Woman With Pot of Boiling Water Shot Dead by Police

[phylodog]

However there isn’t anything about a combat MOS that carries over to policing. They are two drastically different jobs with two drastically different goals in two drastically different environments.

This is coming from someone from a family full of both law enforcement and military.

Same here and I'll wholeheartedly disagree with you. Father, uncle, brother and two cousins in LE as I was for 20yrs. Spent 6 years in the Army before getting in to LE and 17 years as a LE supervisor and always said 10 to 1 I'd take prior military over college degrees any day of the week. There are always exceptions but by and large the prior military folks were always easier to train, more disciplined and complained less.

 

[STAGE 2]

Same here and I'll wholeheartedly disagree with you. Father, uncle, brother and two cousins in LE as I was for 20yrs. Spent 6 years in the Army before getting in to LE and 17 years as a LE supervisor and always said 10 to 1 I'd take prior military over college degrees any day of the week. There are always exceptions but by and large the prior military folks were always easier to train, more disciplined and complained less.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. While this isn’t an area that’s been overly studied, the known data indicates that we shouldn’t be granting preference to veterans. Cops with military service have a higher rate of complaints of excessive force than officers with no military service. Cops with military service are more likely to discharge their guns than those without military service. Police applicants with military service fail for psychological impairment at twice the rate of those without military service.

Again, I’m not saying that a particular person who is a vet can’t make an excellent cop. What I am saying is that military service, particularly in a combat role, isn’t useful experience for a police officer, and can be harmful.

Again, this isn’t opinion. Even the International Association of Chiefs of Police in their recruitment guide for police departments provides the warning that military vets, “may mistakenly blur the lines between military combat situations and civilian crime situations, resulting in inappropriate decisions and actions—particularly in the use of less lethal or lethal force.”

 

[phylodog]

We can part ways disagreeing. The IACP and I share little in common, especially politics.

I’ll stick with my 20 years of experience.

 

[BigRed]

I rebuke these arguments in the name of Jesus.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Same here and I'll wholeheartedly disagree with you. Father, uncle, brother and two cousins in LE as I was for 20yrs. Spent 6 years in the Army before getting in to LE and 17 years as a LE supervisor and always said 10 to 1 I'd take prior military over college degrees any day of the week. There are always exceptions but by and large the prior military folks were always easier to train, more disciplined and complained less.

Funny thing: I've never had a partner bitch out who was former military. Not once. Not all of them were great cops or even great humans, but they never once left me dealing with a combative suspect by myself, slow rolled a call so they could be the 3rd car or later, or just flat out didn't show.

Imagine giving a **** what the IACP has to say.

 

[Gabriel]

We can part ways disagreeing. The IACP and I share little in common, especially politics.

I’ll stick with my 20 years of experience.

I doubt many street cops agree with pretty much anything the IACP says or does. I've also found I pretty much never agree with anything the FOP says either.

 

[phylodog]

Again, this isn’t opinion. Even the International Association of Chiefs of Police in their recruitment guide for police departments provides the warning that military vets, “may mistakenly blur the lines between military combat situations and civilian crime situations, resulting in inappropriate decisions and actions—particularly in the use of less lethal or lethal force.”

The studies you reference, and the agencies you mention will tell you all day long that the person on the left on this photograph should be prioritized over prior military for hiring and promotions. A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Remember when we hired a professional police impersonator to run public safety in Indy? Then he turned out to be a liar and general PoS? Then he got hired as a police chief somewhere else, still while never actually having been a cop? He was a huge success there. Oh, no wait, giant failure who got fired for being a general PoS. Seems like the only thing he was good at was spending a lot of money, solving imaginary problems that only he had imagined, and self promotion.

Where'd he end up again?

Oh, yeah, DC area think tank on police and law enforcement.

"Studies"..

There's a few legit places out there. Force Science Institute and the Southern Police Institute at the University of Louisville campus come to mind as being generally solid. But for the most part, politically driven propaganda for fun and personal profit.

