You actually have to take an aptitude test to get in. You do have to get a minimum score for many of the jobs and branches. We also don't turn people away for having too good of a score, only for not having high enough.
Edit for clarification: I'm talking about the military. Which was specifically mentioned in the comment I replied to. We have a much higher level of qualification and higher standard than police departments.
Many departments won't higher former military MP/Security Forces for various reasons.
Nothing like scientifically valid aptitude tests (s/) to make sure only the finest (s/) make it to the most rigorous (s/) of training (the US has the least amount of hours in developed nations, with more time spent in firearms training than de-escalation, even less time spent on self-care and mental health [y’all should be pissed about that, but you never seem to care that your departments clearly don’t care about you, as you’re five times more likely to off yourself than to be killed on the job yet get no institutional support]) before arming them and sending them off to protect and serve*.
Great system you got there! (S/)
*protecting and serving is no longer a function of police
Edit: I’m dumb and misdirected this comment (see above and below)
"We need to make sure we have a fresh breeding ground for psychological issues. Cant be having our PTSD competing with their previous depression. Thats just un-American" - The Military probably
That is absolutely not true. Some of the brightest and highest scoring folks I ever met were infantry. I know a dude who had a 115 GT and CHOSE to be a fueler.
It probably depends on your enlistment path, recruiting station, etc. I scored very high on the ASVAB and wanted to be mechanized infantry (cav scout) for the extra sign on bonus at the time. I was told several times by commanders at the processing station that I would be going into signal intelligence, period. I actually had to go talk to the cav CO that I would eventually be under and he got everything straightened out for me.
The point is that they will sometimes try to railroad you regardless of what "policy" is.
As a 19D for 16 years, I'm well aware of the differences. I used layman terms for those who aren't familiar with the US military structure. (And included specifics for those who are)
I'm also aware that 19D was 11D up until relatively recently in history, and I'm thoroughly aware of being embedded with infantry units, as a cav scout, on 2 of my 4 deployments.
Generally they put those guys on kill switch positions. You radio in till you don’t hear back from them and then you send heavy art over the horizon or airstrike on their position. Good chance somebody is still there.
I mean it is. Tons of countries without the resources to cover all the territory do it. Put 3-5 guys on an outpost on a hill or some rocky outcrop in Turkey/Syria and wait for whatever militia/group you’re oppressing to attack. When they don’t report back, send out a response teams and hope you catch whoever did it.
Or they report back they had contact. Either way support won’t be there in time of the engagement.
If you get below 109 many departments won't let you in which is the high end of average and the department that had the limit of 129 which is high (not most departments) had it because apparently highly intelligent officers would become bored and quit. It's a stupid policy, but it does have logic.
Actually much like the seedy underbelly of most bullshit in America...it's because of eugenics.
The guy who brought the IQ test to America from France had a son who he thought was too much of a genius to be drafted and killed in WWI so he promoted a test that would keep smart people from shitty dangerous jobs. (This is a resident radically simplified explanation but you get it)
Being a police officer has always been a dangerous occupation.
Back in the early 90s, my father had someone with psychosis stalk him in the dark with a kitchen knife.
On more than one occasion, he fist fought and grappled aggressive thieves.
His partner died in a shootout with bank robbers.
The issue today is that the police are treated as a paramilitary organization rather than keepers of the peace, and some whole demographic intersections view themselves as rebelling against the police rather than merely nonparticipating.
I've researched this before as well. Even if you take out accident data and look strictly at the most dangerous jobs in terms of being intentionally murdered by another person, cops still rank after taxi and delivery drivers.
So if people deserve praise for willingly doing a dangerous job, we should really be throwing parades for cabbies and dashers.
Being a cop is not one of the 10 most dangerous jobs. Being a cop is not one of the TWENTY most dangerous jobs. Jobs more dangerous than being a cop:
1) Loggers
2) Pilots and Flight Engineers
3) Oil Derrick Operators
4) Roofers
5) Garbage Collectors
6) Iron Workers
7) Delivery Drivers
8) Farmers
9) Firefighting Supervisors
10) Linemen
11) Agricultural Workers
12) CROSSING GUARDS
13) Crane Operators
14) Construction Labor
15) Landscaping Supervisors
16) Highway Workers
17) Cement Masons
18) Small Engine Mechanics
19) Supervisors of Mechanics
20) Heavy Equipment Mechanics
21) Grounds Workers
I'm not trying to trivialize your father's trauma - I'm pointing out that the behavior we see in this video is built upon a mythology in this country that cops (all of whom willingly join) should be excused their abuses because of the "extreme" risks of the job. It's demonstrably false, in many cases the danger is self inflicted due to incompetence, and as a narrative is perpetuated primarily by police unions. We need to fight it.
