Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:26:43 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If this LEO screwed up as badly as it appears from the article, then he should be criminally charged, at the least with "aggravated assult" when he pointed the gun at an innocent person, and "manslaughter" due to "culpable negligence" in mishandling his weapon, possibly with murder.

However...everyone here old enough to pull their own weight knows just how full of SHIT the press is when it comes to getting all the "facts" of an incident. I think that even if we suspect strongly that the LEO is to blame, we should grant him the same thing we would ask in a situation involving ourselves, namely, to consider him innocent until proven guilty.
View Quote


I have to say, I agree with you on this--to a point.  If a non-LEO was involved in such a situation, he WOULD BE IN JAIL NOW, while the investigation was under way.  He wouldn't be sent home on a paid vacation (ironically, partially funded by his victim) until the investigation was complete--he'd have to obtain a lawyer, have a bail hearing (and the bail in a case like this would be six or seven figures, if it were even allowed) and have all of his firearms taken from his home.

Police would issue statements to the press impeaching his characte.  Any defense based on a "furtive movement" would be laughed out of court.

Instead, the police are issuing statements about how traumatic it is FOR THE AGENT.  It's likely he'll never even be charged with a crime, much less be convicted.  Fellow officers nod sagely about "furtive movements" and how they "would have done the same thing in his position."

Innocent until proven guilty is great--I just wish the citizenry would have the same right to it that law enforcement does.
View Quote


Very well said.  

TheRedGoat

Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:34:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
AlClenin,

I think you got issues dude.  Please, no offense intended.  I indicted that common sense is a player in my post.  If you have a reason (or job) that keeps you out that late, then take a look at it closely.  I take great pains in making sure I am out of harms way.  Get the picture?
View Quote


Common sense says many people are out at 10pm. I am regularly out a 3am for various legal reasons, usually my occupation. If it's an unmarked car (no roof lights) and anything but a full uniform steps out, I'm gone. Period. I'll explain myself later.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 2:36:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you are in a real dark area at night past 10:00 pm then you need to reassess why you are there.
View Quote


WTF is that supposed to mean? That's like the a cop telling someone driving through a drug neighborhood that they don't have any business there even if they haven't broken any laws. I guess this isn't a free country after all. [rolleyes]
View Quote


Yes, it is a free country. But would run through a puddle of gasoline with an asshole smoking beside it or would you walk around it?  Common sense?  Would you take a back road at dark when more populated roads are available? Common sense.  
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 2:44:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you are in a real dark area at night past 10:00 pm then you need to reassess why you are there.
View Quote


WTF is that supposed to mean? That's like the a cop telling someone driving through a drug neighborhood that they don't have any business there even if they haven't broken any laws. I guess this isn't a free country after all. [rolleyes]
View Quote


Yes, it is a free country. But would run through a puddle of gasoline with an asshole smoking beside it or would you walk around it?  Common sense?  Would you take a back road at dark when more populated roads are available? Common sense.  
View Quote


So would it be "common sense" to never leave the house in order to avoid danger? What if the back road has less traffic. Your chances of getting in a crash would be higher on the more populated road. Would it then be common sense to take the back road? Crashes are probably more common than police impersonating thugs, right?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 5:26:32 PM EDT
[#5]
Let's just agree that some people are more comfortable rolling over and submitting to the rules of occupation, while others are uncomfortable but submit anyway.  When it comes down to it, we all have to stop for unmarked cars, because failing to do so would risk a beating and some large legal bills.

We have to weigh the odds.  Chance that the aggressors are criminals who will harm you if you do stop. Less than 1%

Chance that the aggressors are police that will harm you if you don't stop. Close to 100%

It is "common sense" But that don't make it right.  I think it's a lousy choice to have to make.  Put me squarely in the "Uncomfortable" column.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:01:02 PM EDT
[#6]
I work 3pm to 11pm 5 nights a week near the city. I live 40 miles out in the country. I drive these dark roads late at night 5 times a week. Does this make me a fool?
I carry my cell ph all the time, I think in this situation I would call the police and tell them I will stop at the nearest populated area. I have been pulled over on dark roads but never by an unmarked car.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:22:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:

How about FBI pulls over vehicle matching description of bank robbery suspect vehicle. FBI agent has driver at gunpoint. Driver makes furtive movement towards his waistband, FBI agent shots driver.
View Quote


Quoted:

OK, gloves off, How about dumbshit agent with itchy trigger finger fucked up ??
View Quote


I think AR15fan asks a legitimate question......Having said that Spectre I like you more with the "gloves off", You put the blame one the guy that did the shooting, and offered an analysis of the possible reason, that appears consistent with the news reports.

