News story I am just seeing... Has this been on INGO?

[Bfish]

As the title states I am just catching wind of this. I guess the footage was just recently released... I would think for sure there has to be a thread on it!
A man is taking his in labor wife to the hospital (speeding). Then a cop ttys to pull them over. After a mile and talking to 911 the guy pulls over and all of this ensues.

I almost always in the camp of being in the officers favor and all, but this one really just takes me through the roof!

Here is a link to the article
Indiana Cops Pull Guns On Pregnant Woman, Husband For Speeding To Hospital (Video)

[video=youtube;Lveqc2tS4k4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lveqc2tS4k4[/video]

 

[CPT Nervous]

Didn't pull over immediately. Check.

When he did pull over, he tried to get out. Check.

Wouldn't listen to the officer when he was on the ground. Check.



I am 100% behind the officer on this one. If dispatch didn't tell the officer anything about the call, all that officer has to go on is; he has a subject that refuses to stop, then that subject stops, and gets out of his car. I'm sure most officers would have drawn on him. I probably would have. Then he won't follow instructions when he's on the ground. As for the rest of the story in the article, You can tell me your water broke, or you're giving birth, or whatever you want, that doesn't mean I can just stop doing my job. Criminals have been known to lie, believe it or not. From the dashcam footage, it looks pretty good in the officer's favor. I think much of that story has been embellished by the couple and the news outlet. Not like that hasn't happened before.


Tell me what part of that "takes you through the roof."

 

[churchmouse]

 

[OkieGirl]

[GASP] Criminals...lie...??? Surely you jest!

And the news doesn't tell you the whole story and doesn't tell the truth?!

It's all so clear from here on the sidelines, when played in slow motion, after knowing what will happen next and how the story ends.

 

[CPT Nervous]

[GASP] Criminals...lie...??? Surely you jest!

And the news doesn't tell you the whole story and doesn't tell the truth?!

I know it's hard to believe, but trust me on this one.

 

[Crbn79]

Family will be paid. Officer's attitude and comments after the stop will cost the Department money in front of any jury. If nothing more than what sounds like a Sgt saying "I'll get rid of the video" at the 7 min mark, or the threats to taze a guy who's laying on the ground restrained.

Just saying, in this day and age where everyone's jumping on bandwagons against the Police, it's a good idea to keep fuel off the fire.

 

[PaulF]

Tell me what part of that "takes you through the roof."

Well, for starters, the cop KNEW there was a pregnant woman being delivered to the hospital. He was advised by dispatch as much...since he threatened the man with these exact words:

"You will be in jail tonight, and you will not be there when your child is born"

So, for me, what takes me "through the roof" in this situation is that the cop is more concerned with his "authoritah" than the actual well-being of those people he is sworn to serve.

From the (admittedly limited) contents of this video, it seems like the police knew the totality of the situation before they endangered the lives of a pregnant woman and her child.

A medical emergency always trumps a traffic infraction...no?

 

[Crbn79]

Well, for starters, the cop KNEW there was a pregnant woman being delivered to the hospital. He was advised by dispatch as much...since he threatened the man with these exact words:

"You will be in jail tonight, and you will not be there when your child is born"

So, for me, what takes me "through the roof" in this situation is that the cop is more concerned with his "authritah" than the actual well-being of those people he is sworn to serve.

From the (admittedly limited) contents of this video, it seems like the police knew the totality of the situation before they endangered the lives of a pregnant woman and her child.

A medical emergency always trumps a traffic infraction...no?

Not if you're a "super trooper" I suppose. Guess the Sgt didn't get the tape deleted as he suggested at the 7:00 mark.

 

[Bfish]

The part that takes me through the roof is when the guys start talking about pulling the tape and things like they know they acted out of line or something and want to cover their butts. If everything was gravy why are they talking about pulling the tapes? That is where I went through the roof! That and what PaulF is saying, I am not saying the guy made the best choices as you've pointed out CPT Nervous but I feel like the officers were not acting as they should have.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

A medical emergency always trumps a traffic infraction...no?

