User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 11:40:21 PM EDT
[#1]
I thought it was almost eerie how different the cop acted toward the dad when he walked up. Completely different demeanor from how he treated the little girl. Dad was also calm beyond what I expected. Also when he asked for dads DL supposedly to confirm ownership of the car so he could take it, he ran dads info to check for warrants or criminal background, is this not a violation of his rights?
Look, a LEO has the authority and power to take my freedom or my life, an emotionally unstable bully or someone with some kind of pathology going on has no business being a cop. It is only a matter of time before he cripples or kills someone. How he bragged to the other cop about taking down an 18 year old petite girl is telling. Try that with a 300lb biker ex con high and pissed and get back to me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 11:40:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By  Sorry_Your_Girl_Lost:That's not the way to deal with it. Have to go through legal system. Don't need to go to jail or death penalty and never be there for your daughter the rest if her life. That's just stupid. Get a lawyer, and punish the cop through the system. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/19/2024 11:46:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Klaatu_barada_nikto: I don't care for videos that attack cops, but this cop and his agency needs exposed. Any agency that would hire a cop that was removed from another agency with a history of anger problems needs to be investigated and sued. How is pointing out the illegal actions by the cop “attacking cops”? Factual statements are not attacks. Everything else I agree with. As was mentioned, the police force was perfectly fine with it until it became public. Then it appears they entered into CYA mode in warp speed. |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:00:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SpudCrushr]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By millfire517: These are just the ones we get to see with cameras. How many get brushed under the rug without cameras. Even one a year is too much. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By millfire517: Originally Posted By UV18: With millions (probably billions) of contacts, these events are isolated. Even one is too much? Please share your ideas on how to ensure perfection from hundreds of thousands of officers making billions of encounters per year. Conduct an investigation, discipline / fire this cop if appropriate, and move on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:01:50 AM EDT
[#5]
Should be fire for lying,
Need to purge all the assholes who think they can do anything they want, For the cops on here who are defending this POS, he is the reason you can't go to a restaurant in Uniform Without getting the boogers and cum special. |
|
|
|
NM, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:02:28 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SpudCrushr: Even one is too much? Please share your ideas on how to ensure perfection from hundreds of thousands of officers making billions of encounters per year. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SpudCrushr: Originally Posted By millfire517: Originally Posted By UV18: With millions (probably billions) of contacts, these events are isolated. Even one is too much? Please share your ideas on how to ensure perfection from hundreds of thousands of officers making billions of encounters per year. Well, this wouldn't have been quite the story if the local government hadn't closed ranks around the cop until the general public caught wind. Maybe if they stop closing ranks people won't be as upset by government abuse, since those that did the crime would face consequences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:03:40 AM EDT
[#7]
I have a friend who retired from the local (suburban) PD after almost 20 years on the force. From what he told me, everyone in the department knows who the screw ups, and power-trippers are.
Lord knows, these days, it would seem obvious that cops need all the friends they can get. Getting Joe Homeowner, or Suzie Soccer Mom pissed off would seem to be last thing they would want to do. And yet, as this episode demonstrates, the instinct is to defend and cover up. I just don't get that. Until the brass realizes the liability these bad apples are--AND GETS RID OF THEM, these kinds of things will continue, and confidence or good-will towards local PD will suffer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:35:08 AM EDT
[#8]
I'm glad to see they corrected the problem. Great example of public outcry and exposure forcing them to act better. I'm just sorry it takes this to get it done. We really need a better system of accountability. I don't really understand how we ended up with the self check system that's in place. One thing that stood out to me was how he acted after he put her in the back of his car. He was so rude and demeaning and in my opinion that behavior by itself would be enough for severe punishment or termination. Almost any kind of professional job you'd get instantly written up for acting out like that with a customer or coworker.
