an off-duty Los Angeles police officer confronted the group. Other teenagers pulled out their cameras, filming the officer as he held a 13-year-old boy by the collar of his sweatshirt, trying to detain him.
The situation quickly escalated from there. At one point, another teen rushed the officer, sending him tumbling over a line of bushes. The officer then reached into his jeans and drew a gun, firing a single shot.
If I'd done that with a firearm, I'd be facing multiple charges and certainly would have been arrested. I don't see why the cop should not face those same consequences.
But its LA area police...so pretty par for the course.
The kid was out of line as well, but police should absolutely be held to the same standards as anyone else, if not moreso.
feeder wrote: Random vblogger is the media now? At least Alex Jones has a fething desk.
That particular Youtuber tends to provide much more balanced (and well sourced) news than any of the major sites... He calls them out on over dramatising situations all the time.
feeder wrote: Random vblogger is the media now? At least Alex Jones has a fething desk.
That particular Youtuber tends to provide much more balanced (and well sourced) news than any of the major sites... He calls them out on over dramatising situations all the time.
Well, he's not going to reach the top of the youtube celeb speaking circuit providing fair and reasonable coverage of current events.
Vaktathi wrote: If I'd done that with a firearm, I'd be facing multiple charges and certainly would have been arrested. I don't see why the cop should not face those same consequences.
But its LA area police...so pretty par for the course.
The kid was out of line as well, but police should absolutely be held to the same standards as anyone else, if not moreso.
If you aren't a cop, you aren't living in a Republican county, then yes, you'd be facing multiple charges. Especially if you were black or brown. If you were black, and the kid were white, you'd probably have resisted arrest during transfer to county, and been restrained with necessary force. All necessary and appropriate consequences.
OTOH, if you are LAPD, and following proper escalation of force protocol (which he absolutely was), then the only issue is the accidental discharge, which he will almost certainly not be charged for, as there was no intent.
The one kid who jumped the hedge to blindside him, after the other guys bum-rushed the cop, and then started reaching for a concealed weapon in his back pocket? The cop could have shot that kid dead and would have been fully justified in doing so. Having been physically assaulted, outnumbered, and escalated to surrounding and reaching? That's an automatic "self defense" freebie right there.
feeder wrote: Random vblogger is the media now? At least Alex Jones has a fething desk.
That particular Youtuber tends to provide much more balanced (and well sourced) news than any of the major sites... He calls them out on over dramatising situations all the time.
Well, he's not going to reach the top of the youtube celeb speaking circuit providing fair and reasonable coverage of current events.
He did win the Streamy Awards last year for the Best News & Culture Series and Best Show of the year...
But well, this isn't about a Youtuber. Point is, the mainstream media's posing this one way or the other. Summary: the acted as he thought was according in the situation, but everyone's in the wrong here, and we can't jump to conclusions just yet.
I seem to be friend of a friend with some of the teens. Their story is that the guy first started cussing out one of the girls, who may have been the only one on his lawn at first (not sure), and then one of the boys began to yell at him for "treating a woman that way" and it escalated from there. There may have been a misunderstanding where the boy said "I'll sue you" and the cop heard "I'll shoot you."
I'm surprised the officer hasn't been charged just for detaining the boy. In my training for the classroom, they stressed again and again that I could not ever grab of detain a student like that, even if they were assaulting someone. If he hadn't been an ex cop, he would have been hauled away in cuffs.
Problem is, right now with how the media is, cops have to be really careful about everything they do. What this guy did may have been by the books the right thing (not saying it is), but if the guy can be turned into the aggressor here that's how a lot of people will try and spin it. There's no grey zone apparently, and well, a story about an officer doing good doesn't sell...
So no, not to victim blame, or pick a side here, but trusting any mainstream media source which jumps to conclusions about things and only state contrary opinions in the small print (or an unlinked follow up article days later, if that) isn't really the way to go.
There is a lot of context that comes up on facebook, too. Apparently there have been some death threats both ways and a self-proclaimed Klansman defending the officer. Keep in mind that OC has had a fairly big law enforcement scandal recently.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I seem to be friend of a friend with some of the teens. Their story is that the guy first started cussing out one of the girls, who may have been the only one on his lawn at first (not sure), and then one of the boys began to yell at him for "treating a woman that way" and it escalated from there. There may have been a misunderstanding where the boy said "I'll sue you" and the cop heard "I'll shoot you."
I'm surprised the officer hasn't been charged just for detaining the boy. In my training for the classroom, they stressed again and again that I could not ever grab of detain a student like that, even if they were assaulting someone. If he hadn't been an ex cop, he would have been hauled away in cuffs.
Seems like to me that kids where the ones who where doing some really stupid stuff in addition to an Officer.
IDK about any other place, but around here, an officer has the right to arrest you even if he is off duty. If this was an On Duty offcer, Bum Rushing him like that one kid did that a dumbass idea as was surrounding him. As was taking a swing.
The Discharge, no mattter how it happened, doesnt seems like he was shooting at someone, is in excusable.
“To lose a child is a parent’s worst nightmare,” he said. “Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over. … This case seems to exemplify that our society seems to have lost its way, its moral compass. Our thoughts and discussions ought to be about how we should treat one another. It’s not whether we can do something or act in a certain way or whether we have a right to do something, but whether it’s right and necessary and prudent.”
*This post also appears in the two other shooting related threads.*
“To lose a child is a parent’s worst nightmare,” he said. “Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over. … This case seems to exemplify that our society seems to have lost its way, its moral compass. Our thoughts and discussions ought to be about how we should treat one another. It’s not whether we can do something or act in a certain way or whether we have a right to do something, but whether it’s right and necessary and prudent.”
*This post also appears in the two other shooting related threads.*
And how is that in any way relevant to this topic? No kid was killed. And frankly, the judge is an idiot. His job is not to decide 'prudent', his job is to decide 'was the act legal under current laws'. Unless 'prudent' is an element under the law in question, it should not come into play for a criminal decision. Maybe it has merit in a civil case.
So the cop was mad about kids on his lawn and confronts the kid. Kid spouts off, cop hears threat and grabs him, then drags him further onto the property, at no time identifying himself, producing badge, etc. Kids respond by circling and on charges the cop who proceeds to pull the 1st kid over the hedge and draw a weapon. He continues to pull the kids and (inadvertently?) discharges his weapon.
Whoo boy. If this guy wasn't a cop, he would be in some deep crap.
As it is, I can't imagine that he followed any agency protocols on detainment or use of force. The key thing about LEO authority is that it is not assaulting an officer/resisting/etc. if you have no reason to know it's an officer. And to escalate a petty trespass to a potentially lethal situation? Ridiculous. Just turn the hose on 'em.
What if another homeowner saw him dragging a kid and pulled a gun? Or saw the gun and opened fire? There are so many ways this could have gone down very badly due to the officer's actions.
Why do you think he did not identify himself? I didn't read anything about it either way, and none of the videos shown cover the whole incident either way.
“I am very interested in knowing the facts of the incident based on the investigation by the department and the Office of Inspector General that is underway,” said commissioner Cynthia McClain-Hill. “Some of the actions — brief as that exchange caught on video may be — do not properly represent what I believe should be expected and reflected by a member of the Los Angeles Police Department when engaging members of the public, be it on-duty or off-duty.”
Regardless of justification this seems like an incident that spiraled into escalation and the adult in the situation doesn't seem to have acted very mature in how he handled it. If no shot had been fired this probably would have been a nothing story. Just a bunch of idiots being idiots.
jmurph wrote: So the cop was mad about kids on his lawn and confronts the kid. Kid spouts off, cop hears threat and grabs him, then drags him further onto the property, at no time identifying himself, producing badge, etc. Kids respond by circling and on charges the cop who proceeds to pull the 1st kid over the hedge and draw a weapon. He continues to pull the kids and (inadvertently?) discharges his weapon.
