This is disgusting. He had every right and should have used deadly force against the perp.
So who are we trying to blame?
Quote:So who are we trying to blame?
Do you think the cop had the right to defend himself with his firearm?
Quote:Do you think the cop had the right to defend himself with his firearm?
I'll answer the question. He should have been able to defend himself by putting 2 to the chest and 1 to the head.
The idea that police officers are having second thoughts about using force, especially deadly force because of recent events is certainly troubling.
The officer is identified as plainclothes. Did he clearly identify himself as a police officer and clearly show a badge while approaching the assailant's truck, or was the assailant approached by some guy in a t-shirt and khakis shouting at him and waving a gun? None of the pictures posted show a badge around his neck, as many undercover officers wear. Several states have laws now that prohibit unmarked vehicles from initiating traffic stops, and preventing incidents like this is one of the main reasons why.
It's tough to condemn the initial incident without knowing the specifics of the situation. If the officer had clearly identified himself as such, including showing the assailant a badge, then it's pretty clear-cut. Note that simply emerging from an unmarked vehicle with light bars flashing is not sufficient identification as a police officer. It could easily be someone posing as an officer. If the assailant truly did not know (or have reason to believe) that the man approaching his vehicle with a gun was actually a police officer, then, well, if some unidentified, unknown guy comes running up to my car shouting and flashing a gun, I'm going to fight back by any means necessary as well, and I will do whatever I need to to make sure he stays down until a uniformed police officer shows up.
The conduct after the fact of taunting the injured officer by posting pictures and video online is disgusting, regardless of whether the person assaulted is a police officer or not. Police brutality, police overreach and militarization of police are three major problems in this country, and there are a lot of disgusting excuses for police officers out there, but something like this makes the people involved no better than them, and is completely counterproductive to efforts to rein in police officers and restore the rights that they deceptively take away from American citizens every time they walk up and say hi.
As to whether the officer should have used deadly force, two more thoughts arise:
1. What deadly force? He didn't have his gun, and there's no mention of a backup weapon in play. Presumably, if he was packing a small-caliber revolver around his lower leg, he'd have drawn it, used it and been completely justified in doing so once his gun was in an assailant's hands. I just don't get why people are saying that the officer should have shot the assailant. What would the officer possibly have shot the assailant for before his weapon was taken from him? Reaching for a cop's gun does not give that cop the right to kill you. Actually taking a cop's gun makes you fair game.
2. The notion that police are having second-thoughts about using deadly force is a good thing. If you want to spend a couple of terrifying hours on some boring weeknight, read through the articles (of varying credibility, no doubt) about what police are trained to do in terms of initiating interaction with you, getting your ID (whether they have a Constitutional right to it or not) and using that information, interrogating you by way of a friendly conversation and tricking you into voluntarily surrendering every Constitutional right that can be employed in your defense and ultimately trying to use that conversation to find a reason to arrest you. Then go to a couple of cop message boards and check out their attitudes. Watch some YouTube videos of actual police interactions.
Police in this country are trained that you and I, the common citizens, are all criminals first and human beings second. They're not around to serve and protect; they're around to harass and intimidate. When you're pulled over for speeding by the highway patrol, you're not an honest citizen who was doing 86 in a 75 without thinking about it. You're running drugs, smuggling illegals, in a stolen car, drunk or some combination of the above, and they're trained to lie, cheat and steal (including the old "I detect the odor of marijuana" trick) their way into a consensual search of your vehicle and a full confession. Because of that training, many officers are unnecessarily quick to resort to unlawful orders, intimidation and threats. If recent events are causing police officers to stop and think before drawing their firearm, then good. Something positive has been accomplished, and we're one small, informal step closer to reminding police that they exist to protect us, not manipulate, twist and urinate on the law to control us.
Quote:The officer is identified as plainclothes. Did he clearly identify himself as a police officer and clearly show a badge while approaching the assailant's truck, or was the assailant approached by some guy in a t-shirt and khakis shouting at him and waving a gun? None of the pictures posted show a badge around his neck, as many undercover officers wear. Several states have laws now that prohibit unmarked vehicles from initiating traffic stops, and preventing incidents like this is one of the main reasons why.
It's tough to condemn the initial incident without knowing the specifics of the situation. If the officer had clearly identified himself as such, including showing the assailant a badge, then it's pretty clear-cut. Note that simply emerging from an unmarked vehicle with light bars flashing is not sufficient identification as a police officer. It could easily be someone posing as an officer. If the assailant truly did not know (or have reason to believe) that the man approaching his vehicle with a gun was actually a police officer, then, well, if some unidentified, unknown guy comes running up to my car shouting and flashing a gun, I'm going to fight back by any means necessary as well, and I will do whatever I need to to make sure he stays down until a uniformed police officer shows up.
