This is not intended for the regular reason why people often show such tapes... but it clearly demonstrates one of the dangers of policing that some of you have mentioned and I want to use it to demonstrate why I support what I do.
My support is so that once the decision is made that the person is going to be forcibly removed from the vehicle, that there is not the multiple attempts as we see here, likely based on some level of confused missions, of wanting to give this guy every chance... where the cops seem unwilling to quite literally muscle the guy out of the car.
And yes, you could EASILY edit this to imply that cops who have simply pulled this guy over for 'pulling out in front of him' or 'always after him just because of his past' are acting ridiculously aggressively... 'help help' BS when the reality is that the car is not registered, he is driving without a license and he has no proof of insurance. This, coupled with a long history of criminal acts. I certainly can't say, but had he simply gotten out and they found no gun nor drugs, they might actually have let him go with some tickets. I say that because of how much slack they gave him even without all that.
One of my mantras when it comes to the military is the stupid thing we did in the 1960's when 'war' started to be delivered to our dinner table... when we decided to try and conduct 'nice' wars. Where we played by one set of rules and the other side played by a different set of rules.
My rule #1, If you don't want it dead, don't call the military. The military is not a peace keeping force... They are a combat force... There are elements within the military that can be peace-keepers, but they are not combat forces.
I am suggesting that we look at the police in this same vein... In this situation... there would have been a 3rd person present... The guy who tries to talk him out of the car... the guy who muscles him out of the car and the supervisor who can assist in muscling the guy out. When guy #1 fails, guys 2 and 3 don't have to keep talking to him. The supervisor is on the hook for the ultimate determination of whether force was warranted... and he would have a history of making such decisions before becoming a supervisor.... but guy #1 only worries about the conversation and guy #2 only worries about submission. If that wasn't enough people, you keep everyone right there... the talker as well as the supervisor, with a gun, not a tazer... and the 'muscle'... until more muscle can arrive.
Maybe it doesn't work... it's a commitment to a NEW 'system'... but this would certainly eliminate situations where a guy who literally breaks some silly law (like my young son (16 at the time) who thought he paid $6 for parking when he left the theatre, not before and the guy wasn't there when he pulled in) who gets a gun put to his head, literally urinating on himself out of fear from a cop on a power trip over $6. No history, no registration or insurance issues and certainly confusion, but no 'up yours, pig' attitude from a kid who was quite literally, a church choir boy and honor student.... but he had long hair (that he grew out to play Jesus in a church musical)
I don't understand why the officers let this go on for 10 minutes. I would have counted to three and tased him immediately at 1.
When you are given an order by a cop, you comply. You be respectful from the beginning. You show them you are willing to cooperate by your actions in being complicit with their requests. This is how you give yourself an opportunity to discuss the situation calmly and rationally, giving them an opening to reconsider if they wish.
If you think there is a problem, you may tell it to the judge.
This man-child is a spoiled brat who was given way too many chances, and pretty obviously not for the first time in his sad life. I would place a hefty bet he is from either a divorced or neglectful family with a father who was either too busy to be around because he's making too much money for himself instead of spending the time actually raising his kid and teaching him proper respect for our country and discipline early on, or just a father pushed out of the picture by a no-fault cash-grab by the local government and his own mother; or more commonly today, his own folks were never married in the first place so he has no concept of commitment and responsibility through difficult times and doing what you don't want to do whether you agree or like it or not. This is what you get when you don't require both parents to live up to their responsibility to parent their own children instead of letting left-wing public schools and the gub'ment do it for you.
Is there any more info on what transpired after the video ended?
1. How this would have played out had a mental health pro been sent in lieu of an officer?
2. If the safety of the apartment dwellers and the suspect would have been greater if the responders had been unarmed.
3. If this would have been another example of "police brutality" had the suspect been (a) black, and (b) killed.
If you're describing my articulated approach, then it's very simple what would have happened.
First, since it was one cop... 99 times out of 100, especially with someone they apparently knew well, you wouldn't send an unarmed cop
Second, let's assume that the guy by the door was the unarmed cop, and the guy recording (the supervisor) was armed (my suggestion)
The unarmed cop would have continued to explain and try and solicit voluntary compliance from the guy. The other guy would stand in support. After a few minutes of this, the armed cop would draw his weapon and be like ED209 and say... you have 10 seconds to comply... in those 10 seconds the other guy would have pleaded with the guy to comply... by this time, just as here... likely some support would have arrived... and when the guy didn't comply after the 10 seconds, the armed guy would have tazered him and the supporting/supervising cop would have assisted in a forceful and aggressive arrest. If no support was available, then the unarmed cop would have done the same. As soon as he was in custody, he would be put into a vehicle... using tazers again if necessary.
The difference would be that the roles would be clear... One guy was his way out, one guy was his way down. You do not negotiate/talk to the officer with the tazer... when he decides (and he has more training and has passed more tests than normal because he hasn't spent as much time on de-escalation) that its time to act, then he acts. It doesn't take 5 half-assed attempts to get the guy out of the car... because the cops aren't sure how to act.
(09-18-2020 12:49 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand why the officers let this go on for 10 minutes. I would have counted to three and tased him immediately at 1.
When you are given an order by a cop, you comply. You be respectful from the beginning. You show them you are willing to cooperate by your actions in being complicit with their requests. This is how you give yourself an opportunity to discuss the situation calmly and rationally, giving them an opening to reconsider if they wish.
If you think there is a problem, you may tell it to the judge.
This man-child is a spoiled brat who was given way too many chances, and pretty obviously not for the first time in his sad life. I would place a hefty bet he is from either a divorced or neglectful family with a father who was either too busy to be around because he's making too much money for himself instead of spending the time actually raising his kid and teaching him proper respect for our country and discipline early on, or just a father pushed out of the picture by a no-fault cash-grab by the local government and his own mother; or more commonly today, his own folks were never married in the first place so he has no concept of commitment and responsibility through difficult times and doing what you don't want to do whether you agree or like it or not. This is what you get when you don't require both parents to live up to their responsibility to parent their own children instead of letting left-wing public schools and the gub'ment do it for you.
Is there any more info on what transpired after the video ended?
Its all the indecision and the 'hope' that the guy can get away with it.
Let's be honest... the guy and his whole 'golly gee, sir... can I not simply go to my mommy's house, sir?' bs was not intended to create a defense for his shooting of the cops... He was buying time for his getaway friend to arrive and/or trying to get the right situation. If he was doing it for the camera, he wouldn't have committed murder on camera.
That's why my issue about the unclear decisions by the cops, where they seem unsure about whether to use a lot of force or not... That specifically created the opportunity this guy used to grab his gun and shoot them.
I think people should also know that although the one cop is there to be nice to them the other one isn't... and he will only wait 'so' long.
What I know is one of the cops died and the guy was caught and arrested. Don't know more.
Another option would have been to wait until 20 cops arrived in which case those two still get shot, but the criminal gets shot as well.... or yes, you go after the guy with 20 cops... and get him... but bad things can happen there.... and the video of this 'choir boy who just wanted to go home to mommy' looks like ridiculous overkill