Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Dec 2014, 11:37 am

freeman3 wrote:Sounds reasonable. The lack of use of verbal control, of a "command" voice to control the situation is striking in the Garner case.


As I've said, I don't understand it.

I can offer a theory and I think it's reasonably plausible. This is not the kind of duty one volunteers for and it would not be "esteemed." So, it's not unreasonable to think the officers on this assignment are not the cream of the crop. If you put a bunch of "least-qualified" cops together, you're going to get bad police work.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Dec 2014, 12:18 pm

Could be. Maybe rousting minor offenders is not popular, though maybe younger cops might like the action, I don't know.Presumably, that was not an elite unit..I am wondering what you think of the casual uniform, with the officers wearing shorts and one of them heavily tatted with the tattoos showing. I think I favor regular uniforms to convey clear indicia of authority. ( obviously undercover cops can't but these were not undercover cops). I know Garner understood they were police officers and therefore he had to comply, but I think such casual clothing does not help to emphasize authority. Maybe that's just quibbling.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Dec 2014, 12:51 pm

freeman3 wrote:Could be. Maybe rousting minor offenders is not popular, though maybe younger cops might like the action, I don't know.


I can't say with certainty--different culture. However, in LA, cops don't like arresting DUI or small stuff. There are exceptions (notably CHP), but this is less than motivational stuff.

Presumably, that was not an elite unit..I am wondering what you think of the casual uniform, with the officers wearing shorts and one of them heavily tatted with the tattoos showing. I think I favor regular uniforms to convey clear indicia of authority. ( obviously undercover cops can't but these were not undercover cops). I know Garner understood they were police officers and therefore he had to comply, but I think such casual clothing does not help to emphasize authority. Maybe that's just quibbling.


I agree. The only reason I can think of for these guys to be in plain clothes is if it was meant to be some kind of perk.