Canton police officer goes berserk on man with licensed gun [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Canton police officer goes berserk on man with licensed gun


Pages : [1] 2

Phantom465
07-22-2011, 21:32
An officer goes nuts on this citizen who informed him that he was licensed to carry, and was armed. In Ohio, licensees are required to notify police during a traffic stop or other official contact.

warning - video contains strong language
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc&feature=player_embedded

[EDITED FOR MODERATOR NOTE: Please read this post before posting. http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17670008#post17670008]

kensteele
07-22-2011, 21:38
Jambog

Phantom465
07-22-2011, 21:40
Sorry, they just played the video on the 11:00 news, so I thought it was NEW news :whistling:

Dukeboy01
07-22-2011, 21:45
IBTL on this one too!

:woohoo:

Sam Spade
07-22-2011, 21:55
I'm starting to wonder if this is the new "I'm the only one professional enough" video.

IndyGunFreak
07-22-2011, 22:01
I'm starting to wonder if this is the new "I'm the only one professional enough" video.

Maybe

IGF

KTM950S
07-22-2011, 22:12
IBTL on this one too!

:woohoo:

Why would a gun board, that ostensibly caters to law abiding conceal carry citizens, lock a thread that discusses those who abuse and threaten law abiding conceal carry citizens?

Warp
07-22-2011, 22:46
I had not seen this. I've been pretty damn busy the last month. So, thanks for the jambog

ncglock19
07-22-2011, 22:50
Someone call me when this guy gets his hearing. I want to see if they sweep it under the rug or he pays for his misbehavior.

nc19

Calico Jack
07-22-2011, 22:50
That officer is a major liability.

OD Green Glock 19
07-22-2011, 22:52
Why would a gun board, that ostensibly caters to law abiding conceal carry citizens, lock a thread that discusses those who abuse and threaten law abiding conceal carry citizens?
Maybe because it has been posted numerous times prior to this thread? One thread in Carry Issues is plenty.

OD Green Glock 19
07-22-2011, 22:58
I think Russ will only allow this topic to be discussed if it pertains to Carry Issues. If you want to discuss the officer's actions or dis the police, do it elsewhere. The original thread was moved to the civil liberties section for that very reason.

Warp
07-22-2011, 23:00
I think Russ will only allow this topic to be discussed if it pertains to Carry Issues. If you want to discuss the officer's actions or dis the police, do it elsewhere. The original thread was moved to the civil liberties section for that very reason.

Perhaps we should discuss the best method of informing officers if they don't let you get a full sentence in. I somehow doubt yelling "I HAVE A GUN" over the officer is the best idea. So...what is?

ImpeachObama
07-22-2011, 23:09
That makes LE's look bad. I bet he's going thru marital problems and kicks the dog as soon as he gets home.

rquintana
07-22-2011, 23:14
This is from the website the video directs you to for an update on this matter:

UPDATE 7/22/2011: Canton Police announced Thursday that the officer was relieved of all duties in June following an internal investigation complaint filed in this matter. The local Canton Repository has done some additional investigatory work into the officers and an excellent analysis of the video / audio we posted. The video and story has gone both viral and national crossing over to websites not typically affiliated with the pro-gun movement. Shortly after 7:00pm Thursday our website could no longer handle the volume of visitors we were receiving. We promptly quadrupled the resources behind OhioCCW.org in light of the popularity of this story.

crsuribe
07-22-2011, 23:33
This is from the website the video directs you to for an update on this matter:

UPDATE 7/22/2011: Canton Police announced Thursday that the officer was relieved of all duties in June following an internal investigation complaint filed in this matter. The local Canton Repository has done some additional investigatory work into the officers and an excellent analysis of the video / audio we posted. The video and story has gone both viral and national crossing over to websites not typically affiliated with the pro-gun movement. Shortly after 7:00pm Thursday our website could no longer handle the volume of visitors we were receiving. We promptly quadrupled the resources behind OhioCCW.org in light of the popularity of this story.
YOU SONOFA....!!! I WAS JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LOL:rofl:

OD Green Glock 19
07-22-2011, 23:43
Perhaps we should discuss the best method of informing officers if they don't let you get a full sentence in. I somehow doubt yelling "I HAVE A GUN" over the officer is the best idea. So...what is?
In the idiot driver's defense he did have his CHP out ready to present to the officer the entire time. I think he even tried to muster the courage to present it to the officers a couple times. This was just a perfect storm of idiot, insecure driver new to CCW, oblivious partner fumbling around like a dip****, and an irate prick with a badge and some serious control and anger issues.

Warp
07-22-2011, 23:48
In the idiot driver's defense he did have his CHP out ready to present to the officer the entire time. I think he even tried to muster the courage to present it to the officers a couple times. This was just a perfect storm of idiot, insecure driver new to CCW, oblivious partner fumbling around like a dip****, and an irate prick with a badge and some serious control and anger issues.

I don't think the driver/carrier was at all responsible. None whatsoever. He tried to verbally tell the officer multiple times and also tried to hand him the CHL. He officer was just too full of himself and his authority.



If you think the driver was insecure...what could have have done betteR

crsuribe
07-22-2011, 23:54
I don't think the driver/carrier was at all responsible. None whatsoever. He tried to verbally tell the officer multiple times and also tried to hand him the CHL. He officer was just too full of himself and his authority.



If you think the driver was insecure...what could have have done betteR
Scream at the top of his lungs I HAVE A MOTHEREFFING GUN YOU EFFIN COP

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 00:02
The video was hard to watch. I kept waiting for the cops to pay the ultimate price for their complacency. It's sad when a civilian can casually point out numerous deadly mistakes these officers were making. The irate officer clearly has some issues. He has no business wearing a badge. He should be relieved of duty immediately. If his partner gets to keep his badge, this had better be a wake-up call for him. These guys could have been killed 10 times over in this stop from all the grave mistakes they were making. When the irate officer realized the driver was armed I think he was immediately aware of all the rookie mistakes they had made and was absolutely irate at himself. Unfortunately for the driver, instead of directing his anger at the dip**** who was responsible for the mistakes, the arrogant prick took out his anger on the weak driver, who was incapable of defending himself. The barrage of insults and threats that ensued were some of the most unprofessional I have heard in a while. The people defending this piece of trash are scumbags IMO. The driver is more-than-likely guilty, but nobody should have to endure such heinous insults and threats from a civil servant with more authority than he can handle. That driver is SO lucky that the dashcam caught Dumb and Dumber in action or this would have probably ended much differently. It's scary to think of what these guys may have gotten away with in the past and the trouble they could have caused in the future had this scene not been caught on tape.

Police10-42
07-23-2011, 00:05
The officer was definitly over agressive in his approach, and the problem I have is that it took him more than 5 minutes to approach the driver. Thats a big NO NO.

I as an officer have to account for everyone thats on my traffic stop, is it hard to watch multiple subjects? YES. Do you have to use an agressive tone to everyone in the picture? NO.

The driver was, IMO, attempting to advise that he had a firearm, and was a CCW holder. I have had subjects advise/ interrupt me on occasion just to notify me that they indeed had a weapon. I just ask where its located, then advise them if they can approach their credentals.

A very useful lesson is that you have two ears and one mouth, listen twice as much as you talk, it will eliminate unneccessicary work/problems.

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 00:06
I don't think the driver/carrier was at all responsible. None whatsoever. He tried to verbally tell the officer multiple times and also tried to hand him the CHL. He officer was just too full of himself and his authority.



If you think the driver was insecure...what could have have done betteR
I don't think he was to blame either. If you read my post closely, you will see that I never said he was to blame. He was just stupid to put himself in such a shady situation. In the future he may want to avoid pimps, hoes and the shady parts of town. He might also think about taking a class that will help him to be a little more assertive. I'm sure I wouldn't be very confident in that situation, but I would like to think I wouldn't be a mumbling wimp either.

dwalker84
07-23-2011, 00:06
This makes my blood BOIL. 16 internal investigations, and he was still working the streets. This guy is an animal and a disgrace to all police officers, human beings too. Absolutely sickening. I am so grateful that I live in the great state of Arizona - almost every interaction with police here has been great - 9 times out of 10 the simple fact you are CCW or OC ends with a nice conversation about guns, instead of a ticket or attitude. God bless Arizona, land of the free.

Warp
07-23-2011, 00:10
The driver is more-than-likely guilty,

Of what?

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 00:14
Of what?
He was probably picking up the prostitute he had in the car so that he could pay her for services. Maybe his story was true. I don't know, but he was probably picking up a hooker for a quickie. Maybe he's an upstanding guy who was just giving a prostitute and her pimp a ride.

helo478
07-23-2011, 00:15
This will probably result in the notification portion of the Ohio CCW statue getting eliminate or at least modified.

As for the officer, I will wait and see. I wouldn't be surprised if they try and play a waiting game and let the public outrage die down, then close the investigation and put the nut back on patrol.

Warp
07-23-2011, 00:18
He was probably picking up the prostitute he had in the car so that he could pay her for services. Maybe his story was true. I don't know, but he was probably picking up a hooker for a quickie. Maybe he's an upstanding guy who was just giving a prostitute and her pimp a ride.

What do you base this on?

For starters...is the officer in the video your only source for those two being a prostitute and a pimp? If so, do you believe his statements are trustworthy?

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 00:21
What do you base this on?
A hunch. The guy picked up a prostitute at night in a not-so-great part of town. He is either a very generous idiot or the most unoriginal liar caught picking up a hooker.

geo80
07-23-2011, 00:27
That officer is a major liability.

Warp
07-23-2011, 00:27
A hunch. The guy picked up a prostitute at night in a not-so-great part of town. He is either a very generous idiot or the most unoriginal liar caught picking up a hooker.


Why do you say she is a prostitute?

What part of town was it in?

Do you know anything other than what the officer in the video said?

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 00:29
What do you base this on?

For starters...is the officer in the video your only source for those two being a prostitute and a pimp? If so, do you believe his statements are trustworthy?

It doesn't really matter. It's irrelevant to the discussion, but no. The woman openly admits that she has been arrested numerous times for soliciting in the past. I'm not sure whether the other fellow was her pimp or not.

KTM950S
07-23-2011, 00:30
I don't think the driver/carrier was at all responsible. None whatsoever. He tried to verbally tell the officer multiple times and also tried to hand him the CHL. He officer was just too full of himself and his authority.

If you think the driver was insecure...what could have have done betteR

Scream at the top of his lungs I HAVE A MOTHEREFFING GUN YOU EFFIN COP

Sigh.

These Kids today...

The notification of concealed carry in a LEO encounter requires that you NEVER - I repeat - NEVER scream at the top of your lungs "I HAVE A MOTHEREFFING GUN", unless your committing Suicide By Cop.

At this late hour, I will leave finer points and discussion on the topic of Proper Notification Of Concealed Carry When Leo Says STFU to the rest of the class.

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 00:31
Why do you say she is a prostitute?

What part of town was it in?

Do you know anything other than what the officer in the video said?
Did you even watch the video? She clearly states that she has been arrested numerous times for prostitution in the past. Go nitpick someone else's posts. I'm over responding to these silly questions.

Warp
07-23-2011, 00:39
Did you even watch the video? She clearly states that she has been arrested numerous times for prostitution in the past. Go nitpick someone else's posts. I'm over responding to these silly questions.

I watched 90% of the video. 17 minutes is long. I must have missed the part where the woman was speaking on camera.

I was just trying to figure out what you thought the driver was guilty of as, based on waht I saw in the video, I couldn't come up with anything.

Apparently I missed at least one fact in the couple of minutes I didn't pay attention to

219paul
07-23-2011, 00:40
Looks like someone no Likey the night shift

KTM950S
07-23-2011, 00:49
Did you even watch the video? She clearly states that she has been arrested numerous times for prostitution in the past. Go nitpick someone else's posts. I'm over responding to these silly questions.

Looks like someone no Likey the night shift

No, he no likey nite shift. Maybe he need spend time in boom-boom house with LBFM.:supergrin:

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 01:05
I watched 90% of the video. 17 minutes is long. I must have missed the part where the woman was speaking on camera.

I was just trying to figure out what you thought the driver was guilty of as, based on waht I saw in the video, I couldn't come up with anything.

Apparently I missed at least one fact in the couple of minutes I didn't pay attention to
It's in the beginning of the video, just before the 4 minute mark. It's not really important. I don't know whether the guy was guilty or not. Either way, the guy didn't deserve to be disrespected and threatened like that. The officer effed up, not the driver. I just don't see why you focused so much on refuting an irrelevant opinion/observation rather than any of the points I was actually trying to make.

dwalker84
07-23-2011, 01:06
Did you even watch the video? She clearly states that she has been arrested numerous times for prostitution in the past. Go nitpick someone else's posts. I'm over responding to these silly questions.

Regardless if he was or wasnot picking up a prostitute, it doesn't matter. I'm confused, are you defending the cop by focusing on the CCW'er?

Warp
07-23-2011, 01:18
It's in the beginning of the video, just before the 4 minute mark. It's not really important. I don't know whether the guy was guilty or not. Either way, the guy didn't deserve to be disrespected and threatened like that. The officer effed up, not the driver. I just don't see why you focused so much on refuting an irrelevant opinion/observation rather than any of the points I was actually trying to make.

Regardless if he was or wasnot picking up a prostitute, it doesn't matter. I'm confused, are you defending the cop by focusing on the CCW'er?

No. He is not defending the officer's actions. He mentioned kind of off hand/in passing that the guy was, in his opinion, probably guilty BUT that that didn't matter. I just wondered why he thought the guilty part. I still don't think he is, but I understand better now why it some people might think he is...and why he might be.

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 01:22
Regardless if he was or wasnot picking up a prostitute, it doesn't matter. I'm confused, are you defending the cop by focusing on the CCW'er?
No. If you read just about any of my posts, including the one directly above yours, you will see that I was saying; even though he was PROBABLY picking up a prostitute for sex, he still didn't deserve to be disrespected and threatened like that.

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 01:27
No. He is not defending the officer's actions. He mentioned kind of off hand/in passing that the guy was, in his opinion, probably guilty BUT that that didn't matter. I just wondered why he thought the guilty part. I still don't think he is, but I understand better now why it some people might think he is...and why he might be.
Thanks, you beat me to it. I actually think this guy may just be THAT STUPID. He probably really was just giving these two a ride. The problem is he was probably in a crappy part of town where all the streetwalkers and drug dealers were out. Even if it hadn't been tweedle dee and tweedle dumb that picked him up, I doubt anyone would have bought his "I was just giving her a ride home" speech.

KTM950S
07-23-2011, 02:26
Regardless if he was or wasnot picking up a prostitute, it doesn't matter. I'm confused, are you defending the cop by focusing on the CCW'er?

No. If you read just about any of my posts, including the one directly above yours, you will see that I was saying; even though he was PROBABLY picking up a prostitute for sex, he still didn't deserve to be disrespected and threatened like that.

No, that's not what you were saying. I've read all your posts and all I see you doing is name calling the driver, e.g., idiot driver, idiot insecure driver new to CCW, stupid, mumbling wimp, very generous idiot, unoriginal liar.

You sound scary similar to the roided out thug in blue, with all your chest thumping smack talk of an INNOCENT civilian who was legally carrying concealed. Take a look back and note the disparity on how you refer to The Thug in Blue vs The Driver.

Oh, and stop trying to impress with your tough guy name calling interpretation of what you think went down, and grow up.

In the idiot driver's defense he did have his CHP out ready to present to the officer the entire time. I think he even tried to muster the courage to present it to the officers a couple times. This was just a perfect storm of idiot, insecure driver new to CCW, oblivious partner fumbling around like a dip****, and an irate prick with a badge and some serious control and anger issues.


I don't think he was to blame either. If you read my post closely, you will see that I never said he was to blame. He was just stupid to put himself in such a shady situation. In the future he may want to avoid pimps, hoes and the shady parts of town. He might also think about taking a class that will help him to be a little more assertive. I'm sure I wouldn't be very confident in that situation, but I would like to think I wouldn't be a mumbling wimp either.

A hunch. The guy picked up a prostitute at night in a not-so-great part of town. He is either a very generous idiot or the most unoriginal liar caught picking up a hooker.

IndyGunFreak
07-23-2011, 03:15
No. He is not defending the officer's actions. He mentioned kind of off hand/in passing that the guy was, in his opinion, probably guilty BUT that that didn't matter. I just wondered why he thought the guilty part. I still don't think he is, but I understand better now why it some people might think he is...and why he might be.

I agree w/ OD Glock.. theres about a 99.99999% chance, that guy was trying to pick up a prostitute. Does that excuse the cops conduct? Of course not... If the cop had either arrested him, or given him a cite to appear (as is common in prostitution cases)... this would have been a non issue.

Instead, he goes emo, and acts the way he did, and now he's likely gonna be on unemployment.

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 03:33
No, that's not what you were saying. I've read all your posts and all I see you doing is name calling the driver, e.g., idiot driver, idiot insecure driver new to CCW, stupid, mumbling wimp, very generous idiot, unoriginal liar.

You sound scary similar to the roided out thug in blue, with all your chest thumping smack talk of an INNOCENT civilian who was legally carrying concealed. Take a look back and note the disparity on how you refer to The Thug in Blue vs The Driver.

Oh, and stop trying to impress with your tough guy name calling interpretation of what you think went down, and grow up.
:rofl:Dry your eyes. Did you hear the guy? He sounds like he has about half a brain. Everything I said ridiculed the officer's treatment of the driver. Just because I disagree with the way the driver was treated does not mean I think the driver wasn't a moron or that he handled this situation properly. If he wasn't out at night picking up a prostitute or if he had done a better job of speaking up and asserting himself, it might not have gone this far. I realize that the officer did everything in his power to royally screw up this stop and I can't blame the driver for not handling it better given the circumstances, but I'm not going to pretend that the driver did a great job here either. I'm sorry that the guy had to endure what that POS officer put him through and I hope the officer gets relieved of his job, but you're not going to convince me that this guy makes intelligent decisions just because he has a CHP. I don't know whether he is innocent or not. Neither do you. I don't really care. What happened to him was wrong, regardless. Lighten up.

Bogey
07-23-2011, 03:46
It doesn't really matter. It's irrelevant to the discussion, but no. The woman openly admits that she has been arrested numerous times for soliciting in the past. I'm not sure whether the other fellow was her pimp or not.


I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I think it goes to show the officer already held the driver to be guilty when he rolled up. Preconceived guilt if you will, which led to the officer's stupidity coming out.

Bogey
07-23-2011, 03:49
She clearly states that she has been arrested numerous times for prostitution in the past.

