McKinney Officer

[BLUEDOVE3]

More often than not people want to fight the police, then complain when police fight back.  All these cellphones, yet only a handful of incidents have been shown where cops did something wrong.  But the way it's plastered all over the media, it gives the APPEARANCE of a huge problem, the BIGGEST problem according to some.  In reality, policing can be a violent job, and never looks good on video.   That doesn't mean that the vast majority of police aren't doing their job well.  Even in this situation, as poorly as the officer handled himself, had the teen had any respect at all for authority and obeyed one of the several reasonable orders he gave her to leave, rather than screaming profanity at him, all would've been avoided.  Her lack of respect was undoubtedly fueled by the misrepresentation of police in the media. Again, this does not excuse his actions, but as long as the media continues to fuel this fire of hate and disrespect towards officers, there will continue to be situations that escalate because citizens refuse to follow reasonable orders.  And once things start to get out of hand, stuff like this will happen.

​Just as you say there are good cops, it is also possible the young lady felt she had done no wrong and caught up in the moment like out police officer.I'm sure police are given training for people who raise their voice at them. 

[BLUEDOVE3]

​

​That is very easy to make such a conclusion.... assuming that you are sitting back at a different angle from a video at a safe distance or in your living room and not a person from a completely different angle that is in the middle of the action and only a second or two away from a person that could kill you. 

Read the case of Graham v. Connor from 1989. In that case Graham was a completely innocent person that had committed no crime. The police however detained him and in the process thrashed him about a bit and Graham ended up in the hospital. 

I believe that it was a rare unanimous US Supreme Court that cleared the officers of violating Graham's civil rights in a lawsuit. In fact the decision mentioned you (or people like you) when they said that you have to view uses of force as seen by officers in the heat of the moment in "split second" decisions rather than "20/20 hindsight". 

In other words, it is easy to view and respond when not in the position of the officer. 

​Yep, I saw his fellow officers ( under stress as well)  rush in defuse HIS situation.

[BLUEDOVE3]

 

Oh!!!!!   Well read:   Norris v. Noe 672 F.3rd 1185 (10th cir.2012)

​

​Contemporary Trends in Qualified Immunity Jurisprudence: Are Circuit Courts Misapplying Graham v. Connor

Edited June 11, 2015 by BLUEDOVE3

[bullets13]

Who was fighting the police

That was in reference to blue dove's statement, not this incident

[Big girl]

The lady was fired. She worked at Bank of America. People were threatening to pull their money out and use other banks

It looked like he was.om some type of drug or maybe he has adhd and forgot to take his meds

[tvc184]

​Yep, I saw his fellow officers ( under stress as well)  rush in defuse HIS situation.

​

Well, you just changed the topic. You former post that I quoted had to do with the officer drawing his gun. You mentioned a kid with a straw in his mouth and pulling up his pants (in response to bullets13 view on the gun part of it). That of course was from your point of view, not involved in the heat of the incident, from the comfort of your home and from a completely different angle that the officer did not have. The Supreme Court said that your position is not valid in viewing the use of force that an officer uses and they did so unanimously.

 

I was not saying anything about how the officer acted in reference to the entire incident or compared to other officers. I have made no defense in his actions and in fact think that he was wrong. When sitting in judgment of his individuals actions however (such as drawing a firearm), the USSC says that for that particular part of it, you have to see it from the officer's eyes, not yours. As an example it might be easy to see from a different angle that a person's hand behind his back is not reaching for or holding a weapon. That is not the same from a person in front that cannot see what the hand is reaching for or holding. 

 

Nice attempt at diverting the post though. It didn't work but nice try. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by tvc184

[BLUEDOVE3]

​

​Okay, obviously you didn't read Norris v Noe...no diversion at all...just opinions like you

[tvc184]

​Contemporary Trends in Qualified Immunity Jurisprudence: Are Circuit Courts Misapplying Graham v. Connor

This case (Norris v. Noe 672 F.3rd 1185 (10th cir.2012)) has nothing to do with overturning Graham or misapplying it. In fact that case (which is only at what is essentially at the local level but in the federal system) actually mentions Graham a couple of times in the case and the new standard of "objective reasonableness" cited under Graham. It is just their ruling that when viewed objectively, the officer's use of force was not reasonable. 

[BLUEDOVE3]

​

​Point being is that the cell phone environment will help define "objective reasonableness".  Get some of these outlaw cops off the streets.

[tvc184]

​Point being is that the cell phone environment will help define "objective reasonableness".  Get some of these outlaw cops off the streets.

​I am sure it will and so will body cams but in about 98+% of the cases it will clear the officer. 

In either case the decisions made have to be made from the point of view of the officer in the incident, not from a Monday morning quarterback that has a lot of time and no danger to make a calm decision that is not afforded the officer at the scene. 

Take officers out of it. There have been plenty of civilians that have killed innocent people because they reasonably believed that the person was breaking into their home. Reasonableness has to be sees from the point of view of the person seeing something. 

[tvc184]

​Just as you say there are good cops, it is also possible the young lady felt she had done no wrong and caught up in the moment like out police officer.I'm sure police are given training for people who raise their voice at them. 

​Therein lies part of the problem. The law is written that the person that an officer detains or arrests has no opinion at that moment in time that matters. You cannot resist or evade a detention or arrest because you feel that you have "done no wrong". In fact laws says that even an "unlawful arrest" is not a defense to prosecution of resisting the officer.

The law is and has to be that officer's authority on the street is not open for debate at the roadside. If an officer pulls you over for a traffic violation, you do not get a legal pass not to stop because you don't think you did anything wrong. You can fight the case in traffic court and you can sue the officer if you believe your rights have been violated. Fail to stop in a vehicle and it is a felony and can result with a person being in prison. 

There are plenty of places to legally protest an officer's actions. During the incident is not one of them. 

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

@JoyAnnReid: Sources on the ground say McKinney police dept is getting angry, n-word filled phone calls for not "standing up for" Eric Casebolt.

 

 

Wow. 

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

@cnnbrk: Eric Casebolt's lawyer: He "allowed his emotions to get the better of him" when responding to pool party.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

He issued an apology, good on him. 

 

Edited June 12, 2015 by Mr. Buddy Garrity

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

@dallasnews: Texas teacher fired after offering her take on #McKinney officer's exit in Facebook post

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

OcPoG​

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[BLUEDOVE3]

 

​

​

Edited June 12, 2015 by BLUEDOVE3
no post