Federal Lawsuit For Being Tasered

Off Topic
221

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Seriously, doesn’t everyone’s parents teach them how to act when pulled over?

Because this would involve personal responsibility, something many people are not willing to enact. No one wants to talk about that though. Everyone is so sensitive about being politically correct.

This is what I was getting at when I said that people get so wrapped up trying to “use” their rights…that they ignore and try to step over personal responsibility and common sense to do.

Of course this was twisted into me not thinking rights and liberty are important. [/quote]

This was actually the mantra of what I saw while locked up. I remember hearing old timers, guys who were doing REAL time, talk about this. Keeping it real. You can act however you like, but you have be ready to accept what comes with that. If you want to act a fool, be ready to be treated like one. Boss, no one wants to accept their own behavior or responsibility, just the repercussions of it.

222

I am wondering at the logic of it being so difficult and dangerous for cops to deal with individuals not being in cars.

It would seem to me that a person who finds that an untenable or scary position really shouldn’t be in law enforcement.

After all, people aren’t always in cars.

Unless the career plan is to be, and only be, on traffic detail as the life ambition.

Myself, I never even happened to find out that police generally don’t prefer for persons to get out of their cars till past age 40. Only once ever had a cop freak out. None of the rest cared.

Hmm, I guess that they were actually able to deal with people not in cars. Was this unusual skill? Or perhaps balls of steel?

223

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Was this unusual skill? Or perhaps balls of steel?

[/quote]

Lack of sense coupled with good fortune. The dead ones didn’t have the good fortune.

224

No, I meant, did all those cops have unusual skill in actually being able to deal with a person not being in a car, or was it balls of steel on their part.

It must be traumatic for traffic cops to be put onto other duties. Terrifying.

225

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I am wondering at the logic of it being so difficult and dangerous for cops to deal with individuals not being in cars.

It would seem to me that a person who finds that an untenable or scary position really shouldn’t be in law enforcement.

After all, people aren’t always in cars.

Unless the career plan is to be, and only be, on traffic detail as the life ambition.

Myself, I never even happened to find out that police generally don’t prefer for persons to get out of their cars till past age 40. Only once ever had a cop freak out. None of the rest cared.

Hmm, I guess that they were actually able to deal with people not in cars. Was this unusual skill? Or perhaps balls of steel?

[/quote]

Or perhaps complacent because nothing never happened to them??

Some officers like to think ahead. If a person is in their car…the less of a chance of an incident occurring outside of the vehicle…right? Balls of steel and being smart can co-exist. Officers who deal with people outside of traffic stops still have that same degree of thinking ahead and how they manage their surroundings.

Which gets into the instances of those who “know their rights” having a problem with officers asking/telling them to move away from a public area as they are dealing with a situation. There not doing it just be authoritative…as most choose to see it.

But then again some of these same people(and it’s been shown in this thread) feel as if law enforcement has at the MOST a minor right to their own safety.

226

What’s also being lost, about remaining in the vehicle until asked, is the police officer being liable for the driver’s safety. Say some yahoo jumps out without being asked, and the officer doesn’t order him back in. The driver is struck by a passing vehicle. Or, maybe just debris from the road is flung into him. Or some guy speeding by on a sports bike throws a hard object at the distracted cop. Or, even takes a shot at the cop.

Driver is hit. Driver gets lawyer, holding the police responsible. Cop, in court, says “He got out of the vehicle on his own.” Lawyer says, “Oh, but aren’t you a law enforcement officer? Hadn’t you pulled over my client in the performance of your lawful duty? Aren’t you then in charge of the scene? Weren’t you then responsible for my client’s safety? Tell me, Officer, had you arrested my client would you’ve been so negligent as to allow him to decide if he was going to wear a seat belt on the way to lock up? Of course not, you’d have made that call. But you failed to do it on the night in question, and my client payed the price.”

But let’s get back to the possibility of a driver getting out, isn’t ordered back in, and IS a bad guy. At some point the bad guy makes his move, pulls a gun from his pocket, and fires. Skilled cop with balls of steel takes him out without being hit. However, passerby does get hit. By either one’s stray bullet, doesn’t matter whose. Now in court, or in front of a review board, the cop has to answer as to why in the hell was this guy even allowed out of the car in the first place.

227

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s also being lost, about remaining in the vehicle until asked, is the police officer being liable for the driver’s safety. Say some yahoo jumps out without being asked, and the officer doesn’t order him back in. The driver is struck by a passing vehicle. Or, maybe just debris from the road is flung into him. Or some guy speeding by on a sports bike throws a hard object at the distracted cop. Or, even takes a shot at the cop.

Driver is hit. Driver gets lawyer, holding the police responsible. Cop, in court, says “He got out of the vehicle on his own.” Lawyer says, “Oh, but aren’t you a law enforcement officer? Hadn’t you pulled over my client in the performance of your lawful duty? Aren’t you then in charge of the scene? Weren’t you then responsible for my client’s safety? Tell me, Officer, had you arrested my client would you’ve been so negligent as to allow him to decide if he was going to wear a seat belt on the way to lock up? Of course not, you’d have made that call. But you failed to do it on the night in question, and my client payed the price.”

But let’s get back to the possibility of a driver getting out, isn’t ordered back in, and IS a bad guy. At some point the bad guy makes his move, pulls a gun from his pocket, and fires. Skilled cop with balls of steel takes him out without being hit. However, passerby does get hit. By either one’s stray bullet, doesn’t matter whose. Now in court, or in front of a review board, the cop has to answer as to why in the hell was this guy even allowed out of the car in the first place.

