The explanation you gave was inconsistent with comments from the Chief of Police of the MPD that were indirectly referenced to earlier in the thread.
Fair enough. But lets understand the full context of what she said, which I think is telling of her view point.
Let me be very clear in stating that I believe the actions of the officer were totally inappropriate! In no way, should he have handled the situation in this manner. We have taken swift action by placing him on non-contact status until all the facts are gathered and discipline is handed down.
She has already made up her mind without all of the facts. Her very statement alone makes this a
political issue, not one of the officers behavior. How does she know how the situation should have been handled if she doesn't have all of the facts? She has already pre-judged him. Once again, we give criminals a fairer deal than that.
Besides which, I have already stated the the tactics used,
if his reasoning was the one I positied, were bad. And I already stated that the practices of the D.C. Metro Police Dept. may have dictated that he do something else. However, I don't believe that it is fair to characterize a detective as a "hothead" or "bonehead" until the facts of the case are laid out. Maybe he did act out of anger, I can't know that. But the condemnation that is ensuing for this detective before the facts of the case are out is deplorable.
If my reasoning is correct, and again, I have no way of knowing, then this is a training issue. The detective should be re-trained in how to handle such situations. This would not be an issue of punitive discipline.
You're implying that I made up my mind just from watching a video.
However, please note that there is more content here than just a video.
For example, a Google news search on "DC snowball fight" returns over a thousand hits.
The post from BigDon that I referenced above is a link to a Washington Post article, which links to another Washington Post article. The latter contains the full public statement by the Metropolitan Police Department's Chief of Police.
None that I have seen that have cited a specific source of information. They say what happened without having been there. And, it appears, that the only sources that they may have are the people who were involved, hardly an unbiased source.
Of course, to be fair, I haven't seen
all of the articles.
Chief Lanier has stated that the detective got out of the car in response to the snowballs hitting the vehicle:
But without having been there, and not having received information from the detective himself, and admitting to not having all of the facts, how can she say that? Can she read the officer's mind? Can she really tell him why he did what he did?
Let's examine something else that the Chief said:
It is very obvious to me that the officer pulled his service weapon in response to the snowballs hitting his vehicle. I have no doubt about this, nor has the officer denied the accusations.
Is this the same as an admission? Did the detective admit that this was the reason? Or is she merely saying this because it already supports her pre-judgement of the situation, about how the reasons are supposedly "obvious". (I hate it when people say that, by the way, because it is condesending to those that don't see thing in your world view.)
Quite frankly, this man is in fear for his job now. I wouldn't say anything except in the presence of my attorney, as is his right.
Even if I were to agree that the detective's vehilcle was hit by snowballs, that may have merely been the impetus to make him aware of what was occurring around him, rather then getting out of his vehicle out of anger. I find it hard to believe, though not entirely impossible, that a person who is so enraged about their vehicle getting hit with snowballs would then merely get out of his car and get on a police radio while standing there getting pelted with insults and snowballs (to his face no less). And while getting hit, continues to just stand there until a uniformed presence arrives. These are not the reactions of an "enraged" person, in my opinion.
Chief Lanier on the detective's behaviour:
Once again, I will continue to state that she has admitted to not having all of the facts, which renders her opinion to a certain degree, uninformed.
Either way, she could simply be arguing that even if the detective's belief was reasonable, his tactics were not, and were not in keeping with the department's training. Of that, she can judge. As she said in her statement:
This officerÂ’s conduct, in no way, reflects the training and the standards we hold each officer to at the Metropolitan Police
She is commenting on the aspects of his training, not his demeanor. She is not saying that he did it because he was pissed off. She said he was outside the scope of his training. Hence, my call for "education based discipline" rather then punitive.
...but encouraged the videos and feedback from the public.
As well she should. The police are public servants, that I truly believe. If they want cops out there arresting bad guys, that's what they should get. If they want to make a department impotent, that's what they should get as well.
In my department a few years back, we had a major video taped incident. The D.A.'s office filed charges related to excessive use-of-force against two officers. What's funny is, during the trial, they eventually conceded that at least half of the force used was justified. Their own court certified use-of-force expert was against them. But, because this video was seen around the world (we had one guy in vacation in France, and he saw it there), there was a call for action, whether justified or not. This could be an example of the same thing.
BTW, the two officers were acquitted, and won a multi-million lawsuit against the city for wrongful termination.
). May your day be as full of celebration and as free of stress as circumstances allow.
