Archive for the 'Police' Category

AlterNet:

A Florida family seeks justice after their son Jason Westcott, was killed by members of a SWAT team, during a “drug raid” on his house which yielded only $2.00 worth of marijuana.

An ‘internal investigation’ absolved officers of any wrongdoing though police only found .02 grams of marijuana in Westcott’s home.

“They have IA, they have internal investigations but when you police yourself, you have that veil of concern by the outsider,” said attorney T.J. Grimaldi.

On Tuesday, attorney T.J. Grimaldi, representing the family of Westcott, informed the city that family would be filing a lawsuit, after finding numerous “glaring inconsistencies” in police statements in the aftermath of the killing.

“We have developed and seen what we view to be significant inconsistencies with the way that the police department portrayed this case from the get-go all the way to its conclusion,” he said. “We have put the city and the police department on notice that we are going to be filing a lawsuit,” Grimaldi said.

Westcott became the target of an intense drug trafficking investigation after a confidential informant led investigators to believe that Westcott was a dealer, as opposed to the casual cannabis smoker he was in reality. The informant has since gone public and admitted that he was lying to police in the case.

[ … ]

The fact that a young man with his whole life to live was killed by police, over a $2 dollars worth of a plant, is a direct statement on the absurdity of the “War on Drugs.” The practice of trusting the word of individuals who have a vested interest in alleviating their own criminal charges is a practice that is contrary to the highest ideals of justice.

Read the rest.  A young man is dead because he thought his home was being invaded by criminals (it was) – all over two dollars worth of pot.  A police cover-up ensues – all over two dollars worth of pot.  A huge award is forthcoming all on the taxpayer’s purse – all over two dollars worth of pot.  A CI is now the target of criminals – all over two dollars worth of pot.

There is your war on drugs.  Do you feel safer now?

CBS:

Two North Dakota State University students got a scare when armed police officers mistook their telescope for a rifle.

WDAY-TV reports that Levi Joraanstad and Colin Waldera were setting up the telescope behind their Fargo apartment Monday night when they were blinded by a bright light and told to stop moving.

They couldn’t see who was shining the light and presumed it was a prank by other students.

An officer on patrol had spotted the two and thought the telescope was a rifle. He also thought Joraanstad’s dark sweater with white lettering on the back looked like a tactical vest. He called for backup and the officers confronted the students.

According to WDAY, Joraanstad said at first the pair didn’t take the situation seriously, certain it was just some friends fooling around.

“… we were kind of wondering, what the heck’s going on? This is pretty dumb that these guys are doing this. And then they (police) started shouting to quit moving or we could be shot. And so at that moment we kind of look at each other and we’re thinking we better take this seriously.”

Police say the two were never in any danger and that it was a situation of “better safe than sorry.”

Gosh, I hate it when that happens to me.  I remember the last time I pointed a weapon at someone holding a stick – after all, I mistook it for a rifle so better safe than sorry.  In my case, I’m glad the cops understood and let me go about my business, even though I had brandished a weapon.  Better safe than sorry, you know.

I had missed it when it happened, but the LA Times reminds us on one incident with the Stockton Police Department that ought to calibrate your expectations concerning police.

The more than 600 rounds that Stockton police fired during a rolling gun battle with bank robbers last year that left a hostage dead by officers’ bullets was “excessive” and “unnecessary,” an independent review found.

The Police Foundation, a research group based in Washington, D.C., released a detailed report Monday on how Stockton police responded to the July 16, 2014, armed robbery of a Bank of the West branch, where three gunmen took three women hostage and fired at officers from a speeding SUV.

The group found that 32 officers unloaded more than 600 rounds during the hour-long rolling gun battle, which spanned three counties, 63 miles of highway and reached speeds of 120 mph. One of the hostages, Misty Holt-Singh, was killed when she was struck by 10 police bullets, authorities said. The two other hostages jumped or were thrown from the vehicle during the chase and survived.

Police officials said they fired on the vehicle to potentially save lives because the men in the car were shooting indiscriminately. The gunmen disabled 14 police cars with gunshots, the report stated.

[ … ]

The report said that a few officers engaged in “sympathetic fire,” in which officers fired their weapons because others were shooting.

