Posted on 02/22/2013 3:37:46 PM PST by neverdem
Police typically say that their top mission is to protect “public safety.” That’s the lingo. But the recently concluded manhunt for former Los Angeles Police Department officer Christopher Dorner, accused of murdering four people after releasing a manifesto decrying his 2008 firing from the force, suggests that concern about the public’s actual safety sometimes is fairly low on the list of police priorities.
Last weekend, police opened fire on a 71-year-old newspaper carrier and her 47-year-old daughter who had the misfortune of driving a pick-up truck police thought might be Dorner’s. The Los Angeles police detectives who opened fire on them, putting two bullets in the older woman’s back, didn’t do much double checking. The carriers' truck was a different make and color from Dorner’s.
As the women’s attorney told the Los Angeles Times: “The problem with the situation is it looked like the police had the goal of administering street justice and in so doing, didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man.” This could be written off as a sad fluke, except that 25 minutes later different officers opened fire on a different truck—once again getting key details wrong. Can’t officers at least check the license plate, and issue a warning, before opening fire?
“Nobody trains police officers to look for one of their own,” said Maria Haberfeld, a police-training professor at John Jay College in New York, according to the Web site News One. “I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes and I don’t think anybody else would.” We all understand the situation. But saying that we wouldn’t want to be “in their shoes” is no excuse for such dangerous behavior. The police wouldn’t excuse a member of the public for misusing a firearm, regardless of how stressed out that person felt.
News One also published the photograph of a gray Ford truck in the Los Angeles area with a hand-made “Don’t Shoot, Not Dorner, Thank You” poster on the back window. T-shirts and bumper stickers have popped up to similar effect. Those are funny in a dark way, but police ought to recognize how poorly this reflects on them and their strategies. It’s sad when people are more worried about the police than they are about a murderer on the loose.
“Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” argued former San Jose Police Chief Joe McNamara, a Hoover Institution scholar, in a Wall Street Journal article in 2006. “An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.”
Murders are sadly routine in the Los Angeles area. The massive police presence was the result of the killer targeting their own, thus leading to the reasonable conclusion that police pulled out the stops not because the public was in danger but because they were in danger. I don’t blame police for their efforts, but I also understand why residents in, say, South Los Angeles, wondered why killings in their community don’t rate the same attention.
With crime rates at 40-year lows, this is an opportune time for a debate about such police-priority issues free from excess emotionalism.
Media reports have focused on the rantings within Dorner’s manifesto. But a lot of it is about bureaucratic indifference—about police officials who, in his mind, didn't care about the communities they are sworn to protect. Nothing justifies such violence and I'm sickened by people who are celebrating Dorner, but even the LAPD is re-opening the case of Dorner’s firing. Perhaps the department will try to glean some broader lessons from this tragedy.
Currently, a case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is evaluating the lengths to which police are required to go to protect innocent bystanders. The case involves Sacramento police who were trailing a suspect who had run from his car and then hid in a tree in a family’s backyard. A police helicopter spotted him. So an officer released a police dog into the yard even though people were having a gathering in the backyard.
Police dogs are trained to bite and hold suspects, but they can’t distinguish between law-abiding citizens relaxing with friends and police suspects. So Bandit attacked the first person it saw. Instead of instituting reform and settling with the family, Sacramento PD has been arguing that “officer safety” would be endangered by requiring a reasonable warning before releasing a vicious dog on private property.
It’s frightening to think that police can use deadly force without taking even the most modest steps to protect innocent bystanders. It’s even more frightening to hear people defend this approach. Yes, officer safety is important. But so is the public’s safety. It's time to grapple with the proper balance.
I don't doubt that you would love to emulate the actions of the southern California LEOs and shoot me unawares in the back.
Whut!
Dehm Damn Latinas! HOt! Hot! Hot!
Still the wrong color and size....
Nowhere have I dismissed the cops actions as understandable. Your rush to judgement is little different than that for which you are castigating the cops.
Where is your outrage against the cold blooded murderous POS that left a father without his daughter, wife a widow and young children without a father?
CT=conspiracy theory
The fact of the matter is, I stated many days ago that the cops in the shootings we are discussing, knowing what we did at the time, should be charged criminally and civilly. I'm positive at least one will happen no matter the investigation outcome. All you have to do is ask, instead of making ignorant, asinine allegation and accusations.
Odd. A whole bunch of people on this thread and others seem to believe you did.
Shall we invite anyone who thought that to speak up?
I'll start:
Alaska Wolf has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he believes that actions of the local LEOs in shooting at Surfer Dude and The Newspaper Ladies was understandable and appropriate.
Did anyone else so grossly misunderstand him? If so, please chime in!
That is your reply to, "Who claimed it was ok? Are you really that dumb? " LOL! You unknowingly answered the second question in the affirmative.!!!!
Oh. Well, if your assertion the LEO’s should be held criminally and civily responsible then I’ve got not disagreement with you.
Bottoms up....
I note that you post LOLs and LOLAYs at less than totally appropriate times.
Do you have PBA?
Your self-assuredness is built on a foundation of ignorance.
shoot me unawares in the back.
LOL Another fantasy of yours, drama queen?
Thnx for the CT but, I don’t know the CT is.
I don’t think there is one in this case.
Guy fk’d up, got fired. Sure, I believe a good deal of what he claims but, he pissed his credibility away when he went on his murder spree and killed people who had nothing to do with his problemo.
I’d have liked to see him pinned to the ground atop a fire ant colony, in the heat of the summer.
Thtz just me though....
It’s the only way you can be sure I won’t shoot back.
Where did you get the idea?
From the article you linked to, the second incident occurred at around 5:45 AM and yet the police apologist giving the interview to the press said the officers involved had just heard (moments before) shots “erupting” and radio chatter from the first incident. Trouble with that cover-our-buns story is the newspaper ladies were attacked at around 4:30, over an hour earlier.
What Dorner did was wrong. What the LEOs did was equally wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right and it doesn’t give the LAPD or county or any other police force the right to put the general population in danger. And it CERTAINLY doesn’t give them the right to lie about it in order to come out smelling a little less like fertilizer than roses.
Which you did say at post #177.
You are that indeed.
Shall we invite anyone who thought that to speak up?
Whatever floats your boat. LOL
Alaska Wolf has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he believes that actions of the local LEOs in shooting at Surfer Dude and The Newspaper Ladies was understandable and appropriate.
What posts that I've made proves your mindless accusation? I've repeatedly requested that you provide proof, but like a spineless weasel, you always run away. Why is that?
Wrong? Littering is wrong. Parking in a handicapped parking space when you aren't handicapped is wrong. Committing cold blooded, premeditated multiple murders is abhorrent.
"Do you have any empathy at all for the people left without a daughter, a husband or a father by the cold blooded, premeditated murderer, Dorner?
What a fracking buffoon.
Um, sarcasm. NOBODY but you is talking about Dorner. We’re talking about the INNOCENT people who were attacked by people who are supposedly “peace officers”. They were INNOCENT. Why do you seem to think that cops and their families are more important than these people who were just trying to live their lives in peace?
You do have problems with definitions, don't you? I'm totally in control of my laughing. You are just one of the more obvious objects. Your judgement leaves much to be desired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.