Whoo boy. If this guy wasn't a cop, he would be in some deep crap.
As it is, I can't imagine that he followed any agency protocols on detainment or use of force. The key thing about LEO authority is that it is not assaulting an officer/resisting/etc. if you have no reason to know it's an officer. And to escalate a petty trespass to a potentially lethal situation? Ridiculous. Just turn the hose on 'em.
What if another homeowner saw him dragging a kid and pulled a gun? Or saw the gun and opened fire? There are so many ways this could have gone down very badly due to the officer's actions.
jmurph wrote: So the cop was mad about kids on his lawn and confronts the kid. Kid spouts off, cop hears threat and grabs him, then drags him further onto the property, at no time identifying himself, producing badge, etc. Kids respond by circling and on charges the cop who proceeds to pull the 1st kid over the hedge and draw a weapon. He continues to pull the kids and (inadvertently?) discharges his weapon.
Whoo boy. If this guy wasn't a cop, he would be in some deep crap.
As it is, I can't imagine that he followed any agency protocols on detainment or use of force. The key thing about LEO authority is that it is not assaulting an officer/resisting/etc. if you have no reason to know it's an officer. And to escalate a petty trespass to a potentially lethal situation? Ridiculous. Just turn the hose on 'em.
What if another homeowner saw him dragging a kid and pulled a gun? Or saw the gun and opened fire? There are so many ways this could have gone down very badly due to the officer's actions.
The guy did identify himself as a member of the police force, the kid responded by saying "my dad's a copy", to which the guy said the two of them will need to have a talk then...
Regardless of the situation, this is a fully grown man who let a group of kids troll him into losing his temper. He has no business being a cop or even owning a gun really.
feeder wrote: Regardless of the situation, this is a fully grown man who let a group of kids troll him into losing his temper. He has no business being a cop or even owning a gun really.
He actually seemed calm until the one kid rushed/hit him and the other kid flanked him.
feeder wrote: Regardless of the situation, this is a fully grown man who let a group of kids troll him into losing his temper. He has no business being a cop or even owning a gun really.
He actually seemed calm until the one kid rushed/hit him and the other kid flanked him.
Except the part hes grabbing the kid and then dragging the kid completely over a hedge.
Now that is the type of officer I am used to experiencing in California.
feeder wrote: Regardless of the situation, this is a fully grown man who let a group of kids troll him into losing his temper. He has no business being a cop or even owning a gun really.
He actually seemed calm until the one kid rushed/hit him and the other kid flanked him.
Except the part hes grabbing the kid and then dragging the kid completely over a hedge.
Now that is the type of officer I am used to experiencing in California.
He doesn't drag the kid over the hedge until he gets hit. At that point he is probably attempting to put an obstacle between him and the other kids.
feeder wrote: Regardless of the situation, this is a fully grown man who let a group of kids troll him into losing his temper.
If some kid says "I'm going to shoot you", and you perceive it as a credible threat, then detaining the kid for uniformed officers is not "losing one's temper".
CptJake wrote: He actually seemed calm until the one kid rushed/hit him and the other kid flanked him.
This. They escalated, and he responded. That's why he hasn't been charged with anything.
feeder wrote: Regardless of the situation, this is a fully grown man who let a group of kids troll him into losing his temper.
If some kid says "I'm going to shoot you", and you perceive it as a credible threat, then detaining the kid for uniformed officers is not "losing one's temper".
CptJake wrote: He actually seemed calm until the one kid rushed/hit him and the other kid flanked him.
This. They escalated, and he responded. That's why he hasn't been charged with anything.
He had grabbed a kid he didn't know before anyone had "escalated" anything.
Do we know for a fact that he didn't identify himself? If he did, and this jurisdiction allowed for detainment while off duty, then (at least initially) the worst that the cop did was questionable apprehension.
He did say he had called the cops, and they were on the way. At that point, everyone should have calmed the hell down and waited. Period. No one pulls a kid around, no one takes a swing, no one shoves anyone else. Both sides escalated things unnecessarily.
feeder wrote: Regardless of the situation, this is a fully grown man who let a group of kids troll him into losing his temper.
If some kid says "I'm going to shoot you", and you perceive it as a credible threat, then detaining the kid for uniformed officers is not "losing one's temper".
CptJake wrote: He actually seemed calm until the one kid rushed/hit him and the other kid flanked him.
This. They escalated, and he responded. That's why he hasn't been charged with anything.
He had grabbed a kid he didn't know before anyone had "escalated" anything.
=
If some punk makes a threat, you bet I'm forcibly detaining him until the police arrive. 13 years old or not.
Yeah, it appears there's no real "good guys" here, just a bunch of asshats, the problem is when one of the asshats is a cop who should know better and discharges a firearm and isnt treated to the same standard as others.
feeder wrote: Regardless of the situation, this is a fully grown man who let a group of kids troll him into losing his temper.
If some kid says "I'm going to shoot you", and you perceive it as a credible threat, then detaining the kid for uniformed officers is not "losing one's temper".
CptJake wrote: He actually seemed calm until the one kid rushed/hit him and the other kid flanked him.
This. They escalated, and he responded. That's why he hasn't been charged with anything.
He had grabbed a kid he didn't know before anyone had "escalated" anything.
=
If some punk makes a threat, you bet I'm forcibly detaining him until the police arrive. 13 years old or not.
This, definitely this. Did the kid say he'd shoot the cop, or sue the cop? The world may never know. However if he did say "shoot", then he definitely deserved to be detained.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, it appears there's no real "good guys" here, just a bunch of asshats, the problem is when one of the asshats is a cop who should know better and discharges a firearm and isnt treated to the same standard as others.
Cops have their own regulations. After reviewing the video he did in fact identify himself as police. At that point there was resisting arrest and assault on an officer by at least three, possibly four, of the boys. While I don't 100% agree with his actions I don't think this necessitated arrest. It's not the same standard, but it isn't an unequal standard either.
It seems like the comment about being disrespectful to women is what instigated the confrontation with the officer escalating every step of the way and justifying it with an entirely fictional threat.
Did he wing one of the kids? Or did it discharge in the air? I'm used to Hollywood saying it's okay to discharge a gun into the air to say "shut the feth and listen to me." Haven't watched the video cuz wifi sucks, but it sounds like he identified as a cop and got assaulted before going extreme.
Obviously he should have let the kids beat the gak out of him. Seems like the best way for him to stay out of trouble. Of course, since he's a cop, one of the kids probably would have bruised his knuckles and it would have been the cop's fault for not preventing him from punching.
timetowaste85 wrote: Did he wing one of the kids? Or did it discharge in the air? I'm used to Hollywood saying it's okay to discharge a gun into the air to say "shut the feth and listen to me." Haven't watched the video cuz wifi sucks, but it sounds like he identified as a cop and got assaulted before going extreme.
Obviously he should have let the kids beat the gak out of him. Seems like the best way for him to stay out of trouble. Of course, since he's a cop, one of the kids probably would have bruised his knuckles and it would have been the cop's fault for not preventing him from punching.
From my understanding, the cop was the first one to use any force other than harsh words. You make it sound like feral kids just attacked him when most accounts make it seem like he started the confrontation and escalated it into a physical confrontation when the kids matched his methods.
slip wrote: It seems like the comment about being disrespectful to women is what instigated the confrontation with the officer escalating every step of the way and justifying it with an entirely fictional threat.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If it's all "he said / she said" then the cop automatically wins. That's how the courts work.
____
feeder wrote: IS it more likely that little gak kids in the OC would threaten to shoot, or sue someone for laying hands on them?
Rich little gaks in the rich part of town.
My understanding is that the cop detained the kid *after* the kid threatened to shoot him.