In some cases, officers opened fire while colleagues were in front of them. The report highlighted an example during the final standoff, in which one officer lay prone on the ground and did not shoot while an officer next to him, standing, fired “round after round.”

“‘What’s your target?’ the prone officer yelled, thinking he was missing something,” the report stated.

“‘The car!’ responded the officer,” according to the report.

Good Lord.  This is even worse than the New York Police in the empire state building three years ago.  600 rounds, indiscriminate shooting, lack of muzzle awareness and discipline, rolling gun battle in a urban and suburban settings, lack of awareness of their backstop, lack of precision fire, and the list could go on.

Ridiculous.

From reader Mack, in other news, the anti-gun movement’s intellectual elevator runs a few floors short of the top.

Lori Haas, director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence’s Virginians for Responsible Gun Laws campaign, says that requirements for a concealed carry permit are too lax, especially compared to the hundreds of hours of training required for police officers.

“We feel that the current regulations regarding concealed handgun permits in Virginia are woefully inadequate in regard to training,” said Haas, referencing online concealed permit classes that count toward a permit. “The notion that someone can sit in front of a computer and learn about firearm safety and be considered able to physically, actively handle an active shooter situation is fantasy.”

Uh huh.  Well, no more so that believing the police will protect you.  Apparently it was safer for the hostages in the Stockton gun battle to jump out of moving cars than be around when the police got busy.

But okay, I’ll bite.  So if Ms. Haas wants you to have more tactical training, then get more tactical training.  No, not training she or the state approves, but training you think you need to do the job of self defense.  And collectivist Haas can kiss our collective asses.

Because they thought his crutch was a weapon. No, I’m not kidding.

No charges filed.  Meanwhile, gangs run free and citizens have to deal with more onerous laws every day on their right to own and carry real weapons – not the prosthetic leg kind.

WTRF.com:

PARKERSBURG, W.Va. – A disturbing video of a West Virginia state trooper pushing a woman to the ground after she engaged him while he aimed his pistol at a dog is going viral.

In the video, just moments after seeing the trooper draw his gun on the dog, the woman is heard shouting, “You can’t do that,” before confronting the officer. The officer then grabs her by the arm and pushes her to the ground.

It is unclear why the trooper drew his pistol at the dog. Troopers were reportedly there after receiving a call about two neighbors having a dispute.

Here is the video.

I speak doggy, so let me translate for the trooper and any other LEOs who might be reading this and regularly face animals.

Dog: “Hey asshole – yea, I’m talking to you!  Who are you and what are you doing in my area of operations?  Are you a threat or are you here to play?  I like to play, but I want to make sure you aren’t here to hurt someone before I trust you.  No one properly introduced us.”

That’s about it.  The dog’s tail was still feathering around, without biasing right or left (which can be an indicator of other things).  No teeth were shown, no lunging occurred, no aggression other than coming out to meet the new person in his area.

If I had been there and assuming I had five minutes with the dog, I would have had him the back yard playing around and running after sticks while the bullies did the boring work of sorting out human psychology.  We would have been buddies.  There are certain things you do, and certain things you don’t do.  It’s always better to have someone properly introduce you to the dog rather than take the only connection you have with the dog and throw her around.  Dumb move.  Really boneheaded.  This is grammar school level stuff, and school boys know how to do better.

Never put your hands towards the dog’s hindquarters unless he knows you well – that’s threatening (Sort of like you wouldn’t walk behind a horse unless you know the horse well, and the horse is a mare or gelding and you let the horse know you are going to do that.  Never walk behind a stud unless you want to die).  Patting the dog on the head is a privilege you don’t have unless the dog grants it to you.  Rubbing the dog on the back is good, usually, and sometimes if he finds it acceptable, I can rub the side of the dog’s head within seconds of meeting him.  This is a good first step, just behind a few minutes of verbal exchange.

Voice commands are critical, and voice inflection, tonality and timbre (or tone color) make or break your communications with the animal.  Learn it.  Practice it.  Do it.  Take time with it, and if you live in a dense urban area where you cannot work with farm animals, travel on the weekends to a place where you can, or move permanently.  It’s that important.