The whole ordeal was such a short amount of time there's almost no way to make the argument that it was reasonable. Quick watch of the gas station video shows the cop out of his car at 44:26 and the girl was grabbed and thrown down at 45:58 so a little over 90 seconds from him exiting to her on the ground. That's absurd to me. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By haveTwo: Well, this wouldn't have been quite the story if the local government hadn't closed ranks around the cop until the general public caught wind. Maybe if they stop closing ranks people won't be as upset by government abuse, since those that did the crime would face consequences. The whole system is built to close ranks from top to bottom and cops are just a small part of that. Most of the time when you see one of the ruling class get in trouble it's because their peers or superiors have made it so. Everyone is taught early on to play ball and the ones that make waves get thrown overboard. |
|
|
|
NM, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:42:41 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: I'm glad to see they corrected the problem. Great example of public outcry and exposure forcing them to act better. I'm just sorry it takes this to get it done. We really need a better system of accountability. I don't really understand how we ended up with the self check system that's in place. One thing that stood out to me was how he acted after he put her in the back of his car. He was so rude and demeaning and in my opinion that behavior by itself would be enough for severe punishment or termination. Almost any kind of professional job you'd get instantly written up for acting out like that with a customer or coworker. The whole ordeal was such a short amount of time there's almost no way to make the argument that it was reasonable. Quick watch of the gas station video shows the cop out of his car at 44:26 and the girl was grabbed and thrown down at 45:58 so a little over 90 seconds from him exiting to her on the ground. That's absurd to me. The whole system is built to close ranks from top to bottom and cops are just a small part of that. Most of the time when you see one of the ruling class get in trouble it's because their peers or superiors have made it so. Everyone is taught early on to play ball and the ones that make waves get thrown overboard. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: I'm glad to see they corrected the problem. Great example of public outcry and exposure forcing them to act better. I'm just sorry it takes this to get it done. We really need a better system of accountability. I don't really understand how we ended up with the self check system that's in place. One thing that stood out to me was how he acted after he put her in the back of his car. He was so rude and demeaning and in my opinion that behavior by itself would be enough for severe punishment or termination. Almost any kind of professional job you'd get instantly written up for acting out like that with a customer or coworker. The whole ordeal was such a short amount of time there's almost no way to make the argument that it was reasonable. Quick watch of the gas station video shows the cop out of his car at 44:26 and the girl was grabbed and thrown down at 45:58 so a little over 90 seconds from him exiting to her on the ground. That's absurd to me. Originally Posted By haveTwo: Well, this wouldn't have been quite the story if the local government hadn't closed ranks around the cop until the general public caught wind. Maybe if they stop closing ranks people won't be as upset by government abuse, since those that did the crime would face consequences. The whole system is built to close ranks from top to bottom and cops are just a small part of that. Most of the time when you see one of the ruling class get in trouble it's because their peers or superiors have made it so. Everyone is taught early on to play ball and the ones that make waves get thrown overboard. Oh, I know. Yet we're supposed to be happy one guy was fired after outcry. Bet he gets hired somewhere else to do the same thing. His coworker didn't step in. The city backed him. But firing him makes it all okee dokeee? |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:42:49 AM EDT
[#10]
Didn't watch the whole thing, but if they're talking about him removing her from the car, that wasn't a slam
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:58:28 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kharn: If they've turned their lights on, they've chosen that spot as safe enough for them. Kharn Yep. No fucks given. I made the mistake of pulling onto a gas station once. Never again. I'm pulling over right there no matter how unsafe it is for them. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 1:32:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AmishElectrician]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FZ1Steve: I thought it was almost eerie how different the cop acted toward the dad when he walked up. Completely different demeanor from how he treated the little girl. Dad was also calm beyond what I expected. Also when he asked for dads DL supposedly to confirm ownership of the car so he could take it, he ran dads info to check for warrants or criminal background, is this not a violation of his rights? Look, a LEO has the authority and power to take my freedom or my life, an emotionally unstable bully or someone with some kind of pathology going on has no business being a cop. It is only a matter of time before he cripples or kills someone. How he bragged to the other cop about taking down an 18 year old petite girl is telling. Try that with a 300lb biker ex con high and pissed and get back to me. Don't know why this is often brought up as a violation of rights. I've heard this claim so many times over the years. I suppose so if you are forced to arrest in non-ID state Cops always run the DL of everyone they can if they are interacting with them, I've seen some agencies have it written in the policy to do such if at all possible when "making a contact or having a contact with the public during an incident" even tho the state law may not have an identifying statue in it. We've all seen those bodycams of cops relentlessly pursing someone that has not broken state law in an effort to run their license. They will claim its "for the report" but its always a warrant check when your a not a main party of the incident They could also argue that releasing the vehicle to licensed driver and would need to confirm that |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 1:35:22 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111: Didn't watch the whole thing, but if they're talking about him removing her from the car, that wasn't a slam Can you describe what the line is? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 1:37:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AmishElectrician]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FudgieGhost1: I have a friend who retired from the local (suburban) PD after almost 20 years on the force. From what he told me, everyone in the department knows who the screw ups, and power-trippers are. Lord knows, these days, it would seem obvious that cops need all the friends they can get. Getting Joe Homeowner, or Suzie Soccer Mom pissed off would seem to be last thing they would want to do. And yet, as this episode demonstrates, the instinct is to defend and cover up. I just don't get that. Until the brass realizes the liability these bad apples are--AND GETS RID OF THEM, these kinds of things will continue, and confidence or good-will towards local PD will suffer. If brass are anything like when I worked at walmart, they know who the slobs and fuckups are but it was detrimental to terminate them unless you absolutely had to. "You can't be promoted (or let you go) because we need to you too much in your current position". Much like the church or PDs we had fuckups constantly moved to different depts by management because they didn't want to a lose a body. Of course they can hire someone, but in that moment is all they care about. Especially if they had trained this guy and he had little time on the job, losing him is something they wouldn't want to deal with right away unless forced to. I'm sure the city has applications out and other cops are having to pull more duty while they are down a cop. I imagine this is a small PD that would detrimental to them until they can get a body thru FTO and release them on their own they are now down a car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 1:39:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: TheKill]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmishElectrician: Don't know why this is often brought up as a violation of rights. I've heard this claim so many times over the years. Cops always run the DL of everyone they can if they are interacting with them, I've seen some agencies have it written in the policy to do such if at all possible when "making a contact or having a contact with the public during an incident" even tho the state law may not have an identifying statue in it. We've all seen those bodycams of cops relentlessly pursing someone that has not broken state law in an effort to run their license. They will claim its "for the report" but its always a warrant check when your a not a main party of the incident They could also argue that releasing the vehicle to licensed driver and would need to confirm that Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmishElectrician: Originally Posted By FZ1Steve: I thought it was almost eerie how different the cop acted toward the dad when he walked up. Completely different demeanor from how he treated the little girl. Dad was also calm beyond what I expected. Also when he asked for dads DL supposedly to confirm ownership of the car so he could take it, he ran dads info to check for warrants or criminal background, is this not a violation of his rights? Look, a LEO has the authority and power to take my freedom or my life, an emotionally unstable bully or someone with some kind of pathology going on has no business being a cop. It is only a matter of time before he cripples or kills someone. How he bragged to the other cop about taking down an 18 year old petite girl is telling. Try that with a 300lb biker ex con high and pissed and get back to me. Don't know why this is often brought up as a violation of rights. I've heard this claim so many times over the years. Cops always run the DL of everyone they can if they are interacting with them, I've seen some agencies have it written in the policy to do such if at all possible when "making a contact or having a contact with the public during an incident" even tho the state law may not have an identifying statue in it. We've all seen those bodycams of cops relentlessly pursing someone that has not broken state law in an effort to run their license. They will claim its "for the report" but its always a warrant check when your a not a main party of the incident They could also argue that releasing the vehicle to licensed driver and would need to confirm that This is all well and good, but a policy of "always check" would seem to have a very high potential of putting some of the less intelligent cops sideways with the law, in states where it's not mandatory to identify on demand, absent PC or RS. Also, what law or section of the Constitution grants the government the authority to intervene when the owner of a vehicle decides to take it for a drive, unless they can prove they have a valid driver's license first? It seems to me that, by a plain reading of the Fourth Amendment and case law, that the owner would have every right to take the vehicle without any kind of interference from the police, unless and until that person does something that plainly provides RS or PC that they are committing a crime, at which point an actual stop can be conducted on that person and then the DL checks etc. become authorized. I mean, the fact that the daughter committed an infraction or crime, does not automatically extend the stop to the adult person who comes to collect his car. If it does, that's fucking stupid. Police don't understand how intrusive they are. And get immediately pissed when you try to point it out. |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 1:40:23 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111: Didn't watch the whole