Anaheim isn't a rich neighborhood, as far as I can tell. It's no Beverly Hills / Brentwood / Bel Air...
It's the largest city in Orange County... I mean it's probably not all rich, but it basically is Orange County. Saying this happened in Anaheim is like saying it happened in Charlotte. It's very unspecific.
slip wrote: It seems like the comment about being disrespectful to women is what instigated the confrontation with the officer escalating every step of the way and justifying it with an entirely fictional threat.
Do we have any proof of that?
uhhh ya, you can clearly hear the exchange at the beginning of the video.
Two videos showing part of the confrontation — posted on YouTube and Facebook — show the officer grabbing the boy by his sweatshirt. In one video, the 13-year-old accused the officer of cursing at a girl who walked across his yard. The officer denied making such remarks.
The officer stumbled down the sidewalk with the boy, then pulled him into another yard.
“You’re the one that’s going to jail, not me,” the boy tells him. “You’re starting all this.”
“You shouldn’t have made the threat that you were going to shoot me,” the officer later replies.
“I didn’t say that,” the boy retorts. “I said I was going to sue you.”
JohnHwangDD wrote: If it's all "he said / she said" then the cop automatically wins. That's how the courts work. ____
feeder wrote: Rich little gaks in the rich part of town.
Anaheim isn't a rich neighborhood, as far as I can tell. It's no Beverly Hills / Brentwood / Bel Air...
It's the largest city in Orange County... I mean it's probably not all rich, but it basically is Orange County. Saying this happened in Anaheim is like saying it happened in Charlotte. It's very unspecific.
Median incomes from Google: - $58,950 Anaheim, CA - $76,500 Orange County, CA - $61,300 California - $207,900 Bel Air, CA. Anaheim be po'.
feeder wrote: Random vblogger is the media now? At least Alex Jones has a fething desk.
That particular Youtuber tends to provide much more balanced (and well sourced) news than any of the major sites... He calls them out on over dramatising situations all the time.
Well, he's not going to reach the top of the youtube celeb speaking circuit providing fair and reasonable coverage of current events.
He did win the Streamy Awards last year for the Best News & Culture Series and Best Show of the year...
But well, this isn't about a Youtuber. Point is, the mainstream media's posing this one way or the other. Summary: the acted as he thought was according in the situation, but everyone's in the wrong here, and we can't jump to conclusions just yet.
Wait, I mean "Cops are bad! Rarr!".
Im with you, Phil is usually pretty unbiased and I typically like his show as long as hes not doing youtube drama pieces because I REALLY dont care about youtube drama
That is factually untrue, and easily proven, given that nobody actually got shot.
Changing to say "at him" is moving the goalposts by a significant amount, and unlikely given that the officer was not seen pointing the firearm at anybody at the time it discharged.
Not wanting local teens to cut across your yard on their way home from school is a reasonable position to take. Asking the kids not to do it is also reasonable. Letting a mouthy teen goad you into a fight with kids isn't reasonable. The cop would have been better off letting it go and looking into putting up a fence or hedges or something. It would be great if people treated each other with more politeness civility and respect but there's no need to escalate things right to violence when situations fall short of that ideal.
That is factually untrue, and easily proven, given that nobody actually got shot.
Changing to say "at him" is moving the goalposts by a significant amount, and unlikely given that the officer was not seen pointing the firearm at anybody at the time it discharged.
Stop making gak up.
it's a typo from typing too fast and you're clinging desperately to that point to avoid addressing how much you asserted about the incident without actually viewing the evidence yourself.
Prestor Jon wrote: Not wanting local teens to cut across your yard on their way home from school is a reasonable position to take. Asking the kids not to do it is also reasonable. Letting a mouthy teen goad you into a fight with kids isn't reasonable. The cop would have been better off letting it go and looking into putting up a fence or hedges or something. It would be great if people treated each other with more politeness civility and respect but there's no need to escalate things right to violence when situations fall short of that ideal.
So far I am in agreement with Prestor Jon and Frazzled on this.
This is a fully grown man and a trained police officer who, I assume, deals with actual dangerous criminals.
A group of 13 year olds got the better of him. Just based on that, I don't think he deserves the badge.
That is factually untrue, and easily proven, given that nobody actually got shot.
Changing to say "at him" is moving the goalposts by a significant amount, and unlikely given that the officer was not seen pointing the firearm at anybody at the time it discharged.
Stop making gak up.
it's a typo from typing too fast and you're clinging desperately to that point to avoid addressing how much you asserted about the incident without actually viewing the evidence yourself.
Wrong, yet again. He didn't shoot AT anyone. His gun discharged. Negligently it would seem, but he sure as hell was not aiming it/pointing it AT anyone.
Wyrmalla wrote: Well, the media's taking a rather one sided stance regarding this. "Cops are bad. Rarr!"
Nice video!
I'd think the cop deserves some discipline, if nothing else for embarrassing the department. However, it's kind of crazy that kids were attacking him like is shown in the video (particularly the one who does a "hockey check" and knocks him over the hedge) if he'd identified himself as a police officer.
Probably should have just called it in and dealt with it with some police who were uniformed / had badges with them... and he really didn't need to be dragging that kid around. Overall, a lot of poor judgement, but those kids deserve some penalty for sure, too.
jmurph wrote: So the cop was mad about kids on his lawn and confronts the kid. Kid spouts off, cop hears threat and grabs him, then drags him further onto the property, at no time identifying himself, producing badge, etc. Kids respond by circling and on charges the cop who proceeds to pull the 1st kid over the hedge and draw a weapon. He continues to pull the kids and (inadvertently?) discharges his weapon.
Whoo boy. If this guy wasn't a cop, he would be in some deep crap.
As it is, I can't imagine that he followed any agency protocols on detainment or use of force. The key thing about LEO authority is that it is not assaulting an officer/resisting/etc. if you have no reason to know it's an officer. And to escalate a petty trespass to a potentially lethal situation? Ridiculous. Just turn the hose on 'em.
What if another homeowner saw him dragging a kid and pulled a gun? Or saw the gun and opened fire? There are so many ways this could have gone down very badly due to the officer's actions.
The man did seem to have identified himself as a cop since the kid was saying that his dad was a cop too.
When he dragged the kid back to his house he was unnecessarily escalating things. Any other way would have been a better way to handle it. He strikes me as another donkey-cave US cop who couldn't take somebody 'not respecting his authorita'.
Having watched the video, my impression is that the cop was lucky none of the young teenagers had a gun and decided to use their stand their ground and public defence rights to shoot him to prevent him from shooting someone.
It's irking me that the fether will get off scot free. If you can straight up murder people in the US because you own a badge then he's well in the clear.
d-usa wrote: So anytime I tell someone that I'm a cop, they have to let me arrest them just because I said so?
No but they have to let you assault and battery them and do nothing while you drag them into your residence. They'll quietly sit in your basement dungeon while you call their lawyer
You guys watched the whole video, right? I think the cop handled it terribly, but the final sequence is:
1. One kid pushes the police officer, while he's continuing to (foolishly) pull along the kid he's trying to detain
2. A second kid "hockey checks" the police officer over a hedge
3. A third kid jumps the hedge and reaches into his back pocket while approaching the police officer
Now, I think the officer handled it terribly, as I said above. After the 3 things above happened, just let go of the first kid (the police can always track him down later if it really was necessary, which it didn't seem to be) and reach for your gun with your primary hand.
Instead, he reaches with his off hand, then tries to pull the kid over the hedge he was knocked over WITH the gun hand, and it goes off. It's kind of a miracle no one got hit!
So, I think the police officer deserves discipline, particularly for the accidental discharge (assuming that's what it was - if it was on purpose, it's a whole different story). But those kids all also deserve to be charged, as it's unreal the way they're attacking him if he really had identified himself as a police officer. If they doubted that, they should have just called the police themselves... but there's no justification for the way they were attacking him, either.
