Cop Down -- would you intervene?

[jsharmon7]

What a POS. The comments to the video are depressing.

Denny, the guy was right though. That officer was clearly forcing all those people to speed through a construction zone where people are working. Those poor folks were just minding their own business when that officer forced them to speed and then fined them for it. I'm sure those construction workers were sick of seeing those officers enforcing the construction zone speed too. They probably just wanted them to beat it and let them take their chances with speeding traffic. Corruption at its finest. Glad the cameraman was there to set things straight.

 

[Denny347]

Denny, the guy was right though. That officer was clearly forcing all those people to speed through a construction zone where people are working. Those poor folks were just minding their own business when that officer forced them to speed and then fined them for it. I'm sure those construction workers were sick of seeing those officers enforcing the construction zone speed too. They probably just wanted them to beat it and let them take their chances with speeding traffic. Corruption at its finest. Glad the cameraman was there to set things straight.

Yeah...what a dick.

 

[thompal]

What a POS. The comments to the video are depressing.

Gotta agree with you there. I think the only one in that video who came off as being reasonable was the supervisor (I'm assuming that's the other uniform who arrived).

The camera guy was an abrasive moron.

 

[Hammerhead]

Gotta agree with you there. I think the only one in that video who came off as being reasonable was the supervisor (I'm assuming that's the other uniform who arrived).

The camera guy was an abrasive moron.

Actually, I thought the guy in the SUV was pretty reasonable too. He engaged them in normal conversation. Up to the point that the camera douche stated that they were going to follow "cop watch" standards and not make it more difficult for the people stopped, I thought the video was going to go a different direction.

Then I start hearing him say that once the officers were done they were going to be their normal selves. It turns out that their normal selves were inconsiderate foul-mouthed dill holes.

They weren't doing cop watch filming, they were using it as an excuse to yell obceneties at LEOs doing their jobs.

Wankers.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you aren't confident you have the critical thinking skills to tell the difference between "assailant" and "victim" when you come across it in the street, you should probably work on developing those skills before carrying a firearm. Until you're confident you'll be able to use it properly in a bad situation, it might be best if you just leave the gun at home and keep your cell phone handy so you can "be a good witness."

Will the talking end of the horse please speak up? You are no different than the idiots among us who want to dive into foreign altercations on the side of whomever is losing the fight today regardless of who started it or why it was started. Sorry, but if I don't know who is in fact responsible for the problem, I am not blindly bailing in on the side of whomever is losing at the moment I arrive on the scene. I certainly hope you are in a different ZIP code if I ever find myself in a critical situation and have the 'misfortune' to turn the fight in my favor.

This is one of those times that negative rep seems like a really good thing to have. You, sir, deserve it.

 

[kwatters]

Maybe. It sounds like physical force (grabbing the guy and pulling him off) could have worked pretty easily, especially if the officer already shot the guy once, but I wasn't there, so I am not going to second guess.

I would definitely aid an officer, but I doubt I would ever shoot someone unarmed unless the situation were extreme. Maybe this was an extreme (deadly) beating, or maybe it wasn't, the article doesn't describe the attack in detail.

?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

This is one of those times that negative rep seems like a really good thing to have. You, sir, deserve it.

He's not the only one.

 

[IndyDave1776]

He's not the only one.

If I am correctly understanding your implication, please explain to me how one justifies the simplistic method of forming a conclusion that is in play. Once again, I will not jump into a fight unless I am absolutely sure that I am not assisting the guilty party.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Will the talking end of the horse please speak up? You are no different than the idiots among us who want to dive into foreign altercations on the side of whomever is losing the fight today regardless of who started it or why it was started. Sorry, but if I don't know who is in fact responsible for the problem, I am not blindly bailing in on the side of whomever is losing at the moment I arrive on the scene. I certainly hope you are in a different ZIP code if I ever find myself in a critical situation and have the 'misfortune' to turn the fight in my favor.

This is one of those times that negative rep seems like a really good thing to have. You, sir, deserve it.

That may not be true. I cannot attest to Legato's personal sentiments, but I think that in addressing the situation presented, you could only come to the assistance of the officer. Are there officers who use their power to abuse the common people? Sure. Enough that you lovely apply the moniker JBT. But we both know that this is not the majority. It is unlikely, in an official situation, that an officer is on the wrong end of the law to the extent that he deserves to be incapacitated (perhaps permanently). And, on the chance that you're wrong, and their beating is deserved, there is still a legal system to follow.

If you were to change the scenario to two people who are unarmed and simply fighting, I would be a "good witness" and call the Police. If there is a deadly weapon brought into the fray and I have the possibility to stop the altercation until Police arrived, I might consider it. But that's a different situation than described.

 

[thompal]

Actually, I thought the guy in the SUV was pretty reasonable too. He engaged them in normal conversation. Up to the point that the camera douche stated that they were going to follow "cop watch" standards and not make it more difficult for the people stopped, I thought the video was going to go a different direction.

Then I start hearing him say that once the officers were done they were going to be their normal selves. It turns out that their normal selves were inconsiderate foul-mouthed dill holes.

They weren't doing cop watch filming, they were using it as an excuse to yell obceneties at LEOs doing their jobs.

Wankers.

Yeah, the SUV guy was alright - up until the point that he made a big deal out of strapping on his firearm and putting on a ballistic vest. I thought that was over the top.

