Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[kuronosan]

BG. Where we defend the principles of self defense by counting the number of rocks.

[Nephlite]

Jesus Christ people... I'm done.

[Acevalefor]

If your friend is facing 20 years, or even an arrest for a taillight (non-arrestable BTW, and no prosecutor in the world will allow a defendant to plead out to a civil infraction), then your friend is lying to you or this story is filed under #thathappened.

And you just proved that you did not read what I actually typed...again. It wasn't a tail light issue. It was a light-duty tow truck with emergency strobes that are amber and red. Just like every other tow truck on the road. He was pulled over and felony extracted because the cop had convinced himself that this guy was dangerous and was impersonating a police officer by accidentally leaving his strobes on after clearing a call on the highway. It was a fucked up situation and the cops and prosecution kept it up instead of admitting they made a mistake.

I have been pulled over 3 times for leaving my strobes on accidentally. All three times the officer told me to turn them off and we had a laugh at my expense.

[Gokku]

I've the solutions replace cops with ninjas as masters of cqc disarming foes before they even blink masters of disguise.

[jmc]

I've the solutions replace cops with ninjas as masters of cqc disarming foes before they even blink masters of disguise.

So.....

I can be a ginger ninja (ginja)? I'm ok with this.

[kuronosan]

I'm sorry, I thought you could at least afford a sense of humor. Your bias towards your logic is rather clear and instead of listening you just keep saying "nah y'all just don't know".

I can't hope to understand, as a non-officer, what it must be like dealing with what you have to deal with.

But letting the system win and going so far as to say you'd gun down a person with a paper clip in self defense?

You're either really bad at telling jokes or you're a terrible cop.

[Nephlite]

And you just proved that you did not read what I actually typed...again. It wasn't a tail light issue. It was a light-duty tow truck with emergency strobes that are amber and red. Just like every other tow truck on the road. He was pulled over and felony extracted because the cop had convinced himself that this guy was dangerous and was impersonating a police officer by accidentally leaving his strobes on after clearing a call on the highway. It was a fucked up situation and the cops and prosecution kept it up instead of admitting they made a mistake.

I have been pulled over 3 times for leaving my strobes on accidentally. All three times the officer told me to turn them off and we had a laugh at my expense.

Sorry, I know what you meant, I used the wrong term.

Still, in any situation, even if he had reds and blues on, it's not an arrestable offense, unless he is caught in the act of impersonating a peace officer. Merely having the lights on your vehicle is not in itself arrestable, and at the most would be a 2nd degree traffic offense. If your friend didn't sue the fuck out of them or he took the deal, then I would have to say sorry for being stupid.

[Nephlite]

I'm sorry, I thought you could at least afford a sense of humor. Your bias towards your logic is rather clear and instead of listening you just keep saying "nah y'all just don't know".

I can't hope to understand, as a non-officer, what it must be like dealing with what you have to deal with.

But letting the system win and going so far as to say you'd gun down a person with a paper clip in self defense?

You're either really bad at telling jokes or you're a terrible cop.

I said if someone is trying to kill me, I would kill them. Like all my information and arguments, you're focusing on that tiny little section just to nitpick. Why? Who cares? The person is trying to kill me. Forget everything else and focus on the main objective: someone is trying to kill me. I purposely put that there to let you know that regardless of the means, if the opportunity and the intent of someone is to kill me, it doesn't matter what type of weapon it is.

[kuronosan]

And I'm asking you to do simple math and calculate, for those of us following, exactly how many officers there has to be present in a situation for them all the justifiably feel safe against one man throwing rocks?

2? 7? 25?

[Nephlite]

And I'm asking you to do simple math and calculate, for those of us following, exactly how many officers there has to be present in a situation for them all the justifiably feel safe against one man throwing rocks?

2? 7? 25?

And I'm telling you that it doesn't matter. Kosher?

[kuronosan]

No. It isn't. Please continue missing the point and getting frustrated with those of us who are still sane. I'd rather talk to Thunder, who at least appreciates when I'm being serious and doesn't act like he's King of All.

[Ksandra]

I said if someone is trying to kill me, I would kill them. Like all my information and arguments, you're focusing on that tiny little section just to nitpick. Why? Who cares? The person is trying to kill me. Forget everything else and focus on the main objective: someone is trying to kill me. I purposely put that there to let you know that regardless of the means, if the opportunity and the intent of someone is to kill me, it doesn't matter what type of weapon it is.

