If you have the tools, capability, and training why shouldn't you disarm or apprehend a suspect that is attempting to use deadly force. It sounds like you're implying deadly force should always be met with deadly force.
Because we don't want the LEOs who are tasked with protecting us to have to take that much of a risk. We would much rather a criminal die than a LEO who is tasked with protecting us, not be able to come home to his family at night. Cop lives matter more than criminal lives. I'm sorry if you think that's insensitive, but that's how rational people feel.
"Knowing his likely definition based on the plates". We don't know that isn't a stolen car. Why is it an unreasonable expectation to obey a fucking lawful order if you are detained for breaking the law, during questioning it is determined that you are further breaking the law, and you can't even prove your identity? Over reaction by the cop is not the onset of the problem here. Sorry. With all that being said about this guy, why in the world is the cop expected to give the benefit of the doubt on this guy being a law abiding citizen?
Just adding further info here but often times the guys who run that I've dealt with the vehicles they are in are rentals(always under a females name) or stolen in order to prevent us from knowing who it belongs to/an address
If it had been reported stolen, he certainly would have known that and it would be in one of the police reports, but wouldn't checking with the registered vehicle owner be part of the expected police work that would happen after he fled?
Again wasn't talking about a specific situation just adding further info on the "well if they run the tag they'll know where he lives and have the advantage" comment
A relative of mine died in a car accident that was attributed to distracted driving in the time since I made those vines. I don't do shit like that anymore.
It doesnt have to be, but if the cop wants to survive the deadly encounter he should meet deadly force with deadly force. Every cop is free to deal with the scenario as he sees fit, but the likelihood of surviving the attack increases drastically if the cop uses his pistol to stop a knife wielding POS. Do you believe that police officers should not use a firearm to stop a knife attack?
He's going to tell you that you should be trained to disarm a knife wielding person from a distance. That's great in a perfect world, and it can happen, but counting on that is not ideal
Yes. He believes that. I'm just saving you the time. He has no fucking clue what he's talking about and might actually be trolling.
Ideally, a cop doesnt have to shoot the guy, and he can talk him into dropping the knife. However if you advance on me with a knife I'm going to shoot you. The first rule of a knife fight is to not get into a knife fight, the second rule, if you are dumb enough to be in the fight, is to not get stabbed. So I'm going to do everything I can to avoid that while still doing my job.
I remember at one point I thought what beo and braves are arguing. I'm glad I realized I was being retarded then.
The Hot Springs Police Departmenthas drawn nationwide attention on the web for its handling of the death Friday afternoon of Thomas Naramore, 18-month-old son ofJuvenile Judge Wade Naramore, from apparent heat-related reasons. The department has been widely criticized for not making an immediate arrest in the case after responding to a report about the infant and meeting the judge with the child after he'd made a 911 call. However, an autopsy wasn't completed until Monday. Also, a special prosecutor, Scott Ellington of Jonesboro, was appointed Monday in the case because Naramore once was hired by and worked as a deputy for the current prosecutor, Terri Harris. There's widespread commentary that the case is being handled differently because of Naramore's stature. I don't think we know enough yet to assert that. A cause of death had to be determined first. We don't know what Naramore has told police, if anything, or what circumstances preceded the death. http://m.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/...police-issue-statement-on-death-of-judges-son
Gotta love people answering questions for me. Where I have concerns with your statement you say deadly force should be met with deadly force. All deadly force is not created equal. A man with a crowbar coming at police has deadly force, should he be shot? Maybe, depends on the situation. Could he be subdued with a taser or disarmed? Maybe depends on the situation. Is the man or women mentally competent? How big is he? Is he or she high? These are all things that matter in a situation. I have no issue with police using firearms when it is necessary. What concerns me is when deadly force is determined and met immediately with the response of shooting the suspect. It is the first option, not the last. I understand these are split second decisions and a police officer's life can be at stake, but that is part of the job and that is why police officer's are trained (well at least should be) to diffuse these situations. A man with a gun is completely different than a man with a knife, and both are completely different from an unarmed man charging a police officer. All have deadly force but could and should be handled in different manners. People also keep saying these British police officers were lucky to not be killed. If so wouldn't there death rate among police officers be a lot higher?
lol ok troll I'd rather the cop, who is tasked with protecting me, not risk death or serious injury, and stay alive at the expense of the criminal's life. Most rational people feel this way. If you don't, that's your problem. You're not going to convince anyone to see things in your retarded view.
