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.

Right or wrong, he is one cop I would not want to pull me over.

So is the defense of this guy boil down to "He shot at nobody in self defense"? cuz lol

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.

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Cool man, nah I appreciate you pointing out my mistake.

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.

And pick up dates. I'd know. I'm a Navy Seal Lawyer.

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
And pick up dates. I'd know. I'm a Navy Seal Lawyer.

Serious, or just kidding? If serious, so awesome.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
And pick up dates. I'd know. I'm a Navy Seal Lawyer.

Serious, or just kidding? If serious, so awesome.

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.

(and one even feigning like he had a weapon in his pocket

Kids wearing skinny jeans.


seems more likely he was checking his phone hadn't fallen out after he jumped the hedge.

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"?

Absolutely not.

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.

 CptJake wrote:

 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".

 CptJake wrote:

 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.