 

[STAGE 2]

The studies you reference, and the agencies you mention will tell you all day long that the person on the left on this photograph should be prioritized over prior military for hiring and promotions. A picture is worth a thousand words.
View attachment 369369

And I don’t agree with that either. DEI hires have no business in any profession. But I am also unwilling to overlook the problems associated with veteran preference as some here are.

The worst fallacy in the world is to dismiss something simply because of who says it. That’s how liberals get away with most of what they do. A claim stands or falls on its own merits but several here seem to want to ignore the data in any way they can. I have a problem with someone who doesn’t care if their partner uses excessive force as long as they don’t “bitch out” on a call. I’m absolutely certain that none of the folks serving a SEARCH warrant in the middle of the night at that airport directors home ever bitched out on a call either.

Protecting the constitutional rights of citizens is no less an important part of a law enforcement officers job than upholding the law. I get this is a gun forum and everybody is vehemently 2A, as they should be. But I also care deeply about the others on that list as well and you should too. The oath some of us took wasn’t to support and defend your partner, your precinct or your department (not that those aren’t good things in many circumstances) The oath was to protect and defend the constitution and (likely) to uphold the public trust.

 

[phylodog]

And I don’t agree with that either. DEI hires have no business in any profession. But I am also unwilling to overlook the problems associated with veteran preference as some here are.

The worst fallacy in the world is to dismiss something simply because of who says it. That’s how liberals get away with most of what they do. A claim stands or falls on its own merits but several here seem to want to ignore the data in any way they can. I have a problem with someone who doesn’t care if their partner uses excessive force as long as they don’t “bitch out” on a call. I’m absolutely certain that none of the folks serving a SEARCH warrant in the middle of the night at that airport directors home ever bitched out on a call either.

Protecting the constitutional rights of citizens is no less an important part of a law enforcement officers job than upholding the law. I get this is a gun forum and everybody is vehemently 2A, as they should be. But I also care deeply about the others on that list as well and you should too. The oath some of us took wasn’t to support and defend your partner, your precinct or your department (not that those aren’t good things in many circumstances) The oath was to protect and defend the constitution and (likely) to uphold the public trust.

Data collected and provided by whom? People you trust apparently, I don't. If one has paid attention it is easy to see that data, statistics, polls, etc. are as easily swayed to provide a desired result. There has been a very organized and concentrated effort to defund, dismantle, villainize and destroy law enforcement in this country. That just so happens to coincide with the studies and data being pushed out. Coincidence? You'll have a hard time convincing me but I'm willing to listen.

As far as your comments in red are concerned.... I have real world experience, 20 years of it. As do two other members who have posted and disagreed with you. The problems we are seeing in LE today are largely brought about by the degradation of hiring standards encouraged by the same people who produce the garbage data and studies you want to cling to.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The worst fallacy in the world is to dismiss something simply because of who says it. That’s how liberals get away with most of what they do. A claim stands or falls on its own merits but several here seem to want to ignore the data in any way they can. I have a problem with someone who doesn’t care if their partner uses excessive force as long as they don’t “bitch out” on a call. I’m absolutely certain that none of the folks serving a SEARCH warrant in the middle of the night at that airport directors home ever bitched out on a call either.

No, the worst fallacy is the world is overuse of hyperbole. Just kidding, I am a firm believer that dismissing information simply because of who says it is #1 A missed opportunity to potentially learn something valuable, and #2 An unfortunate habit that can't help but to erode your ability to discern truth when it's there, not just where you want it to be or expect it to be. I think it's really unfortunate that our species can't seem to shake the tribalism instinct, and promoting "my side" mostly takes precedence over seeing the truth.

I came to INGO to learn about guns and shooting, but the smart people here have taught me a lot about so many other things. I've come to appreciate and respect the INGO LEO contributions in threads like this one.