The conduct after the fact of taunting the injured officer by posting pictures and video online is disgusting, regardless of whether the person assaulted is a police officer or not. Police brutality, police overreach and militarization of police are three major problems in this country, and there are a lot of disgusting excuses for police officers out there, but something like this makes the people involved no better than them, and is completely counterproductive to efforts to rein in police officers and restore the rights that they deceptively take away from American citizens every time they walk up and say hi.
As to whether the officer should have used deadly force, two more thoughts arise:
1. What deadly force? He didn't have his gun, and there's no mention of a backup weapon in play. Presumably, if he was packing a small-caliber revolver around his lower leg, he'd have drawn it, used it and been completely justified in doing so once his gun was in an assailant's hands. I just don't get why people are saying that the officer should have shot the assailant. What would the officer possibly have shot the assailant for before his weapon was taken from him? Reaching for a cop's gun does not give that cop the right to kill you. Actually taking a cop's gun makes you fair game.
2. The notion that police are having second-thoughts about using deadly force is a good thing. If you want to spend a couple of terrifying hours on some boring weeknight, read through the articles (of varying credibility, no doubt) about what police are trained to do in terms of initiating interaction with you, getting your ID (whether they have a Constitutional right to it or not) and using that information, interrogating you by way of a friendly conversation and tricking you into voluntarily surrendering every Constitutional right that can be employed in your defense and ultimately trying to use that conversation to find a reason to arrest you. Then go to a couple of cop message boards and check out their attitudes. Watch some YouTube videos of actual police interactions.
Police in this country are trained that you and I, the common citizens, are all criminals first and human beings second. They're not around to serve and protect; they're around to harass and intimidate. When you're pulled over for speeding by the highway patrol, you're not an honest citizen who was doing 86 in a 75 without thinking about it. You're running drugs, smuggling illegals, in a stolen car, drunk or some combination of the above, and they're trained to lie, cheat and steal (including the old "I detect the odor of marijuana" trick) their way into a consensual search of your vehicle and a full confession. Because of that training, many officers are unnecessarily quick to resort to unlawful orders, intimidation and threats. If recent events are causing police officers to stop and think before drawing their firearm, then good. Something positive has been accomplished, and we're one small, informal step closer to reminding police that they exist to protect us, not manipulate, twist and urinate on the law to control us.
The assailant sucker punched the cup in the face before stealing the gun to pistol whip said cop. I think the point where he is being beaten (sucker punched) and his life is at risk is the point where he could have used his firearm. Sadly, he didn't react in time and that left him in a much worse condition.
Quote:More to the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/us/alabama...index.html
Much more to the story, in fact. The whole incident--every last second of it--could have been avoided with a very simple law that states that unmarked vehicles cannot initiate traffic stops, like other states have. If the undercover officer had simply radioed the truck's description and plate number in, a marked vehicle could easily have been sent in instead, and this incident doesn't happen. I mean, that's all there is to it. It doesn't excuse in any way what the assailant did, but I'd bet you anything that the guy would have been far less likely to leave his vehicle and start crap with a uniformed officer coming out of a marked squad car.
Additionally, if the plainclothes detective could not articulate the reason that the assailant had been stopped, the assailant was being unlawfully detained and had the right to demand his license back and leave the area. That's clearly not what happened here, but it is a side note that unless there's yet more to the story, the apparent actions of the officer in refusing to articulate the reason for the stop would have made the whole thing unlawful.
Beyond that, there's nothing really new added here, just the officer telling us what we already know, a union boss complaining because police are being held accountable when they kill someone, and a police chief opining that social media is to blame for the outcry against police overreach and brutality, not the overreach and brutality itself.
Quote:Much more to the story, in fact. The whole incident--every last second of it--could have been avoided with a very simple law that states that unmarked vehicles cannot initiate traffic stops, like other states have. If the undercover officer had simply radioed the truck's description and plate number in, a marked vehicle could easily have been sent in instead, and this incident doesn't happen. I mean, that's all there is to it. It doesn't excuse in any way what the assailant did, but I'd bet you anything that the guy would have been far less likely to leave his vehicle and start crap with a uniformed officer coming out of a marked squad car.
Additionally, if the plainclothes detective could not articulate the reason that the assailant had been stopped, the assailant was being unlawfully detained and had the right to demand his license back and leave the area. That's clearly not what happened here, but it is a side note that unless there's yet more to the story, the apparent actions of the officer in refusing to articulate the reason for the stop would have made the whole thing unlawful.