When he put hands on the kid and started dragging him back to the house he crossed the line. Anyone else would have been charged with assault. And as cop he should know better than to overact over a bunch of kids being stupid. Again, this is probably because he couldn't handle his authority being challenged. Especially not by Latinos.
One threads over we have people argue that it's okay for an old man to shoot another man to death because he threw popcorn at him, threw a phone, and leaned towards him.
Here we have people argue that children should let adults grab them and drag them over the hedge without defending themselves.
Of course in both cases it was idiots with the guns starting the confrontation. And in both cases they were right, because idiots with guns can't get anything wrong.
Now excuse me, I'm a cop and I have a gun. I'm gonna go start some stuff, grab some children after yelling at them that I'm a cop, and then fail at basic firearm safety when they defend themselves.
Future War Cultist wrote: When he put hands on the kid and started dragging him back to the house he crossed the line. Anyone else would have been charged with assault. And as cop he should know better than to overact over a bunch of kids being stupid. Again, this is probably because he couldn't handle his authority being challenged. Especially not by Latinos.
That is factually untrue, and easily proven, given that nobody actually got shot.
Changing to say "at him" is moving the goalposts by a significant amount, and unlikely given that the officer was not seen pointing the firearm at anybody at the time it discharged.
Stop making gak up.
it's a typo from typing too fast and you're clinging desperately to that point to avoid addressing how much you asserted about the incident without actually viewing the evidence yourself.
Wrong, yet again. He didn't shoot AT anyone. His gun discharged. Negligently it would seem, but he sure as hell was not aiming it/pointing it AT anyone.
Did you watch the video? He was pointing it at people the entire time. Are you claiming this officer fired a warning shot, which is definitely illegal for both a civilian and an officer?
d-usa wrote: Here is the thing that is fething insane:
One threads over we have people argue that it's okay for an old man to shoot another man to death because he threw popcorn at him, threw a phone, and leaned towards him.
Here we have people argue that children should let adults grab them and drag them over the hedge without defending themselves.
Of course in both cases it was idiots with the guns starting the confrontation. And in both cases they were right, because idiots with guns can't get anything wrong.
Now excuse me, I'm a cop and I have a gun. I'm gonna go start some stuff, grab some children after yelling at them that I'm a cop, and then fail at basic firearm safety when they defend themselves.
It'll be interesting to see if people were often going through the man's property and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
That aside, it's a situation where both sides are saying different things which led to the restraining of the boy. The boy says he was going to sue him, the cop says he threatened to shoot him.
In any event, the cop identified himself as such and was going to hold the boy until other officers arrived. He was physically attacked and knocked over a bush, surrounded and in what could have been a situation where he got murdered.
He could have easily killed a couple of kids and possibly been justified, but there was only one shot fired that might have been accidental.
I cannot comprehend in what world a bunch of kids taking a short cut through your yard justifies killing them. There is no scenario where this should have escalated to physical attacks (for either party) or guns being drawn (for either party) or shots being fired (for either party).
Defensiveness over guns has reached an absurd level. This entire situation is slowed, but the difference is that one party is made up of stupid kids and as inexcusable as their behavior was they are stupid kids. The other party was grown ass fething man who apparently is so thin skinned he can't tolerate people crossing into his yard without resorting to harsh language, physical altercations, and gunfire. Even if one of kids did say "I'll shoot you" unless a gun was found on his person a verbal threat does not justify physical action or gun pulling. Every single step of this altercation was escalated by a single party, the party who should have best known how not to do that. Neither of the parties seem to disagree about the steps that were taken or who took them, only the provocations issued which are factually irrelevant given what is known.
LordofHats wrote: I cannot comprehend in what world a bunch of kids taking a short cut through your yard justifies killing them. There is no scenario where this should have escalated to physical attacks (for either party) or guns being drawn (for either party) or shots being fired (for either party).
Defensiveness over guns has reached an absurd level. This entire situation is slowed, but the difference is that one party is made up of stupid kids and as inexcusable as their behavior was they are stupid kids. The other party was grown ass fething man who apparently is so thin skinned he can't tolerate people crossing into his yard without resorting to harsh language, physical altercations, and gunfire. Even if one of kids did say "I'll shoot you" unless a gun was found on his person a verbal threat does not justify physical action or gun pulling. Every single step of this altercation was escalated by a single party, the party who should have best known how not to do that. Neither of the parties seem to disagree about the steps that were taken or who took them, only the provocations issued which are factually irrelevant given what is known.
In all fairness, he was knocked over and surrounded while trying to restrain someone until backup arrived he says threatened to shoot him. It was at that point he drew his gun.
In all fairness, he was knocked over and surrounded while trying to restrain someone until backup arrived he says threatened to shoot him.
In all fairness, if he hadn't picked a fight with a bunch of 13 year old kids over someone crossing into his lawn, he wouldn't have gotten his butt kicked and ended up fearing for his life.
In all fairness, he was knocked over and surrounded while trying to restrain someone until backup arrived he says threatened to shoot him.
In all fairness, if he hadn't picked a fight with a bunch of 13 year old kids over someone crossing into his lawn, he wouldn't have gotten his butt kicked and ended up fearing for his life.
It was his right to tell the kids to stay off his property.
In all fairness, he was knocked over and surrounded while trying to restrain someone until backup arrived he says threatened to shoot him.
In all fairness, if he hadn't picked a fight with a bunch of 13 year old kids over someone crossing into his lawn, he wouldn't have gotten his butt kicked and ended up fearing for his life.
It was his right to tell the kids to stay off his property.
Yes it was. It was his right to tell kids to stay off his property. It was not his right to take in any farther than that, but he did anyway. Everything that happened in this situation is his fault, because all he did was escalate the problem into something worse. If he hadn't done A, the kids would not have responded with B. If he hadn't done C, the kids wouldn't have reacted with D. And so on and so on, till the gun (which should never have left it's holster in this case) went off.
In all fairness, he was knocked over and surrounded while trying to restrain someone until backup arrived he says threatened to shoot him. It was at that point he drew his gun.
I must have forgotten that party of school where I was told to do nothing and stand there while a total stranger grabbed an kid and dragged them away.
He should have had the kid in the first place. If he wasn't getting sued before, those kid's parents would be fools not to sue now. It's a slam dunk win. As stupid and rude as the kids were being the off duty officer turned this into a complete quagmire pretty much entirely on his own.
Relapse wrote: Given the current status of cop shootings, it was entirely his right to restrain someone he says threatened to shoot him.
No it wasn't. It was his right to be on the defensive. Call 911. Lock your doors. Issue a complaint to the school board or parents association. Not run over and crab a kid who didn't have a weapon and drag him away.
If I say "I'm a cop" and grab your child, you're just gonna be cool with it?
The whole "he identified himself as a cop" is the stupidest justification this board has given for anything in quite a while. Anybody can say anything, so 13 year olds should just let grown men manhandle them because they said "I'm a cop"?
d-usa wrote: If I say "I'm a cop" and grab your child, you're just gonna be cool with it?
The whole "he identified himself as a cop" is the stupidest justification this board has given for anything in quite a while. Anybody can say anything, so 13 year olds should just let grown men manhandle them because they said "I'm a cop"?
It's the perfect storm of shallow gun right's activist wet dreams; shoots are always justified vs protect my kids.
I put $5 on shoots are always justified in the third round!
d-usa wrote: If I say "I'm a cop" and grab your child, you're just gonna be cool with it?
The whole "he identified himself as a cop" is the stupidest justification this board has given for anything in quite a while. Anybody can say anything, so 13 year olds should just let grown men manhandle them because they said "I'm a cop"?
