cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/15313778
Officers showed up at the home and found a man struggling with a woman over a knife. An officer opened fire and struck the man, killing him at the scene. Only later did they discover the man who was killed lived at the home and was struggling to fend off the woman who had broken into his home.
Police say Brandon Durham, 43, had called 911 and reported multiple people outside his home shooting, then told the 911 operator that someone had entered his home through the front and back doors and he was locking himself in the bathroom.
He also told the 911 operator that he was home with his 15-year-old daughter, according to police. Officers kicked open the door after arriving on scene and hearing someone screaming as well as damage to vehicles parked outside the property, police said.
The officer who fired is 26 years old and has been with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department since 2021. An investigation is underway to determine if the officer acted appropriately when he fired his weapon.
That’s going to be a No, dawg. They did not act appropriately.
We all know what the actual outcome will be though. The police will investigate themselves and find that they didn’t do anything wrong, while the officer is either on paid leave or silently transferred to another department.
Yup.
Each officer needs to be personally accountable or this will never change. They need to be charged for the crime they commit.But yeah, i know I’m just preaching to the choir. Everyone knows what’s going one. It’s frustrating.
I like the idea of requiring indemnity insurance. Preferably paid for by the city.
Bad cops get higher rates; horrible cops get dropped because it’s too expensive to maintain.
(Similar to malpractice insurance required for doctors and surgeons.)
I agree except for the “paid by the city” part. That would mean that the tax payers foot the bill for them.
Much better to make cop “unions” pay for it so they actually have to use their vast funds on something other than protecting criminals in uniform from the consequences of their actions for a change.
That’s always going to be true, though. All you would be doing is making the job suck a bit more. (Or they get a pay hike to compensate.)
All you would be accomplishing is making it that much harder to get done. Once the insurance is in place, then you can start taking the excess payments out of the cops pockets, (and reward the well behaved cops with a bonus, since they’d presumably get a discount,)
The first step is to get the insurance done, though.
you would be doing is making the job suck a bit more
Fine by me. There are far too many cops. The ones most motivated by money and impunity quitting because they’re being held criminally and financially responsible for their crimes is the mother of all win–wins in my book 🤷
Or they get a pay hike to compensate.
Not likely since wage per cop is the one police expense that the center right to fascist spectrum of municipal governments don’t want to increase.
Besides, cop “unions” aren’t ACTUAL unions that are funded mostly via union dues. They’re political pressure groups funded mostly by donations from the rich people whose property cops exist to protect from the masses.
All you would be accomplishing is making it that much harder to get done
Not really, no. Can’t get harder than impossible and the future politicians who would be willing to do it all would be just as willing to do it my way as yours, if not more. Let’s not commit the classic neoliberal mistake of making unacceptable concessions before we even start negotiating.
Once the insurance is in place, then you can start taking the excess payments out of the cops pockets
Yeah no, that’s not how it works. At least not when we still have Neoliberals in charge. They’ll do a tenth of what people ask for and then declare the matter settled forever.
Real transformative change doesn’t happen in tiny bits. There’s always regressiveness chipping away at progress, leading to it all fallen to the ratchet principle if we don’t go far enough on the first try.
Incrementalism isn’t the “reasonable” path. It’s the path of least resistance from the owner donors who corrupt politicians care the most about to the detriment of everyone else.
and reward the well behaved cops
Don’t forget the unicorns and the good billionaires! 🙄
Fine by me. There are far too many cops. The ones most motivated by money and impunity quitting because they’re being held criminally and financially responsible for their crimes is the mother of all win–wins in my book 🤷
- actually, there’s not enough cops. That’s part of the problem. Most departments are running shitloads of overtime to make minimum staffing.
This affects on duty behavior in a lot of ways. Tired cops make mistakes, they fuck up. They’re irritable. Sleep deprivation makes you stupid.
Being short staffed also means they’re not available for continuing training, which takes a back seat to things like actually doing cop stuff, being in court, report writing.
- being short staffed means leadership is unwilling to put in the effort necessary to fire the worst offenders. They literally need every warm body they can get.
And sure, you could reduce the minimum staffing levels; but then you start having problems where cops are going from volatile domestics to answering phone calls because a cat was shitting in someone’s flowerbed and dispatch didn’t realize it was just a cat, or never mind simply having the time to sit with an EDP and talk them out of it.
Cops are far from perfect. But trust me, the world with fewer cops would be worse.
Not likely since wage per cop is the one police expense that the center right to fascist spectrum of municipal governments don’t want to increase.