She also said it was a LONG time ago.

owl6roll
07-23-2011, 03:59
That officer has a PROBMEM! His baby mama done left him or something! What a t u r d!!! Guys like that I just leave alone. He's WRONG for what he did, maybe he'll get days off, w/out pay or he'll be looking for a job.

So, was the charges dropped???

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 04:12
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I think it goes to show the officer already held the driver to be guilty when he rolled up. Preconceived guilt if you will, which led to the officer's stupidity coming out.
My point was that it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We weren't discussing why the officer acted like an idiot. Clearly the officer had already made up his mind about these people. Only he and God know why he acted like such a schmuck, but I suspect it was because he realized how deadly his mistakes could have been and rather than accepting that he made the choices that could have put his and his partner's lives in mortal danger, he took out his anger on the driver. He acknowledges in the video that they driver repeatedly held out the CHP. He says something to the effect of "What is that? Why do you keep having that(or showing me that)?"

Russ moved and locked the other threads because people were criticizing the officers' actions and voicing their opinions on the topic. We were trying to keep this thread relevant to Carry Issues rather than civil liberties so that it wouldn't get moved or locked like the others.

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 04:13
She also said it was a LONG time ago.
You're right. I must have forgotten. She had turned her life around:rofl:

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 04:22
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I think it goes to show the officer already held the driver to be guilty when he rolled up. Preconceived guilt if you will, which led to the officer's stupidity coming out.
Believing a suspect is guilty isn't going to make an officer's stupidity come out. I doubt very many officers arrest suspects they believe are innocent, however, very few of them throw a temper tantrum as well as my 2 year old niece. This guy is in a class all his own.

RussP
07-23-2011, 05:55
Why would a gun board, that ostensibly caters to law abiding conceal carry citizens, lock a thread that discusses those who abuse and threaten law abiding conceal carry citizens?Maybe because it has been posted numerous times prior to this thread? One thread in Carry Issues is plenty.I think Russ will only allow this topic to be discussed if it pertains to Carry Issues. If you want to discuss the officer's actions or dis the police, do it elsewhere. The original thread was moved to the civil liberties section for that very reason.Thanks, OD Green Glock 19. You are correct.

KTM950S, please read this post by Eric: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=622412

That was written and posted in Cop Talk in 2006. Today, it applies not only to Cop Talk, but to every forum on GT, especially this: "If you want to discuss legal/ethical issues of police practices or policies, do it in GT's Civil Liberties forum."

As OD Green Glock 19 said, if you want to discuss the carry issue(s) involved with a specific law enforcement encounter, or if you want to discuss a hypothetical situation, Carry Issues is the appropriate forum. You'll get input from both other carriers and members of the law enforcement community.

I'd strongly suggest you leave the hyperbole on the outside. It doesn't impress many and most often distracts from the point you may be trying to get across.

Now, if y'all want to talk about the permit carrier's actions and how he may have been able to better communicate under pressure, the thread will stay open.

If, on the other hand, you want to tell everyone how stupid and callous and irresponsible and heavy handed/oppressive the cop was, don't. I can tell you from the other 6 or so threads, that everyone knows all that already. No one is defending the cops actions. No one is defending his words.

I've tried three times to generate a discussion about the lesson(s) we carriers can learn from this incident. Only one or two, maybe three people responded, but the topic was quickly bullied back to talking about the mean and evil cop.

I closed this thread earlier, but I'll give it another chance.

Oh, hey, I have an idea. If you want to really make use of the energy you'll expend here complaining about the cop, use it to email the Mayor of Canton. Here's the link to his contact page http://www.cantonohio.gov/mayor/?pg=mayorcontact I mean, really, he has the responsibility for and authority over the PD. Here's a link to the Canton PD Code of Conduct http://www.cantonohio.gov/police/?pg=316 . Quote from it when you email the Mayor.

Grammy
07-23-2011, 07:17
If, on the other hand, you want to tell everyone how stupid and callous and irresponsible and heavy handed/oppressive the cop was, don't.

Surely you can't be serious with this comment.

You come down heavy handed on what is obvious to everyone that can think for themselves, I wonder about you and what your motivations.

Totally out of line with normal and rational thinking.

That guy is not fit to ride a garbage truck where he has no interaction with people.

jakebrake
07-23-2011, 07:22
i am sooooo i.b.t.l.

dickmartin
07-23-2011, 07:23
One may contribute to the legal defense fund of the law-abiding victim of police misconduct in this incident. See: http://ohioccw.org/CantonPD

I just sent a contribution.

Please pass this to other pro-gun lists & groups.

Sam Spade
07-23-2011, 07:24
As OD Green Glock 19 said, if you want to discuss the carry issue(s) involved with a specific law enforcement encounter, or if you want to discuss a hypothetical situation, Carry Issues is the appropriate forum.
On the propriety of carrying as you meet hookers and pimps in dark places: Are you nuts?

On notification: we like to think that we have control over some things; generally, that's true. Here, he was hosed and the situation was beyond his ability to influence. At that point, you shift mental gears from doing the right thing to doing the least wrong thing. What that thing is, depends on the situation.

Gallium
07-23-2011, 07:26
The driver/CCWer did not do anything wrong.

Sometimes you can do everything exactly right, and still end up dead.

The lessons to be learned here which really, are already well ingrained in the vast overwhelmingly large number of police officers are:
Secure the scene.

Immobilize the vehicle
Maintain professional standards for conduct
Videos are attracted to youtube like water flows downhill (except in Australia this weekend :))


The lessons for this particular CCWer dude, and CCWers in general are:



You have no control over the actions of the police when you are detained. As can be seen in this case, you also have very little ability on the direction of where the conversation goes, if the officer decides from the onset to completely "take control" of a stop. Your best bet is to keep your hands visible, clearly telegraph your actions, and be as non threatening as possible. Also, as can be seen from this video, you have very little (none, unless you start doing really stupid stuff) control over the actions of police officers. The search of his car begins without any interaction between him and the cops. It was like he was never even there.




I think some of us are conveniently forgetting that "1st timers" are never as smooth as "old timers". Someone "new" to CCW is hardly ever going to be as prepared as Russ, Warp, et al. The direct comparison would be to look at newly minted police officers, who are routinely assigned a field training officer, and still makes plenty of mistakes. Well CCWers don't have that safety net. (And for obvious reasons, they don't serve the public, nor do they have the frequency or nature of public contact that police do).




You may end up interacting with "that cop". Yep, the guy who is a total wet smelly nutsack, who is anti gun, or maybe having a really bad day/week/life. As was evidenced in the California video also posted here, you could end up with a cop who is a human being 1st, then a police officer, and interacts with the public in that manner...or a police officer who is anywhere in between on that scale.




It is your responsibility to know your environment, and know your company. The three fundamental firearms rules are very similar to the three rules of stupid. Chances are, if you obey any two of the three gun rules, nobody gets hurt. If you obey any two of the three rules of stupid (places, people, things) your chances of getting in jams are likewise equally low.

'Drew

Sam Spade
07-23-2011, 07:26
That guy is not fit to ride a garbage truck where he has no interaction with people.

Which is a Carry Issue, how?

Gallium
07-23-2011, 07:28
...

On notification: we like to think that we have control over some things; generally, that's true. Here, he was hosed and the situation was beyond his ability to influence. At that point, you shift mental gears from doing the right thing to doing the least wrong thing. What that thing is, depends on the situation.


:)

Hey, you beat me to the finish line by 2 minutes. How is it that a 85+ yr old dude is able to beat a spry handsome 30yr old devil like me? :supergrin:

Gallium
07-23-2011, 07:30
Surely you can't be serious with this comment.

You come down heavy handed on what is obvious to everyone that can think for themselves, I wonder about you and what your motivations.

Totally out of line with normal and rational thinking.

That guy is not fit to ride a garbage truck where he has no interaction with people.

Are you being intentionally thick headed? Why are you cherry picking Russ' post to drive home your irrelevant point?

Where is the forum you manage, so we can come over there and take a crap in your home?

'Drew

Sam Spade
07-23-2011, 07:35
:)

Hey, you beat me to the finish line by 2 minutes. How is it that a 85+ yr old dude is able to beat a spry handsome 30yr old devil like me? :supergrin:

Mornin', Drew. Must be my advantage of time zones: it's earlier here, so I had several hours lead on you.

Props (does anyone say that anymore?) on the detailed advice and analysis.

Grammy
07-23-2011, 07:37
Which is a Carry Issue, how?


My bad there the all knowing sam spade, I thought we were commenting about the Canton police officer goes berserk on man with licensed gun andIf you haven't noticed it is where this thread is posted.

But you guys go ahead a defend the psychopath.

My comment was directed at the "all questioning RussP" by the way...

Grammy
07-23-2011, 07:40
Are you being intentionally thick headed? Why are you cherry picking Russ' post to drive home your irrelevant point?

Where is the forum you manage, so we can come over there and take a crap in your home?

'Drew

Its his comment if he can't stand behind it, you can defend it for him. Wrong is wrong no matter what. You can go crap where you want.

Sam Spade
07-23-2011, 07:42
But you guys go ahead a defend the psychopath.

Who's defending him?

righteoushoot
07-23-2011, 08:00
It seems that the PO's in this case did not run the tags on this car before they interacted with the "suspects". At least I did not hear that in the video.

I am an Ohio resident and have my CCW, and I remember being informed by the Police Lieutenant that taught my concealed carry course (years ago) that I should expect the police to already know I am armed, or might very well be armed if the car is registered to me, since that info would come up when tags are run on any car registered to a particular CCW holder.

I was told to also inform my wife, as both cars are registered to me, that she should inform the police of the situation if she is driving without me in the car, as the Police would approach her with that knowledge.

Should the PO's not have asked from the get go if anyone was armed, assuming that their decision not to run the tags was an conscious one, and not a mistake/departure from protocol?

The driver should have spoken up though, but being a big sissy should not be a crime. (In most cases).

steveksux
07-23-2011, 08:01
Yes sir, BUT I AM REQUIRED BY LAW TO INFORM YOU I HAVE A CPL AND AM CURRENTLY ARMED. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED.

Randy

RussP
07-23-2011, 08:02
Thanks, OD Green Glock 19. You are correct.

KTM950S, please read this post by Eric: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=622412

That was written and posted in Cop Talk in 2006. Today, it applies not only to Cop Talk, but to every forum on GT, especially this: "If you want to discuss legal/ethical issues of police practices or policies, do it in GT's Civil Liberties forum."

As OD Green Glock 19 said, if you want to discuss the carry issue(s) involved with a specific law enforcement encounter, or if you want to discuss a hypothetical situation, Carry Issues is the appropriate forum. You'll get input from both other carriers and members of the law enforcement community.

I'd strongly suggest you leave the hyperbole on the outside. It doesn't impress many and most often distracts from the point you may be trying to get across.

Now, if y'all want to talk about the permit carrier's actions and how he may have been able to better communicate under pressure, the thread will stay open.

If, on the other hand, you want to tell everyone how stupid and callous and irresponsible and heavy handed/oppressive the cop was, don't. I can tell you from the other 6 or so threads, that everyone knows all that already. No one is defending the cops actions. No one is defending his words.

I've tried three times to generate a discussion about the lesson(s) we carriers can learn from this incident. Only one or two, maybe three people responded, but the topic was quickly bullied back to talking about the mean and evil cop.

I closed this thread earlier, but I'll give it another chance.

Oh, hey, I have an idea. If you want to really make use of the energy you'll expend here complaining about the cop, use it to email the Mayor of Canton. Here's the link to his contact page http://www.cantonohio.gov/mayor/?pg=mayorcontact I mean, really, he has the responsibility for and authority over the PD. Here's a link to the Canton PD Code of Conduct http://www.cantonohio.gov/police/?pg=316 . Quote from it when you email the Mayor.


If, on the other hand, you want to tell everyone how stupid and callous and irresponsible and heavy handed/oppressive the cop was, don't.Surely you can't be serious with this comment.

You come down heavy handed on what is obvious to everyone that can think for themselves, I wonder about you and what your motivations.

Totally out of line with normal and rational thinking.

That guy is not fit to ride a garbage truck where he has no interaction with people.Taken out of context, no, that is not my position at all.

In context, where I am quoting the owner of GT, Eric, where he states his policy on discussing law enforcement behavior, and where in the rest of the paragraph, the one you only quoted in part, I say that we all already know how bad the guy was/is, and where in the rest of my post I say leave the hyperbole outside so we can have a reasonable discussion of the carry issues, with all that considered, yeah, don't post about how egregious the cops behavior was. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT!!

If you are compelled to talk about his behavior, do it in this thread in Civil Liberties Issues http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17661239.

That thread started in CI, but quickly drifted so far away from any carry issue, I moved it to the appropriate forum for the discussions could continue.

My motivation? My motivation, and my goal is to maintain Carry Issues as a place to civilly discuss issues regarding the carry of a handgun for self defense.

Grammy
07-23-2011, 08:09
Who's defending him?


By omision, just calling a spade a spade, sam.

If Canton PD doesn't fire that guy, it had better start saving a lot of money to pay the huge judgments that are going to have entered against it. Among the numerous ways he violated the driver's constitutional rights, stating he should have committed murder will cause Canton to lose a lawsuit in record time. I'd turn the video over to the U.S. Attorney and demand that the out of control COP be prosecuted in the federal system, not Ohio State court.

The video wasn't clear enough to hear whether the driver tried to disclose he had a license and was armed, but with the COP that out of control, I could easily see how a driver would be terrified not to "shut up" when he was screamed at by a COP acting like he was on PCP. Neither officer has any credibility with me; I'd take the corner crack dealer's word over either of those guys. Think of all of Canton PD Officers who are going to have to live with the consequences of this guy's antics...

RussP
07-23-2011, 08:25
But you guys go ahead a defend the psychopath.Who's defending him?I'm with Sam.

I've read all the threads, all the posts, but cannot find anyone defending this guys behavior. Where did you read someone's defense of his behavior?

Okay...By omision, just calling a spade a spade, sam.

If Canton PD doesn't fire that guy, it had better start saving a lot of money to pay the huge judgments that are going to have entered against it. Among the numerous ways he violated the driver's constitutional rights, stating he should have committed murder will cause Canton to lose a lawsuit in record time. I'd turn the video over to the U.S. Attorney and demand that the out of control COP be prosecuted in the federal system, not Ohio State court.

The video wasn't clear enough to hear whether the driver tried to disclose he had a license and was armed, but with the COP that out of control, I could easily see how a driver would be terrified not to "shut up" when he was screamed at by a COP acting like he was on PCP. Neither officer has any credibility with me; I'd take the corner crack dealer's word over either of those guys. Think of all of Canton PD Officers who are going to have to live with the consequences of this guy's antics...Sam posted in another thread in Political Issues comments by law enforcement GT members. It's Post #89 on this page http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1357400&page=3.

Sam also asked in that threadWhat form would you have our "outrage" take so that you'd be satisfied? Name calling, threats? Degrading of all Ohioans, or just those in Canton?How would you answer Sam's question?

After you've had a chance to answer, we'll get back to the carry issues here.

kahoys
07-23-2011, 08:33
Didn't this cop relize or even think everything he did and said was being recorded, that alone should have kept this from happening, dunno.:wow:

Grammy
07-23-2011, 08:49
I'm with Sam.

I've read all the threads, all the posts, but cannot find anyone defending this guys behavior. Where did you read someone's defense of his behavior?

Okay...Sam posted in another thread in Political Issues comments by law enforcement GT members. It's Post #89 on this page http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1357400&page=3.

Sam also asked in that threadHow would you answer Sam's question?

After you've had a chance to answer, we'll get back to the carry issues here.

Oh question man with all the experience, thats my point.

I wish for once you would post what your "outrage" would be at the video you viewed with your own eyes.

That is how I will answer your question, with another question, it seems appropriate here...

Aahzz
07-23-2011, 09:04
Surely you can't be serious with this comment.

You come down heavy handed on what is obvious to everyone that can think for themselves, I wonder about you and what your motivations.

Totally out of line with normal and rational thinking.

That guy is not fit to ride a garbage truck where he has no interaction with people.

Did you not read the sentences following the one you quoted??? Allow me to quote for completeness' sake:

I can tell you from the other 6 or so threads, that everyone knows all that already. No one is defending the cops actions. No one is defending his words.


THIS thread is to discuss the carry issues involved in the stop, go to one of the other threads to bash the cop.

James Dean
07-23-2011, 09:12
One may contribute to the legal defense fund of the law-abiding victim of police misconduct in this incident. See: http://ohioccw.org/CantonPD

I just sent a contribution.

Please pass this to other pro-gun lists & groups.
Thanks for the link

Gallium
07-23-2011, 09:43
Its his comment if he can't stand behind it, you can defend it for him. Wrong is wrong no matter what. You can go crap where you want.

Ok. Now I get it. Righteous indignation. :)

Wrong is wrong, no matter what, but we don't routinely try murder cases in small claims courts. But wrong is wrong no matter what yes?

There are three things typically required for posting on a web based forum.


1. An internet connection
2. A device for uploading content to the forum.
3. The ability to make the post.

Yes, you meet all three requirements, but none of the additional requirements for posting logical, related responses. The grass here has been very dry because of the high heat and no rainfall, which in turn aggravates my allergies and arthritis, which in turn makes it difficult for me to go out for bingo.

What does any of that (in blue) have to do with your response, or the subject matter at hand, or the venue where we are discussing this? Very little -which is what you've done with your ridiculous tangent.

What's next? Discussions on how this stop impacts national debt servicing policy?

And now if you'll excuse me, I have to go fatten my ignore list. I do not suffer idiots or folks with very biased prejudices well.


'Drew

RussP
07-23-2011, 09:48
Oh question man with all the experience, thats my point.

I wish for once you would post what your "outrage" would be at the video you viewed with your own eyes.

That is how I will answer your question, with another question, it seems appropriate here...I don't do "outrage", Grammy. I ask about details of the incident and seek the solutions to obvious problems. In this case, the details are in the video. The problems are very obvious. The solutions are being addressed by the PD on one side and by Mr. Bartlett's attorney on the other side. Overseeing all of this are the good people of Ohioans for Concealed Carry. Besides, plenty of people have already expressed all the necessary outrage.

Now, had any part of the issue, especially the solutions, not been addressed, I'd just point out the shortcoming and suggest it be addressed.

I guess my one concern is that the charges against Bartlett have not been dismissed. His attorney is working on that and I believe it's being discussed in the thread on ohioccw.org.

:cool:

Okay, time to get back to carry issues.

writwing
07-23-2011, 09:58
THIS thread is to discuss the carry issues involved in the stop, go to one of the other threads to bash the cop.


So discussing an obviously abusive and potentially violent leo is "bashing"?

hunter won
07-23-2011, 10:17
This is an excellent training tool for new recruits and In-Service officers.These two cops have plenty to worry about now.The Canton PD Chief has his hands full.

