SoCal cops shoot unarmed airman

[A4sForever]

A4s, That dude did say some dumb ****, but posting it on the internet under a pseudonym to someone he does not even know is definitely not the same as walking into your COs office and telling him to get over it.
This is a totally different arena.

You are right ... but the point is the same. It's what's between your ears. As an officer. Respect ... etc.

 

[Fly Navy]

A4s, That dude did say some dumb ****, but posting it on the internet under a pseudonym to someone he does not even know is definitely not the same as walking into your COs office and telling him to get over it.
This is a totally different arena.

Yes and no. People on here have felt the consequences of what they've posted in the real world. It's not hard to figure out who is who on this board if you really try.

 

[Fly Navy]

Fly, if you know that people know who you are and you post stupid ****...then you are an idiot....People who know me can easily figure out who I am by callsign etc, but I am not going to criticize a command I am in or a situation I am having in the squadron...I think the problem here is that too many people want to air their dirty laundry on AW's for whatever reason.

All I'm saying is you (collective you, not you specifically) needs to be aware of what they're posting. There are ranking members on this site, and that HAS come back to bite people in the past. It's isolated, but it's happened. The internet is not secure nor is it anonymous, especially a board such as this that is already a small community to begin with (NavAir).

 

[highlyrandom]

Dang, here we go again. UCMJ says private conversations are protected from that peculiarity of "disrespect towards superiors and elected officials", right? Therefore, unless someone overhears it, the only way you have to answer for it is if someone in that conversation dimes you out. And the only just cause for that is if you're talking treason, which no one here is.

So if you don't like what someone says, and you don't like it enough, PM the administrators and have the offending entity removed from the members list. Fly/Brett/A4s have set a good example on this before. Threats of revealing someone to the board are unbecoming; when we say it's not private, we mean it can be subpoenaed, not that someone with a grudge will email it to everyone in the RAG. If you've done this, I don't care how junior I am, you're a dick and you need to cut back on the 'net time.

Anyone who strongly disagrees with this suggestion, send me a PM with my name, rank, and organization and I'll STFU.

 

[rare21]

not that someone with a grudge will email it to everyone in the RAG.

this has happened with disastrous results

 

[Fly Navy]

this has happened with disastrous results

Exactly the incident I was refering to.

 

[A4sForever]

Dang, here we go again......So if you don't like what someone says..... PM the administrators and have the offending entity removed from the members list. Fly/Brett/A4s have set a good example on this before.....I'll STFU.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but to set the record straight --- as you have not a clue whereof you speak:

• I've been on this forum @ a year + a couple of months.
• I've only given negative "rep" points .... once.
• I've never ... as in not once ... PM'ed the administrator to have some offending entity "removed from the members list" ... what "example" was that you were referring to, now ... ??? The world wonders ...
• Seems I even gave you positive "rep" a couple of days ago ... that must have been in a weak moment.

You need to try learn something to become that department head --- "someday" --- that you referenced:

Make an effort to know your stuff and to learn to be alert ... instead of shooting off your mouth, just because you can. No one cares what you "think" when you haven't delivered or are still "green" as yet .... that's the learning period I was refering to. You need to be accurate ... and you should strive to be "coherent" in your speech and writing.

Maybe it's time to close this thread --- it seems that all the blood that's squeezable has been squeezed out of it --- and now it's getting stupid and/or personal. It's not what AW was designed to do ....

Memo to 'random: add to the above list of things you need to do: talking too much and making no sense is not a virtue. So maybe you've also got to know when to fold 'em .....

 

[KBayDog]

So, how 'bout them cops?

Yeah, how 'bout 'em?

 

[helo_wifey]

Since none of the other ladies have posted I'll put my 2 cents in.

I'm going to have to agree with Brett and Fly Navy. We'll just have to wait and see how things come together. I found it unfair on what happened, but I wasn't there so I don't want to say one way or another.

The good news is the airman survived, and will have a full recovery.

 

[Brett327]

Alleged?

btw, that was an A4's quote.

Hey if the shoe fits...

I have no reason to doubt that you are what you represent yourself to be. Having said that, you haven't exactly gone out of your way to represent yourself as a model Naval Officer or Aviator.

Brett

 

[Lawman]

Get over yourself. You won't form an opinion on a video you've seen with your eyes, but you'll make blanket statements about my beliefs and morals. Who do you think you are? And i didn't say i was driving. And also, the navy looks for people who break the law every once in a while to perform the jobs that take a pair of nuts to perform.

Driving 100mph on open highway isnt breaking the law to perform a job that takes balls, its assinine behavior that puts the lives of other people needlessly at risk. Was I stupid an 18 once, hell yes I was. Did I do stupid things like that, hell yes I did. But I dont shrug them off or even better use them as a bragging right to win an arguement on the internet, I recognize them as ignorant and foolhardy mistakes that could have cost me dearly.

2. There are many sworn LEO's out there who are idiots and should never have been issued a badge and gun.

Same could be said for a lot of people in a lot of other career fields that wield deadly force. Im sure everyone on here has met somebody who the government handed a gun that didnt have all their stuff together. Hell one of the guys I worked with LEO was a medically discharged Ranger who had spent time in Afganistan, and that guy was probably one of the worst officers we had. Started more trouble then he ever solved, and was later let go because of his tendency to use excessive force.


What happend on that video happened on that video, it does not include enough of anything for any one person on this forum to make any assumption as to the right or wrong of that officers actions. You can have all the doubts in the world, and be pissed as you like, but until an IAB investigation is conducted and the results released theres no point in getting pissy with eachother.

 

[BurghGuy]

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/la-me-highspeed4feb04,0,5986744.story?coll=ktla-newslocal-1

An update. We hear from the Deputies father and get more eyewitness accounts. Nothing conclusive till the FBI finishes with the video. It is interesting that the guy who filmed the scene, an "innocent" bystander is possibly getting extradited from the US, and was arrested by the same cops. But there were warrants out for him.

 

[snizo]

i hope the air force SF guy sues and sues.

I would hope for something more along the lines of the cop being charged with attempted murder.

But then again - I don't know the whole story.

until an IAB investigation is conducted and the results released theres no point in getting pissy with eachother.

I've been a witness in an internal investigation before - an investigation whose purpose was to clear the cop instead of finding out what happened. That was just local cops, though - hopefully this one will get the attention it deserves.

 

[Brett327]

I've been a witness in an internal investigation before - an investigation whose purpose was to clear the cop instead of finding out what happened. That was just local cops, though - hopefully this one will get the attention it deserves.

Shouldn't that really be the intent of the investigation though? Everyone gets down on the LEOs, but seriously, what possible motive could they have to intentionally harm people? Even when they do overstep their bounds, it's usually because of confusion or other chaotic situation and not some kind of malace towards the perp. It would seem like the benefit of the doubt ought to be with the LEO - not the perp.

Brett

 

[snizo]

I would like to think that the goal of an internal investigaion is to find out what really happened and take corrective action if necessary - not cover someone's ass. The integrity of the police force is more important than one cop who refuses to say "I'm human and screwed up" (if that is the case).

In the rest of the legal system, the benefit of the doubt does go with the perp. He is innocent until proven guilty.