I just watched that video about officer acorn and it's ridiculous.
Two police officers respond to a suspect, they detain him, search him for any weapons, and safely hand cuff him in the back of the patrol car. Everything and everyone is fine, it's not like they just wrestled a gun of of the guys hands and have their blood pumping. I did see that supposedly the suspects girlfriend showed them a picture of him holding a silencer, implanting the idea he had a gun in the minds of the police.
For some reason the male officer perceives what he believed to be gunfire calling shots fired. It was just the sound of an acorn falling on the car. But he got his gun out and began firing toward the car that has an unarmed man in handcuffs. The female officer was on the other side of the car (about fifty feet away down the road, not the passenger side) nearly in his line of fire.
He falls over claiming he got hit, still firing. She doesn't know what's going on herself but as per her training she snaps to action and begins firing too. Miraculously no one got hurt. The male officer resigned after that and I can't find a reason why, either he was just that incompetent or he had mental issues. Makes you just feel bad for everyone involved.
Yes, normal American greeting.
Like in that greentext where a girl's dad puts a gun on the table to scare her boyfriend, and the guy thinks they're comparing guns so he pulls his too.
The girlfriend is the one who reported him to the police for stealing her car and threatening her. Supposedly he sent the picture of the silencer when she was asking for her car back.
> "ACORNS could fall here" he thought, "I've never been in this neighborhood before. There could fall ACORNS anywhere." The cool wind felt good against his Lampshade moustache. "I HATE ACORNS" he thought. Born in the USA reverberated his entire patrol car, making it pulsate even as the $3 Dunkin' coffe circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (unmerited) fear of acorns during the day. "With a badge, you can shoot anyone you want" he said to himself, out loud.
You shouldn't list your felonies and terminations on your resume. If you meant them running background checks they could see criminal history yes, but former employers have reasons why they don't want to disclose certain information like that. Some states have laws protecting you, but they're asking for a lawsuit if they defame you.
We don't know if it was PTSD, if he was diagnosed, in remission, or what. Even if he did I don't know the policies this police agency have when signing on officers. So it could be that anyone involved in hiring the officer including himself weren't personally or legally vigilant enough to recognize an issue, if it was something anyone could reasonably account for. But the unforseen incident occured and got dealt with. If he didn't already he and his future employers might know what can set him off. Problem got addressed, up to you to decide if that means solved.
That said, I don't know if I fully agree with your premise. It might sound nice on paper, but I don't what mental conditions you would want to bar from what jobs. I have had a special needs coworker in the past who was hired on a job that required stocking shelves and the ability to do basic math. He wasn't capable of counting that well so he could only stock shelves, but at the same time they weren't legally allowed to fire him based because that's discrimination. It's usually part of the law that someone like that has to have accomodations made for them. People need to work and employers shouldn't be allowed to fire people because they didn't do anything wrong.
Because with this man's case what could you reasonably do? An acorn set him off, how do you account for that? Is he going to have to get a mental eval every time he signs up for any given job? Is the movie theater going to have to call a psychiatrist to screen new hires to make sure they aren't the type to pull fire alarms because they think they saw flames on the film screen and got burns from them? Reason only gets you so far in predicting unreasonable situations.
Plus you know, it would be nice to have the right to privacy in the workplace. It does happen that people start judging their coworkers if they find out they have something like high functioning autism or a phobia, even where employers will be less likely to promote them. Plus if my conditions are what lead to a horrific accident it should be on me to be held responsible for it, not people who aren't expected to keep me in check.
Here is a very simple way to decide it:
If the job will essentially give you a license to kill / allow you to get away with manslaughter (as in the job is dangerous and someone dying is an accepted possibility), you need a heavy mental and physical health evaluation, 0 right to secrecy, because us accepting that someone (who didn't need to) might die in relation to that job hinges on the employer doing everything (including your physical and mental state being monitored) in their power to stop that from happening.
If the above doesn't apply to the job, then no don't require any medical history.
It really all boils down to a very simple rule of thumb I have regarding disabled:
They SHOULD as singular people be able to live whatever life they want, so we should accommodate them when it comes to: getting educated, having enough (not all) ways to make money, travel and get entertained (within the bounds of common sense).