LongGoneDays
07-23-2011, 11:00
I've read all the threads, all the posts, but cannot find anyone defending this guys behavior. Where did you read someone's defense of his behavior?


http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1357141

Seanmac's posts on page 1 and 2. He starts off by dismissing the officer's behavior then using every assumption he can to concrete the CCer as a lying criminial. Which is defending the officer's behavior. Most people, LEO or not, see the roidcop as in the wrong.

How each thread on this has been dealt with sends the same message that GT is infamous for: THIS IS MY TOY. I DECIDE HOW YOU WILL PLAY WITH IT.
There isn't much to discuss after seeing the video other than your reaction to the cops's actions and words, the threats, the illegal search, all of it. No, you cant say tthis in CI, no not in Civil Liberties, or GNG, or CT. But let's keep a thread open for it?


But back on topic. What is there to learn from this? What else could the CCer have done?
Assuming he was honestly giving a friend a ride at certain hours, asked her to wait until morning?
If he was "getting pipes cleaned" in a known drug area, why does that preclude him from carrying? I would think if I was him, I'd have had a rifle too.
Btw, I've been pulled over while carrying in "know drug area" by an officer fishing for crime.
Right by my house.

The difference being I was alone so he only approached me, so the first interaction was him seeing my ccw license in my hand. Also, he was HUMAN, nothing like this guy in the video.

What else about the CCer? Should he be less timid? Sure. Should he have tried to talk over roidcop? I would have. Would have loved the extra 10 million if he'd sprayed me or put his hands on me.

I think some people, not just here, are confusing some laws. Using the gun in the commission of a crime = a stiffer sentence, right? I'm not quite sure that applies to unrelated misdemeanors while carrying.

Really, if the guy is guilty as sin, so what?

Aahzz
07-23-2011, 11:01
So discussing an obviously abusive and potentially violent leo is "bashing"?

Bash, discuss, talk about - choose your phrase. Clearly some people in this thread are oveerly sensitive about word choice, and not interested in reading entire statements.

The officer should face criminal charges, I agree completely. I was in this thread because I was interested in discussing and seeing viewpoints of how citizens could best handle similar situations. it seems to me that a thread discussing that should be allowed, as there are 800 threads on every firearms forum on the internet discussing the cop's attitude, actions, and lack of professionalism.

RussP
07-23-2011, 11:44
So discussing an obviously abusive and potentially violent leo is "bashing"?No, not necessarily.

RussP
07-23-2011, 11:54
This is an excellent training tool for new recruits and In-Service officers.These two cops have plenty to worry about now.The Canton PD Chief has his hands full.Yes, yes, and yes, plus it's a great illustration for us that someone, anyone carrying should prepare for the unexpected. Watch this video and practice how you would respond, how you would try and deescalate the situation. What words would you use. How would you say them? What words shouldn't you use?

Warp
07-23-2011, 12:07
Yes. Back on topic. If the officer is interrupting you and talking over you such that you cannot get your complete sentence in and hasn't asked for any ID such that you cannot hand over your license/permit what will do you? How will you inform? This becomes EXTREMELY critical when you get up and out of the car.

rcbif
07-23-2011, 12:26
Yes. Back on topic. If the officer is interrupting you and talking over you such that you cannot get your complete sentence in and hasn't asked for any ID such that you cannot hand over your license/permit what will do you? How will you inform? This becomes EXTREMELY critical when you get up and out of the car.

I've heard you are supposed to have your ID ready for an officer when being approached/pulled over. I've also heard you should have your hands on the wheel from when the lights go on, till he asks for ID. I guess if you have ID in hand, you could just put your CCW card right up in front of your face so he has to see it. But then again, that could be an "unexpected moment" that understandably could spook an officer.

Warp
07-23-2011, 12:30
I've heard you are supposed to have your ID ready for an officer when being approached/pulled over.

Not a bad idea.

I've also heard you should have your hands on the wheel from when the lights go on, till he asks for ID.

Well, you can't do that and have your ID ready. I pull my wallet out while I am pulling over and either remove the ID or, if I have less time or want fewer movements, set it out in the open such as on my leg, the dash or the top of the center console...this way I can pick it up when asked without reaching anywhere. I keep my hands visible (usually right hand on wheel, left arm sitting in windowsill) as soon as we are over and s/he gets out, though. Windows down, car off, radio off, lights still on, etc.

I guess if you have ID in hand, you could just put your CCW card right up in front of your face so he has to see it. But then again, that could be an "unexpected moment" that understandably could spook an officer.

That isn't a half bad idea, actually. It would sound kind of stupid except that after watching that video there aren't many options. If you already have them out before the officer approaches it should be 'okay'.

JuneyBooney
07-23-2011, 12:31
An officer goes nuts on this citizen who informed him that he was licensed to carry, and was armed. In Ohio, licensees are required to notify police during a traffic stop or other official contact.

warning - video contains strong language
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc&feature=player_embedded

[EDITED FOR MODERATOR NOTE: Please read this post before posting. http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17670008#post17670008]

That is typical cop behavior in bad areas. You are not "sir" or 'ma'am" in bad areas. The guy did have a prostitute with him but I don't see pc to arrest him. He didn't have a chance to notify the cop. But the video is entertaining. :shocked: I guess that is why people fear police more than terrorists.:whistling:

Warp
07-23-2011, 12:33
I guess that is why people fear police more than terrorists.:whistling:

You can shoot the terrorists. You can't do anything when it is an officer. This is what bothers people.

JuneyBooney
07-23-2011, 12:34
Yes, yes, and yes, plus it's a great illustration for us that someone, anyone carrying should prepare for the unexpected. Watch this video and practice how you would respond, how you would try and deescalate the situation. What words would you use. How would you say them? What words shouldn't you use?


I see how the cop is talking is normal because he is trying to teach the man a lesson and some cops do talk like the old days. He could be role playing. You just don't know. He seemed a but hotheaded but it seems that he was stopping people in what could be called a bad area. Just my opinion.

JuneyBooney
07-23-2011, 12:36
You can shoot the terrorists. You can't do anything when it is an officer. This is what bothers people.

Good point. :cool: Or if you do shoot them you go to jail. :upeyes: That video is better than the voice only types where people post about open carry.

Glorified Babysitter
07-23-2011, 13:09
This guy is a disgrace. This is the type of behavior that causes the "public" to fear and distrust law enforcement. It's a perfect example of the one bad apple that makes the whole batch look rotten. This guy may or may not have been a hero in the past, and may or may not have been a good officer at some time. That night's actions will forever be the defining moment of his career.

436
07-23-2011, 13:38
The Officer has other issues... Being a former Leo; the lead Officer needs a little timeout on the couch. I understand why he took the position he did... but he should have known it couldn’t be expressed that way... What ever it is causing his anger it needs to be addressed... No I don't mean fired, there's a lot of stress on the street... he just needs too be helped past it and given a chance to serve the public as he should. If it continues then the Officer needs to look for another occupation.
The suspect was completely cooperative with the Officer… as were the others at the scene. Even he partner wasn’t to upset with the driver or the weapon.
Bad hair day I guess…
Just my .02
436

Nick21
07-23-2011, 14:46
One may contribute to the legal defense fund of the law-abiding victim of police misconduct in this incident. See: http://ohioccw.org/CantonPD

I just sent a contribution.

Please pass this to other pro-gun lists & groups.

Ok, just so we are all on the same page... We have a pimp, his hooker, and a gun toting prospective John apparently caught in the act of some negotiations of a prostitution deal. All three seem to be a cancer in any society. Yes they were treated like scum by an officer with terrible officer safety tactics and poor control of his words and/or emotions.
In summary, I have no sympathy for the John and certainly won't be contributing to his defense fund. Perhaps we should start another charity to make sure his hooker funds don't dry up? Now that I think about it, how about that hooker's heroin habit?? That stuff can get expensive!
I'm sure the John appreciates your donations....

ferretray
07-23-2011, 15:14
The Officer has other issues... Being a former Leo; the lead Officer needs a little timeout on the couch. I understand why he took the position he did... but he should have known it couldn’t be expressed that way... What ever it is causing his anger it needs to be addressed... No I don't mean fired, there's a lot of stress on the street... he just needs too be helped past it and given a chance to serve the public as he should. If it continues then the Officer needs to look for another occupation.
The suspect was completely cooperative with the Officer… as were the others at the scene. Even he partner wasn’t to upset with the driver or the weapon.
Bad hair day I guess…
Just my .02
436

I'd say its gone past "A bad hair day" when a LEO is thereatening to murder a citizen.

ferretray
07-23-2011, 15:18
Ok, just so we are all on the same page... We have a pimp, his hooker, and a gun toting prospective John apparently caught in the act of some negotiations of a prostitution deal. All three seem to be a cancer in any society. Yes they were treated like scum by an officer with terrible officer safety tactics and poor control of his words and/or emotions.
In summary, I have no sympathy for the John and certainly won't be contributing to his defense fund. Perhaps we should start another charity to make sure his hooker funds don't dry up? Now that I think about it, how about that hooker's heroin habit?? That stuff can get expensive!
I'm sure the John appreciates your donations....

Guess you missed the whole innocent until PROVEN guilty part of the law.
I've SEEN proof that the roid rager in uniform threatened to summarily execute a citizen.

FatBoy
07-23-2011, 15:18
Not a bad idea.



Well, you can't do that and have your ID ready. I pull my wallet out while I am pulling over and either remove the ID or, if I have less time or want fewer movements, set it out in the open such as on my leg, the dash or the top of the center console...this way I can pick it up when asked without reaching anywhere. I keep my hands visible (usually right hand on wheel, left arm sitting in windowsill) as soon as we are over and s/he gets out, though. Windows down, car off, radio off, lights still on, etc.



That isn't a half bad idea, actually. It would sound kind of stupid except that after watching that video there aren't many options. If you already have them out before the officer approaches it should be 'okay'.

I've always been informed not to get your ID. Make no movements that may look to the officer that you are trying to hide/tuck something from sight. Turn on the "dome" light and keep your hands on the wheel until asked to do otherwise. Inform officer you have a CCW if required to in your State. I have to reach by my CCW to get out my wallet. I want him to be well informed about my actions, as well as any partner that may be on the passengers side of the truck observing my actions.

FB

Mister_Beefy
07-23-2011, 15:31
Guess you missed the whole innocent until PROVEN guilty part of the law.
I've SEEN proof that the roid rager in uniform threatened to summarily execute a citizen.


there is no innocent until proven guilty. dragoon44 said so.

Sam Spade
07-23-2011, 16:10
Guess you missed the whole innocent until PROVEN guilty part of the law.
I've SEEN proof that the roid rager in uniform threatened to summarily execute a citizen.

You're a court of law? Coooool.

Oh, you meant for the other guy, right, got it. Nothing to add, really, just struck by how fast you did a 180, from one sentence to the next. Kinda impressive....dizzy?

ferretray
07-23-2011, 17:06
You're a court of law? Coooool.

Oh, you meant for the other guy, right, got it. Nothing to add, really, just struck by how fast you did a 180, from one sentence to the next. Kinda impressive....dizzy?

Dizzy? No Sir. We going to make things personal now? You gonna threaten to execute me with your Glock fotay?

Sam Spade
07-23-2011, 17:32
Dizzy? No Sir. We going to make things personal now? You gonna threaten to execute me with your Glock fotay?

Nah, no need for that. Just struck by how anyone can express such a double standard is so few words. That you don't see a double standard is bonus entertainment.

Onward, onward! By all means, let's drive on.

Bren
07-23-2011, 17:38
Why would a gun board, that ostensibly caters to law abiding conceal carry citizens, lock a thread that discusses those who abuse and threaten law abiding conceal carry citizens?

Look at the thread and you'll have your answer. Real-world shooters have a pretty close relationship with the police, and many are police, everywhere I've ever been. On the other hand, fake internet shooters/"gun owners" are a different breed. Apparently they fancy themselves wannabe internet outlaws and they really have a grudge against the police. It comes out on every thread involving alleged police misconduct.

In all seriousness, these threads and the ones about gun shops and politics really give you a clue that there are 2 entirely separate gun subcultures - real world and internet. There are the guys who you see in the local gun shop, who know everybody by name and talk technical stuff with the other guys, shoot in matches, hunt, etc., then there are the guys who pull up in the minivan, look confused, say "let me see that one...what's that called" a lot, then come and post on Glock Talk about how the gun store employees don't love them and some old guy at the shop hurt their feelings.

TDC20
07-23-2011, 17:48
Ok, just so we are all on the same page... We have a pimp, his hooker, and a gun toting prospective John apparently caught in the act of some negotiations of a prostitution deal. All three seem to be a cancer in any society. Yes they were treated like scum by an officer with terrible officer safety tactics and poor control of his words and/or emotions.
In summary, I have no sympathy for the John and certainly won't be contributing to his defense fund. Perhaps we should start another charity to make sure his hooker funds don't dry up? Now that I think about it, how about that hooker's heroin habit?? That stuff can get expensive!
I'm sure the John appreciates your donations....

You're right, Nick21. Both officers should have just drawn and emptied their magazines as soon as they pulled up, save the taxpayers money on a trial and save themselves paperwork. :upeyes:

I could never be a LEO because I couldn't deal with people like this on a daily basis. Neither can this officer. Anyone agreeing with his actions has no business in LE, either. Truly the antithesis of professionalism.

What scares me is how many other people he jacked up before this. Very few incidents like this are recorded and released to the public. I think I'm going to start carrying a video cam or at least a tape recorder so I have some legal recourse in court. Cause you know the judge is ALWAYS going to take the cop's account of things unless you have hard evidence to the contrary. I doubt I would need it, because all but one time in my life the police I have interacted with were very professional. But I keep seeing more and more incidents of cops like this, and it seems the police unions and their cop buddies are enabling them by covering for them, instead of driving them out of the organization where they truly don't belong.

And BTW, before you jump me for being a cop-hater, my grandfather rose to the rank of captain in a large metro police force before he retired. My great-grandfather was a cop, though I didn't know him. I also have several friends who are LE, and none of them are remotely like this guy.

This guy reminds me of my abusive father. In fact, I had flashbacks listening to his rants. If anyone knows if this guy is married with kids, you need to convince his wife to divorce him immediately and get her children to safety. If he hasn't beaten them yet, it's only a matter of time. He fits the profile to a "T".

Nick21
07-23-2011, 19:24
You're right, Nick21. Both officers should have just drawn and emptied their magazines as soon as they pulled up, save the taxpayers money on a trial and save themselves paperwork. :upeyes:

I could never be a LEO because I couldn't deal with people like this on a daily basis. Neither can this officer. Anyone agreeing with his actions has no business in LE, either. Truly the antithesis of professionalism.

What scares me is how many other people he jacked up before this. Very few incidents like this are recorded and released to the public. I think I'm going to start carrying a video cam or at least a tape recorder so I have some legal recourse in court. Cause you know the judge is ALWAYS going to take the cop's account of things unless you have hard evidence to the contrary. I doubt I would need it, because all but one time in my life the police I have interacted with were very professional. But I keep seeing more and more incidents of cops like this, and it seems the police unions and their cop buddies are enabling them by covering for them, instead of driving them out of the organization where they truly don't belong.

And BTW, before you jump me for being a cop-hater, my grandfather rose to the rank of captain in a large metro police force before he retired. My great-grandfather was a cop, though I didn't know him. I also have several friends who are LE, and none of them are remotely like this guy.

This guy reminds me of my abusive father. In fact, I had flashbacks listening to his rants. If anyone knows if this guy is married with kids, you need to convince his wife to divorce him immediately and get her children to safety. If he hasn't beaten them yet, it's only a matter of time. He fits the profile to a "T".

I will not defend this Officer's conduct, and I will not attack you as a "cop-hater." The only problem I have is how many "cop-haters" are on this message board who run to the defense of the freaking prostitute patron carrying a gun! It seems that anyone with a shred of common sense would figure this isn't the first time this "victim" has drove around the bad parts of town looking for hookers. He pays the hookers. That keeps the hookers on the streets, finances their drug habits, and on up the chain of crime we go. The guy was up to no good and he got arrested. He deserved it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasy land.
I am all for decent folks carrying. Does anyone around here really think this is the kind of fellow who should be walking around with a pistol? Let's defend our 2nd amendment rights. Let's not defend this fool.
But on Glocktalk, about 90% of the folks only see a poor innocent man being "victimized" by the tyrannical Police.
It is just a bit too ridiculous to be funny.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-23-2011, 19:32
I'm starting to wonder if this is the new "I'm the only one professional enough" video.

Notice how both these idiots call it a Glock 40 when they mean Glock 22 or Glock 23

Warp
07-23-2011, 19:34
I will not defend this Officer's conduct, and I will not attack you as a "cop-hater." The only problem I have is how many "cop-haters" are on this message board who run to the defense of the freaking prostitute patron carrying a gun! It seems that anyone with a shred of common sense would figure this isn't the first time this "victim" has drove around the bad parts of town looking for hookers. He pays the hookers. That keeps the hookers on the streets, finances their drug habits, and on up the chain of crime we go. The guy was up to no good and he got arrested. He deserved it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasy land.



Did you watch the video? The whole thing?


I am all for decent folks carrying. Does anyone around here really think this is the kind of fellow who should be walking around with a pistol? Let's defend our 2nd amendment rights. Let's not defend this fool.
But on Glocktalk, about 90% of the folks only see a poor innocent man being "victimized" by the tyrannical Police.
It is just a bit too ridiculous to be funny.

Based on what I know...yes, absolutely.


Notice how both these idiots call it a Glock 40 when they mean Glock 22 or Glock 23

Yup. I noticed that. You can usually tell when people fit, or don't fit, a certain group based on that.

I still really hope that whenever Glock introduces their model 40 it will be a .22.

cowboy1964
07-23-2011, 19:50
Notice how both these idiots call it a Glock 40 when they mean Glock 22 or Glock 23

It IS a Glock 40. Just like my Glock 19 is a "Glock 9". It's just lingo.

Now if he had said "I should have taken two steps back and dumped the entire clip in your ass", then you'd have a point.

kensteele
07-23-2011, 19:53
It IS a Glock 40. Just like my Glock 19 is a "Glock 9". It's just lingo.

Now if he had said "I should have taken two steps back and dumped the entire clip in your ass", then you'd have a point.

