Elaine Rothenberg, 66, was cuffed Thursday in Torrington, Conn. after walking outside the local precinct stationhouse brandishing a fake handgun - New England Cable News reported.

The North Carolina woman pointed the gun at two civilians asking if they were police officers, cops said.

The civilians were able to get away unharmed.

Then she stood in front of an employee entrance and, with the handgun raised in a shooting stance at police, yelled that she hated cops and then screamed "boom boom boom," officials said.

Rothenberg eventually threw the gun and was taken into custody.

The gun didn't look like a toy either:



Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2477494

Police are also civilians, even though the press reinforces the falsehood they are not.

Interesting article on implicit bias and police use of deadly force

She is an older white woman, she lived.

Not a 12 yr old black boy with a toy gun, that didn't point the gun at the police, he died.

TrueTexan wrote:She is an older white woman, she lived.

Not a 12 yr old black boy with a toy gun, that didn't point the gun at the police, he died.

But all the conservatives on twitter told me that if you point a gun at police, you will die, no matter what.

I really think you can come up with other differences between the two incidents, if you try.

begemot wrote:I really think you can come up with other differences between the two incidents, if you try.

They won't.

begemot wrote:I really think you can come up with other differences between the two incidents, if you try.

Commonalities:
Both had realistic looking fake guns
Both aimed them at non-LEOs first
Both occurred in open carry states (I believe OH is less restrictive)

Differences:
One was 12, the other was 66
One was male, the other, female
One made verbal threats to the officers
One expressed her dislike of LOEs to passer-bys
One likely intended to commit suicide by cop
One died and the other was arrested without incident

I don't know, I'm not very smart, so I'm probably missing something major.

kilgoretrout wrote:I'm probably missing something major.

Two different police agencies half-way across the continent from one another.

A year and more to pick the Rice tragedy apart and develop different rules of engagement.

Torrington CT population 35.6K, Cincinnati OH population 297K, no doubt with the different department cultures that come with agencies of vastly different sizes.

It wasn't hard to tell that Elaine Rothenberg was trying to suicide-by-cop. Loehmann and Garmback gave themselves no time to evaluate what Rice intended (due to pulling up right next to him - an epic tactical fuck-up).

SwampGrouch wrote: It wasn't hard to tell that Elaine Rothenberg was trying to suicide-by-cop. Loehmann and Garmback gave themselves no time to evaluate what Rice intended (due to pulling up right next to him - an epic tactical fuck-up).

I don't disagree with this analysis.

I think what's being implied, however, is that because there are differences-- tactical, discretionary, etc-- while there was harm, there was no foul.

I am personally sick of hearing a "zero tolerance" myth applied to cases in which discretion on the side of an LEO is the difference between life and death, i.e. the ever-popular, "Don't play with realistic looking guns or else you die" line to wipe the accountability slate clean in the case of saw Rice or Crawford.

Plenty of people have aimed guns, real or fake, at cops and lived, both before Rice and after. The difference is discretion. And discretion is a large suitcase packed with bias.

kilgoretrout wrote:The difference is discretion. And discretion is a large suitcase packed with bias.

Sounds like you're asking for Imperial Storm Troopers, all clones that will respond in exactly the same way. Trust me, you'll hate it.

kilgoretrout wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote: It wasn't hard to tell that Elaine Rothenberg was trying to suicide-by-cop. Loehmann and Garmback gave themselves no time to evaluate what Rice intended (due to pulling up right next to him - an epic tactical fuck-up).

I don't disagree with this analysis.

I think what's being implied, however, is that because there are differences-- tactical, discretionary, etc-- while there was harm, there was no foul.

I am personally sick of hearing a "zero tolerance" myth applied to cases in which discretion on the side of an LEO is the difference between life and death, i.e. the ever-popular, "Don't play with realistic looking guns or else you die" line to wipe the accountability slate clean in the case of saw Rice or Crawford.

Plenty of people have aimed guns, real or fake, at cops and lived, both before Rice and after. The difference is discretion. And discretion is a large suitcase packed with bias.

There is always Bundy ranch.

But I do not deny that the enviroment plays a factor. At Bundy you have multiple people armed with kids in tow.

Here, it was outside a poljce station. This means more officers that have better plan to respond. She was fighting on there turf not "hers".

This was clearly a New England police force, they tend to be nicer on racial issues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

tmstffrd wrote:This was clearly a New England police force, they tend to be nicer on racial issues.

It's easy to be seen as nice regarding racr when 99 percent of your population is white.

SwampGrouch wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:The difference is discretion. And discretion is a large suitcase packed with bias.

Sounds like you're asking for Imperial Storm Troopers, all clones that will respond in exactly the same way. Trust me, you'll hate it.

Clearly by opposing the shooting deaths of unarmed and law-abiding citizens and wishing for more violence-free situations such as the one outlined in the OP, I'm asking for-- begging for even-- far more militarized killing machines in the police force. I'm glad you were able to see through my smoke screen

Wanting to minimize biases that lead to death of citizenry is akin to goosestepping with Darth Vader.

An old woman.

A young male who is 5'7" and 195 pounds.

I'd say that's a difference to consider.

BKinzey wrote:An old woman.

A young male who is 5'7" and 195 pounds.

I'd say that's a difference to consider.

66 years is far too old to exert enough pressure on the trigger of an ACP to fire a shot.

Honestly, I don't think it could have been more obvious that she was trying to commit suicide-by-cop. And it troubles me that the response on other left-of-center sites (not here, thankfully) seems actually angry that this woman isn't dead, like it would balance the scales or some shit.

TheHunterOfSkulls wrote:Honestly, I don't think it could have been more obvious that she was trying to commit suicide-by-cop. And it troubles me that the response on other left-of-center sites (not here, thankfully) seems actually angry that this woman isn't dead, like it would balance the scales or some shit.

We want the streets to run red with the blood of white devils to appease the wandering black souls that haunt our lands.

Because questioning why police show restraint and mindfulness in one situation and utter disregard for life in another similar situation certainly is the same as wishing death on a mentally disturbed woman.


And yes, goddammit,

kilgoretrout wrote:Because questioning why police show restraint and mindfulness in one situation and utter disregard for life in another similar situation certainly is the same as wishing death on a mentally disturbed woman.

I thought you didn't want RoboCops. That's what you're asking for - National Police who respond in exactly the same fashion across the country. You'll need to add clairvoyance to civil service tests so they'll know all the circumstances before they ever arrive on the scene. Otherwise they'll use that discretion that you seem to loath so much.

I have to agree with TheHunterOfSkulls, that "Why didn't they kill her, too?" vibe is most certainly out there (but it's not 100% absent here).

SwampGrouch wrote: I have to agree with TheHunterOfSkulls, that "Why didn't they kill her, too?" vibe is most certainly out there (but it's not 100% absent here).

Or it's a presumption that's being used (passive voice) as a way to avoid accountability on the part of an LEO or counter the truism that discretion and bias overlap.