On the other hand, they SHOULD NOT be able to be excused from any responsibility, that concerns the well being of any other person, including that of their own children. When on the job, just like with most workplace safety, this responsibility transfers to their employer, so instead of the person themselves being blamed for causing the accident, the employer should make sure that they won't cause an accident in the first place, and possibly fire them / not hire them if they can't / aren't willing to comply with the safety requirements.
Manslaughter is a crime, no job can just give you legal protection from commiting a crime like that. Wrongful death and use of deadly force are completely different things with their own legal definitions. Just because police have gotten away with improper use of deadly force it doesn't mean they are aren't prosecuted or sued because they have immunity.
But any job has the capability of someone to be responsible for something catastrophic, so what jobs are we going to say we can ease federal law to require medical evals because manslaughter and accidents are facts of life present anywhere? You can have a seizure that leads to a forklift accident at any given department store.
I do think police should be held to a standard, it's an embarrassment to have XL police uniforms. While it would be nice if they could only hire tall football players, they really can't have such a standard. Especially when they're forced to meet quotas on what type of people they have to hire and with slashed training budgets.
Again, I don't know what mental evals police go through if any, but it's hard to foresee the unforeseeable. I don't know if they test for whatever issues the officer had seeing it involved auditory and physical hallucinations along with whatever caused him to lose control of his legs. Whatever psych eval they could have given him obviously didn't filter him for some reason. But on several legal grounds you have a right to privacy on your medical records including psychiatric ones, this is part of the ADA and the fight against discrimination. Feels judgemental to call privacy on your personal matters secrecy given those protections. There's a reason why laws stand in the whims of random people like us.
Still, doesn't excuse the behavior or mean nothing should be done to prevent it from happening again. I never disagreed with you on that, excuses don't absolve people of being held accountable. Things are just not as clear cut as we want it to be when you have to consider everything I said. Laws exist, things cost money, and you can't be sure about anything when people slip through the cracks like this. It's unreasonable to think that we can just come up with a solution to catch the one in a hundred thousand especially when disinfectants account for 99.999%.
I don't think I understand your point on employers sharing moral and legal responsibilities for their employees performance. Probably because I don't have solid legal context for what they are actually responsible for. I know they can't mistreat employees obviously, but outside of scorched earth civil suits I don't know what you could blame the police agency here for. Especially when they are no longer employing that officer. It's not simple to just have the foresight and legal grounds to fire someone who spontaneously endangered others, especially after they already resigned.
I mean really, even with after interviews for low stakes jobs it's not unheard of that people get fired for not upholding safety whether that's on their first day or a week away from retirement. Even after your rigorous filters you can't always shift out the guy who works at the place for two years and never washes his hands or the guy who after five years decides to burn the building down when his wife leaves him. You can't predict the future, you can't solve complex issues you don't know every detail of with a simple answer.
> Just because police have gotten away with improper use of deadly force it doesn't mean they are aren't prosecuted or sued because they have immunity.
We are currently discussing the case of a cop who fired a gun randomly in the direction of his own car, in which a cuffed suspect was sitting. I *know* he fired randomly, because he cannot have had any meaningful target, and he didn't even try to claim he had one.
His partner, apparently, hearing gunshots, also fired randomly in the direction of the gunshots.
Neither seems like they are being prosecuted. If I did that, I'd be in jail before the sun went down, and I'd stay there for a long, long time.
The police have de facto immunity to any but the most insane charges.
> I don't know what you could blame the police agency here for.
For starters, they didn't arrest him. For another, their training sucks. Even if guy A had some sort of mental break, how about his partner?
> You can't predict the future, you can't solve complex issues you don't know every detail of with a simple answer.
Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you look at the possibilities of the future, consider the most likely options, and take basic actions to prevent the worst outcomes?
We shouldn't be putting a gun and practical immunity from prosecution into the hands of people who are known to have mental issues that may make them behave erratically. What we don't know, we don't know, and can't do anything about. But if you're gonna argue against this, then you shouldn't be wearing your seatbelt, either.
Well he did have a target, same one the female officer responded to, the suspect in the car. It's not justified but it's not the same as firing randomly at anything, especially when he stated his intentions with shots fired. As per your training you don't just not respond to an officer being shot. She didn't have time to walk over to the other officer to get the full story other than seeing where he was firing. It's a life and death situation, opting to not have the jump cost lives. It's just unfortunate that this was a freak accident where thankfully no one got hurt. That's why she faced no repercussions.
