Cop in America doing a bad job, again

calodo2003 said:
Can’t see him being employed much longer in LE, unless he works in one of the myriad worthless areas in this country. Then he is golden
Click to expand...

I’ll take your word for it as I’m not American. But from what I’ve seen and read over the years about your police and consequenses when they do something they shouldn’t, I wouldn’t put money on it.
 
Lieutenant Nazario also accused the officers of threatening to destroy his military career by charging him with multiple crimes if he complained about their conduct,
Click to expand...

“What’s going on is you’re fixing to ride the lightning, son,” Officer Gutierrez yells. (Later, after striking Lieutenant Nazario behind his knees, the officer told him to “lay down or I’m going to tase you,” as the officers appeared to struggle to get Lieutenant Nazario on the ground.)
Click to expand...

Officer Gutierrez said he would not have to write a summons for obstruction of justice and failure to display a license plate “if you want to chill and let this go.”
Click to expand...

If he wrote a summons, the Army would have to be alerted, Officer Gutierrez told Lieutenant Nazario.
Click to expand...

“I get it,” Officer Gutierrez says. “The media spewing race relations between law enforcement and minorities, I get it.”
Click to expand...

The moron goes on a power trip, then tries to wriggle out of a complaint by threatening his military career and then blames the media.

But the important question is "What happened before the video" :lol: :lol:
 
MU655 said:
The problem I have with these videos is that it only shows the part involving the police. What happened beforehand? Is it really nothing or has that part been omitted or not recorded?

Like the policeman holding the dog down. What happened there? I mean it doesn't show the part beforehand where they claim the dog tried to bite him. Where did it try to bite him? Did it try to go for his throat? The reaction would be understandable in that case as his life would have been at stake. Those dogs have incredibly powerful jaws.

It may very well be true that the reaction is over the top in each case (in which case it would be disgusting), but it is difficult to say unless you actually know/saw what happened.
Click to expand...

How do those police boots taste?

Edit: I should ask, what happened before this post? Is it really nothing or has something been omitted or not posted? It’s difficult to say unless you actually know/saw what happened.
 
Cloud7 said:
How do those police boots taste?

Edit: I should ask, what happened before this post? Is it really nothing or has something been omitted or not posted? It’s difficult to say unless you actually know/saw what happened.
Click to expand...

Just because I refuse to join the judging society, I'm a boot-licker? I'm just not someone who thinks all police are bad, and any event that has police pushing back was started by them. That is a trending theme nowadays. There are good and bad people in every sector of life, so not every event can be treated the same.

Let us say a man punched a police officer and then filmed the retaliation by the police, or edited out their part of the incident. Very easy to do. Would it not be easy to paint that as police aggression? And going by the way everyone is a judge nowadays, the police officer would be trialled by Twitter and Forums across the world. There would be no hesitation. And even if the evidence of the instigating event appears, the damage is already done.

People need to stop judging all instances based on a single bit of footage.
 
calodo2003 said:
Figured as much, still flabbergasted.

Seems like absolute horseshit if (s)he is referring to that. If the dog did attempt to bite the handler, why was the dog allowed to go out with him?

Who the feck looks at that video & claims the handler was ‘holding the dog down?!?’

e - Just now saw the second video. Understandable why the first was ignored. Doesn’t fit the narrative.
Click to expand...

You have pretty much said we should treat everything as the same. I'm glad you are not in charge of the law, otherwise all defences will be muted by 'a similar thing has happened before and they were found guilty, so that means you are guilty'. That is essentially what you just said. You would pretty much ban any form of violence against dogs by police, even if it was in self-defence. You cannot treat everything the same.

Those two are different events by two different people, involving two different dogs, which could be under two completely different circumstances. You cannot judge one incident based on another.

Did I not already say that they 'may very well be guilty' or something to that extent? Yes, I did. But I'm just not into jumping to conclusions just based on a segment of footage. There are quite a few videos (not all) like that in this thread that only show the police aggression, but no moment before that.
 
MU655 said:
Just because I refuse to join the judging society, I'm a boot-licker? I'm just not someone who thinks all police are bad, and any event that has police pushing back was started by them. That is a trending theme nowadays. There are good and bad people in every sector of life, so not every event can be treated the same.

