Interesting/Confusing LEO encounter my son had - Page 3
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46

Thread: Interesting/Confusing LEO encounter my son had

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The officer in question did nothing to take control of "the situation" nor did he "put himself in the most tactically advantaged position." The officer ordered the subject to perform an action that increased the danger to himself, to the subject, and to any innocent bystanders that might have been around.

    The officer clearly did this for one of two reasons: either he was exerting authority merely to exert authority and giving orders because he could...or he was just plain inept and had no idea what a completely wrong situation he had created by telling the subject to handle his firearm during the stop. In either case, this particular officer needs to go back to basic training. And if he was giving orders and exerting authority for no other reason than to puff his badge out further, he needs to be formally reprimanded, because his puffing is putting at least two people at greater risk.
    This argument is all hearsay. None of us including you have any knowledge about this officer's department policies. My post took up a much more broad argument about general policing because of a poster who seems to have little or no knowledge of the criminal justice system. (The poster makes a comment about the whole reason for being pulled over was a broken tail light and he doesnt think that warrants any show of force at all by a cop. He fails to realize pulling people over for tail lights is a big deal for officer safety and for catching wanted criminals).

    In my opinion, the officer attempted to place himself in a more advantaged position. Smart or stupid way of going about it? I can't say because I wasn't there, nor was anyone here. So lets rephrase your argument by placing the words "I feel that..." or "in my opinion...", or "based on hearsay evidence, I feel that the officer..."

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Mobuck View Post
    Why would the officer need to feel "in control of the situation" over a tail light bulb? That line is pure BS. He just wanted to show his meager authority over a citizen who had already gone above the minimum requirement of the law. Next time don't give any more than the least the law allows would be my suggestion. If the cop can't function within the laws made by the legislature, he needs to get a job at Walmart stocking shelves or swabbing the toilet.

    I knew there would be one that had to take it to LEO bashing statement. Pathetic !

    One to the original post, i can not comment on the deputys reasoning, however there was a comfort level there with your son, which i totally disagree with, i know personally, i would never have a civilian handle a firearm when i do not know the individual, but like stated above i do not do things the same as the next man, and vice versa

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    This argument is all hearsay. None of us including you have any knowledge about this officer's department policies. My post took up a much more broad argument about general policing because of a poster who seems to have little or no knowledge of the criminal justice system. (The poster makes a comment about the whole reason for being pulled over was a broken tail light and he doesnt think that warrants any show of force at all by a cop. He fails to realize pulling people over for tail lights is a big deal for officer safety and for catching wanted criminals).

    In my opinion, the officer attempted to place himself in a more advantaged position. Smart or stupid way of going about it? I can't say because I wasn't there, nor was anyone here. So lets rephrase your argument by placing the words "I feel that..." or "in my opinion...", or "based on hearsay evidence, I feel that the officer..."
    Come on man. You know Navy is all seeing and all knowing. I've only been here a little while and have seen that clearly. I wish I had my own little LCDR to keep in my pocket to keep me on the straight and narrow. I used to have a couple but they weren't that all knowing, in fact, they only spoke when it was important to speak. Our little Sea Scout is a bit different, so give him a break will ya? ;)

    KK

  5. Deserteagle,

    It doesn't matter WHY the officer did what he did. The UNDISPUTABLE FACT is that IF the officer did as described and ordered the subject to handle the gun himself, what the officer's order ACCOMPLISHED was to place himself, the subject and innocent bystanders in MORE DANGER of being shot than if the gun was left in the holster. PERIOD. NOBODY was made safer by the subject removing the gun from the holster to put it in the glove box. For an action like that, INTENTIONS don't matter a whole heckuva lot considering the RESULTS of the order.

    Do to the RESULTS of his order, the officer needs to receive more training.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Keykutter:242235
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    This argument is all hearsay. None of us including you have any knowledge about this officer's department policies. My post took up a much more broad argument about general policing because of a poster who seems to have little or no knowledge of the criminal justice system. (The poster makes a comment about the whole reason for being pulled over was a broken tail light and he doesnt think that warrants any show of force at all by a cop. He fails to realize pulling people over for tail lights is a big deal for officer safety and for catching wanted criminals).

