off-duty LAPD cop detains threatening teen and discharges firearm in self defense!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
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.

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:
CptJake wrote:
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**

He was heated enough to grab a strange kid by the collar and drag him around.

**JohnHwangDD**

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**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
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.

**cuda1179**

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.

**JohnHwangDD**

feeder wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
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.

**Vaktathi**

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.

**cuda1179**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
feeder wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
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.

**slip**

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.

**timetowaste85**

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.

**BobtheInquisitor**

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.

**JohnHwangDD**

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?

**BobtheInquisitor**

Do we have proof of anything that happens before the video? It's all eyewitness statements.

**feeder**

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.

**JohnHwangDD**

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...

**LordofHats**

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**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
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.”

The officer shot him minutes later.

**JohnHwangDD**

slip wrote:
The officer shot him minutes later.

Except, nobody was shot.

If you're just making gak up, maybe you should step off.
____

LordofHats wrote:
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'.

**slip**

Shot at him, you're the one who didn't watch the video.

**KingCracker**

Wyrmalla wrote:
feeder wrote:
Wyrmalla wrote:
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

**JohnHwangDD**

You wrote:

slip wrote:
The officer shot him minutes later.

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.

**Prestor Jon**

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.

**slip**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
You wrote:

slip wrote:
The officer shot him minutes later.

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.

**Dreadwinter**

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.

**reds8n**

If some kid says "I'm going to shoot you", and you perceive it as a credible threat,

He looked really terrifying.

**CptJake**

slip wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
You wrote:

slip wrote:
The officer shot him minutes later.

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.

**d-usa**

He really shouldn't have been drawing it if he wasn't intending to shot the kids.

**CptJake**

Except the kid that flanked him reached as if he was going to pull something out.

**Dreadwinter**

CptJake wrote:
Except the kid that flanked him reached as if he was going to pull something out.

So he was going to draw his weapon but had no intent at shooting anybody?

I am confused here, you are sending some mixed signals.