As for the trooper, you embarrassed yourself and your department.  You acted like a little bully boy.  Instead, you should have learned to adapt and improvise, since you had the most valuable asset at your disposal you possibly could, i.e., the dog’s owner.  You threw away your asset and then had nothing.

Prior:

Note To Cops And Survivalists: The World Is Full Of Animals, Embrace It!

More On Animals, Cops, Logistics And Survival

Ventura County Sheriff: Coward

Grieving Texas Dog Owners Want Cops Trained In How Not To Kill Animals

Buffalo Police Department: The Happy Dog Killers

NYT:

The shooting looked bad. But that is when the professor is at his best. A black motorist, pulled to the side of the road for a turn-signal violation, had stuffed his hand into his pocket. The white officer yelled for him to take it out. When the driver started to comply, the officer shot him dead.

The driver was unarmed.

Taking the stand at a public inquest, William J. Lewinski, the psychology professor, explained that the officer had no choice but to act.

“In simple terms,” the district attorney in Portland, Ore., asked, “if I see the gun, I’m dead?”

“In simple terms, that’s it,” Dr. Lewinski replied.

When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. Lewinski is often there to defend their actions. Among the most influential voices on the subject, he has testified in or consulted in nearly 200 cases over the last decade or so and has helped justify countless shootings around the country.

He has appeared as an expert witness in criminal trials, civil cases and disciplinary hearings, and before grand juries, where such testimony is given in secret and goes unchallenged. In addition, his company, the Force Science Institute, has trained tens of thousands of police officers on how to think differently about police shootings that might appear excessive.

[ … ]

Many policing experts are for hire, but Dr. Lewinski is unique in that he conducts his own research, trains officers and internal investigators, and testifies at trial. In the protests that have followed police shootings, demonstrators have often asked why officers are so rarely punished for shootings that seem unwarranted. Dr. Lewinski is part of the answer.

Dr. Lewinski said he was not trying to explain away every shooting. But when he testifies, it is almost always in defense of police shootings. Officers are his target audience — he publishes a newsletter on police use of force that he says has nearly one million subscribers — and his research was devised for them. “The science is based on trying to keep officers safe,” he said.

[ … ]

A former Minnesota State professor, he says his testimony and training are based on hard science, but his research has been roundly criticized by experts. An editor for The American Journal of Psychology called his work “pseudoscience.” The Justice Department denounced his findings as “lacking in both foundation and reliability.” Civil rights lawyers say he is selling dangerous ideas.

Hmm … let me see.  He got his doctorate from a diploma mill (you do the research), engages in pseudoscience (which has as its stated outcome keeping cops “safe”), trains cops, always testifies in their defense, and by virtue of the fact that he is the one being called as an “expert” witness, becomes the one who is called to testify as an “expert” witness in future cases, a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy.

Yea.  You know what else might become a self-fulfilling prophesy?  People knowing that police are going to discharge weapons as a matter of first recourse, and then act accordingly.

News from the great Northeast:

MEDFORD (CBS) — A Medford police officer is on administrative leave after he was recorded threatening a driver during a traffic stop Sunday night.

“I’ll put a hole right through your head,” Detective Stephen Lebert is heard telling the driver, who recorded the heated encounter on his dashboard camera.

In the video uploaded to YouTube titled “Medford Detective threatens to kill civilian,” the driver explains that he made a wrong turn on an unfamiliar rotary at Winthrop and High streets.

The video shows Lebert, who was off-duty at the time, wearing shorts and an undershirt. He’s seen pulling in front of the driver in an unmarked vehicle, saying “now you’re done” and ordering him to roll down his window.

The driver, a software designer named Mike from Malden, then backs up before seeing Lebert pull out his police badge. He tells Lebert that he didn’t realize he was a cop.

“I’ll blow a hole right through your [expletive] head,” Lebert says as the driver pulls over. “You’re lucky I’m a cop because I’d be beating the [expletive] out of you right now.”

[ … ]

Medford Police Chief Leo Saco told WBZ-TV that Lebert was placed on leave when he arrived to work Monday morning. Saco said he couldn’t explain the Sunday night incident, but said Lebert is a 30-year veteran of the department and a good officer.

