sir" in others, even when there is no threat or law being broken. If I were "that guy" I could have been offended and reacted wrong. Now, I know the courts of law and public opinion would say I was the instigator, but this is the issue with many of the concerns of the public. I don't like cop-haters, but I won't be a blind fan of the entire organization either.

 

[88GT]

Ok, so not the ENTIRE video applies to ALL INGOERS. Regardless, there is still great information to take away from it.

Agreed, but I still don't believe it is all that applicable to INGO. Despite the bellyaching in the OP, there's very little actual cop bashing on INGO. There is a lot of healthy criticism of current policies of police work, and there is undoubtedly always heavy scrutiny of a shooting when the circumstances leave open room for doubt that the shoot was justified. But in those cases, with very few exceptions, INGO is usually very good about looking at the incident alone without applying ridiculous assumptions.

I happened to agree with nearly everything in the video (glaring exception is the claim that the "offender" is the ultimate responsible party). That still doesn't mean I can't look at an individual incident and critique the hell out of it. And critiquing one shooting doesn't mean I will see all shootings as wrong. I do recall coming in on the side of the officer that shot the dude reaching in to his truck for his license when he was requested by the LEO to do so. I don't agree with the choices the LEO made or the way he handled the actions of the driver, but that meets all the criteria on the surface of a good shoot when evaluated on the objective standards of perceived threat and likelihood of adverse outcome. What LEO wouldn't think that the driver "diving" in to the cab of the truck wasn't up to no good?

On the other hand, shooting a guy sitting on his porch because LEOs didn't take the time to discern that the hose spray nozzle in his hand wasn't a firearm (not to mention didn't engage him verbally or attempt to ascertain his intent through other methods) is an epic facepalm event.

Methinks this is really just OP's attempt to stir the freakin' pot.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't believe this imfoation is anything new or unknown. It's really just common sense.

It's not. It's only common sense among those who study such things, or at least put some thought into it.

One of officers was confronted with the "you should have just shot the gun out of his hand" argument by citizen in a grand jury hearing. Hollywood has a huge impact on how the masses view police work, not just in shootings but in investigations, evidence collection and analysis, etc. The "CSI effect" is so real its generally introduced in a 101 level criminal justice class these days.

Even the media believes things like we can "enhance" video, like we can suddenly make digital video have MORE information than what's stored on the device.

 

[prescut]

The video is very professional. It must have cost a fortune for the Eugene Police Department . If I was going to work public relations for the PD, I would air this video every day. All the good stuff and none of the bad. The hired consultants only make one side of the case. That was what it supposed to be and that's what it is.
However, I would not claim this to be a fair treatment of the entire topic. I, for one, do not believe in self policing in any profession whether in real estate or LE. Having other LE agencies do it is the same thing. Without outside citizen involvement, a large part of the public will see those procedures as self serving and not to be trusted. I have worked in the Justice system most of my life and I am a proud supporter of the local gendarme. If we ever hope to bring the public back to being police fans, the process must be fair, neutral, objective, and open. Self policing may be fair, but it is in no way neutral, objective, or open.

 

[Denny347]

The video is very professional. It must have cost a fortune for the Eugene Police Department . If I was going to work public relations for the PD, I would air this video every day. All the good stuff and none of the bad. The hired consultants only make one side of the case. That was what it supposed to be and that's what it is.
However, I would not claim this to be a fair treatment of the entire topic. I, for one, do not believe in self policing in any profession whether in real estate or LE. Having other LE agencies do it is the same thing. Without outside citizen involvement, a large part of the public will see those procedures as self serving and not to be trusted. I have worked in the Justice system most of my life and I am a proud supporter of the local gendarme. If we ever hope to bring the public back to being police fans, the process must be fair, neutral, objective, and open. Self policing may be fair, but it is in no way neutral, objective, or open.

Um, the video was actually produced by the Force Science Institute Force Science Institute and based on studies, experiments, and science. What else should have been added that they missed to make this "fair" and 2 sided?

 

[MCgrease08]

Even if it doesn't teach any of "us" anything new, there is still value here.

If nothing else I will use this as a resource and reference to share when people start spouting anti-gun or anti-self defense nonsense like we've heard post Ferguson.

 

[Denny347]

Agreed, but I still don't believe it is all that applicable to INGO. Methinks this is really just OP's attempt to stir the freakin' pot.