If that 13 year old is threatening to shoot him, that can be expected.
d-usa wrote: If I say "I'm a cop" and grab your child, you're just gonna be cool with it?
The whole "he identified himself as a cop" is the stupidest justification this board has given for anything in quite a while. Anybody can say anything, so 13 year olds should just let grown men manhandle them because they said "I'm a cop"?
If that 13 year old is threatening to shoot him, that can be expected.
Except the thirteen year old did not threaten to shoot him by anybodies account except for the person who escalated to violence first.
d-usa wrote: If I say "I'm a cop" and grab your child, you're just gonna be cool with it?
The whole "he identified himself as a cop" is the stupidest justification this board has given for anything in quite a while. Anybody can say anything, so 13 year olds should just let grown men manhandle them because they said "I'm a cop"?
If that 13 year old is threatening to shoot him, that can be expected.
Should I be able to walk up to a 13 year old child, say "I'm a cop", grab him, drag him, and expect compliance from everyone around?
Should children that are being grabbed by an adult be able to defend themselves?
d-usa wrote: Here is the thing that is fething insane:
One threads over we have people argue that it's okay for an old man to shoot another man to death because he threw popcorn at him, threw a phone, and leaned towards him.
Here we have people argue that children should let adults grab them and drag them over the hedge without defending themselves.
Of course in both cases it was idiots with the guns starting the confrontation. And in both cases they were right, because idiots with guns can't get anything wrong.
Now excuse me, I'm a cop and I have a gun. I'm gonna go start some stuff, grab some children after yelling at them that I'm a cop, and then fail at basic firearm safety when they defend themselves.
That's a very good point actually. If that was in Florida, would the kids (or any one else for that matter) have had the right to stand their ground and kill that guy because he was threatening them? That's how it works right? Somebody acts lairy towards you you can kill them right?
The cop can claim that he heard I'll shoot you. I think he heard what he wanted to hear.
Also, protesters attacked his house and ended up smashing a window. Probably scuffed up his lawn too. I'm trying not to smile.
It's just a little frustrating that everything becomes so black and white in discussion about things like this - it feels like there's no room for moderates / middle ground.
To me, the police officer was in the wrong, really for the way he handled things from the very beginning. But the kids are also in the wrong, for teaming up to knock him over (and one even feigning like he had a weapon in his pocket). It's a case of everybody messing up, and everybody should get punished. The adult most of all, probably, but to act like the kids were innocent bystanders is just crazy to me.
Ah well, that's why I don't wonder into this area of the board all that often
The kids trespassed on his lawn. Everything else they did was in response to the cops actions. If he had not been a police officer, no one would be talking about punishing the kids. And just telling them he is a police officer doesn't make them wrong to assume the worst and defend themselves/each other.
d-usa wrote: If I say "I'm a cop" and grab your child, you're just gonna be cool with it?
The whole "he identified himself as a cop" is the stupidest justification this board has given for anything in quite a while. Anybody can say anything, so 13 year olds should just let grown men manhandle them because they said "I'm a cop"?
If that 13 year old is threatening to shoot him, that can be expected.
Yes, but come on , we all know the kid said "Sue" not "Shoot". There are two different syllables between the two words. It's just a bull gak excuse made up by the cop.
Literally the very first thing that happens in the video is the kid explaining he was going to sue him not shoot him, but the officer never did holster his weapon after that did he?
Slip, there's a valid point to be made there, but you obviously haven't watched the video - the weapon doesn't come out until the last few seconds of it.
Edit: Actually, just read your earlier post here:
slip wrote: Did you watch the video? He was pointing it at people the entire time.
You must have accidentally watched the wrong video, as that also doesn't match what happened in this incident. Just fyi!
RiTides wrote: It's just a little frustrating that everything becomes so black and white in discussion about things like this - it feels like there's no room for moderates / middle ground.
To me, the police officer was in the wrong, really for the way he handled things from the very beginning. But the kids are also in the wrong, for teaming up to knock him over (and one even feigning like he had a weapon in his pocket). It's a case of everybody messing up, and everybody should get punished. The adult most of all, probably, but to act like the kids were innocent bystanders is just crazy to me.
Ah well, that's why I don't wonder into this area of the board all that often
I agree. I was really not inclined to write anything of my opinion here or in the movie theatre shooting thread simply because people seem to take offence if someone does not agree with them entirely and start mocking the differing stand taken.
I think I'll follow your good lead and not bother posting anything further in either thread.
RiTides wrote: Slip, there's a valid point to be made there, but you obviously haven't watched the video - the weapon doesn't come out until the last few seconds of it.
Edit: Actually, just read your earlier post here:
slip wrote: Did you watch the video? He was pointing it at people the entire time.
You must have accidentally watched the wrong video, as that also doesn't match what happened in this incident. Just fyi!
I watched the video but i did think he had it out but obscured earlier but I see now I was mistaken. Specifically after someone had grabbed the backpack away from him and he had dragged that kid into someone's lawn across that sidewalk and got surrounded, but i think it was a piece of shirt.
Here's the vid in any case so everyone can have a clearer picture of what went down.
People are using the "threat" as justification, but if the time doesn't even line up on that, him drawing the weapon way after it was already explained not to be a threat then how can it be used that way?
People are claiming he fired in self defense but also fired at nobody. How is that possible? Either he fired at someone or he didn't fire in self defense. The cop heard whatever he wanted to hear to justify whatever action he should've taken. I was mistaken about him having the gun out earlier, but the question still remains, once it was clear a threat hadn't been made, why did he continue to escalate the situation?
E: Just to be perfectly clear, in no way was that a shooting in self defense, and no way did that cop actually construe himself to be in a threatening situation considering his conduct. You can argue over semantics and wording, but I think those two facts are plainly visible from the video, enough to fulfill any criteria of personal opinion. This thread isn't the courtroom, we aren't the jury. We don't have to have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt in the court of public opinion and merely being within the confines of the law isn't enough to deem you a good person or even right on a moral level. LA can call it whatever they want to call it, but they have no jurisdiction over public opinion.
RiTides wrote: It's just a little frustrating that everything becomes so black and white in discussion about things like this - it feels like there's no room for moderates / middle ground.
To me, the police officer was in the wrong, really for the way he handled things from the very beginning. But the kids are also in the wrong, for teaming up to knock him over (and one even feigning like he had a weapon in his pocket). It's a case of everybody messing up, and everybody should get punished. The adult most of all, probably, but to act like the kids were innocent bystanders is just crazy to me.
Ah well, that's why I don't wonder into this area of the board all that often
You're being way too harsh, most people are acknowledging the kids were stupid.... but the adult cop is an adult cop and should know better. What on earth was he trying to achieve dragging that kid around for, what, a couple of minutes? While there's a bunch of people watching him? And then trying to drag the kid over the bushes with the hand he's still holding on to the gun with?
Terrible decisions for any adult let alone an off duty police officer. He's lucky he didn't kill someone, he's lucky one of the kids didn't have a gun and shoot him back, he's lucky no one in the crowd got involved.
The kids made bad decisions as well but I am curious, what punishment do you think the kids deserve here?
I actually agree with most everything you said there, Skink, for what it's worth! I've said my piece, and honestly, don't really want to talk about it further. I agree the police officer should take a lions share of the blame, too.
I think the question that needs to be asked is, "In this jurisdiction, does an off-duty, non uniformed police officer that has identified himself have the authority to detain someone he believes has committed a crime?"
Remember, according to the Supreme Court last year you don't actually have to commit a crime for the police to detain you, they only have to THINK you committed a crime (no, seriously).
So, really, does he have that authority? If no, then he is totally, 100% in the wrong. If yes, well.....then it is kind of a grey area, but then mostly the kids' fault. If a cop does have authority to detain you, and you fight back, that's resisting arrest. Your friend pushes or hits the cop? That's assault on an officer.
