Police abuse

19092949596

Comments

  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,795
    tbergs said:
    This was put up near a major intersection in St. Paul, MN. We've had our issues obviously.

    Lol

    Please tell me that is a joke.
    Completely real sign put up by some frustrated citizens would be my guess. They have found at least 2 so far that were professionally screwed in to the posts and are real metal signs.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    You should watch the video again, you have mistaken it profoundly.  He gets back into the vehicle when the dog is released and the dog attacks him while in the vehicle.

    I vehemently disagree that people who are not threatening police should be met with potentially lethal force.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,795
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    I think the cop lost his shot at "feared for his safety" the minute he approached the vehicle with no tactical safety in mind. He clearly knows what he is dealing with and it shows. At one point it looked like he tried to pull his taser, but couldn't get it out. That would have been at least a more reasonable solution. There is no reason to unleash a K-9 on someone who is cornered in a vehicle that you have been engaged with and not even used the proper use of force continuum before jumping to "let the dog get him". That's just reckless and abusing the resources he has at hand..
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    tbergs said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    I would have to agree with RG on this one. We can speculate all we want, but this seems like a classic case of a drunk who figures that if he just slowly drives to his house then he might be able to just walk away without going to jail and getting his car towed. I agreed it was fleeing, no matter how fast you drive or where you decide to stop, but using the dog seemed pretty pointless. I don't even think the officer used good felony stop practices. Since when do you drive right up next to the door of the suspect vehicle and then immediately approach and open the door to pull them out. That's just plain dumb! That right there shows he knew there wasn't a real threat and that this guy was most likely just drunk. Frustration does seem to be the key determination of getting the K-9 out. This cop should be suspended and lose his K-9.

    The dipshit driver deserves to go to jail, but now all this cop has done is make him rich and throw out any criminal charge while the prosecutors slowly back away from his mess of an arrest.
    IMO, In a just society, the citizen would go to jail for a few months. The officer would lose the canine (really, in a civilized and just society, predatory animals wouldn't be executing the law at all) and receive a punishment that would require some remedial training, with some sort of probation to ensure the pattern doesn't continue.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,522
    edited July 24
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    You should watch the video again, you have mistaken it profoundly.  He gets back into the vehicle when the dog is released and the dog attacks him while in the vehicle.

    I vehemently disagree that people who are not threatening police should be met with potentially lethal force.
    You're right, the dog was hard to see.
    he wasn't given an opportunity to exit on his own, and it appears he was frightened by something to get back into the car which would have been the dog. I still don't really feel  sorry for the guy, I doubt he has any serious or lasting injuries. Just because I don't feel bad for him doesn't mean the cop did the right thing, but I think both parties are to blame and anyone driving drunk deserves to get bitten a few times by a dog.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,795
    rgambs said:
    tbergs said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    I would have to agree with RG on this one. We can speculate all we want, but this seems like a classic case of a drunk who figures that if he just slowly drives to his house then he might be able to just walk away without going to jail and getting his car towed. I agreed it was fleeing, no matter how fast you drive or where you decide to stop, but using the dog seemed pretty pointless. I don't even think the officer used good felony stop practices. Since when do you drive right up next to the door of the suspect vehicle and then immediately approach and open the door to pull them out. That's just plain dumb! That right there shows he knew there wasn't a real threat and that this guy was most likely just drunk. Frustration does seem to be the key determination of getting the K-9 out. This cop should be suspended and lose his K-9.

    The dipshit driver deserves to go to jail, but now all this cop has done is make him rich and throw out any criminal charge while the prosecutors slowly back away from his mess of an arrest.
    IMO, In a just society, the citizen would go to jail for a few months. The officer would lose the canine (really, in a civilized and just society, predatory animals wouldn't be executing the law at all) and receive a punishment that would require some remedial training, with some sort of probation to ensure the pattern doesn't continue.
    Wow, this is even worse than I thought. Anyone see the real story behind this? This guy was being pulled over for not yielding to an emergency vehicle and this is how it escalated! What the holy fuck!? Horrible. My bad for assuming he was drunk. Jesus!

    Thoughts Mace and Thirty?

    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/05/13/excessive-force-k9-beaver-traffic-stop/
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    You should watch the video again, you have mistaken it profoundly.  He gets back into the vehicle when the dog is released and the dog attacks him while in the vehicle.

