Refused to disarm

[nitrovic]

imported post

MeBaby wrote:

ThunderRanch wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Keeping in mind that if you are legallydetained and you have a weapon visible.... it makes it that much easier to articulate that you "could" in fact be dangerous.

Anyone with a gun.... can be dangerous!!

There are no clear cut guidelines on what someone looks like or what they must say that makes them "dangerous" so it is all up to the officer to decide.

If you are rude, belligerent, overly nervous,have a threatening appearance, or do somethingout of the norm...the officerwill probably be relinquishing you of your gun for the next 10-15 minutes.

I suspect that some people get hung up on the fact that the officer must be able to articulate a reason to believe the person is "dangerous" and not just armed.

Everyone can bedangerous!!

So the hardpartis to believe they are actually armed with a weapon to use against you.

Not trying to twist your words here LEO229.....you have been gracious with your opinions on this matter........

The statement, though, that "Anyone with a gun.... can be dangerous" is just as applicable to the officer making the stop!

There are an awful lot of stereotypes in this world, and they became stereotypes for a reason. An officer can be having a very bad day from having spent way too many long hours on duty the day before. It doesn't make the officer a bad person, but I would feel less secure about his ability to handle my weapon. I agree that all guns have similar features, but officers, as well as civilians, DO have negligent or accidental discharges of their weapons. Add in an unfamiliar weapon........The likelihood is small enough to be insignificant, but it does happen. It would just be a shame to become a statistic in the interest of officer safety!

(in red above) You mean like the Utah State Trooper that tazed the guy for speeding when the trooper blocked the lower temporary speed limit sign? :banghead:I understand that the driver refused to sign the ticket BUT the trooper also didn't inform him of the consequences of not signing (arrested), and he should have. It probably would have ended the situation right there.

You are correct, he indeed did NOT tell the guy he was under arrest. You do not have to in all circumstances (like when somebody is hitting you or you are running after them etc), but in this case he had a reasonable amount of time to tell him. I imagine that is what the 40grand payout was all about. I SERIOUSLY doubt it if that would have ended it, but who knows, maybe it would have.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

He was justified for tazering him just by the resisting arrest. You are commanded by lawto take somebody in front of a magistrate if they do not sign the ticket. Not hard to understand. The LEO told him FOUR times to turn around and put his hands behind his back AND allowed him to walk away before tazering him. I wouldn't say that was "eager to use force". Also, he didn't make a joke about the tazer. The other officer asked him what happened, he told him "he took a ride". That is police jargon for getting tazed. All officers certified "take the ride" in training.

EDIT-Upon looking at the video again, he was NOT justified because he didn't tell the guy he was under arrest. Had he then yes, he would have been justified.

What he did would have been OK had he said three words first... "You're under arrest...." unless he could articulate the guy was going to get a weapon from the vehicle.

I believe that at that moment whenhe had a guy out of the car refusing to follow instructions he just forgot to tell him and was concerned about keeping him under control. The motorist was argumentative and uncooperative so there is cause for some concern.

He mentions on a few occasions after the arrest that the motorist"was under arrest" so this was his intent once he asked him out of the vehicle. He is on video so there would be little reason to just do it for kicks.

What I would have liked to have seen is the officer explain and make it very clear that by not signing he would be arrested and all that is involved. I have done this many times and the people quickly decided to sign!

Maybe even talk a little more about the sign itself since this seems to be an issue. There is no harm in doingeither IMO.

In regards to the taser comment... "He took a ride"..

I too "took a ride" and that is just how we say it...Should he have said "Iused the tazer on him." ?? That does not soundright and makes you wonder what was done.

The motorist could have avoided this had he followed the officer's instructions as they were not out of line. The motorist attempted to control the stop and believed he could do anything he pleased. Like walking back to his vehicle after he was ordered out.

The officer could have avoided this if he had been a little more patient and used his verbal judo to get the guy to sign the ticket.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

I think that what LEO229 and Nitrovic are saying and have said in the thread is that it is a matter of common sense. ....Snipped

You summed it all up rather well...

As I commented before.... cops do not yank grandma out for a pat down nor do they feel a father and family on their way in their way to church in their best Sunday best would really warrant a frisk either.

There ARE people out there that fit the criteria to be searched. All of the OCers at the dinners I met do not fit it. They appear to be young professionals who are responsible and polite adults. No threat to the public.

I have not seen ALL the members here so there could be a few that may be subject to getting checked for weapons. Along with those members that opt to show their hostile attitude during a traffic stop.

LEO 229,

I am with you in theory on this one but what you profess seems to be blatant profiling in your implied definition of "threat".

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

I think that what LEO229 and Nitrovic are saying and have said in the thread is that it is a matter of common sense. ....Snipped

You summed it all up rather well...

As I commented before.... cops do not yank grandma out for a pat down nor do they feel a father and family on their way in their way to church in their best Sunday best would really warrant a frisk either.

There ARE people out there that fit the criteria to be searched. All of the OCers at the dinners I met do not fit it. They appear to be young professionals who are responsible and polite adults. No threat to the public.

I have not seen ALL the members here so there could be a few that may be subject to getting checked for weapons. Along with those members that opt to show their hostile attitude during a traffic stop.

