Examining one cop's remarkable victim impact statement

No. I'm not kidding at all.

As I quoted the old adage before: no single raindrop ever thinks that it is responsible for the flood.
 
Gollnick said:
Yes, yes, yes... All yes. Using an off-color word may not destroy your department or disgrace your community or devastate your profession. But each incident does a little bit of damage.... just a little bit... a tiny bit... maybe imperceptible. But damage nonetheless. And that cumulative damage adds up.

It's like how museums often don't allow visitors to take flash pictures of paintings. They know that the bright light of a camera flash fades the colors of the painting. Oh, the effect of one flash is imperceptible.... even a hundered don't seem to change anything. But, slowly, bit-by-bit, imperceptible changes add up to perceptible sums. The best solution is to stop it before it starts.

There is an old adage: no one raindrop thinks that it is responsible for the flood.

Each incident takes one drop out of the ocean... just one drop. No one drop removed causes the slightest change in the ocean's level. But every drop, drop by drop, every incident by every officer in every department and agency in every community and state and the nation in the entire profession all add up and eventually sea level starts to fall.
Click to expand...



ok, here's the context.

ive used profanity in court when describing a suspects statements.

ive used profanity toward a suspect when my initial commands made no impact. courts have recognized that under certain circumstances, with some people, the use of certain words and phrases are necessary to gain compliance, and may be used in lieu of physical force.


you seem to lack the ability to look at an event within its own context, and make judgements and form opinions without same.
 
BrewCity59 said:
Gollnick -- you are urinating into the wind on this one (didn't want to use an unprofessional term). The more you type, the more you prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.-- "It's like how museums often don't allow visitors to take flash pictures of paintings." A cumulative affect?? You gotta be kidding, right?[/QUOTE

This is also rather humorous. Arguing with Mr. Gollnick is also "spitting" in the wind.

Rule # 1. You can't win.

Rule #2. Even if you are right, refer to Rule #1.

:D
Click to expand...
 
2TONYB said:
A female cop gave an impact statement....big deal.
Click to expand...


its really not a big deal.

but its an interesting story from an interesting perspective, whether or not you agree with the statement.

ive never had the opportunity to make a statement in that manner. but no one has ever tried to kill me.
 
UffDa said:
This is also rather humorous. Arguing with Mr. Gollnick is also "spitting" in the wind.

Rule # 1. You can't win.

Rule #2. Even if you are right, refer to Rule #1.

:D
Click to expand...


yes, i should have known better.

next time, give me a slap before i start.
 
if you have ever lived in AZ you know this shit happens all the time. but you really dont want to dick around with the old timers out there. step your game up.
 
all hood allen said:
if you have ever lived in AZ you know this shit happens all the time. but you really dont want to dick around with the old timers out there. step your game up.
Click to expand...


i have no idea what this means.


do you mean people try to murder the police all the time?

or officers call suspects pos's in court all the time?
 
the police are always targeted.
which is why the AZ govt has been trying to kick the mexican people out for over 70 years.

NOT GIVING MY OPINION.
 
Last edited:
all hood allen said:
the cops get shot all the time. expecially in the capital. or in the lower parts, east of yuma.
Click to expand...


interesting. i wasn't aware that az had a disproportionate number of officers killed in the line of duty.


as far as that last post, i'm not touching that one.

consider editing.
 
all hood allen said:
i didnt mean to put it in a negative context. its just a small fact of AZ.
Click to expand...

What are you basing your 'facts' on?

I would challenge that as an opinion. AZ is anti-illegal immigrant because they have a massive deficit and unemployment. They feel that if the illegals weren't taking ALL the jobs then there wouldn't be an unemployment. No one is arguing that inherently illegals are violent criminals or that they all try to shoot at cops. Meh, over the past 10yrs a good percentage of the PD deaths have been vehicular in nature, while it is unfortunate to say that they are because of illegals or Mexicans is an ill-informed opinion.

-Raised in AZ

Sourced:
http://www.odmp.org/search.php?sear...010&cause=&outofstate=&adv=&offset=25#results
 
fellas,

that topic, while interesting, is volatile and political in nature.

i think it can be left at that, otherwise a mod is going to end up moving the thread, infracting someone, or both.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
did you even read the article? probably not, at least not before your first post. if you had, you would have realized the op did not blank anything out.
Click to expand...


It is correct that the title of this thread didnt contain a swear word that was blanked out, but if you read the article you would see that the officer does in fact call the suspect a piece of "...."

here is a quote...“As I am standing before you filled with anger and rage that you are still breathing ... listen as I tell you: I am still doing what God has called me to do. I am still patrolling the same area, the same beat, the same street. You are a worthless piece of shit. You tried to take my life and possibly my partner’s and you have failed, because both my partner and I are still alive and all you got was my finger…."


What bothers me is that the officer couldn't come up with a logical descriptive word for the person who shot her so she(like most people) reverted to swearing.