    I vehemently disagree that people who are not threatening police should be met with potentially lethal force.
    You're right, the dog was hard to see.
    he wasn't given an opportunity to exit on his own, and it appears he was frightened by something to get back into the car which would have been the dog. I still don't really feel  sorry for the guy, I doubt he has any serious or lasting injuries. Just because I don't feel bad for him doesn't mean the cop did the right thing, but I think both parties are to blame and anyone driving drunk deserves to get bitten a few times by a dog.
    I don't feel terribly bad for him either, but I do feel a bit bad.  Being attacked by a dog can have serious emotional consequences. 
    It's one thing to get tasered, it's another thing to be mauled by an animal and then have to confront those animals in public places on a regular basis.

    I don't think the officer should go to jail, or even be fired for this instance, just some serious reprimand, training, and future scrutiny.
      I do think K-9's are a human rights violation.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,522
    After watching it again I already said both are to blame. The reason why he didn't pull over doesn't change anything for me. Still broke the law and fled. But you can read above to see my comment on the cop.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,795
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    You should watch the video again, you have mistaken it profoundly.  He gets back into the vehicle when the dog is released and the dog attacks him while in the vehicle.

    I vehemently disagree that people who are not threatening police should be met with potentially lethal force.
    You're right, the dog was hard to see.
    he wasn't given an opportunity to exit on his own, and it appears he was frightened by something to get back into the car which would have been the dog. I still don't really feel  sorry for the guy, I doubt he has any serious or lasting injuries. Just because I don't feel bad for him doesn't mean the cop did the right thing, but I think both parties are to blame and anyone driving drunk deserves to get bitten a few times by a dog.
    I don't feel terribly bad for him either, but I do feel a bit bad.  Being attacked by a dog can have serious emotional consequences. 
    It's one thing to get tasered, it's another thing to be mauled by an animal and then have to confront those animals in public places on a regular basis.

    I don't think the officer should go to jail, or even be fired for this instance, just some serious reprimand, training, and future scrutiny.
      I do think K-9's are a human rights violation.
    Actually maybe he does deserve to be fired.

    http://www.timesonline.com/beaver-settles-police-lawsuit/article_4ff6e13b-5e41-5491-8daa-d73237761da7.html
    http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/2011/01/06/Beaver-man-s-lawsuit-alleges-9-years-of-abuse-by-cop/stories/201101060380
    http://www.post-gazette.com/local/west/2011/11/30/Beaver-Borough-settles-federal-police-assault-lawsuit/stories/201111300117
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,522
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    You should watch the video again, you have mistaken it profoundly.  He gets back into the vehicle when the dog is released and the dog attacks him while in the vehicle.

    I vehemently disagree that people who are not threatening police should be met with potentially lethal force.
    You're right, the dog was hard to see.
    he wasn't given an opportunity to exit on his own, and it appears he was frightened by something to get back into the car which would have been the dog. I still don't really feel  sorry for the guy, I doubt he has any serious or lasting injuries. Just because I don't feel bad for him doesn't mean the cop did the right thing, but I think both parties are to blame and anyone driving drunk deserves to get bitten a few times by a dog.
    I don't feel terribly bad for him either, but I do feel a bit bad.  Being attacked by a dog can have serious emotional consequences. 
    It's one thing to get tasered, it's another thing to be mauled by an animal and then have to confront those animals in public places on a regular basis.

    I don't think the officer should go to jail, or even be fired for this instance, just some serious reprimand, training, and future scrutiny.
      I do think K-9's are a human rights violation.
    I could agree with that. 
    On the last part, only a human  rights violation if the use is not warranted. They are very important members of the police community when used properly.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    edited July 24
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    You should watch the video again, you have mistaken it profoundly.  He gets back into the vehicle when the dog is released and the dog attacks him while in the vehicle.