I'd also ask the question what is sufficient identification for an off-duty, non uniformed police officer to be granted the authority to do anything?
Surely an off-duty non-uniformed police officer has to do more than just state they are an off-duty non-uniformed police officer otherwise that'd totally be a great way to abduct kids.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'd also ask the question what is sufficient identification for an off-duty, non uniformed police officer to be granted the authority to do anything?
Surely an off-duty non-uniformed police officer has to do more than just state they are an off-duty non-uniformed police officer otherwise that'd totally be a great way to abduct kids.
Very true, and a scary recipe for disaster. However, the law might state that a verbal ID is all he needs to do. Also, "detain" and "remove" are two different things. If all you can do is detain (stand still) then I see no real harm. From the video it looks like the officer was trying to stand still and wait for authorities until the struggle/violence started.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'd also ask the question what is sufficient identification for an off-duty, non uniformed police officer to be granted the authority to do anything?
Surely an off-duty non-uniformed police officer has to do more than just state they are an off-duty non-uniformed police officer otherwise that'd totally be a great way to abduct kids.
Badge and ID at minimum. And even then, I'd still wait for a unformed officer.
Not serious at all. But I did seriously hear some guy claim to be that when hitting on my wife. We had many a good laugh at his expense (but not at his face, just in case).
Automatically Appended Next Post: My point is that 'some guy' can claim to be anything, even an off duty police officer.
Having watched that second video shot from a different angle, I'm fully convinced that that fat baldy bastard at the very least needs to be fired, but really he should be going to prison. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
slip wrote: Literally the very first thing that happens in the video is the kid explaining he was going to sue him not shoot him, but the officer never did holster his weapon after that did he?
He hadn't even drawn his weapon at that point. He doesn't draw it until after he is slammed across the hedge and the other kid flanks him.
And the other kids don't flank him or fight him until after he laid hands on the kid.
So again, to continue my unanswered question for the past 24 hours: should kids just let adults grab them and drag them because an adult said "I'm a cop"?
D-usa, the opposite question can also be asked - should kids team up to attack an adult (who has identified himself as a police officer, no less) who is holding onto their friend's collar, or should they just wait there with him and call the police themselves?
As noted above, he isn't moving until they start attacking him. I still think he handled it terribly, but your question is a "yes/no", when the answer should be "neither acted as they should have in that situation".
RiTides wrote: D-usa, the opposite question can also be asked - should kids team up to attack an adult (who has identified himself as a police officer, no less) who is holding onto their friend's collar,
Yes, kids should team up and attack any adult who is holding onto their friend's collar, regardless of who the adult says he is, because words don't mean anything in that regard. Anybody can claim that they are a cop, and nobody should simply comply just because some random adult says so. Especially once the adult physically starts to restrain one of them.
or should they just wait there with him and call the police themselves?
No, not once the adult started to turn this situation physical.
If I see one of the kids walking their dog down my sidewalk, and then step on my lawn while their dog is pooping, should I be able to tell the kid "I'm a cop" and grab him by the collar to restrain him, and should the kid be expected to just let me do this?
Edit:
RiTides wrote: but your question is a "yes/no", when the answer should be "neither acted as they should have in that situation".
I think that kids defending themselves form an adult that has physically restraint a 13 year old should be considered acting appropriately.
The defense by many in this thread simply boils down to "he said he was a cop, so they shouldn't have fought back".
My reply simply is "anybody can say 'I'm a cop' and it's stupid to expect kids to comply with anyone that tells them that".
d-usa wrote: And the other kids don't flank him or fight him until after he laid hands on the kid.
So again, to continue my unanswered question for the past 24 hours: should kids just let adults grab them and drag them because an adult said "I'm a cop"?
Depends. Is the guy saying it a cop?
If not, well there are laws against it.
If so, well there are laws against slamming the guy.
d-usa wrote: And the other kids don't flank him or fight him until after he laid hands on the kid.
So again, to continue my unanswered question for the past 24 hours: should kids just let adults grab them and drag them because an adult said "I'm a cop"?
Depends. Is the guy saying it a cop?
If not, well there are laws against it.
If so, well there are laws against slamming the guy.
Which is the whole point you seem to be ignoring and that D-usa keeps bringing up. From everything said/shown...he doesn't flash a badge and he isn't uniformed. Just told the kids he's a cop, grabbed one of them, and then the whole thing went to hell.
In no way, shape, or form should any LEO be trying to pull crap like this without identifying themselves properly. And given the fact that there have been instances of serial killers, rapists, et al using the "I'm a cop" line...not flashing a badge while out of uniform just screams "I don't need to do anything properly" on the part of this officer.
Common fething sense would dictate that if you're going to use the "I'm a cop" line, as a fething police officer, you would at least know that you should have your badge or ID visible. But common fething sense would also dictate to a police officer not to be manhandling kids and drawing a gun on them for "trespassing".
d-usa wrote: And the other kids don't flank him or fight him until after he laid hands on the kid.
So again, to continue my unanswered question for the past 24 hours: should kids just let adults grab them and drag them because an adult said "I'm a cop"?
Depends. Is the guy saying it a cop?
Yes/no/maybe. The kids don't know, hence the whole question stating "just because someone says they are a cop, should kids let them grab them and drag them along".
If not, well there are laws against it.
So when someone says "I'm a cop" they should comply because there are laws against impersonating cops?
If so, well there are laws against slamming the guy.
Can you cite a law that says it's illegal to slam a guy that claims to be a cop?
Well, that's where we differ then, clearly. I once had an adult I barely knew physically put their hands on my shoulder to keep me in place as a as a HS freshman. I was surrounded by my friends, as well, and felt he was out of line. Instead, we all waited until the incident was over, I told my parents, they looked him up and dealt with it.
To say kids should just attack an adult like that is 100% the wrong message, imo. Look at the video, it's a nice neighborhood, broad daylight, he's not taking him to a car or something... they were standing on the sidewalk. Yes, he wss probably way out of line, but to say yes, the kids SHOULD attack him is just nuts, imo.
Ah well, like I said, I just wonder where all the moderates have gone in discussions like this. The more I think about it, the more harshly I'd punish the police officer, but to say the kids acted correctly given what we see in the video (and not a hypothetical "what if your friend is being abducted") is just mind boggling to me.
d-usa wrote: And the other kids don't flank him or fight him until after he laid hands on the kid.
So again, to continue my unanswered question for the past 24 hours: should kids just let adults grab them and drag them because an adult said "I'm a cop"?
Depends. Is the guy saying it a cop?
If not, well there are laws against it.
If so, well there are laws against slamming the guy.
Which is the whole point you seem to be ignoring and that D-usa keeps bringing up.
From everything said/shown...he doesn't flash a badge and he isn't uniformed. Just told the kids he's a cop, grabbed one of them, and then the whole thing went to hell.
In no way, shape, or form should any LEO be trying to pull crap like this without identifying themselves properly. And given the fact that there have been instances of serial killers, rapists, et al using the "I'm a cop" line...not flashing a badge while out of uniform just screams "I don't need to do anything properly" on the part of this officer.
Common fething sense would dictate that if you're going to use the "I'm a cop" line, as a fething police officer, you would at least know that you should have your badge or ID visible. But common fething sense would also dictate to a police officer not to be manhandling kids and drawing a gun on them for "trespassing".
He did not draw a gun on them for trespassing. He drew the gun because he had been hit a couple times and was then flanked by a kid who reached for something.
RiTides wrote: Well, that's where we differ then, clearly. I once had an adult I barely knew physically put their hands on my shoulder to keep me in place as a as a HS freshman. I was surrounded by my friends, as well, and felt he was out of line. Instead, we all waited until the incident was over, I told my parents, they looked him up and dealt with it.