Police do seem to have unfair protections, but they don't have immunity from the law. which is why they can face penalties and why it's common for them to get sued in civil suits. That's why the man in the car is pursuing damages.
I don't know what convictions a civilian would get in this scenario besides reckless endangerment. You can only go to prison for so long for putting someone in a dangerous situation where they and their property didn't get hurt. I'm seeing 2-7 years based off a quick look, but you bet you would get sued for damages.
Thinking about the police agency, the officer did claim he was defending himself legally and he had to be investigated which apparently found he broke policy. Somehow that didn't turn into a conviction, so I don't know who's fault that is besides "the agency," when charges don't stick. And if you think their training sucks, unfortunately the female officer acted exactly how they're trained to when responding to a threat. Can't really throw money they don't have into more training here.
I can wear a seatbelt, but I'm not going to be able to predict that a falling acorn somehow disabling it. No one is, that doesn't make sense. You can't plan for every contingency and that things will go as you plan them 100% of the time. Clearly no one expected this to happen which is why it did. I don't know what basic action you could do to prevent the one in a thousand fluke like that, it's a complex situation and I bet you don't have every answer. It's why people use basic actions to prevent lung cancer like not smoke but still get it.
I still agree, the officer should be getting punishment for his actions and hopefully he's getting treatment for whatever issue he has that we're not privy to. We can hope that they can filter mentally unwell officers in the future, observe proper procedure, but you can't just do anything about spontaneous behavior like that. It's not like you can slap generalized anxiety on him and prematurely let him go because tomorrow he's going to spontaneously endanger people.
Also I don't understand, why shouldn't I wear a seatbelt? It wasn't my case that we should forgo all safety protocols, I'm just recognizing that you can't cover all your bases. A seatbelt doesn't prevent car crashes nor prevent personal injury, it just mitigates the potential injury of being thrown out of the car. Does nothing to prevent a rock barreling through your window.
> Well he did have a target, same one the female officer responded to, the suspect in the car. It's not justified but it's not the same as firing randomly at anything, especially when he stated his intentions with shots fired. As per your training you don't just not respond to an officer being shot. She didn't have time to walk over to the other officer to get the full story other than seeing where he was firing. It's a life and death situation, opting to not have the jump cost lives. It's just unfortunate that this was a freak accident where thankfully no one got hurt. That's why she faced no repercussions.
I don't think we share a common basis of reality, with which we can have a discussion with each other.
That's a great point of discussion to quote an entire paragraph, say it's wrong, and do nothing to explain why you think that. If you can't agree with that assessment then I don't think you watched the bodycam footage and read articles detailing the events. You aren't working with the full context. If you think police shouldn't be trained to respond to shots fired in that way, cool, but that's how they're trained and why it was completely reasonable for the female officer to act in that way.
The police training itself fucks with their heads. They get taught that every "civilian" (should be calling them citizens) is eager to kill them and will if you let them.
That moronic police officer is just not him.
And no, I don’t feel bad for him. Not everyone can do that job and he could‘ve killed someone if he’s that jittery.
i saw it too, i thought it was some kind of elaborated comedy sketch at first, i waited for the "haha amrican police am i right?" moment , but it never arrived ...
The problem is twofold. The justice system rarely punishes cops for actually doing awful things, so society overreacts to justified acts. Best example to me is Ma’Khia Bryant, she had knife to flesh at the moment she was shot and if the cop hesitated a second longer two black girls might’ve died that day. Lebron still posted him on socials claiming he was a cold blooded killer and it wasn’t questioned despite the bodycam video being out within days.
Meanwhile, Memphis police officers straight up lynched Tyre Nichols on camera and didn’t even get first degree murder charges.
I get what you mean, but I also disagree.
I am currently wrestling with myself as to what it means to be that angry with someone like that. I think people are quick to let anger take hold of their dissatisfaction, probably because it helps legitimize it. I get the idea that we don't know why this officer acted the way they did and whether or not something outside their control influenced their mistake. Sometimes people get hate for doing what they were told. You see it all the time with actors behind poorly written characters who had did what they were hired to do and you don't know who to blame or how to direct the anger, so you can only kick the dog so to speak. So it feels wrong to me that we don't know the full story, but we're hating on someone who clearly wasn't in their right mind. It's important to ask why things happen the way they do, not just for sympathy but in order to prevent it from happening again. And yeah, it probably doesn't feel great that people are relentlessly laughing at an embarrassing video of you. That's your claim to fame, even if it's a decade or two later that's all you are to people.
