Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
orchidman
Senior MemberPosts: 8,365 Senior Member
How things can change for the worst in a split second. WARNING, Graphic footage...
orchidman
Senior MemberPosts: 8,365 Senior Member
Saw this link posted up on a local forum. A classic example of how a situation can change and how little time there is to react.
WARNING; Link contains graphic footage from Police bodycams..
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/07/02/police-shooting-pov/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2015-07-07&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter
WARNING; Link contains graphic footage from Police bodycams..
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/07/02/police-shooting-pov/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2015-07-07&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter
Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
Replies
Could have saved a drunks life
That before he was searched or after?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And you think walking him though the restaurant full of people, one officer with his back to him, without a search and hancuffing, was good procedure.
Was he detained for....... being a drunk, being a loud drunk, being a violent drunk or just being a stupid drunk.
He was shot for being a stupid drunk.
Pretty much how I saw it.
No probable cause for a search and no reasonable suspicion for a patdown, either. He was being detained for a petit theft investigation (not being a drunk). Petit theft allegations with no implications of weapons used gives no cause for a pre-arrest search or patdown. They could have asked for consent to do either, but if he said no, then no searches...pre-arrest anyhow.
Now...he could have been detained in cuffs and walked out.
But he pulled a toy gun made to look genuine on two cops carrying real guns. That's his damn fault.
Good points all.
I know you have more hands on than I.
Just a bit terminal.
Yes, it was.
The job is so complicated at times with regard to interactions. The ball was completely in the perp's court the whole time (especially since the cops did nothing wrong by policy/law).
I tell folks all the time, "You are being detained and I will preserve your Constitutional rights; you're being investigated for _________. Your actions alone, from this point on, dictate my actions."
Recoil is how you know primer ignition is complete.
Or, it could have been a real gun, he could have went for it right there in the restroom, and they could have got into a shoot-out in the middle of a crowded restaurant...
I don't know a single person that would be okay with a cop handcuffing them every time they wanted to have a conversation, yet that's exactly what you're calling for. The cops did nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical... the window licker decided to bring a fake gun to a real gunfight, what happened is exactly what should have happened.
Damn right! The only potential problem I saw was the male officer walking in front of this guy with the female in trail. Not good. Unexpected things can and do happen as seen here. I have absolutely NO problem with either officer's actions here.
A pretty good point, Fat, but of course this doesn't obviate the idiot pulling a toy pistol in front of 2 armed cops. The alcohol level in his blood was many times the legal limit so that obviously contributed to his stupid act.
Which very correctly got him shot dead.
But your point is a fairly good one -- maybe he should have been given a preliminary search in the bathroom?
Jason says the guy was being questioned for petty theft and that didn't give the cops the right to search him. I have zero idea for certain but I'm fairly certain that in Texas (where this was) the cops could have searched him asap.
Nevertheless, their actions during the outside shoot were correct. Darwin wins again.
There is a lot of established case law on this and is a 4th Amendment issue. If they had no reason to suspect he was armed, then even a "protective patdown" was not Constitutional as "reasonable". A search requires factors much higher on the scale than a simple exterior clothing patdown.
But I digress, the main issue has been mentioned ad nauseum: the man pulled what two officers, rightly so, believed to be a real and deadly firearm in the immediate commission of use. Their actions are justified on so many levels.
Benefit of the doubt given to a cop in such a situation would make things safer for both Suspect and Cop.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
The dude wasn't under arrest at the time.
So, you're one to give up freedom for "safety", eh?
Upon formal arrest, yes, they can. It is called a search "incident to arrest". It is a search reasonable to secure the prisoner in the custody of law enforcement and to collect evidence of the crime (stolen merchandise, drugs, etc). But it doesn't extend beyond his person or immediate area of expected privacy where evidence would likely have been discarded (drugs or guns under car seats, open liquor bottles with DUI arrests in cars, etc). Anything beyond that scope is getting into search warrant territory.
Slippery slope with your suggestion. If a search of a person merely "not free to leave" during an investigation becomes reasonable, how far backwards can that slide?
If this has to be hindsighted, he should have been detained in cuffs for the investigation immediately, then walked out.
+1 and what I posted above.
That's for certain. The guy seemed fairly rational anyway, despite the amount of alcohol in his system. But a fake gun? That's Darwinian for sure. Duh.
I admit that in my yuut I was rousted occasionally by a rude cop, "Damn hippie!" and lots worse, rancid language, threats, and such. But hey, I NEVER for a second even considered speaking back harshly to that cop, and was always deferential and quiet and polite. Even talking back can get you in deeper water. But pulling a fake gun? Major brain fade.
Totally agree the officers were justified.
But thanks for the correction on the body patdown. I really don't know the law on this. Thanks.
If you look at the video again, the guy didn't try to run, when the gun was produced, Officer Green grabbed him by the collar, swung him around and away from his partner and pushed him away............as the guy recovered his balance and turned back, Green drew and fired.
Greens reaction time and reflexes were perfect.
As a side note, when working UC, it is common to get arrested etc....... and the UC is supposed to let the arresting Officer know Discreetly that you are a UC, you get handcuffed smacked around a bit, tossed into a car etc...
Until they verify you are who you say you are, and drive you somewhere, catch & release....
Lol, catch phrase, color of the day etc....
It can get scary, however, lots of folks knew who I was and relished smacking me around, Hey ! We had to make it look good not to blow Your cover !
Two black eyes ? Seriously ?????
You just don't handcuff someone for *S & Giggles*, you need probable cause to do so, and you as the arresting / detaining Ossifer better do it by the book.
When I was younger, there was a beat cop that routinely frisked young boys and that cop ended up in handcuffs, he took the frisking into fondling territory.
He was followed and observed, and arrested.
I am sure general population in jail was not conducive to his health.
I agree. The lady officer fired a bit late, and probably missed.
25 days before they were cleared by grand jury and back on the job.
And Texas cops, too. Three strikes.
Soon everybody was fighting over whose collar it was, the PONY cops yelling the loudest, drowning out the housing cops, and the transit cops, Detectives.......
While they were all yelling at each other, a puke /snot from SITF, Sneaked in, and sneaked off with the perp...... Lol
Funniest thing I ever did witness.
No, you can't. He was detained when they told him, quite sternly, to come with them and he had no choice but to do so. They had no reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to search him at that time. None. UNLESS the allegation of the crime included the use/description of a weapon that was seen OR implied.
You want handcuffing done "by the book", as you put it, but want to search people all willy-nilly and not by the book? The minimum legal standard to detain someone in handcuffs is reasonable suspicion. The legal standard to search someone is probable cause OR permission. A "pat down", or frisk, is NOTa search.
A frisk is an exterior, open hand feel of the subject to determine if any objects are weapons but ONLY if you have reasonable suspicion to believe they are armed, as I mentioned before.
Y'all did different police work at the ticket booth...I mean transit police.
There is nothing done Willy nilly, if you are going to handcuff someone, you are Arresting / detaining anyone, which is what is happening when a person is handcuffed, the routine is to frisk a person for weapons prior to handcuffing them.
Everything respecting a detainees civil rights must be observed, otherwise you should not be friskying or handcuffing them at all !
Something, a lot of somethings has gone wrong, as was the case here.