As much as you dont like the guy, it doesnt make him food that you ate, digested, and defecated. Calling him that name only shows that youre too lazy, inconsiderate or ignorant to think of a logical realistic word. Not traits I want in an officer.
 
ramsay12344 said:
It is correct that the title of this thread didnt contain a swear word that was blanked out, but if you read the article you would see that the officer does in fact call the suspect a piece of "...."

here is a quote...“As I am standing before you filled with anger and rage that you are still breathing ... listen as I tell you: I am still doing what God has called me to do. I am still patrolling the same area, the same beat, the same street. You are a worthless piece of shit. You tried to take my life and possibly my partner’s and you have failed, because both my partner and I are still alive and all you got was my finger…."


What bothers me is that the officer couldn't come up with a logical descriptive word for the person who shot her so she(like most people) reverted to swearing.


As much as you dont like the guy, it doesnt make him food that you ate, digested, and defecated. Calling him that name only shows that youre too lazy, inconsiderate or ignorant to think of a logical realistic word. Not traits I want in an officer.
Click to expand...


i did read the article.

the title of the thread was a copy/paste of the title of the article, which in fact, had the word blanked out.

i never condoned the act, i am simply saying it is not nearly as bad as you all are making it out to be.

she called him a name. so what?

he tried to murder her. get some perspective.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
ok, here's the context.

ive used profanity in court when describing a suspects statements.
Click to expand...


That's different. If an attorney asks you during your testimony, "To the best of your memory, Officer, what exactly did Mr. Smith say?" then you have to answer word-for-word to the best of your memory. But even that can and should be -- as I am sure you have been instructed -- done in a professional way with respect to the court's dignity.



ive used profanity toward a suspect when my initial commands made no impact. courts have recognized that under certain circumstances, with some people, the use of certain words and phrases are necessary to gain compliance, and may be used in lieu of physical force.
Click to expand...

You are doing this in a very calculated, very professional, very deliberate way. You are making deliberate, skilled use of your language just as you would make deliberate, skilled use of your gun. But, a professional officer does not shoot his gun off randomly at the slightest provocation and neither does he shoot his mouth off randomly or at the slightest provocation. My guess is that there have also been times when you have deliberately choosen to speak softly and found that that was effective. You are in control of your posture, your eye contact, your voice, and your choice of words and you use all of these tools just as you use your other tools. In control.




you seem to lack the ability to look at an event within its own context, and make judgements and form opinions without same.
Click to expand...

What am I not seeing for the context in the situation in question. As I understand the context, the officer was not trying to gain the attention of a disrespectful suspect. As I understand the context, the officer was appearing in court and addressing the court. As I understand the context, the officer was not quoting a foul-mouthed suspect. As I understand the context, the officer was making her own formal, prepared statement to the court. What have I misunderstood about the context?
 
all hood allen said:
the police are always targeted.
which is why the AZ govt has been trying to kick the mexican people out for over 70 years.

NOT GIVING MY OPINION.
Click to expand...


all hood allen is in dire need of a strong laxative.* That's just my unprofessional opinion.:rolleyes:


* If anyone needs an explanation, I'll be happy to explain in greater detail.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
i did read the article.

the title of the thread was a copy/paste of the title of the article, which in fact, had the word blanked out.

i never condoned the act, i am simply saying it is not nearly as bad as you all are making it out to be.

she called him a name. so what?

he tried to murder her. get some perspective.
Click to expand...

Thats what I said.

I stated nothing about the suspect, if you want to start a thread about the suspect please do, but this thread is about the officer.

I stated that the officer appears ignorant, lazy or inconsiderate because of her choice of words. Ill say it again, not traits I want in an officer even if she was almost murdered.

He tried to kill her...so what?

Does that change the fact that she is still too lazy, ignorant or inconsiderate to pick a logical word? Nope. Even if she wasnt almost killed she would still be lazy, inconsiderate and ignorant.

Now I know someone will probably want to change the subject to the suspect so here goes. I think he should be in jail, he seems like a worthless fool.
 
Gollnick said:
That's different. If an attorney asks you during your testimony, "To the best of your memory, Officer, what exactly did Mr. Smith say?" then you have to answer word-for-word to the best of your memory. But even that can and should be -- as I am sure you have been instructed -- done in a professional way with respect to the court's dignity.





You are doing this in a very calculated, very professional, very deliberate way. You are making deliberate, skilled use of your language just as you would make deliberate, skilled use of your gun. But, a professional officer does not shoot his gun off randomly at the slightest provocation and neither does he shoot his mouth off randomly or at the slightest provocation. My guess is that there have also been times when you have deliberately choosen to speak softly and found that that was effective. You are in control of your posture, your eye contact, your voice, and your choice of words and you use all of these tools just as you use your other tools. In control.






What am I not seeing for the context in the situation in question. As I understand the context, the officer was not trying to gain the attention of a disrespectful suspect. As I understand the context, the officer was appearing in court and addressing the court. As I understand the context, the officer was not quoting a foul-mouthed suspect. As I understand the context, the officer was making her own formal, prepared statement to the court. What have I misunderstood about the context?
Click to expand...


that she was the victim of an attempted murder.

and the use of the words "piece of shit" is rather meaningless in this context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top