Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Junto

More video released of Black Indiana man getting mauled by police dog (WARNING: GRAPHIC)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

oki
5 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

That's not the question, and that's not the requirement. For that you will have to look at their use of force policy. Which NONE OF US HAVE. Want to know why the video was released? 2 reasons, 1 the defense is trying to gain some position in negotiations with the DA regarding the charges that were filed, or 2 the department released it for political reasons unknown to us. Body cam footage is not supposed to be released without consent of the department. IT is leaked during discovery sometimes and that would be about this timing. Since they want to undermine the charges. Thus I am ignoring it simply because the cut this video down from it's full context to the amount if time needed to make it inflammatory. The only ones that know the true extent are the officers on scene, the dude that got bit, and the lawyers from both parties.

What you should always as is what is the motivation for the release.

        Rarely is the entire video released until well after, and yeah they are often edited to fit a narrative.  In this case though it looks like it shows initial contact with the guy all the way up to the dog going straight for his neck(which I am still trying to find out if that is standard procedure).  No question releasing the video is political or maybe a P.R.  move.  Your right, knowing their use of force policy is critical.  Problem I have is does this mans actions justify that level of force, was he a threat enough to warrant using the Dog?  First threatening someone with something if they don't comply then following through because they are not complying doesn't necessarily justify things.  If the guy was over powering the officers and throwing them around like rag dolls, was not affected by mace or tazers, armed etc, OR maybe if he had a history of being violent and injuring officers, perhaps if this was not the initial contact and that happened somewhere else and he fled.  Then there would be no question.  So far though none of that seems to be the case.  Again your right, motivation for the release of the video is damn important.  My guess is these Cops are about to get slammed and the department is hoping to calm things down some by doing so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
Just now, oki said:

        Rarely is the entire video released until well after, and yeah they are often edited to fit a narrative.  In this case though it looks like it shows initial contact with the guy all the way up to the dog going straight for his neck(which I am still trying to find out if that is standard procedure).  No question releasing the video is political or maybe a P.R.  move.  Your right, knowing their use of force policy is critical.  Problem I have is does this mans actions justify that level of force, was he a threat enough to warrant using the Dog?  First threatening someone with something if they don't comply then following through because they are not complying doesn't necessarily justify things.  If the guy was over powering the officers and throwing them around like rag dolls, was not affected by mace or tazers, armed etc, OR maybe if he had a history of being violent and injuring officers, perhaps if this was not the initial contact and that happened somewhere else and he fled.  Then there would be no question.  So far though none of that seems to be the case.  Again your right, motivation for the release of the video is damn important.  My guess is these Cops are about to get slammed and the department is hoping to calm things down some by doing so. 

It's a dog, can you control your dog? If your dog decides to bite can you make it aim for a specific spot? No a dog will bit where it's teeth can get to, it searches for an unobstructed point and bites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki
5 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

I am that good, I don't act the fool, and I treat people with respect until they choose to do otherwise. We also roll heavy, when we believe the suspect to be willing to put up a fight, I have been on scene with 9 other deputies before to deal with a truly unruly individual, it takes the fight out of them when you swoop like that. And there is also luck.

    If you ever find yourself in these parts let me now, your drinking for free at one of our finest local establishments.  You will also be treated to cheese curds, brauts, and a few other local specialties.  Maybe even travel a little nort' for some pasties(no not the kind the Janet Jackson made famous). 

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
2 minutes ago, oki said:

    If you ever find yourself in these parts let me now, your drinking for free at one of our finest local establishments.  You will also be treated to cheese curds, brauts, and a few other local specialties.  Maybe even travel a little nort' for some pasties(no not the kind the Janet Jackson made famous). 

 

Appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
11 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

No I took you at your literal presentation of the information, simply because you are also apparently a qualified clinical psychologist capable of determining that I a combat vet am suffering from PTSD. Simply because I have a tactical mindset.

Yeah? We do a lot of protecting bad cops? Define a bad cop? It is a guy that shot a "gentle giant"? Someone that made a determination in a split second that someone was a threat only to find out that the gun he was carrying was a toy? The cop that reacted too late and saw someone die, because of it? Or maybe it's like a politician, a guy that receives bags of money daily. You really have no point of reference as to what a "bad cop" is. You watched too many movies, and don't really know what we do or how we do it.

