To Protect and to Serve II

#5,101
#5,101
#5,103
#5,103
Here's one for the books:

Video Shows Sacramento Police Shooting Unarmed Black Man In Grandparents' Backyard : The Two-Way : NPR

Seems like a predictable pursuit with helicopter and 50 cops for some kid stealing/vandalizing stuff.

The real problem I have with this whole thing is this:

For more than five minutes, the two officers are seen standing behind the corner of the house with their weapons drawn.

When they finally approach the man they shot, one of the officers handcuffs Clark's lifeless body.

"We're going to need CPR stuff," he says. The officers put on gloves and talk about going to get a rescue mask.

Then officer one says "Hey, mute?" and the video's sound clicks off. The last two minutes of the video are silent.
Click to expand...

When a cop shoots someone, they don't get the right to mute sound recording them. It's not like they're having a private conversation with their wife or using the bathroom, they just fired a weapon and by muting the sound are trying to cover themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,104
#5,104
VolStrom said:
Here's one for the books:

Video Shows Sacramento Police Shooting Unarmed Black Man In Grandparents' Backyard : The Two-Way : NPR

Seems like a predictable pursuit with helicopter and 50 cops for some kid stealing/vandalizing stuff.

The real problem I have with this whole thing is this:



When a cop shoots someone, they don't get the right to mute sound recording them. It's not like they're having a private conversation with their wife or using the bathroom, they just fired a weapon and by muting the sound are trying to cover themselves.
Click to expand...

I think the officers were justified in this situation, but that looks really bad.
 
#5,105
#5,105
IMO the audio and video recording equipment should never be turned off while "on duty". If they want to cut it off to call their spouse or use the bathroom, I get that. But it needs to be cut back on before they're back "on duty". If they forget, that's on them. In those situations, the assumption should be they're trying to hide something.

I wouldn't even have an issue with muting it while they're riding around. I've had conversations with work buddies that I don't want recorded for the world to hear. But, in those cases, they better cut it back on before engaging with the the public in any way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,106
#5,106
The muting looks bad, but it is after the incident occurred. At most you can glean from it that they were discussing the fact there was no gun found, but that is not the issue since the failure to obey commands to show hands and drop whatever he had, including a cell phone that in poor lighting might look like a gun, is what matters.

Meanwhile, was the guy or was he not the one breaking into cars or homes? It makes a difference in my mind just in terms of the equities.
 
#5,108
#5,108
lawgator1 said:
The muting looks bad, but it is after the incident occurred. At most you can glean from it that they were discussing the fact there was no gun found, but that is not the issue since the failure to obey commands to show hands and drop whatever he had, including a cell phone that in poor lighting might look like a gun, is what matters.

Meanwhile, was the guy or was he not the one breaking into cars or homes? It makes a difference in my mind just in terms of the equities.
Click to expand...

I’m not legally obligated to follow the commands of anyone in my own yard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,112
#5,112
Cdywolfe said:
IMO the audio and video recording equipment should never be turned off while "on duty". If they want to cut it off to call their spouse or use the bathroom, I get that. But it needs to be cut back on before they're back "on duty". If they forget, that's on them. In those situations, the assumption should be they're trying to hide something.

I wouldn't even have an issue with muting it while they're riding around. I've had conversations with work buddies that I don't want recorded for the world to hear. But, in those cases, they better cut it back on before engaging with the the public in any way.
Click to expand...
Im my opinion that’s a little overboard. Our department policy is any time you encounter the public your body cam and volume stays on and only cut it off when your done with that encounter is over and you check back 10-8 (in service).
 
#5,115
#5,115
Vol8188 said:
Honestly, the burden is on you to prove I have to. Without a warrant, I have 0 obligation to you on my property.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is incorrect, however...it IS your right to be wrong.

I hope no one ever gets hurt, including you, because of your flawed assumptions. All I ask is that, if you really believe that, please do not get confrontational with anyone who in fact does have legal standing to be on your property, whether you understand it or not.

My home is my castle, and I live in a "Castle Doctrine" state. But there are limits, and restrictions, on what I can and cannot do if someone enters on to my property with legal standing. If you think this is all about "cops", it's not. It extends to utility workers as well, for example.

I agree with your premise, but as is the case with all things, it pays to read the fine print.

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,116
#5,116
1522270291633.jpg


Arizona police department mounts AR-15 rifles on backs of some motorcycles


Some officers in the Tempe Police Department are now able to drive around with AR-15 rifles mounted behind them, local authorities said.

At least eight of the department’s motorcycles now have a mount on the backs where officers can place the rifle. Tempe Police Sgt. Ronald Elcock told KNXV that the department tested the mounts for a few months before deciding to implement them.