thing, but if they're talking about him removing her from the car, that wasn't a slam |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 1:43:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AmishElectrician]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheKill: This is all well and good, but a policy of "always check" would seem to have a very high potential of putting some of the less intelligent cops sideways with the law, in states where it's not mandatory to identify on demand, absent PC or RS. Also, what law or section of the Constitution grants the government the authority to intervene when the owner of a vehicle decides to take it for a drive, unless they can prove they have a valid driver's license first? It seems to me that, by a plain reading of the Fourth Amendment and case law, that the owner would have every right to take the vehicle without any kind of interference from the police, unless and until that person does something that plainly provides RS or PC that they are committing a crime, at which point an actual stop can be conducted on that person and then the DL checks etc. become authorized. I mean, the fact that the daughter committed an infraction or crime, does not automatically extend the stop to the adult person who comes to collect his car. If it does, that's fucking stupid. Police don't understand how intrusive they are. And get immediately pissed when you try to point it out. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheKill: Originally Posted By AmishElectrician: Originally Posted By FZ1Steve: I thought it was almost eerie how different the cop acted toward the dad when he walked up. Completely different demeanor from how he treated the little girl. Dad was also calm beyond what I expected. Also when he asked for dads DL supposedly to confirm ownership of the car so he could take it, he ran dads info to check for warrants or criminal background, is this not a violation of his rights? Look, a LEO has the authority and power to take my freedom or my life, an emotionally unstable bully or someone with some kind of pathology going on has no business being a cop. It is only a matter of time before he cripples or kills someone. How he bragged to the other cop about taking down an 18 year old petite girl is telling. Try that with a 300lb biker ex con high and pissed and get back to me. Don't know why this is often brought up as a violation of rights. I've heard this claim so many times over the years. Cops always run the DL of everyone they can if they are interacting with them, I've seen some agencies have it written in the policy to do such if at all possible when "making a contact or having a contact with the public during an incident" even tho the state law may not have an identifying statue in it. We've all seen those bodycams of cops relentlessly pursing someone that has not broken state law in an effort to run their license. They will claim its "for the report" but its always a warrant check when your a not a main party of the incident They could also argue that releasing the vehicle to licensed driver and would need to confirm that This is all well and good, but a policy of "always check" would seem to have a very high potential of putting some of the less intelligent cops sideways with the law, in states where it's not mandatory to identify on demand, absent PC or RS. Also, what law or section of the Constitution grants the government the authority to intervene when the owner of a vehicle decides to take it for a drive, unless they can prove they have a valid driver's license first? It seems to me that, by a plain reading of the Fourth Amendment and case law, that the owner would have every right to take the vehicle without any kind of interference from the police, unless and until that person does something that plainly provides RS or PC that they are committing a crime, at which point an actual stop can be conducted on that person and then the DL checks etc. become authorized. I mean, the fact that the daughter committed an infraction or crime, does not automatically extend the stop to the adult person who comes to collect his car. If it does, that's fucking stupid. Police don't understand how intrusive they are. And get immediately pissed when you try to point it out. For sure, youtube is littered with body cams of cops demanding ID not under state statue and them coming up with ways to force PC or even ultimately making a bogus arrest by escalating the situation for an obstruction or disorderly arrest in order to obtain that ID Refusing to ID not under statue is very similar to when someone denies consent to a vehicle search, they go all out finding a way to do it, it turns into a competition Some of my favorites were when a cops had a discussion and said "I saw him jaywalk so we can get his ID" and the other was the cop got the guy worked up and he said "this is bullshit" the cop suddenly told him that was creating a disturbance/disorder conduct using profane language and demanded the guy ID or be arrested. They like to threaten "ID or be arrested" a lot, if they had PC to make an arrest why bother with threats of arrest contingent on ID alone????? |
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 2:11:41 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ramairthree: FFS. It’s not the same bulb. It’s an auxiliary light. Like fog lamps which are also not required. Are you really supporting using nonworking, not required/not mandatory optional and auxiliary equipment as legit? Her main headlight is out from what I can see. My vehicle doesn't have separate lights for DRL vs normal headlight uses. If he pulls you over for it, you're not going to successfully argue your way out if it anyway. If your headlight isn't working in the morning in the damn rain, it isn't working at night either. Your headlights are supposed to be on in the rain in most locations but I'm not going to spend a shit ton of time arguing over this stupidity when the rest of that stop makes purse swinging over the fucking lights retarded. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 2:18:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: STRIKE504]
[#19]
I feel sorry for the officers wife and children when he gets home safe everyday.