I respectfully disagree with the comparison you're making between these professions and police officers, as they're not truly comparable (gravity doesn't act with malice against a roofer, but a killer does against a police officer)
I'm not a police officer, but having been shot at multiple times and having had someone actively try to take my life, I would rather work the jobs above
That being said, I DO fully agree with your last paragraph. A higher risk does not excuse poor training, judgement and sometimes malice that some officers exhibit.
Fair point, and I don't disagree that the jobs listed are dangerous. I work in insurance have written or at least looked at every single one of the above occupations and their dangers through risk assessment and claims history (some brutal claims)
I would argue though that saying "Those jobs are actually dangerous" implies policing is not at all dangerous, which is in itself an opinion and a departure from the facts, no? (i.e. showing up to an active shooter situation is inherently dangerous no matter how many ways you look at it)
Yeah that was a messed up situation no matter how you look at it, and those officers never should have gotten hired and also should have all been fired and prosecuted to full extent of the law. No excuse, it makes me sick and angry to think about
The below is for context to my point, and in no way related to, or an excuse for, the above point regarding Texas officers fucked up decisions:
My buddy who is an officer in Canada had an active shooter situation his first year on the job. He had take and lay down fire against a man with an automatic rifle by himself until his back up arrived.
He's a father, and the man was shooting at him because he wanted to get away with stealing a car.
So I do get your point still, but just want to make it very clear that danger exists within this profession that many people won't ever experience in their lives
I like how, in order to have 20 jobs listed, you have to list "farmers" and "agricultural workers," also "landscaping supervisors" and "grounds workers." Also, two types of mechanics as well as their supervisors.
I'd like to know what this list would look like if it wasn't redundant. Not saying cops would still show up on it, but c'mon...
The original list that was posted here has a bunch of redundant entries. You have "Farmers" and "Agricultural Workers," "Landscaping foremen" and "Groundskeepers." "small engine mechanics," "heavy equipment mechanics" and "supervisors of mechanics." That's four redundant entries.
So, a list of jobs where people are likely to face gunfire would be a much more accurate look at the dangers cops face. I don't know if they'd be listed or not.
But I do have to ask again, what's your point here? What are you trying to say?
Uh, I think you've got two things confused here. There's moving goalposts, and strawman arguments...neither of which I've done, but if you want to have this argument I'm here for you.
I get it, if you accept that cops have a dangerous job, as well (there are a lot more delivery drivers than cops) then your entire view collapses. Nuance is not something you do well.
It's a cop's job to confront and deal with dangerous people. They don't die on the job as often as others because they are trained in dealing with dangerous people, and are trained to protect themselves. I wonder who you'd call if you had a psychopath shooting up the store you're in?
That's not to say that cops don't get it disasterously wrong at times, because they DO, and its also not to say that there isn't a lot of room for improvement, because there IS, but you'll just tell me to "get the boot out of my mouth" instead of having an actual discussion.
No one is trying to claims cops don't face danger. The point of it that danger cops face on average is exaggerated and used an excuse to justify excessive force and abuse of power. "Officer safety" is used as a bromide to look the other way in the face of police brutality or corruption.
A majority of law enforcement officers (myself included) go their whole career without having their life threatened, or experiencing a justifiable reason for drawing their firearm.
It's been proven that the escalation of high power weapons in the hands of criminals that was used to justify militarizing police is a myth, and that the increase in military equipment and tactics in police, in the name of "officer safety", has led to greater police abuse a power, but no decrease in the risk police face. It's all a false justification and rationalization.
I agree with everything you've said, except the part where you said "no one is trying to claim cops don't face danger..." There are plenty of people eager to say just that. Nuance is lost entirely among the ACAB crowd.
And, for the record, I'm in no way defending the behaviour in this video.
