Th last post mentions an incident that happened in Mass. A young man was in th car with friends waitin outside a hotel for friends comin out of a party. He was stopped in th fire-lane. A policeman approached tapped on th window n he started drivin off. Th officer threw himself on th hood of th car, drew his pistol n shot him.
Th officers took him from th car, cuffed him on th floor n did not render aid. Byond this, th onlookers asked to b allowed to administer CPR but th officers refused. EMS arrived n did not traige, instead they saw to th officers.
Th young man died, he xsanguinated. He was black n this incident could b racially motivated. Th young man was not armed, there were no weapons in th car, he had no police record, no dialog was xchanged.
When QA/QC is introduced several things can b questioned as negligent.
1. No police officer should ever jump on th hood of a car for any reason. This should, if it is not, b forbidden. Th consequences of this act should b termination. No law enforcement agency any where in th world teaches police officers to jump on th hood of a car. Simply put this action is 100% probable of a bad outcome. No book on law enforcement mentions or gives permission to any enforcement officer to jump on th hood of a movin car. This is a movie stunt dsigned to hype up a scene n has no basis in reality. This action converts th police officer into a criminal. He is traspassin, has no warrant, his action is hostile n a reckless disregard for life n property.
2. He drew his gun n pointed it at th young black man, n he was not fired upon. He was not threatened, his action endangered th life of th driver, th passengers, n th crowd outside th hotel. U never point a gun at anyone u do not plan to shoot. It is not an accident, there is no such thing. This is th accepted lesson taught in any concealed carryin permit class. Th permit is not granted otherwise.
3. Just goin for th gun is a criminal act. It is at this point that self dfense is justified. If th situation was reversed th officer could shoot to kill. Th driver would have been justified in tryin to get away. Th police would then say evadin arrest....but they had no reason to arrest. Xcept that he was black.
4. Th officer shot without bein shot at. Thought precedes action, always, without xception. This officer was premeditated in his action. This action was planned far in advance in anticipation of th event.
5. Th other officers were also premeditated....thought precedes action, always, without xception. They made this dcision in anticipation of th event, to obstruct justice, to conspire, to cover for a fellow officer. This action is criminal.
6. They failed to render aid to a victim to prevent any charges of criminality. They failed to allow willin bystanders to render aid. They may have prevented th death but chose to allow him to die n in so doin committed murder.
7. EMS failed to do their duty, their actions should b lead by triage dcisions n not police opinion. They elected to participate in th conspiracy n let th young man die. They committed murder. They r not subordinate to th police. N renderin aid is not subordinate to their feelins, or opinions. They cannot take sides.
This incident should b xamined by all police departments for QA/QC n policies should have been written to prevent it from happenin again. But th EPPD has no such animal, neither does th police dept in Mass. No QA/QC is applied. Therefore th departments r operating outside th law n innocent people r payin with their lives.
Next time they ask u for a raise, this is what u want in return, Law n Order.
No comments:
Post a Comment