Police officers have difficult tasks they have to tend to daily and many of those tasks can be life-threatening or worse yet, deadly to themselves or to others or both. One of the most difficult situations a police officer could ever get into would be a "hands on" scuffle with a person who's much larger and more powerful than they are and is either unafraid or high or both. The officer has all kinds of "tools" at his or her disposal but those tools don't always work well and these days the officer tends to second guess the deployment of those tools. That "second guessing" by the officer quite often results in injury or death to at least one or most involved, the police and those others on scene.
In this particular situation Ashley Hardesty, the 27 yrs. old police officer responded to a complaint at an Elmwood Avenue gas station parking lot in Columbia, S.C. and was immediately confronted by angry customers, employees... witnesses and victims who wanted a man arrested for assaulting several of them. The suspect was a large, powerful, enraged male who had already assaulted several of the customers and employees at the gas station. He appeared to be unarmed when the officer arrived but the officer wasn't positive. Either way, the officer notified the dispatcher that she had arrived on the scene and then she exited her vehicle to approach the assailant. When the assailant observed the officer he turned his anger towards her and a fight ensued. Somewhere along the way she deployed her taser and tased the suspect.
The confrontation went downhill very rapidly from there until a good samaritan stepped in and, after tackling the officer's assailant he pinned the assailant to the ground until the officer could get the assailant properly restrained.
The assailant went to jail and will most likely be charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors, the officer received first aid for her injuries and went back on shift and the savior, the man who virtually eliminated the threat bought his pack of Newport cigarettes and went back to his rehabilitation and transition center where he's a tenant.
The samaritan? He's Cray Turmon — "a homeless man going on 50 years old who's fallen on some hard times." He's a welder looking for work. Turmon realizes he has a drinking problem and he's doing something about it while he's recovering at "Transitions", a place that helps those who want help. He's been dry and sober for awhile now and, with the aid of the folks at Transitions he'll become another productive member of society again, soon. The good Lord knows we all have had our bouts with our own, inner beasts and most of us have seemed to pull through with the help and support of others. This Cray Turmon man, he exhibited that he has those top shelf values when it comes to recognizing evil and selflessly intervening on behalf of others when that evil comes knocking.
We need more people like Cray Turmon in our neighborhoods. Someone find this man a job.
Thank you for being there Mr. Turmon. Like it or not you're a hero.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The very well written article referenced in this post was referenced in the Miami Herald. It's an article authored by Clif LeBlanc cleblanc@thestate.com
IMHO
#
Showing posts with label Law Enforcement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law Enforcement. Show all posts
Friday, December 22, 2017
Sunday, November 19, 2017
Body Cams on Cops? A good idea?
I would have loved wearing a body cam back in the days when I worked the street! It would have mediated some angst I had with the administration. Especially when the bad guys declared I or one of my fellow deputies I was working with "abused" the bad guy and/or deprived them of their rights. But then again, that was back in the day when most folks who went to jail knew what they were doing would lead them to at least a night in jail, knew they were going to jail and fessed up to the fact that they deserved to go to jail. Back then most of those folks accepted their fate. For the most part they knew the rules and respected the rules well enough to know that if they violated those rules they were going to go to jail. Fights, they happened. Sometimes they evolved to "difficult arrests", "face plants", "leg sweeps", mace/pepper spray, nightsticks, hair holds, or worse... and if those tactics were used they were only employed when necessary. I've never had any of those folks file a lawsuit against me or any of my compadres for that matter, though I have had them threaten to sue me until they sobered up or otherwise realized their lawsuit wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in court.
It's funny how this whole "body cam" thing that these folks wished for and got is backfiring in their faces . They've finally realized these body cams are providing very good evidence against them and they were instrumental in insisting that this very productive and accurate law enforcement tool was provided to the law enforcement community. I personally thank them for their contribution to ensure our law enforcement community is equipped with and trained in the use of equipment that will provide accurate, honest, timely and professionally collected law enforcement information that, in the past was rarely collected.We, the taxpayers are providing the video/audio recording equipment, the training associated with it, good, trained, experienced police officers and their protective gear to use and effectively apply it and now the good evidence that leads to acquittal or conviction to our law enforcement so we can ensure all of our constitutional rights are being fully represented, respected and protected.
If you ask me the use of these cams provide us, the taxpayers a great return on our investment!