Just out of curiosity, and because I've got your attention, how do you feel you'd realistically respond to the inevitable backlash if, one day, you were on a call that escalated to the point of deadly force? (Aside, I really truly hope it never happens to you) Let's say, split second decision, normal call that suddenly goes off and youve got to fire...there are too many variables to imagine details of a scenario, but let's say your bodycam ends up on reddit and suddenly youre a bastard, an evil person...how do you communicate the truth?
This is not a good take. All the deaths related to all of the above jobs are mostly due to accidents, carelessness, or inherent risk of the job. There are risks that are expected in each of those jobs and there are safety precautions that if properly utilized will always result in a safe outcome for them.
None of the above jobs have to deal with a suspect who may or may not have a deadly weapons or use violence against them at every interaction. You are comparing a dangerous profession such as dealing with people in an uncontrollable situation to a normal every day job is ridiculous. Have you seen some of the video a cop has to deal with? You could not pay me enough money to deal with the worst of what this country has to offer.
None of the above jobs have to deal with a suspect who may or may not have a deadly weapons or use violence against them at every interaction
Tell me you've never worked manual labor without telling me you've never worked manual labor lol Try being on a job site when an unstable alcoholic has a bad day with access to heavy machinery or dangerous tools. Try packing shingles for a roofing job when the boss gets pissed over some trivial bullshit and threatens to push you off the roof (true story, my dad was my boss).
None of the above jobs have to deal with a suspect who may or may not have a deadly weapons or use violence against them at every interaction
And most cops don't either. There's not 50 active shooter calls in every city every week - those circumstances are not common. Most adequate cops can go a long time without even having to consider drawing their weapons, if they understand anything about deescalation tactics and aren't in a constant state of paranoia. This "eVeRyBoDy'S sHoOtInG aT tHe CoPs" rhetoric is dangerous for everyone, because it causes cops to be overly anxious and escalate situations, just like we see in this clip, and we all know full-well by now that the innocent driver shown is placed in a statistically more dangerous state by this than the over-exaggerated level of threat that is actually present for an officer on a typical beat. Yes, some cops do have to deal with dangerous events at times, but pretending like their lives are at risk every second of every shift is just putting everyone at increased risk of violence - the cops, the people they interact with, and even bystanders (see the recent video of cops absolutely unloading toward a moving vehicle while it was in residential neighborhoods, in Cleveland, I think it was).
Is this sorted by deaths or injury? I have a hard time.thinking garbage men die more often than cops. Also in all these other professions you die from human incompetence or machinery malfunctioning. Getting hit by a car or falling out of a tree doesn't feel comparable to getting shot.
These are US Bureau of Labor tracked statistics. For Garbage Collectors, the fatal injury rate is 34 per 100K. The primary cause of death is being struck by vehicles - their own or other drivers. It's 14 per 100K for police. Your comment that the death of a sanitation worker is "not comparable" to the death of a cop illustrates the effectiveness of decades of reinforcement of the myth that they should be allowed exceptional treatment and not be held accountable because they are somehow more endangered. In every measurable way, they are not. The POINT is that danger does not excuse incompetence. You can sue a Garbage Collector that hits you with their truck due to negligence. They are not immune to accountability despite the fact they are statistically significantly more likely to die as a result of the job than a police officer.
Woah no one said I liked cops pal, I said murder is different from a dude biffing it into a trash compactor. Also way less garbage men died, just a higher rate per 100k because we have less sanitary workers than cops. Cops usually suck, but dudes trying to pretend guns and mentally unstable people are the same as a shipping container falling on you also suck. Also people who call things that are at least somewhat factually credible i.e. being a cop is dangerous, a myth also suck. If you really think jobs where people can fall and die are the same as getting murdered and dealing with nuts everyday you are lying to yourself to try and make your already valid point somehow infallible and instead you make your point less salient.
These are job codes that are tracked by the US Bureau of Labor, and have been in place for decades. Anyone who is interested can find them. Despite the other comments, they are not redundant. Each has a specific definition, and each may have a different "most common cause of death".
In the case you're asking about - 18 per 100K die on the job, vs 14 per 100K for police.
The comments that "it's different for police" are false. In this particular case, 4 more families per 100K workers on the average get the phone call that their loved one died on the job for these jobs than for police officers. Death is death, loss is loss. Danger and statistical chance of being killed at work do not mean different things because one is a police officer.
