tvc184

Not really but only using my phone. The last officer killed in the line of duty in PA was a game warden. He reached into a car similar to that video and was grabbed and drug away and then run over. I have no problem with using deadly force in such a situation. Whether reaching for someone in a car is smart or not is not even part of the mix. It is lawful and from that standpoint, all that matters. I did not see the offense report on what the officer's claims were. If he said something like he was drug for 40 feet then it appears as though he was falsifying information. If he said only something like he was being dragged then he might have been telling the truth or at least from his perspective. In Graham v. Connor the SCOTUS said that you need to look through the eyes of the officer that had to make a "split second" decision. When you go through that much of an adrenaline dump and that much stress, the time factor in your mind is out of whack. We had an officer involved shooting and I was about three blocks away when it happened. One of the officers said that he thought that he had fired two rounds. I think we found seven of his shell casings at the scene. Did he lie on what was a justified shooting or was he is mine filled with so much adrenaline and the fight or flight impulse that he only remembers pulling the trigger? The officer in this video was completely calm. He was at no time abusive and did not do anything even like the trooper in the Sandra Bland case. Was he really looking to murder someone that day? From my experience the driver and the video was being very evasive and an experienced officer would perceive that almost immediately. At that point they are in a heightened state of alert expecting a possible deadly force encounter because they do not know why the guy is being evasive. It looked like the officer tried to reach in but the guy sped away and you could hear the engine rev up as he sped away. In a very short time frame the officer fired a single shot. Did he believe that he was in danger in that one second? Was he actually in danger? Did he reach in and start to get pulled away? I have no clue but I can easily see something less than murder all the way to exoneration. Now if the officer made up a bunch of stuff then he is probably done. I think that if you could have read the officer's mind two seconds before the shot being fired, you might find that he had no idea that he was about to shoot. In the only round that I have ever fired on duty, I had no clue that I was going to pull the trigger until the moment it happened.

I can see a not guilty or at the most some kind of manslaughter.

Yet again you play the "yall" game. Judge everyone by a single or a few but do not want to be judged by the same standard. I have seen so many people video me and other officers that I probably can't count them all. I have stopped other officers that have tried to keep people from filming by moving them far away. Most officers that I work with now know that they can be videoed at any time and simply accept it. As a supervisor I am the first one to get complaints and many times the first thing that the officer says is look at my video.

Or not happening more and maybe less but with the 24 hour news cycle, political agendas and social media........

It is all media driven. Unfortunately many people watch unending news coverage of some incident and are led to believe that we are in the midst of an epidemic. The sad part is that this sometimes bogus, overhyped and outright fabricated coverage actually convinces some people or validates their opinion.

According to the FBI, there are more than 12 million arrests per year. That is not merely public contacts which might be around 200-300 million. If only 1/10 of 1% of all arrests are wrong by police officers by using too much force (meaning 99.9% are okay), that comes out to more than 12,000 cases per year or more than 30 per day. If it is a full 1% of arrests then it is more than 300 per day. To put those figures more in perspective there are an average of about 33,000 arrests each day. With police cameras, jail video, citizens videoing and exterior videos such as store cameras you can bet a majority of them are on some kind of visual documentation.

First off, there are several policies in PA that deal with this and two specifically about computer usage of which one is about social media. Then you use an article from another state to show a similar incident. In that case it has the officer referring to the mayor as a gorilla. I think you will find no such posts that even imply race in the PA news article. Of course people are trying to be mind readers and guess what someone is thinking. I suppose next we will not only lose free speech but free thought as the thought police will move in. In the most recent article last night from KBMT they went back almost a year and found one officer messaging another officer on how many fights would happen after a basketball game. Racial slurs were not used and in fact race was not mentioned at all. So we have one officer asking another about the number of fights they will have and nothing more and it is racial? I guess if you are looking for an issue you can find it in almost any statement. What I like are some of the comments and conclusion drawn by Facebook commenters. One was from a person that "researched" the last four years and there were no fights. I can only assume that the research was googling for news articles. This week in PA in the time frame of 10pm-6am on Thursday-Sunday there were about 300 patrol units dispatched or rolled up on crime scenes. Many were felonies and I think it was Saturday night officers took five illegally carried handguns off the street. On Sunday afternoon in broad daylight there was a drive by shooting in a crowded apartment complex. See how many of those cases you can find on the media sites. Because you don't see it or read about it doesn't mean that it didn't happen but people come to that conclusion.

