Cop in America doing a bad job, again

Grinner said:
Yes but most people don't know this.
Click to expand...

People know they aren’t supposed to drink and drive. If they don’t know they don’t have to answer when the last time they slept was, or what they ate and when, then that’s not my concern.

I don’t need them to tell me what they drank for me to know they’re drunk and shouldn’t be driving. We pride ourselves on our DUI investigation and training.
 
Skizzo said:
People know they aren’t supposed to drink and drive. If they don’t know they don’t have to answer when the last time they slept was, or what they ate and when, then that’s not my concern.

I don’t need them to tell me what they drank for me to know they’re drunk and shouldn’t be driving. We pride ourselves on our DUI investigation and training.
Click to expand...


Well have you ever said to someone 'you're not legally required to answer this but have you had anything to drink tonight'?
 
Grinner said:
You're also not allowed to ID the passengers either, right? The stop is only about the driver.
Click to expand...

Simply being in the car is not enough justification to require ID, no. An officer can ask but a passenger can say no.

Unless there’s specific instances where things change. Eg the passenger isn’t wearing a seatbelt, or tosses a cigarette out of the window. Those things would be a reason for the stop, so now you can ID them. Etc etc.
 
Grinner said:
Well have you ever said to someone 'you're not legally required to answer this but have you had anything to drink tonight'?
Click to expand...

Have I started with that? No. They aren’t under arrest at that point, but I explain to them that X, Y and Z has led me to believe that they may be under the influence and I’m going to ask them some questions and go through a dui Investigation. Sometimes they say okay, sometimes they ask if they have to answer and I say no. They then usually ask what happens if they refuse everything, and I’ll tell them I’ll make a decision on whatever information I have at that point. Same with the FST’s. I mention they’re voluntary tests but they’ll help me make a better determination if they’re impaired or not.
 
Grinner said:
This isn't a pile-on @Skizzo session. He's kindly answering our questions patiently and informatively.
Click to expand...

keep in mind this is all also just based on my own experiences or training and policies. Things may vary for people elsewhere or other states/departments etc. and I am aware that having potentially vastly different policies etc is what causes such issues sometimes.

I know of one thing in particular that was night and day between us and local agencies which was a surprise. Not sure its public information or sensitive material etc so I won’t go into specifics. But something that was considered deadly force for us was only considered a low level use of force for other agencies. They specifically mentioned that so we didn’t show up to scenes with other agencies and see it happening and draw our firearms etc.
 
Skizzo said:
keep in mind this is all also just based on my own experiences or training and policies. Things may vary for people elsewhere or other states/departments etc. and I am aware that having potentially vastly different policies etc is what causes such issues sometimes.

I know of one thing in particular that was night and day between us and local agencies which was a surprise. Not sure its public information or sensitive material etc so I won’t go into specifics. But something that was considered deadly force for us was only considered a low level use of force for other agencies. They specifically mentioned that so we didn’t show up to scenes with other agencies and see it happening and draw our firearms etc.
Click to expand...
What a tease.
 
Skizzo said:
keep in mind this is all also just based on my own experiences or training and policies. Things may vary for people elsewhere or other states/departments etc. and I am aware that having potentially vastly different policies etc is what causes such issues sometimes.

I know of one thing in particular that was night and day between us and local agencies which was a surprise. Not sure its public information or sensitive material etc so I won’t go into specifics. But something that was considered deadly force for us was only considered a low level use of force for other agencies. They specifically mentioned that so we didn’t show up to scenes with other agencies and see it happening and draw our firearms etc.
Click to expand...


I thought the act of drawing a firearm met the legal test for using deadly force.
 
Grinner said:
I thought the act of drawing a firearm met the legal test for using deadly force.
Click to expand...

I’m referring to something else that we considered as deadly force, but other agencies didn’t. Meaning if we show up on scene and someone has a firearm drawn, then that’s one thing, but if we show up on scene and they’re doing this particular thing then it doesn’t meet our departments threshold for deadly force and so we shouldn’t draw our firearm in response thinking that the other agency was also at that level. Talking only about law enforcement, not the public/suspect etc
 
Skizzo said:
Typically on felony stops there’s specific verbiage that’s supposed to be used, and a particular way you direct someone through certain steps to minimize unnecessary movement. Without knowing their specific training, and at the risk of MMQB’ing it, I’d say any time you’re not being clear and concise in your instructions then you will end up with someone confused, and probably doing what they think you want rather than what you may have asked for. Which can obviously lead to issues beyond the rest of what actually happened.
Click to expand...

