Quote:Like what? An officer can claim that he feared for his life when he killed an unarmed man. A perp can claim that he was cooperating when an officer tased him for trying to wrestle his way out of handcuffs. A camera exposes the truth in both situations.
A body camera doesn't get Hollywood movie angles and doesn't show the view of what the officer was seeing. A camera may cause more uncertainty because it may show or not show something the officer claims they saw or didn't see, but it doesn't mean the officer was lying. And of course, people still fill in any gaps that the cameras don't pick up with their own narrative.
There is a video of cops chasing a suspected felon and he retreats into the darkness in a convenience store parking lot. One dash cam shows what looked like the officers shooting a man who was simply running. A different dash cam right next to them showed where the perp was turning around with a gun. If that 2nd cam video doesn't exist, then it sure looks like a cold blooded murder with a planted weapon, doesnt it?
I can't believe what I just read in this thread after yesterday. Let me recap and make sure that I have this right.
1. Cops will try to manipulate you in order to take away your rights.
2. Cops plant evidence in order to get you.
3. Cops lie.
4. Cops would rather shoot you first before trying/doing anything else.
5. Cops in an unmarked car and in civilian clothes should not be able to protect other citizens.
Let me know if I missed anything.
Unbelievable. Second to my love and respect for my brothers and sisters serving or have served in the military is my love and respect for those in law enforcement at all levels.
Quote:You really think the majority of Law Enforcement operates this way?
Just curious, but how do you feel about the federal government?
1. Yes. I've seen it happen.
2. Yes. I've seen very strong evidence of it happening.
3. Absolutely, 100% yes.
4. No one's said that.
5. Cops in plainclothes or unmarked cars should not be allowed to conduct simple traffic stops. That's what marked units are for. Otherwise, I don't have any particular problem with plainclothes officers doing anything else a uniformed officer would that I can think of, so long as they clearly identify themselves as police in any police action they take not related to an undercover vice investigation, prostitution sting or other investigative action where the officer's identity must be concealed.
Quote:1. Yes. I've seen it happen.
2. Yes. I've seen very strong evidence of it happening.
3. Absolutely, 100% yes.
4. No one's said that.
5. Cops in plainclothes or unmarked cars should not be allowed to conduct simple traffic stops. That's what marked units are for. Otherwise, I don't have any particular problem with plainclothes officers doing anything else a uniformed officer would that I can think of, so long as they clearly identify themselves as police in any police action they take not related to an undercover vice investigation, prostitution sting or other investigative action where the officer's identity must be concealed.
Let me ask you this. In this particular case, let's just say that the detective didn't stop the vehicle and it caused a traffic accident involving a fatality. Is that acceptable? Should an innocent citizen have to die because the police officer's hand's are tied simply because of the vehicle that he is driving or the clothes that he is wearing?
Quote:Let me ask you this. In this particular case, let's just say that the detective didn't stop the vehicle and it caused a traffic accident involving a fatality. Is that acceptable? Should an innocent citizen have to die because the police officer's hand's are tied simply because of the vehicle that he is driving or the clothes that he is wearing?
Let me spin that right back around on you. Let's pretend that the "detective" wasn't actually a detective, and when the other vehicle stopped, he robbed, shot and killed the man. Is that acceptable? Should an innocent citizen have to die because he's legally obliged to pull over for any vehicle with flashing lights, even though there's a chance that it's being driven by an impostor that intends to rob him rather than an actual cop?
Quote:Let me spin that right back around on you. Let's pretend that the "detective" wasn't actually a detective, and when the other vehicle stopped, he robbed, shot and killed the man. Is that acceptable? Should an innocent citizen have to die because he's legally obliged to pull over for any vehicle with flashing lights, even though there's a chance that it's being driven by an impostor that intends to rob him rather than an actual cop?
I would appreciate an answer to my question rather than you spinning it around.
To answer your spin question, no it is not acceptable. However, there are procedures and a protocol in place for addressing that situation. People are not "obliged" to pull over for any vehicle with flashing lights. Turning on hazard lights, calling 911 to verify the traffic stop and proceeding to a safe area is acceptable.
People clone marked police vehicles as well. I don't think we should ever have to pull over. Sarcasm...
Quote:I would appreciate an answer to my question rather than you spinning it around.
To answer your spin question, no it is not acceptable. However, there are procedures and a protocol in place for addressing that situation. People are not "obliged" to pull over for any vehicle with flashing lights. Turning on hazard lights, calling 911 to verify the traffic stop and proceeding to a safe area is acceptable.
Fair enough. To answer your question, if an undercover officer reasonably believes that the person driving that vehicle is intoxicated or otherwise impaired, or presents a clear and present danger to others on the road (i.e., weaving around other cars at 10-15+ over the speed of traffic), that officer should respond to it as they would any other life-threatening situation whether their car is marked or not, but they should immediately inform dispatch of what they're doing and request marked backup asap.