Besides, cop “unions” aren’t ACTUAL unions that are funded mostly via union dues. They’re political pressure groups funded mostly by donations from the rich people whose property cops exist to protect from the masses.
Whatever. They’re still powerful organizations and they’re still representing cops as a union. And they’re still going to oppose anything that takes from their people.
When you’re finished with your rhetoric, maybe you can come up with a plan to get your superfund-duper-big-changes done. You know. The ones that are somehow more possible than the “impossible incremental” changes.
A lot of places self insure, but some already buy insurance as you describe. Qualified immunity is a pretty high bar to get over, but some people do get settlements. I’d argue insurance should have to be bought by the officer, or their union to have any effect on their behavior.
Most of those, it’s the department’s insurance (and most places have that,)
Malpractice insurance is a thing for doctors- they have to have it. It’s an individual obligation; frequently hospitals will cover it for them (and offer plans,) but those plans are managed by a third party- the kind of third party who hates paying out.
What this really means is that doctors who have a history of skirting best practices and getting dinged are more expensive to cover; where doctors that are more competent/less likely to fuck up… get reduced premiums.
Guess what kind of doctor gets to told “yeah sorry, we’re not hiring you”?
Translate that to cops… officers get dropped or dinged for relatively minor excessive force incidents- usually before they get to the point of barging in and killing some one.
Absolutely. I’m all for that idea.
Not happening until qualified immunity is revoked. Did you know of the ~38k firearm deaths a year (yes including suicide). Approximately 1k of them a year are via police?
Yeah. It’s infuriating.
Meanwhile, it’s revealed that this is his third precinct after assaulting multiple black men in his previous two positions
Even if somehow they find the officer didn’t act appropriately he will get a slap on the wrist and maybe fired from that department, but the next county over will hire him.
In a decent moral world that would be the result but we live in this indecent immoral world.
Officers showed up at the home and found a man struggling with a woman over a knife. An officer opened fire and struck the man, killing him at the scene.
See, being a man isn’t always advantageous.
Edit: some of y’all are neurotic. You have an almost pathological need to create subtext where none exists. Allow me to alleviate your concerns so you can stop clutching your pearls: no, I’m not some Andrew Tate following misogynist.
Jesus.
I don’t know why people are downvoting this
Because it fundamentally clashes with their world view.
I upvoted, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a clash of worldviews. I think it’s the “boo-hoo poor me I’m a man” sentiment that I initially felt reading that, even as a man. It’s giving men’s rights at face value. Then I realized that yeah, this is one of the few instances where being a man–or more specifically being a man caught fighting a woman–will likely get you harmed or killed regardless of everything else.
But who knows, maybe it’s just me and people have other motives.
Neutral onlooker and cis male here.
I think it’s the “boo-hoo poor me I’m a man” sentiment that I initially felt reading that, even as a man.
I felt the same way. Ok, yea we have the disadvantage of being seen as the bigger threat by other males? Because we typically are? Because of some of the many advantages we have as men?
It feels weird to even call this a disadvantage, because it comes from having a bunch of advantages, if that makes any sense. We wouldn’t have a disadvantage here if we didn’t have natural advantages, in the first place.
Besides, this particular situation didn’t have as much to do with his gender disadvantage as his racial disadvantage, anyways. It was all exacerbated by the disadvantage of the cop having no discernible brain cells.
Ehh humor is tough online
LOL but it has it’s perks.
deleted by creator
You have an almost pathological need to create subtext where none exists
But that’s literally what you just did…?
No, I don’t think I did. I think I’m just better at correctly identifying subtext that actually exists.
Why do people even call the police anymore?
Bro, we had a petty theft at work.
While identifying culprits, my coworker, with a straight face, said to me, “The security guard is pretty much a cop, so there’s no way he could have done it” implying cops are the highest form of trust.
I don’t know why they thought that.
IMO the association of police with safety is not wrong. A system that does not supervise and punish police members for wrong actions is the problem. Aka don’t let police investigate police mistakes.
…and as long as the system governing the police is a problem is broken, the police will be a problem.
You’re not wrong, but a bunch of fragile-egoed, perpetually terrified simpletons armed with state authority and a gun shouldn’t be associated with safety.
Because insurance requires you to get your payout?
Insurance just need you that you open a police report. Report online or in person in the police station and make the claim with that.
Except insurance companies will do anything to avoid a payout and not having the police actually come to your home could be flagged.
Because they are the victims of crime
Imagine you’re on a mission to kill your ex, and you just harass them until they call the cops and you know the cops will kill them for you.
