To Protect and to Serve II

#4,128
#4,128
Rasputin_Vol said:
Is that based on this being a policeman or a security guard? Or does it matter?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't matter. Guy is there to remove an obviously drunk/disorderly woman. If she had been cooperative, she'd have just been escorted out, intead, they had to carry her out and proceeds to hit the guard/officer.

His response was over the top but still legal, but I'd say he will still have to face some civil consequences and may ultimately lose his job...I dunno, just a guess.

Drunks are my least favorite people to deal with and takes tact and patience. They're the first ones to want to pick a fight, won't listen to reason and don't know when to shut the hell up. Loosing your temper is easy to do, maintaining your professionalism is hard, but necessary.
 
#4,129
#4,129
orangeblood79 said:
Wouldn't matter. Guy is there to remove an obviously drunk/disorderly woman. If she had been cooperative, she'd have just been escorted out, intead, they had to carry her out and proceeds to hit the guard/officer.

His response was over the top but still legal, but I'd say he will still have to face some civil consequences and may ultimately lose his job...I dunno, just a guess.

Drunks are my least favorite people to deal with and takes tact and patience. They're the first ones to want to pick a fight, won't listen to reason and don't know when to shut the hell up. Loosing your temper is easy to do, maintaining your professionalism is hard, but necessary.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it really mattered, either. I was just curious why a distinction was being made.
 
#4,131
#4,131
orangeblood79 said:
Wouldn't matter. Guy is there to remove an obviously drunk/disorderly woman. If she had been cooperative, she'd have just been escorted out, intead, they had to carry her out and proceeds to hit the guard/officer.

His response was over the top but still legal, but I'd say he will still have to face some civil consequences and may ultimately lose his job...I dunno, just a guess.

Drunks are my least favorite people to deal with and takes tact and patience. They're the first ones to want to pick a fight, won't listen to reason and don't know when to shut the hell up. Loosing your temper is easy to do, maintaining your professionalism is hard, but necessary.
Click to expand...
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FboxxQaBBDo[/youtube]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,133
#4,133
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,134
#4,134
#4,136
#4,136
hndog609 said:
That was written by someone that seemed pretty biased but if incriminating evidence was in fact kept from the jury as described that's not on the jurors.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they saw it, just weren't allowed to see it in opening statements.
 
#4,137
#4,137
Cdywolfe said:
Pretty sure they saw it, just weren't allowed to see it in opening statements.
Click to expand...

I saw that in the first part but later was unsure the way that was written what was/wasn't fully shown later.

I can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that if as a civilian I was involved in a questionable shooting and "You're F****d" was etched onto my weapon it would have come up in court.

I think it very likely a civil suit is brewing as we speak, probably a big one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,139
#4,139
He was drunk and couldn’t obey commands. Kept reaching back and they kept warning him until giving him a final ultimatum. Bad situation
 
#4,141
#4,141
So apparently the jurors didn't get to see the video. How in the hell, when trying a murder case, does a video of the murder not get shown to the jury?

Must be nice to have different judicial system than the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#4,142
#4,142
Big Gucci Sosa said:
He was drunk and couldn’t obey commands. Kept reaching back and they kept warning him until giving him a final ultimatum. Bad situation
Click to expand...

Yeah, telling a guy to crawl isn't really protocol as I understand it. There is no indication as to why they couldn't just walk up and handcuff the guy while he lay on the ground.

The judge ruled this prejudicial so it couldn't be revealed in court, but the shooter has "you're ****ed" etched on his rifle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,143
#4,143
Just saw the video, really disgusting. The wife is now going to sue and win and the taxpayers will have to pay millions for one trigger happy cop's deadly mistake as he walks a free man.

God bless America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,144
#4,144
#4,145
#4,145
MercyPercy said:
Just saw the video, really disgusting. The wife is now going to sue and win and the taxpayers will have to pay millions for one trigger happy cop's deadly mistake as he walks a free man.

God bless America.
Click to expand...

I agree.


Was his wife in the video or was that a hooker? Just curious.
 
#4,146
#4,146
Cdywolfe said:
So apparently the jurors didn't get to see the video. How in the hell, when trying a murder case, does a video of the murder not get shown to the jury?

Must be nice to have different judicial system than the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Because the judges, prosecutors and cops work together to distort and hide evidence that may put the justice system in a bad light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,148
#4,148
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, telling a guy to crawl isn't really protocol as I understand it. There is no indication as to why they couldn't just walk up and handcuff the guy while he lay on the ground.

The judge ruled this prejudicial so it couldn't be revealed in court, but the shooter has "you're ****ed" etched on his rifle.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. Have him sprawled with his arms out (which actually was one of the 15 different contradicting instructions he gave the guy), go to him, and cuff him.

Or here's a novel idea... Maybe could've simply left him him the f*** alone since he didn't do anything wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,149
#4,149
MercyPercy said:
Just saw the video, really disgusting. The wife is now going to sue and win and the taxpayers will have to pay millions for one trigger happy cop's deadly mistake as he walks a free man.

God bless America.
Click to expand...

Usually I hate that the taxpayers have to foot the bill. But this time they had a chance to do something about it and didn't. I hope his wife takes the cop, the department, and the taxpayers for all she can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,150
#4,150
Cdywolfe said:
Usually I hate that the taxpayers have to foot the bill. But this time they had a chance to do something about it and didn't. I hope his wife takes the cop, the department, and the taxpayers for all she can get.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. The jurors had the opportunity to do the right thing. They didn't see the video though, right? That makes them look slightly better than if they had. Still ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top