LOL :rofl:

billy b
07-23-2011, 20:03
i live in canton ohio. canton used to be a decent city. drugs and crime are a major problem. used to be a few murders a year. now a few murders in a bad weekend. cop was way out of line. they are under a lot stress. when you go in bad areas of town at that time of night you are asking for trouble.

ferretray
07-23-2011, 20:16
I will not defend this Officer's conduct, and I will not attack you as a "cop-hater." The only problem I have is how many "cop-haters" are on this message board who run to the defense of the freaking prostitute patron carrying a gun! It seems that anyone with a shred of common sense would figure this isn't the first time this "victim" has drove around the bad parts of town looking for hookers. He pays the hookers. That keeps the hookers on the streets, finances their drug habits, and on up the chain of crime we go. The guy was up to no good and he got arrested. He deserved it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasy land.
I am all for decent folks carrying. Does anyone around here really think this is the kind of fellow who should be walking around with a pistol? Let's defend our 2nd amendment rights. Let's not defend this fool.
But on Glocktalk, about 90% of the folks only see a poor innocent man being "victimized" by the tyrannical Police.
It is just a bit too ridiculous to be funny.

Where are you coming up with this BS about hookers, etc.,. Because Officer roid rage in his psychotic rantings alluded to all kinds of malfeasance on the part of the citizen he threatened to murder?
I wouldn't believe anything that nutcase had to say on any subject. If officer wacko thought he had a case of sex for sale why didn't he address perform a proper investigation?. The woman was allowed to walk, after she was threatened with assault by said wacko.
Neither officer on the video showed an inkling of professionalism.
The citizen threatened with summary execution in the video has not been charged with any sex crimes. Just some BS misdemeanor about parking on the side of the road. And of course, failing to inform the cop that he was armed. Having the cop tell him to shut up, repeatedly, kind of put the kibash on that.
The cop is on suspension. I'm hoping that eventually he will be convicted in a federal court for his actions. Also hoping his department will endure ANOTHER federal investigation into their shady practices.
I have an associate who retired after decades of duty as a LEO, including work with federal taskforces. He was sickened by the video, as should anyone with a lick of sense and morality.

Mister_Beefy
07-23-2011, 20:37
Look at the thread and you'll have your answer. Real-world shooters have a pretty close relationship with the police, and many are police, everywhere I've ever been. On the other hand, fake internet shooters/"gun owners" are a different breed. Apparently they fancy themselves wannabe internet outlaws and they really have a grudge against the police. It comes out on every thread involving alleged police misconduct.

In all seriousness, these threads and the ones about gun shops and politics really give you a clue that there are 2 entirely separate gun subcultures - real world and internet. There are the guys who you see in the local gun shop, who know everybody by name and talk technical stuff with the other guys, shoot in matches, hunt, etc., then there are the guys who pull up in the minivan, look confused, say "let me see that one...what's that called" a lot, then come and post on Glock Talk about how the gun store employees don't love them and some old guy at the shop hurt their feelings.

yup, there's only two types of gun owners. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

88MPH
07-23-2011, 20:37
The officer was definitly over agressive in his approach, and the problem I have is that it took him more than 5 minutes to approach the driver. Thats a big NO NO.

I as an officer have to account for everyone thats on my traffic stop, is it hard to watch multiple subjects? YES. Do you have to use an agressive tone to everyone in the picture? NO.

The driver was, IMO, attempting to advise that he had a firearm, and was a CCW holder. I have had subjects advise/ interrupt me on occasion just to notify me that they indeed had a weapon. I just ask where its located, then advise them if they can approach their credentals.

A very useful lesson is that you have two ears and one mouth, listen twice as much as you talk, it will eliminate unneccessicary work/problems.

I want to thank you for your appraisal of this incident. You clearly condemned the officer's behavior without even a hint of defending him or deflecting the issue.

I'm sure there are other cops on here that felt the same way whether they posted it or not, but I don't have time to find all their posts and thank them too.

The good 95% of cops shouldn't allow the bad 5% of cops to tarnish 100% of cops.

Good post.

IndyGunFreak
07-23-2011, 21:21
I'd say its gone past "A bad hair day" when a LEO is thereatening to murder a citizen.

Unfortunately, I agree...

If it was just the butt chewing, and the cop being rude, I'd have no problem w/ counseling and the Officer being closely supervised.

Unfortunately he threatens the driver, he threatens the pimp and hooker. There is nothing that can really be done w/ a liability like that on the street.

The officer was definitly over agressive in his approach, and the problem I have is that it took him more than 5 minutes to approach the driver. Thats a big NO NO.

Exactly. I couldn't believe he searched the back seat, before even contacting the driver. If he secures the pimp/prostitute, then approaches the driver, then searches the vehicle... This likely never happens.

I still think the cop went into "freak out mode" when he realized how bad he screwed up.

TDC20
07-23-2011, 21:24
I will not defend this Officer's conduct, and I will not attack you as a "cop-hater." The only problem I have is how many "cop-haters" are on this message board who run to the defense of the freaking prostitute patron carrying a gun! It seems that anyone with a shred of common sense would figure this isn't the first time this "victim" has drove around the bad parts of town looking for hookers. He pays the hookers. That keeps the hookers on the streets, finances their drug habits, and on up the chain of crime we go. The guy was up to no good and he got arrested. He deserved it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasy land.
I am all for decent folks carrying. Does anyone around here really think this is the kind of fellow who should be walking around with a pistol? Let's defend our 2nd amendment rights. Let's not defend this fool.
But on Glocktalk, about 90% of the folks only see a poor innocent man being "victimized" by the tyrannical Police.
It is just a bit too ridiculous to be funny.

Nick, I don't doubt what you suspect of the characters is true. It probably is, and had the stop happened 2 mins later, there may have been a prostitution crime in progress for them to make an arrest. But the fact is, there was no crime being committed when they approached, only a traffic ticket for parking in a no parking zone. Talking to someone is not a crime, even if that person has a criminal record. If they were negotiating a crime, the officers had no evidence of that other than suspicion. It wouldn't have held up in court, and I think they knew that. I got the impression because they knew nothing was going to happen legally to these people that they were going to "teach them a lesson" by abusing them as much as they could. That's not in the job description, and anyway, they were stupid in the way they went about it.

Like I said, I couldn't be a LEO because I couldn't deal with people like this on a daily basis. I certainly wouldn't want those types cruising my neighborhood selling drugs and prostitution. That's the tough part about being a cop, and why the professional and courteous ones (the vast majority) have my utmost respect. It's also why it angers me to see this kind of crap floating around on the internet, because it gives justification for the cop haters.

KTM950S
07-23-2011, 23:02
IBTL on this one too!

:woohoo:

Why would a gun board, that ostensibly caters to law abiding conceal carry citizens, lock a thread that discusses those who abuse and threaten law abiding conceal carry citizens?

Maybe because it has been posted numerous times prior to this thread? One thread in Carry Issues is plenty.

I think Russ will only allow this topic to be discussed if it pertains to Carry Issues. If you want to discuss the officer's actions or dis the police, do it elsewhere. The original thread was moved to the civil liberties section for that very reason.

Thanks, OD Green Glock 19. You are correct.

KTM950S, please read this post by Eric: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=622412

Thank you but I know Eric's TOS by heart. So that I can offer my sincere apology for violating it, can you please direct me to any post in this thread, or anywhere on this forum, where I have *****ed about cops, questioned the morality or legality of their practices, or shown any dislike towards cops?

If you can't and I have not violated the TOS, would you be kind enough to explain why I was directed there in the first place?


That was written and posted in Cop Talk in 2006. Today, it applies not only to Cop Talk, but to every forum on GT, especially this: "If you want to discuss legal/ethical issues of police practices or policies, do it in GT's Civil Liberties forum."

As OD Green Glock 19 said, if you want to discuss the carry issue(s) involved with a specific law enforcement encounter, or if you want to discuss a hypothetical situation, Carry Issues is the appropriate forum. You'll get input from both other carriers and members of the law enforcement community.

I'd strongly suggest you leave the hyperbole on the outside. It doesn't impress many and most often distracts from the point you may be trying to get across.

Now, if y'all want to talk about the permit carrier's actions and how he may have been able to better communicate under pressure, the thread will stay open.

If, on the other hand, you want to tell everyone how stupid and callous and irresponsible and heavy handed/oppressive the cop was, don't. I can tell you from the other 6 or so threads, that everyone knows all that already. No one is defending the cops actions. No one is defending his words.

I've tried three times to generate a discussion about the lesson(s) we carriers can learn from this incident. Only one or two, maybe three people responded, but the topic was quickly bullied back to talking about the mean and evil cop.

I closed this thread earlier, but I'll give it another chance.

Oh, hey, I have an idea. If you want to really make use of the energy you'll expend here complaining about the cop, use it to email the Mayor of Canton. Here's the link to his contact page http://www.cantonohio.gov/mayor/?pg=mayorcontact I mean, really, he has the responsibility for and authority over the PD. Here's a link to the Canton PD Code of Conduct http://www.cantonohio.gov/police/?pg=316 . Quote from it when you email the Mayor.

I'm very confused Russ. Is this post directed at me, or was it intended for the members at large?:dunno:

TDC20
07-23-2011, 23:43
OK, apologies to all for getting off topic here.

So what did I learn about what to do and not to do?

1. If cruising crime-ridden neighborhoods looking for hookers and drugs, leave my gun at home...lol

2. Don't depend on a dash cam to save you from a felony charge and possible conviction. Get a small concealable audio recorder, and carry it like you would a spare mag, knife, OC, CCW license, whatever, when you leave home with your weapon.

3. If you are in a must inform state, don't let the cops bully you and cut you off. Calmly talk over them and continue to talk over them until they acknowledge your message. You have it on your recorder. If the cop is a raging psychopath, you have a solid defense. You keep a felony conviction off your record, and get a bad cop off the street.

In the rare case of an incident with unprofessional police, and you have it recorded, your legal fees will be minimal, you will get an apology from the Chief of police, and if you really want to go for the throat, an open and shut case for a civil suit.

I'm going shopping at Wal-mart tomorrow for a recorder. I will recommend the same to everyone who carries.

OD Green Glock 19
07-23-2011, 23:56
Thank you but I know Eric's TOS by heart. So that I can offer my sincere apology for violating it, can you please direct me to any post in this thread, or anywhere on this forum, where I have *****ed about cops, questioned the morality or legality of their practices, or shown any dislike towards cops?

If you can't and I have not violated the TOS, would you be kind enough to explain why I was directed there in the first place?



I'm very confused Russ. Is this post directed at me, or was it intended for the members at large?:dunno:
It's pretty clear. The other threads were either closed or moved because the discussions went on tangents that were about the irate cop's actions, civil rights violations and had become irrelevant to Carry Issues. You asked why a thread discussing this cop's actions would be closed and were informed that they were closed or moved because they were no longer relevant to Carry Issues.

436
07-24-2011, 00:10
Helloooo… is any one getting this…. these Officer’s especially the main contact Officer'.. staring in this home movie; as well as… his partner, knew their G-ride camera was running... and that; it would most likely be reviewed on a firearms related arrest.

As I've said; there are more issues going on here with the Officer than meets the eye.
Most Officers spend 40 % of their time doing their job and 60 % of their time trying to keep it… it’s a very political world inside law enforcement, with that said; threatening to “murder” someone on tape is pretty damn serious especially if there “was” any intent behind it… I don’t think even in his frame of mind he was serious about popping cap in the drivers head… that kind of buffoonery would land an Officer in jail anywhere, in any Dept.
Any half ass street cop with knowledge he’s G-ride camera is on, or there any kind of camera on him is “not” going to threaten anyone seriously in front of it, flush out your head gear gang.:faint:

They may have rewritten the book on Officer Survival and used bad judgment… but I don’t believe any of those people; hooker, pimp or trick were in danger of being killed by one of both of those Officers.
For any of you people who have never played in the dark streets at night, in a black & white, right smack in the middle of a free fire zone; or have not seen the elephant on two way range; try to understand. It creates long term pressure, it’s hard to be part of the public wearing a uniform, even after you hang it up it takes years to get around to trusting people you meet and new friends in a civilian environment.


While they are on the job the only people they can really trust is each other… sorry I know there are folks who respect and like Officer’s and respect the law, but that’s the way it is’ if you want to go home, it’s done that way.
I’m not saying the Officer(s) were right, or that they used good judgment… but they sure as H--L weren’t going to kill anyone.
Just my 02
436

Warp
07-24-2011, 00:27
Any half ass street cop with knowledge he’s G-ride camera is on, or there any kind of camera on him is “not” going to threaten anyone seriously in front of it,

I guess he was only 1/4 ass

ncglock19
07-24-2011, 00:41
But the fact is, there was no crime being committed when they approached, only a traffic ticket for parking in a no parking zone. Talking to someone is not a crime, even if that person has a criminal record.

Talking to someone is not a crime... ... yet. Me thinks that it will be in the future.

nc19

TDC20
07-24-2011, 01:08
I guess he was only 1/4 ass

:rofl:

Seriously 436, I don't think these guys cared about their cam running. Of course they weren't gonna shoot anyone. Why make such a stupid threat. It's a crime to do that, even for a cop. "If I see you around, I'm gonna put lumps on ya". What about the felony charge? I'd sure take that one seriously. Maybe I'd take the "cave in your skull" threat seriously, too. "He resisted arrest, so I hit him 37 times in the head to subdue him." Similar things have happend before. How am I supposed to know if he's serious or not?

That dept. probably never reviews any of the cam footage unless there's a shooting or something. Otherwise, these two yo-yo's would have had remedial training on how to properly secure a traffic stop for their OWN safety. The star of the show was obviously in no mind to care about the camera rolling, so he is either insane, stupid, knows that it won't be reviewed, or some combination of the three. I always figured that the dash cams were there for police protection. If it works as evidence in an arrest, they use it in court. If it paints them in a bad light, it's conveniently withheld, destroyed, or deleted. I'm surprised to see this one went public. Maybe someone else in the dept. wasn't too happy about having to work with this guy and released it.

Back on topic of how to avoid a felony conviction while OBEYING the law. I've been thinking, maybe a recorder isn't such a good idea. I mean, what's going to stop psycho cop from smashing it if he finds it, or chucking it out the window on the highway on the trip to the station? I need a way to transmit the audio and record it at a secure location that can't be accessed by any of the actors on the scene. Maybe some kind of cell phone relay or something.

Gonna have to do some homework on this one. Anyone have any ideas?

Warp
07-24-2011, 01:28
:rofl:

Seriously 436, I don't think these guys cared about their cam running. Of course they weren't gonna shoot anyone. Why make such a stupid threat. It's a crime to do that, even for a cop. "If I see you around, I'm gonna put lumps on ya". What about the felony charge? I'd sure take that one seriously. Maybe I'd take the "cave in your skull" threat seriously, too. "He resisted arrest, so I hit him 37 times in the head to subdue him." Similar things have happend before. How am I supposed to know if he's serious or not?

That dept. probably never reviews any of the cam footage unless there's a shooting or something. Otherwise, these two yo-yo's would have had remedial training on how to properly secure a traffic stop for their OWN safety. The star of the show was obviously in no mind to care about the camera rolling, so he is either insane, stupid, knows that it won't be reviewed, or some combination of the three. I always figured that the dash cams were there for police protection. If it works as evidence in an arrest, they use it in court. If it paints them in a bad light, it's conveniently withheld, destroyed, or deleted. I'm surprised to see this one went public. Maybe someone else in the dept. wasn't too happy about having to work with this guy and released it.

Back on topic of how to avoid a felony conviction while OBEYING the law. I've been thinking, maybe a recorder isn't such a good idea. I mean, what's going to stop psycho cop from smashing it if he finds it, or chucking it out the window on the highway on the trip to the station? I need a way to transmit the audio and record it at a secure location that can't be accessed by any of the actors on the scene. Maybe some kind of cell phone relay or something.

Gonna have to do some homework on this one. Anyone have any ideas?

Nope. But I am sure people have put a lot of thought into this. You just have to find them. Unfortunately most of them will probably be the aggressive open carry crowd who actually looks for confrontations. :(

BK63
07-24-2011, 07:43
I know this is now a long thread, but after watching that video, I was disturbed by that cop's actions for quite a while. Cops are like anything else, there are good ones and bad ones out there. I hope he's fired and for good.

Lior
07-24-2011, 08:38
The officer with the strong language deserves to be an ex-officer.

ferretray
07-24-2011, 09:28
Helloooo… is any one getting this…. these Officer’s especially the main contact Officer'.. staring in this home movie; as well as… his partner, knew their G-ride camera was running... and that; it would most likely be reviewed on a firearms related arrest.

As I've said; there are more issues going on here with the Officer than meets the eye.
Most Officers spend 40 % of their time doing their job and 60 % of their time trying to keep it… it’s a very political world inside law enforcement, with that said; threatening to “murder” someone on tape is pretty damn serious especially if there “was” any intent behind it… I don’t think even in his frame of mind he was serious about popping cap in the drivers head… that kind of buffoonery would land an Officer in jail anywhere, in any Dept.
Any half ass street cop with knowledge he’s G-ride camera is on, or there any kind of camera on him is “not” going to threaten anyone seriously in front of it, flush out your head gear gang.:faint:

They may have rewritten the book on Officer Survival and used bad judgment… but I don’t believe any of those people; hooker, pimp or trick were in danger of being killed by one of both of those Officers.
For any of you people who have never played in the dark streets at night, in a black & white, right smack in the middle of a free fire zone; or have not seen the elephant on two way range; try to understand. It creates long term pressure, it’s hard to be part of the public wearing a uniform, even after you hang it up it takes years to get around to trusting people you meet and new friends in a civilian environment.


While they are on the job the only people they can really trust is each other… sorry I know there are folks who respect and like Officer’s and respect the law, but that’s the way it is’ if you want to go home, it’s done that way.
I’m not saying the Officer(s) were right, or that they used good judgment… but they sure as H--L weren’t going to kill anyone.
Just my 02
436
As to the pressure of working in that environment, we expect a certain level of performance under those circumstances. If you can't hack it, pack it.
I believe it would be foolish to dismiss the danger the citizen was in during that contact, and going forward. Officer wacko should be in a facility undergoing a psych. eval.

wprebeck
07-24-2011, 10:20
She also said it was a LONG time ago.


"Long" is a relative term for habitual offenders. A year or more without an arrest constitutes "long time" for most. To qualify that statement, I offer you my over-a-decade of experience in a jail, and dealing with thousands of career criminals. Perhaps your (lack of) experience in this field can provide a better point of view.


Talking to someone is not a crime... ... yet. Me thinks that it will be in the future.

nc19

Sure, it is. All depends on what the subject of conversation is.....as a guy locally found oout, to his misfortune. He tried to set up an assassination of two local cops. It's called "conspiracy " to plan out illegal actions with someone else.

Or, in the case of most parolees/probationers, it's against terms of the release to associate (talk) with known felons. That can get one rearrested.

Of course, I'm sure a guy in this thread was already intimately aware of such laws, and was simply trying to use hyperbole to make a point.