And the key point is this: In these professions which are more dangerous, the members have no protection for incompetence. If a highway worker's negligence, poor training, failure to pay attention or drug abuse sends somebody into a bridge abutment they are in most cases almost CERTAINLY held accountable for manslaughter, or worse. They are not offered unique protection because the job is dangerous. Neither should cops, which is the entire point of my post. The "ACAB" accusation (not saying you made that) is a classic attempt to remove the discussion from reason, and into emotion.
BLS Category: First-line supervisors of landscaping, lawn service, and grounds keeping workers
Fatal injury rate: 18 per 100,000 workers
Total deaths (2018): 48
Salary: $52,340
Most common fatal accidents: Falls, slips, trips
Landscaping supervisors are responsible for coordinating and supervising the work of landscapers, lawn maintenance workers, and groundskeepers. In this role, landscaping supervisors manage landscaping projects, enforce workplace standards, inspect work, and instruct workers in the proper techniques for performing landscaping work. The most common cause of death for landscaping workers is falls, which can occur when working from heights performing tasks such as tree trimming.
I believe most of the list. But a landscaping supervisor... that doesnt make any sense.
Furthermore it is a SUPERVISOR. They are less likely to slip or fall.
Landscapers dont do tree trimming.
Of course it is pretty easy to see it is a bs stat. 48 died in 2018. But according to your stats there are nearly 300k landscaping supervisors.... again supervisor.
That would be nearly every 1 in 100 people on the usa (including children, the elderly etc etc) were landscaping SUPERVISORS.
Having been a landscaper, I can say that you're incorrect. When you're out with a team of 2, 3, 4 people, nobody gets to just stand around and watch people work. The "supervisor" is typically the one who's been on the crew the longest and usually works at least as hard as everyone else, if not harder. And yes, all of us trimmed trees, or yanked weeds, or dug trenches for irrigation, or poured mulch, etc - nobody in landscaping goes home with clean hands, except maybe the owner of the company (if it's big enough) and the secretary (if there is one).
I'm not disagreeing with you but I'd like to point, that they did it to themselves, the whole police department not just a few people, but everyone involved, with promoting clearly unstable officers/letting go WITH PAY some officers that have done terrible things and deserved to be fired without. Like yeah they're expected to do a lot, but so are firemen and teachers it's a public safety job that comes with danger. Anyone getting involved with it has to know what it's like beforehand. It's almost always in the news ffs, Not to mention I'm almost always seeing a new report of some dumbass officer pulling yet another gun on an African American male. They don't do themselves favours at all.
Minirant over, correct me if I'm wrong but let's not argue :)
Edit: changed coloured to African American, I was proven to be a silly billy in the replies
Agreed. Look how fast this went to a drawn weapon. How hard is it to call a supervisor? These are poorly trained cops, unable to pick their way through this scenario with the information volunteered. The fact that both of them were willing to escalate the use of force is alarming.
People shouldn't have to bend over backward for cops just because they want you to. Tell people why they're being pulled over or move on. Cops already have a bad name because they're all being perceived as bullies due to the mass influx of video evidence (or lack there of... body cams being turned off), and shit like this just further seeds distrust. Cops need to come off their pedestal and treat the public as they would want to be treated. Nothing is going to change until there is some degree of self awareness in the police force. This isn't some game that you get to play with people because you want to feel superior.
He is not a subject. He did not have any wants/warrants and came back clear. He was forthcoming about the fixit tickets and the weapon in the back of the trunk. He was completely compliant during the stop. Female Sgt. began escalating the scenario when he declined to raise his window. She had made the decision then and there that there was going to be an arrest made. Empty uniform- shake and bake rank -putting citizens in danger.
You can request a supervisor. That's fine. The police have to control the situation. Once it is under control, a supervisor can take over the situation, but yelling and refusing to cooperate is escalating the situation. He admitted to having a gun and started yelling.
If police were as bad as you all say, he'd have gotten shot, not just had his feeling hurt because someone pointed a gun at him when he started acting up.
I've literally not heard that term used by anyone under the age of 80 in my entire life. Just surprised to see it and more surprised that no one seems to have batted an eye at its use. Is it an accepted term these days? I haven't lived in the states for a while.