[/quote]

Ok look there are obviously some good points you guys are making but there are gaping holes none of you are addressing. If I am a criminal and I have a handgun and I get pulled over and MY intention is to pop this cop and split. What am I going to do? Am I going to get out of my car, alerting the officer that something fishy is up, pull my piece out while approaching him and start firing on his car? Or am I going to take the gun and hold it low and right up to the door and when the cop walks over before he can even realize what I am doing I got three rounds into him and my car is pulling away. He has no chance to pull his gun, or call for backup. Are you really sure the cop is SAFER if the person remains in the vehicle where the cop cannot see his hands until he is AT the drivers side window? Also cops do not roll up to every drivers side window with their firearms drawn and aimed. Should they? Their safety is #1 right? if they get shot and killed who will write all the tickets?

P.S. I thought about this the first time someone claimed officer safety, I just thought most people were on the side of the civilian being safe first and the cop second. Since it appears some of you would rather take the bullet to protect our protectors, then here is why it is NOT safe for the cop to do this. Or at the very least, a person getting out of the car actually increases the safety of the officer.

V

228

[quote]Vegita wrote:

Ok look there are obviously some good points you guys are making but there are gaping holes none of you are addressing. If I am a criminal and I have a handgun and I get pulled over and MY intention is to pop this cop and split. What am I going to do? Am I going to get out of my car, alerting the officer that something fishy is up, pull my piece out while approaching him and start firing on his car? Or am I going to take the gun and hold it low and right up to the door and when the cop walks over before he can even realize what I am doing I got three rounds into him and my car is pulling away. He has no chance to pull his gun, or call for backup. Are you really sure the cop is SAFER if the person remains in the vehicle where the cop cannot see his hands until he is AT the drivers side window? Also cops do not roll up to every drivers side window with their firearms drawn and aimed. Should they? Their safety is #1 right? if they get shot and killed who will write all the tickets?

V[/quote]

As an officer approaches he is craning his neck, sort of up on the toes, looking down into the backseat, then over the shoulder of the driver into the front seat. He’s looking for ducked down passengers and for empty hands. A bad cop will stand flush with the door without having ordered you to keep your hands visble if they already weren’t. A good cop doesn’t stand flush with the door anyways. So, after he’s told you to make your hands visible while still positioned behind your shoulder, almost hugging the car, he doesn’t then stand directly in front of the door, but leans down and to the side, making a smaller profile.

Now, if he does make it to driver door, and the driver suddenly reaches between his lap and pulls a gun, the cop has a chance to backpedal while drawing his firearm. The driver now has to contort himself, shooting from a poor ‘stance.’ And doesn’t have much room for run and gun. The cop, having backed up, can more easily approximate his practiced shooting shooting stance, or run and gun if need be.

Edit:
Now add the liability the officer has for keeping the scene safe for the vehicles occupants and any passerbys. So, the staying in the car idea has a whole lot of merit. And is easily complied with. All the driver has to do is remain seated, no extra energy required.

229

As a police officer, I would have done the same thing. No one approaches my vehicle. That is a threat. You obey orders then the officer will explain what is going on. I go home to my family after each shift no matter what. There was a situation in California recently where a motorist approached an officers motor cycle after being pulled over and shot two cops. Then shot a swat guy later. As a police officer you owe it to youself to not let someone come to your vehicle. That is taught in the academy. This gut was clearly aggitated and had no desire to make the traffic stop go without problems. The police did the right thing regardless od what kind of person the suspect is. Citizens dictate our decisions. If you comply it goes well. If not we have no reason not to think there is something wrong and a threat in front of us. This guy made the decision to be tased instead of comply.

230

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I am wondering at the logic of it being so difficult and dangerous for cops to deal with individuals not being in cars.

It would seem to me that a person who finds that an untenable or scary position really shouldn’t be in law enforcement.

After all, people aren’t always in cars.

[/quote]

The problem is, there is NO need to get out of the car. And usually people that do, tend to be the not so law abiding type.

231

[quote]charger21 wrote:
Citizens dictate our decisions.[/quote]

Exactly. every time I’ve been pulled over, I treat the cop with respect, and like wise.

233

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
charger21 wrote:
Citizens dictate our decisions.

Exactly. every time I’ve been pulled over, I treat the cop with respect, and like wise.[/quote]

Same here. I used to work in an extremely secure location, and as such, occasionally I’d be detained by military police. Some of the idiots would get be forced to kneel/lay in the much, have handcuff marks, basically the type of minor treatment you’d expect for dicking around with someone that’s trying to get their job done. When I was detained, I’d talk to them politely like they were an acquaintance I fully respected.

The first time I was detained, they walked me over a few steps so I could kneel on the sidewalk instead of mucking up my uniform on the grass. The second time they asked if my handcuffs were causing any discomfort. The first time I got a speeding ticket from the sheriff in Alabama, the officer was nice enough to let me take a picture with him.

235

That is one hell of a story Push, I do believe you have some people who should not be in law enforcement. The system is not perfect by any means, and neither are the people enforcing it. But we cannot avoid enforcing the law because of the possibility that mistakes will happen. If and when mistakes happen, they should be handled accordingly.

I am guessing that guy’s case got tossed out, because there was an eternity of minutes where he failed to comply with police orders.