HarleyGuy
07-24-2011, 10:30
Notice how both these idiots call it a Glock 40 when they mean Glock 22 or Glock 23

Because the vast, super majority of the population doesn't know what the Glock model designations mean and probably assume that a Glock 22 was a
.22 caliber pistol

Warp
07-24-2011, 10:33
Sure, it is. All depends on what the subject of conversation is.....as a guy locally found oout, to his misfortune. He tried to set up an assassination of two local cops. It's called "conspiracy " to plan out illegal actions with someone else.

Or, in the case of most parolees/probationers, it's against terms of the release to associate (talk) with known felons. That can get one rearrested.

Of course, I'm sure a guy in this thread was already intimately aware of such laws, and was simply trying to use hyperbole to make a point.

I'm pretty sure the guy who just got his carry license <1 month ago isn't a convicted felon.

HarleyGuy
07-24-2011, 10:50
This thread is getting to be very long so this will be my last post.

If the cops had not arrested this guy there would have not been a story or an issue. It boils down to the arrogance of the "lead" cop and the fact that his partner went along with it.

I think there's little doubt that the folks in the car were about to engage in some unlawfull activities but you can't arrest someone for what they "may' do.

The driver (permit holder), IMO, was rail-roaded, and harassed by a person wearing a badge.

blackjack
07-24-2011, 11:10
I think there's little doubt that the folks in the car were about to engage in some unlawfull activities but you can't arrest someone for what they "may' do.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Minority_Report.jpg/220px-Minority_Report.jpg


The officer must have thought he was Tom Cruise.

ferretray
07-24-2011, 14:01
This thread is getting to be very long so this will be my last post.

If the cops had not arrested this guy there would have not been a story or an issue. It boils down to the arrogance of the "lead" cop and the fact that his partner went along with it.

I think there's little doubt that the folks in the car were about to engage in some unlawfull activities but you can't arrest someone for what they "may' do.

The driver (permit holder), IMO, was rail-roaded, and harassed by a person wearing a badge.

Prove that "The folks in the car were about to engage in some unlawful activities". The wacko cop let one of them walk away (After threatening to commit an unlawful assault on a female, of course). The cop knew he had nothing, as do you.
Sitting in a car, in full view, on the side of the road is a sign that someone is sitting in a car, in full view, on the side of the road.
Apparently you take that as a conspiracy of some sort. Good luck with that.
Won't work for the officers involved either.
Americans are allowed to lawfully assemble. Some (Including some courts) have forgotten or denied it. The constitution hasn't changed.

wnr700
07-24-2011, 14:13
Confused why the cop would search the vehicle without removing the driver?

Why would they not get drivers information (ie... DL and permit)?

I keep my DL + CW Permit togeather so there will never be a doubt.

On the other hand... Not very bright to carry a handgun to pick up a prostitute.

carloglock19
07-24-2011, 14:39
8:57------You're just a stupid human being???????????????:dunno:

kensteele
07-24-2011, 14:44
Confused why the cop would search the vehicle without removing the driver?


Apparently the officer made a mistake.

Warp
07-24-2011, 14:51
Confused why the cop would search the vehicle without removing the driver?

Why would they not get drivers infor

Because he was doing it wrong.

OD Green Glock 19
07-26-2011, 00:33
Prove that "The folks in the car were about to engage in some unlawful activities". The wacko cop let one of them walk away (After threatening to commit an unlawful assault on a female, of course). The cop knew he had nothing, as do you.
Sitting in a car, in full view, on the side of the road is a sign that someone is sitting in a car, in full view, on the side of the road.
Apparently you take that as a conspiracy of some sort. Good luck with that.
Won't work for the officers involved either.
Americans are allowed to lawfully assemble. Some (Including some courts) have forgotten or denied it. The constitution hasn't changed.
He didn't say "the folks in the car were about to engage in some unlawful activities." He said "I think there's little doubt that the folks in the car were about to engage in some unlawful activities." I agree. This guy was probably picking up a prostitute. He wasn't saying that he can prove it or that there's incontrovertible evidence of it or that it's impossible that the guy wasn't telling the truth. He was merely pointing out what most individuals who aren't naive have probably already considered to be the most likely scenario. The guy probably wasn't just being a good samaritan giving a reformed hooker and a complete stranger a ride home at night. He was most likely picking up a prostitute with the intentions of paying for her services. Does that give the officers the right to pull the **** they pulled? NO. But just because the officers royally screwed up this stop doesn't mean that they weren't right about what was going on.

hamster
07-26-2011, 07:24
The only problem I have is how many "cop-haters" are on this message board who run to the defense of the freaking prostitute patron carrying a gun! It seems that anyone with a shred of common sense would figure this isn't the first time this "victim" has drove around the bad parts of town looking for hookers. He pays the hookers.

1. You are making a major assumption there. He claimed he knew the woman. The cops did a search of his car and clearly found no evidence of drugs or of any other illegal activity going on.

2. Even if you were to assume that the guy was looking for a prostitute, does that make him deserve such treatment?

3. Do you really think that two consenting adults entering into a voluntary transaction with no "victim" constitutes a crime serious enough to warrant a threat of execution from the police officer?

4. The fact he has a CCW tells us that he has never been convicted of any crimes, no theft, no assaut, no drug charges no domestic violence nothing. Why then do you see this man (who you accuse of entering into a voluntary transaction with a consenting adult) as such as such a threat?

-----
Back to the topic:
The lead cop in question seems to have major anger issues. IMO he is a danger to the public and especially to his partner. Not only did he not do the most basic of due diligence, but he was doing his absolute best to escalate the situation.

RussP
07-26-2011, 08:13
1. You are making a major assumption there. He claimed he knew the woman. The cops did a search of his car and clearly found no evidence of drugs or of any other illegal activity going on.

2. Even if you were to assume that the guy was looking for a prostitute, does that make him deserve such treatment?

3. Do you really think that two consenting adults entering into a voluntary transaction with no "victim" constitutes a crime serious enough to warrant a threat of execution from the police officer?

4. The fact he has a CCW tells us that he has never been convicted of any crimes, no theft, no assaut, no drug charges no domestic violence nothing. Why then do you see this man (who you accuse of entering into a voluntary transaction with a consenting adult) as such as such a threat?

-----
Back to the topic:
The lead cop in question seems to have major anger issues. IMO he is a danger to the public and especially to his partner. Not only did he not do the most basic of due diligence, but he was doing his absolute best to escalate the situation.Carry Issues is not the appropriate forum to lobby for the decriminalization of prostitution.:wavey:

hamster
07-26-2011, 08:41
Carry Issues is not the appropriate forum to lobby for the decriminalization of prostitution.:wavey:

With all due respect, I didn't lobby for decriminalization, I'm simply calling for the poster (Nick21) to take a step back and realize that he is implying. If I came across as lobbying, I apologize, that wasn't my intent. The fact is, the victim in question was not in the middle of committing a violent felony that warranted the level of aggression seen in the video. Nick21 was doing his best to blame the victim here, despite the fact the man had never been convicted of a crime, was not caught committing a crime, and had no contraband in his car.



The poster was implying that a crime was potentially to take place as an excuse for the mistreatment of a legal CCWer.

I would expect this guy to be treated with the same level of respect as a person pulled over for speeding. I find the "us vs them" attitude shown in the video disgusting. Especially the implication that citizens should not be "allowed" to carry guns.

HexHead
07-26-2011, 08:56
1. You are making a major assumption there. He claimed he knew the woman. The cops did a search of his car and clearly found no evidence of drugs or of any other illegal activity going on.

2. Even if you were to assume that the guy was looking for a prostitute, does that make him deserve such treatment?

3. Do you really think that two consenting adults entering into a voluntary transaction with no "victim" constitutes a crime serious enough to warrant a threat of execution from the police officer?

4. The fact he has a CCW tells us that he has never been convicted of any crimes, no theft, no assaut, no drug charges no domestic violence nothing. Why then do you see this man (who you accuse of entering into a voluntary transaction with a consenting adult) as such as such a threat?



The guy said he knew the girl from driving her before in his cab. Maybe they were friends and didn't have a "business" relationship? Maybe it was her night off? For all intents and purposes, the driver was a law abiding citizen as evidenced by his just getting his permit a couple of weeks earlier. As usual, lots of people jumping to conclusions here.

One thing I think we can all agree on, was that cop is a menace and needs to go.

frank4570
07-26-2011, 09:38
The driver did as fine as any person could have. I think he was actually in a kind of a dangerous situation. It's good he did exactly what he did.


In the idiot driver's defense he did have his CHP out ready to present to the officer the entire time. I think he even tried to muster the courage to present it to the officers a couple times. This was just a perfect storm of idiot, insecure driver new to CCW, oblivious partner fumbling around like a dip****, and an irate prick with a badge and some serious control and anger issues.

Kegs
07-26-2011, 10:11
I think this cop pretty much is spot on for 90% of current law enforcement on Glock talk. Jack Bauer CTU on the scene. LOL.

Here we have a proper citizen and an obvious outlaw playing the role of the cop.

Perfect justice in my opinion is for that particular cop to pull over some sovereign citizen and son with AK47s and then they could just shoot up each other.

Unfortunately, reality takes its toll and sovereign citizens shoot the good cop and meanwhile bad cop tells good citizen he should have blown him away with his "Glock .40".

There is a better way to solve these sorts of problems: Cops start treating civilians with respect and dignity they deserve. Cops weed out the bad ones like this before you have problems like this.

If I was the judge, I would order this "officer" to work on cleaning out septic tanks for 1 year. That is where this guy belongs.

RussP
07-26-2011, 11:07
I think this cop pretty much is spot on for 90% of current law enforcement on Glock talk. Jack Bauer CTU on the scene. LOL. I completely do not understand this. Could you say that in a different, simpler way? Thanks!!

9x94
07-26-2011, 19:41
Your suggestion that the Officer should be shot is appalling to say the least. In fact, it is really no better than the Officer's comments.
Consider keeping your ignorance to yourself next time.


Perfect justice in my opinion is for that particular cop to pull over some sovereign citizen and son with AK47s and then they could just shoot up each other.

Phantom465
07-26-2011, 19:56
I hope this isn't a re-post. I skimmed over the last couple of pages.

This is a recording of the Canton council president on a local radio talk show. His point of view on the subject is very disappointing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfpBxY2J00

unit1069
07-26-2011, 20:03
This is just my uninformed opinion, but it seems to me the police officer in question has "hit the wall". The professional stress and possible off-duty stresses in life have accumulated to the point where he needs to be removed from his patrol duties and allowed time to recuperate.

I don't know how long he's been LEO but from the video I'd guess he's been on the job for a matter a years and is due a measure of consideration for his inexcusable outburst. His partner's avoidance of the situation speaks volumes of the man's need for counseling and healing. I'm not one to throw this officer under the bus, and judging from the victim's attitude he's not one to hold the officer liable should it come to severe sanctions or even firing.

I think being an LEO in this day and age is about the toughest job on the planet, given what these men and women have to face every night and day. Thank God the LEO just lost his temper, and thank the same God the victim was big enough and smart enough to comply with the commands.

Cgrubb1
07-26-2011, 20:43
Wow! Thanks phantom 465. There are so many things wring about that speech. First, a law is a law, whether he agrees with it or not. So whining about people carrying a "ruger" or any type of firearm at 1:30 or any other time in crime ridden neighborhoods (seems like the best place to carry). Is a moot point. That is because the man was carrying legally. And the fact he is arguing with people from different areas is a little assinine. If he doesn't care about others opinions, why does he feel the need to defend the officers actions or condemn the ccw laws? If cops could be everywhere protecting everyone at all times, people wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves. By his own admission there are crime ridden areas, that cops obviously can't control. Seems like a good reason for citizens to legally protect themselves.

slickt0mmy
07-26-2011, 20:55
I just sent an email to Mr. Schulman detailing the inaccuracies of his views. If you have some free time, perhaps a quick email to him would help him realize how many of us are actually out here and how flawed his views are.
His email can be found under the Council Members section of the Canton, Ohio website. (I'm not sure if it's against TOS to post the direct link here)

Palmguy
07-26-2011, 21:06
Carry Issues is not the appropriate forum to lobby for the decriminalization of prostitution.:wavey:

Come on, Russ. That wasn't the point and you know it.

"Do you really think that two consenting adults entering into a voluntary transaction with no "victim" constitutes a crime serious enough to warrant a threat of execution from the police officer? "

Lohtse
07-27-2011, 00:41
I hope this isn't a re-post. I skimmed over the last couple of pages.

This is a recording of the Canton council president on a local radio talk show. His point of view on the subject is very disappointing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfpBxY2J00

Wow. This guy is horrible! He actually says, to paraphrase, that the issue is caused by the arming of America and that carrying a handgun in a high crime area at night is "not acceptable!" :upeyes:

To me, that sounds like when I'd most want to have a handgun.

Further:

"As long as these laws permit people to carry weapons in the worst situations...there are deaths waiting to happen."

Lohtse
07-27-2011, 00:50
Just finished listening to the rest of his convoluted, illogical monologue. It's hard for me to imagine how a respected lawyer can watch that video tape and come away feeling that the issue was that the driver was armed despite the fact that he was nothing but cooperative and compliant while Canton's law enforcement representatives were the ones issuing terroristic threats including both threats to deliver both physical beatings and an execution, threats of reprisal, and threats of false arrest.

I realize he may be in circle the wagons mode, but no one who's seen the video is going to be distracted by his 'CCW is deaths waiting to happen' chestnut.

AA#5
07-27-2011, 01:04
Yes, yes, and yes, plus it's a great illustration for us that someone, anyone carrying should prepare for the unexpected. Watch this video and practice how you would respond, how you would try and deescalate the situation. What words would you use. How would you say them? What words shouldn't you use?

There is NOTHING the driver could have said that would have deescalated this situation. Had the driver said ANYTHING, this jerk cop would have used it as an excuse to further assert his manhood with more rage.

jeffyjeff
07-27-2011, 01:33
I hope this isn't a re-post. I skimmed over the last couple of pages.

This is a recording of the Canton council president on a local radio talk show. His point of view on the subject is very disappointing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfpBxY2J00

"common sense gun laws"

what a bradytard.

Mister_Beefy
07-27-2011, 02:03
The guy said he knew the girl from driving her before in his cab. Maybe they were friends and didn't have a "business" relationship? Maybe it was her night off? For all intents and purposes, the driver was a law abiding citizen as evidenced by his just getting his permit a couple of weeks earlier.



that's unpossible. he was trying to get a hooker. the crazy cop in the video, along with the GT LEO club say so. therefore it is true. and you are a cop basher if you disagree.

Mister_Beefy
07-27-2011, 02:05
I hope this isn't a re-post. I skimmed over the last couple of pages.

This is a recording of the Canton council president on a local radio talk show. His point of view on the subject is very disappointing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfpBxY2J00


holy crap this guy is a *********.

it's all the fault of the concealed guns.

zero comment on the actions of the officer.

what's his name here on GT? :rofl:


allen.schulman@cantonohio.gov

Mister_Beefy
07-27-2011, 02:40
I sent him an email


Hello sir,

My name is Mister Beefy.

I just listened to your comments on the recent viral video incident between Officer Harless and a citizen of Canton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfpBxY2J00
You said that someone "packing a Ruger at 1:30 in the morning" is not acceptable in our society and laws allowing people to arm themselves are "insane".
As a lawyer and city council president, what is your opinion of Officer Harless's behavior? Do you believe Officer Harless was upholding the standards expected from the citizens of Canton?

I'm just curious, because you never mentioned his behavior once. After all, he did threaten to kill the man without losing any sleep. If the driver had said something similar to the Officer, he would have been arrested and charged with assault and/or making terroristic threats. Do you think the video would have gone viral if the officer had kept control of himself? I sure don't.

Concealed carry laws are insane? No sir, what is insane is your utter disregard for the gross incompetence of your city's peace officer, as well as your willful and asinine ignorance of the facts in the case. Your town and its police force are now a national laughing stock, and your ignorant leftist rant has only inflamed the anger of freedom loving Americans everywhere that have now put your city on their "Don't go there ever" list. Good luck getting re-elected.

Sincerely,

Mister Beefy, esq.
The Beefyest

RussP
07-27-2011, 05:58
that's unpossible. he was trying to get a hooker. the crazy cop in the video, along with the GT LEO club say so. therefore it is true. and you are a cop basher if you disagree.Have you read anywhere a statement by William Bartlett about why he was in that location?

RussP
07-27-2011, 06:00
The guy said he knew the girl from driving her before in his cab.Do you have a link to that statement? I missed it.

Bren
07-27-2011, 06:00
I sent him an email


Hello sir,

My name is Mister Beefy.

I imagine he read all the way to there.:rofl::upeyes:

Donn57
07-27-2011, 06:10
Do you have a link to that statement? I missed it.

The link is the same as the video since that is where he makes the statement.

RussP
07-27-2011, 06:41
The link is the same as the video since that is where he makes the statement. Yes, I listened to that. I thought perhaps there was more on that in later reports. Thanks.

Warp
07-27-2011, 09:09
Do you have a link to that statement? I missed it.

The link is the same as the video since that is where he makes the statement.

Yes. He says it multiple and time and, IIRC, it gets typed out on the screen closed captioning style as well

RussP
07-27-2011, 13:26
Yes. He says it multiple and time and, IIRC, it gets typed out on the screen closed captioning style as wellHow about this, Warp, any insight?Have you read anywhere a statement by William Bartlett about why he was in that location?

Mister_Beefy
07-27-2011, 13:36
Have you read anywhere a statement by William Bartlett about why he was in that location?

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-canton-man-says-right-violated,0,4929482.story

driver was breaking the law, cop has PTSD, product of the system, blah blah blah.

there is no excuse for this officer's behavior, period.

Mister_Beefy
07-27-2011, 13:39
I imagine he read all the way to there.:rofl::upeyes:


I changed the name.

I'll see your rolleyes :upeyes:

and raise you a dancing snoopy :snoopy:

RussP
07-27-2011, 14:13
http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-canton-man-says-right-violated,0,4929482.story

driver was breaking the law, cop has PTSD, product of the system, blah blah blah.

there is no excuse for this officer's behavior, period.I believe the question was, "Why was he in that location."

Okay, no one wants to find out, so I'll tell you. At 1:30 in the morning he was out looking for Reliable Street Sweeping to get a job. He said so in the video.

I can't find a listing for a Reliable Street Sweeping. Maybe, if the cop had shut his mouth for a minute, he might have heard that and told him where in that neighborhood he could find it. Or, could have been Reliable Street Sweeping isn't in the area, and that led the cop to believe something else was going on.

Regardless, it did not justify the cop's behavior and he should suffer the most severe consequences available.