    I vehemently disagree that people who are not threatening police should be met with potentially lethal force.
    You're right, the dog was hard to see.
    he wasn't given an opportunity to exit on his own, and it appears he was frightened by something to get back into the car which would have been the dog. I still don't really feel  sorry for the guy, I doubt he has any serious or lasting injuries. Just because I don't feel bad for him doesn't mean the cop did the right thing, but I think both parties are to blame and anyone driving drunk deserves to get bitten a few times by a dog.
    I don't feel terribly bad for him either, but I do feel a bit bad.  Being attacked by a dog can have serious emotional consequences. 
    It's one thing to get tasered, it's another thing to be mauled by an animal and then have to confront those animals in public places on a regular basis.

    I don't think the officer should go to jail, or even be fired for this instance, just some serious reprimand, training, and future scrutiny.
      I do think K-9's are a human rights violation.
    I could agree with that. 
    On the last part, only a human  rights violation if the use is not warranted. They are very important members of the police community when used properly.
    I call bullshit on that.  There is no proper use of an officer which has the mental and intellectual capacity of a toddler and the ferocious power of a deadly weapon.
    Post edited by rgambs on
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    I can't find a full version that will embed, but the traffic stop is weird.  Two patrol cars following him, lights go up and he gets over, one cop passes him and the other stays behind.  He waits, the patrol car behind him doesn't pull over, he pulls back out, slows down again, then stops, then goes again.
    It was a confusing situation, but he should have just planted his ass right there and waited for orders, that's certain.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,795
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    You should watch the video again, you have mistaken it profoundly.  He gets back into the vehicle when the dog is released and the dog attacks him while in the vehicle.

    I vehemently disagree that people who are not threatening police should be met with potentially lethal force.
    You're right, the dog was hard to see.
    he wasn't given an opportunity to exit on his own, and it appears he was frightened by something to get back into the car which would have been the dog. I still don't really feel  sorry for the guy, I doubt he has any serious or lasting injuries. Just because I don't feel bad for him doesn't mean the cop did the right thing, but I think both parties are to blame and anyone driving drunk deserves to get bitten a few times by a dog.
    I don't feel terribly bad for him either, but I do feel a bit bad.  Being attacked by a dog can have serious emotional consequences. 
    It's one thing to get tasered, it's another thing to be mauled by an animal and then have to confront those animals in public places on a regular basis.

    I don't think the officer should go to jail, or even be fired for this instance, just some serious reprimand, training, and future scrutiny.
      I do think K-9's are a human rights violation.
    I could agree with that. 
    On the last part, only a human  rights violation if the use is not warranted. They are very important members of the police community when used properly.
    I call bullshit on that.  There is no proper use of officer which has the mental and intellectual capacity of a toddler and the ferocious power of a deadly weapon.
    There a very few times it's really justifiable and off the top of my head that would be a fleeing deadly felon who is a risk to the community or in response to a known burglary in progress (which is still not that simple because many people set off their own alarms all the time so there would have to be clear signs of forced entry).
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,795
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    You should watch the video again, you have mistaken it profoundly.  He gets back into the vehicle when the dog is released and the dog attacks him while in the vehicle.

    I vehemently disagree that people who are not threatening police should be met with potentially lethal force.
    You're right, the dog was hard to see.
    he wasn't given an opportunity to exit on his own, and it appears he was frightened by something to get back into the car which would have been the dog. I still don't really feel  sorry for the guy, I doubt he has any serious or lasting injuries. Just because I don't feel bad for him doesn't mean the cop did the right thing, but I think both parties are to blame and anyone driving drunk deserves to get bitten a few times by a dog.
    But definetly not hard to hear. Those K-9's get more of a rush than the officer in these situations. Sirens blaring, officer's energy and adrenaline going. That dog is clawing and barking like a fricking caged wolf to get out. That would be scary as hell.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    That reminds me of the local July 4th parade, where they had a canine unit that was losing it's mind barking and foaming at the mouth, scaring all the kids that were going for candy into the street.

    Why on Earth did they think that was a good idea?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,522
    rgambs said:
    That reminds me of the local July 4th parade, where they had a canine unit that was losing it's mind barking and foaming at the mouth, scaring all the kids that were going for candy into the street.