It's a wonderful idea. Keep the cameras. Insist the officers review the footage and audio recordings of their respective "incidents" that were recorded and insist those officers use that information in any of their reports to provide a more accurate depiction of the event(s) that prompted their response and subsequently occurred during the officers response, including any arrest(s) made.
The lawyers and social activists like black lives matter, etc. want these body cams to ensure proper policing and public safety. As a citizen, I thank them for that. Many law enforcement officers wear them today as a result and as a former cop I wish I had the opportunity to wear one throughout my career as well. Let's continue to use these body cams to ensure the arrests made are necessary and proper arrests and the accuracy of the reporting process is enhanced, at least.
Let's err in favor of more accurate reporting and more effective law enforcement.
IMHO
It's funny how this whole "body cam" thing that these folks wished for and got is backfiring in their faces . They've finally realized these body cams are providing very good evidence against them and they were instrumental in insisting that this very productive and accurate law enforcement tool was provided to the law enforcement community. I personally thank them for their contribution to ensure our law enforcement community is equipped with and trained in the use of equipment that will provide accurate, honest, timely and professionally collected law enforcement information that, in the past was rarely collected.We, the taxpayers are providing the video/audio recording equipment, the training associated with it, good, trained, experienced police officers and their protective gear to use and effectively apply it and now the good evidence that leads to acquittal or conviction to our law enforcement so we can ensure all of our constitutional rights are being fully represented, respected and protected.
If you ask me the use of these cams provide us, the taxpayers a great return on our investment!
It's a wonderful idea. Keep the cameras. Insist the officers review the footage and audio recordings of their respective "incidents" that were recorded and insist those officers use that information in any of their reports to provide a more accurate depiction of the event(s) that prompted their response and subsequently occurred during the officers response, including any arrest(s) made.
The lawyers and social activists like black lives matter, etc. want these body cams to ensure proper policing and public safety. As a citizen, I thank them for that. Many law enforcement officers wear them today as a result and as a former cop I wish I had the opportunity to wear one throughout my career as well. Let's continue to use these body cams to ensure the arrests made are necessary and proper arrests and the accuracy of the reporting process is enhanced, at least.
Let's err in favor of more accurate reporting and more effective law enforcement.
IMHO
Saturday, September 23, 2017
A Huntington Beach, California Police Shooting.
I received this information re: an officer involved shooting that's been partially videoed by an innocent bystander. The confrontation allegedly started prior to the videoing of the incident.
According to the information given, A Huntington Beach Police Officer encounters a subject at a local 7-11 store in Huntington Beach, CA and during the encounter a fight ensues between the two. The officer and the subject somehow go to the ground.
The bystander who videoed the remainder of the encounter was waiting for someone else in a parked car in the store's parking lot. He/she started videoing the ground encounter on his/her cell phone.
In the initial footage of the video it's apparent to me anyways that the officer is trying to gain control of the subject's arms. The officer is on top of the subject and appears to have one of the subject's wrists somewhat restrained while trying to gain control of the other one. The subject who is on the ground, on his back beneath the officer appears to remove something from the officer's duty belt with his right hand. The subject also appears to look at it and appears to show it to the officer. It even appears the subject tries to employ whatever he removed from the officer's duty belt against him. At the 014-017 mark in the video the officer appears to recognize a threat from the subject and the object removed and disengages himself from the ground fighting. The officer pushes the subject's head away and stands up, drawing his sidearm as he stands.
Once the officer is standing and has his sidearm drawn he appears to step away from the subject all the while giving the subject verbal commands.The subject appears to ignore the officer's commands, stands up and starts towards the officer with the object in his right hand... the subject even looks at the object.
With his sidearm pointed at the subject the officer gives the subject more verbal commands as the subject continues towards him, closing to well within fifteen feet of the officer. The officer eventually employs lethal force and subsequently neutralized the perceived threat.
The six million dollar question is what did the bad guy take out of the officer's duty belt?!
I'm thinking it was a knife or at least the officer thought it was a knife.
According to the information given, A Huntington Beach Police Officer encounters a subject at a local 7-11 store in Huntington Beach, CA and during the encounter a fight ensues between the two. The officer and the subject somehow go to the ground.
The bystander who videoed the remainder of the encounter was waiting for someone else in a parked car in the store's parking lot. He/she started videoing the ground encounter on his/her cell phone.
