Local PD

Sarah Wilson75 said:How would you even react if someone just blindsided you with a punch? You can't exactly control that surge of pure rage. It doesn't matter if they were actually a threat or not; you just can't have people attacking or disrespecting a police officer.
Look, I'm not taking sides here.
I'm just firmly on the side of heavy fines.

So how do we punish a cop who snaps and starts swinging? Or worse, what if they kill someone in a fit of rage?

Is it okay for a driver to lose their cool in traffic, slam the gas, and veer off the road?
And they're putting their own passengers at risk too.
Or what about a driver tossing a passenger out of a moving car just because they didn't have a ticket? Is that justifiable too?

What about a doctor injecting something they shouldn't into a rude patient because they lost their temper?

Edward Gonzalez said:Quincy:

Of course I’d defend her, but it’s not like I’d be swinging my fists or elbows wildly. There are much more effective ways to handle things. Besides, given that I outweigh him by about 60 pounds and have a good four inches on these "attackers," it wouldn't take much effort to de-escalate the situation properly.

The strike always goes for the chin because that’s what immediately incapacitates someone. You learn that during your very first self-defense training session in the police academy. Having worked with the LAPD, I know how it works.

Quincy:

Look, man, I’m just going to say it: you are being an absolute idiot.

Care to explain exactly how you reached that conclusion?

Quincy:

I don't think I am, actually. I come from similar professional circles where we understand there are various ways to resolve a conflict without anyone getting hurt. And honestly, I find it hard to believe that some guy who's 5'9" and maybe 150 pounds—especially while intoxicated—could pose any real threat to my girlfriend, let alone a trained officer standing 6'3" and weighing over 220 pounds.

Based on what I know and what’s been reported, he’s a highway patrol officer. He pulled over a vehicle that was doing 100 mph on a slick road, and the driver was drunk... it's a textbook scenario.

If that's what they taught you at the academy, they did a lousy job.
Leverage is actually the most effective method—and the safest—if you know how to apply it.
When you use leverage, you control every single nerve in their body because that joint pain just shuts down their brain.
He'll be completely paralyzed.
Then you just take them to the ground, face down, keeping control of that leverage until the handcuffs go on...

Edward Gonzalez said:

drunk, "dangerous" teenagers!

Are you actually suggesting he wasn't intoxicated?
Do you even have children?

If that kid had struck him first...
Would you be making excuses for this kind of behavior then? Or would you be out there attacking the police for failing to react properly?

I mean, look at Naples, Italy—they have peaceful protests where people see God in those teenagers, yet they don't deal with armed robberies like we do here. I read about "long guns" being pulled on the streets in Washington, D.C. every single day...
If your police force didn't resort to such heavy-handed tactics, maybe these problems wouldn't exist. Otherwise, things are just going to keep getting worse and worse...

No robberies in New York City? 😂

Look, if they were speeding, just pull them over, write a ticket, and move on.
If they're just being verbally abusive, take them to the station to sober up.
If they actually get physical, arrest them and charge them...

And that's pretty much it...

Look, if they’re speeding, you just pull them over, write the ticket, and move on with your day.
If they start getting verbally abusive, you take them down to the station for a sobriety test.
And if they actually get physical with you? You make the arrest and file the charges...

Law enforcement code of conduct

FBI use of force policy
_______________________
General Directive 305

B. An officer is permitted to use only those means of force authorized by police law, specifically:
1. physical strength
2. baton
3. restraints
4. vehicle stop devices
5. K9 units
6. chemical agents
7. mounted units (horses)
8. firearms
9. water cannons
10. specialized vehicles
11. specialized weaponry
12. explosive devices

D. Any force used must be proportionate to the severity of the offense and the legal objective being pursued (always opting for the minimum force necessary to achieve success)

XI. Use of Physical Force
A. An officer is entitled to use physical force for the purpose of:

1. overcoming an individual's resistance
a) who is disturbing public peace and order
b) who needs to be escorted, detained, or arrested

2. repelling an attack:
a) against themselves
b) against another person
c) against property they are securing

B. An officer shall apply their authority to use physical force in such a way that regarding that individual, they employ:
1. strikes
2. holds/grappling
3. other defensive or offensive techniques intended to compel obedience while inflicting the least amount of harm possible.

IMPORTANT: always approach with the lowest level of force and the least intrusive method (a hold rather than a strike)

C. An officer may consider any active or passive resistance that justifies the use of physical force as
opposition to commands issued by an officer for:
1. maintaining public peace and order
2. restoring broken peace and order
3. removing someone from a scene
4. temporary restriction of movement
5. escorting
6. detaining
7. arresting
8. performing other police duties
D. Active resistance exists when a person:
1. prevents an officer from performing their duties by using:

a) weapons
b) tools
c) other objects
d) physical strength

2. Incites others to resist

E. Passive resistance exists when a person:

1. fails to follow a command
2. adopts a posture that prevents the execution of police duties (for example, lying down, kneeling, etc.)

F. An officer shall cease the use of physical force once the attack or resistance has ended.

analogwolf2 said:Unfortunately, I’ve been there myself. I reported a SWAT officer who threatened my life, promised me torture and revenge while holding me at gunpoint during his off-duty hours. My report just vanished into thin air—it was never officially logged in any system, despite what some local precinct official claimed. To make matters worse, his colleagues at the station actually told him that I had filed a complaint against him. It felt like he was targeting me specifically, which ended up costing me dearly when I had to move out and sell my house for pennies to a third party just to get away from him. This same guy was actually one of the 18 dealers caught in that recent "Operation KUM" sting operation. His name and birth year were released, and looking back at his history of getting off easy in Dateline NBC over the last decade, I have a bad feeling he'll dodge accountability for this situation too. As
http://feral.mediaturtle.com/look/we...AS1=1&ST_max=1
especially if you look at that last paragraph 😢

It all happened because they suddenly deployed cops overnight to clear people out.
They basically needed tens of thousands of people ready to go instantly.
The main thing was that they were aggressive, loved playing with guns, were fearless, and were just itching for a fight... you know the drill.
It mattered way less if they were actually trained, had clean records, or even respected the law.

