Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rentacop tasers man holding baby (a rant)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • T202
    replied
    Originally posted by ValleyOne View Post
    Well, it's just my $0.02, but, what the hell I'll throw my hat in the ring...

    #1 The "Expert" Whore.
    It looks like he charges $7500. for case preparation and $6500. plus expenses to testify. ValleyOne, I believe you hit the nail on the head.


    http://www.krimedr.com/FeeandExpensePolicies070430.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • ValleyOne
    replied
    Very long rant/post

    Well, it's just my $0.02, but, what the hell I'll throw my hat in the ring...

    #1 The "Expert" Whore

    "I've got to wonder what kind of moron would Tase an adult holding a baby," said George Kirkham, a former police officer and criminologist at Florida State University. "It doesn't take rocket science to realize the baby is going to fall."
    Jerks like this Mr. Kerkham do nothning but offer "insight" to the UNINFORMED people who have no clue as to what really happens. By making these remarks (for profit, perhaps-hence the conotation above) he has summoned the clouds of doubt for any reader. In essence, he has tainted the drinking water. IF Mr. Kitkham was a RESPECTED former Police Officer as well as a (former?) criminologist he would have held his comments until more information could be obtained. However, I noticed that it did not say he was a RETIRED Police Officer. So that leaves some doubt in my mind as to his background. After all, he is associated with a college with room for one to consider in him on the faculty as a Prof.

    #2 The Situation at Hand.

    The "Victims FELT mistreated by staff and decided to leave the hospital with this newborn infant. Depending on what neck of the woods (or side of the pond) you live hospitals have to take advanced steps in protecting newborns. Hence the RFID tag the child was wearing, that's what killed the elevators kids. (Freaking brillant idea BTW!!) So, one could venture a guess that a nurse called security and informed them that (pay attention) a verbally hostile male, who has no clear relationship to the child against hospital policy. This male is hostile towards staff and is for all they know KIDNAPPING THE CHILD. (that's a felony damn near in all 50 states, since this happened in Texas I would venture to say that would be a death sentence). He refused to cooperate with the nursing staff and demanded that he and mother and child leave. In the most simple of situations he COULD be trying to dodge a bill. His behavior then escalted into threatening staff and endangering the welfare of the child. Actually in my eye a newborn of that age it goes right past welfare right into endangering the child's life.

    #3 Responders*.

    Already have the mindset that people try and kidnap newborns, hence the security measures a la RFID. Then they receive a panic call from Peds of a violent male with a newborn, and the staff cannot determine if he has legal authority over the child, ie daddy. It would not be a stretch for them to respond thinking some whack job is trying to steal a kid and enter the scene accordingly. Upon contact dialogue is established and the officers reposition themselves. Thiking ahead the cop COULD have told the s/o with the taser to reposition himself for a possible taser deployment. The time to tase comes the cop COULD have given the s/o a signal they are both familiar with or have trained to use. The subject refuses to cooperate, and POP goes the tweeker. Obivously the kid fell... Did the kid receive injuries? See #4.

    To me, the key here is use of force cotinuem (someone spell check that for me please). Basically, the use of force applied is only meritted on what the subject does. I mean in this, and most, cases the subject is the who set the tempo, or sets the pace of the dance. The use of force is not up to the officers, it is up to the subject. He refuses to cooperate and continues to place the kid futher jeopordy, what do you have to do to put a halt to the situation? Pepper Spray, would a very bad option as the little tike will take a dose. And that would be bad. Can't fight him with the kid in the middle. Sure as hell can't shoot him. Can't club him like a baby seal. So what tool do they have to put the brakes to the atitude test? Taser. The article read as thought their de-escalating techniques failed them (Verbal Judo, or as it's now being called Tactical Commuinications).

    Besides, for all they now he could have been kidnapping the kid. Yes, even with the kid's mommy there screaming.