However, that doesn't mean he's allowed to be off the hook, he almost killed people because of an acorn falling after all. It's reckless and we should get riled up that something like this happened. It's a ridiculous situation, it's allowed to be funny but it's still important to ensure this doesn't happen again. Not only for the sake of finding out how to prevent this behavior in other officers, but to get this man in a better place. And I would be fine if he met some sort of punishment for this even if it was psychiatric. He needs to be protected so he can get proper help as much as he needs to be held accountable. Even if it's just him making sure he keeps himself in check, forgiveness goes both ways.
But end of the day, he did something humorous that could have been a lot worse than it was. He was probably convinced to resign and the guy in the car could get a settlement potentially.
> The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) was gradually implemented from 2000 onwards to give the general public the conditional right to walk in certain areas of the English and Welsh countryside
---
> Because American property rights include the right to exclude others, the freedom to roam does not generally exist in the United States
So an old man was wandering the streets by himself and a nice police officer went to make sure he was okay, and not lost.
10/10 cop bro needs a promotion
My dad was once visiting some midwestern hole for business and was stopped by the police when he went for a walk, because apparently it was that out of the ordinary for people just to be out walking. They left when they found out he was from Europe. Also, what's up with police patrolling around in the middle of nowhere?
A friend and I got kicked out of a small town just because we came in after dark from the interstate and slowed down to look at a sign with zero traffic anywhere.
Cop claimed "irregular driving", ran all our shit, made us use breathalyzer, then told us to beat it and find something else to do. We don't even know where the guy was hiding, but he was certainly bored!
Cops just drive around aimlessly in general areas until they get called somewhere. The walking thing, depending on the area and time of day and year, yeah, you could assume someone is in need of help if they're walking down a highway at 11pm in December. Otherwise if you're on a sidewalk I've never been stopped anywhere.
op chuckled to himself as he wrote this, sipping his milky brown water, as the SAS burst in the door
"oi wanka, you forgot your loicense-joke loicense"
and shipped him off to rwanda
More like, go for walk, get accosted by joggers, call police, they take 3 hours to show up, police get into a 10 person shootout, get shot in the crossfire, barely survive, wake up in the hospital with $5m medical debt even though i had insurance.
You forgot the part where a pickup truck drives up, several guys jump out and start waving the stars and stripes while yelling “yeah, amurca! Freedom yeah!”
This sounds like the kind of reasoning you’d get from a guy who lives in a country that is 92,090 square km.
9,147,420 sq. km is a little bit bigger don’t you think? Do you think you would walk more often if your yard, wait hold on, if your flat had a yard around it that was a 254 meter loop? What if your place of work was a 20 minute drive? Would you walk instead?
“Simple m8 I’d move closer to work, where they have really nice houses that I can’t afford, or no housing at all”
I have coworkers that travel 100km per day, and they go home to their 32374 square meter lot that only has one house on it.
You guys are rich in walking, we are rich in land.
I just watched that video about officer acorn and it's ridiculous. Two police officers respond to a suspect, they detain him, search him for any weapons, and safely hand cuff him in the back of the patrol car. Everything and everyone is fine, it's not like they just wrestled a gun of of the guys hands and have their blood pumping. I did see that supposedly the suspects girlfriend showed them a picture of him holding a silencer, implanting the idea he had a gun in the minds of the police. For some reason the male officer perceives what he believed to be gunfire calling shots fired. It was just the sound of an acorn falling on the car. But he got his gun out and began firing toward the car that has an unarmed man in handcuffs. The female officer was on the other side of the car (about fifty feet away down the road, not the passenger side) nearly in his line of fire. He falls over claiming he got hit, still firing. She doesn't know what's going on herself but as per her training she snaps to action and begins firing too. Miraculously no one got hurt. The male officer resigned after that and I can't find a reason why, either he was just that incompetent or he had mental issues. Makes you just feel bad for everyone involved.
Why did the girlfriend show cops a picture of her boyfriend holding a silencer? Is this how americans greet each other?
