Even More LEO Follies

#51
#51
Obsessed said:
Hey Tim. Is it true that a officer has the ability to choose which laws he will enforce and one he doesn't?

Example. If I run a stop sign. You see me. Pull me over but decide note to cite me. And let me go on my way.

Is the officer right in this? Or has the officer neglected his job responsibility ?
Click to expand...

There is what is termed officer discretion. But, this discretion has dwindled to nothing with some departments (Im told) removing it all together. Basically an officer could choose to warn or cite. Example: Officer catches me drinking a beer at 16, he pours the beer out and calls my parents.. Or he could arrest me for underage consumption. But, I've never heard of officer discretion when applied to felonies and serious misdemeanors.
 
#52
#52
tim said:
There is what is termed officer discretion. But, this discretion has dwindled to nothing with some departments (Im told) removing it all together. Basically an officer could choose to warn or cite. Example: Officer catches me drinking a beer at 16, he pours the beer out and calls my parents.. Or he could arrest me for underage consumption. But, I've never heard of officer discretion when applied to felonies and serious misdemeanors.
Click to expand...


Thanks Tim.
 
#55
#55
Obsessed said:
I find it odd too. Dink must have smarted off and it was all the cop could write him for.


I know you would never do anything like that. :)
Click to expand...

I was courteous and maintained my cool. He was just pissed that I didn't consent to search and his doggy gave him a cold trail.

Although after he cited me I told him I had no intention of fighting it because I'm not a difficult little shlt.
 
#56
#56
tim said:
There is what is termed officer discretion. But, this discretion has dwindled to nothing with some departments (Im told) removing it all together. Basically an officer could choose to warn or cite. Example: Officer catches me drinking a beer at 16, he pours the beer out and calls my parents.. Or he could arrest me for underage consumption. But, I've never heard of officer discretion when applied to felonies and serious misdemeanors.
Click to expand...

Had one get me in college for underage possession and open container (not in vehicle). The officer and his coworkers said if I would allow him to pour the beer out on my head in front of my friends that he would let me skate.

Thought it was hilarious and appreciated his sense of humor and his "officer discretion".
 
#57
#57
DC_Vol said:
Had one get me in college for underage possession and open container (not in vehicle). The officer and his coworkers said if I would allow him to pour the beer out on my head in front of my friends that he would let me skate.

Thought it was hilarious and appreciated his sense of humor and his "officer discretion".
Click to expand...

Kinda mean imo
 
#58
#58
DC_Vol said:
That's a fair question. All the facts are not in yet. The thread title was more a tribute to volinbham since he has started many similarly titled threads.

My thoughts were that this could be a thread where all LEO follies - or supposed LEO follies - could be collected. There seems to be a new one every few weeks.

I'm no police hater, but I have had my experiences with some over enthusiastic police officers. Officers often put themselves in harm's way as a requirement of their job, and I appreciate that risk. But I still believe a light should be shined upon incidences of police abuse, and this may be one of those cases.

This is one that should be followed. Anytime an unarmed college student is shot by a police officer, I see red flags. Shouldn't an LEO only use deadly force when they feel their life is in jeopardy? Was this officer's life in jeopardy in this situation? It doesn't seem to be the case. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

I'd rather read many small threads than one large one. Increases my sense of accomplishment and thereby my sense of worth.
 
#59
#59
More details emerge on the college kid that was shot and killed. I get that the parents can't square their perception of their son with the audio and the events as relayed by the officer, but the audio tape suggests strongly that the officer did everything he could to avoid it.

Texas student shot by police officer leaves behind bereft parents - CNN.com

"Carter ordered Redus to put his hands on his vehicle, the campus officer later told police. At first, he obeyed. But when the officer pulled out his handcuffs, the student refused to cooperate, Pruitt said.


The two scuffled for more than six minutes.


"Officer Carter instructed Robert Redus 14 times to place his hands behind his back, and informed him three times that he was under arrest, and to stop resisting 56 times," Pruitt said, referring to the recording.


Carter pulled his baton, but Redus took it away and beat him with it, Pruitt said.
Pruitt said the officer had injuries on his arm and head that corroborate his account.


Carter was able to wrestle the baton away from Redus. But then the student charged at the officer with his arm raised, police said.


Carter warned him four times that he would shoot if Redus did not stop, Pruitt said.


