Video of Bad stop of CCW holder in Ohio

[bushmaster1313]

I though it was urban legend till I watched the disturbing video:

[Edited video due to profanity]

Forum Rules (This includes video content)

1. We ask that you conduct yourselves as ladies and gentlemen. Civil Discourse and Courteous Behavior shall be the norm.
Do NOT post nudes here.
Do NOT post "girly" pics here or use them for avatars.
Obscene, vulgar, lewd, or ‘just plain crude’ language or images will not be tolerated. Images in the same vein or displaying such language will not be tolerated. If you cannot use it politely in mixed company or around YOUNGSTERS, please don’t use it here.
"Cre@t!ve sp&!!ing" of the words which the filter traps is forbidden.
Homophobia and gratuitous sexual references will NOT be tolerated.

[photoman]

1. That officer is in need of some serious help. The title implies that the officer went "berserk" after the failure to notify. Well, it's very clear that officer was WAY out of control before he ever even engaged the driver.

2. It amazes me that people still don't know that they should shut their trap once a stop "goes bad."

[cshoff]

Wow! I sure hope that both of those officers lose their jobs. Wow!

[27145]

On the last thread I was convinced the ccw guy was right, I am now getting a different picture now. Obviously he was loitering for the purpose of prostitution and or drugs. Not being those Cop's I do not know what they know. Apparently the Cop knows that the woman is a "known" prostitute.

The Cops have "reasonable suspicion" to stop question and frisk all parties. I believe the ccw guy was more nervous of possibly taking a "loitering for the purpose of prostitution" collar, so he became wimpy. The Cop was searching inside the car, the driver had ample opportunity to advise the Cop of his ccw. He just didn't want to speak up, because he wanted to avoid a collar.

The Cop was over the top with his rant, this is why the DA wanted to drop the whole case.

Amazingly, the site I originally read just stated he was in a "no parking" zone. They conveniently left out that he was loitering and engaging a "known pros".

I do not know why they were searching the car, if they weren't going to make a pros collar. An investigation would be needed to sort this all out. You cannot come to a conclusion by just this video.

It would help the ccw case if he posted his communion photos, maybe.

[thndrchiken]

It would appear as soon as the prosecutor sees the dash cam video the charges will be dropped most likely and the one officer will most likely lose his job and the other will be under administrative review. If I were that guy I would be bringing a massive civil suit against the department and the officers in question. You know they say a picture is worth a thousand words but wow that video is most definitely worth one P.O.'s job and possibly his partners as well. Most definitely could've been handled better.

[oldman45]

Originally Posted by 27145

On the last thread I was convinced the ccw guy was right, I am now getting a different picture now. Obviously he was loitering for the purpose of prostitution and or drugs. Not being those Cop's I do not know what they know. Apparently the Cop knows that the woman is a "known" prostitute.

The Cops have "reasonable suspicion" to stop question and frisk all parties. I believe the ccw guy was more nervous of possibly taking a "loitering for the purpose of prostitution" collar, so he became wimpy. The Cop was searching inside the car, the driver had ample opportunity to advise the Cop of his ccw. He just didn't want to speak up, because he wanted to avoid a collar.

The Cop was over the top with his rant, this is why the DA wanted to drop the whole case.

Amazingly, the site I originally read just stated he was in a "no parking" zone. They conveniently left out that he was loitering and engaging a "known pros".

I do not know why they were searching the car, if they weren't going to make a pros collar. An investigation would be needed to sort this all out. You cannot come to a conclusion by just this video.

It would help the ccw case if he posted his communion photos, maybe.

I am with you on this one. Just watched the video twice. Known hooker, lower part of town, middle of the night and other things.

How many people go looking for a job or info on a job in the middle of the night? How many people have a hooker stop them asking to be carried to get someone else (her pimp) and then park in the roadway.

Also, did someone catch what the "pimp" was carrying? I understood it to be either a push rod or a pipe but am not sure.

When I was first told about this case, I was told the man was pulled from the car because he was parked in a fire zone. I see now that was not the case.

Yes, the officer made mistakes and is a loose cannon. He should not have his job. But the officer has the permittee pegged right. He is dumb.

[The Big D]

Spot on, 27145.

Be safe.

Originally Posted by 27145

On the last thread I was convinced the ccw guy was right, I am now getting a different picture now. Obviously he was loitering for the purpose of prostitution and or drugs. Not being those Cop's I do not know what they know. Apparently the Cop knows that the woman is a "known" prostitute.

