Veteran's Family Sues Police, Counties

[letmetellyou]

Are there folks on here that believe we should not give the police a tactical vehicle to protect themselves?

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by letmetellyou

Are there folks on here that believe we should not give the police a tactical vehicle to protect themselves?

Yes, another quarter mil down the crapper

[itsrequired]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

Yes, another quarter mil down the crapper

Really? If it saves the life of a police officer or civilian is it still a quarter mil down the crapper? Does it matter that the vehicle is being purchased by money siezed from criminal enterprises?

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by itsrequired

Really? If it saves the life of a police officer or civilian is it still a quarter mil down the crapper? Does it matter that the vehicle is being purchased by money siezed from criminal enterprises?

That's as lame of an explanation as "it's for the children". It does matter that it's seized money and not in a good way, allowing the police to retain seized money just entices the police to find ways to seize more money, after a while it comes to the point where you have to prove it's yours or it's automatically theirs.

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by itsrequired

Does it matter that the vehicle is being purchased by money siezed from criminal enterprises?

that in and of it self OPENS all police actions suspect - was it really for drugs, were the drugs planted so the local Police could seize and auction the property and other assets for a nice FAT Pay DAY


see Tenn State Confiscations for a primer on unlawful police seizure - it is so bad the police almost come to blows over streachs of Highway

[GURPS (Premo)]

[protectmd]

Time to re examine how law enforcement reacts in America?

Warren Vs. District of Columbia clearly states that the police are not required to "Protect and serve." The SCOTUS ruled that citizens are responsible for their own self protection and the police are not required to protect them from criminals. The better question comes in, what rights does someone actually have? This case is a prime opportunity to explore that. That case clearly states, that if someone is inside of your home raping you, beating you, having their way with you, I as a police officer responding to calls of "loud sounds" cannot be held responsible for not taking action. Unlike an EMT or medical provider, I cannot be sued for "negligence" if someone say decides to drink and drive and crashes and kills someone. See South Vs. Md.

In this case, what it clearly boils down to is... What was the initial goal of the police? Was it to charge him with a violation of the DNR article for discharging a weapon not the required distance from his residence? Was it to petition him as an officer? Did he meet the criteria to be emergency petitioned to a hospital by an officer?

While the police are required to "de escalate" the situation, I think we can also say well, if the police left him to his own devices, would he have been threat to his family or the community if he left the residence? How long is a barricade to go on before action is taken? Is the police department going to devote resources, time and effort into surrounding his house, talking to him, playing games etc. Is he using this time to fortify his house, plan a strategy to harm the officers etc? All things that are taken into consideration? The risk, cost, benefit of wait it out vs's take action.

Another question that needs to be answered is does a person have a right to suicide in Maryland? Right now there are laws on the books against it. If the police are not required by the SCOTUS to stop someone from committing suicide, how will they accomplish this goal? Suicide by cop is often something that suicidal people do. Pointing a gun at an officer leaving the officer with no choice but to fire.

Do you want to know what happens when the officers don't take action? How about the officer who was shot in the face in Prince Georges County months ago by the guy who committed a double homicide in Anne Arundel County? The guy was clearly armed and stated "he was not going back to jail." He walked out and into the house freely while armed with guns. The officers made ever effort not to shoot him, giving the suspect a clear advantage to fire and strike the officer in the face. The use of force institute clearly states that the suspect often has the element of suprise giving him the clear advantage over officers.

How are scenarios supposed to end in that situation? There was another guy in south PG months ago who set his house on fire while armed in an effort to commit suicide succeeding in doing so. How could that have been handled differently? And in this case, if the guy is "mentally unstable" its clear that the guy had military training. Military training meaning extensive firearms training, explosives training, tactics training etc. Who's to say his entire front yard isn't full of explosive improvised devices? Who's to say the house isn't rigged? To be frank, the police were dumb for surrounding the residence or driving any sort of "vehicle" through the front yard. They are lucky he didn't decide to fill the house with gasoline and propane, because if they had set off explosives to make entry, they all would have gone poof.