    #4 Two Tickets for the Money Train

    I read this as an advertisement for his lawsuit. The only thing missing was his lawyer telling everyone what a loving father and live in boyfriend or husbad this guy was. And how he was abused by the security staff as well as the Houston PD. JEESH, they did several MRI's (aren't those bad for little kids?) and nothing came up wrong, even when he kid was placed in foster care. Only when the kid was with daddy and mommy did THEY observe the kid acting odd. I mean crying all the time, c'mon what like he's a baby or something.-The kid probably shakes in the presence of his daddy due to PTSD, from the documented domestic violence.

    Any luck andthis guy will get the same atty as that 1-800-FLOWERS idiot, and they go forth and try to win people over on their stupidity.

    OK, sorry that was probably like two dollars and not two cents.... Sorry that just got under my skin.
    [/rant]


    *A lot of places hire out regular off duty Police Officers, as well as, Reserve Police Officers. There are some pros and cons to this practice. For example in my state (Oregon) state law specifically states that a police officer is a police officer no matter the time of day, whether he/she is on/off duty or where within the confines of the state boundaries he/she may be, regardless of one is in uniform or not. Basically, here if your a cop, your a cop 24/7.

    So the pro for some to hire an off duty cop (which BTW, MOST agencies do not allow) for security services is that you receive a person with superior training and experience to most mere mortal security officers. The con is that as I said above he/she is a cop 24/7. So if you hire this off duty cop and require him to sit in a car and observe a VIP's residence over night, and he observes a serious crime in progress away from you client's residence (the VIP) he/she has a duty to act. That action may take them off of your contract, leaving you out to dry if something happens. Not him, you. So that's one exmaple of why people stray from that ideology.

    As far as a Dept. allowing an officer to wear his dept uniform while performing these off duty tasks, is a decreasing trend.

    Leave a comment:


  • ValleyOne
    replied
    Very long rant/post

    Well, it's just my $0.02, but, what the hell I'll throw my hat in the ring...

    #1 The "Expert" Whore

    "I've got to wonder what kind of moron would Tase an adult holding a baby," said George Kirkham, a former police officer and criminologist at Florida State University. "It doesn't take rocket science to realize the baby is going to fall."
    Jerks like this Mr. Kerkham do nothning but offer "insight" to the UNINFORMED people who have no clue as to what really happens. By making these remarks (for profit, perhaps-hence the conotation above) he has summoned the clouds of doubt for any ready. In essence, he has tainted the drinking water. IF Mr. Kitkham was a RESPECTED former Police Officer as well as a (former?) criminologist he would have held his comments until more information could be obtained. However, I noticed that it did not say he was a RETIRED Police Officer. So that leaves some doubt in my mind as to his background. After all, he is associated with a college with room for one to consider in him on the faculty as a Prof.

    #2 The Situation at Hand.

    The "Victims FELT mistreated by staff and decided to leave the hospital with this newborn infant. Depending on what neck of the woods (or side of the pond) you live hospitals have to take advanced steps in protecting newborns. Hence the RFID tag the child was wearing, that's what killed the elevators kids. (Freaking brillant idea BTW!!) So, one could venture a guess that a nurse called security and informed them that (pay attention) a verbally hostile male, who has no clear relationship to the child against hospital policy. This male is hostile towards staff and is for all they know KIDNAPPING THE CHILD. (that's a felony damn near in all 50 states, since this happened in Texas I would venture to say that would a death sentence). He refused to cooperate with the nursing staff and demanded that he and mother and child leave. In the most simple of situations he COULD be trying to dodge a bill. His behavior then escalted into threatening staff and endangering the welfare of the child. Actually in my eye a newborn of that age it goes right past welfare right into endangering the child's life.

    #3 Responders*.

    Already have the mindset that people try and kidnap newborns, hence the security measures a la RFID. Then they receive a panic call from Peds of a violent male with a newborn, and the staff cannot determine if he has legal authority over the child, ie daddy. It would not be a stretch for them to respond thinking some whack job is trying to steal a kid and enter the scene accordingly. Upon contact dialogue is established and the officers reposition themselves. Thiking ahead the cop COULD have told the s/o with the taser to reposition himself for a possible taser deployment. The time to tase comes the cop COULD have given the s/o a signal they are both familiar with or have trained to use. The subject refuses to cooperate, and POP goes the tweeker. Obivously the kid fell... Did the kid receive injuries? See #4.