The Cops have "reasonable suspicion" to stop question and frisk all parties. I believe the ccw guy was more nervous of possibly taking a "loitering for the purpose of prostitution" collar, so he became wimpy. The Cop was searching inside the car, the driver had ample opportunity to advise the Cop of his ccw. He just didn't want to speak up, because he wanted to avoid a collar.

The Cop was over the top with his rant, this is why the DA wanted to drop the whole case.

Amazingly, the site I originally read just stated he was in a "no parking" zone. They conveniently left out that he was loitering and engaging a "known pros".

I do not know why they were searching the car, if they weren't going to make a pros collar. An investigation would be needed to sort this all out. You cannot come to a conclusion by just this video.

It would help the ccw case if he posted his communion photos, maybe.

[hatt]

Originally Posted by 27145

The Cop was over the top with his rant, this is why the DA wanted to drop the whole case.

So if I tell a local cop I should stick my gun in his mouth is that just "over the top?" Are you going to stick up for me?

[jimmyj]

WOW!
This whole scene can be "Picked Apart" both pro and con.
The officer was "Stressed" before the stop.
In my career shifts have gone from 8 hours, to 9 hours, to 10 hours, and now to 12 hours. I believe that 12 hour shifts are too long for patrol. I am thinking that this scene was at the end of these officers 12 hour shift.
Of course there is no excuse for the officer's conduct.
I can see "Law Suit" coming.

[walnutred]

Jimmyj,

I also suspect that some of the reaction was due to the LEO realizing how badly he’d messed up. Imagine if the driver NOT been a law abiding citizen who had passed a police background check in the last 30 days, as indicated by the new CCW. An actual criminal could easily have popped a cap on both officers while the car was being searched. Would you want someone so careless watching your back?

[ladder13]

I was never a cop, never walked in one's shoes, and don't know what their mindset is during a traffic stop other than wanting to go home at the end of their tour.
Question...why was the driver allowed to stay in the car for something like 5-6 minutes? Seems like they weren't paying too much attention to him, though the right side of the video was cut off and maybe the O2 was watching him. Comments?

[The Big D]

Tactics were poor...from what is seen in the video. But wonder why the driver didn't notify the officer who was in the car with him? Certainly ample opportunity then/there.

Not sure why the vehicle was being searched. Was there consent?

No, the officer's conduct is not acceptable by any professional standards.

That he conducted himself as he did whilst knowing he was on camera and being recorded begs many other questions.

Be safe.

[27145]

When you go out to pick up a pros or some dope, leave your cc weapon at home.

[Deltaboy]

Both LEO's need to be fired and have their abilty to be one revolked for the rest of their life.

[CelticSire]

Originally Posted by 27145

When you go out to pick up a pros or some dope, leave your cc weapon at home.

Are you kidding? Do you know what kind of neighborhoods you have to go into to get a pros or dope? You expect me to deal with skells while unarmed?

[mg357]

the officer's behavior was just awful they both need therapy and anger management training, and they need it asap. they also need a class on how to watch there language i have never heard so much vulgarity in my life for crying out.

[27145]

Originally Posted by CelticSire

Are you kidding? Do you know what kind of neighborhoods you have to go into to get a pros or dope? You expect me to deal with skells while unarmed?

Celtic? I thought the word "skell" was just NYPD jargon, I guess you guy's use that term also? Over the bridge in NJ, the Cop's there usually hadn't ever heard that term used

[Lost Lake]

Hey ChatPhil, can't we just have a disclaimer before the video stating there is vulgar language? We are all adults here, on a concealed weapon site, discussing an extremely important issue that could affect any of us and you pull an unprecedented video due to language?
Isn't this site trying to be a premier site for information and collaboration? Why strangle our information because of a 'bad word'?
Maybe I'm numb to swearing... I see kids wearing t-shirts at WalMart that say worse things than that cop said in the video....
I hope you reconsider. This video should be seen by every person here.....

[The Big D]

Originally Posted by CelticSire

Are you kidding? Do you know what kind of neighborhoods you have to go into to get a pros or dope? You expect me to deal with skells while unarmed?

[photoman]

Originally Posted by oldman45

I am with you on this one. Just watched the video twice. Known hooker, lower part of town, middle of the night and other things.

How many people go looking for a job or info on a job in the middle of the night? How many people have a hooker stop them asking to be carried to get someone else (her pimp) and then park in the roadway.

Also, did someone catch what the "pimp" was carrying? I understood it to be either a push rod or a pipe but am not sure.

