Cleveland PD to start wearing pink tutus - almost

[mloamiller]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sus ... -words-not" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure why this would surprise me - it's a product of "the Obama Justice Department". My favorites:

The words "reasonable" and/or "unreasonable" appear 49 times in the 103-page consent decree.
...
And who's to decide what's "appropriate"? A civilian, someone with no experience in subduing dangerous suspects, will be placed at the head of the police department's Internal Affairs division
...
Officers will not discharge a firearm from or at a moving vehicle, unless use of lethal force is justified by something other than the threat from the moving vehicle;

So in the case of the last one, a felon behind the wheel of a car, trying to run over a LEO and shooting at them through the window, is not justification for the LEO to shoot back?!

I feel sorry for the cops in Cleveland. Next thing you know, they'll have to stop wearing uniforms and keep their guns concealed so they don't offend someone.

[treadlightly]

Wow. They can't shoot at a car unless something else is a threat. Does that mean they can only shoot at cars that don't present a threat?

Sad.

[gthaustex]

Sad indeed. It seems that many departments are becoming hamstrung...

[n5wd]

Right on! I mean, it's not like they brought any of this upon themselves, is it?

[Jumping Frog]

This was driven by the incident where a guy driving a 1979 Chevelle backfired when passing a police station while speeding. A patrol car radioed he had shot at the police station. He was chased by dozens of police cars from multiple districts. When caught, he and his girlfriend passenger were shot 147 times.

Yes, I said 147 times.

One officer was charged who jumped up onto the hood of the car after all other shooting had stopped. He proceeded to shoot the now dead suspect 15 times through the windshield, emptying one mag, reloading, and emptying the next mag. He was acquitted because they could not prove he murdered them because it was likely they were already dead.

BTW, both driver and passenger were unarmed.

As far as other stuff, how about routinely hitting people in the head with a firearm?

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... hitti.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Cleveland police will stop hitting people on the head with their guns and document any time they unholster them, according to a consent decree between the U.S. Justice Department and Cleveland police released today.

The Justice Department found in a 21-month investigation that began in 2013 that Cleveland police routinely bash people on the head with their guns, sometimes accidentally firing them, according to a 58-page report released in December.

You know, it seems a bit of a no-brainer to me of what not to do... 4 Rules of gun safety and all that.

And some wonder why ordinary people are loosing confidence and trust...

"Many of the things are the long-standing policies in these good department. Like hitting people with their guns, like a baton," Walker said. "The good departments banned that decades ago."

"It is also unclear why CDP appears to be categorizing hitting someone with a gun as a conventional response when force is needed," the December report said. "This is uniformly understood to be a dangerous practice that should never be permitted except in very unusual and exigent circumstances in which the use of deadly force is authorized; yet, it was a practice we saw CDP officers engaging in too frequently."

[Taypo]

So, his only offense was speeding yet he was in a chase that lasted long enough for multiple districts to get in on the act.

Gosh, wonder why the cops were quick on the trigger?

[C-dub]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/sus ... -words-not

Not sure why this would surprise me - it's a product of "the Obama Justice Department". My favorites:

The words "reasonable" and/or "unreasonable" appear 49 times in the 103-page consent decree.
...
And who's to decide what's "appropriate"? A civilian, someone with no experience in subduing dangerous suspects, will be placed at the head of the police department's Internal Affairs division
...
Officers will not discharge a firearm from or at a moving vehicle, unless use of lethal force is justified by something other than the threat from the moving vehicle;

So in the case of the last one, a felon behind the wheel of a car, trying to run over a LEO and shooting at them through the window, is not justification for the LEO to shoot back?!

I feel sorry for the cops in Cleveland. Next thing you know, they'll have to stop wearing uniforms and keep their guns concealed so they don't offend someone.

Shooting at an officer from a moving vehicle would be the justification to use deadly force. You added that part that is not in the article our your own quote. Shooting would be the something other than the moving vehicle.

Although, I agree that whole part and much of the rest is ridiculous.

[JSThane]

Given that a car is a one-ton-plus reusable, directable bullet, this makes absolutely no sense, unless there's something buried deep in it to provide clarification. I know of many officers that have been attacked -with a vehicle-. No other weapon was used. I know of several that were hit. One who died was an academy classmate and good friend of one of my instructors, and he was intentionally hit and killed while I was at the academy. Another was saved only because his trainee opened up on the attacker's vehicle with a patrol rifle, keeping the attacker from reversing back over the officer.

Cars, rocks, bats, even bare hands: all can be lethal, deadly weapons. Drawing a line and saying "You may NEVER" is only going to get more cops killed and embolden the crooks and thugs, which can get more non-cops killed too. After all, if even the cops can't shoot at the person trying to run them over, how does an average joe justify it? I can see the prosecution now...


I really, -really-, REALLY hope I'm misreading all this and ranting about nothing, but I'm afraid otherwise...

[nightmare69]

Neutering of the police has started.

[Jumping Frog]

It is easy to talk about tutu's, neutering, political correctness, etc.

However, this is also a police department that has a decades-long reputation for corruptness, poor training, daily violations of basic constitutional rights, and unaccountable use of force and deadly force. It is a product of a powerful police union aligned with a Democratic-machine in power that has ruled for decades with zero accountability.