To say kids should just attack an adult like that is 100% the wrong message, imo. Look at the video, it's a nice neighborhood, broad daylight, he's not taking him to a car or something... they were standing on the sidewalk. Yes, he wss probably way out of line, but to say yes, the kids SHOULD attack him is just nuts, imo.
Ah well, like I said, I just wonder where all the moderates have gone in discussions like this. The more I think about it, the more harshly I'd punish the police officer, but to say the kids acted correctly given what we see in the video (and not a hypothetical "what if your friend is being abducted") is just mind boggling to me.
I would imagine that in a school, surrounded by responsible adults who have authority over you, in a situation where the adult restraining you is likely calm, I would feel differently than in a street with an angry guy doing so.
RiTides wrote: Well, that's where we differ then, clearly. I once had an adult I barely knew physically put their hands on my shoulder to keep me in place as a as a HS freshman. I was surrounded by my friends, as well, and felt he was out of line. Instead, we all waited until the incident was over, I told my parents, they looked him up and dealt with it.
To say kids should just attack an adult like that is 100% the wrong message, imo. Look at the video, it's a nice neighborhood, broad daylight, he's not taking him to a car or something... they were standing on the sidewalk. Yes, he wss probably way out of line, but to say yes, the kids SHOULD attack him is just nuts, imo.
Ah well, like I said, I just wonder where all the moderates have gone in discussions like this. The more I think about it, the more harshly I'd punish the police officer, but to say the kids acted correctly given what we see in the video (and not a hypothetical "what if your friend is being abducted") is just mind boggling to me.
I would imagine that in a school, surrounded by responsible adults who have authority over you, in a situation where the adult restraining you is likely calm, I would feel differently than in a street with an angry guy doing so.
Guy in this incident was pretty calm until the kids attacked him. He seemed more than willing to hold the kid until uniformed cops showed up. And it wasn't really 'in a street', it was in his own yard...
RiTides wrote: Well, that's where we differ then, clearly. I once had an adult I barely knew physically put their hands on my shoulder to keep me in place as a freshman in high school. I was surrounded by my friends, as well, and felt he was out of line. Instead, we all waited, I told my parents, they looked him up and dealt with it.
Which is fine and dandy, provided the adult wasn't trying to bring you into their home.
To say kids should just attack an adult like that is 100% the wrong message, imo. Look at the video, it's a nice neighborhood, broad daylight, he's not taking him to a car or something... they were standing on the sidewalk. Yes, he was probably way out of line, but to say yes, the kids SHOULD attack him is just nuts, imo.
Nobody is saying what the kids did is 100%, absofethinglutely what people should do.
What is being said is that why in the hell should the kids take the guy at his word that he's a cop? If they knew him or had run-ins with him before or this was some kind of long-standing thing with him trying to keep these particular kids off his lawn or they commonly threatened him knowing he was a cop, that dramatically changes the way this whole situation would be viewed. But nothing I have seen suggests that is the case.
Ah well, like I said, I just wonder where all the moderates have gone in discussions like this. The more I think about it, the more harshly I'd punish the police officer, but to say the kids acted correctly given what we see in the video (and not a hypothetical "what if your friend is being abducted") is just mind boggling to me.
There's not really ground for "moderation" in a case like this.
A guy, who is supposed to be a law enforcement officer--someone who is actually supposed to be trained to deescalate situations just like this and in many cases engage these kids not just with a firearm but with words--chose to "detain" one of the kids, then pulled a gun on them when the other kids took umbrage to the fact he's dragging around one of the kids.
The situation would be bad if it were a non-cop doing this, but it becomes a drastically different thing when it's a cop doing it.
d-usa wrote: And the other kids don't flank him or fight him until after he laid hands on the kid.
So again, to continue my unanswered question for the past 24 hours: should kids just let adults grab them and drag them because an adult said "I'm a cop"?
Depends. Is the guy saying it a cop?
If not, well there are laws against it.
If so, well there are laws against slamming the guy.
Which is the whole point you seem to be ignoring and that D-usa keeps bringing up.
From everything said/shown...he doesn't flash a badge and he isn't uniformed. Just told the kids he's a cop, grabbed one of them, and then the whole thing went to hell.
In no way, shape, or form should any LEO be trying to pull crap like this without identifying themselves properly. And given the fact that there have been instances of serial killers, rapists, et al using the "I'm a cop" line...not flashing a badge while out of uniform just screams "I don't need to do anything properly" on the part of this officer.
Common fething sense would dictate that if you're going to use the "I'm a cop" line, as a fething police officer, you would at least know that you should have your badge or ID visible. But common fething sense would also dictate to a police officer not to be manhandling kids and drawing a gun on them for "trespassing".
He did not draw a gun on them for trespassing. He drew the gun because he had been hit a couple times and was then flanked by a kid who reached for something.
The kids fought him because they were physically being attacked by an adult.
But maybe if he threw popcorn at their friend rather than grabbing him, they would have been justified in fighting back.
RiTides wrote: Well, that's where we differ then, clearly. I once had an adult I barely knew physically put their hands on my shoulder to keep me in place as a as a HS freshman. I was surrounded by my friends, as well, and felt he was out of line. Instead, we all waited until the incident was over, I told my parents, they looked him up and dealt with it.
To say kids should just attack an adult like that is 100% the wrong message, imo. Look at the video, it's a nice neighborhood, broad daylight, he's not taking him to a car or something... they were standing on the sidewalk. Yes, he wss probably way out of line, but to say yes, the kids SHOULD attack him is just nuts, imo.
Ah well, like I said, I just wonder where all the moderates have gone in discussions like this. The more I think about it, the more harshly I'd punish the police officer, but to say the kids acted correctly given what we see in the video (and not a hypothetical "what if your friend is being abducted") is just mind boggling to me.
I would imagine that in a school, surrounded by responsible adults who have authority over you, in a situation where the adult restraining you is likely calm, I would feel differently than in a street with an angry guy doing so.
Guy in this incident was pretty calm until the kids attacked him. He seemed more than willing to hold the kid until uniformed cops showed up. And it wasn't really 'in a street', it was in his own yard...
And why should any kid let any adult grab him?
I'm just going to start telling kids "I'm a cop" and then pull out my gun when they start fighting me.
He did not draw a gun on them for trespassing. He drew the gun because he had been hit a couple times and was then flanked by a kid who reached for something.
He's a cop. He shouldn't have been doing any of this gak and he knew it.
It's really that simple. Really. None of the "Oh he had been hit a couple of times and flanked by a kid who reached for something" is relevant.
Why is it not relevant?
Because if he wasn't being a massive twit, he wouldn't have to be worried about "being flanked by a kid who reached for something".
Ah well, like I said, I just wonder where all the moderates have gone in discussions like this. The more I think about it, the more harshly I'd punish the police officer, but to say the kids acted correctly given what we see in the video (and not a hypothetical "what if your friend is being abducted") is just mind boggling to me.
There's not really ground for "moderation" in a case like this.
A guy, who is supposed to be a law enforcement officer--[u]someone who is actually supposed to be trained to deescalate situations just like this and in many cases engage these kids not just with a firearm but with words[u]--chose to "detain" one of the kids, then pulled a gun on them when the other kids took umbrage to the fact he's dragging around one of the kids.
The situation would be bad if it were a non-cop doing this, but it becomes a drastically different thing when it's a cop doing it.
Here is how I would handle this with the dang kids whose dogs crap in my yard, if I really felt that strongly about this:
- Take a picture of the kids to identify them down the line.
- Go outside to talk to them.
- Identify myself as an LEO while showing them my credentials.
- Let them leave, since that fixes the whole "trespassing" thing.