When I was first told about this case, I was told the man was pulled from the car because he was parked in a fire zone. I see now that was not the case.

Yes, the officer made mistakes and is a loose cannon. He should not have his job. But the officer has the permittee pegged right. He is dumb.

Stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places doesn't give the police officer the right to conduct himself the way he did. I agree with you, the officer should find another line of work (after being fired from this one).

[photoman]

Originally Posted by walnutred

Jimmyj,

I also suspect that some of the reaction was due to the LEO realizing how badly he’d messed up. Imagine if the driver NOT been a law abiding citizen who had passed a police background check in the last 30 days, as indicated by the new CCW. An actual criminal could easily have popped a cap on both officers while the car was being searched. Would you want someone so careless watching your back?

Although the officer was already extremely agitated before his contact with the driver, I think you have a very good point walnutred. This guy totally screwed up the stop and took it out on the driver.

[photoman]

Originally Posted by 27145

When you go out to pick up a pros or some dope, leave your cc weapon at home.

Are you kidding?! If there ever was a time to need a gun, that would be it. LOL

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Originally Posted by Lost Lake

Hey ChatPhil, can't we just have a disclaimer before the video stating there is vulgar language? We are all adults here, on a concealed weapon site, discussing an extremely important issue that could affect any of us and you pull an unprecedented video due to language?
Isn't this site trying to be a premier site for information and collaboration? Why strangle our information because of a 'bad word'?
Maybe I'm numb to swearing... I see kids wearing t-shirts at WalMart that say worse things than that cop said in the video....
I hope you reconsider. This video should be seen by every person here.....

I appreciate your asking, but the video does not meet Forum standards.

Thanks

[Sportsterguy]

Originally Posted by jimmyj

WOW!
This whole scene can be "Picked Apart" both pro and con.
The officer was "Stressed" before the stop.
In my career shifts have gone from 8 hours, to 9 hours, to 10 hours, and now to 12 hours. I believe that 12 hour shifts are too long for patrol. I am thinking that this scene was at the end of these officers 12 hour shift.
Of course there is no excuse for the officer's conduct.
I can see "Law Suit" coming.

Deservedly so IMO. He should be stripped of his badge and sent to the curb.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by oldman45

I am with you on this one. Just watched the video twice. Known hooker, lower part of town, middle of the night and other things.

How many people go looking for a job or info on a job in the middle of the night? How many people have a hooker stop them asking to be carried to get someone else (her pimp) and then park in the roadway.

Also, did someone catch what the "pimp" was carrying? I understood it to be either a push rod or a pipe but am not sure.

When I was first told about this case, I was told the man was pulled from the car because he was parked in a fire zone. I see now that was not the case.

Yes, the officer made mistakes and is a loose cannon. He should not have his job. But the officer has the permittee pegged right. He is dumb.

Unfortunately for the officer(s) involved, being "dumb" and talking to a prostitute is not against the law. It sounds like the only real violation that took place by the citizen MIGHT have been "parking in a no parking zone".

On the other hand, the LEO violated the man's rights (he suppressed his free speech and prevented him from complying with the "duty to inform" law, he threatened to beat the prostitute ("I'm going to put lumps on you"), threatened to beat the man ("I am so close to caving in your [expletive removed] head"), threatens to unlawfully stop him and tow his car in the future ("I see this car.....I'm gonna pull it over, tow it, and you're going to jail every time"), and threatened to kill the man ("I should have.......pulled my Glock 40 and put 10 bullets in your [expletive removed] and let you drop"). I would say the possible parking violation is very minor compared to the rash of violations committed by these officers.

[MajorDude]

I found this video on Ohioans for Concealed Carry. I understand it's removal from this site for the officer's vulgarity. I certainly hope that this officer is not representative of the Canton, or any other police force. His brutality towards a citizen was completely unwarranted in my opinion and I sincerely hope that there is no prosecutor foolish enough to try to bring felony charges against this man, especially with taxpayer dollars. For this officer to threaten to use his duty weapon in his rage is absolutely unforgivable. This man was not a suspect of anything and appeared to have his permit in his hand the whole time.

[27145]

Originally Posted by cshoff

Unfortunately for the officer(s) involved, being "dumb" and talking to a prostitute is not against the law. It sounds like the only real violation that took place by the citizen MIGHT have been "parking in a no parking zone".

