Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

AR Cop Sued for Flipping Pregnant Woman’s SUV B/C She Didn’t Pull Over Fast Enough

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Littlejoe
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post

    You know what, it's not really a hill I'll die on. I'm just saying, when you're already viewed as public enemy number one by a large segment of the population you might want to go out of way not to increase that animosity more than you have to and keep what little allies in society you have left in order to make your job easier and less risky than it has to be. But I'm obviously not a cop and don't know any cops, so I could care less how the public perceives them. Cops can get as militarized and aggressive as they want, just so long as they don't become such servile minions of the state that they start violating our constitutional rights, I'm cool.
    maybe you should befriend a cop? I'll freely admit my best friend is a retired cop. (Actually, I have several friends/acquaintances that are cops.) But, he watched the video of the woman being pitted and said he would recommend immediate termination of the anyone under his command who did that.

    The one this post refers to, he would say that same thing I said, this is just another guy trying to make a point about how bad cops are. Given lot's of warnings to keep hands visible and step out of the vehicle he didn't even attempt to comply, argued, stalled, ignored commands, over and over. He was in a well lit area, with camera's rolling. He had little to fear.

    On avg. about 250 cops are shot on duty every year. Moreover, around 10% of cops are assaulted every year. Since there's about 600,000 cops, that's close to 60,000. It's really easy to arm chair quarterback things you have no stake in. I don't excuse bad cops...neither do the good cops that I know.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    The other officer had his gun drawn (the one with the camera filming) - And they don't pull a gun on a driver without a reason. Like I said, it was a felony stop. You have no idea why they pulled him over. But they obviously thought he was a threat, thus the gun being drawn. I think they handled it well. The guy should have obeyed. They gave him many chanced to do so and he continuously refused to comply. If I had officers with guns drawn on me, I would comply immediately, especially if I had not done anything wrong. I wouldn't want to make them angry or give them any reason to shoot me. I sure wouldn't argue with them.

    You also have no idea what they might have found in his truck after arresting him. He could have had a weapon in there. Buying time till he could grab it and shoot his way out or drive off. All we know is what the clip shows. Unless you some other information?


    here is a video of a pretty similar situation, with the police trying and trying to be polite, but the guy not cooperating, finally they get aggressive and pepper spray him, and try to drag him out of the car, and while pepper sprayed, the suspect still manages to grab a gun and shoot both officers. Things can turn around in a split second. And being nice doesn't work if the guy doesn't want to cooperate.

    You know what, it's not really a hill I'll die on. I'm just saying, when you're already viewed as public enemy number one by a large segment of the population you might want to go out of way not to increase that animosity more than you have to and keep what little allies in society you have left in order to make your job easier and less risky than it has to be. But I'm obviously not a cop and don't know any cops, so I could care less how the public perceives them. Cops can get as militarized and aggressive as they want, just so long as they don't become such servile minions of the state that they start violating our constitutional rights, I'm cool.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post

    An officer in the US military understands authority and chain of command. To be this non-compliant is a deliberate act to provoke a response like this. He was recording the whole time. He was treated with the same disrespect he gave. He knew better.
    I agree. And when someone is that uncooperative even with a gun and tazer drawn, it could mean that they are trying to hide something.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post

    The officer that approached the window had a taser not a gun, so obviously the driver wasn't a threat, unless the officer is an idiot. Like I said, as a cop you can certainly choose to approach it with that type of aggression where it's not necessary. But then you risk the public's scorn as a consequence. The left already views cops as enemies (for the wrong reasons), so the objective would be to not increase that animosity where it's not necessary.
    Personally I view getting a bit gruff in attitude and language as another level of response (which should be seen as the warning it is) before resorting to physical force. I'd rather that there be a few steps between requesting nicely and tasing or pepper spraying someone

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post

    The officer that approached the window had a taser not a gun, so obviously the driver wasn't a threat, unless the officer is an idiot. Like I said, as a cop you can certainly choose to approach it with that type of aggression where it's not necessary. But then you risk the public's scorn as a consequence. The left already views cops as enemies (for the wrong reasons), so the objective would be to not increase that animosity where it's not necessary.
    The other officer had his gun drawn (the one with the camera filming) - And they don't pull a gun on a driver without a reason. Like I said, it was a felony stop. You have no idea why they pulled him over. But they obviously thought he was a threat, thus the gun being drawn. I think they handled it well. The guy should have obeyed. They gave him many chanced to do so and he continuously refused to comply. If I had officers with guns drawn on me, I would comply immediately, especially if I had not done anything wrong. I wouldn't want to make them angry or give them any reason to shoot me. I sure wouldn't argue with them.

    You also have no idea what they might have found in his truck after arresting him. He could have had a weapon in there. Buying time till he could grab it and shoot his way out or drive off. All we know is what the clip shows. Unless you some other information?


    here is a video of a pretty similar situation, with the police trying and trying to be polite, but the guy not cooperating, finally they get aggressive and pepper spray him, and try to drag him out of the car, and while pepper sprayed, the suspect still manages to grab a gun and shoot both officers. Things can turn around in a split second. And being nice doesn't work if the guy doesn't want to cooperate.