Great but your simple explanation did not address the post that you quoted. I asked what punishnent or policy violation existed (or I will add, a loss of rights) because of a "higher standard". You went off on an explanation of how the media identifies someone first like a football player or cop. That has always been true. What does it have to do with a higher standard?

Something sounds fishy to me........

Let me get this straight, you have been pulled over and even though angry you complied with the officer and were always able to drive away? Strange how that works out.......

True and she could have driven away with a warning. She chose to escalate a minor traffic stop.

True. She did not have to argue, she did not have to refuse to put out the cigarette, she did not have to refuse to get out of the car, she did not have to resist arrest and she did not have to assault the officer. All of which were lawful requests and actions by the officer.

What higher standard? Do you know of any policy violation or if any punishment has been or will be handed out because some people have no clue how to read complained?

​Yes. Mental illness in the form of anti-social and sociopathic behavior has nothing to do with intelligence and the person may be extremely intelligent. I think mental illness is sometimes confused with insanity where the person has no clue that the action was wrong.

........ and the police officers that were already moving in to kill him and cut off his avenue of escape, foiling his plan. That is when he killed himself to keep officers from claiming the kill.

Let's see, if you say the word racist then you are racist. So I wonder if the person that complained about these comments being racist, makes that person a racist? In another example listed, a white woman makes fun of a white woman who lied about her race and that is claimed to be racist. I have also found that apparently only police officers use profanity on private pages on Facebook.

From Trump, an expert in police use of force, procedures and laws.........

What a crock. There was nothing wrong with the posts but some people are offended. The last time I checked, freedom of speech applied to everyone. While a person can be terminated for speech that is not against the law, there were no racial slurs or any such language in their text. Some people need to get a life.

​Nonsense. So if the high school football team you support finds out that their star player has committed a felony, let's judge all the players as felons? We have already had several guilty pleas from BISD employees and within this last year. Do we judge them all as criminals? Sorry Bullets, you are a felon as you are judged by the group that you represent. While it is true that people in many categories represent a group but we aren't judged by the group. Which group(s) do you want representing you and you will be held accountable for every member of that group(s)?

The very little previews I saw of it gives me no idea that I want to see it. I hate apologists and crybabies.

Yep, standard intake questions and usually medical exam.

​Stunning. He did it for hate. I am glad the feds came to that conclusion and I am surprised that it came so fast. Now what changes when SC is likely to give him the death sentence and if not, life without parole?

​They still do. You say "they" because one officer was too rude for some people. The head of the agency suspended him with pay however so "they" are still worried about image. I always find it interesting that no one wants to be judged as part of a group rather as an individual but is more than willing to do the same to others.

​Also, doing something wrong.... We have more rules to follow than almost any other job. An officer in my department can be suspended for crossing an imaginary line in the city (district) without permission from a supervisor. DPS has already said that this officer violated their "courtesy" policy. Okay, he was rude. Normally he would not have been suspended but most such cases are not on the national news. We handle those kinds of complaints all the time. Could he have handled it better? Sure. Did that make him violating the law? No. She almost certainly did however on several counts. If rudeness in the heat of the moment was an automatic firing offense, we would have 800,000 cops in this country with less than 1 year of experience.

Why on leave? ​1. It is DPS and they do not like to be in the spotlight. 2. Just in case there is anything to it, they are not taking any chances or at least the appearance of not taking chance. 3. Policy can be anything that the boss wants. In some agencies an officer can follow state law and simply arrest for any offense. Some for example might be more restrictive (usually because they are a very busy department) and it requires a supervisor approval to make a minor traffic arrest. Heck, in Jefferson County we simply cuff people and head to jail. In Harris County the officers have to call the DA direct, explain the case and then get approval for charges being filed. If an officer violates policy (like when I started, not wearing your hat when you got out of the car was a violation), he can be held accountable just like any other employee. If a person is a secretary at a local company and shows up late, the person can be fired (or likely just because the boss doesn't like the person). It has nothing to do with the law or what is legal and everything to do with the boss not liking something. Taping? It is legal to tape. It is not legal to be close enough to be a threat to officers and it can be a crime, circumstances depending.