    To me, the key here is use of force cotinuem (someone spell check that for me please). Basically, the use of force applied is only meritted on what the subject does. I mean in this, and most, cases the subject is the who set the tempo, or sets the pace of the dance. The use of force is not up to the officers, it is up to the subject. He refuses to cooperate and continues to place the kid futher jeopordy, what do you have to do to put a halt to the situation? Pepper Spray, would a very bad option as the little tike will take a dose. And that would be bad. Can't fight him with the kid in the middle. Sure as hell can't shoot him. Can't club him like a baby seal. So what tool do they have to put the brakes to the atitude test? Taser. The article read as thought their de-escalating techniques failed them (Verbal Judo, or as it's now being called Tactical Commuinications).

    Besides, for all they now he could have been kidnapping the kid. Yes, even with the kid's mommy there screaming.

    #4 Two Tickets for the Money Train

    I read this as an avertisement for his lawsuit. The only thing missing was his lawyer telling everyone what a loving father and live in boyfriend or husbad this guy was. And how he was abused by the security staff as well as the Houston PD. JEESH, they did several MRI's (aren't those bad for little kids?) and nothing came up wrong, even when he kid was placed in foster care. Only when the kid was with daddy and mommy did THEY observe the kid acting odd. I mean crying all the time, c'mon what like he's a baby or something.-The kid probably shakes in the presence of his daddy due to PTSD, from the documented domestic violence.

    Any luck andthis guy will get the same atty as that 1-800-FLOWERS idiot, and they go forth and try to win people over on their stupidity.

    OK, sorry that was probably like two dollars and not two cents.... Sorry that just got under my skin.
    [/rant]


    *A lot of places hire out regular off duty Police Officers, as well as, Reserve Police Officers. There are some pros and cons to this practice. For example in my state (Oregon) state law specifically states that a police officer is a police officer no matter the time of day, whether he/she is on/off duty or where within the confines of the state boundaries he/she may be, regardless of one is in uniform or not. Basically, here if your a cop, your a cop 24/7.

    So the pro for some to hire an off duty cop (which BTW, MOST agencies do not allow) for security services is that you receive a person with superior training and experience to most mere mortal security officers. The con is that as I said above he/she is a cop 24/7. So if you hire this off duty cop and require him to sit in a car and observe a VIP's residence over night, and he observes a serious crime in progress away from you client's residence (the VIP) he/she has a duty to act. That action may take them off of your contract, leaving you out to dry if something happens. Not him, you. So that's one exmaple of why people stray from that ideology.

    As far as a Dept. allowing an officer to wear his dept uniform while performing these off duty tasks, is a decreasing trend.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    BC, Nathan we had a block of instruction in the sheriff's academy taught by the county's chief counsel in which he stated, "Hard cases make for bad law."
    Some states or cities have laws or ordinances that forbid police officers to report to work in uniform. They must change from civilian clothes into their uniform in the locker room prior to guard mount.
    Places like the Commonwealth of Virginia encourage officers to drive police vehicles hom and park them where all can see. Additionally, oficers are encouraged to go to and from work or contracted overtime assignment in full uniform.
    Where there is doubt, count on lawyers to take it to court where both sides will muster as much support as possible, sometimes for good or ill. In some instances bad law ensues.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Badge714
    replied
    Originally posted by sgtnewby View Post
    Well, the Startribune (Minneapolis news paper) has a picture of one of our officers (HCMC security) carrying in a 12 year old victim of the I-35W bridge collapse into the emergency room from a pick-up truck in the ambulance driveway (a lot of people did not wait for ambulances) and the caption below the picture says, "An unidentified Paramedic carries 12 year old (so and so) into the ER...." Our uniforms look nothing alike. They showed another picture in the same article of another one of our officers wiping the sweat off of his head with a towel and the caption calls him a "first responder". Not one mention of "security". The media never gets it right, it aparently would take too much time to get the facts of a story, so they just don't bother with that anymore...
    Which is why I stopped reading the Star and Sickle years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Maelstrom View Post
    Everybody's got an opinion, theory or interpretation on any given subject... fact is that the Media simply go looking for those they can use/quote to help bolster their story/standpoint
    Ain't that the truth.