 

[PistolBob]

The drunk stripper that pulled a hit and run IN FRONT OF A COP AND ON VIDEO was charged with seven felonies. Got 16 months in a drug program and a clean record. Son has lifelong injuries from a traumatic brain injury. Major surgery and losing the sight in his left eye. She got clean and a new car. Yeah, I'm carrying a grudge.

That's effing horrible. I don't blame you. I hope Karma finds it way to her house.

 

[Michigan Slim]

That's effing horrible. I don't blame you. I hope Karma finds it way to her house.

Thanks. The prosecutor did give me a very nice book on controlling my "inner rage" though.

 

[nonobaddog]

Thanks. The prosecutor did give me a very nice book on controlling my "inner rage" though.

I don't think you need that book - and you proved it by not shoving it up his anal pore.

 

[STAGE 2]

Data collected and provided by whom? People you trust apparently, I don't. If one has paid attention it is easy to see that data, statistics, polls, etc. are as easily swayed to provide a desired result.

Its has nothing to do with trust, and I’m perfectly willing to be skeptical of data as stats can be abused. However literally every study done on this issue results the same way regardless of city, department or the entity performing the study. If this was a matter of conflicting data then it would be a different issue, but it’s not.

There has been a very organized and concentrated effort to defund, dismantle, villainize and destroy law enforcement in this country. That just so happens to coincide with the studies and data being pushed out. Coincidence? You'll have a hard time convincing me but I'm willing to listen.

Two things can coexist. There can be a concerted effort to dismantle law enforcement (and I agree that there is) and at the same time it can also be true that veteran preference is a bad policy.

As far as your comments in red are concerned.... I have real world experience, 20 years of it. As do two other members who have posted and disagreed with you. The problems we are seeing in LE today are largely brought about by the degradation of hiring standards encouraged by the same people who produce the garbage data and studies you want to cling to.

But your real world experience is a single data point. It’s like someone who has a car that turns out to be a lemon. Their experience is both real and valid but also inadequate for making a determination as a whole. Toyota has surely put out a bad car once in a while, and there are surely happy Ford Pinto owners out there. For the same reason that we cant draw any conclusions off of these single examples your experience isn’t determinative of this issue as a whole.

That’s why these studies are important. And like I said above, if it was a mixed bag I wouldn’t have an opinion. But it’s not. And we aren’t talking about dumb journalists either. These are peer reviewed published studies from university researchers.

The silly part of all of this is that it would be helpful for law enforcement. All cops are (unfairly) painted with the broadest of brushes when a bad cop does something bad. By getting rid of a system that advances some people that shouldn’t be there only helps those of you that should.

 

[phylodog]

Its has nothing to do with trust, and I’m perfectly willing to be skeptical of data as stats can be abused. However literally every study done on this issue results the same way regardless of city, department or the entity performing the study. If this was a matter of conflicting data then it would be a different issue, but it’s not.

Yes, my 20 years of first hand experience, 17 as a supervisor and 10 as a full time law enforcement trainer are completely trumped by a bunch of subjective "science" conducted by people who have never performed the job, would/could never perform the job and believe themselves intellectually superior to anyone and everyone who has ever held the job.

Keep listening to the academics (you know, the same people telling us that boys can be girls). It's been working out wonderfully now for a couple of decades. It sure as hell has provided a non stop flow of examples of people who should have never been considered for the job ****ing it up beyond belief. Keep lowering the standards, keep hiring the unqualified, keep sending the wrong people into the line of fire. It'll keep the controversies rolling indefinitely.

Perhaps the real crux of the issue is just exactly what different people expect from law enforcement. Everyone wants a Care Bear in uniform until the real work needs to be done. I was never much on community days and making tik tok videos dancing in uniform but I'm old.

I should probably mention that in my 20 years, including 12 on SWAT and 3.5 on the most aggressive street crime unit on the department and in spite of my apparently terrifying military background I never received a single excessive use of force complaint. Not one but I wasn't a good cop because I didn't have a degree.