In the initial footage of the video it's apparent to me anyways that the officer is trying to gain control of the subject's arms. The officer is on top of the subject and appears to have one of the subject's wrists somewhat restrained while trying to gain control of the other one. The subject who is on the ground, on his back beneath the officer appears to remove something from the officer's duty belt with his right hand. The subject also appears to look at it and appears to show it to the officer. It even appears the subject tries to employ whatever he removed from the officer's duty belt against him. At the 014-017 mark in the video the officer appears to recognize a threat from the subject and the object removed and disengages himself from the ground fighting. The officer pushes the subject's head away and stands up, drawing his sidearm as he stands.
Once the officer is standing and has his sidearm drawn he appears to step away from the subject all the while giving the subject verbal commands.The subject appears to ignore the officer's commands, stands up and starts towards the officer with the object in his right hand... the subject even looks at the object.
With his sidearm pointed at the subject the officer gives the subject more verbal commands as the subject continues towards him, closing to well within fifteen feet of the officer. The officer eventually employs lethal force and subsequently neutralized the perceived threat.
The six million dollar question is what did the bad guy take out of the officer's duty belt?!
I'm thinking it was a knife or at least the officer thought it was a knife.
Ft. Collins, Colorado selectively enforces our laws?!
The city of Ft. Collins, Colorado recently removed a very highly qualified police chief applicant from their top list of six candidates because the applicant wouldn't selectively enforce the laws of the land.
It seems the applicant, a recently retired and very qualified Chief Criminal Deputy from the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) in central Arizona was in support of protecting our nation from the massive influx of illegal aliens.
Steve Henry, a 55 yrs. old military veteran with over 23 years of law enforcement applied for the position and made it to the final six applicants. He was "dumped" from the list "because he publicly supported an Arizona law (SB1070) that makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation and bans “sanctuary city” policies. The measure also allows local law enforcement officers throughout the state to inquire about suspects’ immigration status."
In other words, Ft. Collins, Colorado summarily dismissed Mr. Henry from the "short list" of candidates simply because he favored the unbiased enforcement of the laws of our nation, our society.
Unbiased enforcement of the laws of our community, our nation, our society is a trait that should be required of any stellar applicant for any law enforcement position in this country in my opinion.
But then again, I'm old school law enforcement. We enforced the laws on the book, not the laws preferred by politicos, special interest groups, criminal organizations and activists.
Yep, we're fighting an internal battle of our life for our country right now.
IMHO
It seems the applicant, a recently retired and very qualified Chief Criminal Deputy from the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) in central Arizona was in support of protecting our nation from the massive influx of illegal aliens.
Steve Henry, a 55 yrs. old military veteran with over 23 years of law enforcement applied for the position and made it to the final six applicants. He was "dumped" from the list "because he publicly supported an Arizona law (SB1070) that makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation and bans “sanctuary city” policies. The measure also allows local law enforcement officers throughout the state to inquire about suspects’ immigration status."
In other words, Ft. Collins, Colorado summarily dismissed Mr. Henry from the "short list" of candidates simply because he favored the unbiased enforcement of the laws of our nation, our society.
Unbiased enforcement of the laws of our community, our nation, our society is a trait that should be required of any stellar applicant for any law enforcement position in this country in my opinion.
But then again, I'm old school law enforcement. We enforced the laws on the book, not the laws preferred by politicos, special interest groups, criminal organizations and activists.
Yep, we're fighting an internal battle of our life for our country right now.
IMHO
Thursday, September 21, 2017
More About Terror and the European Union
But in essence this is more about the state of our global security and societal sanity. That given, let's get started...
Members of the European Union have clipped the wings of their existing Intelligence agencies, respectively to the level of borderline "inept-ness". Frustration runs rampant within the rank and file of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies. At least, that's my perspective.
To put it into very general terms, these agencies are designed to gather information that might be counter productive to their nation's (at least) or their multi national region's (at best) best interests. That's a very simplistic take on their duties but it should suffice for the sake of this discussion.
The forbidden word "profile" and the verboten yet productive practice of "profiling" pukes, terrorists, bad guys, WHATEVER... has, well, rendered the local, regional, national and global intelligence industry AND the respective law enforcement industry's capabilities to detect and prevent crimes before they happen, ineffective.