I have stated time and time again, instead of watching these inflammatory video's go out and do it with us once, or keep your opinion to yourself and let the courts deal with it. 1 Millions stops per day, yet we are looking at something released from MAY. Yeah there are tons of bad cops out there, so many of them we are being inundated by the same videos over and over.

Incidentally, I am not here to prove guilt and innocence. That's up to the courts. I am required to stop criminal activity. Then once the arrest occurs I am required to articulate the probable cause that brought me to the determination that a crime occurred or was occurring at the time of the arrest. I tell the person that I transport, "me arresting you is not 100% proof that you are guilty of the crime I am charging you with, I merely had enough probable cause to make an arrest, you will have your day in court and are presumed innocent until proven guilty."

They had reasonable suspicion to make the stop, they were developing probable cause and he decided to resist their attempts at investigating. That's what got him bit.

Ahh yes Domestic violence cases. You know apparently the husband has a right to tune up his wife when he feels like it. Did you know that most DV cases the guy after kicking the crap out of his wife will bail the scene. Do you know why? It's misdemeanor charges for the most part and if they are not at the scene then the cop cannot do the warrant for the arrest. It is left to the wife. The male then convinces the wife not to file the warrant and the case goes nowhere. Most DV cases have the male tuning up the female 10-15 times before anything happens. Meaning it gets to the point of felony level injuries of she's dead. So we like to catch the male at the scene so WE can effect the arrest at the time. Thus the zeal to make an arrest here. If the officer makes the arrest then the charges are out of her hands and he will be prosecuted.

Yes Tag - you protect all the bad people because I literally am a psychologist and I literally said YOU protect all the bad cops.

 

You keep saying I need to stop watching videos and actually go out - yet you have no idea what I have done or who I know or the stories I have been told.  Most would back you up 100% You are ASSuming a lot about me because I voice an opinion different that yours on one topic - the use of k9's to the extent they are allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
5 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

It's a dog, can you control your dog? If your dog decides to bite can you make it aim for a specific spot? No a dog will bit where it's teeth can get to, it searches for an unobstructed point and bites.

Which is the problem with using them as 'officers' to attack people - IMO.  You cannot control it - yet they are considered officers and severe punishment for hurting or killing one - but held to no standard for their abuse to humans.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
1 minute ago, Junto said:

Yes Tag - you protect all the bad people because I literally am a psychologist and I literally said YOU protect all the bad cops.

 

You keep saying I need to stop watching videos and actually go out - yet you have no idea what I have done or who I know or the stories I have been told.  Most would back you up 100% You are ASSuming a lot about me because I voice an opinion different that yours on one topic - the use of k9's to the extent they are allowed.

uh huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Junto said:

Which is the problem with using them as 'officers' to attack people - IMO.  You cannot control it - yet they are considered officers and severe punishment for hurting or killing one - but held to no standard for their abuse to humans.

Well that's your perspective. I have seen cop dogs save lives. Just because you didn't like this video does not mean that cop dog's don't serve a purpose and the SCOTUS agrees.

Other people don't like us carrying guns, others pepperspray, others tasers, others "military grade equipment" and on and on. If we listened to "other people" we would be walking around disarmed and helpless. Go to seattle if you want that sort of LEO.

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki
Just now, Taggart Transcontinental said:

It's a dog, can you control your dog? If your dog decides to bite can you make it aim for a specific spot? No a dog will bit where it's teeth can get to, it searches for an unobstructed point and bites.

       The Dog I had growing up had three modes.  Play(which involved leashes, sticks, ropes etc), I am warning you(which would be a nip on the hand or leg), and I am going to rip your throat out.  He was well trained enough to understand the situation.  And, thankfully the need for him to go for a kill never arose.  My understanding is K-9's are not suppose to go for the neck.

Much less the dog continuing to bit after the guy was on the ground with his hands behind his back(couldn't tell if they stopped the dog after the man was handcuffed).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
1 minute ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

uh huh.

Uh huh.  Two friends of mine along with 2 other officers stop a guy - DUI.  He is out of the car, and noncompliant.  They don't feel like fighting this guy (I get it), they warn him to comply or else he would be tased.  Drunk guy does drunk guy and does not comply - and he gets tased - falls flat on his face and busts his face all up (breaks nose, maybe a couple teeth).  Wakes up the next day and eventually gets lawyered up because of police brutality / excessive force. 