What unmarked cars should not be doing is conducting traffic enforcement, or even simple traffic stops for things like speeding, crossing a double-yellow or, as the assailant in the OP was accused of, the general umbrella of "driving erratically". They should not be pulling up to people's houses to question the occupants without marked accompaniment. That's what marked units are there for. They exist to provide a visible police presence, and any situation that could easily lend itself to an impostor bringing harm to an innocent person is not one that should be handled by a cop in plain clothes and an unmarked car--i.e., a cop that has a relatively high likelihood of being a criminal in disguise.
Quote:Fair enough. To answer your question, if an undercover officer reasonably believes that the person driving that vehicle is intoxicated or otherwise impaired, or presents a clear and present danger to others on the road (i.e., weaving around other cars at 10-15+ over the speed of traffic), that officer should respond to it as they would any other life-threatening situation whether their car is marked or not, but they should immediately inform dispatch of what they're doing and request marked backup asap.
What unmarked cars should not be doing is conducting traffic enforcement, or even simple traffic stops for things like speeding, crossing a double-yellow or, as the assailant in the OP was accused of, the general umbrella of "driving erratically". They should not be pulling up to people's houses to question the occupants without marked accompaniment. That's what marked units are there for. They exist to provide a visible police presence, and any situation that could easily lend itself to an impostor bringing harm to an innocent person is not one that should be handled by a cop in plain clothes and an unmarked car--i.e., a cop that has a relatively high likelihood of being a criminal in disguise.
So would "driving erratically" include an officer reasonably believing that a person driving a vehicle is intoxicated or otherwise impaired?
Quote:So would "driving erratically" include an officer reasonably believing that a person driving a vehicle is intoxicated or otherwise impaired?
Potentially, but if the officer suspected the assailant of DUI, the story would have said as much. It wasn't exactly written in such a way as to drum up sympathy for the attacker.
"Driving erratically" can be anything from DUI to quick lane changes to not maintaining a constant speed. There's a pretty big jump from "driving erratically" (which is one of those lovely hokey-pokey catch-alls that cops use to pull you over for driving with out-of-state plates) to driving impaired.
Quote:Potentially, but if the officer suspected the assailant of DUI, the story would have said as much. It wasn't exactly written in such a way as to drum up sympathy for the attacker.
"Driving erratically" can be anything from DUI to quick lane changes to not maintaining a constant speed. There's a pretty big jump from "driving erratically" (which is one of those lovely hokey-pokey catch-alls that cops use to pull you over for driving with out-of-state plates) to driving impaired.
So are you going to say that the officer that is the subject of this thread pulled the guy over for no apparent reason and should have waited for a marked unit to catch up to them? Do you have any facts that point to the officer in question didn't think that the driver of the vehicle might have been impaired? Is it possible that he may have actually (gasp!) saved lives by making the stop?
I just don't understand the hatred of law enforcement by some people.
Quote:So are you going to say that the officer that is the subject of this thread pulled the guy over for no apparent reason and should have waited for a marked unit to catch up to them? Do you have any facts that point to the officer in question didn't think that the driver of the vehicle might have been impaired? Is it possible that he may have actually (gasp!) saved lives by making the stop?
I just don't understand the hatred of law enforcement by some people.
Do you have any facts saying that he
did think the driver was impaired? Because all the article says is that he was "driving erratically", and that's a routine traffic stop. Yes, he should have waited for a marked car to catch up.
I wouldn't expect a former LEO to make any real effort to understand (or even acknowledge) the major problems facing police departments today--problems created by the unchecked actions of their own officers--finally being brought to light through platforms as simple as a YouTube video of an officer lying his way through a traffic stop, or as major as national news proceedings about yet another white cop murdering yet another black man. The talking points you've thrown out there about judgment and split-second decisions are the same talking points that the police apologists use, ignoring that at the end of the day, one party in the dispute has a gun and the other does not, and drawing and using that gun against an unarmed man is always, <i>always</i> the wrong decision for a police officer to make. If fear of being the next big national news story was enough to keep the detective from pulling his gun on an unarmed man, good. A life
was saved, it's just not the life you wanted spared.
Quote:Do you have any facts saying that he did think the driver was impaired? Because all the article says is that he was "driving erratically", and that's a routine traffic stop. Yes, he should have waited for a marked car to catch up.
I wouldn't expect a former LEO to make any real effort to understand (or even acknowledge) the major problems facing police departments today--problems created by the unchecked actions of their own officers--finally being brought to light through platforms as simple as a YouTube video of an officer lying his way through a traffic stop, or as major as national news proceedings about yet another white cop murdering yet another black man. The talking points you've thrown out there about judgment and split-second decisions are the same talking points that the police apologists use, ignoring that at the end of the day, one party in the dispute has a gun and the other does not, and drawing and using that gun against an unarmed man is always, <i>always</i> the wrong decision for a police officer to make. If fear of being the next big national news story was enough to keep the detective from pulling his gun on an unarmed man, good. A life was saved, it's just not the life you wanted spared.
Lol, the hate is real with you. Whats the point in even discussing?
Quote:Lol, the hate is real with you. Whats the point in even discussing?
Being thankful a life was not taken is hate? You guys are weird.