Let us say a man punched a police officer and then filmed the retaliation by the police, or edited out their part of the incident. Very easy to do. Would it not be easy to paint that as police aggression? And going by the way everyone is a judge nowadays, the police officer would be trialled by Twitter and Forums across the world. There would be no hesitation. And even if the evidence of the instigating event appears, the damage is already done.

People need to stop judging all instances based on a single bit of footage.
Click to expand...

See here’s the thing. As a police officer, you’re not supposed to retaliate. That’s literally your job, to remain calm and in control of the situation. I deal with aggressive and verbally abusive patients and relatives regularly. Does that mean that when they act like that, I try to one up them and get louder than them, or make more threats than them, or do I remain calm?

It’s the same thing for police. There is no such thing as justified aggression because they signed up for that job knowing what is expected of them. If they’re being shot at or swung at with a knife, fair enough, but ten times out of ten we see all this undue aggression in situations where it’s not called for.

In conclusion, if your first response when seeing another blatant power trip by an institution that has shown instances of racism and abuse pretty much everyday, is to think “Well what happened before? I think that despite all previous context and past examples that the police are probably justified in acting this way” then that makes you a bootlicker.
 


‘Keep your hands out of the window’
‘Get out of the car’
The driver couldn’t have won in this situation. You just know that those trigger happy feckers would accuse him of reaching for a gun as an excuse to shoot him to death the minute he moved his hands to open the door. Also, how do you expect him to comply if you’ve just told him ‘yeah you should be’ when he says he’s afraid to get out of the car...
 
MU655 said:
You have pretty much said we should treat everything as the same. I'm glad you are not in charge of the law, otherwise all defences will be muted by 'a similar thing has happened before and they were found guilty, so that means you are guilty'. That is essentially what you just said. You would pretty much ban any form of violence against dogs by police, even if it was in self-defence. You cannot treat everything the same.

Those two are different events by two different people, involving two different dogs, which could be under two completely different circumstances. You cannot judge one incident based on another.

Did I not already say that they 'may very well be guilty' or something to that extent? Yes, I did. But I'm just not into jumping to conclusions just based on a segment of footage. There are quite a few videos (not all) like that in this thread that only show the police aggression, but no moment before that.
Click to expand...
Wow. Just wow.

Of course every situation is different, but it’s a bit childish to deny trends, causation, or typical behavior. So what if there might have been angry words exchanged before the clip or even a physical altercation, as LE they are held to a higher standard & once someone is in custody, the abuse should stop. It’s the allowance of brutality to continue that helps create these events, not the seconds or minutes prior to a video.

You seem to be fixating on the second dog clip. The dog clips are a bit of a new phenomena, but it is embarrassing that you would use a small segment of potential situations to absolve the behavior of the large percentage of police brutality we see every day. And no cute wordplay disavows that; you’re not being balanced when offering up the platitudes, you’re looking for an excuse to absolve.

e - you also have a weird application of the law. What happens before an incident often times is not relevant or unable to be discussed in a courtroom. If you are talking only about the court of public opinion, what validity does that have in reality? Of course people will be swayed by the veracity of a clip & not be too concerned about what transpired immediately before.
 
Last edited:
Cloud7 said:
But what happened before the child sexual abuse allegations? That’s the real question here. We don’t know what the children may have done to provoke this.
Click to expand...
Well, the recent pedant in here will be a tad stumped as the story discusses the back story from when he was elected as union boss.

But, you are spot on, we don’t know the children from the 70s involvement in this. Who knows what they were wearing?
 
Sara125 said:


‘Keep your hands out of the window’
‘Get out of the car’
The driver couldn’t have won in this situation. You just know that those trigger happy feckers would accuse him of reaching for a gun as an excuse to shoot him to death the minute he moved his hands to open the door. Also, how do you expect him to comply if you’ve just told him ‘yeah you should be’ when he says he’s afraid to get out of the car...
Click to expand...


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.
 
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...