LEO 229,

I am with you in theory on this one but what you profess seems to be blatant profiling in your implied definition of "threat".

Pardon... What are you talking about?

Because I may trust grandma and not a guy that looks like a gang member... I am profiling?

If it walks like a duck andtalks like a duck.... it may very well BE a duck. Until I know it is a crow.... I am going to have to go with what I know.

 

[DonTreadOnMe]

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

MeBaby wrote:

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH_qVJfaYZA

I should have known not to bother to look up that video...

:cuss:

But if you listen closely (which is hard to do with the traffic) it sounds like the guy may have gotten a little mouthy at the beginning asking why the Trooper wanted to see his license (and he certainly got mouthy later). so we probably have a combo of a mouthy citizen and a Trooper who may have not minded a bit if the situation escalated.

So key point is "kind words can soothe a bad situation" (I have to keep reminding myself ).

Did you catch him making a joke of tazering the guy? He was pleased with himself....pure power tripping.

Using force of that nature should not be a joke or done so lightly. Tazers have caused deaths.... I truly hope this guy was fired and the citizen sues. Any LEO worth is badge should be pissed. The guy was eager to use force, to play with his toy.

There are good and bad LEO....that guy should never be in a position of authority ever again.

Did you like him searching the truck...looking for something he could use to justify tazering the guy I am thinking.

He was justified for tazering him just by the resisting arrest. You are commanded by lawto take somebody in front of a magistrate if they do not sign the ticket. Not hard to understand. The LEO told him FOUR times to turn around and put his hands behind his back AND allowed him to walk away before tazering him. I wouldn't say that was "eager to use force". Also, he didn't make a joke about the tazer. The other officer asked him what happened, he told him "he took a ride". That is police jargon for getting tazed. All officers certified "take the ride" in training.

EDIT-Upon looking at the video again, he was NOT justified because he didn't tell the guy he was under arrest. Had he then yes, he would have been justified.

Thank you for your review and clarification you do not think he was justified.

Personally, I hold that it is a joke....even if the 'joke' has attained the level of 'jargon' is is still an attempt at humor, disrespectful and unprofessional of both officers. *shrug*

What would have been your feelings on this if turned out the guy had a heart condition and that 'tazering' had killed him?

 

[MeBaby]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

snipped

snipped




What I would have liked to have seen is the officer explain and make it very clear that by not signing he would be arrested and all that is involved. I have done this many times and the people quickly decided to sign!

Maybe even talk a little more about the sign itself since this seems to be an issue. There is no harm in doingeither IMO.

Exactly what I was talking about. Now back to the thread

 

[possumboy]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

If it walks like a duck andtalks like a duck....

and if it floats like a duck... It's a WITCH!

 

[matt605]

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

matt605 wrote:

You are correct, I have never worked as a LEO. I accept that people on drugs (including alcohol and caffiene) can become violent quite easily. My impression, which comes from television, is that people who would resist would more likely flee, even into the path of a large truck, as shown on the YouTube clip above.

In yourexperience as an LEO, how many times has a situation become life-threatening after an automobile passenger said that he had a legally concealed handgun and produced the permit for it? Isn't telling a cop that you have a gun when otherwise not required to do so something a person might do to prevent the cop from becoming surprised and frigtened when/if he discovers the gun himself? Isn't it a courtesy extended to make everything go a little easier and potentially safer?

Still, in Mimms, the supreme court ruled only on the driver's .38, and didn't comment on the passenger's .32. Was the passenger illegally searched? Was the passenger carrying a permit? Did the passenger's verbal identification of the weapon to police cause it to become an open carry revolver? "I have a .32 pistol in my jacket pocket, but didn't want to create a problem by pulling it out suddenly as you approached the car." The online material doesn't talk about the .32, and the case was decided in 1968 -- says a cop can make a driver step out of a car for officer safety.

:dude:

I will respond to each paragraph

#1- I am taking it as a joke you referenced "caffeine" along with alcohol and drugs, so I guess there is nothing to reply with this one.

#2- I have never had a negative encounter with a legally armed person. I know officers who have, however I have not.

#3- Don't know.

Caffiene is no joke. I read a post hereabout a guyOCing for the first time and he chose to buy someof that strong, Starbucks coffee. Soon he wasvery uncomfortable and thinking heneeded a less conspicuous gun to lessen comments from others. Maybe he just needed a little less caffiene so that when he is confronted his heart rate and blood pressure are not already juiced to spike through the roof. Alcohol is long accepted as a drug associated with violence. Potheads espcially contrast weed to liquor on the violence potential.

Generally there are no suggestions on how to OCfor beginners postedon this site that I'm aware of.No tips like avoidalcohol(obvious) and caffiene (less obvious), and don'targue with people whose minds are dead-set opposed to the law or who are impolite.

One thing I've noticed that I disagree with is thatwhen asked people often state they OC for personaldefense. Thelaw permits that, butopen carrying because you feel like it is morerespectful of privacy -- aperson shouldn't feel compelled to say he or she is feeling particularly more needy of self defense on one day than another. Why not, "the law permits it and I wanted to." Same reason a person takes a drink, or attends church, or signs a petition.