The reasoning, he said, is to equip the officers with something more powerful than a handgun, as motorcycle officers are typically the first to arrive at a crime scene.

Arizona police department mounts AR-15 rifles on backs of some motorcycles | Fox News
 
#5,117
#5,117
GreyWolf1129 said:
Your assertion is incorrect, however...it IS your right to be wrong.

I hope no one ever gets hurt, including you, because of your flawed assumptions. All I ask is that, if you really believe that, please do not get confrontational with anyone who in fact does have legal standing to be on your property, whether you understand it or not.

My home is my castle, and I live in a "Castle Doctrine" state. But there are limits, and restrictions, on what I can and cannot do if someone enters on to my property with legal standing. If you think this is all about "cops", it's not. It extends to utility workers as well, for example.

I agree with your premise, but as is the case with all things, it pays to read the fine print.

:hi:
Click to expand...

You are correct but whoever is on my property LEO or utility needs to quickly explain WHY they are there and expect no orders to be followed until that happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,118
#5,118
hog88 said:
You are correct but whoever is on my property LEO or utility needs to quickly explain WHY they are there and expect no orders to be followed until that happens.
Click to expand...

I have no issues with that. First thing I do is introduce myself; tell you why I am there; and ask you for your cooperation. I didn't come there for a fight, and I'd prefer to not have one, or inadvertently start one.


When I run into the "you ain't got no right to be in my yard" greeting, which is rare but does happen, I try to explain why I am there, including my legal standing to be there. If they don't want to hear it, I retreat. Like I said, I didn't come there to fight.


If it is, or turns into, the kind of stuff that makes the 11 o'clock news, I let the green jumpsuits handle it. I'm too old for that nonsense now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,119
#5,119
GreyWolf1129 said:
I have no issues with that. First thing I do is introduce myself; tell you why I am there; and ask you for your cooperation. I didn't come there for a fight, and I'd prefer to not have one, or inadvertently start one.


When I run into the "you ain't got no right to be in my yard" greeting, which is rare but does happen, I try to explain why I am there, including my legal standing to be there. If they don't want to hear it, I retreat. Like I said, I didn't come there to fight.


If it is, or turns into, the kind of stuff that makes the 11 o'clock news, I let the green jumpsuits handle it. I'm too old for that nonsense now.
Click to expand...

That's reasonable. We had a couple run ins on the farm with local LEO, Game Warden and ABC officers when I lived in VA. They were not as respectful or courteous as you.
 
#5,120
#5,120
hog88 said:
That's reasonable. We had a couple run ins on the farm with local LEO, Game Warden and ABC officers when I lived in VA. They were not as respectful or courteous as you.
Click to expand...

How did you handle those situations and how did those agencies respond?
 
#5,121
#5,121
davethevol said:
How did you handle those situations and how did those agencies respond?
Click to expand...

Dad almost strangled a young deputy who left a gate open and let some heifers out. He thought it a good idea to come up into the field thinking he was going to catch us spotlighting, we were delivering a calf. Another one stopped me while spreading manure because of the smell, I accidentally kicked the PTO in and covered his car.

Granddad almost shot an ABC officer poking around his shed. That was a mess.

Game Warden, brand new to the area tried to ticket me and take my rifle for hunting without a license. He refused to believe it was our land. He was wrong.

In the end they all worked out once cooler heads with some sense got involved.
 
#5,122
#5,122
Hoosier_Vol said:
1522270291633.jpg


Arizona police department mounts AR-15 rifles on backs of some motorcycles

Some officers in the Tempe Police Department are now able to drive around with AR-15 rifles mounted behind them, local authorities said.

At least eight of the department’s motorcycles now have a mount on the backs where officers can place the rifle. Tempe Police Sgt. Ronald Elcock told KNXV that the department tested the mounts for a few months before deciding to implement them.

The reasoning, he said, is to equip the officers with something more powerful than a handgun, as motorcycle officers are typically the first to arrive at a crime scene.

Arizona police department mounts AR-15 rifles on backs of some motorcycles | Fox News
Click to expand...

The officers out in Pasadena had rifles on their bikes, though it was mounted next to the saddlebags.

Kind of unnerving to be walking the streets in downtown Pasadena and see a rifle strapped to a bike without anyone around.
 
#5,123
#5,123
Grand Vol said:
The officers out in Pasadena had rifles on their bikes, though it was mounted next to the saddlebags.

Kind of unnerving to be walking the streets in downtown Pasadena and see a rifle strapped to a bike without anyone around.
Click to expand...

That seems careless.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement













Back
Top