For me, throw the 'stupid games/stupid prizes' all day at this type of thing.  He wasn't even in his right mind to perhaps fully appreciate his situation - I don't care.  That's the risk of driving around DUI.  But that isn't the same thing as this video ( which you haven't watched ) where they literally just hold him down on the ground with both arms out and tell the dog 'Here! Here!' and the dog immediately latches on to his neck.  They stand around for 30 seconds and make NO attempt whatsoever to stop the dog - instead using the 'don't fight the dog' line to justify their not pulling the dog off.  It comes as no surprise you find no fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
1 minute ago, oki said:

       The Dog I had growing up had three modes.  Play(which involved leashes, sticks, ropes etc), I am warning you(which would be a nip on the hand or leg), and I am going to rip your throat out.  He was well trained enough to understand the situation.  And, thankfully the need for him to go for a kill never arose.  My understanding is K-9's are not suppose to go for the neck.

Much less the dog continuing to bit after the guy was on the ground with his hands behind his back(couldn't tell if they stopped the dog after the man was handcuffed).

 

 

Yes once the guy is cuffed the handler will pull the dog off. Some dogs get crazy and have to be dealt with aggressively others will comply immediately to an order. I have seen both in our department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Junto said:

Uh huh.  Two friends of mine along with 2 other officers stop a guy - DUI.  He is out of the car, and noncompliant.  They don't feel like fighting this guy (I get it), they warn him to comply or else he would be tased.  Drunk guy does drunk guy and does not comply - and he gets tased - falls flat on his face and busts his face all up (breaks nose, maybe a couple teeth).  Wakes up the next day and eventually gets lawyered up because of police brutality / excessive force. 

For me, throw the 'stupid games/stupid prizes' all day at this type of thing.  He wasn't even in his right mind to perhaps fully appreciate his situation - I don't care.  That's the risk of driving around DUI.  But that isn't the same thing as this video ( which you haven't watched ) where they literally just hold him down on the ground with both arms out and tell the dog 'Here! Here!' and the dog immediately latches on to his neck.  They stand around for 30 seconds and make NO attempt whatsoever to stop the dog - instead using the 'don't fight the dog' line to justify their not pulling the dog off.  It comes as no surprise you find no fault.

And yet all you have is the actual video of the scene there. Nothing to do with what happened prior to that situation. Your point of reference is from the interaction as presented. No history etc. That is why you have no idea. There is no context, this guy may be a frequent flyer, he may have 22 / 26 advisories and weapons advisory's, you don't know, but the grand jury will and so will the jury if it goes to trial.

I have been on the way to a DV in progress running code and the dispatcher running off the litany of history, offenses, and advisories on the individual as we got there, and nothing when we got there equated to that. On the other hand I have been at a scene where there were no advisories and it got ugly fast. So until you get the full report you know nothing but what is presented in this video. But remember we are hiding bad cops, because you know we like the stench or something.

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
1 minute ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

And yet all you have is the actual video of the scene there. Nothing to do with what happened prior to that situation. Your point of reference is from the interaction as presented. No history etc. That is why you have no idea. There is no context, this guy may be a frequent flyer, he may have 22 / 26 advisories and weapons advisory's, you don't know, but the grand jury will and so will the jury if it goes to trial.

Tag, it doesn't matter what the point of reference is when two 200lb men have both arms held back, and a third is right there too.  He wasn't going anywhere or doing much at this point.  If he suddenly, miraculously throws everyone off of him, and reaches into his belt line, they had him dead-to-rights already.  It is simply not ok or necessary to let a dog rip his neck apart instead of using the training that was given to them to pull those arms another 6 inches in on either side and cuff him.  They literally decided it wasn't worth their time or energy to cuff him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Junto said:

Tag, it doesn't matter what the point of reference is when two 200lb men have both arms held back, and a third is right there too.  He wasn't going anywhere or doing much at this point.  If he suddenly, miraculously throws everyone off of him, and reaches into his belt line, they had him dead-to-rights already.  It is simply not ok or necessary to let a dog rip his neck apart instead of using the training that was given to them to pull those arms another 6 inches in on either side and cuff him.  They literally decided it wasn't worth their time or energy to cuff him.