:dude:

 

[Thundar]

imported post

possumboy wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

If it walks like a duck andtalks like a duck....

and if it floats like a duck... It's a WITCH!

Quack, quack!! Yes that is a perfect example of profiling. Tsk, Tsk the 14th A is such a pesky nuisance, next thing you know probable cause will have to be based upon more than a police officers gut feel. Oh, wait....

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

possumboy wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

If it walks like a duck andtalks like a duck....

and if it floats like a duck... It's a WITCH!

Quack, quack!! Yes that is a perfect example of profiling. Tsk, Tsk the 14th A is such a pesky nuisance, next thing you know probable cause will have to be based upon more than a police officers gut feel. Oh, wait....

You can twist it how you like.... But who I feel threatened by is not profiling.

Let's expound on this further...

Girl scout with box of cookies......Dude who is 210 pounds of muscle!

Gee... If I feel that the muscular guy could harm me and NOT the girl scout.. I am profiling.

Do I have it right?

Because if I do.... while EVERYONE here who stands in live at the grocery store and sizes up others as a possible threat.... they are all wrongfully profiling. :lol:

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Thundar wrote:

possumboy wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

If it walks like a duck andtalks like a duck....

and if it floats like a duck... It's a WITCH!

Quack, quack!! Yes that is a perfect example of profiling. Tsk, Tsk the 14th A is such a pesky nuisance, next thing you know probable cause will have to be based upon more than a police officers gut feel. Oh, wait....

You can twist it how you like.... But who I feel threatened by is not profiling.

Let's expound on this further...

Girl scout with box of cookies......Dude who is 210 pounds of muscle!

Gee... If I feel that the muscular guy could harm me and NOT the girl scout.. I am profiling.

Do I have it right?

Because if I do.... while EVERYONE here who stands in live at the grocery store and sizes up others as a possible threat.... they are all wrongfully profiling. :lol:

It's not profiling - it is threat assessment, tactical evaluation!

Besides profiling is not a no-no for us non-professionals.

Yata hey

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

It's not profiling - it is threat assessment, tactical evaluation!

Besides profiling is not a no-no for us non-professionals.

Yata hey

Any way you cut it... he would have you believe it is some type of"discrimination" if done by a cop.... but not by a citizen.


So again.... we get a double standard.


Go figure..... :lol:

 

[peter nap]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

It's not profiling - it is threat assessment, tactical evaluation!

Besides profiling is not a no-no for us non-professionals.

Yata hey

Any way you cut it... he would have you believe it is some type of"discrimination" if done by a cop.... but not by a citizen.


So again.... we get a double standard.


Go figure..... :lol:

Many provisions of the Constitution are designed to protect the citizen from the government, 229. It's not an even playing field.

An example....Evidence obtained by a LEO during an illegal search is inadmissible, however evidence obtained by a citizen during a citizens arrest, even though the other circumstances are the same, may be admitted.

A citizen is guaranteed to be secure in his person and papers, however you have the Authority to search that person with probable cause. I do not.

If you saw Skidmark and myself in the supermarket and said to yourself, The first guy looks like Burl Ives and he's OK but the Redneck's up to something so I'm going to search him. In your mind that's OK. That's profiling.

If I, as a citizen saw you and Nitrovic come in the store in your civies and I said to myself, the first guy looks like John on CHIPS. He's OK but the Big SOB next to him looks like trouble, I'd have to take his knees out fast.

That's just a mental note and unless you can read minds, no harm done.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Many provisions of the Constitution are designed to protect the citizen from the government, 229. It's not an even playing field.

An example....Evidence obtained by a LEO during an illegal search is inadmissible, however evidence obtained by a citizen during a citizens arrest, even though the other circumstances are the same, may be admitted.

A citizen is guaranteed to be secure in his person and papers, however you have the Authority to search that person with probable cause. I do not.

If you saw Skidmark and myself in the supermarket and said to yourself, The first guy looks like Burl Ives and he's OK but the Redneck's up to something so I'm going to search him. In your mind that's OK. That's profiling.

If I, as a citizen saw you and Nitrovic come in the store in your civies and I said to myself, the first guy looks like John on CHIPS. He's OK but the Big SOB next to him looks like trouble, I'd have to take his knees out fast.

That's just a mental note and unless you can read minds, no harm done.

Sorry Peter... but you (and others) are not using the use of profiling properly.

It is profiling when you believe someone has committed a crime and then you view things such as race and even age or things such as "he might be a redneck"

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with viewing someone no matter who they are as someone that may harm you.

Sorry guys... you really need to get up to speed on a few things before you start talking about them.

:lol:

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Sorry!
It's Saturday and I've been watching my bearskin rug to be (next month).

I'll try to do better on Monday!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

I personally see the advantages to profiling - understand the problems though - it just ain't a perfect world is it.

At least subconsciously, I think a majority of us do it to some fair degree.

Yata hey

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

It would appear that the FBI is allowed to profile. Gumint sekret?

http://tinyurl.com/66kzzt

Darn there I go again - on another watch list - may never be able to fly again.

Yata hey