I admit AND agree there should be a line drawn when "profiling" individuals, groups, activities gets out of hand but don't take the tool out of the tool box. You cripple the industry, you cripple our very security when you do. Punish those who knowingly abused their authority. Educate those who were truly ignorant.
Rather than prohibit the tool to be used by the industry simply teach the apprentice or the journeyman how to use that tool properly, legally, effectively and let them do their job!
Law enforcement and Intelligence agencies simply can't do their jobs when they can't incorporate the very statistics their respective industries gather and provide into their respective "investigations"... the historical data at least. They can't effectively complete their tasks at hand and they can't effectively protect those who they're sworn to protect.
In essence our global "society" has diluted our intelligence and law enforcement organizations to the point where they've become nothing more than a re-active clean-up crew (at best). Responding after the incident's started. The intelligence and law enforcement organizations can't effectively predict trends, events that run contrary to social norms let alone track them! after they occur! At least not as thoroughly as they did in the past.
Personally and professionally I realized that it's more productive if our law enforcement, our intelligence organizations proactively work the "trends" and take APPROPRIATE action before the events occur rather than collect the bodies, statistics and other data AFTER THE FACT!
When law enforcement and intelligence folks are "pro-active" they tend to prevent things from happening, or at least they help to reduce the carnage. When they're "re-active" they serve to help clean up the mess, determine responsibility and hunt the bad guy(s) down to prevent more carnage. Unfortunately, quite often during the "re-active" process more damage, carnage occurs. When law enforcement and intelligence agencies are reduced to becoming a reactive element in the protection of our society they've been rendered ineffective. At least from the "prevention" standpoint which, quite frankly I'd personally prefer over the "enforcement" or "re-active" alternative.
I don't understand why we won't accept the fact that we need eyes and ears out "there" for our protection. Why are we blinding and deafening them? Why are we rendering those who we've empowered to protect us, to serve us, to police us... why are we rendering them to be essentially nothing more than a reactive clean up crew?!
Again, that's just my take on things. I've been known to be wrong in the past about many things. For what it's worth.
IMHO
Members of the European Union have clipped the wings of their existing Intelligence agencies, respectively to the level of borderline "inept-ness". Frustration runs rampant within the rank and file of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies. At least, that's my perspective.
To put it into very general terms, these agencies are designed to gather information that might be counter productive to their nation's (at least) or their multi national region's (at best) best interests. That's a very simplistic take on their duties but it should suffice for the sake of this discussion.
The forbidden word "profile" and the verboten yet productive practice of "profiling" pukes, terrorists, bad guys, WHATEVER... has, well, rendered the local, regional, national and global intelligence industry AND the respective law enforcement industry's capabilities to detect and prevent crimes before they happen, ineffective.
I admit AND agree there should be a line drawn when "profiling" individuals, groups, activities gets out of hand but don't take the tool out of the tool box. You cripple the industry, you cripple our very security when you do. Punish those who knowingly abused their authority. Educate those who were truly ignorant.
Rather than prohibit the tool to be used by the industry simply teach the apprentice or the journeyman how to use that tool properly, legally, effectively and let them do their job!
Law enforcement and Intelligence agencies simply can't do their jobs when they can't incorporate the very statistics their respective industries gather and provide into their respective "investigations"... the historical data at least. They can't effectively complete their tasks at hand and they can't effectively protect those who they're sworn to protect.
In essence our global "society" has diluted our intelligence and law enforcement organizations to the point where they've become nothing more than a re-active clean-up crew (at best). Responding after the incident's started. The intelligence and law enforcement organizations can't effectively predict trends, events that run contrary to social norms let alone track them! after they occur! At least not as thoroughly as they did in the past.
Personally and professionally I realized that it's more productive if our law enforcement, our intelligence organizations proactively work the "trends" and take APPROPRIATE action before the events occur rather than collect the bodies, statistics and other data AFTER THE FACT!
When law enforcement and intelligence folks are "pro-active" they tend to prevent things from happening, or at least they help to reduce the carnage. When they're "re-active" they serve to help clean up the mess, determine responsibility and hunt the bad guy(s) down to prevent more carnage. Unfortunately, quite often during the "re-active" process more damage, carnage occurs. When law enforcement and intelligence agencies are reduced to becoming a reactive element in the protection of our society they've been rendered ineffective. At least from the "prevention" standpoint which, quite frankly I'd personally prefer over the "enforcement" or "re-active" alternative.