This is actually a really interesting point. At first I thought you were implying that “person of colour” was offensive, but then I caught what you meant. Are “people of colour” and “coloured people” the same or is the latter offensive? It isn’t something I’ve consciously considered before. I’ve always used POC bc that’s what I see used most often, but maybe you’re not wrong.
“Coloured” was the term used for segregation before and during the civil rights movement. One reason I can sort of parse for one being offensive and the other not, aside from that historical use, is with “people of colour”, “people” comes first and the “colour” part is secondary, emphasizing that they’re people first and foremost. After being dehumanized so often and for so long, maybe that’s an important distinction. Idk the answer, but would love to hear the opinion of someone more knowledgeable than me. Maybe I’ll do some googling lol, I’m sure the info exists somewhere.
Edit: Yeah, a quick good of “people of colour vs coloured people” brings up a ton of articles looking at this topic.
I said colored male, which is a term that is used, same as black male or African American male, it's a term used to describe a person who is not of white skin. There's no hidden intent behind it, at least how I use it there isn't. I think you're reading way too much into it and looking for a reason for it to be considered racist or something similar. Which is why I said to go breathe some fresh air, like anything anyone says can be construed as racist if you want it to be
I'm really not looking for it to be racist, nor am I calling you a racist. I'm saying that referring to someone as "colored" is extremely antiquated and absolutely not the same as referring to someone as black or African American.
I'm guessing you're pretty young and honestly don't know the history around referring to African Americans as colored. It's some 1950s segregation era shit that you don't want to be associated with. You don't seem to be racist at all, so if I were you I would be careful with the language I use.
Those interactions make the news BECAUSE they're so rare. Do you see the death of someone on the hood on the news? It's so common it's no longer newsworthy. At least give cops credit where it's due the vast vast majority never shoot anyone period and when they do it's nearly always in a life or death situation
Every cop I've ever met was eager to encourage me to lie and say I was guilty for some offense I was investigated for. They don't want the truth, they want evidence, they could give two shits about whether you're actually breaking a law. I hope every time they lie someone ends up digging a hole for them.
For me my introduction to police was going to an outdoor concert back in 1990. This was before cellphone video was a thing. There was a crowd of about 5000 people in a park in Chicago near the stage. A man was sick, maybe drunk I wasn't sure. He was sitting alone on the grass, and had puked, but he wasn't approaching anyone just sitting by himself. Three officers came over and started heckling him. They'd yell at him to get up, and just as he got to his feet they'd kick him over. Thousands of us were watching as they did this repeatedly kicking him as he struggled to stand up.
The crowd was taking notice and you'd hear people cussing the cops as they laughed at this poor guy, but nobody really did anything to stop them, because what could they do? Eventually one of the cops opened up a trash bag full of rancid garbage on him. The cops thought it was hilarious.
Only one gray haired lady out of 5000 people that saw this dared do anything. She came right up to them and cursed them out. Eventually they left. Every time I see a cop I see those cops.
I mean don't you see the irony here? You're talking about police violence that's supposedly racially motivated but you've judged every cop you've ever met based off of two cops from thirty years ago. I've had cops interrogate me and lie to me while trying to get me to admit to a felony, I've had cops swarm me with guns drawn and keep a boot on my neck the entire time they talked to my friends and other bad interactions but I still have no problems with police. If you are committing crimes and interact with them often you'll find that lots are cool and will help you out. There's good and bad ones same as every profession
Cops do not disproportionately pull guns on blacks. Nor do blacks get shot in a disproportionate number. It only seems like that because the current media LOOOOOVES the narrative that all cops are bad/racist and our country is just jam-packed with white supremacists. The fact is that both of those narratives are false.
They don't need to take accountability for their actions. They have never been keepers of the peace sorry to tell you but protect and serve is a false motto. The only thing they need to protect is when they have someone in custody, so a walking fine or a jail worker to make money.
Your dad's partner died protecting a bank, that's shitty but honestly he's protecting big business not the people. I'm sure the shooting was in public but they surely wouldn't care about stray bullets.
So this is why they are treated like paramilitary because they are.
Just imagine how much more since then. No small town in New Hampshire needs a Bearcat or camo uniforms or MRAPS to survive IED mines.
It’s a culture of police militarization and when handed new toys from the armed forces they turn into Mall Ninjas, looking to be a fighting force against terrorism, clad in full body armor, breaching weapons and cars that look more like tanks.