What kind of training does the tactical team commander actually have? Many times, people are often placed into these positions in the police department with no real training in critical incidents etc. They can get moved in and out of the position as a result of a regime change, disciplinary action etc. Its like taking a guy who sits behind the desk most of his career and putting him in charge of a hostage situation. A poor operation with a poor outcome is a result of poor leadership often, lack of training etc. When a police department puts poorly trained leaders in charge of swat units, dumb stuff occurs. Look at the college park riots. Look at DC protests and how they are handled. The only way police departments learn is through lawsuits sad to say. Police departments are reactive, not proactive in training. Top police commanders have been quoted stating "its cheaper to pay for an officers funeral than it is training." That ones on the internet too.

Officers funerals cost too. Dig deep taxpayers, when your crazed army ranger decides to go into kill mode and busts off with his arsenal and stockpile of ammunition and kills a few officers who were "happy go lucky" in their nice neatly pressed police uniforms, the taxpayers pay out bigtime. Thats right, for Law Enforcement LODD's congress pays $300,000 to the family alone, in addition to whatever the family and other county/state funds pay out.

The militarization of police? Well, America has become increasingly hostile towards police as well. Last time I checked, the North Hollywood Bank Robbery the police were shooting 9mm pistols against 2 drugged up bank robbers in body armor with drum clips on their rifles. There are militias out west who have aqquired huey helos, machine guns, rifles, etc. Gangsta's all over the US and wannabe's whos populations have increased since the 90's now that other rappers like Dr. Dre and Eminem have made it cool for everyone to be a gangsta are increasingly riding around with guns, machine guns, etc. Looking for their enemies or even a cop if they get the balls to shoot one. Sovereign citizens are increasingly shooting at law enforcement on traffic stops etc... simply because they hate the government, and police officers are the most visible sign of government available. At this rate, im shocked that the police in America aren't riding around in armored vehicles dressed out like the mexican federales are.

Sad reality? This guy is dead. A lawsuit won't fix anything. The policies won't be changed. What it really boils down to is what does America want to happen? Does America want to give citizens the rights to kill themselves if they are crazed loons? Did you as a veteran fight for the right to kill yourself if you want to, or be shot by police after you point guns at them and shoot at them? Does the tax payers want to pay for police funerals because more officers are getting shot because of relaxed policies towards insane morons who are armed to the teeth?

Maybe the will create a new policy that advises all family members in Maryland with "homicidal and suicidal" tendencies to go take out Emergency Petition's out on them, instead of police trying to detain the individual. Better planning on how to take someone into custody might be a better option. IDK. Alot of unanswered questions. My guess is regardless of the lawsuit, its going to be business as usual.

[itsrequired]

Originally Posted by GURPS

that in and of it self OPENS all police actions suspect - was it really for drugs, were the drugs planted so the local Police could seize and auction the property and other assets for a nice FAT Pay DAY


see Tenn State Confiscations for a primer on unlawful police seizure - it is so bad the police almost come to blows over streachs of Highway

There are no allegations of that in the instances where the funds for the purchase of this vehicle. We are not in Tennesee and the laws in Maryland for seizing property are very strict. EVERYONE who had property siezed was convicted of a crime.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by itsrequired

There are no allegations of that in the instances where the funds for the purchase of this vehicle. We are not in Tennesee and the laws in Maryland for seizing property are very strict. EVERYONE who had property siezed was convicted of a crime.

I'm sure that Tennessee didn't start out corrupt, but once you find out that you can legally rob someone and buy yourself new toys (for your protection), you've lost your objectivity. Once the politicians find that they don't have to allot that quarter mil to buying you guys your new toys and they can put it towards something that more directly benefits the, they'll break records towards changing restrictions on police impoundments.

[itsrequired]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

I'm sure that Tennessee didn't start out corrupt, but once you find out that you can legally rob someone and buy yourself new toys (for your protection), you've lost your objectivity. Once the politicians find that they don't have to allot that quarter mil to buying you guys your new toys and they can put it towards something that more directly benefits the, they'll break records towards changing restrictions on police impoundments.

So when is this going to happen? Asset forfeiture laws have been around for about 100 years. I have been in law enforcement for over 20 years and we have been siezing property from criminals long before I came around. So how long?

You don't really have an answer. You often give hypothetical suppositions which are anti authority but you really don't have any evidence that there is widespread corruption. Now you will find some isolated incident of corruption in some far away place and then try to justify your position with that information.