tvc184

​Ignorance of the law is sometimes way out there and blogs, word of mouth and other social media does not help. I have heard and read so many times, "the cannot lawfully" blah blah blah. IT VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS". Even on television news shows I hear even lawyers sometimes saying that probable cause is required for a valid detention. That is simply not true as it only requires reasonable suspicion. The standard, although very old, was made in case law from the US Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio almost 50 years ago. Then I hear that an officer cannot get you out of a car without a good cause or at least reasonable suspicion. Better read up on Pensylvania v. Mimms also from the USSC back in 1977 or almost 40 years ago. But we can't get passengers out without a good cause right? Oops, better read Wilson v. Maryland from 1997. We need a warrant for a car if we wish to search it without consent, right? We have to go way back to 1925 in Carroll v. United States where the USSC said that with probable cause, an officer can search a vehicle without a warrant. That has been reaffirmed by them several times since. What about arresting people on minor traffic charges for which jail cannot even be sentenced by a judge? You only have to go back to 2001 when the USSC in a Texas case said "oh well", don't break the law. If an officer says to you while you are walking down the road, "Do you might speaking with me for a minute", if you stop then you are unlawfully being detained unless he had reasonable suspicion. Well, wrong again. It might be a cop trick but if it is put in the form of a question and it isn't done with some other show of force (yelling, pulling a gun, etc.) then it is a stop with your consent and the officer does not have to explain the law to you like he does under Miranda for a full custodial arrest. I could go on but the ignorance and what gets people often butt hurt if believing that their rights have been violated when the truth is that what happened might be completely lawful... even if the officer is butt hurt and that is why he acted like he did. Know your rights and uphold your rights..... actually knowing them might end a lot of the problem but I suspect that knowledge will not be known very soon as it is readily available by googling any topic and has been for many years but many people seem to not case. Many defense attorneys have their own websites and give almost the same answers that I have given above.

​And does any of that violate the law or her rights?

​A car coming up behind you "causes" the law violation? I assume then that if I am in the right lane of a highway and move to the left lane to pass, that car "caused" me to possibly violate the law if I didn't lawfully use my turn signal? I can also assume then that if you are on one of those winding hill two lane highways in east Texas and you are going 15 mph under the speed limit and to pass you I finally get a break between hills but have to speed to do it and I get caught by DPS coming the other way, it is okay because you "caused" me to violate the law. Any other excuse that you can think of to turn a lawful traffic stop and arrest into something illegal because someone else caused it?

Every state has its own laws and what may be illegal in one state may be legal in another. Also in that caregory of state laws is rules of evidence, jurisdiction, definitions of a lawful arrest, who can be an officer, under what circumstances (if any) a citizen can make an arrest, etc. I can only tell TX law but here a university police officer is just like any other police officer. In fact most police officers in TX have the same authorities in most cases but there are some differences. They have their own police department and chief. There is no reason to follow a city police department's policy since universities sometimes have their own department. I am sure that OH has similar laws but that would be a guess. If they are like TX then a cop is a cop.

So it is clear as day because some officers in prior incidents may be guilty? Got it. Let me use that the next time I arrest or testify against someone. "Well your Honor, I arrested a guy last year in similar circumstances and the guy last year lied ". GUILTY!! ...... by association and prejudice without regard for facts.

Are you citing Ohio law?

I wonder if the media will run wild for weeks and there will be literally millions a social media posts blaming all dispatchers as evil and uncaring......

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.