This is not the first time Officer Lebert got in trouble for a confrontation with a civilian that was captured on camera. He had to undergo counseling for an encounter during an arrest in 2012.

During that incident, he was being recorded by the brother of a man who was being arrested. Lebert poked the camera and said, “what you should do with your brother is take him up on the railroad tracks and tell him to lay down.”

The cop isn’t in a marked car, isn’t uniformed, and comes running up to a car in a threatening manner.  The driver would have been entirely within his moral rights – and perhaps within his legal rights since he could have been shot at any time as far as he knows – to have put the car in gear and run the cop over.

But remember.  He’s a “good officer.”

UPDATE: Just sent to the Medford PD chief: “My God I’m glad I don’t live in a collectivist “heaven” like you do, where it isn’t legal to own guns, and “the only ones” are the people who get to bully others around.  The driver should have put the car in gear and run the bully over.  I might have just shot him.”

LA Times:

One sheriff’s deputy shot himself in the leg while pulling out his gun to confront a suspect.

Another accidentally fired a bullet in a restroom stall. A third deputy stumbled over a stroller in a closet as he was searching for a suspect, squeezing off a round that went through a wall and lodged in a piece of furniture in the next room.

Accidental gunshots by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies have more than doubled in two years, endangering bystanders and occasionally injuring deputies. The jump coincides with the department’s move to a new handgun that lacks a safety lever and requires less pressure to pull the trigger.

Sheriff’s officials say that the increase in accidental discharges — from 12 in 2012 to 30 last year — occurred because deputies were adjusting to the new gun. They expect the numbers to fall in the years ahead. So far this year, the department has recorded seven accidental discharges, five of which involved the new weapon.

But the problems may not be over, as more deputies switch to the Smith & Wesson M&P9. In response, department officials have imposed extra training requirements.

The M&P has obvious benefits. It is easier to shoot accurately, can be fired more reliably under stress and is a better fit for people with small hands. The switch was prompted in part by the threat of a lawsuit by women who had failed the Sheriff’s Academy. More recruits — including more women — are now passing the firearms test, and veteran deputies are also logging better scores at the firing range.

But the sharp increase in accidental discharges has prompted an investigation by the Sheriff’s Department’s new inspector general. Critics say this type of semiautomatic, which is widespread in law enforcement and includes the Glock used by many agencies, is too easy to misfire.

Bob Owens, editor of BearingArms.com, says the design of the Glock and the M&P makes such tragedies more likely. “I don’t think, with the amount of training most agencies have, that a gun that has so few tolerances for mistakes is the best choice,” he said.

For two decades, L.A. County sheriff’s deputies carried the Beretta 92F, a heavy metal gun with a large grip.

People with small hands often have trouble flipping up the Beretta’s safety as they prepare to fire. The first shot requires 12 to 15 pounds of pressure on the trigger, forcing some to use two fingers and reducing shooting accuracy for many. Subsequent shots take about 4 pounds of pressure.

The M&P is made of lightweight polymer, with a hand grip that comes in three sizes. Firing a round is as simple as pulling the trigger with a consistent 6 to 8 pounds of pressure.

Sheriff’s deputies have the option of sticking with the Beretta, and some have, saying they are used to it. But many who have switched to the M&P say their shooting has improved.

“At first, I thought, ‘No way, I’m keeping my Beretta forever,'” said Sgt. Mike Rafter, a firearms instructor. “Then I started shooting, and it’s a lot nicer. I can shoot better, and I’m more confident.”

Academy trainees began receiving M&Ps in 2011 and the rest of the department began gradually switching to the new gun soon after. About half of sworn personnel are now using the M&P and more are changing over. As more deputies converted to the M&P, accidental discharges rose.

This is rich.  In spite of the silly article that Bob Owens wrote on the Glock and the silly accusations in this article, the truth does come out.

They are blaming it on a SA/DA pistol because of the heavy trigger pull for the first round (although I have to say that 6-8 pounds isn’t exactly a light trigger pull for the M&P).  Thus they have trained officers to keep their fingers on the trigger of their handguns when they deploy their firearms.  They say so.