You really don't know do you? I have seen a video of a 120lb kid fight off 2 cops and kill them both with a handgun. They were there investigating if the child was suicidal or not. He was and decided that they wouldn't stop his attempt. He pushed away, pulled the gun and killed both cops in under 10 seconds. Stuff happens and until the person is secure it's a dangerous situation.

The most dangerous time in any situation is when you start to put the cuffs on someone, if their motivation is freedom that is when they will strike, since you are close and vulnerable, it don't matter if there are 10 cops there, some people WILL fight. I am not getting my ocular cavity destroyed and ending up blind because someone may be offended by the use of force necessary to ensure compliance. 1 Million interactions today and you are focused on something in may, it says a lot, don't it?

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki
6 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Yes once the guy is cuffed the handler will pull the dog off. Some dogs get crazy and have to be dealt with aggressively others will comply immediately to an order. I have seen both in our department.

     And that's part of the problem why setting a K9 on someone has to be used sparingly and very carefully.  Just as in the regular world if you have a Dog capable of harming someone it has to be properly trained, and socialized.  Just like the idea of showing a firearm will get compliance so is the idea of threatening someone with a Dog.  Does it usually work?  Absolutely, but when the threat fails to work you must understand how to properly use both.  We actually had one or two times where our pup saw a threat chased after, but stopped when we called him. 

Your problem(and I use that loosely) is you treat all with respect and dignity, follow the rules, and thus have a stellar record.  Sadly that just isn't the case with all Officers.  The vast 99.9 percent majority who (deserve and need our support), problem is that .01 percent who must be dealt with.  As well as the scum on the street, politicians and a$$ clown 'leaders' who enable this crap in the first place.  All incidents must be on a case by case individual basis, I think this is something people forget.  What led up to it, what was the situation at the time, what where the rules the Officer(s) where suppose to follow, training etc. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
5 minutes ago, oki said:

     And that's part of the problem why setting a K9 on someone has to be used sparingly and very carefully.  Just as in the regular world if you have a Dog capable of harming someone it has to be properly trained, and socialized.  Just like the idea of showing a firearm will get compliance so is the idea of threatening someone with a Dog.  Does it usually work?  Absolutely, but when the threat fails to work you must understand how to properly use both.  We actually had one or two times where our pup saw a threat chased after, but stopped when we called him. 

Your problem(and I use that loosely) is you treat all with respect and dignity, follow the rules, and thus have a stellar record.  Sadly that just isn't the case with all Officers.  The vast 99.9 percent majority who (deserve and need our support), problem is that .01 percent who must be dealt with.  As well as the scum on the street, politicians and a$$ clown 'leaders' who enable this crap in the first place.  All incidents must be on a case by case individual basis, I think this is something people forget.  What led up to it, what was the situation at the time, what where the rules the Officer(s) where suppose to follow, training etc. 

 

That's again not provided here is it? What probably happened is that this use of force was considered proper and in light of the political and emotional context of the current national climate the defense decided to release this video to garner sympathy for the client and to gain a foothold in a excessive use of force claim. They want BLM to show up and protest so they can cash in. This is obvious. The emotion behind it is crap.

Answer me this, if he had complied do you think we would be hearing about this guy at all?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
12 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

You really don't know do you? I have seen a video of a 120lb kid fight off 2 cops and kill them both with a handgun. They were there investigating if the child was suicidal or not. He was and decided that they wouldn't stop his attempt. He pushed away, pulled the gun and killed both cops in under 10 seconds. Stuff happens and until the person is secure it's a dangerous situation.

The most dangerous time in any situation is when you start to put the cuffs on someone, if their motivation is freedom that is when they will strike, since you are close and vulnerable, it don't matter if there are 10 cops there, some people WILL fight. I am not getting my ocular cavity destroyed and ending up blind because someone may be offended by the use of force necessary to ensure compliance. 1 Million interactions today and you are focused on something in may, it says a lot, don't it?