Beyond that, there's nothing really new added here, just the officer telling us what we already know, a union boss complaining because police are being held accountable when they kill someone, and a police chief opining that social media is to blame for the outcry against police overreach and brutality, not the overreach and brutality itself.
Is there a law that says he cannot initiate a traffic stop, or are you saying the officer is at fault because he didn't follow something that you believe should be a law? Where does it say anything about the officer not articulating why he initiated the traffic stop? Sounds like you are coming up with hypotheticals to shift blame to the officer and not the criminal that pistol whipped him.
You can continue coming up with hypotheticals in attempts to blame the officer all you want. At the end of the day, a guy pistol whipped a cop, left him knocked out and bleeding on the pavement, and then immediately bragged about it on social media. Hopefully the next officer he tries to assault isn't as hesitant about using his firearm on this scumbag.
It's a bad time to be a cop, sadly.
They do a very dangerous job, and are now rightly fearful of even protecting themselves.
The lack of support for law enforcement officers is a real problem. I don't condone bad cops, but I also don't think they should be submissive to a violent felon for fear of being labeled the criminal and/or prosecuted as such.
It's one of the biggest problems our society faces.
Quote:Much more to the story, in fact. The whole incident--every last second of it--could have been avoided with a very simple law that states that unmarked vehicles cannot initiate traffic stops, like other states have. If the undercover officer had simply radioed the truck's description and plate number in, a marked vehicle could easily have been sent in instead, and this incident doesn't happen. I mean, that's all there is to it. It doesn't excuse in any way what the assailant did, but I'd bet you anything that the guy would have been far less likely to leave his vehicle and start crap with a uniformed officer coming out of a marked squad car.
Additionally, if the plainclothes detective could not articulate the reason that the assailant had been stopped, the assailant was being unlawfully detained and had the right to demand his license back and leave the area. That's clearly not what happened here, but it is a side note that unless there's yet more to the story, the apparent actions of the officer in refusing to articulate the reason for the stop would have made the whole thing unlawful.
Beyond that, there's nothing really new added here, just the officer telling us what we already know, a union boss complaining because police are being held accountable when they kill someone, and a police chief opining that social media is to blame for the outcry against police overreach and brutality, not the overreach and brutality itself.
This is where you are wrong.
First of all, the reason that the perp was pulled over to begin with is because he was driving erratically on the interstate. That's a dangerous situation that could potentially put several innocent lives in danger. Had the detective not stopped him, there is the potential that he could have killed someone in a traffic accident.
According to the story, the detective did speak to the perp while he was sitting in his car, at which point the detective would have told him why he was pulled over. The detective then went back to call a "regular" patrol officer to handle the traffic stop.
The perp exited his own vehicle and became combative towards the detective to the point of assaulting him.
Here is the most disturbing part of the CNN article.
Quote:
Adding insult to injury: several bystanders, instead of helping, took pictures of the bloodied officer as he was facedown on the concrete and posted the images on social media, where the officer was mocked.
Quote:
...the six-year police veteran said he didn't shoot the man who attacked him during a traffic stop because of the outcry surrounding a spate of police shootings nationally.
If I was that detective, I would have stopped the perp's actions, and that would have been two to the chest and one to the head.
You probably shouldn't be allowed near weapons if your first thought is to kill somebody.
Quote:You probably shouldn't be allowed near weapons if your first thought is to kill somebody.
Where did he say that killing someone was his first thought?
Quote:His very last sentence.
It wasnt his first thought, his first thought was "[BLEEP], this [BLEEP] is gonna kill me."
Quote:It wasnt his first thought, his first thought was "[BAD WORD REMOVED], this [BAD WORD REMOVED] is gonna kill me."
Exactly...Probably shouldn't be in control of weapons. Be shooting everyone who approaches.
The guy wasn't even armed was he?
Quote:Exactly...Probably shouldn't be in control of weapons. Be shooting everyone who approaches.
The guy wasn't even armed was he?
He punched the cop in his face and stole the cops gun. He then used that gun to pistol whip the cop and leave him knocked out and bleeding on the pavement.
Quote:His very last sentence.
I've read it several times and I don't see where he says that his first thought during a traffic stop would be to kill somebody.
Quote:I've read it several times and I don't see where he says that his first thought during a traffic stop would be to kill somebody.
His first thought when somebody approaches him...
I dont think he would have shot the guy in the car for a traffic offense.
Crikey you are touchy.