RussP
07-27-2011, 14:17
driver was breaking the law, cop has PTSD, product of the system, blah blah blah.So, based on your sigline, "It's not trolling if it's the truth", that means "driver was breaking the law, cop has PTSD, product of the system" is completely true. It's good to have you confirm that.

Warp
07-27-2011, 14:38
How about this, Warp, any insight?

No.

Is there a reason to suspect he would make a public statement at this time?

Is there a reason a free man need explain to us why he was on a public street?

Mister_Beefy
07-27-2011, 14:44
So, based on your sigline, "It's not trolling if it's the truth", that means "driver was breaking the law, cop has PTSD, product of the system" is completely true. It's good to have you confirm that.


I was being sarcastic.

my sig line comes from my last infraction from you.

you're getting off the topic of this thread. who's trolling now?

IT0
07-27-2011, 14:54
I sent him an email


Hello sir,

My name is Mister Beefy.

I just listened to your comments on the recent viral video incident between Officer Harless and a citizen of Canton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfpBxY2J00
You said that someone "packing a Ruger at 1:30 in the morning" is not acceptable in our society and laws allowing people to arm themselves are "insane".
As a lawyer and city council president, what is your opinion of Officer Harless's behavior? Do you believe Officer Harless was upholding the standards expected from the citizens of Canton?

I'm just curious, because you never mentioned his behavior once. After all, he did threaten to kill the man without losing any sleep. If the driver had said something similar to the Officer, he would have been arrested and charged with assault and/or making terroristic threats. Do you think the video would have gone viral if the officer had kept control of himself? I sure don't.

Concealed carry laws are insane? No sir, what is insane is your utter disregard for the gross incompetence of your city's peace officer, as well as your willful and asinine ignorance of the facts in the case. Your town and its police force are now a national laughing stock, and your ignorant leftist rant has only inflamed the anger of freedom loving Americans everywhere that have now put your city on their "Don't go there ever" list. Good luck getting re-elected.

Sincerely,

Mister Beefy, esq.
The Beefyest


Nice...

A few other comments would like to add:

1- Why does any adult need to have permission to be out at 1:30am. Was there a curfew, were they under martial law?

2- So what if he was picking up a hooker, that is a non-violent offense. Even if this was in fact and was a john and hooker, the cop handled this so inappropriately it makes prosecuting it almost impossible.

3- The cop made a threat that if made by a civilian would land us in jail for terrorist threats. The LEO IMHO broke the law, disgraced his badge and gave cannon fodder to all the LE haters everywhere.

OctoberRust
07-27-2011, 15:08
I believe the question was, "Why was he in that location."



Russ, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?


Also, whatever happened to a trial by jury, not a trial by police officer?


Trying to say the end justifies the means is outrageous.

RussP
07-27-2011, 15:33
Russ, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?It's alive and well. These posts by Dragoon44 may help you with that. They are simply an arrestee\prisoner, someone who has been charged with a criminal offense.



Once the DA\State Attorney files charges formally charging them with a crime they become a defendant.



This is true in it's proper Venue, which is the courtroom. Innocent until proven guilty means the State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt your guilt to a Jury of your peers BEFORE the state can impose punishment. A Judge or Jury is not to consider you guilty simply because you were arrested and charged with a crime. it is simply part of "Due Process"

The police do not impose punishment the State does via the court and a judge or Jury. All the police do is arrest based on probable cause. Obviously if the Police were to consider you innocent they would not arrest you in the first place. What the police think or know does not make you guilty or not guilty only the court can declare that.

No, you are correct, until the court declares him either guilty or not guilty he is neither. His status is simply someone arrested and charged with a crime.

The Point of contention we have is your previous insistence that the Police must consider you innocent until proven guilty. But as I have pointed out that is not how Police operate, Police have no authority to LEGALLY declare you guilty or not guilty, only the Courts have that authority. Thus "innocent until proven guilty is a doctrine applicable to the Courts domain not the police.andYour assertions have been that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the street and to how the police are to perform their duties. As proof you attempted to offer the disclaimer given on the TV show COPS, and then tried to connect it with the Miranda warning.

Perhaps a little history will make this clearer, The Term "innocent until proven guilty" is based on the English common law "presumption of innocence" which is a Legal right the accused has IN COURT in a criminal trial.

It does not now, nor has it ever had anything to do with law enforcement and how LE performs it's duties on the street.

There are many RIGHTS one has in court that you do not have on the street, for instance, in court you have the right to face your accuser, you do not have that right outside of a court room during an investigation or an arrest.

I think you just fail to understand the difference between what applies to a court room\ criminal trial setting and what does not apply outside of a courtroom.Also, whatever happened to a trial by jury, not a trial by police officer?That too is alive and well. I am certain that departments and agencies using the video for training on how NOT to interact with the public will note that in the officer's behavior.Trying to say the end justifies the means is outrageous.Who has done that?

dcc12
07-27-2011, 16:52
Russ, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?


Also, whatever happened to a trial by jury, not a trial by police officer?


Trying to say the end justifies the means is outrageous.
Q. Why was he at this location?
A. Because this is America Charge him with a crime or move your burned out self on down the road.
Had the cop done that he would not be looking at the end of his LE career and would not be looking at his new career in club fed for violating civil rights.

Dragoon44
07-27-2011, 17:20
Is there a reason a free man need explain to us why he was on a public street?

in the wee hours of the morning parked along side the road lights off?

YEAH, it's called suspicious vehicle\person. An officer coming up on something like that will recognize that it is unusual, cops are paid to investigate unusual situations. I don't offhand know of any state that has designated the space besides its roadways as parking spots.

First thing any cop rolling up on such a scene is going to think is there are a multitude of reasons why this guy is parked on the side of the road lights off.

1. motorist in distress (medical)

2. Motorist who is DUI.

3. Transportation vehicle and lookout for someone that is burglarizing a nearby residence or business.

4. if it is in a location known for prostitution activity, someone looking to pick up a hooker.

dbarry
07-27-2011, 17:46
The driver/CCWer did not do anything wrong.

Sometimes you can do everything exactly right, and still end up dead.

The lessons to be learned here which really, are already well ingrained in the vast overwhelmingly large number of police officers are:
Secure the scene.

Immobilize the vehicle
Maintain professional standards for conduct
Videos are attracted to youtube like water flows downhill (except in Australia this weekend :))


The lessons for this particular CCWer dude, and CCWers in general are:



You have no control over the actions of the police when you are detained. As can be seen in this case, you also have very little ability on the direction of where the conversation goes, if the officer decides from the onset to completely "take control" of a stop. Your best bet is to keep your hands visible, clearly telegraph your actions, and be as non threatening as possible. Also, as can be seen from this video, you have very little (none, unless you start doing really stupid stuff) control over the actions of police officers. The search of his car begins without any interaction between him and the cops. It was like he was never even there.




I think some of us are conveniently forgetting that "1st timers" are never as smooth as "old timers". Someone "new" to CCW is hardly ever going to be as prepared as Russ, Warp, et al. The direct comparison would be to look at newly minted police officers, who are routinely assigned a field training officer, and still makes plenty of mistakes. Well CCWers don't have that safety net. (And for obvious reasons, they don't serve the public, nor do they have the frequency or nature of public contact that police do).




You may end up interacting with "that cop". Yep, the guy who is a total wet smelly nutsack, who is anti gun, or maybe having a really bad day/week/life. As was evidenced in the California video also posted here, you could end up with a cop who is a human being 1st, then a police officer, and interacts with the public in that manner...or a police officer who is anywhere in between on that scale.




It is your responsibility to know your environment, and know your company. The three fundamental firearms rules are very similar to the three rules of stupid. Chances are, if you obey any two of the three gun rules, nobody gets hurt. If you obey any two of the three rules of stupid (places, people, things) your chances of getting in jams are likewise equally low.

'Drew

I've read a lot of stuff on this, and this is the most to the point, concise, well written responses on it. Well said.

dorkweed
07-27-2011, 20:22
in the wee hours of the morning parked along side the road lights off?

YEAH, it's called suspicious vehicle\person. An officer coming up on something like that will recognize that it is unusual, cops are paid to investigate unusual situations. I don't offhand know of any state that has designated the space besides its roadways as parking spots.

First thing any cop rolling up on such a scene is going to think is there are a multitude of reasons why this guy is parked on the side of the road lights off.

1. motorist in distress (medical)

2. Motorist who is DUI.

3. Transportation vehicle and lookout for someone that is burglarizing a nearby residence or business.

4. if it is in a location known for prostitution activity, someone looking to pick up a hooker.





OR:


5. Asking directions...........possible in this case.

6. Ran out of fuel.

7. Vehicle malfunction.......flat tire etc.

8. Looking at a map..........aka, lost.

9. Fishing.........might be a great fishing spot close by.

Teej
07-27-2011, 20:32
Have you read anywhere a statement by William Bartlett about why he was in that location?

It doesn't matter. Talking to a hooker is not a crime. We can assume he was there attempting to pick up a hooker but that did not happen.

So I must have missed something and I'll admit I did not read all 7 pages to this thread. But WHAT crime was commited? Not what can we assume was commited.

This officer lost all professional control and should be taken off the street. Officers are taught to assume any and all are armed until it has been determined they are not whether they are legally armed or illegally armed. Leaving him in the car, in the drivers seat, alone? Both officers need some retraining while one should be looking into early retirement and a less stressful job.

Schrag4
07-27-2011, 20:34
I hope this isn't a re-post. I skimmed over the last couple of pages.

This is a recording of the Canton council president on a local radio talk show. His point of view on the subject is very disappointing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfpBxY2J00

:shocked:

Very disappointing, I agree.

Dragoon44
07-27-2011, 20:51
So I must have missed something and I'll admit I did not read all 7 pages to this thread. But WHAT crime was commited? Not what can we assume was commited.

Stupid in the first degree.....on the part of the officer.

:wavey:

Teej
07-27-2011, 20:51
:shocked:

Very disappointing, I agree.

That wasn't disappointing. His comments and views are disturbing and down right scary. If there does happen to be a wide spread problem there, I feel safe to say he is part of it.

Well all I can say for sure is that if this SAME officer is ever involved in an a proven "incident" after this wide spread viral video, this city is going to loose big time.

But he does make a point and I have to wonder, are the residents of Canton upset by this officers conduct? Are they complaining? I mean this is for their own personal protection? If they are not, maybe they deserve what they get.

But I'll bet a big part of this idiots comments are keeping LEO and Firefighters election votes... :whistling:

TDC20
07-27-2011, 22:44
Your assertions have been that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the street and to how the police are to perform their duties. As proof you attempted to offer the disclaimer given on the TV show COPS, and then tried to connect it with the Miranda warning.

Perhaps a little history will make this clearer, The Term "innocent until proven guilty" is based on the English common law "presumption of innocence" which is a Legal right the accused has IN COURT in a criminal trial.

It does not now, nor has it ever had anything to do with law enforcement and how LE performs it's duties on the street.

There are many RIGHTS one has in court that you do not have on the street, for instance, in court you have the right to face your accuser, you do not have that right outside of a court room during an investigation or an arrest.

I think you just fail to understand the difference between what applies to a court room\ criminal trial setting and what does not apply outside of a courtroom.

Dragoon44, this is not aimed at you, but rather at our system. The problem I have with the standards of what applies on the street vs. what applies in the courtroom could be construed as extreme harrassment, defamation, unjust monetary penalties in legal fees, bail, etc.

Here's my point: If a PO decides to arrest you when he knows he has insufficient evidence to convict you of a crime, the accused must post bail, hire a lawyer, spend time away from his job in court proceedings, and suffer the injustice of "trial by public opinion". Suppose this guy's story was legit and he's not looking for a hooker to "clean his pipes" (I know it's a stretch for all of you "guilty until proven innocent" guys out there), and furthermore, suppose he is a high school teacher and the girl's basketball coach. He is charged with soliciting, even though there was no undercover with a wire, no video, no observation of money changing hands, no act observed, just circumstantial evidence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and in the wrong company. The arresting officer KNOWS this will NOT result in a conviction because there is no solid evidence to present and nothing illegal was actually observed (as noted when these officers released the "hooker"), but still, he doesn't have to meet the presumed innocent standard, so it's OK, right? Can you see where I'm going with this? A PO can make a decision to arrest on a whim, and destroy someone's life and life's savings trying to defend themselves. I find that unacceptable.

Where in the system is there protection from this? It's pretty scary that the offending officer here makes references to future harassment of exactly this type of conduct. Where is the disincentive to keep this from happening? Will officers making needless arrests and bookings be disciplined, or not promoted? Maybe they will, I don't know, but to my knowledge, there is ZERO safeguard within the system to prevent this from happening.

For all the LEO's on this thread, I hope that your supervisors and departments stress the need for professionalism on the street. With the huge number of video cams in phones and everything else out there, you need to realize that one moment of poor judgement caught on cam can ruin your career and cause a lot of grief to your organization. It's probably going to happen at some time or another during your tenure, and the only defense against it is being professional and diligent 100% of the time. I know the job is tough enough already. Maybe it's absurd to place this standard on every LEO out there, but please, I really don't want to ever see anything even remotely like this video posted on the internet again.

And as a citizen, how can I protect myself from this type of situation? Do I need to carry around a hidden video cam? You can claim that in court I am innocent until proven guilty, but in reality, the defendant must actually prove their innocence. Without the dash cam video, no reasonable judge or jury would have believed this guy's story. The accused always lie in their own defense, right? Had the accused recited in court, word for word, what the arresting officer said to him, can you seriously think anyone would believe him? Seriously??? I certainly wouldn't as a juror.

Police have an expensive dash cam provided by the people to support their side of the story. How do I know it will be available to support my story in the rare instance of an abuse like this? This whole situation has now spiraled out of control. Even the few people who posted here in defense of this PO scares the bejeebers out of me that they might be LE and out there on the street. Say it isn't so!

Warp
07-27-2011, 22:49
Where in the system is there protection from this?

There is action one may take if arrested without probable cause.

TDC20
07-27-2011, 23:11
There is action one may take if arrested without probable cause.

Phrases such as "reasonable articuable suspicion" and "probable cause" are gray areas that can be argued ad infinitum without proving anything one way or the other. It is whatever the arresting PO says it is, unless it can be PROVEN otherwise (again, system places burden of proof is on the accused).

Probable cause has already been established in the PO's mind, i.e., "john" in bad part of town with "hooker" and "pimp". No evidence required for an arrest, right? At least that's how Dragoon44 has explained it.

Probable cause has nothing to do with your Constitutional rights. He has a right to be there at 1:30 in the morning, he has the right to assemble (in this case, he is not a felon, so no foul there), he has a right to talk to anyone he wants to. Yet the "burden" of PC has been established by the arresting officer and the circumstances.

Let's say there is some action you may take if in fact PC was not proven. You will still suffer the burden of proving your innocence in court, at the expense of a lawyer, bail, reputation, etc. I don't see any remedy to my position that the system as it exists can not be applied unjustly on a whim.

Warp
07-27-2011, 23:17
Probable cause has already been established in the PO's mind, i.e., "john" in bad part of town with "hooker" and "pimp".

You confuse RAS with PC

Reasonable Articuable Suspicion/ Probable Cause

Dragoon44
07-27-2011, 23:33
Here's my point: If a PO decides to arrest you when he knows he has insufficient evidence to convict you of a crime, the accused must post bail, hire a lawyer, spend time away from his job in court proceedings, and suffer the injustice of "trial by public opinion".

There is a step between Being arrested and going to trial. Once the police arrest you the State Attorney has to file charges, he reviews the arrest and the Probable cause to determine if it Meets the standards for the elements of the crime charged. If it does not the SA will "nolle prosiqui" it, meaning no charges filed, no trial.

and furthermore, suppose he is a high school teacher and the girl's basketball coach. He is charged with soliciting, even though there was no undercover with a wire, no video, no observation of money changing hands, no act observed, just circumstantial evidence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and in the wrong company.

If you have a job that requires yo to maintain a certain standard as to your conduct then you should not be in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people. That is simply personal responsibility.

Where in the system is there protection from this? It's pretty scary that the offending officer here makes references to future harassment of exactly this type of conduct. Where is the disincentive to keep this from happening? Will officers making needless arrests and bookings be disciplined, or not promoted? Maybe they will, I don't know, but to my knowledge, there is ZERO safeguard within the system to prevent this from happening.

In most cases if an officer makes bad arrests The State Attorney's office is going to be notifying the dept. about it wanting to know why.

The overwhelming majority of citizens go through their entire lives without being arrested so obviously officers are not arresting people on bogus charges on a regular basis.

And as a citizen, how can I protect myself from this type of situation?

Thats easy, Do NOT hang out in stupid places, with stupid\wrong people, or do stupid things. Again this is personal responsibility, YOU are responsible for you, and choices\actions have consequences.

That has worked for the majority of Americans for a very, very long time.

Police have an expensive dash cam provided by the people to support their side of the story. How do I know it will be available to support my story in the rare instance of an abuse like this?

This thread is a pretty good indicator that it will be, or this thread and other threads like it would not exist.

TDC20
07-27-2011, 23:38
I'm confused in general. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I wish to pay a lawyer to protect me from bogus charges brought by someone who thought I was too stupid to be walking the Earth. I do not want to spend the night in jail. I do not want to lose my friends, my job, or my career. I do not want my fate in the hands of a judge or a jury that does not know me and will assume that I must be guilty of something or I wouldn't be there in the first place.

I guess I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed and hope that it never happens to me. Probably won't, because I'm not out at 1:30 in the a.m. talking with pimps and hookers, but it could be a different set of circumstances with similar results.

Warp
07-27-2011, 23:51
I'm confused in general. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I wish to pay a lawyer to protect me from bogus charges brought by someone who thought I was too stupid to be walking the Earth. I do not want to spend the night in jail. I do not want to lose my friends, my job, or my career. I do not want my fate in the hands of a judge or a jury that does not know me and will assume that I must be guilty of something or I wouldn't be there in the first place.

I guess I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed and hope that it never happens to me. Probably won't, because I'm not out at 1:30 in the a.m. talking with pimps and hookers, but it could be a different set of circumstances with similar results.

Don't go to bars.

Don't go to any event where there is a group or crowd and alcohol.

Nothing good happens after midnight.

Know who you are hanging out with. In this case the cop said the girl was a prostitute and apparently the girl admitted to having been arrested for said indiscretion in the past. In other words, don't be stopped on the side of the street at 01:30 with a girl that you either don't know all that well or who has been arrested for prostitution

TDC20
07-27-2011, 23:57
The overwhelming majority of citizens go through their entire lives without being arrested so obviously officers are not arresting people on bogus charges on a regular basis.

