My thoughts on the armchair analysis and what acceptance of the situation provides is De-escalation. If you have the suspect contained were the risk of injury to self and public is somewhat neutralized then you can act with improved skill.
Discussing politics and religion
- Thread starter Floorist
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum:
Honestly, I would toss in maturity as the most beneficial weapon a cop could use.
At that period in time, he could not get a fair trial.
That’s why public servants need to
be absolved from public juries….. The second improvement would be public officials able to take over the media airwaves free of charge to inform the public of boundaries around protest. This way they could provide appropriate information about the case that hopefully would give the general public more understanding around the circumstances, in the hopes that the protests remain peaceful. We can’t rely on public media to meet societies needs, because they benefit financially by enhancing the conflict
Our cities would always grant us immunity when testifying. This stopped the cops from being concerned with litigation if they were found to have done something different than exactly by the books. With one of my trials, our city attorney said he would no longer grant us immunity. We politely told him that if they mentioned had we had better training, would there be a different outcome? Once he saw the error in his judgement, he reversed his decision quick.
In a nutshell:
So just to sum up, the message to the judge was that all the training in the world still needs analysis and improvement?
That prosecuting officers will only impede the process ?
No, it is similar to this joke. If an attorney can get to just one juror, he has won the trial.
A defense attorney was cross-examining a police officer during a felony trial - it went like this: Q. Officer, did you see my client fleeing the scene? A. No sir, but I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender running several blocks away. Q. Officer, who provided this description? A. The officer who responded to the scene. Q. A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers? A. Yes sir, with my life. Q. With your life? Let me ask you this then officer - do you have a locker room in the police station - a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties? A. Yes, sir, we do. Q. And do you have a locker in that room? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. And do you have a lock on your locker? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, that you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with those same officers? A. You see sir, we share the building with a court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room. With that, the courtroom erupted in laughter, and a prompt recess was called.
A defense attorney was cross-examining a police officer during a felony trial - it went like this: Q. Officer, did you see my client fleeing the scene? A. No sir, but I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender running several blocks away. Q. Officer, who provided this description? A. The officer who responded to the scene. Q. A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers? A. Yes sir, with my life. Q. With your life? Let me ask you this then officer - do you have a locker room in the police station - a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties? A. Yes, sir, we do. Q. And do you have a locker in that room? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. And do you have a lock on your locker? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, that you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with those same officers? A. You see sir, we share the building with a court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room. With that, the courtroom erupted in laughter, and a prompt recess was called.
That’s All well and good, cutting unnecessary expenses from blotted bureaucracy ( that increased over time because of both parties)
but if we label one of the parties as the blame without recognizing the other parties part in the process, we are not improving as we go forward with the progress, but rather encouraging aggressive tactics over assertive ones
The attorney asked the coroner, "are you sure he was dead when you started the autopsy?" "Yes sir, his brain was in a jar on my desk, but I suppose he could have been practicing law."
Oh, they both promise cuts, then do the opposite.That’s All well and good, cutting unnecessary expenses from blotted bureaucracy ( that increased over time because of both parties)
but if we label one of the parties as the blame without recognizing the other parties part in the process, we are not improving as we go forward with the progress, but rather encouraging aggressive tactics over assertive ones
.....first time in...... Ok second time in US history this has been dealt with.
Didn't Clinton balance the budget? ...and fire 1.5 million employees?