Canefin really is the worst. He's a terrible addition to people who legitimately want to discuss shit
2. he said it was air freshener...in a gin bottle. If you aren't the least bit suspicious of that, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not sure what the law is here, does an open container have to be open open, or does having the seal broken on a bottle of liquor constitute an open container? Either way this does not warrant being shot. 3. 3 times he says he has a license on him, before saying - I have a license, you can run my name. Then he says he thought he had it, but doesn't have it on him. This does not warrant being shot. 4. then he asks why he was pulled over, even though the cop said he pulled him over for no front plate. Then says it's not illegal to have no front plate, and the cop says it is. At this point it's getting shady, the guy seems like there is something more going on, and the cop says - be honest with me, are you suspended? Argumentative might be the wrong word, he was definitely being evasive. None of which warrants being shot. 5. he was also told to stop. This does not warrant being shot. We are splitting hairs here, to some degree, but there is no way you can argue that any of the above helped this guy's situation. Every single point escalated the situation and made the cop suspicious and on edge. Do we know why the guy ran yet?? To say the things have nothing to do with him being shot is absurd. Does it mean he deserved to get shot? fuck no. But they ALL contributed to him getting shot.
Not sure why this video is in this thread, the guy video taping was way out of line and the cop had a right to ask him why he was video taping.
Yeah, no outside opinions are valid on police work. Good point. Why give credence to multiple articles written from an objective view point when I've got a biased two year veteran cop to listen to.
incorrect. The guy taping had every right to film the cops. They try to bully him and use their typical tactics - is there a problem, stop recording us or I'm going to throw you out of here, arrest you, etc. The fact is he was legally recording them and the cops were being dicks and making false threats and lying/didn't know the law. The cops step out of line when they start threatening the guy for doing something perfectly legal, and he responds in kind.
It's illegal to record on the NYC Subway, also it's those guys job b to ride the train and blend in as much as possible, so you can understand why they wouldn't want to be filmed.
Off-duty police officer caught on video threatening to 'blow a hole' through man's head by Jen HaydenFollow 165 Comments / 165 New attribution: screenshot from video Would you recognize this man is a police officer? A YouTube user named "basedboston" uploaded a video recorded on July 26, 2015 (date on video is wrong) which shows Medford, Massachusetts Detective Stephen Lebert threatening to "blow a hole right through your fucking head" after he stopped "basedboston" over a traffic citation. The man had a dashcam in his car which records audio and video. He says he misread road signs and inadvertently went the wrong direction on a roundabout (or as they call them in the Boston-area, "rotaries"). Detective Lebert was not on duty and was wearing camouflage shorts and a white tank top. He cuts off the man's vehicle and jumps out to confront him. Having no idea the irate man was an off-duty police officer, the man puts the car in reverse to get away from the officer, who had not identified himself. Detective Lebert then threatens to "blow a hole right through your fucking head" and eventually pulls out his police identification. Watch the terrifying confrontation (and the incredibly calm and professional reaction of other officers called to the scene): More from his description of the incident from his YouTube page: Driving home today I got lost and made a wrong turn. In an unfamiliar area I drove slowly but made the mistake of not seeing a poorly marked rotary. I stopped midway through it when I realized I screwed up and fortunately there were no close calls or potential accidents. Only a single oncoming car (not the medford cop/detective in the video, he was on the other side) that had fully stopped before the rotary seeing my stupid mistake. After I stopped and realized it was too late I just continued out of the way and back onto the correct road in front of me. This man starts tailgating me and puts his high beams on in his Red Chevy Silverado pick up truck. He then yells how I'm an asshole and that he is going to hurt me, and well the rest is in the video. The date is incorrect as my dashcam apparently was set wrong. I very rarely ever need to pull videos off of it over the period of time I've owned it and just didn't notice the date mistake. The time however is right. I also never gave my address to him, he found it by running my plates/license so him saying I'm not registered is false. I have had that info updated since I moved. Detective Lebert has already been placed on administrative leave.
they had their badges out and were detaining people. Seems like they were making it very obvious that they were law enforcement and not "blending in" google tells me you are wrong: New York City Transit Rules of Conduct states: Section 1050.9. Restricted areas and activities. (3) Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part.
