Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles
Title: Anti-Cop Activist Pastor Trains With Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Source:
Fox 10
URL Source: http://www.westernjournalism.com/an ... ffs-office/#RZt9gPOwtFeGjygF.9
Published: Jan 24, 2015
Author: James Beattie
Post Date: 2015-01-24 12:43:17 by GrandIsland
Keywords: None
Views: 10165
Comments: 19
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#1. To: All (#0)
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:
‘Use of Force’ Training Videos of Phoenix Activist Exposed as Police Propaganda 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. You da man....Reverend Jarrett Maupin!!!
Alex is a cop. I'd say in a situation like this, he knows what he is talking about. Why is it that you only believe the "bad" cops?
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. Yes, yes they are.
#10. To: Deckard (#9)
(Edited)
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 also cop….believe what he says: Advocates from every corner of the political compass have produced a mountain of disinformation about the “militarization” of American law enforcement, especially on the Internet. It’s interesting to read anger-infused blogs and Internet forums calling for the rejection of “militarization” and a return to the “good old days” of policing (like Mayberry’s Andy Griffith). Many writers routinely lament that cops were once “peace officers” instead of “law enforcement officers” or “police officers.” In truth, these titles all refer to the same role, and there never has been a functional difference between them. If law enforcement has become militarized, then the same is true for trauma medicine, aviation, video games, deer hunting, satellite television, and GPS navigation. (AP Photo) If we could ask Wyatt Earp or Bill Hickok whether they kept the peace or enforced the law, they would most likely say the same thing any modern police officer would: “Both.” Origins of the Argument Their writings, and subsequent conclusions about “militarization” of police, are based on cherry-picking of data, a demonstrated willingness to use incomplete source material (such as preliminary or anecdotal reports of police misconduct vs. final court decisions regarding the same incidents), and extensive use of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. Their work is rife with confirmation bias and has been used by numerous critics as a foundation upon which to build a large but flimsy body of writings on “militarization” that does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Unfortunately, Kraska and Balko’s work is regularly cited by radicals from both the right and left to support extreme agendas. The best salesmen of the “militarization” theme write in a way that feeds the grievances and bitterness of readers throughout the political landscape. They provide seemingly solid references to support positions that appear reasonable and logical on the surface. A deeper look at their work usually reveals that they have skillfully combined true stories of legitimately awful incidents with half-truths, innuendo, and generalities to inspire the belief that botched paramilitary raids are business as usual throughout our profession. The most vitriolic commentary regarding “militarization” is based on deeply flawed thinking by emotional people who tend to believe everything they read. These are the hardcore believers who cannot be bothered to verify the facts reported by their favorite authors. People who read only those sources they agree with (and the sources those sources agree with) can be easily led down a false intellectual path. That’s how otherwise normal people end up believing with all their heart that their local police officer is an agent of the New World Order, the U.N., or President Obama’s shadowy “National Defense Force.” Valid Questions Exist Police in the 1950s could — and did — use serious force much more often than modern officers. Searches, seizures, and arrests that were commonplace in the ‘50s would today be thrown out of court and cause the officer to be stripped of his or her license and become the focus of a criminal investigation. A review of the available literature reveals a widespread belief that the mere use of protective equipment by police officers signifies a growing police state employing hordes of cops eager to trample on the Constitution. The use of specialized equipment and protective gear by firefighters, athletes, and race car drivers is seen as a logical response to potential hazards. The cop who uses a helmet, rifle-rated body armor, and an AR-15 to deal with dangerous criminals is deemed guilty of “overkill.” All too often, accusations of “militarization” are based more on perception than facts (how police “look” instead of what they actually do). Many critics never consider that the use of military-inspired technology and equipment has pervaded almost every aspect of American life. If law enforcement has become militarized, then the same is true for trauma medicine, aviation, video games, deer hunting, satellite television, GPS navigation, and those giant SUVs the soccer moms drive. The last time I checked, my actions as a police officer — including those undertaken while using a helmet, body armor, rifle, and armored vehicle — were still governed by state law, case law, and department policy, all of which were enacted by lawfully elected representatives who were put in place by the citizens of a constitutional republic. Those who believe that American law enforcement has become “militarized” should educate themselves about court rulings and laws passed during the past 10 years regarding citizens’ rights to carry firearms in public, use force to protect themselves and their property, and be free from police searches of their homes, vehicles, and persons. With very few exceptions, those rights have been and continue to be re- affirmed, reinforced, and expanded by legislation and court decisions. Legal requirements for police departments to be transparent to the public (open records requests and FOIA requests) are more powerful than they have ever been. There are more restrictions and mandates controlling the actions of police authorities now than at any time in American history. The sky is not falling.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Gatlin, GrandIsland (#1)
#5. To: Deckard, GrandIsland (#4)
(Edited)
Alex Salazar
#7. To: Gatlin (#5)
Alex Salazar is of course entitled to his opinion.
#9. To: Deckard (#7)
Alex is a cop.
Replies to Comment # 9. Alex is a cop.
The vast majority of claims regarding the “militarization” of American police can be traced to the works of two men: Peter Kraska and Radley Balko.
What’s not in dispute is that valid questions exist about the proper role of government and the actions of its enforcers. Such questions have existed since the founding of our country. However, an honest examination of the practical “in-the-field authority” of modern police officers compared to that of the 1950s reveals an incredible contrast.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]