This brings me to my next issue or point .  You tell me to stop watching videos and yet you/cops are watching TONS of videos showing the extreme out of all the millions of interactions on a daily basis as part of their training and they prepare for that extreme.  They anticipate that extreme. It has a habit of making extreme cases out of ones that might not have been normally.  It's how we've got to the point now where cops mow down people if their car so much as budges towards them or past them.  It allows cops to walk in front of a slow moving car and then kill the driver (who only wanted to evade) whereas in the past it would have just meant they had to get back in their car and chase.

Just because sometimes people kill cops doesn't mean the next guy will, and you can't look at everyone as a possible killer - but more and more cops see the ones they are sworn to protect as possible perps everywhere they go. Us vs them mentality.  Thin blue line vs. the world.  Always - nope. Growing - yes 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
5 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Answer me this, if he had complied do you think we would be hearing about this guy at all?

Completely hypothetical and we all refuse to answer.  (Sounds stupid doesn't it.)

Had there been no K9 there, he would have been tased as you still had two more officers with guns.  This wasn't some lone 100lb. female cop being overrun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Junto said:

This brings me to my next issue or point .  You tell me to stop watching videos and yet you/cops are watching TONS of videos showing the extreme out of all the millions of interactions on a daily basis as part of their training and they prepare for that extreme.  They anticipate that extreme. It has a habit of making extreme cases out of ones that might not have been normally.  It's how we've got to the point now where cops mow down people if their car so much as budges towards them or past them.  It allows cops to walk in front of a slow moving car and then kill the driver (who only wanted to evade) whereas in the past it would have just meant they had to get back in their car and chase.

Just because sometimes people kill cops doesn't mean the next guy will, and you can't look at everyone as a possible killer - but more and more cops see the ones they are sworn to protect as possible perps everywhere they go. Us vs them mentality.  Thin blue line vs. the world.  Always - nope. Growing - yes 100%.

The difference being in the video I watched context was given, the history of the individual and all the rest of it. When we watch a video they give us the full story. That way we can see why the officers did what they did. In the case of this kid I was referring to, his g/f left him, the kid threatened suicide and the officers did not know he was armed or had a gun in his possession. The kid had no priors etc.

You know none of that in this case. Just that he was in a DV.

And yes you look at everyone as a possible threat until you know they aren't. When is that? When you are no longer interacting with them. Once again you demonstrated your lack of understanding in what happens on scene. What if I pat a guy down and he is unarmed. During our discussion he decides he wants to go back in the house to get his cigarettes, or pee, or what ever, do you let him? The answer is no, why? He may be going to get a weapon, or lock himself in the house and barricade himself in there etc. You just don't know what is in his mind. The problem is you come from a non-LEO world making assessments about what is happening in this situation. 

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
5 minutes ago, Junto said:

Completely hypothetical and we all refuse to answer.  (Sounds stupid doesn't it.)

Had there been no K9 there, he would have been tased as you still had two more officers with guns.  This wasn't some lone 100lb. female cop being overrun.

Then you would be hearing about tasers being a lethal weapon and the LEO's had no right to use them.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
1 minute ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

The difference being in the video I watched context was given, the history of the individual and all the rest of it. When we watch a video they give us the full story. That way we can see why the officers did what they did. In the case of this kid I was referring to, his g/f left him, the kid threatened suicide and the officers did not know he was armed or had a gun in his possession. The kid had no priors etc.

You know none of that in this case. Just that he was in a DV.

All the more reason that siccing a dog on him right off the bat without trying a taser or some other technique is my opinion is excessive.  Ever hear of a DV complaint that was false?  Or people involved being distraught?  They don't necessarily deserve their throats or genitalia ripped out.  A dog is allowed to do - and cheered by you and other cops - what the cops themselves are never allowed to do.  If the K9 cop held the man down and stabbed him repeatedly in his neck until the man went into a coma and almost died - he would be brought up on charges. 

It is almost as if the Minneapolis police suddenly procured giant Tibetan Mastiffs and one of them sat on George Floyd's neck for 9 minutes it would be ok - but not ok for the cops to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
1 minute ago, Junto said:

All the more reason that siccing a dog on him right off the bat without trying a taser or some other technique is my opinion is excessive.  Ever hear of a DV complaint that was false?  Or people involved being distraught?  They don't necessarily deserve their throats or genitalia ripped out.  A dog is allowed to do - and cheered by you and other cops - what the cops themselves are never allowed to do.  If the K9 cop held the man down and stabbed him repeatedly in his neck until the man went into a coma and almost died - he would be brought up on charges. 