Think about that and let it wash over you again.  When a cop pulls his handgun and points it your direction, according to the training he has received, he most likely has his finger on the trigger of the weapon.  And thus do we reach the root cause of the problems – not Glocks, or M&Ps, or any other ridiculous culprits.  It’s a shame that Bob couldn’t have pointed out the truth rather than blame the gun.  Blaming the gun is what gun controllers do, and why the collectivists wanted the so-called smart gun.

So other than reminding you that this violates two of the sacred rules of gun safety (muzzle discipline and trigger discipline), let’s rehearse sympathetic muscle reflexes again, and I’ll remind you of what I said about how the Marine Corps trained my son Daniel as a SAW gunner.  First concerning sympathetic muscle reflexes.

The term sympathetic contraction refers to the fact that an involuntary contraction may occur in the muscles of one limb when the same muscles in the other limb are performing an intended forceful action. In physiology literature this effect is known as a mirror movement, with the intensity of the sympathetic contraction depending on the amount of force exerted during the intended action. In policing, a common situation that may evoke such a sympathetic contraction would be, for example, a law enforcement officer attempting to restrain a struggling suspect with one hand while holding a handgun in the other.

The second scenario described by Enoka involves loss of balance. When balance is disturbed the human body evokes rapid involuntary contractions to return itself to a position of equilibrium. Thereby the involuntary contractions used to prevent a fall depend on the options available to counteract the disturbance of balance. Usually, compensatory movements following gait perturbations primarily involve correcting movements of the lower limbs to keep the body in balance, whereas movements of the arms are restricted to their extension forwards as a safeguard to counter an eventual fall. When an individual is holding a handle for support, there is, however, a tendency to use the arm muscles to maintain balance rather than the leg muscles. Under such circumstances the focal point of automatic postural activity is any contact point an individual has with his or her surroundings. In other words, if an individual’s posture is disturbed while grasping an object, for instance a handgun, he or she is likely to grasp it more forcefully.

Startle reaction, the third scenario identified by Enoka, is a whole-body reflex-like response to an unexpected stimulus, possibly a loud noise. It evokes rapid involuntary contractions that begin with the blink of an eye and spread to all muscles throughout the body. The reaction of the hands occurs less than 200ms after the stimulus and leads to individuals clenching their fists. Enoka concludes: “Accordingly, an officer who is startled by a loud, unexpected noise while searching for a suspect with his weapon drawn would surely increase the grip force on the weapon, perhaps enough to cause an involuntary discharge.”

Next concerning training.

My son was a SAW gunner in the 2/6 infantry, Golf Company, 3rd Platoon, during the 2007 combat tour of Fallujah and the pre-deployment workup.  The senior Marines had experienced a tour of Iraq, and wanted their SAW gunners to have a round in the chamber, bolt open (the SAW is an open bolt weapon anyway), and finger on the trigger.  They had seen combat and they wanted their SAW gunners with zero steps to shooting.  Their lives depended on it.  They also did CQB drills with live rounds, along with squad rushes.

My son had an ID (if I’m not mistaken it was during training at Mohave Viper).  He tripped and had a sympathetic muscle reflex, squeezing the trigger of his SAW.  He spent an extended period of time in the “room of pain.”  They wanted him trained to overcome that sympathetic muscle reflex (which can be done, but it takes hundreds or thousands of hours of drills).  He spent the time learning to overcome that reflex, and performed well during his tour.  He also tried to teach his “boot” Marines the same way he was trained, but the Marines had begun to change and focus more on cultural sensitivity training and other COIN tools.  He got out of the Marine Corps.

Why am I discussing this?  Because no matter who you are, no matter how much time you spend, no matter how earnestly you wish it, no matter how many directives you write, if you are a SWAT team member, you will never be trained in such a manner.  Never.  You will never be trained like a U.S. Marine who has spent every day for a year and a half in pre-deployment workup to do a combat tour of Iraq.  Because you will never be trained in this manner, your tactics are dangerous, all of the time, and in all situations.  I don’t care how many times you have inexperienced Soldiers spend a week with you doing CQB drills.  With the standdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, they oftentimes know as little as you.  These tactics place people in danger when there are better alternatives.