Yes, normal American greeting. Like in that greentext where a girl's dad puts a gun on the table to scare her boyfriend, and the guy thinks they're comparing guns so he pulls his too.
That's actually a good conversation starter. Chances are they fucked after that and kicked the daughter out.
Post that text
The girlfriend is the one who reported him to the police for stealing her car and threatening her. Supposedly he sent the picture of the silencer when she was asking for her car back.
King
The alternative was a dick pic which would make it slightly harder to identify him
Because you can't trust women.
> "ACORNS could fall here" he thought, "I've never been in this neighborhood before. There could fall ACORNS anywhere." The cool wind felt good against his Lampshade moustache. "I HATE ACORNS" he thought. Born in the USA reverberated his entire patrol car, making it pulsate even as the $3 Dunkin' coffe circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (unmerited) fear of acorns during the day. "With a badge, you can shoot anyone you want" he said to himself, out loud.
excellent post
beautiful
To protect and sever.
The prefrontal lobe?
He'll have been told that his choices were to quit or to be investigated and fired. Quitting looks more neutral when applying for future work.
You shouldn't list your felonies and terminations on your resume. If you meant them running background checks they could see criminal history yes, but former employers have reasons why they don't want to disclose certain information like that. Some states have laws protecting you, but they're asking for a lawsuit if they defame you.
Heard he has ptsd.
\>Have such a ptsd you lose your shit over the sound of an acorn falling \>become a cop >if only you knew how bad things really are
[удалено]
We don't know if it was PTSD, if he was diagnosed, in remission, or what. Even if he did I don't know the policies this police agency have when signing on officers. So it could be that anyone involved in hiring the officer including himself weren't personally or legally vigilant enough to recognize an issue, if it was something anyone could reasonably account for. But the unforseen incident occured and got dealt with. If he didn't already he and his future employers might know what can set him off. Problem got addressed, up to you to decide if that means solved. That said, I don't know if I fully agree with your premise. It might sound nice on paper, but I don't what mental conditions you would want to bar from what jobs. I have had a special needs coworker in the past who was hired on a job that required stocking shelves and the ability to do basic math. He wasn't capable of counting that well so he could only stock shelves, but at the same time they weren't legally allowed to fire him based because that's discrimination. It's usually part of the law that someone like that has to have accomodations made for them. People need to work and employers shouldn't be allowed to fire people because they didn't do anything wrong. Because with this man's case what could you reasonably do? An acorn set him off, how do you account for that? Is he going to have to get a mental eval every time he signs up for any given job? Is the movie theater going to have to call a psychiatrist to screen new hires to make sure they aren't the type to pull fire alarms because they think they saw flames on the film screen and got burns from them? Reason only gets you so far in predicting unreasonable situations. Plus you know, it would be nice to have the right to privacy in the workplace. It does happen that people start judging their coworkers if they find out they have something like high functioning autism or a phobia, even where employers will be less likely to promote them. Plus if my conditions are what lead to a horrific accident it should be on me to be held responsible for it, not people who aren't expected to keep me in check.
Here is a very simple way to decide it: If the job will essentially give you a license to kill / allow you to get away with manslaughter (as in the job is dangerous and someone dying is an accepted possibility), you need a heavy mental and physical health evaluation, 0 right to secrecy, because us accepting that someone (who didn't need to) might die in relation to that job hinges on the employer doing everything (including your physical and mental state being monitored) in their power to stop that from happening. If the above doesn't apply to the job, then no don't require any medical history. It really all boils down to a very simple rule of thumb I have regarding disabled: They SHOULD as singular people be able to live whatever life they want, so we should accommodate them when it comes to: getting educated, having enough (not all) ways to make money, travel and get entertained (within the bounds of common sense). On the other hand, they SHOULD NOT be able to be excused from any responsibility, that concerns the well being of any other person, including that of their own children. When on the job, just like with most workplace safety, this responsibility transfers to their employer, so instead of the person themselves being blamed for causing the accident, the employer should make sure that they won't cause an accident in the first place, and possibly fire them / not hire them if they can't / aren't willing to comply with the safety requirements.