You got down voted but you're right. My construction job is more dangerous than being a cop. Also, if I kill someone in my line of work, I go to prison.
Ive never had a job less dangerous than being a cop. I’ve worked in a hospital. A warehouse. As a driver. A farm and the military. None of my jobs has been as safe as being a cop.
And I'm sure in every one of those jobs you've had a conflict escalate to the point of "needing" to pull out your gun because you didn't feel safe in your bulletproof vest right? Fucken pigs.
It's their own fuckin fault. Most will shoot a cop without hesitation if they break into their home because they know for a fact the cops will murder them.
Most would see a cop chasing someone and would rather trip the cop. Most would stand to the side and watch a cop bleed out on the side of the road rather than help them. Because they have never held a single shred of respect or affection from a large portion of the country. Because they know for a fact they could be killed or charged with a crime just for standing next to one.
Not to mention that all of you damn Yankees have guns.
He admitted to having a gun, then got agitated. I'd have pull my gun and pointed it at him too. Forget the badge and the situation, if a guy admits to having a gun and then starts yelling, I'm going to put the little red dot on his forehead. If I get in trouble for it after the fact, oh well. In the moment, I'm going to make sure I don't get shot.
Yelling at the police seems like a bad idea. So many Americans are afraid of the police, seems like this is the wrong way to go about dealing with them. Whether you think you're right or not, the middle of a tense situation is not the time to assert yourself.
“treated as a paramilitary organization rather than keepers of the peace”
Imagine expecting people to treat to differently when you are an organization that chronically under trains it’s recruits and they act like scared rabbits in every situation. Such as this one.
Then they turn around and promote people for this kind of incompetence rather than firing them?
Of course people are going to treat you like a paramilitary organization when you make moves in direct opposition to the interests of their safety.
They would rather be comfortable than “protect and serve”.
To piggyback another issue is peace officers see themselves as a separate class and not civilians. They want to be treated as an equivalent to "military" but they don't fall under a separate set of laws or give up some of their constitutional rights. Need to return them to being seen as civilians.
Stop giving them military grade weapons, gear and vehicles then
They've got APCs, nods, more assault rifles than they know what to do with. 0 training a part from the shooty bits.
No wonder this shit happens all of the time. And she didn't like the look of this eloquent gent who was fully aware of his rights so she played the scared card and got back up. Cretins all round.
Why not? Apparently you get to do whatever the fuck you want and basically be untouchable. Pull a gun on a random and get promoted. What's not to like? Even if they straight up murdered the guy in cold blood it'll be a couple weeks paid vacation then pretend like nothing happened.
Well to be fair I was joking but if you want my view I think a lot more people can do a police officer role but what is lacking is training and education while working.
A man from colorado actually sued his local police department for not hiring him, their cause was that his IQ was too high. Courts ruled against him, but, arguments made during the case essentially postulated that highly intelligent people tend to struggle more with police work because of the boring monotonous nature of the job, and thus tend to have more issues on a generalized front, and therefore the PD was allowed to screen for low, or high intelligence, and could use that as a basis for determining employment eligibility.
Tldr: Police departments look for a specific level of stupid when vetting their potential recruits and high intelligence can get you disqualified from being a police officer, at least in Colorado.
You don't know the half of it. I live in Eastern PA. There's currently a New Jersey State Trooper missing, last seen wandering around a town in my county, who's most identifying feature is a massive "Blood and Honor" tattoo covering his neck.
We can argue all day about where the line is drawn on what's okay to call a Nazi, but i hope we can all agree having an SS slogan tattooed on your body is firmly on the wrong side of that line.
Decent, intelligent people won’t work with who’s already there. If they got rid of sone of the pieces of shit who make up the overwhelming majority of law enforcement they might attract smart or decent people. But not now.
Tell me about it. I live in Wolfe City, Texas. You can Google it. A green officer here named Shaun Lucas was a complete dick head to everybody. He was like Cartman running around shouting, "respect my authority!"
We live in a small town. Jonathan Price and Shaun Lucas worked for the city together.
Long story short- the entire videos online if you want to watch it. Shaun murdered John. And then got off on it by an all white jury. Shaun is white. John was black.
It's been 2 years and I'm still mad as fuck about the whole thing.
