The LEO thread

[Mr.B]

[
Of the occupations you've listed, which obviously are more dangerous due to accidents...
.[/i][/b]

That would include the cops, also - Number one reason for police fatalities - traffic accidents.

Your eraser stop working? Maybe it got wet in this snow.

I wish Banni would turn off his snow machine. It's makes the fan in my PC run faster trying to blow it around..

[Mr.B]

"Bad systems, not just police by any means, create a self-perpetuating life of their own. They're not just a sum of their parts but rather they shape their parts by rewarding compliance and excluding dissent. This is why systemic change must occur, hoping for better players is fruitless."

Strange choice of words.... Bad apples, etc.
My point is that humans aren't perfect. Someone has to create systems and then decide what changes need to be made when certain elements prove to be fruitless.

Bottom line is, as long as we have crime, we're going to have LEO's, good'uns and bad'uns.

Cops are not immune from mental instabilities; many are arrested every day for various crimes; petty to serious.

[O Really]

Bottom line is, as long as we have crime, we're going to have LEO's, good'uns and bad'uns.

Cops are not immune from mental instabilities; many are arrested every day for various crimes; petty to serious.

A lot of the problem is that we as a society have become inured to detail and choose only to go with generalities. We treat every issue like it was a football game - pick and team and root for them no matter what. And most people would, given a clear choice, root for the cops over the robbers. But when the "blue line" or the team spirit erases the facts, things get a bit complicated. We should be able to say "that's a bad cop" or "that's an otherwise decent cop who screwed up" without being accused to being against all cops or the police departments in general. But cops have long defended their own in spite of corruption, bad training, or general evilness and only when there is no way to make lemonade from the lemons do they admit to a bad seed. And often then it's "it was a set-up" or "the devil made him do it."
Police are historically awful at self-policing, despite the gestapo - opps, the internal affairs - sections. And mayors and city council are historically awful at fixing problems because they want the police vote - which is likely to be en bloc. In some places, sheriff's departments are even worse because there is basically no accountability for an elected sheriff. Unless he's caught red-handed (as some in Buncombe) and convicted, there's no controlling him or his posse. Fortunately, most sheriffs have reasonable integrity about their job as to not totally abuse their power, but if they want to, they can. (see, for example, "the toughest sheriff in the US")

[O Really]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc ... -1.2037357

179 killed by NYC police in 15 years; 3 indicted; one convicted, without jail time.
86% of those killed were black or hispanic;
27% were unarmed;
21 people killed in 2012 - the highest year in the past 15.

[Mr.B]

Berkeley County (SC) Sheriff charged with DUI after leaving scene of crash

Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt has been arrested on charges of DUI and leaving the scene of a wreck.

DeWitt was taken into custody early Sunday morning by the South Carolina Highway Patrol and charged with driving under the influence and leaving the scene of a wreck.

Sgt. Bob Beres, a Highway Patrol spokesman, said troopers responded to reports of a hit-and-run accident involving injuries at the intersection of Red Bank Road and Henry E. Brown Jr. Boulevard in Berkeley County at 5:50 a.m.

Beres said when the trooper arrived at the scene, she was told by Hanahan police officers they had caught the hit-and-run suspect near Bankton Circle in the Hanahan. When troopers arrived at that location, they identified the driver of the truck to be 63-year-old DeWitt.

After matching physical evidence of his Ford truck to that at the scene of the accident, troopers determined he was involved in the accident, Beres said. They administered a field sobriety test and found DeWitt to be under the influence.

Beres said DeWitt was taken to the Charleston County Detention Center where he refused to take a Breathalyzer test. He was charged with DUI and leaving the scene of a wreck involving personal injury.

He was released Sunday night on a personal recognizance bond.

DeWitt is the eighth S.C. sheriff to be investigated or charged while in office since 2010.

Since 2010, three S.C. sheriffs have been sentenced to prison terms. A fourth is awaiting sentencing in federal criminal court. Another sheriff, Michael Johnson of Williamsburg County, was tried and found guilty of fraud for creating false police reports of identity theft earlier this year in federal court. He is awaiting sentencing.

If I understood correctly, in S.C. only the county coroner can arrest the sheriff...... :-0?>

[O Really]

If I understood correctly, in S.C. only the county coroner can arrest the sheriff......

Not exactly, but that's apparently what the judge thought.

SECTION 23-15-120. Coroner to serve or execute process on sheriff in certain circumstances.

If the sheriff shall be a party plaintiff or defendant in any judicial process, execution, warrant, summons or notice to be served or executed within his county, the coroner shall serve or execute such process, execution, warrant, summons or notice. In the discharge of such duties he shall incur such liabilities as would by law attach to their performance by the sheriff himself.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 53-205; 1952 Code Section 53-205; 1942 Code Sections 3477, 3566; 1932 Code Sections 3477, 3566; Civ. C. '22 Sections 2026, 2111; Civ. C. '12 Sections 1140, 1290; Civ. C. '02 Sections 824, 892; G. S. 646, 712; R. S. 707, 763; 1785 (7) 215; 1839 (11) 78.

[neoplacebo]

If I understood correctly, in S.C. only the county coroner can arrest the sheriff......

Not exactly, but that's apparently what the judge thought.