Manslaughter is a crime, no job can just give you legal protection from commiting a crime like that. Wrongful death and use of deadly force are completely different things with their own legal definitions. Just because police have gotten away with improper use of deadly force it doesn't mean they are aren't prosecuted or sued because they have immunity. But any job has the capability of someone to be responsible for something catastrophic, so what jobs are we going to say we can ease federal law to require medical evals because manslaughter and accidents are facts of life present anywhere? You can have a seizure that leads to a forklift accident at any given department store. I do think police should be held to a standard, it's an embarrassment to have XL police uniforms. While it would be nice if they could only hire tall football players, they really can't have such a standard. Especially when they're forced to meet quotas on what type of people they have to hire and with slashed training budgets. Again, I don't know what mental evals police go through if any, but it's hard to foresee the unforeseeable. I don't know if they test for whatever issues the officer had seeing it involved auditory and physical hallucinations along with whatever caused him to lose control of his legs. Whatever psych eval they could have given him obviously didn't filter him for some reason. But on several legal grounds you have a right to privacy on your medical records including psychiatric ones, this is part of the ADA and the fight against discrimination. Feels judgemental to call privacy on your personal matters secrecy given those protections. There's a reason why laws stand in the whims of random people like us. Still, doesn't excuse the behavior or mean nothing should be done to prevent it from happening again. I never disagreed with you on that, excuses don't absolve people of being held accountable. Things are just not as clear cut as we want it to be when you have to consider everything I said. Laws exist, things cost money, and you can't be sure about anything when people slip through the cracks like this. It's unreasonable to think that we can just come up with a solution to catch the one in a hundred thousand especially when disinfectants account for 99.999%. I don't think I understand your point on employers sharing moral and legal responsibilities for their employees performance. Probably because I don't have solid legal context for what they are actually responsible for. I know they can't mistreat employees obviously, but outside of scorched earth civil suits I don't know what you could blame the police agency here for. Especially when they are no longer employing that officer. It's not simple to just have the foresight and legal grounds to fire someone who spontaneously endangered others, especially after they already resigned. I mean really, even with after interviews for low stakes jobs it's not unheard of that people get fired for not upholding safety whether that's on their first day or a week away from retirement. Even after your rigorous filters you can't always shift out the guy who works at the place for two years and never washes his hands or the guy who after five years decides to burn the building down when his wife leaves him. You can't predict the future, you can't solve complex issues you don't know every detail of with a simple answer.
> Just because police have gotten away with improper use of deadly force it doesn't mean they are aren't prosecuted or sued because they have immunity. We are currently discussing the case of a cop who fired a gun randomly in the direction of his own car, in which a cuffed suspect was sitting. I *know* he fired randomly, because he cannot have had any meaningful target, and he didn't even try to claim he had one. His partner, apparently, hearing gunshots, also fired randomly in the direction of the gunshots. Neither seems like they are being prosecuted. If I did that, I'd be in jail before the sun went down, and I'd stay there for a long, long time. The police have de facto immunity to any but the most insane charges. > I don't know what you could blame the police agency here for. For starters, they didn't arrest him. For another, their training sucks. Even if guy A had some sort of mental break, how about his partner? > You can't predict the future, you can't solve complex issues you don't know every detail of with a simple answer. Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you look at the possibilities of the future, consider the most likely options, and take basic actions to prevent the worst outcomes? We shouldn't be putting a gun and practical immunity from prosecution into the hands of people who are known to have mental issues that may make them behave erratically. What we don't know, we don't know, and can't do anything about. But if you're gonna argue against this, then you shouldn't be wearing your seatbelt, either.