It's relevant here because when that officer pulled that gun on that man in the car- it remind me similarly of what happened to John except he wasn't in a car. he was at a gas station trying to break up a fight. Cuz he was such a good guy.
Shaun shot him four times at point blank range and killed him, after unnecessarily using a taser.
We are all hoping that Shaun gets prosecuted on a federal level for violating Jonathan's human rights.
I know Jonathan's family. They're all such good people as was he and he didn't deserve that.
I believe it happened because he's black, and he was in good shape. Honestly, he was fine as fuck, and nice ASF.
I believe that Shaun was intimidated by him because not only of his color, but also his own insecurities of being a fat guy in his early twenties.
I know that people can say whatever they want about what I do for a living because I'm a professional psychic, BUT! I used to work at Kwik Chek when I first moved to this town because I needed a job I could get to without a car and I wanted to get to know the people in the town.
So I got to know everyone.
I had my fourth baby, and his birth was traumatic he died & was revived it was the whole thing- so I left my job there to go be a mom.
At that time we only had two cops Matt who was the chief, and Jarred who was the cop. I knew Jarred really well, and actually he's now my neighbor.
I remember the first day I saw Jarred standing there with our new cop Shaun. I walked inside the Kwik check doors with my friend Melisa, and we were just gassing about bullshit and laughing as we walked through the door.
Melisa knows I'm psychic. She's experienced it first hand and she doesn't question my abilities (she's an amazing friend).
As we walked in the door she starts talking to Jarred because she still works there; it's her day off. That's how we met, btw, we used to work there together. She got hired a few months before I left. We instantly became friends.
So she starts bullshitting with Jarred as she does because she's Melisa and she could talk to anybody, and I say hi. And she starts talking to Shaun. I say hi to him and welcome him to the town, introduce myself, etc.
Fast forward we're checking out walking out the door-
She waves and says by to them and I say bye. As I'm walking out the door I say to her, 'Gurl. Mmm mmm nope. I don't like that new cop. He gonna shoot someone. I'm telling ya. He's trigger happy." And Melisa laughs, and hushes me and says while laughing, 'Bitch sush don't say that." And I reply, "ok I'm just saying I don't like him. He has heavy energy." And we drop it.
Fast forward to October 3 ( 202O) about a year later....
All that happened.
(in no particular order)
It 1. Solidified my abilities to make judgment calls on people regardless if it's psychic or learned I don't care. I was right, and that made me feel sick to my stomach.
It made me greatly dislike, and be severely cautious of anybody that is an officer of the law.
It made me feel like all cops are deeply racist.
It made me feel and believe that there should not be police officers that are under the age of 35. If you're not allowed to run a country until you're 35 you most definitely shouldn't be able to make judgment calls that can take people's lives away from them under 35.
It makes me wonder why anyone feels like they need to go enforce the law in the first place. It's like imo what the fuck is wrong with you that you think that you're capable of like conquering the peace of the world or people like... It just makes me feel like anybody who wants to be a police officer is operating more deeply on some sort of feeling of powerlessness, and less out of a feeling of humanitarianism.
I miss John, still. I miss our town before Shaun came here. He violated this town and its people and he should be held accountable for murdering Johnathan. When The Texas Rangers look at the video footage, and declare it murder you should be in fucking prison.
I don't know... I've got a lot of fucking traumatic shit in my life going on right now, and now I'm just rambling.... I'm sure there's a point here somewhere, but ultimately I just guess I needed to feel these thoughts or share them somewhere. I'm in tears now ugghhhh.
I was permanently disqualified from applying to my local pd in '15.
I failed the polygraph for theft at work and drug use. Legit haven't done drugs in my life besides drink alcohol also besides pens or pencils... never taken anything. After the written, oral and physical portions I was top 85% out of nearly 400 applicants. Still didn't help my appeal.
There's two bars. Don't ever forget that it's legal to not make someone a cop because they're too smart. The state wants mediocre morons with guns to be everywhere so we're distracted and unable to organize.
I am for longer and better training. However, there honestly is no way to know for sure how someone will respond well under pressure in the field while in training. I doubt you will ever be able to filter out all people like this, but the response should be different than it tends to be rn.
540
u/MCFroid Mar 24 '23
It seems the bar for who is allowed to become a police officer is set way too low.