Because you need to assess more than just "this guy is trying to kill me." If you can disarm them, despite the fact they are trying to kill you, then that is what you should do. If a guy in a wheelchair comes at a cop with a paperclip and cop just shoots him in the head, he's a bad cop. Doesn't matter if the guy was trying to kill him.

[Acevalefor]

Sorry, I know what you meant, I used the wrong term.

Still, in any situation, even if he had reds and blues on, it's not an arrestable offense, unless he is caught in the act of impersonating a peace officer. Merely having the lights on your vehicle is not in itself arrestable, and at the most would be a 2nd degree traffic offense. If your friend didn't sue the fuck out of them or he took the deal, then I would have to say sorry for being stupid.

He was coerced into accepting a plea, but talked to a civil attorney afterward and is pursuing legal recourse. He stands to win unless there is some detail we don't know about his behavior during the stop. That was my point. The cops fucked up bad. The prosecutor agreed to fubar charges. They got him to accept the improper use of lights traffic citation as a "bargain" for him....He never had to make that deal because it would have been thrown out as soon as a judge saw it. That is why he is now suing the city and the police department. I don't even remember what brought that up, but it is another example of bad police work. This is up there with on-duty officers in North Portland hiring hookers and doing cocaine in a hotel room rented by the hour...ridiculous.

[jmc]

You guys are really putting too much thought into the paperclip comment.

[kuronosan]

Nah, I'm not. I'm just seriously curious how far "I'm in danger" extends beyond logical reason.

[Ksandra]

You guys are really putting too much thought into the paperclip comment.

You can't deny that neph was trying to make it pretty clear that if anyone tries to kill him, he will kill them first no matter the weapon. But it illustrates a huge point. That shouldn't be just about someone trying to kill you, but whether or not you can realistically stop them without killing them.

[Yuri-G]

I said if someone is trying to kill me, I would kill them.

And this is exactly what people - myself, at least - cannot accept. There is a huge difference between shooting at you and throwing rocks. You can't blanket "trying to kill me" like that and expect people to accept it.

By all means, if someone is coming at you with a knife, please do shoot him. But don't shoot the rock-throwing guy. The fact that you can't seem to see the difference is really depressing to me.

[Acevalefor]

You guys are really putting too much thought into the paperclip comment.

But....Benghazi! Fox News! We must cling to any ridiculousness because that is what this thread is all about.

[Yuri-G]

Even though they would have been legally justified to kill him when they contacted him, they at least tried to apprehend him by other means. He is not absolved of personal responsibility (or maybe he is because he is dead).

Wait, is that true? A police officer is legally justified to kill that guy without even attempting less-lethal means? Please dear god tell me that's not true. That is frightening.

Like the majority of these situations, if people would stop fighting and comply, it wouldn't escalate to this.

Agreed, and would back you up on that point.

Why aren't people questioning the motives and placing some of that hatred on the people who think it's a good idea on fighting with the police, especially with a weapon of all things?

Read my earlier posts - I said more than once that the guy should have stopped. Still doesn't justify killing a man for throwing rocks. Very little could. Now if there's more to the story...

And again, we don't have the full picture. How do you know he only had one rock? How do you know he didn't have other weapons? What do you see through the officers eyes that makes you think that you can know what their perception was?

If he had other weapons, then depending on the weapon, I might agree with you. With the information we have, I don't.

[archibaldcrane]

Neph, my problem is this: You keep throwing out hypotheticals, what if they tried to tackle him and couldn't, what if he had other weapons, what if they were injured or exhausted - and you're right, it's not impossible that they didn't use wildly excessive force. Maybe this guy was a trained takedown stuffer with epic cardio and a lethal rock throwing arm who was clearly trying to kill a cop, as opposed to being a belligerent, mentally unstable man who didn't want to be brought in. It's not impossible, the cops may have acted appropriately.

What I want to know is, if there was no other weapon, if they didn't try to tackle him, if they weren't exhausted or injured - is it possible in your estimation that they used excessive force? Or are all the hypotheticals you are throwing out meaningless to you when it comes down to it?