Other things can activate shot spotters. Fireworks in close proximity etc, I don’t see them trying to refute the use of that here though, since the officers were there in less than a minute, saw the two males, saw them huddle and hand something off, and take off.
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
Other things can activate shot spotters. Fireworks in close proximity etc, I don’t see them trying to refute the use of that here though, since the officers were there in less than a minute, saw the two males, saw them huddle and hand something off, and take off.
Are they fixed or are they mobile / on cop cars? Do there need to be multiple ones hearing the same sound or can a single unit determine location of a shot?
The ones we have here are fixed. They don’t give an exact address, but they’ll pinpoint you to X street at Y street
Just one unit could pinpoint it that definitively?
That’s amazing if so, at least to a technological lay idiot like me.
no they have multiple set up in an area that helps to pinpoint based on acoustics etc
Okay, that makes total sense.
What a device that would be if it could, though.
Is its evidence admissible? Seems like an argument could be made both ways.
Thanks, brother.
Amazing that it can pick up the sound of suppressed fire, even inadvertently.
Its one of those things that by itself probably wouldn’t lead to a conviction on anything, but world definitely be damning if added to other evidence.
It discussed how the evidence is used in that propaganda literature.
I can’t see how someone’s privacy would be violated through the recording / triangulation for gunshot location, but I am sure it probably has been argued as potentially a 1A & 4A violation.
I could just see how the discussion would go in my old neck of the woods:
Bubba: I don't want no guberment 5G tech invading my rights.
Sales Rep: If you install it in the right neighborhoods you can use it to send black people to jail.
Bubba: Sign us up!
Well, I've only learned the language later in life, that's why I made clear it was merely based on my grasp of it. Wiki says: "Metaphorically, whitewashing refers to suppression or "glossing over" (...) of potentially damaging or unwelcome information." I guess the use you mention would probably be a pun on this?
I always find it okay to discuss statistics, depending on how the discussion is framed. What I objected to were the far-reaching statements and charges in your post.
But as for statistics, I think they're a tricky subject. I'm wary of them, even when they support my views or expectations. They seem a quite heavy-handed tool to me, and too often they're used without the necessary context or caveats.
In that sense, three questions/thoughts on the one you cite (I take the 5% number at face value):
1) How is 'armed' defined in this statistic? Is it relevant if the weapon poses an imminent threat to the police or others, or is mere possession of a weapon at the time of the shooting enough? Depending on the answer, it changes what these 5% and 95% represent. In the latter scenario, the shooting of a "statistically" armed person may still be reckless or criminal.
2) How reliable are the police reports, insofar the stats are based on them?
3) According to studies, the risk of being shot while unarmed rises dramatically when you're Black. So the percentage is far higher than average for some minority populations, and with this the perception of the issue among them logically changes. The results from a survey using the same WaPo data from 2015-2020:
(RR = relative risk compared to White population, YLL = years of life lost.) Of course numbers like that need to be dissected and contextualized themselves. Which is beyond my abilities and also not my aim here (it has probably been done many times over on the Caf). This is just to give examples for what I meant with necessary caveats & context before drawing conclusions.
Last edited:
One major actionable item I see is:
How much stress training does every department undergo and how much more could they undergo?
There are proven psycho-physiological effects at play here. People can undergo training to reduce the intensity of flight or flight responses and increase the likelihood of a measured response. Here is a good article on the science behind it:
I've heard of a few examples of this before. From people being put in protective suits and having dogs charge at them biting and barking to desensitize the response to Federal agencies that used complex obstacle courses to try to familiarize field agents with what circumstances might (sort-of) be like. As mentioned in the article, training is never perfect but it absolutely helps reduce the fight or flight adrenaline rush and helps a person stay more in a high-performance state of flow.
I think a lot of departments could use a lot more of this type of training (as opposed to billions of dollars of military hardware). Many situations are, of course, extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean that changes can't be implemented to update training methods for the 21st century. From my own interactions and talking to friends in different roles, I have definitely encountered officers that had very little (if any) internal control over this fight or flight responses and would have massively benefited from such training (and thereby reducing their own chance to get into a jam and make the wrong choice).
It's definitely not as simple as none of these situations could possibly be different if variables had changed.
How much stress training does every department undergo and how much more could they undergo?