Think they may have had those badges tucked in before the event? Pretty sure that's the point of those badges, to be able to hide them away while undercover and take them out when identifying themselves.
They didn't have to threaten him for filming. He didn't have to be an ass. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
I agree. If the cops hadn't threatened him I don't think he would have been an ass. In fact I don't think he would have interacted with them at all.
It's amazing how offended you get in a thread you made for "discussion purposes" 2 days ago I'm an idiot, now I'm an inexperienced cop who wouldn't know that a guy involved in a "major fuck up" wouldn't be a cop again For a guy who "just wants to discuss" this stuff you sure do run from conversations a lot You're a weird guy ace
Didn't mean to come off as truly offended there. It was a sarcastic eye roll of a post. If anyone is offended it seems to be you since you mentioned two different things I've said that you took offense to. I was merely responding to a post that Steve made that didn't really have sound logic. I have no doubt you know a lot more about being a police officer than I do but I also know you don't have an objective view of the organization (or rather police in general) that you're a part of so you can't be truly impartial. That's why I cited sources that disputed what you claimed. And I don't really think you're a full on idiot necessarily so I apologize for that. You just missed the point of that tongue in cheek post you're referencing and responded with something even more absurd IMO. I just think you're so blinded by your line of work that you cannot be remotely objective when discussing critical issues related to it. It reminds me of the freshman frat bros that are all "Beta is the fucking best fraternity on campus and all other frats are full of douches and losers!!!" By the time that guy is a senior, he realizes how ridiculous his opinions like that were and acknowledges he was blinded by foolish pride. When you spend the majority of your time with people who are all taught to think and feel the exact same way you do then you lose the ability to understand or appreciate different points of view. I am sure you're good at your job and aren't the type of bad cop that gets put in the spotlight in this thread and the media but I think you're still in that freshman frat bro stage of being a cop where you'd still get in a fight with some of the douchebags over at the Pike house just because they said your frat sucks.
It doesn't take a 10 year veteran, or even a rocket scientist to disagree with your statement that "most" of the officers who have "major fuck ups" keep their jobs in that dept but with a new title or get rehired by another agency and are back on the road within a year. "Major fuck ups" are going to get plenty of media coverage and most likely a civil suit. That guy is going to be fired quicker than shit through a goose regardless of the outcome A guy who has a "major fuck up" can never make another arrest due to any defense attorney is going destroy their credibility whether it's warranted or not. Also due to the "major fuck up" and media attention no department is going to hire the guy due to nobody wanting bad press. So no...your statement is false. I know u provided some links from '13 about cops unions protecting them from being fired but I'm going to go ahead and guess none of those case they cited(if they did) were "major fuck ups." Yes firing a guy for minor things can be pretty difficult, but a "major fuck up" is very easy and usually is done very quickly for all the reasons I mentioned above
I don't think it's a stretch to say that several cops are fed back into the system simply because there isn't a huge labor pool to pull from. I"m not speaking to the the major fucks getting back in but I think that's a common problem with police forces.
For instance, there was one guy that I knew that was fired from the country sherriff's office for writing bad checks. He was then hired by the city police in the same county simply because he already had all the certifications. Not like they didn't know he was a fuck up but they had limited options and hiring him was most the logical thing to do.
Oh I'd agree that guys with minor issues at one dept will be picked up by somebody else. I've got multiple in my dept, including very good sergeants who were fired from other dept's. But the topic at hand which Barves began the discussion on is "major fuck up's" which is whole different ball game. Those guys careers are finished, as most of the time they should be
seems like only recently have poor cops have been called out by the citizens, and rarely are there meaningful actions taken as a result of their poor behavior, so to me citizens wanting to document interactions is understandable
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-facing-charges-after-police-shoot-kill-dog/nm9Yt/ -woman is talking to two police officers in her front yard -young son opens the door and her 5 month old puppy runs outside -another cop shoots dog and it falls over; he then walks up to it and shoots it again -claims it lunged at him -eyewitnesses say that didn't happen at all and that the cop was even laughing after shooting it -turns out this cop has a record of use of force complaints including tasing someone in the neck kicker: the woman was given a ticket for her dog not being on a leash
Cops can brutalize the fuck out of sovereign citizen assholes for all I care. And holy shit how fast Lt. Cochrane turns into a cyborg at 1:04