When I read the points made in the article, I find that I agree with many of them from a citizen's viewpoint that wants good effective policing. I cannot quote everything in the article, as it would violate both copyright and the forum rules, but these points are already policy is good police departments:

-- Officers normally will not use force against persons who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained, unless it is objectively reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to stop an assault, escape, or as necessary to fulfill other law enforcement objectives;

-- Officers will not use force against persons who only verbally confront them and do not impede a legitimate law enforcement function:

-- CDP will explicitly prohibit the use of retaliatory force by officers. Retaliatory force includes, for example, force in excess of what is objectively reasonable to prevent an escape to punish individuals for fleeing or otherwise resisting arrest; and force used to punish an individual for disrespecting officers;

-- Officers will not use head strikes with hard objects, except where lethal force is justified. Officers will be trained that a strike to the head with any impact weapon could result in death;

-- Other than to protect an officer's or other person's safety, officers will not use force to subdue an individual who is not suspected of any criminal conduct;

-- CDP's policy will expressly provide that using a firearm as an impact weapon is never an authorized tactic. Officers will be trained that use of a firearm as an impact weapon could result in death to suspects, bystanders, and themselves;

-- Officers will not use neck holds;

-- CDP will continue to limit vehicle pursuits to those in which the need to capture the suspect outweighs the danger to the public. CDP will continue to limit the number of CDP vehicles that may be involved in a vehicle pursuit;

Sorry, but that is good policy.

Personally, I think the below quote is probably mangled by the news reporter:

-- Officers will not discharge a firearm from or at a moving vehicle, unless use of lethal force is justified by something other than the threat from the moving vehicle;

I believe the intent was to say if a vehicle is simply driving down the road with no other threat apparent from the vehicle, it is not justified to shoot at the vehicle. Think in terms of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Sure, if the vehicle is displaying a gun, or attempting to run over a police officer, then deadly force is justified and that qualifies as "something other". Again, note one of the triggering incidents was a car that was shot 147 times and the only thing the guy did was flee from police.

[Taypo]

Am I the only one getting tired of all the apologists making excuses for criminals so they get to bash the authorities?

NYC: All he was doing was selling cigarettes on the street so he didn't deserve to be killed.

Ferguson: All he was doing was walking away from a robbery...

Baltimore: All he did was ride away on his bike...

South Carolina: All he was doing was running away from a traffic stop...

Cleveland: All he was doing was fleeing from police in a vehicle...

Sorry, but I have ZERO sympathy for any of these people. Its unfortunate that the end result was death, but at the end of the day they chose the path they were on. Yet again, people failing to take responsibility for their own actions and more people enabling that mindset.

[mloamiller]

Yet again, people failing to take responsibility for their own actions and more people enabling that mindset.

I do not condone police brutality and/or misconduct in any way, and believe that a LEO found guilty of such things should be punished to the full extent possible. They should be held to a higher standard given their position. However, every incident that's been in the news lately would have been prevented if the "victim" simply behaved responsibly. That includes doing what they were supposed to do, and not doing what they weren't supposed to.

I believe it's called being a law-abiding citizen, and showing respect for authority.

[VMI77]

It is easy to talk about tutu's, neutering, political correctness, etc.

However, this is also a police department that has a decades-long reputation for corruptness, poor training, daily violations of basic constitutional rights, and unaccountable use of force and deadly force. It is a product of a powerful police union aligned with a Democratic-machine in power that has ruled for decades with zero accountability.

When I read the points made in the article, I find that I agree with many of them from a citizen's viewpoint that wants good effective policing. I cannot quote everything in the article, as it would violate both copyright and the forum rules, but these points are already policy is good police departments:

-- Officers normally will not use force against persons who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained, unless it is objectively reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to stop an assault, escape, or as necessary to fulfill other law enforcement objectives;

-- Officers will not use force against persons who only verbally confront them and do not impede a legitimate law enforcement function:

-- CDP will explicitly prohibit the use of retaliatory force by officers. Retaliatory force includes, for example, force in excess of what is objectively reasonable to prevent an escape to punish individuals for fleeing or otherwise resisting arrest; and force used to punish an individual for disrespecting officers;

-- Officers will not use head strikes with hard objects, except where lethal force is justified. Officers will be trained that a strike to the head with any impact weapon could result in death;

-- Other than to protect an officer's or other person's safety, officers will not use force to subdue an individual who is not suspected of any criminal conduct;

-- CDP's policy will expressly provide that using a firearm as an impact weapon is never an authorized tactic. Officers will be trained that use of a firearm as an impact weapon could result in death to suspects, bystanders, and themselves;

-- Officers will not use neck holds;

-- CDP will continue to limit vehicle pursuits to those in which the need to capture the suspect outweighs the danger to the public. CDP will continue to limit the number of CDP vehicles that may be involved in a vehicle pursuit;

Sorry, but that is good policy.

Personally, I think the below quote is probably mangled by the news reporter:

-- Officers will not discharge a firearm from or at a moving vehicle, unless use of lethal force is justified by something other than the threat from the moving vehicle;

I believe the intent was to say if a vehicle is simply driving down the road with no other threat apparent from the vehicle, it is not justified to shoot at the vehicle. Think in terms of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Sure, if the vehicle is displaying a gun, or attempting to run over a police officer, then deadly force is justified and that qualifies as "something other". Again, note one of the triggering incidents was a car that was shot 147 times and the only thing the guy did was flee from police.