There are proven psycho-physiological effects at play here. People can undergo training to reduce the intensity of flight or flight responses and increase the likelihood of a measured response. Here is a good article on the science behind it:
https://www.graciemag.com/en/2019/0...adrenaline-from-screwing-up-your-performance/
I've heard of a few examples of this before. From people being put in protective suits and having dogs charge at them biting and barking to desensitize the response to Federal agencies that used complex obstacle courses to try to familiarize field agents with what circumstances might (sort-of) be like. As mentioned in the article, training is never perfect but it absolutely helps reduce the fight or flight adrenaline rush and helps a person stay more in a high-performance state of flow.
I think a lot of departments could use a lot more of this type of training (as opposed to billions of dollars of military hardware). Many situations are, of course, extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean that changes can't be implemented to update training methods for the 21st century. From my own interactions and talking to friends in different roles, I have definitely encountered officers that had very little (if any) internal control over this fight or flight responses and would have massively benefited from such training (and thereby reducing their own chance to get into a jam and make the wrong choice).
It's definitely not as simple as none of these situations could possibly be different if variables had changed.
Last edited:
Police ‘means testing’ for federal funding needs to be more thoroughly enforced as well.
Certain credible standards of policing need to be met & maintained in order to reap the federal dollar benefit.
Certain credible standards of policing need to be met & maintained in order to reap the federal dollar benefit.
That’ll take money coming into the training budget from somewhere. Whether moved from something else or added new
That's one less armored personnel carrier for every department, you know!
I know the militarized departments can cut from
that part, which is why I said “moved from somewhere”, but in smaller departments that don’t have those anyway and/or are cash strapped, that will be/is a real issue to overcome.
I'd offer to buy some of their AR-15s but they won't let me have any more of those
this one is easy. Put them in a room with 5 of the old school callers from Feinbaums radio show and if they all come out alive they are fit for duty.
RIP: Dwayne’s gun stashI'd offer to buy some of their AR-15s but they won't let me have any more of those
RIP: The Auburn trees
There’s a limit to gun humping up there?I'd offer to buy some of their AR-15s but they won't let me have any more of those
What a fecking twat Finebaum is.
I lived through the great tree massacre of 2013. I am still shocked to this day that no one was killed.
Remember this one? Girl who chased him down was badass.
Woman called ‘hero’ after chasing man who set fire to Auburn’s... (ajc.com)
Side question, what percentage of your colleagues have been in such situations?
We're not allowed to acquire or use them anymore and may have to turn them in in 2022. Same for my CZ Scorpion EVO 3
All your guns or just the ones that pew pew pew fast?We're not allowed to acquire or use them anymore and may have to turn them in in 2022. Same for my CZ Scorpion EVO 3
We'll see. RIght now it's just ARs and similar bad rifles but they might kick me out of Toronto for owning handguns, too. I will attempt a human rights case if so.
I’ll send you my Glock if you start to go through withdrawals.
Pretty muchSo, this is a high risk felony stop too?
https://www.wfla.com/news/bodycam-v...OviXI08hYRR6gWSX3oKXpvp9u399zVBcq8RjTkaRLfwns
https://www.wfla.com/news/bodycam-v...OviXI08hYRR6gWSX3oKXpvp9u399zVBcq8RjTkaRLfwns
I mean.. assuming this in the article is legit, then yes?
“Police say they found four weapons in the vehicle. The stop ended with three felony arrests.”
But, is that admissible? That doesn’t seem to be what the pull over was initially for.
It reads to me that he was initially pulled over for littering. Does it require multiple cops to do this?
I don’t know honestly. I’m just saying technically it actually did end in felony charges.
You're right that the victim does not respawn. But that goes for the cop too. And it's not just "a guess" as to danger. It's all the facts known at the time and the totality of the circumstances that lead up to deciding to shoot to protect your life or someone else's.
Let's say for whatever reason the law changes tomorrow and LEOs can no longer shoot unless a gun is pointed at him with finger on the trigger. And the cop shall, by law, give a verbal command to "don't shoot me" before unholstering his own firearm. Even if such a law were to be implemented throughout the country charging cops with murder if they fail to do so, there will still be similar types of these police shootings. In that flight/fight, self-preservation moment you are going to do whatever you must to save your life.
I hear ya.
But I don’t think you can back engineer rationalization for something. Doesn’t seem like the cops knew about the weapons when the car was initially pulled over.
It just seems a tad excessive for a littering pull over to need multiple cops to do it.
It is nice that the resident cops on here typically answer something pretty quickly. I do appreciate the input.