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 2:25:11 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By prolapsed_cranium: If he fucked up, an "air-tight report" should mean dick. Cop #2 is just as sus. No, cop #2 has zero knowledge of what did or did not happen. He says he knows the family, that they are good people and seems to know the girl and be a bit surprised she's being arrested. Asks hulk if his dash cam was on and tells him he'll need to be articulate in his report. How is he 'sus' for this? He's supposed to just storm onto the scene, decide the girl didn't need to be arrested and tell him he's a liar? He seemed to be saying that he better have some video backing him up because it makes no sense this girl was combating a police officer in a gas station parking lot and the family was not likely to just take it. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 7:37:19 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: No, cop #2 has zero knowledge of what did or did not happen. He says he knows the family, that they are good people and seems to know the girl and be a bit surprised she's being arrested. Asks hulk if his dash cam was on and tells him he'll need to be articulate in his report. How is he 'sus' for this? He's supposed to just storm onto the scene, decide the girl didn't need to be arrested and tell him he's a liar? He seemed to be saying that he better have some video backing him up because it makes no sense this girl was combating a police officer in a gas station parking lot and the family was not likely to just take it. It seemed officer #2 observed the situation, knew officer less-than-gallant likely fucked up and subtly made it apparent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:10:11 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NotMrWizard: How is pointing out the illegal actions by the cop “attacking cops”? Factual statements are not attacks. Everything else I agree with. As was mentioned, the police force was perfectly fine with it until it became public. Then it appears they entered into CYA mode in warp speed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NotMrWizard: Originally Posted By Klaatu_barada_nikto: I don't care for videos that attack cops, but this cop and his agency needs exposed. Any agency that would hire a cop that was removed from another agency with a history of anger problems needs to be investigated and sued. How is pointing out the illegal actions by the cop “attacking cops”? Factual statements are not attacks. Everything else I agree with. As was mentioned, the police force was perfectly fine with it until it became public. Then it appears they entered into CYA mode in warp speed. I love some of the statist's emotional responses on YouTube and elsewhere on the inter webs. Most of them are, "he's biased!!." Lol... just what the fuck do you think a civil rights lawyer is. Yeah I'm fucking biased against THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. I sue government officials for a living you fucking idiots. The lawyers who defend the government are not defending your civil rights, they are fighting against them. What am I the fucking attorney general or something? A judge? I'm not allowed to be biased? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:11:39 AM EDT
[#23]
Now I'm opening up a local cult chapter in Indiana.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:12:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: LawyerUp]
[#24]
  eta: not sure why image won't load, but it's my AI thumbnail on their local news... |
|
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:15:36 AM EDT
[#25]
I believe there should never be qualified immunity. That would be a good starting point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:27:06 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsnappa: It seemed officer #2 observed the situation, knew officer less-than-gallant likely fucked up and subtly made it apparent. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsnappa: Originally Posted By Grunteled: No, cop #2 has zero knowledge of what did or did not happen. He says he knows the family, that they are good people and seems to know the girl and be a bit surprised she's being arrested. Asks hulk if his dash cam was on and tells him he'll need to be articulate in his report. How is he 'sus' for this? He's supposed to just storm onto the scene, decide the girl didn't need to be arrested and tell him he's a liar? He seemed to be saying that he better have some video backing him up because it makes no sense this girl was combating a police officer in a gas station parking lot and the family was not likely to just take it. It seemed officer #2 observed the situation, knew officer less-than-gallant likely fucked up and subtly made it apparent. That was my take on it as well. He basically said, “You damn well better dot your i’s and cross your t’s because you’re about to go under the microscope”. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:27:14 AM EDT
[#27]
He's been fired.