I don't understand why we won't accept the fact that we need eyes and ears out "there" for our protection. Why are we blinding and deafening them? Why are we rendering those who we've empowered to protect us, to serve us, to police us... why are we rendering them to be essentially nothing more than a reactive clean up crew?!
Again, that's just my take on things. I've been known to be wrong in the past about many things. For what it's worth.
IMHO
Possession's 9/10ths Of The Law!
At least, that's what we used to say when I worked "the beat". I started in '75 after a stint in the Army and retired in '15.
I spent over 40 yrs in Law Enforcement enforcing laws, keeping folks from killing one another... trying to keep folks from killing one another, breaking up fights, solving puzzles, riddles, crimes, etc. I responded to scenes that would curl the hair on anyone... cause folks to projectile vomit. I've been in those "loser-at best goes to jail" fights with bad guys and have visited emergency rooms or doctor's offices plenty of times after a wild and crazy shift. I've solved puzzles created by the most inhumane of animals in the world... humans... and I've ensured countless scum were put in their proper places over time.
Throughout that career we had sayings we'd use for most anything coming down the 'pike at us as we drove towards the problem we were dispatched to. One of my favorites was the line "Possession's 9/10ths of the law". Which, quite frankly meant if you're in possession of something whose ownership is being disputed when I show up then as far as I'm concerned, until proven otherwise you're the owner of whatever it is you're in possession of!
Key words... POSSESSION...and UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
Europe used to be a region of independent "nations". Each "nation" possessed its own government, its autonomy, its rules. Rules created by a government that the people, the citizens realized, understood and opted to either live, leave or die by. Rarely, rarely could an "immigrant" group change those rules to accommodate their own, preferred existence at the expense of the majority of their hosting nation's lifelong citizens.
But I guess in the European Union today "Possession's 9/10ths Of The Law" and those daesh, isis, isil, isieu... whoever, whatever. I guess those muslim "immigrants", "refugees" will be doing the talking soon, at least in the European Union. They seem to be in possession of the EU, its collective governments, its fractured states and they're changing those European Union laws as I write this.
The "immigrants", the "refugees"... those "religion of peace" folks, they're certainly letting it be known that the EU laws are unacceptable to them and being as they have the ear of the collective governments and they're dictating their expectations to those governments then it appears to me (at least) that the "migrants", "refugees", muslims are by proxy in possession of those governments.
Or so it seems.
Good Bye Europe. Too bad, so sad.
IMHO
I spent over 40 yrs in Law Enforcement enforcing laws, keeping folks from killing one another... trying to keep folks from killing one another, breaking up fights, solving puzzles, riddles, crimes, etc. I responded to scenes that would curl the hair on anyone... cause folks to projectile vomit. I've been in those "loser-at best goes to jail" fights with bad guys and have visited emergency rooms or doctor's offices plenty of times after a wild and crazy shift. I've solved puzzles created by the most inhumane of animals in the world... humans... and I've ensured countless scum were put in their proper places over time.
Throughout that career we had sayings we'd use for most anything coming down the 'pike at us as we drove towards the problem we were dispatched to. One of my favorites was the line "Possession's 9/10ths of the law". Which, quite frankly meant if you're in possession of something whose ownership is being disputed when I show up then as far as I'm concerned, until proven otherwise you're the owner of whatever it is you're in possession of!
Key words... POSSESSION...and UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
Europe used to be a region of independent "nations". Each "nation" possessed its own government, its autonomy, its rules. Rules created by a government that the people, the citizens realized, understood and opted to either live, leave or die by. Rarely, rarely could an "immigrant" group change those rules to accommodate their own, preferred existence at the expense of the majority of their hosting nation's lifelong citizens.
But I guess in the European Union today "Possession's 9/10ths Of The Law" and those daesh, isis, isil, isieu... whoever, whatever. I guess those muslim "immigrants", "refugees" will be doing the talking soon, at least in the European Union. They seem to be in possession of the EU, its collective governments, its fractured states and they're changing those European Union laws as I write this.
The "immigrants", the "refugees"... those "religion of peace" folks, they're certainly letting it be known that the EU laws are unacceptable to them and being as they have the ear of the collective governments and they're dictating their expectations to those governments then it appears to me (at least) that the "migrants", "refugees", muslims are by proxy in possession of those governments.
Or so it seems.
Good Bye Europe. Too bad, so sad.
IMHO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