I do agree about the camera guy. He was a rude obnoxious idiot.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Yeah, the SUV guy was alright - up until the point that he made a big deal out of strapping on his firearm and putting on a ballistic vest. I thought that was over the top.

I do agree about the camera guy. He was a rude obnoxious idiot.

Except that he was just getting himself prepared in case anything was going to happen. I don't see how he made "a big deal" out of strapping on his pistol and vest.

The camera guy was a big troll. Good on the cops for not actually doing anything to him. It must have taken some self-control, especially with the veiled threat of "some day it's not going to be a camera."

 

[EvilBlackGun]

One good ...

... flat-sided, slab-sided hit up-side the noggin would'a probably done the trick. But, I was not there.

Here's a question to everyone who stated they would try to pull the perp off the officer or jump into a grapple instead of pulling their firearm. Assuming we are all always carrying our firearms, doesn't that place us in a situation where the BG could potentially take our sidearm? How concerned would you be that the perp would manage to take your sidearm from you, thus creating a Bad Guy With Gun, when previously he had only been armed with meat clubs?

 

[Hammerhead]

Yeah, the SUV guy was alright - up until the point that he made a big deal out of strapping on his firearm and putting on a ballistic vest. I thought that was over the top.

I do agree about the camera guy. He was a rude obnoxious idiot.

Except that he was just getting himself prepared in case anything was going to happen. I don't see how he made "a big deal" out of strapping on his pistol and vest.

The camera guy was a big troll. Good on the cops for not actually doing anything to him. It must have taken some self-control, especially with the veiled threat of "some day it's not going to be a camera."

^This.

I don't think the guy in the SUV was doing anything except putting on his gear so he could be identified as an officer/protect himself. The Tac/Plate vest and drop leg seems to be his gear when he's in civvies. It looked to me like he rolled up without any ID, weapon, vest, or anything else denoting him being a police officer. He probably could have pulled a jacket on instead of the vest, but that would have left him vulnerable to catching bullets the hard way. At least this way he ID'd himself and wasn't just some schmuck at a traffic stop.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

If I am correctly understanding your implication, please explain to me how one justifies the simplistic method of forming a conclusion that is in play. Once again, I will not jump into a fight unless I am absolutely sure that I am not assisting the guilty party.

The only thing I am implying is that Legato isn't the only member in this thread that deserves negative rep.

 

[TheReaper]

From some of the postings that I've seen on this board, If I were an officer in need, I don't think that I'd want anyone from this board assisting me!

 

[VN Vet]

I would help.

 

[Denny347]

From some of the postings that I've seen on this board, If I were an officer in need, I don't think that I'd want anyone from this board assisting me!

I understand what you are saying but let us not paint people with the same broad brush that gets used on me and my fellow LEO's. We're better than that. There are quite a few good people on here that I would have no problem being shoulder to shoulder with in a SHTF scenario.

 

[TheReaper]

I understand what you are saying but let us not paint people with the same broad brush that gets used on me and my fellow LEO's. We're better than that. There are quite a few good people on here that I would have no problem being shoulder to shoulder with them in a SHTF scenario.

I can maybe see your point, but think about it, we have one thread going on where people say that they wouldn't assist an officer in need because most likely, the officer was doing bad things to the person he/she is involved in an altercation to begin with! Then, we have another thread going on where people are asking that if they are near a situation where an officer is involved in a shooting and poeple are injured by fragments or ricoches from the officer involved shooting, can they shoot the officer? Really?? I don't think that common sense is used in abundance on this board sometimes! JMO

 

[CathyInBlue]

There are quite a few good people on here that I would have no problem being shoulder to shoulder with in a SHTF scenario.

Do you mean a zombie apocalypse SHTF scenario, or an "Oh crap, I didn't see that one coming and am getting thumped!" SHTF scenario?

... people say that they wouldn't assist an officer in need because most likely, the officer was doing bad things to the person he/she is involved in an altercation to begin with!

I didn't see a lot of people saying that. I saw a lot of people saying that the officer or the officer's good, close, personal friends would do bad things to them if they got involved, whether mistakenly or deliberately.

... people are asking that if they are near a situation where an officer is involved in a shooting and poeple are injured by fragments or ricoches from the officer involved shooting, can they shoot the officer?

Again, a gross misrepresentation. The issue was not "If injured by a LEO, mistakenly, but gravely, can I execute him?" The issue was "If gravely injured by a LEO, even if mistakenly, and his threat did not immediately abate, i.e. he continued to pose a threat of grave bodily injury or death, can I defend myself with deadly force to abate the officer's threat to me?"

 

[IndyDave1776]

Do you mean a zombie apocalypse SHTF scenario, or an "Oh crap, I didn't see that one coming and am getting thumped!" SHTF scenario?

I didn't see a lot of people saying that. I saw a lot of people saying that the officer or the officer's good, close, personal friends would do bad things to them if they got involved, whether mistakenly or deliberately.

Again, a gross misrepresentation. The issue was not "If injured by a LEO, mistakenly, but gravely, can I execute him?" The issue was "If gravely injured by a LEO, even if mistakenly, and his threat did not immediately abate, i.e. he continued to pose a threat of grave bodily injury or death, can I defend myself with deadly force to abate the officer's threat to me?"

Unfortunately, I got the 'spread the rep' scold.