Carter opened fire."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
Sounds like a college kid whipped a cop. Cop couldn't defend himself against him and resorted to shooting him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#61
#61
Why didn't he shoot him in the leg? He wanted to have that confirmed kill that fuels his sense of power and ego.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
OJ said:
Why didn't he shoot him in the leg? He wanted to have that confirmed kill that fuels his sense of power and ego.
Click to expand...

evidently he did

Carter fired his .40-caliber semi-automatic weapon six times, hitting Redus five times — in the chest, neck, eye, arm and thigh, Pruitt said.
Click to expand...
 
#63
#63
Obsessed said:
Sounds like a college kid whipped a cop. Cop couldn't defend himself against him and resorted to shooting him.
Click to expand...


What? He shouldn't defend himself? We hire him and train him and pay him to go out and search for and deal with law breakers, and when he encounters one who physically fights with the officer and beats him for 6 minutes, he's supposed to just take it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#64
#64
OJ said:
Why didn't he shoot him in the leg? He wanted to have that confirmed kill that fuels his sense of power and ego.
Click to expand...


When an officer has to resort to firing his weapon it is because he believes deadly force is necessary. They shoot to kill, not to wound. For obvious reasons.

You will never, ever, hear of an officer who shot with the intent to just wound someone, because to do so means deadly force is not necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
lawgator1 said:
What? He shouldn't defend himself? We hire him and train him and pay him to go out and search for and deal with law breakers, and when he encounters one who physically fights with the officer and beats him for 6 minutes, he's supposed to just take it?
Click to expand...

they should have the same rights as every other citizen
 
#66
#66
utvolpj said:
they should have the same rights as every other citizen
Click to expand...


It's a little more complicated than that because its their job to confront people and, on occasion, to take them into custody. Its terrible that this happened. By all accounts the officer is inconsolable.

But if he told him 56 times to stop, including four warnings prior to firing, and the physical evidence and the tape corroborates that the kid took his baton and beat him with it at some point, then the fact is the officer has not just the right but the obligation to defend himself with deadly force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
It's a little more complicated than that because its their job to confront people and, on occasion, to take them into custody. Its terrible that this happened. By all accounts the officer is inconsolable.

But if he told him 56 times to stop, including four warnings prior to firing, and the physical evidence and the tape corroborates that the kid took his baton and beat him with it at some point, then the fact is the officer has not just the right but the obligation to defend himself with deadly force.
Click to expand...

it's not more complicated than that at all. They should have the same rights and limits. We all know that's simply not true but it should be

however if the officer had properly secured his weapon (baton) maybe this wouldn't have happened. The family should be able to sue
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
utvolpj said:
it's not more complicated than that at all. They should have the same rights and limits. We all know that's simply not true but it should be

however if the officer had properly secured his weapon (baton) maybe this wouldn't have happened. The family should be able to sue
Click to expand...


They are "able" to. But they will lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
lawgator1 said:
What? He shouldn't defend himself? We hire him and train him and pay him to go out and search for and deal with law breakers, and when he encounters one who physically fights with the officer and beats him for 6 minutes, he's supposed to just take it?
Click to expand...

My point was he is a trained officer of the law. This was a college kid. Was he a ninja? How did he get his baton? When the officer got his baton back why did he not cuff him them?

I understand him defending himself LG and he is in the right to do so. But, I don't think this guy should have been a cop.
 
#71
#71
Obsessed said:
My point was he is a trained officer of the law. This was a college kid. Was he a ninja? How did he get his baton? When the officer got his baton back why did he not cuff him them?

I understand him defending himself LG and he is in the right to do so. But, I don't think this guy should have been a cop.
Click to expand...


You are really reaching an extreme conclusion there based on an assumption the kid just took an unsecured baton out of the officer's belt. You don't know exactly how that happened.

And we keep calling him kid, presumably because he was in college But he was 23, coming home late one night from a bar where he'd been drinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#73
#73
lawgator1 said:
An officer faced with the need to use deadly force is not obliged to try lesser force, first, in hopes that it works.
Click to expand...

As a general argument I agree. That doesn't sound very applicable to this case. For example, we know we had the baton come into play, right? We had lots of warnings, right?
 
#74
#74
lawgator1 said:
An officer faced with the need to use deadly force is not obliged to try lesser force, first, in hopes that it works.
Click to expand...

While the officer technically is "justified" in shooting the young man, I still don't think it needed to go to that level (as that is an absolute last resort in law enforcement). The kid did not have a knife, gun, or otherwise, that endangered the officer's life and no offense to the kid, but he was pretty scrawny, so it's a bit disturbing to me that a police officer could not detain him in a reasonable amount of time...

That being said, I don't think the parents have any legal ground to stand on, if, in fact, the recording shows that the officer clearly stated to the kid to stop resisting arrest and was warning him that he would shoot.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top