On the other hand, the LEO violated the man's rights (he suppressed his free speech and prevented him from complying with the "duty to inform" law, he threatened to beat the prostitute ("I'm going to put lumps on you"), threatened to beat the man ("I am so close to caving in your [expletive removed] head"), threatens to unlawfully stop him and tow his car in the future ("I see this car.....I'm gonna pull it over, tow it, and you're going to jail every time"), and threatened to kill the man ("I should have.......pulled my Glock 40 and put 10 bullets in your [expletive removed] and let you drop"). I would say the possible parking violation is very minor compared to the rash of violations committed by these officers.

The "Victim" was loitering for the purpose of engaging prostitution. He had plenty of time to tell the Cop who was searching the car he had a ccw.


I call Shennanigans!!!!!!!!

[NKJ nut]

Originally Posted by cshoff

Unfortunately for the officer(s) involved, being "dumb" and talking to a prostitute is not against the law. It sounds like the only real violation that took place by the citizen MIGHT have been "parking in a no parking zone".

On the other hand, the LEO violated the man's rights (he suppressed his free speech and prevented him from complying with the "duty to inform" law, he threatened to beat the prostitute ("I'm going to put lumps on you"), threatened to beat the man ("I am so close to caving in your [expletive removed] head"), threatens to unlawfully stop him and tow his car in the future ("I see this car.....I'm gonna pull it over, tow it, and you're going to jail every time"), and threatened to kill the man ("I should have.......pulled my Glock 40 and put 10 bullets in your [expletive removed] and let you drop"). I would say the possible parking violation is very minor compared to the rash of violations committed by these officers.

So it begs the question; "Who is the REAL criminal here? Is it the man who was illegally parked and who talked to a prostitute? Or is it the one who threatened assault and murder?

.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by 27145

Chris, you are not a Cop and you are not a lawyer, and you are not a judge, I do believe you are totally unqualified to opine on what the "victim" is guilty of or not guilty of.

And a "cop", especially a bad one such as in this video, is somehow "qualified"? Sorry, Charlie, but that dog doesn't hunt. One not need to be a LEO, lawyer, or judge to make a valid opinion on "guilty" or "innocent". In fact, a jury is generally tasked with making such decisions and I dare say that the vast (overwhelming) majority of jurors are NOT LEO, lawyers, or judges. I learned a long time ago that when it comes to legal matters, LEO's are generally the LAST people you would ever want to take advice from.

On that note, I find it very unlikely that another LEO could look at this video without bias in the "officer's" favor (which has been proven several times throughout this thread). You folks, for better or worse, are real good about covering for each other. It's what you do. Heck, just look at this guys "partner" who stood around and did nothing as officer "hot head" violated this mans rights and threatened his life and limb. Never even bothered to take him aside and tell him to cool it.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by NKJ nut

So it begs the question; "Who is the REAL criminal here? Is it the man who was illegally parked and who talked to a prostitute? Or is it the one who threatened assault and murder?

.

Well, it's just my opinion, but if a law was broken (parking violation), then the driver is at least guilty of an infraction. Talking to a prostitute, sans any evidence that a solicitation was made, isn't a crime. The cop, on the other hand, did something that would almost certainly result in jail time for you or me if we would have done the same.

[27145]

Please don't have a ccw when you make a trip to engage a pros or buy some drugs.

[27145]

I will state that the cop's statements were over the top and he should be disciplined for it, but please, please don't jerk me and tell me the victims name is Snow White. I will also state he failed to notify the cop's.

[ladder13]

Deja Vu

[27145]

Ladder, you are a jerk

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by 27145

Ladder, you are a jerk

Thank you, I've been told that.

[27145]

Originally Posted by 27145

I will state that the cop's statements were over the top and he should be disciplined for it, but please, please don't jerk me and tell me the victims name is Snow White. I will also state he failed to notify the cop's.

And what about my statement Chris?

[snowman]

Originally Posted by cshoff

Due to your line of work, it would be nearly impossible for you to be subjective in your evaluation of this scenario.

Sir,

Did you intend to say objective? Just trying to prevent misunderstanding here.

Carry on, gentlemen.
Andy

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by 27145

And what about my statement Chris?

What about it? You look at the video and you assume the driver is guilty of SOMETHING, yet absent any valid proof (not just a hunch), he is supposed to be presumed INNOCENT.

Yes, like you, I have a "hunch" that the guy was up to no good. The circumstances surrounding the situation are entirely too "fishy" to think that there probably wasn't something else going on. However, the video is the only accurate account of the situation that I am aware of and after viewing it 3 times, I've yet to see any proof that the guy did anything criminal.