I still have questions, non-bashers only, let's see

1) Why would undercover cars/agents be involved in a planned takedown of a potentially armed suspect? If it is planned why didn't they plan marked cars/officers to initiate the stop?

2) Why did ANYONE approach the suspect vehicle after it was stopped. In most "high risk" traffic stops the occupants of the vehicle are ordered out, at gun point, by officers who remain behind cover.

3) Why was the agent aiming at someones face? Is it because that is what was visible, or was there info about body armor? Or was that something else that is off kilter?

4) Why did they ID this guy as a possible suspect?

5) Who cares about the BF/GF relationship, that has NOTHING to do with this incident. Just like being an Eagle Scout has nothing to do with this.


On another note, what exactly is a "marked" police car?? WSP uses un-marked cars, cars with door decals but no external light bars, and cars with door decals an light bars. Where is the differentiation between marked and un marked? IS it the door decals, or is it the light bar?? FYI some of the cars without external light bars have 12 or more red/blue lights on them, I think that makes it hard to say "I didn't think that was a police car".
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 1:16:12 AM EDT
[#8]
"FYI some of the cars without external light bars have 12 or more red/blue lights on them, I think that makes it hard to say "I didn't think that was a police car".




I would agree if I couldn't order those same lights out of a catalog right now.

Unmarked or non-recognizeable units initiating a stop in anything less than an immediate threat to life situation just seems foolish to me.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 4:55:39 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:On another note, what exactly is a "marked" police car?? WSP uses un-marked cars, cars with door decals but no external light bars, and cars with door decals an light bars. Where is the differentiation between marked and un marked? IS it the door decals, or is it the light bar?? FYI some of the cars without external light bars have 12 or more red/blue lights on them, I think that makes it hard to say "I didn't think that was a police car".
View Quote


Good question. Anyone can order lights out of a catalog. Even roof mounted ones. I suppose it wouldn't take long for someone with roof mounted lights to get pulled over and asked what they were doing, but still, it's possible for a thug to have any of the lights a cop has.

The other thing is, how do you tell that a car, even one with roof top lights, is a cop car when you are pulled over at night? They hit you with the take down lights and you can't see shit behind you. So am I justified driving on to a well lit place for any traffic stop at night, regardles of the car they're using?

Link Posted: 3/6/2002 6:01:05 AM EDT
[#10]
I think if you see 1 "kojak" light on a dash board at night..........etc, etc. There might be some cause for concern. Also if the lights are not properly colored (ie green, amber).

My point was that most "imposters" will get a light that is easy to hide of the real cops come by. A car with 12 lights will be really visible to real cops, who have a dim view of mall ninjii running loose.

Driving to a well lit spot, it depends if the next closest spot is 20 miles away no, and don't drive past well lit spots because you want to go to a "better spot". If it is a few seconds down the road I would say that is acceptable, don't speed up though. Try to signal, the officer that you know they are there and are going to pull to a safe area.

The other thing is, most of the times you probably see LEA's cars they are trying to get by you because they need to be someplace 10 minutes ago. Nothing is more frustrating when you know the SHTF and someone needs help NOW, and the guy in front of you won't get out of the way.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 7:41:35 AM EDT
[#11]
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 7:55:22 AM EDT
[#12]
Ikor,

I don't know but it seems that since tac-team members with long guns were present this was more of a planned incident.

The FBI often takes the credit for "locals" arresting "their" BG's. The FBI is very media savy.

As far as rushing a car you are correct that people do "different" things under stress. But most uniformed street officers have done a high risk contact or 2. Once they have worked in that type of a contact they are less likely to do the running up to the car stuff.

As far as bullets go at the focus, yup you are right, why was the agent focused on the "subjects head"? It is hard to make a "furtive movement" with a noogan.

Comments about the BF/GF relationship is just hyperbole. Yes 2 people in the car give the agents more to watch. Again uniformed officers doing this stop would have very quickly formulated "areas of responsibility" so that each officer had a clearly defined responsibility.

My point was to make people think about this incident, instead of bash, and maybe understand that there was a lot wrong with the whole scenario. Even though the focus was on unmarked cars/officers.


Link Posted: 3/6/2002 9:00:40 AM EDT
[#13]
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top