It is almost as if the Minneapolis police suddenly procured giant Tibetan Mastiffs and one of them sat on George Floyd's neck for 9 minutes it would be ok - but not ok for the cops to do it.

Are you TG in disguise? I am going to treat you like him, this is circular at this point. My point is simple, there is a grand jury. They determine if the use of force was appropriate. Your level of upset will not change the law. Have a nice day.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
3 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Then you would be hearing about tasers being a lethal weapon and the LEO's had no right to use them.

But as you have said - the law and the public has already come to grips with taser deployments and almost always are they found justified and preferred over the old way of clubbing someone (which used to kill people a lot). Sadly I realize that they still freak out of tasers but they save a lot of lives.  Dogs probably do too, but again, my argument is their use should be extremely rare and in different circumstances than this video. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

That's again not provided here is it? What probably happened is that this use of force was considered proper and in light of the political and emotional context of the current national climate the defense decided to release this video to garner sympathy for the client and to gain a foothold in a excessive use of force claim. They want BLM to show up and protest so they can cash in. This is obvious. The emotion behind it is crap.

Answer me this, if he had complied do you think we would be hearing about this guy at all?

     No question on the release of video, no question it would be a non story if the politics and narrative didn't fit a certain something.  That can easily be proven.

And yeah, had he been compliant this wouldn't have happened.  But, at the same time non compliance cannot be a automatic reason to get bit up, or beaten.

I had been close to arrest a few years back because I was 'non compliant'.  Compliance at a minimum would have meant at least a court date in Duncan Oklahoma, having to explain to my E-5(who at the time was decent), my E-7 who at that time was also decent.  My first sergeant who was a bit of a four letter word, my Captain(who was okay) and who nows who ever else. 

Appearing in court, and probably getting my car impounded(then having to pay that and hoping my stuff inside didn't disappear), then getting a ride back to base, getting a ride to the court house(about 30-40 miles away).    Issue?  I was stationed at Fort Sill and one of Duncan's finest was absolutely positive I needed to have it registered in Oklahoma.  Why?  Because even after I showed military I.D., explained it was Ft. Still policy that you needed a state safety inspection(my home state of N.D. didn't require) one and very very respectfully explained everything he was still sure.  Credit to the male officer who pulled me over he was at least respectful and decent(although quite wrong).  He called a second officer(forget her name) but it should have been Officer **nis envy.  And yes, I very much mean that.  I think it was my respectful calm demeanor and the fact that I wasn't budging one bit that ticket her of even more. 

She had threatened me and my friend with arrest, impounding my car etc.  Again, despite the fact that I showed military I.D., and even explained everything.  So, instead of calling dispatch or a supervisor to double check state law she called a State Trooper(the road I was pulled over on was a state or Fed highway which goes through town).  He pulls up and within 20-30 seconds was chewing their a$$es but good.  After a few minutes of this I was free to go.  Minor in comparison sure, but sometimes Officers are wrong and compliance will present hardship or shouldn't be needed in the first place.  Both cops had bad reputations.  Deserved?  Maybe, but when that is the rep from people across numerous ages and backgrounds it would seem to be deserved.  Why was I pulled over?  26 years later the only reason I can think of is that 1 my friend (local to that town) had been in trouble in the past(stupid stuff, minor theft etc), and two waving hello at a cop in small town on a Saturday night must be suspicious 3. a Cop pulling beside you at a stop light, chirping his tires stomping on it then slowing back down shouldn't warrant a what the hell reaction.  Much less then nearly stopping pulling in behind you shouldn't warrant looking in your rear mirror a few times. 