 Charges dropped against high school student in controversial South Whitley traffic stop, arrestin... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:56:47 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheKill: This is all well and good, but a policy of "always check" would seem to have a very high potential of putting some of the less intelligent cops sideways with the law, in states where it's not mandatory to identify on demand, absent PC or RS. Also, what law or section of the Constitution grants the government the authority to intervene when the owner of a vehicle decides to take it for a drive, unless they can prove they have a valid driver's license first? It seems to me that, by a plain reading of the Fourth Amendment and case law, that the owner would have every right to take the vehicle without any kind of interference from the police, unless and until that person does something that plainly provides RS or PC that they are committing a crime, at which point an actual stop can be conducted on that person and then the DL checks etc. become authorized. I mean, the fact that the daughter committed an infraction or crime, does not automatically extend the stop to the adult person who comes to collect his car. If it does, that's fucking stupid. Police don't understand how intrusive they are. And get immediately pissed when you try to point it out. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheKill: Originally Posted By AmishElectrician: Originally Posted By FZ1Steve: I thought it was almost eerie how different the cop acted toward the dad when he walked up. Completely different demeanor from how he treated the little girl. Dad was also calm beyond what I expected. Also when he asked for dads DL supposedly to confirm ownership of the car so he could take it, he ran dads info to check for warrants or criminal background, is this not a violation of his rights? Look, a LEO has the authority and power to take my freedom or my life, an emotionally unstable bully or someone with some kind of pathology going on has no business being a cop. It is only a matter of time before he cripples or kills someone. How he bragged to the other cop about taking down an 18 year old petite girl is telling. Try that with a 300lb biker ex con high and pissed and get back to me. Don't know why this is often brought up as a violation of rights. I've heard this claim so many times over the years. Cops always run the DL of everyone they can if they are interacting with them, I've seen some agencies have it written in the policy to do such if at all possible when "making a contact or having a contact with the public during an incident" even tho the state law may not have an identifying statue in it. We've all seen those bodycams of cops relentlessly pursing someone that has not broken state law in an effort to run their license. They will claim its "for the report" but its always a warrant check when your a not a main party of the incident They could also argue that releasing the vehicle to licensed driver and would need to confirm that This is all well and good, but a policy of "always check" would seem to have a very high potential of putting some of the less intelligent cops sideways with the law, in states where it's not mandatory to identify on demand, absent PC or RS. Also, what law or section of the Constitution grants the government the authority to intervene when the owner of a vehicle decides to take it for a drive, unless they can prove they have a valid driver's license first? It seems to me that, by a plain reading of the Fourth Amendment and case law, that the owner would have every right to take the vehicle without any kind of interference from the police, unless and until that person does something that plainly provides RS or PC that they are committing a crime, at which point an actual stop can be conducted on that person and then the DL checks etc. become authorized. I mean, the fact that the daughter committed an infraction or crime, does not automatically extend the stop to the adult person who comes to collect his car. If it does, that's fucking stupid. Police don't understand how intrusive they are. And get immediately pissed when you try to point it out. 
