Rev. Jarrett Maupin is a former Democratic congressional candidate who describes himself as a “Progressive Baptist Preacher,” a “Civil Rights Campaigner,” and a “Radical Political Activist” on his Twitter profile. He led a demonstration last month against the Phoenix Police Department after one of their officers shot an unarmed man.
But earlier this week, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office extended an invitation to Maupin to participate in an exercise where he would find himself in three simulated life threatening scenarios police officers could experience while on the job, KSAZ reported.
The first scenario featured a suspect by a vehicle in a parking lot. Maupin permitted the suspect to go behind the vehicle before he reemerged. The suspect discharged his firearm at Maupin, resulting in the civil right’s leader’s ‘death.’ He responded to a verbal disturbance between two males for his next scenario. “What’s going on today gentlemen? What are you doing?,” he asked both men. One of the suspects rushed Maupin, causing him to discharge his firearm at the suspect’s center mass. When KSAZ asked why he did that, he replied, “Hey, he rushed me.” I shot because he was in that zone, I didn’t see him armed, he came clearly to do some harm to my person. It’s hard to make that call; it shakes you up.
The final scenario involved a suspect walking down the street, as KSAZ explains. Maupin is able to get the suspect on the ground, though he is not complying. “I need you to keep your hands up sir, I need you to keep your hands up sir, I need to check that’s in the waistband,” he said. No shots were discharged, though the suspect did have a knife in his waistband. KSAZ’s Troy Hayden performed the scenarios after Maupin without seeing what he did, and the results were the same.
After going through the scenarios, the activist pastor conceded the merits to how officers do their job. “I didn’t understand how important compliance was, but after going through this, yes my attitude has changed – this happens in 10-15 seconds. People need to comply for their own sake,” he said. Maupin thanked the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office on Twitter:
In an interview with The Free Thought Project, whistleblower cop Alex Salazar gives important insight into this video when he explains,
“These scenarios are designed to make any person fail and to cause them to believe there are no other options. He had no taser, baton or other less than lethal weapons. What about kicking the big guy in the nuts, waiting for backup, or tasering him.
The profession of law enforcement is difficult at times, but the excessive brainwashing on a daily basis taking place, that you may die, is too extreme and gives many the belief it is OK to use deadly force. In many of these situations, Tamir Rice or Andy Lopez comes to mind, these officer’s just wanted to plain shoot and kill.”
Salazar went on to say,
“It’s a brainwashing mechanism to get you over to their side, to start thinking about killing. In what they call the ‘FATS simulator’ (firearms and training simulator), you are automatically designed to DIE… Yes it’s a game and useful for training. But here they put a citizen off the street with no training and a newscaster in pre-designed scenarios, which are psychologically made to make you think and perceive things differently. It has nothing to do with training. Every recruit, I don’t care if they’re an ex-badass Navy Seal… everyone dies.
Think about that for a moment. There is no way to “win,” either you die or you kill. The outcome in these training exercises is always death.
Salazar made clear that the manner in which the entire training session and video was done, shows that it was simply pro-police propaganda and conditioning meant for public consumption.
“YouTube FATS training presented by the Pasadena PD, the officer’s have less than lethal weapons at their disposal. They don’t have to kill the people like the Phoenix channel led people to believe. There are viable alternatives. Numerous years of working undercover in South Central Los Angeles and I only had to use my 9mm once.
Most of the time I would kick the person strategically or pepper spray. There is very rarely a reason to kill, and many police officers go their entire lifetime without having to draw their weapons,” said Salazar.
This entire activity is an exercise in psychological warfare as there are only two possible outcomes in these training activities given the aforementioned factors.
Outcome 1: You shoot and kill the suspect, which then shows how police violence is necessary.
Outcome 2: The suspect ends up killing you, which shows how dangerous the job of law enforcement is.
In either case it is a false dichotomy, meant to facilitate a false sympathy towards law enforcement by showing the job they do in a very misleading light given the major advantages an officer on the beat has vs. a citizen off the street participating in this exercise.
Alex Salazar is of course entitled to his opinion.
That has not stopped the story and video that is spreading Maupin's message far and wide.