Yes there is a longer version, but God's honest truth this is the key events with nothing crucial left out.  Again my compliance at a minimum would have resulted in a large ticket, having to go to court, having to explain things to my command(and probably getting in some type of trouble point blank) just because.  And possibly my car being impounded while everything was sorted out.  I think the part that I can identify with most as being a Soldier is in the fact that even when %99.9 percent of everyone does the right thing people only see the bad, and demand action.  It's easy to say I am not the problem, I don't do these things, why are you hating on me and making things difficult for me?  I am doing my job honorably and honestly, this isn't right, it isn't fair and it's wrong.  But, what we often miss is what are we doing about that tiny chunk who is the problem?  Do we not tolerate it when we see it?  Do we do something about it?  Do we turn a blind eye?  Do worry more about not pi$$ing the person off because tomorrow we may depend on them to save our lives?  Hell of a slippery slope anyone who criticizes both the Military or Police often doesn't understand. 

 

 

Edited by oki
Grammar spelling, incorrect info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
12 minutes ago, oki said:

     No question on the release of video, no question it would be a non story if the politics and narrative didn't fit a certain something.  That can easily be proven.

And yeah, had he been compliant this wouldn't have happened.  But, at the same time non compliance cannot be a automatic reason to get bit up, or beaten.

I had been close to arrest a few years back because I was 'non compliant'.  Compliance at a minimum would have meant at least a court date in Duncan Oklahoma, having to explain to my E-5(who at the time was decent), my E-7 who at that time was also decent.  My first sergeant who was a bit of a four letter word, my Captain(who was okay) and who nows who ever else. 

Appearing in court, and probably getting my car impounded(then having to pay that and hoping my stuff inside didn't disappear), then getting a ride back to base, getting a ride to the court house(about 30-40 miles away).    Issue?  I was stationed at Fort Sill and one of Duncan's finest was absolutely positive I needed to have it registered in Oklahoma.  Why?  Because even after I showed military I.D., explained it was Ft. Still policy that you needed a state safety inspection(my home state of N.D. didn't require) one and very very respectfully explained everything he was still sure.  Credit to the male officer who pulled me over he was at least respectful and decent(although quite wrong).  He called a second officer(forget her name) but it should have been Officer **nis envy.  And yes, I very much mean that.  I think it was my respectful calm demeanor and the fact that I wasn't budging one bit that ticket her of even more. 

She had threatened me and my friend with arrest, impounding my car etc.  Again, despite the fact that I showed military I.D., and even explained everything.  So, instead of calling dispatch or a supervisor to double check state law she called a State Trooper(the road I was pulled over on was a state or Fed highway which goes through town).  He pulls up and within 20-30 seconds was chewing their a$$es but good.  After a few minutes of this I was free to go.  Minor in comparison sure, but sometimes Officers are wrong and compliance will present hardship or shouldn't be needed in the first place.  Both cops had bad reputations.  Deserved?  Maybe, but when that is the rep from people across numerous ages and backgrounds it would seem to be deserved.  Why was I pulled over?  26 years later the only reason I can think of is that 1 my friend (local to that town) had been in trouble in the past(stupid stuff, minor theft etc), and two waving hello at a cop in small town on a Saturday night must be suspicious 3. a Cop pulling beside you at a stop light, chirping his tires stomping on it then slowing back down shouldn't warrant a what the hell reaction.  Much less then nearly stopping pulling in behind you shouldn't warrant looking in your rear mirror a few times. 

Yes there is a longer version, but God's honest truth this is the key events with nothing crucial left out.  Again my compliance at a minimum would have resulted in a large ticket, having to go to court, having to explain things to my command(and probably getting in some type of trouble point blank) just because.  And possibly my car being impounded while everything was sorted out.  I think the part that I can identify with most as being a Soldier is in the fact that even when %99.9 percent of everyone does the right thing people only see the bad, and demand action.  It's easy to say I am not the problem, I don't do these things, why are you hating on me and making things difficult for me?  I am doing my job honorably and honestly, this isn't right, it isn't fair and it's wrong.  But, what we often miss is what are we doing about that tiny chunk who is the problem?  Do we not tolerate it when we see it?  Do we do something about it?  Do we turn a blind eye?  Do worry more about not pi$$ing the person off because tomorrow we may depend on them to save our lives?  Hell of a slippery slope anyone who criticizes both the Military or Police often doesn't understand. 

 

 

Maybe he shouldn't have been slapping his wife around? Compliance for being involved in a crime, maybe you should be explaining to those in your chain of command why you were an idiot. This wasn't a simple traffic stop. It was a stop because he was fleeing the scene of a crime. We don't know the level of that crime, Or did we all forget that?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...