There is a core of us that I will agree with you 100% do not need this. However, we have 30k+ members and quite a few pop up here and there in need of a little information. I don't think this was much of a pot stirring and I don't think it should be taken that way.

 

[prescut]

Um, the video was actually produced by the Force Science Institute Force Science Institute and based on studies, experiments, and science. What else should have been added that they missed to make this "fair" and 2 sided?

Denny,
I got the Eugene Police Department from the bottom left of the video. It may have been just who posted it.
You may have missed when I said it may be fair. I have seen and participated in many fair reviews.
You are correct in that I don't think it is 2 sided. As long as officers are only reviewed by other officers, it can not be said to be neutral, objective or 2 sided. I know because I'm prejudiced.
I have been thrown off a jury because I said, because of my experience, I put more credence into what the officer was saying than I did the accused. That made me biased. Most officers will give more credence to a fellow officer's statements than the citizen's. This is not bad and I have copped a plea on it myself. What I speak to is the perception by the public of self policing. Do you disagree?
As to what can be done, I believe in outside entities participating in the reviews. I have been in departments where citizens were brought in and created a mess. Those instanced didn't change my mind about showing the public that an open objective review can be relied upon for presenting the facts without prejudice. Many people take a police review of the police as a coverup because of the review process and participants. This was highlighted in the video.
Looking forward to the day when LEO fans are dominant and trust in the process is restored.

Lost

 

[chef larry]

I found the video another piece of information to add to what I have been learning with life lessons and information /discussions to share with others. INGO is another place for information and education.

 

[Denny347]

Denny,
I got the Eugene Police Department from the bottom left of the video. It may have been just who posted it.
You may have missed when I said it may be fair. I have seen and participated in many fair reviews.
You are correct in that I don't think it is 2 sided. As long as officers are only reviewed by other officers, it can not be said to be neutral, objective or 2 sided. I know because I'm prejudiced.
I have been thrown off a jury because I said, because of my experience, I put more credence into what the officer was saying than I did the accused. That made me biased. Most officers will give more credence to a fellow officer's statements than the citizen's. This is not bad and I have copped a plea on it myself. What I speak to is the perception by the public of self policing. Do you disagree?
As to what can be done, I believe in outside entities participating in the reviews. I have been in departments where citizens were brought in and created a mess. Those instanced didn't change my mind about showing the public that an open objective review can be relied upon for presenting the facts without prejudice. Many people take a police review of the police as a coverup because of the review process and participants. This was highlighted in the video.
Looking forward to the day when LEO fans are dominant and trust in the process is restored.

Lost

My biggest problem with civilian review boards or similar is that most get their ideas of police work from TV and base our actions from that. I have no problem with INFORMED civilian review boards. Back during the Brandon Johnson incident, IMPD hung Piland out to dry, my friend and a great cop who did NOTHING wrong. It took a full blown hearing with witnesses and experts for Piland to retain his job. The entire case was racially charged and the administration was siding with the Johnson family (a family of criminals who I've had the pleasure of arresting before). After the Merit Board found Jerry not guilty, the Civilian Review Board found him immediately guilty (it was what the admin wanted) but since the Civilian Review Board had no authority, it meant little. They were an extension of the Chief and the Mayor...I have no faith in their judgement. You remove politics from it and I'll be on board. I'm still not sure what the bias is in the video. It really is the science behind our actions.

 

[prescut]

right on Denny, I have seen civilian review boards be political extensions of the mayor myself. Pretty disgusting to watch their lack of experience cause the good guys to get harassed. That's why my favorites have been a mix. Worse than any board is a prosecutor who wants to make their chops by tearing into a few cops in a grand jury. Perception is the name of the game once the event is over. Perception can be manipulated and then politics take over. My long time interest has been in trying to influence how the public perceives the justice system. Right now, not so good.
I had a judge as a mentor who was the meanest bastard any LEO ever saw on mickey mouse cases. But he knew that when critical cases came up, the cops would be ready and prepared. I believe a tough review process that was about giving officers good feedback was the best case scenario. In them, the feedback was private, and that gave the officer a chance to accept the critique. Nothing open about it, but I loved the process. Public reviews are by their nature frought with danger for the officer. The best outcome is still "not losing". There is nothing there to win.

Lost