SECTION 23-15-120. Coroner to serve or execute process on sheriff in certain circumstances.

If the sheriff shall be a party plaintiff or defendant in any judicial process, execution, warrant, summons or notice to be served or executed within his county, the coroner shall serve or execute such process, execution, warrant, summons or notice. In the discharge of such duties he shall incur such liabilities as would by law attach to their performance by the sheriff himself.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 53-205; 1952 Code Section 53-205; 1942 Code Sections 3477, 3566; 1932 Code Sections 3477, 3566; Civ. C. '22 Sections 2026, 2111; Civ. C. '12 Sections 1140, 1290; Civ. C. '02 Sections 824, 892; G. S. 646, 712; R. S. 707, 763; 1785 (7) 215; 1839 (11) 78.

Strange; I figured any sworn law enforcement officer, especially within the local jurisdiction, could arrest anybody for the commission of a crime. I suppose they picked the county coroner just for conflict of interest issues. After all, the coroner mostly deals with dead folks who may or may not have been arrested.

[O Really]

The coroner also fills in for the sheriff if the sheriff is incapacitated. Weird people down there

[rstrong]

The coroner also fills in for the sheriff if the sheriff is incapacitated. Weird people down there

Zombie outbreaks make for some strange battles over expertise and jurisdiction.

[neoplacebo]

The coroner also fills in for the sheriff if the sheriff is incapacitated. Weird people down there

What's the deal with the coroner anyway? I don't think it's an elective office; Iv'e never seen "vote for Slim Jim County Coroner." Is it an appointed position by the County Commissioners? Won in a draw of straws? Filled by default because no other doctors want the job? I give up.

[O Really]

Yeppers. They elect them. But actually, the qualification requirements are pretty good. Better than a lot of places. And better than those required for sheriff.
http://www.sc-coroners.org/qualifications.htm

[neoplacebo]

Yeppers. They elect them. But actually, the qualification requirements are pretty good. Better than a lot of places. And better than those required for sheriff.
http://www.sc-coroners.org/qualifications.htm

I'm surprised; guess they don't exactly campaign for coroner. "If I'm elected coroner, I promise to raise the dead" or "vote for me for coroner and you'll never regret it." . Most people don't realize that the sheriff doesn't have to be a law enforcement officer, though. Actually, I think being coroner would be a hell of a downer.....having to slice someone up, especially a kid, to provide an "official" reason for why they are dead. If I were a doctor, I wouldn't want the job. After reading your link, it would seem the coroner doesn't even have to be a doctor. Another surprise.

[neoplacebo]

Yeppers. They elect them. But actually, the qualification requirements are pretty good. Better than a lot of places. And better than those required for sheriff.
http://www.sc-coroners.org/qualifications.htm

Did you read the "tales from the crypt" portion of you link? Pretty wild stuff.

[O Really]

Generally, most places have "medical examiners" who do the heavy lifting with autopsies, etc. They are doctors, forensic pathologists. Those that have only coroners are considered a bit primitive. A lot of the time it's the funeral directors who run for coroner. Sometimes you can have a coroner (political) as well as a medical examiner (appointed professional). Amazing what you can learn from reading (not necessarily watching) "Bones" - Kathy Reichs novels.

[Mr.B]

"Generally, most places have "medical examiners" who do the heavy lifting with autopsies, etc. They are doctors, forensic pathologists. Those that have only coroners are considered a bit primitive. A lot of the time it's the funeral directors who run for coroner. Sometimes you can have a coroner (political) as well as a medical examiner (appointed professional). Amazing what you can learn from reading (not necessarily watching) "Bones" - Kathy Reichs novels."

I had a funeral director tell me once that he would be the last person I would ever meet.....wonder if he was running for coroner?
(I hated to bust his bubble and tell him he was wrong; if I was dead, I wouldn't be meeting him....)

[Mr.B]

word

[O Really]

Yes, and I did say "auto accidents." But looking at the data over time, "accidents" including auto, falls, motorcycle, etc. consistently outnumber gunshots. However, that brings up an interesting point. There are very few "beatings" resulting in death. If it weren't so easy for bad guys to get guns, might there be fewer cops killed? Ummmm?

[Mr.B]

" If it weren't so easy for bad guys to get guns, might there be fewer cops killed? Ummmm?"

Wouldn't make any difference what weapon was involved; they're still deadly weapons. Guns only make it easier for the perp to be less likely harmed because he's standing back at a distance; either from his victim or the police.

[Mr.B]

"Way wrong, Mr.B. Guns make it far easier to kill successfully. Everyone but you knows this."

Naturally, in your little world, I'm wrong; you even corrected O Really's post... which is predictable of you.

Guns make it easier for the shooter not to get killed as well; whereas a knife or other hand-held weapon poses a risk of retaliation to the bearer.

[Mr.B]

"I mostly agreed with O Really's post, it's predictable of you not to notice."
Yeah...mostly.
But you still had to jump in and correct him; it's in your nature to show superiority.
It's predictable of you to squirm, lie, and weasel your way out.

"I won't hold my breath waiting for you to figure out or admit that you just contradicted yourself."
Dang, our luck.

"Irrelevant to my disputing of your stupid claim."
Anything that anyone posts is irrelevant to your disputing of what you deem 'stupid claims'.
That's your nature, and your place in life.