People should be perfectly entitled to stop in a safe area. Even cops should be ok with that given the number of accidents that happen to them while doing highway stops at night. US cops have this hatred of anyone who doesn't obey them and demonstrate full compliance. It's your right to ask certain questions, assert certain rights, and demand certain standards of LEOs.
 
Skizzo said:
Well I deleted at least one more quote of it, so you can clear it out if the other one gets deleted.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Back on topic. I remember way back when I took drivers training in HS that we were taught by the local PD to always try and drive to a well lit open are for both ours and the officers safety. Is this standard?
 
Grinner said:
People should be perfectly entitled to stop in a safe area. Even cops should be ok with that given the number of accidents that happen to them while doing highway stops at night.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. We’re specifically trained to get people off the freeways, especially at night time, and to not make driver side approaches. The amount of times I’ve seen other departments making stops and coming up on the initial approach on the driver side is crazy to me.

I’ve had numerous times trying to direct someone where I wanted them to go on a stop, and they went somewhere else. Sometimes it’s a language barrier, sometimes they can’t hear you, or sometimes it’s just wanting to pull into a gas station instead of a different parking lot. The only times it’s really been sketch is when they turn down neighborhoods or stop in front of other houses etc
 
Skizzo said:
Absolutely. We’re specifically trained to get people off the freeways, especially at night time, and to not make driver side approaches. The amount of times I’ve seen other departments making stops and coming up on the initial approach on the driver side is crazy to me.

I’ve had numerous times trying to direct someone where I wanted them to go on a stop, and they went somewhere else. Sometimes it’s a language barrier, sometimes they can’t hear you, or sometimes it’s just wanting to pull into a gas station instead of a different parking lot. The only times it’s really been sketch is when they turn down neighborhoods or stop in front of other houses etc
Click to expand...
Is the driver side approach not applicable on freeways only due to obvious danger to LE or is a passenger side approach better to be able to see the driver’s hands, what’s in their lap, movement, etc.?
 
Skizzo said:
Absolutely. We’re specifically trained to get people off the freeways, especially at night time, and to not make driver side approaches. The amount of times I’ve seen other departments making stops and coming up on the initial approach on the driver side is crazy to me.

I’ve had numerous times trying to direct someone where I wanted them to go on a stop, and they went somewhere else. Sometimes it’s a language barrier, sometimes they can’t hear you, or sometimes it’s just wanting to pull into a gas station instead of a different parking lot. The only times it’s really been sketch is when they turn down neighborhoods or stop in front of other houses etc
Click to expand...


For some reason the cops usually hate it when somebody knows their rights and flexes them. They accuse you of being evasive or uncooperative. Traffic stops are just a huge minefield and should be reduced. I think an argument can be made to change the way traffic stops are implemented or conducted. We all know that they are mostly revenue devices for small town cops anyway.
 
WI_Red said:
Thanks.
Click to expand...

working with the police there? Bootlicker.

Back on topic. I remember way back when I took drivers training in HS that we were taught by the local PD to always try and drive to a well lit open are for both ours and the officers safety. Is this standard?
Click to expand...

My response to Grinner Kinda covers it, but yes and no. They should direct you to a safe spot, or the best place in that area, that is safe for both of you. If they aren’t giving you directions over the PA then you should find a safe spot to stop as quickly as possible (people love to just slam their brakes and stop immediately. Yes that includes the lane they’re driving in on the freeway) because you don’t want to drive forever finding somewhere, because then it looks rather suspect.
 
Skizzo said:
working with the police there? Bootlicker.



My response to Grinner Kinda covers it, but yes and no. They should direct you to a safe spot, or the best place in that area, that is safe for both of you. If they aren’t giving you directions over the PA then you should find a safe spot to stop as quickly as possible (people love to just slam their brakes and stop immediately. Yes that includes the lane they’re driving in on the freeway) because you don’t want to drive forever finding somewhere, because then it looks rather suspect.
Click to expand...


I'd put on my hazards to show that I acknowledge the cop's presence.
 
Skizzo said:
working with the police there? Bootlicker.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the shoe fits.