    It bothers me, because you have the media (which some people forget is a business and businesses are in business for profit) contributing to ignorance instead of combating it as they should.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maelstrom
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar View Post
    #3. That the people don't KNOW or UNDERSTAND that they are ignorant on the matter and think it's appropriate to comment on something they really don't know anything about.
    Everybody's got an opinion, theory or interpretation on any given subject... fact is that the Media simply go looking for those they can use/quote to help bolster their story/standpoint

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    You have a very odd state, and I've been up since Tuesday. I'm going to sleep now.
    hah! Coming from a guy who survied Florida?

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar View Post
    erm, boss? I've explained that to you on here before, it might work that way in other places, but not here in Texas.
    You have a very odd state, and I've been up since Tuesday. I'm going to sleep now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    They can't "overstep the bounds of security," because they retain their police powers. When you hire an off-duty police officer, you are hiring the police to provide law enforcement services.
    erm, boss? I've explained that to you on here before, it might work that way in other places, but not here in Texas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by EMTGuard View Post
    Mr Boling is clearly wearing a Houston Police Department issue uniform and as such is acting with the authority and powers granted to a sworn LEO.
    No, he's not actually. He is wearing his uniform as is his right (because A} he's exempt from the private security act and B} his department allows it), but being off duty, he can only) act as an agent of his contracted employer (the hospital).

    **Edit, yea, Im being as clear as mud, but it's hard to explain, an off duty Texas LEO has no extraodianry powers normally and being off duty effects the qualified immunty a LEO normally expects while doing the job, BUT an off duty officer can still make an arrest as a peace officer.

    An employer can't hire an off duty LEO and say "arrest that guy if he comes back" or "write that lady a ticket if she parks there" thats REAL Illegal, but an off duty LEO can use his "police Authority" in certain (exigent)circumstances, but under normal circumstances the employer can direct his actions and he (the LEO) has no special powers.. probably still not clear, but thats the best I can do.**

    Houston PD dosen't contract LE services or assign off duty details, the officers themselves do that individually (I know of one Harris County Constable who does the contract LE thing, don't know about the others and i don't know anyone with the Harris County Sheriff, but I know HPD doesn't).

    You can't RENT LE powers in Texas **EDIT: I should clarify (Im doing this alot lol), private citizens can't, but LE agencies can enter into contracts to provide on duty LEOs to certain institutions and organizations, for instance Dallas Public Schools used to contract with Dallas PD for School Resource officers before DISD changed it's Security Dept. to a Police Dept.**. Every individual officer or off duty job coordinator I know (myself included) has had to explain this to potential employers, because they really just don't get it. What they are paying for is a person who can legally display the word POLICE on their uniform and it's natural deterrant effect, nothing more.

    Yes, he is there, alongside the secruity staff, providing security to the hospital, but that does not make him a security guard. It makes him a cop, on assignment and paid by the hospital through an agreement with the police department. In other words, a Rentacop.
    Nope, read above. HPD has nothing to do with it other than having a policy, allowed by law, to let HPD officers were HPD uniforms while working off duty. Some PDs require officer wear a "generic patch and badge" that says Police but dosen't not mention their agency name, but these Departments are in the minority (mine used to untl 1991, after that College District Police officers were allowed to wear district uniform is off duty employment).

    You notice in the article HPD is not investigating the incident. They wouldn't, because it has nothing to do with them. If the officer was indicted in a crime commited while off duty, then they'd investigate.

    But he didn't use force as a peace officer, but as a private citizen in private employ...aka a Security Officer.

    Side note: I've had it happen once where a lady complained to my Lt because she said I was rude and unhelpful to her at the grocery store I was working at.
    The LT. explained that unless I did something illegal to her, what happened at my extra job was between her, me and the store, which she didn't take too well. (This lady was a nutcase, she complained on me because I wouldn't give her the name of the store manager that she had just argued with, I explained to her that any complaints about store personell shold be directed at the management, not me, and then she takes down my name and complains on me to my real job lol).
    Last edited by Black Caesar; 08-17-2007, 03:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Sgt koolaid View Post
    I just love how people seen someone in uniform mess up. Right away they say it was some brain dead security guard, not a off duty police officer this is the reason why I don't like police doing our jobs they don't know limits of security regular they over step the bounds of security.
    They can't "overstep the bounds of security," because they retain their police powers. When you hire an off-duty police officer, you are hiring the police to provide law enforcement services.