    Why on Earth did they think that was a good idea?
    Left more candy for the adults?
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,795
    rgambs said:
    I can't find a full version that will embed, but the traffic stop is weird.  Two patrol cars following him, lights go up and he gets over, one cop passes him and the other stays behind.  He waits, the patrol car behind him doesn't pull over, he pulls back out, slows down again, then stops, then goes again.
    It was a confusing situation, but he should have just planted his ass right there and waited for orders, that's certain.
    Having lived in a large city, that is unfortunately a common practice when getting out of the way of a police/fire/medic running full code. People often times just pull to the side and continue at about 20 - 30 mph, especially on highways. Probably why this guy was conditioned to do the same instead of just stopping and waiting. I don't know why you would ever continue driving, but I think a good defense attorney could have knocked this down to a failure to yield to an emergency vehicle or careless driving conviction.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,522
    I've lived almost my whole life in LA or San Diego. Everyone knows to pull over and stop. It's just laziness or thinking it's "good enough" and that they can get away with it that they just do the slow down thing.
    police cars often follow other emergency vehicles because it's an easy ticket.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,148
    tbergs said:
    tbergs said:
    This was put up near a major intersection in St. Paul, MN. We've had our issues obviously.

    Lol

    Please tell me that is a joke.
    Completely real sign put up by some frustrated citizens would be my guess. They have found at least 2 so far that were professionally screwed in to the posts and are real metal signs.
    Brilliant. They should put more up. It definitely makes a point that can't be ignored.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • I watched the video.

    He never 'crawled home'. While he initially drove at a very slow speed, there is an instance when he accelerated and drove quite fast to get to his house.

    So... we have a guy that's drunk driving. He tries to escape the police and get to his house to do something. What was he planning on doing there?

    I am not a big fan of police dogs. But I'm not a fan of drunk drivers and I'm not a fan of people resisting arrest either. These are much more grievous offences and both of these situations cause problems. If the only problem that results is a problem for the 'offender'... then whatever.

    Apologizing for the drunk. And shredding the cop. Classic.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Further... the dog actually did good K9 work from what I saw. It grabbed the arm and never released it (as they are trained to do).

    That drunk's bite on the arm was no worse than the bite that shitty bull mastiff gave me on my calf mountain biking. I was okay after. Given the choice... I'd rather be bit by a dog than tasered. 
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    None of the news stories have indicated intoxication.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,182
    Further... the dog actually did good K9 work from what I saw. It grabbed the arm and never released it (as they are trained to do).

    That drunk's bite on the arm was no worse than the bite that shitty bull mastiff gave me on my calf mountain biking. I was okay after. Given the choice... I'd rather be bit by a dog than tasered. 
    When did he become a "drunk"?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,522
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:


    Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  
    He resisted. He tried to flee. You're not winning points here.
    And once again you are creating a simplistic narrative from your bias rather than the evidence.

    Both statements are vast oversimplifications.
    He didn't flee, he continued safely a distance of less than a mile to his home, where he pulled over after signalling.  Not the smartest idea, but not fleeing by any reasonable standard.
    He didn't resist.  He unbuckled his seatbelt and got out of the vehicle with his hands in surrender position, after already being unreasonably assaulted by an officer who never gave him a chance to comply with demands.
    When he saw that the officer had turned a deadly and vicious animal loose, he did exactly what you would do in that situation, he tried to protect himself from being mauled by putting a door between himself and the snarling beast.

    He didn't made smart choices, but he also didn't threaten the officer in any way.
    Is it your position that the standard for physical violence that requires hospital care is unintelligent choices?  Should not the standard for that level of force be a threat of violence to the officer, and not just retribution for frustrating the officer?  That's clearly what happened here. 
    You can see he slams the seatbelt down and huffs and puffs his way back to let the dog out, he is clearly frustrated and retaliating.

    At 1:15 it's a textbook definition of resisting. I don't see how that could be debated.
    drivimg a mile like he did can and does lead to years in jail. I personally know someone who pulled over, and a stupid thought and slammed on the gas for about 20-30 feet before pulling over again and didn't resist at all. Spent 1 year in jail for that 20 feet. 
    When he refused to get out the first time, and when the cop attempted to force him out but failed that is when the use of a dog was warranted.
    Yes, lawfully he fled and resisted, but the law applies standards that don't conform to reason.
    You have zero evidence that he "refused to get out the first time", in fact, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Without attempt to allow surrender, or even a demand to do so,, the officer applies a wrist lock and attempts to wrench his arm backwards in a move that is a dislocation risk, and also completely ineffective for the task.  The victim was still in his seat belt and attempting to remove it, while keeping his arm from a break/dislocation position.
    The victim removes his seat belt and gets out of the vehicle peacefully, once he is no longer fearful.  That changes when the officer applies potentially lethal force.

    It's amazing, "highly trained" police officers are expected to use deadly force when they feel threatened (regardless of evidence to support that feeling) but untrained private citizens are expected to maintain perfect composure when faced with lethal force.  It's so ass-backwards, it's astounding.
    your first statement says it all to me. Fled and resisted. Unless you're shot at that point, you've lost all reason to complain in my opinion.
    He even gets out and gets back in. The cop doesn't know if there's a weapon in the car at that point he's going for. 
    Im all for continuing to improve policies and tactics.
    I wish there was audio. But from just video it's clear he fled, resisted, got back inside the car (clearly against orders even without audio). He continued to resist and roll on the ground after being physically removed and before the dog entered. so I see no reason to not use a dog at that point.                  
    You should watch the video again, you have mistaken it profoundly.  He gets back into the vehicle when the dog is released and the dog attacks him while in the vehicle.

    I vehemently disagree that people who are not threatening police should be met with potentially lethal force.
    You're right, the dog was hard to see.
    he wasn't given an opportunity to exit on his own, and it appears he was frightened by something to get back into the car which would have been the dog. I still don't really feel  sorry for the guy, I doubt he has any serious or lasting injuries. Just because I don't feel bad for him doesn't mean the cop did the right thing, but I think both parties are to blame and anyone driving drunk deserves to get bitten a few times by a dog.
    I don't feel terribly bad for him either, but I do feel a bit bad.  Being attacked by a dog can have serious emotional consequences. 
    It's one thing to get tasered, it's another thing to be mauled by an animal and then have to confront those animals in public places on a regular basis.

    I don't think the officer should go to jail, or even be fired for this instance, just some serious reprimand, training, and future scrutiny.
      I do think K-9's are a human rights violation.
    I could agree with that. 
    On the last part, only a human  rights violation if the use is not warranted. They are very important members of the police community when used properly.
    I call bullshit on that.  There is no proper use of an officer which has the mental and intellectual capacity of a toddler and the ferocious power of a deadly weapon.
    I don't. It seems like there's a calling for more non-lethal means. Yes, there are some rare examples of a K9 leading to a death, but that is very rare. Dogs are perfect when a subject can't be restrained and poses an immediate threat. Maybe charging with a knife, or a suspect known to be armed is fleeing and will likely hurt anyone to make his mistake. Zero problem with the use of a dog in those examples. When a dog is used properly the suspect has opportunities to avoid the dog but makes the decision to escalate the situation.
    that being said after watching the video again like you suggested, I don't think a K9 was needed in this case.
  • Further... the dog actually did good K9 work from what I saw. It grabbed the arm and never released it (as they are trained to do).

    That drunk's bite on the arm was no worse than the bite that shitty bull mastiff gave me on my calf mountain biking. I was okay after. Given the choice... I'd rather be bit by a dog than tasered. 
    When did he become a "drunk"?
    Someone had claimed it earlier in this thread.

    I haven't googled the shit out of this story because it is a non story. The guy was non compliant. He was not roughed up outside of a dog bite. 

    That being said... I would have shut my door to keep myself from the dog too; however, I never would have been so stupid as to place myself in that position in the first place. I'm not sure why he was pulled over, but the decision to speed off to his place of residence brought about a whole other set of problems- one of which was a K9 dog assisting an officer to secure a person in violation of the law and being uncooperative.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,967
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 3,898
    CM189191 said:
    Hopefully they will make him wear a pink jumpsuit  and live in a tent just like he did his prisoners.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,182
    Incredibly awful story of law enforcement repeatedly tasering an 18 year old suspect who was already fully restrained. No other reason for it than vindictiveness, pure and simple. The facebook post by the local sheriff about the arrest is also disgusting.

    http://www.salon.com/2017/08/06/deputies-tasered-teenager-strapped-to-chair-for-nearly-a-minute_partner/

    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • ^^^
    Are you having a slow Sunday Often?  That post seems oddly out of place for you.  Usually you are more subdued and offer your opinions.  


    Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming. AE
Sign In or Register to comment.