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.

 

It's tough to condemn? No, it really wasn't. A criminal, engaged in criminal activity, savagely beat a police officer with his own weapon. Forget that he's even an officer for a moment; he attacked a person and proceeded to hit them with a gun. Your first thought is to justify the offenders behavior under the idea that he may have been approached in a threatening manner by some stranger with a gun. The fact that you'd say that only shows, what I believe, to be an obvious bias. Simply being in plainclothes and possessing a gun is now considered "flashing a gun"? That's absurd. 

 

Almost every State has a law preventing undercover vehicles for being a primary traffic enforcement vehicle. Being an officer in an undercover vehicle doesn't eliminate those powers. By the way, he wasn't an undercover officer. He was a detective in plainclothes. There's a huge difference and a very practical reason for both.

 

What deadly force?

 

1. ) Your hands quickly become lethal force. Is your average police officer expected to go toe-to-toe with a prize fighter? Is the result from a sucker-punch any less effective? If you're being attacked and you're unable to properly defend yourself, then you're justified in using lethal force to stop the threat. The question here is about, whether or not, the officer should have shot this man after he was sucker-punched; he should have used his duty weapon and ended it. The offender's actions could have killed him. Just look up "sucker punch murder", and you'll find all sorts of links to people that have been killed by something you're portraying as incapable of causing serious harm.

 

2. ) It's the police's job to incriminate you. If you expect any other reaction, then you're being unreasonable. It, however, has absolutely nothing to do with second-guessing the use of lethal force. I don't know why you followed your first comment with the second unless you're arguing for attacking police because they trick you into admitting something you shouldn't have admitted.

 

....aaaaannnnnddddd there we have it. You're too far entrenched in the propaganda that the media / internet has fed told you. You think it's the Police vs. Everyone else argument. You couldn't possibly imagine how many times the average officer lets a nonviolent offender go without arresting them. While I admit that police often keep themselves distant from the public, it's because doing otherwise may very well often lead to their injury or death. One of my old Sergeants told me a story about how he did a traffic stop and ended up letting the guy go on a verbal warning. Hell, they even joked around before he walked back toward his car. When my Sergeant started walking back, the guy got out of his car and shot him in the back multiple times. Do you think he ever turned his back to anyone else? Do you think anyone he ever trained did it, either? No, but people like you would make it seem like they're doing it because they're out to get you.

 

 

 

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.

 

Right. Let’s stop police from policing. You wouldn’t have that approach had that man continued and t-boned some SUV filled with a bunch of kids coming back from a recent outreach program. The outrage that would come out of it when everyone found out that he saw it but didn’t want to do anything would be ridiculous... and deserving so, too.

 

Could not articulate the reason? Where did you get that information? Also, we’re supposed to believe, according to you, that this career criminal shouldn’t have known that he was an officer, AND we’re also supposed to believe that he didn’t have probable cause for the stop? You’ll do anything to excuse this, wont you?


 

Also, being unable to remember something after the offender beat the mess out of him doesn’t mean he didn’t have a reason. Which one is more likely?


 

Quote:Exactly...Probably shouldn't be in control of weapons. Be shooting everyone who approaches.


The guy wasn't even armed was he?

 

Nope and he still managed to beat the brakes off him and take his weapon. But I suppose he wasn't a treat, huh?

 

Quote:But at least we didn't have another death for no reason.  Apparently this guy that beat up the cop is probably going to jail for a long time, but at least it will follow the correct criminal justice procedures, and this cop didn't decide to be judge, jury, and executioner.  Also, because the guy is alive, we'll actually hear his side of the story.  This is always better than the standard spam we get when a cop kills someone, "I feared for my life".  A response that lately has shown to be rather...  problematic in it's objective accuracy.

 

Kudos to that cop.  

 

Uhh... no reason? You do understand that the offender's actions could have killed him, right?

 

You'd risk the life of ANYONE by refusing their right to defend themselves to trust the justice system that released a man convicted for assaulting people, robbing people, stealing from their cars, taking stolen property and many other offenses? Not including his ATTAEMPTED MURDER charge and other robberies. 

 

The justice system had already ruled on this situation. The officer, and ANYONE ELSE, would have been justified in shooting him. 

 

Had one of those blows to the head resulted in his death, would you have argued for the same reaction from the officer?

---