 

[phylodog]

The silly part of all of this is that it would be helpful for law enforcement. All cops are (unfairly) painted with the broadest of brushes when a bad cop does something bad. By getting rid of a system that advances some people that shouldn’t be there only helps those of you that should.

What is silly is seeing where LE is today, recognizing that it's ****ed up precisely due to the interference of peer reviewed university researchers over the past three decades or so and wanting more of that same interference. The people you're listening to want social workers with guns they don't know how to use. I'm all for that but don't task those people with enforcing the law.

You're advocating for a system which discriminates against veterans based on the opinions of the uninvolved. There are actual intellectuals out there who are interested in unbiased, realistic studies surrounding law enforcement, those would be much more worthy of your time.

Police officers who are skilled at their job and motivated to earn their paycheck with get complaints tenfold over an officer simply there to collect a paycheck. I'll take someone I have to reign in from time to time over someone I have to kick in the ass every day.

 

[STAGE 2]

Yes, my 20 years of first hand experience, 17 as a supervisor and 10 as a full time law enforcement trainer are completely trumped by a bunch of subjective "science" conducted by people who have never performed the job, would/could never perform the job and believe themselves intellectually superior to anyone and everyone who has ever held the job.

Keep listening to the academics (you know, the same people telling us that boys can be girls). It's been working out wonderfully now for a couple of decades. It sure as hell has provided a non stop flow of examples of people who should have never been considered for the job ****ing it up beyond belief. Keep lowering the standards, keep hiring the unqualified, keep sending the wrong people into the line of fire. It'll keep the controversies rolling indefinitely.

Perhaps the real crux of the issue is just exactly what different people expect from law enforcement. Everyone wants a Care Bear in uniform until the real work needs to be done. I was never much on community days and making tik tok videos dancing in uniform but I'm old.

I should probably mention that in my 20 years, including 12 on SWAT and 3.5 on the most aggressive street crime unit on the department and in spite of my apparently terrifying military background I never received a single excessive use of force complaint. Not one but I wasn't a good cop because I didn't have a degree.

I was hoping to have a productive conversation with you, but you keep swinging at straw men. Never once have I advocated for standards to be lowered. In fact I’m advocating for the opposite. Nor do I think girls are boys for the record.

Now that we’ve settled that, do you actually want to discuss the issue or keep on with the “Im a cop, rah rah rah” routine. As I said before, what you’ve done and what I’ve done doesn’t matter. What matters is the data.

Now you seem to think the data is somehow false. Ok. Point me to a study which contradicts the ones I’ve referenced i.e. law enforcement who are ex military typically have less issues with excessive force than non vets. If you’ve got something like that I’d love to see it as I’m open to being swayed.

If you don’t then I’m afraid you don’t have a position to argue from. Again we’re discussing this because a cop shot an unarmed woman. In other words a mistake was made that cost a woman her life. That’s why he’s sitting in jail on a murder charge.

Whats more, this guy should have never been a cop in the first place. But he was because of veteran preference. Never mind the fact that he had a general discharge, lied on his application packet, and had multiple issues with multiple previous departments to the extent that his own employer asked “how are you still employed as a cop”.

So yes, I’m concerned when someone who has more red flags than the Chinese navy gets moved to the front of the line just because he rode around in a humvee and crapped in ammo cans. Because the consequences of that can cost someone their life and in this case it did.

I would encourage you to climb down from the blue wall for a moment and actually read about this guy. Good cops that read this should be the loudest calling for this guys execution.

Grayson’s behavior in Logan County led superior to ask, ‘How are you still employed with us?’

By BETH HUNDSDORFER Capitol News Illinois news@capitolnewsillinois.com Before former Sangamon County Sheriff’s deputy Sean Grayson was accused of shooting Sonya Massey after she called police to investigate a prowler, he had a rocky, one-year tenure with the Logan County Sheriff’s Department...

capitolnewsillinois.com

 

[phylodog]

I was hoping to have a productive conversation with you, but you keep swinging at straw men. Never once have I advocated for standards to be lowered. In fact I’m advocating for the opposite. Nor do I think girls are boys for the record.