In spite of all of this, officer safety is paramount, not your safety.  So things we would never do on a range, and never allow our mates to do, are done every day by cops around the country.  They keep their fingers on the triggers of their weapons when they deploy them.  They are trained to do it.  And Bob Owens, along with the LAPD, blame guns with light trigger pulls rather than the horrible safety protocols police use.  They would apparently rather continue the tradition of ignoring trigger discipline and use pistols with a heavy trigger pull to ameliorate sympathetic muscle reflexes rather than teach cops to follow the rules of gun safety.

Good grief.  Horrible.  Just horrible.

Prior: Gun-Mounted Flashlights Linked To Accidental Shootings

Detroit Free Press:

When a man armed with a loaded assault pistol strapped to his leg, dressed in camouflage, and singing to himself, began walking in front of a Grand Rapids church one snowy Sunday morning in March 2014, an alarmed churchgoer called 911. When police arrived, they took the man’s gun, and briefly handcuffed him while they questioned him. The man, Johann Deffert, an “open carry” gun advocate, then sued police saying they had violated his constitutional rights.

A federal judge disagreed.

In a decision released last week, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff tossed Deffert’s lawsuit, saying the police officer “was justified in following up on the 911 call and using swift action to determine whether plaintiff’s behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”

[ … ]

“We’re seeing sporadic reports of it from around the state, those who are trying to draw attention to themselves and it’s needlessly alarming people,” said Robert Stevenson, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, which has 1,100 members. “People aren’t used to seeing someone brandish a gun in front of their kids’ schools.”

Stevenson said the increasingly confrontational nature of the clashes is dangerous.

“It puts the police in a position where, we don’t know what their intent is, so they’re going to approach this person, not realizing that the intent is to hurt somebody. It’s a terrible situation what these people are doing, somebody is going to get hurt.”

Sheriff’s officials say they are duty-bound to investigate what they perceive as threatening behavior, regardless of whether a person has a permit to carry a weapon or whether they are openly carrying a weapon in a place permitted by law.

Michigan is an open carry state without a stop and identify statute.  Thus has judge Neff fabricated law out of whole cloth, without even the input of the legislature.  A black robed tyrant, she is.  As for the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (assuming Stevenson is the one quoted on the duty to investigate threatening behavior), he is of course lying.  He is wrong and knows it, which makes it a lie.  See Castle Rock versus Gonzalez.  Police are absolutely not “duty bound” to do any such thing.

Thus has Stevenson fabricated duties out of whole cloth in order to support the illegal stop and identify and detention.  Rights?  Laws?  Eh, who needs them?  The system has judges and cops.  That’s all they need.

The Salt Lake Tribune:

Dillon Taylor was not armed when a Salt Lake City police officer shot him to death outside a convenience store.

But in that moment on Aug. 11, Officer Bron Cruz had good reason to think Taylor was pulling a gun out of his pants, Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill ruled on Tuesday.

Taylor, 20, and the two men he was with matched the descriptions of a 911 caller who said three men had “flashed” a gun. And Cruz saw them “making a scene” on their way to the 7-Eleven near 2100 S. State Street.

Confronted by officers, the two men with Taylor held up their hands, while Taylor alone was “noncompliant.”

Body-cam video shows that Taylor turned toward officers with his hands in his pants before hoisting his shirt — a gesture officers are trained to recognize as a possible weapon-draw.

“Nothing that Mr. Taylor did assisted in de-escalating the situation,” Gill said. “If anything, it escalated things.”

Taylor’s shooting was justified, Gill said, not because he posed an actual threat, but because Cruz reasonably perceived a threat.

I said in comments here that “I don’t trust most LEOs when it comes to muzzle discipline … There are many reasons for my mistrust, one having to do with sympathetic muscle reflexes (see here and here).”  I would not have done anything with my hands (as did Taylor), but that doesn’t change the fact that the LEO was too quick to shoot.  You be the judge.

Another thing we learn is that even with body cameras, judges most often will side with LEOs.  A corrupt system will always be corrupt, regardless of whether people see it in motion pictures.