Thats easy, Do NOT hang out in stupid places, with stupid\wrong people, or do stupid things. Again this is personal responsibility, YOU are responsible for you, and choices\actions have consequences.

That has worked for the majority of Americans for a very, very long time.


Thanks Dragoon44. That clears up a lot of things and there seems to be (hopefully) adequate oversight at the State's Attorney level to most often prevent what I'm talking about.

I have to disagree with your assertion that it's simply a matter of hanging out in the wrong places with the wrong people, though. Let me give you another hypothetical about how this COULD happen to someone who is totally innocent.

It's 1:30 a.m, and you are driving through a bad part of town. A car is broken down on the road. You are a new CCW holder, so you feel empowered to stop to help. They are strangers, but because they seem to be good folks in a bad situation, you offer them a ride home. On the way, a police officer notices you have a tail light out. He pulls you over. You are surprised to find that you were transporting known (to the police) felons, maybe a hooker and her pimp. The PO's don't buy your story. And there you are, too stupid to be walking the Earth, right? Here we go....

Don't say it can't happen. I'll grant you that it would be a rare event, indeed, but sometimes crazy circumstances do happen, and we aren't always in control of them by being "smart". Besides, I don't think our laws and Constitution were intended only for "smart" people. Sometimes even smart people (and cops) have momentary lapses of judgement. That doesn't mean they are trying to break the law.

Warp
07-28-2011, 00:00
Don't say it can't happen. I'll grant you that it would be a rare event, indeed, but sometimes crazy circumstances do happen, and we aren't always in control of them by being "smart".

This is under your control, and is NOT "smart"

They are strangers, but because they seem to be good folks in a bad situation, you offer them a ride home.

TDC20
07-28-2011, 00:11
It would be naive and stupid, granted, but some people are just that. Being stupid isn't a crime last time I checked. Maybe the guy is an Evangelical Christian and feels it's his duty to help out the strangers. It doesn't really matter, in the hypothetical situation, he really IS innocent, but the circumstances say he isn't. It's hypothetical to show it could happen.

And one other thing that occurred to me about the State's Attorney, which is politics. He might be like the Canton city council guy and be rabidly anti-gun, anti-CCW. Politics can be another mitigating factor in the outcome of your fate. The SA may decide he wants to make an example out of you, and in this case, randomly picks a bad one to score his points with.

OK, I'm done....people can continue the cop-bashing if they wish.

Warp
07-28-2011, 00:29
TDC20: I'm lost. What are you all worked up about again?

TDC20
07-28-2011, 00:50
TDC20: I'm lost. What are you all worked up about again?

Eh...nothing. I thought I had some good points that were related to the topic, but I just realized that I'm probably too stupid to be walking the Earth. :dunno:

G26S239
07-28-2011, 01:00
I do not want my fate in the hands of a judge or a jury that does not know me and will assume that I must be guilty of something or I wouldn't be there in the first place.

I guess I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed and hope that it never happens to me. Probably won't, because I'm not out at 1:30 in the a.m. talking with pimps and hookers, but it could be a different set of circumstances with similar results.
You seem to be uninformed about how juries are selected. Anyone who knows you, the defense, or the prosecutor from more than a casual brief encounter will not be selected for jury duty unless they lie about knowing you in my experience. Neither of the two juries that I have served on have been chomping at the bit to convict someone just for the hell of it.

Maybe you will just happen to find a body at 2:00 am in an alley and kneel in blood and pick up a gun because you are wondering if it is an Erma or a Walther, but what are the odds of that happening?

PEC-Memphis
07-28-2011, 10:12
Maybe you will just happen to find a body at 2:00 am in an alley and kneel in blood and pick up a gun because you are wondering if it is an Erma or a Walther, but what are the odds of that happening?

Probably pretty low, Ermas aren't that common to be found just laying in the alley.

PEC-Memphis
07-28-2011, 10:24
You seem to be uninformed about how juries are selected. Anyone who knows you, the defense, or the prosecutor from more than a casual brief encounter will not be selected for jury duty unless they lie about knowing you in my experience.

I don't get it.

TDC said he didn't want to be judged by a judge or jury who didn't know him...

And you said the rules of jury selection would be that, unless someone lies, there will not be anyone on the jury who knows him; and then you call him uninformed because he said something that you agreed with.

I've been on a couple of juries before as well, and, like it or not, for some people there is a perceived "tint of guilt" by being at trial - after all they were arrested and the DA/GJ found enough reason to send the case forward.

dnuggett
07-28-2011, 12:20
It's 1:30 a.m, and you are driving through a bad part of town. A car is broken down on the road. You are a new CCW holder, so you feel empowered to stop to help. .

How did you mentally link "empowerment to help" a broken-down motorist with a new CCW holder?

You are no more equipped to help a stranded motorist the day after you got your CCW than the day before.

hamster
07-28-2011, 13:02
Probably cause is a reason to stop or question someone. It is NOT a reason to threaten a disarmed handcuffed cooperating citizen with execution. IMO probable cause is entirely irrelevant in the situation since the "abuse" took place after the threat had been eliminated.

Furthermore, people are getting hung up on the possible prostitution angle. Nowhere in the officer's tirade did he mention his opposition to the concept of prostitution. He went on and on because in his mind ordinary citizens don't deserve to be armed. THAT is the issue at hand.

Gallium
07-28-2011, 13:13
Probably cause is a reason to stop or question someone. It is NOT a reason to threaten a disarmed handcuffed cooperating citizen with execution. IMO probable cause is entirely irrelevant in the situation since the "abuse" took place after the threat had been eliminated.

Furthermore, people are getting hung up on the possible prostitution angle. Nowhere in the officer's tirade did he mention his opposition to the concept of prostitution. He went on and on because in his mind ordinary citizens don't deserve to be armed. THAT is the issue at hand.


So far no one in this thread has voiced approval of the officer's tactics, behavior or perspective.

People are not getting hung up on the hooker angle. It was mentioned to underscore this as a probable reason (cause) for the police interacting with the occupants.

This thread has taken many directions, but no one has agreed with those parts I highlighted.

hamster
07-28-2011, 13:17
So far no one in this thread has voiced approval of the officer's tactics, behavior or perspective.

People are not getting hung up on the hooker angle. It was mentioned to underscore this as a probable reason (cause) for the police interacting with the occupants.

This thread has taken many directions, but no one has agreed with those parts I highlighted.

Sure, but I have seen some folks using the hooker angle as a kindof "well, he shouldn't have been there in the first place" thing.

Gallium
07-28-2011, 13:53
Sure, but I have seen some folks using the hooker angle as a kindof "well, he shouldn't have been there in the first place" thing.

Well, solicitation of prostitutes is illegal there. No one has said it was "illegal" for him to be there in the 1st place, all of us (and probably you admit this to yourself privately) have said "well, he shouldn't have been there in the first place".

That's just the truth. Aint any LESS true that a married man should not be in a strip club getting lap dances from naked chics, any less than a recovering alcoholic should not be at a free beer tasting party.

HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE! :)

There, I said it, and I've said it before. We should all attempt to end up in a majority of the stupids (2 of 3)

- stupid places
- stupid people
- stupid things

He clearly was in the majority of stupid here, and if indeed he was looking to score, that would be 3/3.

Nothing, absolutely nothing absolves the actions of the police officer.

Likewise, there is nothing much the CCWer could have done to dissipate the officer's venom

Likewise, there is no excuse for being in a stupid place with stupid people potentially doing, or embarking on doing stupid things.

Unlike some here, I can keep my arguments separate and distinct. The cop screwed up big time. But nothing happens if dumbass kept himself away from stupid, because clearly, as we have established, he has NO CONTROL over anything else except for him being there.

'Drew

9x94
07-28-2011, 13:59
Probably cause is a reason to stop or question someone. It is NOT a reason to threaten a disarmed handcuffed cooperating citizen with execution. IMO probable cause is entirely irrelevant in the situation since the "abuse" took place after the threat had been eliminated.

Furthermore, people are getting hung up on the possible prostitution angle. Nowhere in the officer's tirade did he mention his opposition to the concept of prostitution. He went on and on because in his mind ordinary citizens don't deserve to be armed. THAT is the issue at hand.

Actually "Probable Cause" (not probably cause) is reason to ARREST someone. Reasonable suspicion is justification to stop and detain someone. And yes, there was plenty of that.

9x94
07-28-2011, 14:12
Unlike some here, I can keep my arguments separate and distinct. The cop screwed up big time. But nothing happens if dumbass kept himself away from stupid, because clearly, as we have established, he has NO CONTROL over anything else except for him being there.

'Drew

Drew,
You make great points. It is disheartening to me to see people blindly going to the defense of "William" and even donating to his legal defense fund.
Looking at the facts of the case it is silly for anyone to try to convince themselves that "William" was out looking for a job in the middle of the night. The cop was wrong. "William" was wrong too.

mpow66m
07-28-2011, 14:26
I wouldnt give that dude a dime!!!!!!

Warp
07-28-2011, 14:38
Drew,
You make great points. It is disheartening to me to see people blindly going to the defense of "William" and even donating to his legal defense fund.
Looking at the facts of the case it is silly for anyone to try to convince themselves that "William" was out looking for a job in the middle of the night. The cop was wrong. "William" was wrong too.

William was charged with failing to notify the officer. In this respect he was most certainly not "wrong" in any way.


You say it is disheartening to see people donating to his legal defense...why? Tell me, what law did he break?

Gallium
07-28-2011, 14:44
William was charged with failing to notify the officer. In this respect he was most certainly not "wrong" in any way.


...

You're splitting hairs Warp. We (or I thought we had) established the CCW did make valid attempts to inform the officer. He did indeed try. And yes, it is beyond any debate that once the argument ensued he tried every psychology trick in the book to calm the officer down.

When folks say he was wrong, I believe they are talking about being in that place at that time with that woman.


Would you be out at that hour, hanging out in an area known for prostitution, with a former prostitute in your car? I think (and hope) not.

That right there is just stupid behavior. There is legal, and then there is stupid.

Warp
07-28-2011, 14:53
You're splitting hairs Warp. We (or I thought we had) established the CCW did make valid attempts to inform the officer. He did indeed try. And yes, it is beyond any debate that once the argument ensued he tried every psychology trick in the book to calm the officer down.

When folks say he was wrong, I believe they are talking about being in that place at that time with that woman.


Would you be out at that hour, hanging out in an area known for prostitution, with a former prostitute in your car? I think (and hope) not.

That right there is just stupid behavior. There is legal, and then there is stupid.
Splitting hairs? I don't think so. The poster I quoted is disheartened that people would give money to his legal defense when he was charged with failing to inform.

broncobuddha1
07-28-2011, 15:06
Which begs the question: Do you follow written law or verbal commands of the officer on scene?

Must notify state, you try to notify and are immediately told to shut up. Several times. Do you continue to try and inform only to piss him off even more for not doing what he told you to do?

Officer put everyone in a bad situation aside from being an all out prick.

Why not have your partner secure the chick outside of the vehicle and approach the driver immediately vs. waiting 5 minutes into the stop?

Don't most consider the driver/owner of the vehicle responsible for the actions of said vehicle and to an extent its occupants?

Gallium
07-28-2011, 15:11
Splitting hairs? I don't think so. The poster I quoted is disheartened that people would give money to his legal defense when he was charged with failing to inform.

The person you quoted did not say that where you quoted him, so yes, I would have to say you are splitting hairs.


This is what 9x94 said: It is disheartening to me to see people blindly going to the defense of "William" and even donating to his legal defense fund. ...

His main point is: It is disheartening to see people blindly going to the victim's defense.

His secondary point:

...and donating to his legal defense fund.

Here is my truth. If that was my brother, or you, or Sam Spade, or Ender, or any of the dozens of folks whose pistol permit applications I have signed off on (certification of handgun training), or anyone I have trained with, I WOULD NOT give them a penny towards their defense, because they were the dumb ass that got themselves in that predicament in the 1st place.

Paradoxically, YES, I would exert as much pressure as I could on the local prosecuting attorney to drop the charges based on those charges being without merit.

I hope you can spot that difference.



9x94 also said:

...Looking at the facts of the case it is silly for anyone to try to convince themselves that "William" was out looking for a job in the middle of the night. The cop was wrong. "William" was wrong too.

I don't agree with him here, because people can really be "that" stupid. The odds of him looking for a job at that hour is really really low. If I were what-if-ing, I would suppose the guy they allege is a pimp was using the girl who used to be a whore to lure the guy in to do a soft rob on him.

The fact is, the victim does not break any laws, but he sure as heck was as stupid as they get, being in that company at that time in that location.



Always respectfully,
'Drew

Gallium
07-28-2011, 15:15
Which begs the question: Do you follow written law or verbal commands of the officer on scene?...



It depends no? If an officer directs me thru a red light when I am at the intersection, his verbal command or directive supercedes written law.

If an officer instructs me to shoot someone who is asleep...I have to use a bit of common sense there.

broncobuddha1
07-28-2011, 15:20
Then in this case what would you have done? Verbally asserted yourself to make the officer aware that you were a permit holder and were in fact armed or followed his command to shut the "F" up?

Warp
07-28-2011, 15:21
It depends no?

We have a very specific situation right here. You are required to inform, the officer tells you to shut up when you try to. What do you do?

Gallium
07-28-2011, 15:39
We have a very specific situation right here. You are required to inform, the officer tells you to shut up when you try to. What do you do?

We have been over this at least 3x in this thread.

When an officer gives you a very specific command, especially with any level of force behind it, you immediately comply.

'Drew
:cool:

broncobuddha1
07-28-2011, 15:41
We have been over this at least 3x in this thread.

When an officer gives you a very specific command, especially with any level of force behind it, you immediately comply.

'Drew
:cool:

And then catch **** for it from the officer for failure to notify.

By "****" I mean, yelled at, insulted, arrested, threatened to be killed, etc...

But only in Canton.:whistling: :supergrin:

Warp
07-28-2011, 15:44
We have been over this at least 3x in this thread.

When an officer gives you a very specific command, especially with any level of force behind it, you immediately comply.

'Drew
:cool:

Which is why I am baffled. What fault are you finding with my statement of:

"William was charged with failing to notify the officer. In this respect he was most certainly not "wrong" in any way."

Gallium
07-28-2011, 15:48
Then in this case what would you have done? Verbally asserted yourself to make the officer aware that you were a permit holder and were in fact armed or followed his command to shut the "F" up?


I take it you have never had an interaction with the police.

I don't believe that folks should be MANDATED to take classes if they want to carry a gun, but your question is an example that folks should use whatever resources are available to learn (as you are doing now, and I commend you) how to conduct themselves when interacting with the police, and particularly when armed.

It cannot be more plainly stated. It has been said again and again, so I am going to ask you to repeat it when you respond to this thread.



The driver/CCWer did not do anything wrong.

Sometimes you can do everything exactly right, and still end up dead.

The lessons to be learned here which really, are already well ingrained in the vast overwhelmingly large number of police officers are:
Secure the scene.

Immobilize the vehicle
Maintain professional standards for conduct
Videos are attracted to youtube like water flows downhill (except in Australia this weekend :))

.

So, there it was, clearly and resoundingly stated by yours truly back in post #56 (and before as well as after by others) that the officer failed to immediately secure the scene. Had he done his job correctly your question would be moot. Some agencies teach their officers to ask "do you have any weapons on your person or within reach?" Or "is there anything in your posession that might pose a threat to me?" Or... or... or...

The officer was remiss in failing to secure the scene before processing began.

You may miss it (because quoting messes up formatting), but "wrong" was italicized in my original post, because I actually wanted to convey "illegal" instead of "wrong".

I underscore this later in this same post with...



It is your responsibility to know your environment, and know your company. The three fundamental firearms rules are very similar to the three rules of stupid. Chances are, if you obey any two of the three gun rules, nobody gets hurt. If you obey any two of the three rules of stupid (places, people, things) your chances of getting in jams are likewise equally low.




Hope that helps.

'Drew

Gallium
07-28-2011, 15:54
And then catch **** for it from the officer for failure to notify.

By "****" I mean, yelled at, insulted, arrested, threatened to be killed, etc...

But only in Canton.:whistling: :supergrin:

The problem here is that you are looking for a campaign horse to ride on (I think).



We have consistently maintained that the officer was WRONG to not secure the scene from the onset.



We have consistently maintained that the officer's conduct was immoral, disrespectful, misdirected, wrong, and possibly illegal (real or implied threats; I don't know the laws in that jurisdiction).

Consequently, the great bulk of his interaction with the victim after the 5min mark is completely off the rails and outside anything we could call normal or acceptable.

So what exactly is your point, if we've already established these things? :headscratch:

'Drew

Gallium
07-28-2011, 15:57
Which is why I am baffled. What fault are you finding with my statement of:

"William was charged with failing to notify the officer. In this respect he was most certainly not "wrong" in any way."

I answered you here. I will now use colors to highlight the applicable portions.

You're splitting hairs Warp. We (or I thought we had) established the CCW did make valid attempts to inform the officer. He did indeed try. And yes, it is beyond any debate that once the argument ensued he tried every psychology trick in the book to calm the officer down.

When folks say he was wrong, I believe they are talking about being in that place at that time with that woman.


Would you be out at that hour, hanging out in an area known for prostitution, with a former prostitute in your car? I think (and hope) not.

That right there is just stupid behavior. There is legal, and then there is stupid.


Hope that helps.

'Drew

broncobuddha1
07-28-2011, 16:19
By talking about how the officer failed to secure the scene you're talking about how the situation could have been avoided. You're talking about diffusing a bomb after it's already gone off.

I'm asking you what you would have done in the situation (after the officer fails to secure the scene properly)

I don't have many run ins with the law. I have only been stopped once since I started carrying. Went something like this:

TN - Not a must notify state

Very polite officer - "Good morning. I pulled you over because your tags are out of date, may I see your license and registration please?"

Me: (both hands having never left the steering wheel) "Yes sir, but for your safety and mine, I would like to tell you that I have a carry permit and I do in fact have a weapon in the car."

Officer: "That's fine, where is it?"
Me: "In the glove box and my license is in the gym bag underneath the glove box."
Officer: "That's ok, just don't reach into the glove box."
Me: "Of course not."

Handed him my license, he never asked to see my permit or the weapon. Gave me a ticket for the tags, which were grossly out of date, my mistake. No issues whatsoever.

mpow66m
07-28-2011, 16:57
while everyone was wrong in this situation,the officer is the one who started this whole mess by not following proper procedure.the guy may have been trolling for ho's,but he did what he was told to do.bassically given a direct order to shut up.this whole mess could have been avoided if the officers did their job properly at the start.one relized his mistake and like a child tried to place the blame on someone else.was the officer a Mil.Vet?does anyone know,i didnt see anyone ask that.is he suffering from PTSD?
to me that video looked like just another day in corrections,lol.
hopefully it will all get sorted out and everyone goes on their merry way.