|
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:28:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vne: No. Cops should be held to a higher standard. Then why even bring the issue up? |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 12:30:09 PM EDT
[#30]
I like how he yelled at the old guy that was just trying to leave.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 2:17:13 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Creatyre: I don't see where I defended the cop in the video, though I wouldn't describe what he did as SLAMMING the girl. He pulled her out of the car using an arm bar. You might not call it that, but he would. @LawyerUp was simply using the officer's terminology in the title. "I pulled her ass out, put her in an armbar, slammed her to the ground and got her into custody" |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 2:56:49 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: You might not call it that, but he would. @LawyerUp was simply using the officer's terminology in the title. "I pulled her ass out, put her in an armbar, slammed her to the ground and got her into custody" Officer gallant seemed mighty proud of himself for manhandling the little woman and probably thought the other cop was going to fist bump him or something. Interesting to compare the vid of the same fool trying to take down a grown man at the dirt track. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 3:04:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: You might not call it that, but he would. @LawyerUp was simply using the officer's terminology in the title. "I pulled her ass out, put her in an armbar, slammed her to the ground and got her into custody" Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: Originally Posted By Creatyre: I don't see where I defended the cop in the video, though I wouldn't describe what he did as SLAMMING the girl. He pulled her out of the car using an arm bar. You might not call it that, but he would. @LawyerUp was simply using the officer's terminology in the title. "I pulled her ass out, put her in an armbar, slammed her to the ground and got her into custody" 
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 3:18:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By The_Reaper: How many fathers would take the law into their own hands after seeing a cop assault their daughter like that? I'm betting zero. The chances are small, but never zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 3:39:37 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALLANJ: I like how he yelled at the old guy that was just trying to leave. It's a good indicator of how jacked up he is. If there's a civil lawsuit it will absolutely be brought up. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 4:33:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NotMrWizard: Everything else I agree with. As was mentioned, the police force was perfectly fine with it until it became public. Then it appears they entered into CYA mode in warp speed. That's how we do it in Louisiana. Is it wrong to do that in Indiana? Like somebody said about scapegoats, they scapegoated the 18y-o girl right up through last Saturday, then suddenly flipped from prosecuting her to firing him. https://www.wbrz.com/news/video-surfaces-of-reserve-deputy-appearing-to-gloat-about-shooting-into-fleeing-car This year, the WBRZ Investigative Unit obtained dash cam video from an incident in West Baton Rouge Parish that Pardazi was involved in. That incident led to him firing his weapon at a car that fled after a traffic stop. Pardazi was charged for that shooting more than a year later when the WBRZ Investigative Unit started asking questions about it. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 4:48:25 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Now I'm opening up a local cult chapter in Indiana. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/277223/IMG_8401-3193147.jpg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 4:53:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kharn]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Now I'm opening up a local cult chapter in Indiana. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/277223/IMG_8401-3193147.jpg You can't open a new chapter until you find another fort. Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 4:54:22 PM EDT
[#39]
Anything The Man tells you is a Lawful Order. If you even take time to think. You are resisting! Resistance is Futile.
He Is The Law! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 4:57:18 PM EDT
[#40]
I love how they always toss in a resisting charge in these cases just for fun. What a fucking joke
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 5:27:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FZ1Steve: I thought it was almost eerie how different the cop acted toward the dad when he walked up. Completely different demeanor from how he treated the little girl. Dad was also calm beyond what I expected. Also when he asked for dads DL supposedly to confirm ownership of the car so he could take it, he ran dads info to check for warrants or criminal background, is this not a violation of his rights? Look, a LEO has the authority and power to take my freedom or my life, an emotionally unstable bully or someone with some kind of pathology going on has no business being a cop. It is only a matter of time before he cripples or kills someone. How he bragged to the other cop about taking down an 18 year old petite girl is telling. Try that with a 300lb biker ex con high and pissed and get back to me. The dad was acting correctly—calmly asking for and receiving information. I’d do the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 5:29:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: No, cop #2 has zero knowledge of what did or did not happen. He says he knows the family, that they are good people and seems to know the girl and be a bit surprised she's being arrested. Asks hulk if his dash cam was on and tells him he'll need to be articulate in his report. How is he 'sus' for this? He's supposed to just storm onto the scene, decide the girl didn't need to be arrested and tell him he's a liar? He seemed to be saying that he better have some video backing him up because it makes no sense this girl was combating a police officer in a gas station parking lot and the family was not likely to just take it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grunteled: Originally Posted By prolapsed_cranium: If he fucked up, an "air-tight report" should mean dick. Cop #2 is just as sus. No, cop #2 has zero knowledge of what did or did not happen. He says he knows the family, that they are good people and seems to know the girl and be a bit surprised she's being arrested. Asks hulk if his dash cam was on and tells him he'll need to be articulate in his report. How is he 'sus' for this? He's supposed to just storm onto the scene, decide the girl didn't need to be arrested and tell him he's a liar? He seemed to be saying that he better have some video backing him up because it makes no sense this girl was combating a police officer in a gas station parking lot and the family was not likely to just take it. That’s my take as well. The second cop was a calming presence in the shit show. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 5:29:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SpudCrushr: Even one is too much? Please share your ideas on how to ensure perfection from hundreds of thousands of officers making billions of encounters per year. Conduct an investigation, discipline / fire this cop if appropriate, and move on. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SpudCrushr: Originally Posted By millfire517: Originally Posted By UV18: With millions (probably billions) of contacts, these events are isolated. Even one is too much? Please share your ideas on how to ensure perfection from hundreds of thousands of officers making billions of encounters per year. Conduct an investigation, discipline / fire this cop if appropriate, and move on. And instead this city said that everything was good until this story got attention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 6:39:18 PM EDT
[#44]
Oh, some of you people are gonna' just love this one.