Now that we’ve settled that, do you actually want to discuss the issue or keep on with the “Im a cop, rah rah rah” routine. As I said before, what you’ve done and what I’ve done doesn’t matter. What matters is the data.

Now you seem to think the data is somehow false. Ok. Point me to a study which contradicts the ones I’ve referenced i.e. law enforcement who are ex military typically have less issues with excessive force than non vets. If you’ve got something like that I’d love to see it as I’m open to being swayed.

If you don’t then I’m afraid you don’t have a position to argue from. Again we’re discussing this because a cop shot an unarmed woman. In other words a mistake was made that cost a woman her life. That’s why he’s sitting in jail on a murder charge.

Whats more, this guy should have never been a cop in the first place. But he was because of veteran preference. Never mind the fact that he had a general discharge, lied on his application packet, and had multiple issues with multiple previous departments to the extent that his own employer asked “how are you still employed as a cop”.

So yes, I’m concerned when someone who has more red flags than the Chinese navy gets moved to the front of the line just because he rode around in a humvee and crapped in ammo cans. Because the consequences of that can cost someone their life and in this case it did.

I would encourage you to climb down from the blue wall for a moment and actually read about this guy. Good cops that read this should be the loudest calling for this guys execution.

Grayson’s behavior in Logan County led superior to ask, ‘How are you still employed with us?’

By BETH HUNDSDORFER Capitol News Illinois news@capitolnewsillinois.com Before former Sangamon County Sheriff’s deputy Sean Grayson was accused of shooting Sonya Massey after she called police to investigate a prowler, he had a rocky, one-year tenure with the Logan County Sheriff’s Department...

capitolnewsillinois.com

You're right, he shouldn't have been but his service in the military shouldn't have been an excluding factor. Do these douche bags get hired? You betcha, right along with those who can barely write the english language, those with suspended driver's licenses, bankruptcies and horrible credit scores and little to no meaningful life or work experiences. Why? Because the same academics who demanded that standards be lowered are the same academics telling you that a 23 year old with a degree in criminal justice and little else is better prepared or will better serve the public as a law enforcement officer than someone with military experience. It's utter and complete ********.

There won't be a meaningful conversation as we're sitting now as I find little to no use for the people you're choosing to listen to. I have my experience to rely upon, not the words of people I don't know with personal/political agendas and zero real world, boots on the ground experience.

 

[STAGE 2]

You're right, he shouldn't have been but his service in the military shouldn't have been an excluding factor.

Of course it should. This guy was ineligible to reenlist in the Army because of his conduct but under the system you support he received preference over someone with no military service. That’s insanity.

Do these douche bags get hired? You betcha, right along with those who can barely write the english language, those with suspended driver's licenses, bankruptcies and horrible credit scores and little to no meaningful life or work experiences. Why? Because the same academics who demanded that standards be lowered are the same academics telling you that a 23 year old with a degree in criminal justice and little else is better prepared or will better serve the public as a law enforcement officer than someone with military experience. It's utter and complete ********.

Again I’m not arguing for lowered standards no matter how many times you repeat it. But again, you need to take a step back and take stock of things. You might not like the 23 year old with the degree, but your guy is the one who smoked an unarmed woman. Your guy is the one with multiple incidences of harassment and excessive force. The facts of this case are a literal example of what I’ve been arguing.

There won't be a meaningful conversation as we're sitting now as I find little to no use for the people you're choosing to listen to. I have my experience to rely upon, not the words of people I don't know with personal/political agendas and zero real world, boots on the ground experience.

I don’t care about people, I care about data. Whether a cop is a vet is an objective fact. Whether they have been involved in a shooting or have a complaint filed against them is an objective fact.

I will again invite you to point to any study that disputes the claims made here. If you can’t then at least be honest about it. If you’re even unwilling to to do that then that suggest to me that you might be one of those who are part of the problem.