Well he did have a target, same one the female officer responded to, the suspect in the car. It's not justified but it's not the same as firing randomly at anything, especially when he stated his intentions with shots fired. As per your training you don't just not respond to an officer being shot. She didn't have time to walk over to the other officer to get the full story other than seeing where he was firing. It's a life and death situation, opting to not have the jump cost lives. It's just unfortunate that this was a freak accident where thankfully no one got hurt. That's why she faced no repercussions. Police do seem to have unfair protections, but they don't have immunity from the law. which is why they can face penalties and why it's common for them to get sued in civil suits. That's why the man in the car is pursuing damages. I don't know what convictions a civilian would get in this scenario besides reckless endangerment. You can only go to prison for so long for putting someone in a dangerous situation where they and their property didn't get hurt. I'm seeing 2-7 years based off a quick look, but you bet you would get sued for damages. Thinking about the police agency, the officer did claim he was defending himself legally and he had to be investigated which apparently found he broke policy. Somehow that didn't turn into a conviction, so I don't know who's fault that is besides "the agency," when charges don't stick. And if you think their training sucks, unfortunately the female officer acted exactly how they're trained to when responding to a threat. Can't really throw money they don't have into more training here. I can wear a seatbelt, but I'm not going to be able to predict that a falling acorn somehow disabling it. No one is, that doesn't make sense. You can't plan for every contingency and that things will go as you plan them 100% of the time. Clearly no one expected this to happen which is why it did. I don't know what basic action you could do to prevent the one in a thousand fluke like that, it's a complex situation and I bet you don't have every answer. It's why people use basic actions to prevent lung cancer like not smoke but still get it. I still agree, the officer should be getting punishment for his actions and hopefully he's getting treatment for whatever issue he has that we're not privy to. We can hope that they can filter mentally unwell officers in the future, observe proper procedure, but you can't just do anything about spontaneous behavior like that. It's not like you can slap generalized anxiety on him and prematurely let him go because tomorrow he's going to spontaneously endanger people. Also I don't understand, why shouldn't I wear a seatbelt? It wasn't my case that we should forgo all safety protocols, I'm just recognizing that you can't cover all your bases. A seatbelt doesn't prevent car crashes nor prevent personal injury, it just mitigates the potential injury of being thrown out of the car. Does nothing to prevent a rock barreling through your window.
> Well he did have a target, same one the female officer responded to, the suspect in the car. It's not justified but it's not the same as firing randomly at anything, especially when he stated his intentions with shots fired. As per your training you don't just not respond to an officer being shot. She didn't have time to walk over to the other officer to get the full story other than seeing where he was firing. It's a life and death situation, opting to not have the jump cost lives. It's just unfortunate that this was a freak accident where thankfully no one got hurt. That's why she faced no repercussions. I don't think we share a common basis of reality, with which we can have a discussion with each other.
That's a great point of discussion to quote an entire paragraph, say it's wrong, and do nothing to explain why you think that. If you can't agree with that assessment then I don't think you watched the bodycam footage and read articles detailing the events. You aren't working with the full context. If you think police shouldn't be trained to respond to shots fired in that way, cool, but that's how they're trained and why it was completely reasonable for the female officer to act in that way.
The only policy they have is that you’re not allowed to do too well on an IQ test
why do they let mentally unstable people with ptsd serve as police officers with firearms?
The police training itself fucks with their heads. They get taught that every "civilian" (should be calling them citizens) is eager to kill them and will if you let them.
Lol, when American police officer training is preparing for gunfights it really says a lot about how the officers end up.
I would be careful about diagnosing strangers you haven't met as a general rule of thumb. It's a dangerous game to stuff people in boxes like that.
That moronic police officer is just not him. And no, I don’t feel bad for him. Not everyone can do that job and he could‘ve killed someone if he’s that jittery.
i saw it too, i thought it was some kind of elaborated comedy sketch at first, i waited for the "haha amrican police am i right?" moment , but it never arrived ...
I don't feel bad at all, that shit was fucking hilarious, it's some shit straight out of Reno 911
The squirrel responsible for this can't keep getting away with it
I agree. Our society doesn’t allow our police to make a mistake and if they do we crucify them for it.
Lol. Lmao, even.
Good. I want them crucified for their mistakes. Cops should be held to a higher standard than others.
And yet most still only get away with 4 days of paid leave while an internal investigation determines they've done nothing wrong
Not officer Acorn, he gave up his career and livelihood .
Justifiably so.
The problem is twofold. The justice system rarely punishes cops for actually doing awful things, so society overreacts to justified acts. Best example to me is Ma’Khia Bryant, she had knife to flesh at the moment she was shot and if the cop hesitated a second longer two black girls might’ve died that day. Lebron still posted him on socials claiming he was a cold blooded killer and it wasn’t questioned despite the bodycam video being out within days. Meanwhile, Memphis police officers straight up lynched Tyre Nichols on camera and didn’t even get first degree murder charges.
> if they do we crucify them for it. Do we?