    In my opinion, the officer attempted to place himself in a more advantaged position. Smart or stupid way of going about it? I can't say because I wasn't there, nor was anyone here. So lets rephrase your argument by placing the words "I feel that..." or "in my opinion...", or "based on hearsay evidence, I feel that the officer..."
    Come on man. You know Navy is all seeing and all knowing. I've only been here a little while and have seen that clearly. I wish I had my own little LCDR to keep in my pocket to keep me on the straight and narrow. I used to have a couple but they weren't that all knowing, in fact, they only spoke when it was important to speak. Our little Sea Scout is a bit different, so give him a break will ya? ;)

    KK
    what was the point of this post?

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Deserteagle,

    It doesn't matter WHY the officer did what he did. The UNDISPUTABLE FACT is that IF the officer did as described and ordered the subject to handle the gun himself, what the officer's order ACCOMPLISHED was to place himself, the subject and innocent bystanders in MORE DANGER of being shot than if the gun was left in the holster. PERIOD. NOBODY was made safer by the subject removing the gun from the holster to put it in the glove box. For an action like that, INTENTIONS don't matter a whole heckuva lot considering the RESULTS of the order.

    Do to the RESULTS of his order, the officer needs to receive more training.
    Again, start your paragraphs with "Based on hearsay and no knowledge of the officer's department policy, I think..."

    Im not saying he acted smart or acted stupid. I just dont think any of us should be judging him when we werent there and we aren't cops.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    Again, start your paragraphs with "Based on hearsay and no knowledge of the officer's department policy, I think..."

    Im not saying he acted smart or acted stupid. I just dont think any of us should be judging him when we werent there and we aren't cops.
    Is there any law enforcement department in the country that has a policy that if a gun is found in a holster you ask the individual to remove the gun from the holster and put it somewhere else? Really?!? Any LEO department that has a policy like that needs to have their government funding removed, or at a minimum have their funding moved to the states' special education funding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keykutter View Post
    Come on man. You know Navy is all seeing and all knowing. I've only been here a little while and have seen that clearly. I wish I had my own little LCDR to keep in my pocket to keep me on the straight and narrow. I used to have a couple but they weren't that all knowing, in fact, they only spoke when it was important to speak. Our little Sea Scout is a bit different, so give him a break will ya? ;)

    KK
    Keykutter, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a gun in a holster is safer than a gun being handled by a person on the side of the road. Of course, if you were on a boomer, you might just be a rocket scientist.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    or at a minimum have their funding moved to the states' special education funding.
    It seems like you are trying to bash cops rather than make a legitimate point.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    It seems like you are trying to bash cops rather than make a legitimate point.
    My legitimate point was and is that the cop's orders for the subject to take the gun out of his holster and place it in the glovebox did NOTHING other than increase the risk of injury to the subject, to the cop and to any innocent bystanders. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE was accomplished by the cop's order to the subject to handle his gun. That is an undisputable fact in this situation. It does not matter what department policy was, it does not matter what the officer's intentions were, what matters is that this police officer's actions placed more people in more danger than if he had not given the order.

    Seems like all you want to do is polish badges and shine boots rather than face the reality of the situation.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    My legitimate point was and is that the cop's orders for the subject to take the gun out of his holster and place it in the glovebox did NOTHING other than increase the risk of injury to the subject, to the cop and to any innocent bystanders. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE was accomplished by the cop's order to the subject to handle his gun. That is an undisputable fact in this situation. It does not matter what department policy was, it does not matter what the officer's intentions were, what matters is that this police officer's actions placed more people in more danger than if he had not given the order.

    Seems like all you want to do is polish badges and shine boots rather than face the reality of the situation.
    If you consider me a badge polisher for not accepting hearsay evidence about an encounter NONE of us had, then sure. I guess Im also smart for not believing everything I see on the internet, especially when its based on a second hand account. Im also smart for not jumping to conclusions and judging others I have no knowledge of.
    There are no facts in this case as you continue to strongly believe with use of capital letters. There is much to dispute because guess what? We dont know what the facts are, unless you are the one that was pulled over, and you were not.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast