Police abuse

Thirty Bills Unpaid

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.

mace1229

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

Just another good cop sicking an attack dog on a man who isn't posing a threat.  

Yeah, I see nothing wrong with this either. Fled police, led them on a chase, refused to get out of the car. The dude had like 100 opportunities to avoid this and chose not you. You can't resist and fight back, then cry foul when the K-9 comes.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.

mace1229

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.

rgambs

By denying him the opportunity to surrender peacefully, the officer created a certainty of resisting arrest.  There is barely a person on this Earth (aside from the off Kung Fu master here and there) that I wouldn't call a liar if they tried to claim they will passively allow a police officer to force them into dislocation without pulling back on their arm.  

rustneversleeps

rgambs said:

By denying him the opportunity to surrender peacefully, the officer created a certainty of resisting arrest.  There is barely a person on this Earth (aside from the off Kung Fu master here and there) that I wouldn't call a liar if they tried to claim they will passively allow a police officer to force them into dislocation without pulling back on their arm.  

apologist.

mace1229

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.                  

rgambs

rustneversleeps said:

rgambs said:

By denying him the opportunity to surrender peacefully, the officer created a certainty of resisting arrest.  There is barely a person on this Earth (aside from the off Kung Fu master here and there) that I wouldn't call a liar if they tried to claim they will passively allow a police officer to force them into dislocation without pulling back on their arm.  

apologist.

An expansive and impressive addition to the debate!  
So subtle and full of complex wisdom, I feel the need to use exclamation marks!

tbergs

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.

tbergs

Thirty Bills Unpaid 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.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.

tbergs

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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..

rgambs

tbergs said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.

mace1229

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.

tbergs

rgambs said:

tbergs said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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/

rgambs

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.

mace1229

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.

tbergs

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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

mace1229

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

https://youtu.be/dHP5chtibuk

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.