As to your statement, I agree with you. The actions of these "officers" (and I use that word VERY loosely), were over the top and they should be disciplined for it. In addition, I'll go one step further and say that their actions APPEAR to be criminal and they should be prosecuted for them.

[walnutred]

Originally Posted by 27145

I will state that the cop's statements were over the top and he should be disciplined for it, but please, please don't jerk me and tell me the victims name is Snow White. I will also state he failed to notify the cop's.

However remember that according to the video his CCW was only around a month old. That means the fairly recently he HAD passed a police background check. You're assuming the woman is a pros based solely on the accusations of a LEO who otherwise shows consistently poor judgment.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by snowman

Sir,

Did you intend to say objective? Just trying to prevent misunderstanding here.

Carry on, gentlemen.
Andy

Yes. Objective. Thank you.

[CelticSire]

Originally Posted by cshoff

On that note, I find it very unlikely that another LEO could look at this video without bias in the "officer's" favor (which has been proven several times throughout this thread).

Unlikely, but true. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Originally Posted by cshoff

You folks, for better or worse, are real good about covering for each other. It's what you do.

Not unlike lawyers, doctors, and most any other profession. Not saying it's right; it isn't if covering means collusion in an illegal act. But it is a fact of life, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by cshoff

Heck, just look at this guys "partner" who stood around and did nothing as officer "hot head" violated this mans rights and threatened his life and limb. Never even bothered to take him aside and tell him to cool it.

Minus the beating, very similar to Rodney King.

And now, back to the original statement. I have watched the video through several times, objectively, with the mindset of a LEO, a private citizen, and a potential juror. As a private citizen, I would be appalled and angry at the behavior of some who took an oath to "protect and serve". Not a lot of either going on. As a potential juror, I would be astonished at the lack of professionalism and ethical behavior on the part of both officers, especially the primary. Now, for the crux of the matter. As a LEO, I understand the officer's reaction. I'm not saying it is right, nor am I saying I agree with it. I'm saying I understand it. I've been there, late night/early morning stop, multiple suspects in an area known for high crime, etc. Here is what I believe led to this going down the way it did. Primary officer makes a suspicious vehicle contact on two males talking with a female he knows from experience is a prostitute (giving the benefit of the doubt that she is, as stated) in an area known for such activity. Driver seems compliant, passenger in back seems compliant, female is cooperative, all is going well. Frisk the car for officer safety concerns before continuing. If you watch the video, the officer really doesn't lose it until he finds out driver has a weapon. Why? I suspect an adrenaline dump. Adrenaline level is way up, things are seeming to go okay, level just starts to come down, weapon is introduced into situation: WHAM! Large amounts of adrenalin released into bloodstream. Yes, it happens, it's well documented. So, as I said, I understand it. Do I agree with the way the officer let it affect his actions? Not at all. Do I think it is an excuse for his behavior? Not in any way, shape or form. But, unlike the private citizen and potential juror mindsets, the LEO mindset understands how it could happen and cause an officer to behave in a completely uncharacteristic manner, because we've been there. Yes, most LEOs are trained on this, taught how to deal with it, etc. But, when it happens to you, occasionally it takes over before you can get it in check. I think that's where most non-LEO people find conflict: just because a fellow LEO says he understands why the officer acted the way he did, they think that means we're agreeing with him. No, we don’t, but under our breath we utter "there but for the grace of God..." because we understand just how quickly such a situation can develop.

[CelticSire]

Originally Posted by 27145

Celtic? I thought the word "skell" was just NYPD jargon, I guess you guy's use that term also? Over the bridge in NJ, the Cop's there usually hadn't ever heard that term used

Down here the common term is "hook", but I figured I'd use a term you'd be familiar with. Easier than hiring a translator to turn Texan into whatever the heck it is youse guys speak up dere.

[27145]

I should start a thread on police jargon, I would be interested. How did you hear about skell? One of the guys I worked with had a brother who was a Dallas PO, maybe that is the link?

[CelticSire]

Originally Posted by 27145

I should start a thread on police jargon, I would be interested. How did you hear about skell? One of the guys I worked with had a brother who was a Dallas PO, maybe that is the link?

First tour in Iraq I was assigned to a unit from NJ, but about half the unit was NYPD.

[27145]

Damn, Iraq, I salute you! I retired at 40, when I became 43 they announced they would take people up to 42. I wish i could have gone, even though I don't agree with the rules of engagement.