And I'm still dealing with the fallout from the FBI's hiring policies today.

I find myself wondering where all those loudmouths who spent their time bashing the police have scurried off to now that the star player has been traded... the answer is they've vanished into thin air, practically invisible... 😂 Who was actually stepping up to complain back then, and more importantly, who were they even complaining to? That was real law enforcement we were seeing, not this modern era where nobody is allowed to lift a finger; it’s honestly quite pathetic...😂

Wait, they aren't allowed?
I mean, what's stopping them from just taking out civilians if they feel like it?
And don't even get me started on those guys getting wasted on duty and wrecking local bars...

B. A police officer will exercise their authority to use physical force against an individual by applying:
1. a strike
2. a restraint technique
3. other defensive or offensive maneuvers intended to compel compliance while causing the absolute minimum amount of harm.

IMPORTANT: always start with the least amount of force and the mildest means available (like a strike instead of a restraint technique)

So, apparently, you're supposed to just deck him and break every bone in his body instead of using a leverage hold or some kind of restraint... honestly, it's a good thing they didn't write down that he should just shoot him on sight immediately. I can't tell if Kirk wrote this or if this "IMPORTANT" part was tacked on later—because, in my humble opinion, a punch is definitely not the "mildest" way to handle things.

Honestly, you just have to strike them—break every bone if necessary—rather than trying some fancy leverage technique or whatever else... it’s a good thing they didn't suggest just shooting him on sight immediately, right? I can't tell if this was written by Kirk or if it was somehow added later as an important note, but from where I'm sitting, a blunt strike is anything but "minimal force."

I only brought it up because everyone seems obsessed with using leverage or specific holds, when according to the law, a physical strike might actually be the required response. Maybe the officer misjudged the situation? But I mean, trying to apply a technical hold on some drunk, aggressive punk... that's just asking for trouble.

David Smith4 said:

Honestly, you just have to strike them—break every bone if necessary—rather than trying some fancy leverage technique or whatever else... it’s a good thing they didn't suggest just shooting him on sight immediately, right? I can't tell if this was written by Kirk or if it was somehow added later as an important note, but from where I'm sitting, a blunt strike is anything but "minimal force."

I only brought it up because everyone seems obsessed with using leverage or specific holds, when according to the law, a physical strike might actually be the required response. Maybe the officer misjudged the situation? But I mean, trying to apply a technical hold on some drunk, aggressive punk... that's just asking for trouble.

D. The amount of force used has to be proportional to the severity of the offense and the specific legal goal being pursued (basically, use the least amount of force necessary to get the job done)

I think you’re totally misreading how the law actually works—I mean, just because strikes are listed first doesn't mean they're the go-to move. It's just a list of options, not a step-by-step manual, you know? You really have to look at it through the lens of section D.

I think you might be misreading how the statute actually works—I mean, just because "physical force" is listed first doesn't necessarily mean it's the chronological order of operations, right? It’s more of a menu of options rather than a step-by-step manual... you really have to look at it through the lens of that other section, Section D.

Actually, it's ordered by application. It moves from basic physical strength and its use all the way up to specialized weaponry... basically, it scales from the least intense measures meant to ensure compliance toward the much heavier stuff.

Angela Hill said:I honestly think our police departments are far too soft!
That’s exactly why things are falling apart in this country. They really ought to be granted much broader authority.
And criminals shouldn't be allowed to hide behind their rights. If you aren't fulfilling your obligations, you don't get to claim any privileges!
By that, I mean the fundamental obligation to act as an honest, law-abiding citizen.

Oh, please.
So, what you're saying is if someone commits a crime, they just lose all their civil rights—like the right to a trial or a lawyer,
but they still keep the obligation to pay taxes and follow the law in the future...?

Angela Ramos4 said:I’m reading this and I honestly can’t believe my eyes...

Nothing is ever going to change just because the police get more power and start "cracking down" harder...
They’ll just end up killing some poor kid, while the real monsters stay completely untouchable—probably because they’re all buddies anyway...
Go ahead, show him exactly what you showed us in your avatar, and don't act surprised when he beats the hell out of you... I mean, he's legally allowed to, right?😲

And all this talk about the Netherlands and Italy... please, give me a break. What happened with that cop who killed the Lazio fan back when all of Rome was basically rioting in the streets? He had the right to do that too, didn't he?

Cops—not all of them, obviously—can be total jerks who are just itching to grab some unlucky soul and lash out at them. If the guy dies, it doesn't matter; they can always just write it off as a freak accident involving a sidewalk or something. They're just taking their own issues out on people...

As for the bagging and the punch to the chin...
Wouldn't it be easier and less painful—though maybe less "fun"—to just twist a suspect's arm behind their back and hold it there until they calm down?
But I guess that isn't quite as entertaining. Plus, this guy can't even fall face-first into the pavement...

RIGHT, totally makes sense... if you land an uppercut so hard the guy hits the floor and dies, it wasn't you who killed him—it was the floor!

The ground is guilty of murder, not the cop.

I wonder if that logic would fly if some officer started screaming slurs at someone and then slammed them into the pavement until they died. Would we blame the concrete then?

It's like shooting someone and claiming you didn't kill them; oh no, the bullet did it. It wasn't your hand that finished them, it was the bullet.