- If they refuse, come back, or get mouthy, go back inside and call 911 to get uniformed cops who belong to this jurisdiction on scene to handle it. I have their picture and the police can identify them if needed, even if they are gone.
Tada: nobody is fighting, nobody is in any danger, I successfully got to pull the "I'm a LEO, respect my authority" card, and I got one more bullet to play at the range with rather than aerating my yard with it.
That's exactly how he should have handled it, we totally agree on that.
What we seem to disagree on is you (unlike Kanluwen above) saying the kids acted as they SHOULD have (your post in response to my question).
Imo, they absolutely did not, and that's where the disconnect comes in... I am against the proliferation of violence in this country as much as anyone, but that also means I think it's important to recognize that the kids acted out of line - everybody escalated the situation. While the adult should rightfully bear most of the responsibility, the kids are not innocent here, either.
I do wish you would stop linking to a completely separate thread - if you want to have a general discussion about the behavior people have when they are carrying guns, that's worth having, but most of us were trying to discuss this particular incident and what should have happened, etc.
Anyway, like I said earlier I think the adult is mostly to blame, so at this point maybe we're just splitting hairs . I'll bow out as I meant to, earlier...
RiTides wrote: D-usa, the opposite question can also be asked - should kids team up to attack an adult (who has identified himself as a police officer, no less) who is holding onto their friend's collar, or should they just wait there with him and call the police themselves?
As noted above, he isn't moving until they start attacking him. I still think he handled it terribly, but your question is a "yes/no", when the answer should be "neither acted as they should have in that situation".
You are right, however the kids are just a bunch of naughty kids while the adult is supposedly a mature, well-trained law enforcement operative. People ought to be able to expect better behaviour from him.
My understanding is that the OD LAPD cop had already called for police, and was detaining the kid who had threatened to shoot him until the uniformed police arrived. The kid obviously didn't want to wait for the police, and that is when things turned physical. Cue cameras.
Demanding the kid wait for the police is something that any citizen can do, placing the kid under citizen's arrest. And any reasonably necessary amount of force can be used (by anyone, citizen, officer, or otherwise) in order to detain that person.
The Officer grabbing the kid's backpack is entirely in line with that, using minimal necessary force in order to detain the kid.
The kids escalated which is why they were charged.
JohnHwangDD wrote: My understanding is that the OD LAPD cop had already called for police, and was detaining the kid who had threatened to shoot him until the uniformed police arrived. The kid obviously didn't want to wait for the police, and that is when things turned physical. Cue cameras.
Demanding the kid wait for the police is something that any citizen can do, placing the kid under citizen's arrest. And any reasonably necessary amount of force can be used (by anyone, citizen, officer, or otherwise) in order to detain that person.
The Officer grabbing the kid's backpack is entirely in line with that, using minimal necessary force in order to detain the kid.
The kids escalated which is why they were charged.
And whipping out the gun and discharging it, potentially killing a kid over a lawn? Is that OK? Are you seriously going to tell us all here that that pig was in the right?
The kid said he would sue him. The pig heard shoot him. He heard what he wanted to hear as an excuse to whip out the gun.
I can understand some idiot kids acting like idiots, even if they did wrong.
I cannot understand, nor accept, a trained police officer acting like that. Someone already said it here, so I won't elaborate further, but if you allow a bunch of kids to troll you to the point you end up firing a gun (intentionally or not) then you're not fit to be a cop, end of story.
Would someone really feel safe if such a cop were to be patrolling around their 'hood?
@FWC - go say "I'm going to shoot you" to a cop, and see where it goes. Later on, you can claim that you said "sue", but you'll be detained and taken to the station, first.
JohnHwangDD wrote: @FWC - go say "I'm going to shoot you" to a cop, and see where it goes. Later on, you can claim that you said "sue", but you'll be detained and taken to the station, first.
Wouldn't it be more apt to go up to a police officer and say "I'm going to sue you" in order to see how many mishear it for shoot?
But then again, I'm from the UK where the police officer would probably look at me funny and ask me if everything was alright if I were to say I was going to shoot him without having any visible weapon. Simply because most people who are planning to shoot someone do not announce it before they even draw their weapon.
JohnHwangDD wrote: My understanding is that the OD LAPD cop had already called for police, and was detaining the kid who had threatened to shoot him until the uniformed police arrived. The kid obviously didn't want to wait for the police, and that is when things turned physical. Cue cameras.
Demanding the kid wait for the police is something that any citizen can do, placing the kid under citizen's arrest. And any reasonably necessary amount of force can be used (by anyone, citizen, officer, or otherwise) in order to detain that person.
The Officer grabbing the kid's backpack is entirely in line with that, using minimal necessary force in order to detain the kid.
No it isnt, you can perform a citizens arrests and use non deadly force in order to detain someone for a crime.
Including Breach of Peace, or Threats, which was what many of these kids where doing. But it doesnt matter, because a cop,even off duty, has the ability to arrest and detain you until Uniformed police arrived. Guy was in the right until the gun was drawn, even the, being surrounded and assaulted, I think he was justified until the ND happened.
Imagine if this same scene played out, but with a uniformed officer.
Because, as one cop told me, you are always on duty.
The only thing that went wrong for the cop was the accidental discharge. When the other kid flanked him and went for a concealed weapon, the officer was fully justified in drawing his weapon.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No it isnt, you can perform a citizens arrests and use non deadly force in order to detain someone for a crime.
Including Breach of Peace, or Threats, which was what many of these kids where doing. But it doesnt matter, because a cop,even off duty, has the ability to arrest and detain you until Uniformed police arrived. Guy was in the right until the gun was drawn, even the, being surrounded and assaulted, I think he was justified until the ND happened.
Imagine if this same scene played out, but with a uniformed officer.
Because, as one cop told me, you are always on duty.
The line between "citizen arrest" and battery / kidnapping is thin. This is not advised.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No it isnt, you can perform a citizens arrests and use non deadly force in order to detain someone for a crime.
Including Breach of Peace, or Threats, which was what many of these kids where doing. But it doesnt matter, because a cop,even off duty, has the ability to arrest and detain you until Uniformed police arrived. Guy was in the right until the gun was drawn, even the, being surrounded and assaulted, I think he was justified until the ND happened.
Imagine if this same scene played out, but with a uniformed officer.
Because, as one cop told me, you are always on duty.
The line between "citizen arrest" and battery / kidnapping is thin. This is not advised.
Yeeeah, you can only use so much force to detain a person for a citizens arrest. He crossed way over that line. A citizens arrest does not mean you can do whatever you want to stop a person for a small infraction.
Further, as you are not a police officer, you are not shielded by legally or politically if you didn't have the needed minimum legal justification.
Further (even further baby!) case law and statute have determined that resisting a police officer is bad. if someone grabs someone else, there is no presumption there absent other color of law. Some "citizen" grabbing another citizen on the street sets up a very interesting situation when the citizen being grabbed tazes him right in the baby maker.
Whatever happened to stranger danger? We teaching kids to listen to anybody who says they are a cop without providing any sort of identification these days?
Frazzled wrote: case law and statute have determined that resisting a police officer is bad.
... if "bad" == illegal.
Let's be crystal clear that a citizen has NO legal or Constitutional right to resist arrest in California. Period. End of discussion. California Law is pretty broad and covers pretty much anything:
http://www.shouselaw.com/resisting-arrest.html
If a cop says, "I'm placing you under arrest", that's it, you're done. Once the arrest ball starts rolling, it does NOT stop. Afterward, yes, one can challenge the arrest. But NOT during the arrest, because that cop will bring as much force as they see fit, and that cop is explicitly authorized to use deadly force in making an arrest. He's got legal immunity and is basically untouchable.
The only thing you can do is place the cop under citizens arrest before he arrests you. He can't fight it once you told him he's under arrest, it's the law.