    Leave a comment:


  • Littlejoe
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    I don't know what the initial reason for pulling him over was, but at the beginning the guy says they are doing a felony stop. Not some traffic violation. They only approached the window with their guns drawn. Despite repeatedly being told (and one of the officers even pleaded with him) he refused to follow the officer's orders to get out of the car. I see nothing wrong with how they handled him. All he had to do was get out of the car like they asked him to.
    An officer in the US military understands authority and chain of command. To be this non-compliant is a deliberate act to provoke a response like this. He was recording the whole time. He was treated with the same disrespect he gave. He knew better.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    I don't know what the initial reason for pulling him over was, but at the beginning the guy says they are doing a felony stop. Not some traffic violation. They only approached the window with their guns drawn. Despite repeatedly being told (and one of the officers even pleaded with him) he refused to follow the officer's orders to get out of the car. I see nothing wrong with how they handled him. All he had to do was get out of the car like they asked him to.
    The officer that approached the window had a taser not a gun, so obviously the driver wasn't a threat, unless the officer is an idiot. Like I said, as a cop you can certainly choose to approach it with that type of aggression where it's not necessary. But then you risk the public's scorn as a consequence. The left already views cops as enemies (for the wrong reasons), so the objective would be to not increase that animosity where it's not necessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seanD View Post

    Totally disagree. In this situation, when it was obvious he wasn't a threat (since they wouldn't have approached his window), do you act like a human being and talk to the guy, or do you keep acting like a authoritative nazi? You can certainly choose the latter but then the consequence of that is causing a large segment of society to turn against you and view as an enemy instead of a civil servant. Then if that happens, your job becomes much more complicated and riskier.
    I don't know what the initial reason for pulling him over was, but at the beginning the guy says they are doing a felony stop. Not some traffic violation. They only approached the window with their guns drawn. Despite repeatedly being told (and one of the officers even pleaded with him) he refused to follow the officer's orders to get out of the car. I see nothing wrong with how they handled him. All he had to do was get out of the car like they asked him to.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Which, from a purely legal perspective, is precisely the right thing to do. Publicly admitting guilt basically hands the plaintiff a blank check, which nobody ever wants to do. Let the lawyers fight it out and determine a "fair" settlement.
    Years ago on the old Cagney and Lacey TV show there was an episode where during a shoot out with bad guys an innocent bystander was wounded and one of the stars apologized to their mother (not a whole lot more than an "I'm sorry") and their captain read her the riot act because she had just admitted responsibility for the shooting.

    Normally I don't cite TV shows as examples, but this episode stirred up a debate at the time about whether that was true -- and apparently it was.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    This all seems lawyer inspired. It is like they were told to admit nothing for fear it might open the door to a whole lot of lawsuits or something. A let 'em prove it in court approach
    Which, from a purely legal perspective, is precisely the right thing to do. Publicly admitting guilt basically hands the plaintiff a blank check, which nobody ever wants to do. Let the lawyers fight it out and determine a "fair" settlement.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanD
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    I am assuming "Ride the lightning" is referring to being tazed. I have no problem with cops being authoritative, that's their job. You won't get cooperation from an uncooperative person by being nice to them. If they are being combative or uncooperative, then the officer has to take charge.
    Totally disagree. In this situation, when it was obvious he wasn't a threat (since they wouldn't have approached his window), do you act like a human being and talk to the guy, or do you keep acting like a authoritative nazi? You can certainly choose the latter but then the consequence of that is causing a large segment of society to turn against you and view as an enemy instead of a civil servant. Then if that happens, your job becomes much more complicated and riskier.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    The deep pockets are the state police. So any lawsuit is going to go after the state police and the state itself. seems to me that by trying to justify the cop's use of the pit maneuver, the state police is unintentionally saying they are responsible for his actions. The fact that there is evidence that they have advised motorists to turn on their flashers and keep left until it is safe to pull over makes their defense of his actions even dumber. That's why I said she is gonna win big. All they have to show is that it was dangerous for her to pull over (or even that she believed that) and followed the SP's advice and then show that the police has a dangerous policy in place to pit maneuver motorists who don't pull over immediately but are not fleeing.

    I am betting they settle.
    It is a no-win here for the police. The smart thing to do was to try to make it go away as quietly as possible (offered to settle), but their attitude has only served to draw attention to it. Instead of just a black eye or bloody nose they're going to end up getting pumpkin-headed (beat so badly that the swelling makes them unrecognizable even to close relatives).

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    This all seems lawyer inspired. It is like they were told to admit nothing for fear it might open the door to a whole lot of lawsuits or something. A let 'em prove it in court approach
    The deep pockets are the state police. So any lawsuit is going to go after the state police and the state itself. seems to me that by trying to justify the cop's use of the pit maneuver, the state police is unintentionally saying they are responsible for his actions. The fact that there is evidence that they have advised motorists to turn on their flashers and keep left until it is safe to pull over makes their defense of his actions even dumber. That's why I said she is gonna win big. All they have to show is that it was dangerous for her to pull over (or even that she believed that) and followed the SP's advice and then show that the police has a dangerous policy in place to pit maneuver motorists who don't pull over immediately but are not fleeing.

    I am betting they settle.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Right. It looks like they pulled out their generic response for when people complain about PIT maneuvers.
    This all seems lawyer inspired. It is like they were told to admit nothing for fear it might open the door to a whole lot of lawsuits or something. A let 'em prove it in court approach

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    None of this seems applicable here. She wasn't "pull[ing] away at a high rate of speed, wildly driving, dangerously passing other vehicles" etc. And this bit leaves out the part about having to immediately pull over when it is safe to do so.
    Right. It looks like they pulled out their generic response for when people complain about PIT maneuvers.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by mikewhitney, Yesterday, 04:36 PM
1 response
41 views
1 like
Last Post mikewhitney  
Started by mossrose, Yesterday, 12:24 PM
11 responses
75 views
0 likes
Last Post mikewhitney  
Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 10:56 AM
25 responses
89 views
0 likes
Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 08-02-2021, 06:48 AM
9 responses
56 views
0 likes
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 08-02-2021, 05:10 AM
185 responses
878 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X