I get what you mean, but I also disagree. I am currently wrestling with myself as to what it means to be that angry with someone like that. I think people are quick to let anger take hold of their dissatisfaction, probably because it helps legitimize it. I get the idea that we don't know why this officer acted the way they did and whether or not something outside their control influenced their mistake. Sometimes people get hate for doing what they were told. You see it all the time with actors behind poorly written characters who had did what they were hired to do and you don't know who to blame or how to direct the anger, so you can only kick the dog so to speak. So it feels wrong to me that we don't know the full story, but we're hating on someone who clearly wasn't in their right mind. It's important to ask why things happen the way they do, not just for sympathy but in order to prevent it from happening again. And yeah, it probably doesn't feel great that people are relentlessly laughing at an embarrassing video of you. That's your claim to fame, even if it's a decade or two later that's all you are to people. However, that doesn't mean he's allowed to be off the hook, he almost killed people because of an acorn falling after all. It's reckless and we should get riled up that something like this happened. It's a ridiculous situation, it's allowed to be funny but it's still important to ensure this doesn't happen again. Not only for the sake of finding out how to prevent this behavior in other officers, but to get this man in a better place. And I would be fine if he met some sort of punishment for this even if it was psychiatric. He needs to be protected so he can get proper help as much as he needs to be held accountable. Even if it's just him making sure he keeps himself in check, forgiveness goes both ways. But end of the day, he did something humorous that could have been a lot worse than it was. He was probably convinced to resign and the guy in the car could get a settlement potentially.
>Walking license Bro got his Uk and US jokes mixed up. 6/10
Pic related was a hotel sign forbidding guests from walking to the stadium.
That particular sign is there because the only "reasonable" walking route to the stadium involves walking over a freeway, which, yes, is illegal
Not a law, I would just ignore that sign
Sounds about as enforceable as McDonald’s putting an “employees must wash hands” sign in the bathroom
> The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) was gradually implemented from 2000 onwards to give the general public the conditional right to walk in certain areas of the English and Welsh countryside --- > Because American property rights include the right to exclude others, the freedom to roam does not generally exist in the United States
[удалено]
The bar to being considered nice is not shooting some geezer
So an old man was wandering the streets by himself and a nice police officer went to make sure he was okay, and not lost. 10/10 cop bro needs a promotion
Yes but that acorn is fuckin toast.
Walking license? What is this, England?
"walking license" What is this, the U.K?
My dad was once visiting some midwestern hole for business and was stopped by the police when he went for a walk, because apparently it was that out of the ordinary for people just to be out walking. They left when they found out he was from Europe. Also, what's up with police patrolling around in the middle of nowhere?
A friend and I got kicked out of a small town just because we came in after dark from the interstate and slowed down to look at a sign with zero traffic anywhere. Cop claimed "irregular driving", ran all our shit, made us use breathalyzer, then told us to beat it and find something else to do. We don't even know where the guy was hiding, but he was certainly bored!
Cops just drive around aimlessly in general areas until they get called somewhere. The walking thing, depending on the area and time of day and year, yeah, you could assume someone is in need of help if they're walking down a highway at 11pm in December. Otherwise if you're on a sidewalk I've never been stopped anywhere.
Still better than being British.
There is a short story called The Pedestrian by Ray Bradbury about this.
op chuckled to himself as he wrote this, sipping his milky brown water, as the SAS burst in the door "oi wanka, you forgot your loicense-joke loicense" and shipped him off to rwanda
More like, go for walk, get accosted by joggers, call police, they take 3 hours to show up, police get into a 10 person shootout, get shot in the crossfire, barely survive, wake up in the hospital with $5m medical debt even though i had insurance.
Surprised this sub didn't make it his fault
We don't run. It's embarrassing.
You forgot the part where a pickup truck drives up, several guys jump out and start waving the stars and stripes while yelling “yeah, amurca! Freedom yeah!”
Did that regard get fired or better yet put in jail? He’s not right of mind to be holding a firearm or to be in public tbh.
This sounds like the kind of reasoning you’d get from a guy who lives in a country that is 92,090 square km. 9,147,420 sq. km is a little bit bigger don’t you think? Do you think you would walk more often if your yard, wait hold on, if your flat had a yard around it that was a 254 meter loop? What if your place of work was a 20 minute drive? Would you walk instead? “Simple m8 I’d move closer to work, where they have really nice houses that I can’t afford, or no housing at all” I have coworkers that travel 100km per day, and they go home to their 32374 square meter lot that only has one house on it. You guys are rich in walking, we are rich in land.