 INDIANA TYRANT FIRED after slamming HIGH SCHOOL GIRL |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 7:11:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: USCG_CPO]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By parshooter: Oh, some of you people are gonna' just love this one.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGQXEZrEL9UI fucking love all the attention cops are getting for their thuggish behavior. Cameras are the best invention ever. It is awesome this particular thug is getting his 15 minutes of fame being labeled a tyrant and the "cop that beat up a high school girl" He will never live that shit down. Hopefully the family sues the shit out of the department. According to the 2022 census, the town has a population of 1800, that fucker has no place to hide, bet he moves quick. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 8:23:20 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: That is done so it is standard and if every challenged, which you will be, you can explain what you read it from and offer it into evidence. I have been asked several times to repeat the warning I provided. I had a case get appealed because of the warning I gave for a show up (cops stop the guy that likely committed the crime and drive the victim/witness there to identify them). We had no written standard on the practice or verbal checklist/warning to provide. After my case, we now have one. I didn't lose the case and the guy's 20 year sentence stuck. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Originally Posted By PatriotAr15: DID THAT COP HAVE TO READ MIRANDA RIGHTS FROM A CARD!!? FFS, I can recite that, and I'm not even a cop! That is done so it is standard and if every challenged, which you will be, you can explain what you read it from and offer it into evidence. I have been asked several times to repeat the warning I provided. I had a case get appealed because of the warning I gave for a show up (cops stop the guy that likely committed the crime and drive the victim/witness there to identify them). We had no written standard on the practice or verbal checklist/warning to provide. After my case, we now have one. I didn't lose the case and the guy's 20 year sentence stuck. Thanks for the explanation. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:04:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By parshooter: Oh, some of you people are gonna' just love this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGQXEZrEL9USouthern Drawl Law does bring up a very good point about Officer Shimmel’s tactics or lack thereof when he leaned his body inside the car to unhook Vivian’s seatbelt…. Had Vivian been a real thug, she could have easily latched onto his “vest”, put the car in drive, stomped on the gas, and then slammed the driver’s side door into whatever fixed object crushing the officer’s legs, hip, pelvis in addition to just plain dragging his feet and legs across asphalt at a high rate of speed. Southern Drawl Law called that leaning inside the car a “death funnel” or “fatal funnel.” |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:09:16 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By parshooter: Oh, some of you people are gonna' just love this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGQXEZrEL9UTrying to take down a race car driver at 11:43 is just flat out awesome!!! I see why he felt so confident with a slim 18 year old. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:09:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jsnappa: It seemed officer #2 observed the situation, knew officer less-than-gallant likely fucked up and subtly made it apparent. I have to wonder if officer #2 already knew how big of a roid raging dumbass Shimmel already was because of the race track incident. And officer #2 was thinking , “This boy dun just now got enough rope to hang himself with. GOOD! I can finally be gone of this asshole.  “ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2024 9:18:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WeimaranerDad: I have to wonder if officer #2 already knew how big of a roid raging dumbass Shimmel already was because of the race track incident. And officer #2 was thinking , “This boy dun just now got enough rope to hang himself with. GOOD! I can finally be gone of this asshole. “Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WeimaranerDad: Originally Posted By jsnappa: It seemed officer #2 observed the situation, knew officer less-than-gallant likely fucked up and subtly made it apparent. I have to wonder if officer #2 already knew how big of a roid raging dumbass Shimmel already was because of the race track incident. And officer #2 was thinking , “This boy dun just now got enough rope to hang himself with. GOOD! I can finally be gone of this asshole. “Of course he did. Everyone in the department did, I'm sure. And not ONE of them did a single thing to keep him from hurting someone. Fuck every last member of that department. All of them. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