My response to Grinner Kinda covers it, but yes and no. They should direct you to a safe spot, or the best place in that area, that is safe for both of you. If they aren’t giving you directions over the PA then you should find a safe spot to stop as quickly as possible (people love to just slam their brakes and stop immediately. Yes that includes the lane they’re driving in on the freeway) because you don’t want to drive forever finding somewhere, because then it looks rather suspect.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I can imagine the immediate stopping is frustrating. As @Grinner just posted, I was taught to always turn on my hazards to acknowledge and then find a safe place as fast as posisble.
 
calodo2003 said:
Is the driver side approach not applicable on freeways only due to obvious danger to LE or is a passenger side approach better to be able to see the driver’s hands, what’s in their lap, movement, etc.?
Click to expand...

The traffic concern on freeways usually trumps any benefit of driver side approach. The biggest benefit being that you can detect impairment easier, smell it on them etc. On city streets I’ll usually mix it up, passenger side initial approach so I can see their door frame, center console, anything around their steering wheel...and then second approach I’ll go to the driver side. One because it changes where I am in case they are going to do something, and secondly because then it gives me a different view so I can see the passenger side and floorboard etc.
 
Skizzo said:
The traffic concern on freeways usually trumps any benefit of driver side approach. The biggest benefit being that you can detect impairment easier, smell it on them etc. On city streets I’ll usually mix it up, passenger side initial approach so I can see their door frame, center console, anything around their steering wheel...and then second approach I’ll go to the driver side. One because it changes where I am in case they are going to do something, and secondly because then it gives me a different view so I can see the passenger side and floorboard etc.
Click to expand...


When you do a stop do you ask questions fishing for other possibilities? Ask to do a search...that sort of thing?
 
Skizzo said:
The traffic concern on freeways usually trumps any benefit of driver side approach. The biggest benefit being that you can detect impairment easier, smell it on them etc. On city streets I’ll usually mix it up, passenger side initial approach so I can see their door frame, center console, anything around their steering wheel...and then second approach I’ll go to the driver side. One because it changes where I am in case they are going to do something, and secondly because then it gives me a different view so I can see the passenger side and floorboard etc.
Click to expand...
That holds if there’s an occupant in the passenger seat as well?
 
Grinner said:
For some reason the cops usually hate it when somebody knows their rights and flexes them. They accuse you of being evasive or uncooperative. Traffic stops are just a huge minefield and should be reduced. I think an argument can be made to change the way traffic stops are implemented or conducted. We all know that they are mostly revenue devices for small town cops anyway.
Click to expand...

Some cops do, yeah. I think it’s a personality flaw of not wanting to be questioned etc.

That being said, the most frustrating, and sometimes also hilarious, is the ones who are flexing hard on what they think they know, but are so far off base it’s comical.

I didn’t read Miranda so they’re off the hook for their DUI. Ok Johnnie Cochran.

Arguments on traffic stops happen all the time anyway. People flat out lie to my face daily about whatever I just saw them do directly in front of me. They’re like children. But you just try and direct them to save their arguments for court if they feel they were stopped in error.
 
Skizzo said:
Some cops do, yeah. I think it’s a personality flaw of not wanting to be questioned etc.

That being said, the most frustrating, and sometimes also hilarious, is the ones who are flexing hard on what they think they know, but are so far off base it’s comical.

I didn’t read Miranda so they’re off the hook for their DUI. Ok Johnnie Cochran.

Arguments on traffic stops happen all the time anyway. People flat out lie to my face daily about whatever I just saw them do directly in front of me. They’re like children. But you just try and direct them to save their arguments for court if they feel they were stopped in error.
Click to expand...

But people aren't required to admit to you what you may be accusing them of. That's called self-incrimination.
 
WI_Red said:
Agreed, worked with others to clean up the area. Appologies.
Click to expand...
No apology needed, I was just making an observation. But I don't mind dark humour though, definitely not to the extent that other posters feel discouraged from it.
 
I think it should be the responsibility of law enforcement to produce guides to what is required during a traffic stop including your rights on what you can refuse to say or do. The whole process is a confusing mess and changes depending which state you are in.
 
nimic said:
How often are you getting pulled over by the police to phrase it like that? I haven't ever been pulled over, only stopped at routine alcohol checks.
Click to expand...
Probably once a year on average. From errors on my part. Didn’t get ticketed each time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.