When I was in HS I wanted to join the military or become a Cop. The military was just recovering from the downsize of the Carter years, so I wanted no part of it, so i took the test for the PD. I passed and took jobs until I got hired 2 weeks after I turned 20.

Thank you for your service Celtic.

[27145]

You call a skell a hook. In NYPD a hook gets you a detail you want.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Gentlemen,

I've deleted some postings in this thread.

Please do not pollute the Forum with personal bickering.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by CelticSire

Unlikely, but true. I'll get back to that in a minute.



Not unlike lawyers, doctors, and most any other profession. Not saying it's right; it isn't if covering means collusion in an illegal act. But it is a fact of life, unfortunately.

Absolutely. And I'm not saying that it is a bad thing, hence my words, "for better or worse". Frankly, in most cases, the fact that police officers have each others backs is a GOOD thing. However, I do believe that inclination generally precludes them from being unbiased in a situation such as this.

Minus the beating, very similar to Rodney King.

And now, back to the original statement. I have watched the video through several times, objectively, with the mindset of a LEO, a private citizen, and a potential juror. As a private citizen, I would be appalled and angry at the behavior of some who took an oath to "protect and serve". Not a lot of either going on. As a potential juror, I would be astonished at the lack of professionalism and ethical behavior on the part of both officers, especially the primary. Now, for the crux of the matter. As a LEO, I understand the officer's reaction. I'm not saying it is right, nor am I saying I agree with it. I'm saying I understand it. I've been there, late night/early morning stop, multiple suspects in an area known for high crime, etc. Here is what I believe led to this going down the way it did. Primary officer makes a suspicious vehicle contact on two males talking with a female he knows from experience is a prostitute (giving the benefit of the doubt that she is, as stated) in an area known for such activity. Driver seems compliant, passenger in back seems compliant, female is cooperative, all is going well. Frisk the car for officer safety concerns before continuing. If you watch the video, the officer really doesn't lose it until he finds out driver has a weapon. Why? I suspect an adrenaline dump. Adrenaline level is way up, things are seeming to go okay, level just starts to come down, weapon is introduced into situation: WHAM! Large amounts of adrenalin released into bloodstream. Yes, it happens, it's well documented. So, as I said, I understand it. Do I agree with the way the officer let it affect his actions? Not at all. Do I think it is an excuse for his behavior? Not in any way, shape or form. But, unlike the private citizen and potential juror mindsets, the LEO mindset understands how it could happen and cause an officer to behave in a completely uncharacteristic manner, because we've been there. Yes, most LEOs are trained on this, taught how to deal with it, etc. But, when it happens to you, occasionally it takes over before you can get it in check. I think that's where most non-LEO people find conflict: just because a fellow LEO says he understands why the officer acted the way he did, they think that means we're agreeing with him. No, we don’t, but under our breath we utter "there but for the grace of God..." because we understand just how quickly such a situation can develop.

I understand the adrenalin dump just fine and absolutely agree that is probably what happened. I believe it is pretty plain to see on the video. In reality, most people, whether LEO or not, have experienced this natural physiological response at some point in their lives during a high-stress situation.

My earlier contention wasn't with the fact that people can look at this officer's behavior and understand it. My issue was with the deflection from his behavior, to the behavior of the driver. "He was talking to a prostitute". So what? "It was late at night". So what? None of that matters as it relates (or doesn't relate) to the unlawful behavior of the officer.

[Engine 21]

Whether you agree with the LEO's conduct or not ask yourself do I want this man serving in my cities' government?

Better yet - since the ultimate determination will be a jury - what violations of the law have been committed?

I would hazard a guess the jury will not be swayed by excuses of adrenline, stress, et al. What they will hear is the history and work record of these officers from both the prosecution and the rebuttal from the defense.It won't be pretty as IMO the primary officer has a history of this behavior. As I say, I don't know for sure but he is exhibiting that he has done this before. The telling part is the second officer who is undisturbed by the primary officers' conduct. He is apparently use to it and takes it in stride.

The potential "perps" are most likely up to some sort of criminal activity and could have very well been, and should have been properly investigated further. But regardless it does not justify the officers' conduct. He should consider himself lucky if just gets fired and sued and not charged with felonies or federal civil rights violations.

[photoman]

Originally Posted by CelticSire

If you watch the video, the officer really doesn't lose it until he finds out driver has a weapon.

Officer 45 is exhibiting ~major~ sierra alpha attitude from word one. Granted he doesn't start into his "rant" until after the gun issue comes up, but his verbal methods do everything possible to escalate the situation from the very beginning.