Maupin's message and the video are receiving a great of attention on the internet with the reposting of his dramatic attuitude adjustment.
Just a few of the many times the story has been reprinted are shown here
I take my hat off to the civil rights activist Reverend Jarrett Maupin for accepting the Sheriff’s office invitation to participate in the shoot/don’t shoot simulation.
After completing the program, he said: “I didn’t understand how important compliance was… people need to comply with the orders of law enforcement officers, for their own safety.”
You can bet the Reverend will now spread the word to his flock.
I think De Blasio and Sharpton should take the course as well.
I'd say in a situation like this, he knows what he is talking about.
Oh, now you believe a cop....when he says something you agree with.
This guy is a cop….believe what he says:
I’m a cop. A few weeks ago, two of my beat partners and I were called to an apartment in a fairly nice complex to help a mother and father with their 16- year-old son.
The son had no criminal history, and by all accounts was a decent kid. But he was having some problems at home — breaking things and making threats with a knife — and the parents needed our help.
When we finally located the son, who is of mixed ethnicity (Dad is white, Mom is Hispanic), he instantly began cussing and yelling at us. He took a fighting stance and said he was not going to do anything we told him.
Luckily, we were able to calm him and get him into handcuffs without any blows being thrown.
We asked why he was so hostile toward us. His response? Ferguson. The cops couldn’t be trusted because of what happened in Ferguson, Mo. He told us that he wanted to kill all white cops because of what “they” had done to Michael Brown.
His parents were mortified by his statements and apologized profusely, telling us that is not how they raised their son.
I live and work more than 1,900 miles west of Ferguson, but the effects of that case are still being felt here. Not a week goes by without someone I encounter mentioning it.
“Ferguson” has become the latest defense for committing crime, often invoked by people we arrest and their loved ones. Sadly, this feeling has not only infected the normal criminal element that I expect that behavior from, but even seems to be affecting middle-class families.
While the effects can be felt far away, the localized effects are far more serious. Last Wed¬nesday, a white officer in St. Louis, Mo., returned fire — in other words, he was shot at first — killing a black male suspect.
Normally, this event would barely garner back-page news, because sadly, it’s no longer newsworthy when a cop gets shot at. But, in the shadow of Ferguson, such an event is national news, and serves as fuel for more protests and vandalism.
According to accounts from Wednesday’s “demonstrations,” the crowd was calling for Police Officer Darren Wilson to be killed.
The same people whom we used to count on for support, the good, law-abiding general public, are now reluctant to trust us. We, the local cops they’ve seen and contacted in the past, haven’t changed. We’ve done nothing different.
What’s changed is the public’s perception of us, created by the reckless reporting by nearly every news outlet very early after the shooting of Michael Brown.
The rush to be first with the story over the desire to be correct is having dire consequences nationwide, and quite honestly has made my job more difficult and more dangerous.
Since the shooting of Mike Brown, and the month-plus-long circus that followed, the number of law enforcement officers being shot in the line of duty has skyrocketed, but the average citizen has no idea this is happening.
The national media jumps all over a story where an 18-year-old criminal punk, who shot at a cop, is shot and killed. That criminal is made out to be some sort of victim by many outlets. That story is front-page news all over the country.
Did you know that in just three days last week, six cops were shot in the line of duty, one of whom was killed?
Oct. 7, Chicago: One officer, a captain, is shot in the face and chest. Other officers at the scene take fire and are pinned down by the suspect.
Oct. 8, North Las Vegas: An officer is shot during a gunfight with a suspect.
Oct. 8, Phoenix: An officer on a traffic stop is shot in the face. The suspects flee; the officer calls for help. Two other officers arrive and start rendering aid, only to come under fire from the suspects who circled back and attacked the responding officers.
Oct. 8, Oklahoma City: Two officers are shot by a suspect during the same event.
Oct. 9, Midland County, Texas: Sgt. Mike Naylor is shot and killed while responding to a report of a sexual assault.
Where are those stories in the national news?
What does it say about the media who make a victim out of a criminal, and ignore the good guys being injured and killed trying to keep society safe?
People ask me if things are different for cops since Ferguson.