Like the man being told to crawl and keep his hands in various positions amongst numerous confusing orders barked, all the while LEOs had a guns pointed at him (with "You're fecked" inscribed on one weapon).
 
MrMarcello said:
Like the man being told to crawl and keep his hands in various positions amongst numerous confusing orders barked, all the while LEOs had a guns pointed at him (with "You're fecked" inscribed on one weapon).
Click to expand...
Didn’t end too well for him, if I recall correctly.
 
Cloud7 said:
Yeah sorry about that. I just got annoyed that after all we’ve seen in the last few months, that people still come out parroting the line “But what happened before what we saw?” It’s infuriating.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure this was regarding the now deleted posts of mine and another poster. But sure, It's your fault you dark humor bastard! :D

source.gif
 
and another one. This is not looking good, especially since its so close to Minny where the Chauvin trial is taking place.
Cops get 2 for one on this one. They got to kill another unarmed black man and then got to beat and tear gas protestors, all in the same day!


 
WI_Red said:
and another one. This is not looking good, especially since its so close to Minny where the Chauvin trial is taking place.
Cops get 2 for one on this one. They got to kill another unarmed black man and then got to beat and tear gas protestors, all in the same day!


Click to expand...

If this country isn’t careful, this could become routine.
 
Carolina Red said:
Back the Blue vs. Support the Troops update

Click to expand...


This one is easy, he is not the "right type" of troop for that crowd.

This is made perfectly clear when officer "ride the lightning" asks him if he is Corporal. The lack of respect is not an accident and even I know how to recognize rank insignia.
 
We might have an early winner for the "Yeah, not shit Sherlock" statement of the year:

 
MrMarcello said:
Like the man being told to crawl and keep his hands in various positions amongst numerous confusing orders barked, all the while LEOs had a guns pointed at him (with "You're fecked" inscribed on one weapon).
Click to expand...
Is this the one where the officer emptied the clip as soon as the guy reached down to pull his shorts up? It was mental!
 
Carolina Red said:
Back the Blue vs. Support the Troops update

Click to expand...

Good to see. Very rare that swift action is taken against an officer (though I suspect the driver being a serviceman probably has something to do with it)

edit: Just seen that a complaint was filed before but the officer only got fired once the body can footage was released and it garnered media attention. Figures.
 
Shouldn't these videos be used as case examples of what NOT to do in Police training centres up and down America. They have enough examples.
 
Adisa said:
Click to expand...


The document with the complaint on it says it was filed 4/2/21. Wouldn't this be 2nd of April in the US? If so it's not a huge amount of time until now for them to review the footage that was on the complaint and then fire the office based on that.

I'm not sure how it works though - I'm guessing they don't review footage until it is necessary to do so rather than have a procedure to review everything?
 
WI_Red said:
and another one. This is not looking good, especially since its so close to Minny where the Chauvin trial is taking place.
Cops get 2 for one on this one. They got to kill another unarmed black man and then got to beat and tear gas protestors, all in the same day!


Click to expand...

My initial reaction was I thought my Twitter trending topics was somehow a year behind this morning as I drowsily checked it. Hell...
 
Grinner said:
It's the same deal as that nazi who killed Oscar Grant in Oakland at the BART station. He ended up doing about 18 months I think.
Click to expand...

It is a real thing, as stupid as it may sound. The sympathetic fire, I mean. Not to say he’s not responsible for it, and not to say there shouldn’t be appropriate sentencing etc handed out.

Whether that’s actually the case of what happened or not, well, that’s a separate discussion. The sympathetic fire stuff is hammered into you during training and training days etc They emphasize to never have both out at the same time and if transitioning between them make sure ones away or out of your hand because pulling the trigger on one can cause you to pull the trigger on both. They also make a point to talk about communication being key because if you have one person with an ECD drawn and someone else with a firearm, you don’t want the ECD being deployed and someone mistaking it for a gunshot and firing as well.

Again, not to say you can’t still at least be found criminally negligent in your actions.
 
From what I’ve read about the incident, I’m not even sure why anything would have been used at that point. Flight alone isn’t reason enough to deploy an ECD, so even without the absolutely madness of possibly using the wrong weapon, at the very least I’d imagine it would be excessive force. That’s all without knowing their specific policy on ECD deployment etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.