    Also, as to the taser against man vs. baby... Depending on the threat to the child, you got either taser or handgun. Kenosha PD had a guy with a knife to a toddler's body, one officer started to deploy his taser, the other officer just shot the suspect in the head.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by BHR Lawson View Post
    Security guards are not the brightest people on the job.
    hehe I noticed that in the comments section too.


    `````````````````````````````````````````````
    I wince everytime I see a story like this that has a comments section, because it points to a few of my pet peeves:

    #1. The total lack of responsibilty, the urge of our modern society to make excuses for stupid behavior. Very few people want to blame the persons who are actually responsible for the entire incident (those trailer park refugees masquerading as parents). People don't like cops and security, so "lets blame them for doing the job they are paid to do and totally ignore the nimrod who started the problem for no good reason at all"..

    #2. That large swaths of our (American) society are painfully ignorant about anything (and everything) that occurs outside their lives and experiances (and everything to do with law, law enforcement and security is outside 99% of the people's experiance, i explain to people sometimes that [i]their is a reason why Criminal justice is a MAJOR in college, if a layman could understand it just by looking at it from the outside, you wouldn't need to go to school for it...).....

    ((look at the one guy's comment about CPS, so CPS is involved because of a cop Tasering a guy? Yea, ok, sure, that makes total sense....unless you actually have 2 functioning brain cells....))

    ....both of Which leads to the other (more important) pet peeve of mine......


    #3. That the people don't KNOW or UNDERSTAND that they are ignorant on the matter and think it's appropriate to comment on something they really don't know anything about.

    That just burns me up, to the point that I now have a rule that I DO NOT talk of law enforcement matters with people outside of the LE community, because I swear, if i have to explain to yet another nimrod CSI fan why it's not realistic to "just shoot em in the leg" or why I'm not going to dust a college common area for finger prints (of which their will be thousands) just because they left their backpack there and it got stolen, I might really just explode.

    ((the student that wanted me to dust for prints told me that I could send the results to the FBI and hopefully get a match.....yea, I'll do that, i'm sure there not too busy or anything......God help us, these students are supposed to be our future....))

    Bottom line, the FATHER left the officers with no good options. ANY force option in that situation could produce the same or worse results, and by forcing that situation, he is the only one at fault in my eyes.
    Last edited by Black Caesar; 08-17-2007, 01:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • sgtnewby
    replied
    Well, the Startribune (Minneapolis news paper) has a picture of one of our officers (HCMC security) carrying in a 12 year old victim of the I-35W bridge collapse into the emergency room from a pick-up truck in the ambulance driveway (a lot of people did not wait for ambulances) and the caption below the picture says, "An unidentified Paramedic carries 12 year old (so and so) into the ER...." Our uniforms look nothing alike. They showed another picture in the same article of another one of our officers wiping the sweat off of his head with a towel and the caption calls him a "first responder". Not one mention of "security". The media never gets it right, it aparently would take too much time to get the facts of a story, so they just don't bother with that anymore...
    Last edited by sgtnewby; 08-17-2007, 12:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Sgt koolaid View Post
    this is the reason why I don't like police doing our jobs they don't know limits of security regular they over step the bounds of security.
    Having deciphered this, here's what I gathered:

    "I don't like police officers doing security work, because they don't know the limits of regular security and they overstep their bounds."

    That doesn't make any sense. The police officer wasn't doing security work. He was doing police work--hence the police uniform, the police badge, and the police authority. And, psst, by the way, it's impossible for an off-duty police officer to "overstep the bounds of security"--they aren't required nor expected to operate within any such "bounds" of a private citizen's authority. They neither need to know or operate within "the limits of regular security," because they aren't regular security. That's why people hire police officers to work off-duty.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X