Every "medical emergency" I've encountered in these situations was handled very simply. Do you want an ambulance? Yes --> I start you an ambulance. No --> It's not a medical emergency.

It's amazing how many conditions I miraculously healed. Probably more than some TV preachers, and without the tithing.

 

[Crbn79]

I'll just leave this here:

Turns out this is old news, US District judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The 2 Sgts violated the couple's 4th amendment rights by detaining the couple after learning she was in labor. If you're a cop and you stand behind those officer's actions you are just as wrong as them, and your time in court will soon come so you can blemish your department's name as well and cost them truck loads of money.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...regnant-woman-husband-speeding-hospital-video

 

[OutdoorDad]

Didn't pull over immediately. Check.

When he did pull over, he tried to get out. Check.

Wouldn't listen to the officer when he was on the ground. Check.



I am 100% behind the officer on this one. If dispatch didn't tell the officer anything about the call, all that officer has to go on is; he has a subject that refuses to stop, then that subject stops, and gets out of his car. I'm sure most officers would have drawn on him. I probably would have. Then he won't follow instructions when he's on the ground. As for the rest of the story in the article, You can tell me your water broke, or you're giving birth, or whatever you want, that doesn't mean I can just stop doing my job. Criminals have been known to lie, believe it or not. From the dashcam footage, it looks pretty good in the officer's favor. I think much of that story has been embellished by the couple and the news outlet. Not like that hasn't happened before.


Tell me what part of that "takes you through the roof."

Seriously. Two year hiatus? And this is where you decide to make your stand?!?!?

Who gives two flips what dispatch does or doesn't tell him?

The officer is placing the rest of his career and the safety of citizens on decisions that are being made by "dispatch"???

frankly, I don't think he relied on "dispatch".

I would love to see E&O insurance being paid for at the individual level.
This officer would be unemployable.

 

[Crbn79]

Every "medical emergency" I've encountered in these situations was handled very simply. Do you want an ambulance? Yes --> I start you an ambulance. No --> It's not a medical emergency.

It's amazing how many conditions I miraculously healed. Probably more than some TV preachers, and without the tithing.

Lots of back story on this one. Sgt knew the situation before initiating the stop, falsified written report, later recanted report in Court and admitted he "exaggerated". Second Sgt offered to "pull the tape" and destroy evidence. Wait time on ambulance also took over 20 mins from the initial stop.

 

[CPT Nervous]

The part that takes me through the roof is when the guys start talking about pulling the tape and things like they know they acted out of line or something and want to cover their butts. If everything was gravy why are they talking about pulling the tapes? That is where I went through the roof! That and what PaulF is saying, I am not saying the guy made the best choices as you've pointed out CPT Nervous but I feel like the officers were not acting as they should have.

When you hear, "I can pull the tapes."

He responds with., "I don't care about that."

The audio is pretty patchy. I didn't catch it the first time. Still doesn't change my opinion.

 

[PaulF]

Every "medical emergency" I've encountered in these situations was handled very simply. Do you want an ambulance? Yes --> I start you an ambulance. No --> It's not a medical emergency.

It's amazing how many conditions I miraculously healed. Probably more than some TV preachers, and without the tithing.

I am genuinely curious...

If...and I do mean IF you are made aware that the "suspect" is en-route to the nearest hospital (from dispatch) due to a (reported) medical emergency...how would you handle the situation?

1) Effect a traffic stop immediately, possibly causing more harm in a genuine emergency, but cutting short any attempt at fraud.

2) Follow the suspect, see if he actually goes to the hospital...write a ticket there?

3) Follow the suspect to the hospital, verify the "emergency", no further action needed. (or)

4) Other...please explain.

I am not being a smartass (now), I am genuinely interested...how would a "good" (ie: properly trained) LEO address this situation?

 

[Crbn79]

When you hear, "I can pull the tapes."

He responds with., "I don't care about that."

The audio is pretty patchy. I didn't catch it the first time. Still doesn't change my opinion.