Mayhem like Me
07-28-2011, 17:04
We have a very specific situation right here. You are required to inform, the officer tells you to shut up when you try to. What do you do?

you become one obnoxious SOB and at the top of your lungs say
"excuse me officer but I am legally armed and have been trying to tell you but I can't get a word in ".
At least that's what I have done.,.well something very similar when taken down in the middle of a UC deal...

1canvas
07-28-2011, 17:20
while watching the local news here tonight they started to show other dash cam videos with this cop doing similar stops with the same type of comments and anger.

mpow66m
07-28-2011, 17:25
do you have a link?

cfec2008
07-28-2011, 17:41
Please somebody fire this sorry bastard. I dont dislike police. My brother is an officer. My brother in law is also an officer. This guy isnt a good officer. He is an ignorant representative of the department that he works for, and a major embarrassment to ALL police nation wide. I hope he loses his certification. by the way God bless the GOOD officers of our nation, but this is not one of them.

Donn57
07-28-2011, 17:46
We have consistently maintained that the officer was WRONG to not secure the scene from the onset.



I don't know what anybody else's point would be, but mine would that but for the actions of the officer in failing to secure the scene the entire stop would have gone down differently. I don't have a problem with the stop at all, just in the way it was handled.

Once the alleged prostitute and pimp were secured, the officer should have then immediately approached the driver and asked for ID at which time the driver would have given him his DL & CCW. He then could have received a ticket for the parking violation after which everyone goes on their way. It was the direct action (or lack of action) on the part of the cop that resulted in the bogus arrest.

It may have been stupid to be in that neighborhood at that time of night, but it is not illegal. It might have been stupid to have an alleged pimp in his back seat, but it is not in and of itself illegal. He may, in fact, be the biggest moron in the world. That is not illegal. Again, no problem with stop. All this stupid stuff would raise suspicion.

There was obviously no PC to arrest for any prostitution related charges or I guarantee that the driver would have also been charged with that as well.

I'm not a cop basher and I don't have an agenda. The above is just how I see things.

dnuggett
07-28-2011, 18:18
*** UPDATE ***

Looks like more video has been released of an entirely different scenario.

http://www.cantonrep.com/carousel/x2014919089/Video-Officer-Harless-loses-his-temper-on-another-arrest

OP- can you update your thread title to reflect this?

James Dean
07-28-2011, 18:52
while watching the local news here tonight they started to show other dash cam videos with this cop doing similar stops with the same type of comments and anger.
I would bet anything EVERYONE who works in that dept know what kind of guy this cop is. They are all just as guilty for not taking action against this nut job.

kensteele
07-28-2011, 19:01
I wonder how officers react to finding guns in cars in places like MO and TX where most every citizen is allowed to carry a loaded gun concealed and not obligated to notify officers? I wonder if they threaten to "send you to the grave" simply for having the legal gun legally in your car? Or do you have to be a "criminal" to be treated that way? On a simple traffic stop?

It is becoming more and more apparently that there are quite a few officers (from their own words) that would be fine with just shooting you on the spot simply for seeing or knowing there is a gun in the car or on your person. That's what they keep saying, am I hearing things, am I wrong? I keep hearing that they are fine with just killing you and calling it a day. Really?

Again, these are NOT my words. They are (allegedly) the words of a couple of officers. You have to wonder how many others feel the same.

Edit: These couple of video have certainly changed my attitude/actions about notifying. I have no choice but to immediately notify (even though it is not state law) because I run the risk of being killed if I do not. At first I thought I would be safe as long as I don't commit any crimes or threaten anyone but it has become clear to me that I could be murdered for absolutely nothing. That's my opinion.

Gallium
07-28-2011, 19:05
One of my old trainers - he now stands guard at a different post long ago advised to not pull a gun on someone and talk them to death.

I've also heard the saying that you either cite, or give an ass chewing, but not both.

Seems like this officer L O V E D to hear the sound of his voice rattling around in that head.

I wonder if he's ever been in a OIS (officer shooting)? Doesn't sound like it, but sure sounds like he's wanting to put a notch on his gunbelt. The public is better served with his separation from law enforcement.

'Drew

Mayhem like Me
07-28-2011, 19:15
*** UPDATE ***

Looks like more video has been released of an entirely different scenario.

http://www.cantonrep.com/carousel/x2014919089/Video-Officer-Harless-loses-his-temper-on-another-arrest

OP- can you update your thread title to reflect this?

He needs a new line of work if it was one incident I *might* try to rehab him This is a bona-fide pattern of behavior that shows he's about to bust loose in a bad way..
Internal it recommend the termination and let him find a less stressful job,, for him.

This looks ALOT like PTSS from people I have seen come back from the sandbox or other war zones.. I had an FTO that was a vietnam vet that flipped like this (much tamer) a couple times we had a few conversations after choir practice with some senior guys and he went to the VA hospital and got some help.

the above is a personal professional opinion from someone who has studied negligent retention, hiring training and entrustment your opinion may vary.....

Dragoon44
07-28-2011, 19:18
I am unimpressed with the second incident reported. traffic stop for DUI, multiple passengers, gun spotted at the feet of one of the rear passengers and both rear passengers keep moving around even after they have been told not to move. They would be hearing some very unpleasant things from me too.

That said the incident with the CCW holder shows the cop needs to find a new line of work. he is losing it and is a liability to himself, his partner the dept. and the public.

kensteele
07-28-2011, 19:25
In other posts, I mentioned that the Ohio must tell law is dangerous to permit holders. Now it is becoming evident to some. I was right. I'm sure there are permit holders who have put away their firearms for the time being, afraid to carry because they fear telling the wrong officer they have a gun. Much rather go toe to toe with a car jacker than being handcuffed in the backseat threatened with legal death. I don't blame them, I would stop carrying until this was resolved. He's not the only officer on the street with that attitude and if you have to immediately tell you're have a gun, good luck with the results, hit or miss, life or death, not up to you.

But I don't always post when I am right. I can admit that I am wrong as well. Long ago I said that I wouldn't declare (in my state) because there is no evidence that not telling an officer about a gun was lethal. I said there has never been an incident where an officer shot you for carrying a gun, simply seeing a bulge, and then firing on you until you die, with the gun still in your IWB. I repeatedly said that officers know it is legal for some folks to carry firearms and they would be deterred from using deadly force against a lawful citizen, doing absolutely nothing illegal or threatening. I was wrong. Badly wrong.

Warp
07-28-2011, 19:32
I wonder how officers react to finding guns in cars in places like MO and TX where most every citizen is allowed to carry a loaded gun concealed and not obligated to notify officers? I wonder if they threaten to "send you to the grave" simply for having the legal gun legally in your car? Or do you have to be a "criminal" to be treated that way? On a simple traffic stop?


Down here in GA I was pulled over about a week ago. I chose not to inform the officer that I was carrying (it was IWB under an untucked shirt at about 4:00 while I was seated and belted into my car). After visiting his vehicle and returning to mine with a warning for rolling through a stop sign the last thing he did was note my NRA stickers and ask if I had a weapon in the vehicle. I said "yes", he told me that it was my right and that was fine and he had no problem with it but preferred that I inform for officer safety...just so they know and that was that.

Back in IN I chose to inform when pulled over twice. One time the officer handed me my carry license without ever saying a word. The other time the officer asked where it was (on my hip), if it was loaded (yes) and requested that it stay there (of course). And that was that.

Dragoon44
07-28-2011, 19:37
In other posts, I mentioned that the Ohio must tell law is dangerous to permit holders. Now it is becoming evident to some. I was right. I'm sure there are permit holders who have put away their firearms for the time being, afraid to carry because they fear telling the wrong officer they have a gun.

Drama much? so ONE officer in Ohio who is clearly burnt out and needs to get out of LE means it isn't safe to carry a firearm in your vehicle in any state.

:upeyes:

Much rather go toe to toe with a car jacker than being handcuffed in the backseat threatened with legal death. I don't blame them, I would stop carrying until this was resolved. He's not the only officer on the street with that attitude and if you have to immediately tell you're have a gun, good luck with the results, hit or miss, life or death, not up to you.


You should join the brady bunch they could use your alarmist rhetoric. it's their stock and trade and yo have mastered it.

But I don't always post when I am right. I can admit that I am wrong as well. Long ago I said that I wouldn't declare (in my state) because there is no evidence that not telling an officer about a gun was lethal. I said there has never been an incident where an officer shot you for carrying a gun, simply seeing a bulge, and then firing on you until you die, with the gun still in your IWB. I repeatedly said that officers know it is legal for some folks to carry firearms and they would be deterred from using deadly force against a lawful citizen, doing absolutely nothing illegal or threatening. I was wrong. Badly wrong.

So since there was an incident with a cop in Ohio it isn't safe to declare in Kansas. Does that work the for the other side too? since their have been CCW holders that have committed crimes, including threatening and even shooting people illegally I guess we need to rethink the whole People being allowed to CCW thing.

:upeyes:

Warp
07-28-2011, 19:39
As usual Dragoon is on point.

TDC20
07-28-2011, 19:43
I would bet anything EVERYONE who works in that dept know what kind of guy this cop is. They are all just as guilty for not taking action against this nut job.

I agree. They all violated the 3 rules of stupid: people, places, things. If they were aware of this officer's actions, they are all just as guilty of corruption and civil rights violations as the officer in the video. The Feds should relieve all officers in the department including the Chief and take over their LE duties while they investigate the entire Canton police department. This should have been done immediately, in the same way and for the same reason as the cop who was given immediate administrative leave - to prevent him from becoming a further liability.

We all know this won't happen, and the reasons it won't are pathetic.

mpow66m
07-28-2011, 19:48
I agree. They all violated the 3 rules of stupid: people, places, things. If they were aware of this officer's actions, they are all just as guilty of corruption and civil rights violations as the officer in the video. The Feds should relieve all officers in the department including the Chief and take over their LE duties while they investigate the entire Canton police department. This should have been done immediately, in the same way and for the same reason as the cop who was given immediate administrative leave - to prevent him from becoming a further liability.

We all know this won't happen, and the reasons it won't are pathetic
.


theres a officer or two like that on every force.makes the good ones look bad.this is going to make the good LEOs job harder.

SCmasterblaster
07-28-2011, 20:12
How do cops like this get put on the street?

kensteele
07-28-2011, 20:44
Down here in GA I was pulled over about a week ago. I chose not to inform the officer that I was carrying (it was IWB under an untucked shirt at about 4:00 while I was seated and belted into my car). After visiting his vehicle and returning to mine with a warning for rolling through a stop sign the last thing he did was note my NRA stickers and ask if I had a weapon in the vehicle. I said "yes", he told me that it was my right and that was fine and he had no problem with it but preferred that I inform for officer safety...just so they know and that was that.

Back in IN I chose to inform when pulled over twice. One time the officer handed me my carry license without ever saying a word. The other time the officer asked where it was (on my hip), if it was loaded (yes) and requested that it stay there (of course). And that was that.

There are officers that said with their own lips they would shoot and kill you on the spot (for carrying a firearm) without saying a word to you and go home at night and go to sleep. Do you believe they meant it when they said it (alleged) or is that a false statement?

Patchman
07-28-2011, 20:52
How do cops like this get put on the street?

Do you have information that he was like this from day 1 as a LEO?

Although not excusable, him acting like this may have been the result of the stress from his job, built up over a period of years.

Kind of like accusing soldiers who have PTSD after returning from the sandbox why they have problems with alcohol or relationships and can't just settle down and act like everything was all apple pie-ish again. After all, they're not there in the sandbox anymore, right?

kensteele
07-28-2011, 20:54
Drama much? so ONE officer in Ohio who is clearly burnt out and needs to get out of LE means it isn't safe to carry a firearm in your vehicle in any state.

:upeyes:




You should join the brady bunch they could use your alarmist rhetoric. it's their stock and trade and yo have mastered it.



So since there was an incident with a cop in Ohio it isn't safe to declare in Kansas. Does that work the for the other side too? since their have been CCW holders that have committed crimes, including threatening and even shooting people illegally I guess we need to rethink the whole People being allowed to CCW thing.

:upeyes:

You got it all wrong what I said. I said (IMO) it is much safer to declare in KS even though it is not required. No drama in my posts, all the drama is in those videos.

Do you recall the CA LEO who said he should assassinate the next OCer?

Look, I'm just taking your advice and I've decided to declare to LEO up front. You said I should declare to avoid a misunderstanding where I could be shot and killed, eating pavement, or having a gun screwed in my ear. I said it wouldn't happen. But now, I believe it. I believe you when you said an officer might shoot you if he sees a bulge. I have (alleged) words from an officer on video that backs up your declaration.

I said I was wrong, what more do you want?

kensteele
07-28-2011, 20:56
theres a officer or two like that on every force.makes the good ones look bad.this is going to make the good LEOs job harder.

I agree with you there is an officer or two, which makes it hundreds if not thousands on the street. Since I cannot know which is which, I am in constant danger every day which is why I have decided to declare my weapon immediately and show my permit instantly to avoid being killed if I meet with such an officer. Why take the chance?

Warp
07-28-2011, 20:56
There are officers that said with their own lips they would shoot and kill you on the spot (for carrying a firearm) without saying a word to you and go home at night and go to sleep. Do you believe they meant it when they said it (alleged) or is that a false statement?

What's your point?

IlliniGlocker
07-28-2011, 20:57
To serve and protect...

kensteele
07-28-2011, 20:58
What's your point?

My point is in post #237, go with that.

Warp
07-28-2011, 21:06
My point is in post #237, go with that.
What are you in constant danger of?

Patchman
07-28-2011, 21:15
I agree with you there is an officer or two, which makes it hundreds if not thousands on the street. Since I cannot know which is which, I am in constant danger every day which is why I have decided to declare my weapon immediately and show my permit instantly to avoid being killed if I meet with such an officer. Why take the chance?

Interesting cost-benefit analysis you presented.

If I understand correctly, the point of CCWing a gun is to improve the probability of staying alive.

So the analysis as you presented is that there's a good chance ("constant danger every day...") you'll be killed by a LEO for CCWing. Now, what is the analysis you'll be killed by a BG, on any given day, based on crime statistics in your neighborhood? Versus how many CCWs have been killed out of hand by LEOs in your neighborhood?

Maybe in your neighborhood, it would be safer you left you gun at home. :dunno:

Gallium
07-28-2011, 21:16
I agree with you there is an officer or two, which makes it hundreds if not thousands on the street. Since I cannot know which is which, I am in constant danger every day which is why I have decided to declare my weapon immediately and show my permit instantly to avoid being killed if I meet with such an officer. Why take the chance?

You said in an earlier post that no officer has ever been killed by someone who declined to declare.


Where are the stats for CCWers who were shot by any of those hundreds (possibly thousands!) of rogue officers?

Yes, we have many cases of people being mistreated and subject to unlawful actions by LEOs.

Where exactly are the stories of CCWers being shot by LE when they declare they have guns?

Or is there a vast conspiracy to obfuscate that?

'Drew

dorkweed
07-28-2011, 21:29
*** UPDATE ***

Looks like more video has been released of an entirely different scenario.

http://www.cantonrep.com/carousel/x2014919089/Video-Officer-Harless-loses-his-temper-on-another-arrest

OP- can you update your thread title to reflect this?





Strikingly similar to the incident that we've been privy to....................I wonder how many similar videos/recordings of him Canton PD is hiding???!!!!

Gallium
07-28-2011, 21:35
Strikingly similar to the incident that we've been privy to....................I wonder how many similar videos/recordings of him Canton PD is hiding???!!!!

How were we made aware of the June 2011 video, and the July 2010 video?

Did someone hack into their system and upload it undetected?


Where are your parents, or your nurse's aide?

Are the doctors making any projections as to when you might fully recover from that awful accident resulting in those massive head injuries? Are you comfy?


'Drew

kensteele
07-28-2011, 21:39
What are you in constant danger of?

The same constant danger that I face from unknown criminals that are out there which causes me to "carry at all times."

Ok so constant is a strong word but in this context, every time I go outside I run the risk of being stopped by police.

kensteele
07-28-2011, 21:41
Interesting cost-benefit analysis you presented.

If I understand correctly, the point of CCWing a gun is to improve the probability of staying alive.

So the analysis as you presented is that there's a good chance ("constant danger every day...") you'll be killed by a LEO for CCWing. Now, what is the analysis you'll be killed by a BG, on any given day, based on crime statistics in your neighborhood? Versus how many CCWs have been killed out of hand by LEOs in your neighborhood?

Maybe in your neighborhood, it would be safer you left you gun at home. :dunno:

See my previous post. Yes, it might be safer if I left my gun at home. Right now, I don't think it has reached that point but there are quite a few people who believe it is much safer to walk the streets without a [legal] gun on your person. I don't blame them.

kensteele
07-28-2011, 21:47
You said in an earlier post that no officer has ever been killed by someone who declined to declare.

Not sure where that is posted but that's wrong, not what I intended to post. If I find that, I will correct it to say what I really meant.


Where are the stats for CCWers who were shot by any of those hundreds (possibly thousands!) of rogue officers?

Yes, we have many cases of people being mistreated and subject to unlawful actions by LEOs.

Where exactly are the stories of CCWers being shot by LE when they declare they have guns?

Or is there a vast conspiracy to obfuscate that?

'Drew

I'm not sure what you are asking. Based on the video, we all know that there are officers that have made up their minds and decided they will shoot you if you have a firearm on you, correct? Or wrong? Shall I believe what I heard or shall I dismiss it as silly babbling?

No officer has shot anyone that I am aware of (doesn't mean it hasn't happened). But an officer has admitted what his intentions are. Everybody is responsible for interpreting those intentions however they choose. You've read some partial statement of how I might be feeling today. I don't feel safe. My choice.

kensteele
07-28-2011, 21:54
Strikingly similar to the incident that we've been privy to....................I wonder how many similar videos/recordings of him Canton PD is hiding???!!!!

So I don't think the PD is hiding anything but it does make me wonder what some officers really think about CCW. After hearing all the opinions in this forum and police chiefs saying CCW is dangerous when it comes to officer/civilian interactions, one starts to wonder why they keep calling the encounter "dangerous." I think I can start to see why, a lot can go horrible wrong....for you. How many times has it been said, "declare up front to avoid a tragic misunderstanding."

Warp
07-28-2011, 21:55
The same constant danger that I face from unknown criminals that are out there which causes me to "carry at all times."

Ok so constant is a strong word but in this context, every time I go outside I run the risk of being stopped by police.

Which is to say you are in "constant danger" from something that has never happened. Doesn't seem very logical to me...