Facts seldom do change opinions these days...

Court of law has spoken. Keep up the fine work.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Seriously. Two year hiatus? And this is where you decide to make your stand?!?!?

Who gives two flips what dispatch does or doesn't tell him?

The officer is placing the rest of his career and the safety of citizens on decisions that are being made by "dispatch"???

frankly, I don't think he relied on "dispatch".

I would love to see E&O insurance being paid for at the individual level.
This officer would be unemployable.

Hi, how's it going? I've made a few stands, you should come around more often.

As for the role dispatch played, it makes all the difference. If dispatch advised him of the call, then he would know why they're not stopping, or at least what they told dispatch as to why they're not stopping. If they didn't tell him anything, all he's got to go on is a car that won't stop.

Sure, now, three years later, we know the outcome, we know what happened, but I made my response to the video and article posted in the OP.

 

[Crbn79]

I am genuinely curious...

If...and I do mean IF you are made aware that the "suspect" is en-route to the nearest hospital (from dispatch) due to a (reported) medical emergency...how would you handle the situation?

1) Effect a traffic stop immediately, possibly causing more harm in a genuine emergency, but cutting short any attempt at fraud.

2) Follow the suspect, see if he actually goes to the hospital...write a ticket there?

3) Follow the suspect to the hospital, verify the "emergency", no further action needed. (or)

4) Other...please explain.

I am not being a smartass (now), I am genuinely interested...how would a "good" (ie: properly trained) LEO address this situation?

Glad you're staying in your lane. Some folks trying to steal everyone else's work.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Facts seldom do change opinions these days...

Court of law has spoken. Keep up the fine work.

Court of law ruled O.J. not guilty. See what I did there?

 

[Reagan40]

Ok, so any comments on this obviously falls under the Hindsight is 20/20. I typically error on the side of the police officers. I understand their jobs are tough and they deal with liars and criminals every day. That obviously and rightly has an affect on how a situation is dealt with. There were a couple of things that stood out to me. First, the guy driving should have pulled over the second the red and blues were turned on. If I was in that situation, I would pull over right away, explain why I was speeding, and politely ask the officer to be quick about writing the speeding ticket so I could get my wife to the hospital. So, the driver made an error. Once he pulled over, opening the door was not a smart move. Maybe he was in a panic or maybe he just wasn't very smart, either way, that leads to getting put in hand cuffs. So again, another error. He did not seem to resist being put in cuffs. Once he was on the ground and in cuffs, I noticed what appears to be an officer pointing a gun at him. I am assuming that the light that I see the officer pointing was a gun mounted light. I assume this because of the way it looks in relation to his hands. The video isn't 100% clear, but it sure seems like the officer is pointing his gun at the guy on his belly with his hands cuffed behind his back. To me, that seems to break basic gun safety rules. The guy on his belly in cuffs isn't a real threat at that point. I could understand the officer having the gun out of the holster and pointed at the ground, but it seems a bit extreme to point the gun at a guy who is basically hog tied on the ground. What if an accidental discharge happens. I guess I just have the idea that you should never point a gun at something that you are not willing to destroy planted firmly in my head. If that officer had an accidental discharge, there is no way it would have been a justified shooting, so keep the guy pointed somewhere else. The other thought that I had was the language used by the officer seemed a bit excessive. I get the whole adrenaline running high, but in my job, I have to think about PR a lot. So, in this situation it seems to be really bad PR and reinforce some negative views of police officers to drop the F bomb every sentence to a guy who is on his belly with his arms cuffed behind his back. If that guy had been selling meth to kids, go for it. Beat him up and insult his mother for all I care. But when it seems pretty obvious that a guy with a wife in labor made a bad decision trying to get her to the hospital in time, perhaps be a little more understanding and treat him with some level of decency. After all, his tax dollars are going towards the police department payroll budget. So, I say all that not to be critical of the police officers involved, or to justify the bad decisions made by the driver, but more to just explain how bad this looks to the average guy.