Video of Bad stop of CCW holder in Ohio

[CelticSire]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CelticSire]

However, I do believe that inclination generally precludes them from being unbiased in a situation such as this.

That darn pesky human nature.

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.

I agree. But what would life be without a good deflection argument once in a while?

 

[CelticSire]

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.

That should actually have been worded doesn't really lose it, not really doesn't. He lost it early on, but he REALLY lost it when the gun came into it.

 

[safearm]

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.

While I'm in complete agreement with everyone else concerning the officer's unprofessional, and potentially criminal, behavior, I don't agree that the "victim's" behavior is unremarkable.

Perhaps if this same traffic stop occurred at noon in the downtown business district, the officer's reaction might have been different. But the circumstances of late night/early morning, in a known crime area, with involvement with individual(s) with a known, or at least suspected, criminal past, changes the demeanor of the stop from a cordial discussion, such as, "Please move along, you're parked in a No Parking Area," to something like, "Let me see some ID."

The time, location, and subjects involved, even though the "victim" had recently passed a background check that allowed him to own and carry a concealed weapon, has a tremendous influence on the manner in which the officer conducts the stop.

 

[photoman]

Perhaps if this same traffic stop occurred at noon in the downtown business district, the officer's reaction might have been different. But the circumstances of late night/early morning, in a known crime area, with involvement with individual(s) with a known, or at least suspected, criminal past, changes the demeanor of the stop from a cordial discussion, such as, "Please move along, you're parked in a No Parking Area," to something like, "Let me see some ID."

I understand your point. However, in this country we are to presume innocence. Talking to people like this officer did (we don't live in some third-world banana republic) only escalates the situation.

This whole episode is a classic example of why lawyers will tell their clients to SHUT UP! The driver, upon contact with the officer, should have given his driver's license, gun permit and notified the officer that he was carrying AND THEN NOT SAID ANOTHER WORD (especially if the driver was in the process of committing a crime). There is absolutely nothing one can say to an officer like that (major attitude) that will make things any better.

 

[Pinoy-Pirate]

Id like to see the video. Can someone pm me a link???

 

[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?

I apologize for reposting this but why was the driver left alone sitting in the car for 5-6 minutes? Seems like a very long time for this type of situation.

 

[Lost Lake]

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!!!!!!!!

Innocent until proven guilty!!!

Also, who gave the cop permission to enter the car? If he had enough reasonable suspicion, why were no arrests made? This is pure abuse of power and cannot be tolerated.

 

[The Big D]

As noted before, Mike, terrible tactics in addition to terrible interpersonal skills.

Seriously, I have rarely seen such a failure in professionalism.

That said, as abhorrent as was the officers' behavior, they didn't follow through on their threats. NO, THAT DOES NOT MITIGATE WHAT THEY DID DO!!!

But it could have been far worse. The Rodney King incident was far worse.

Be safe.

(Off to the Cubbies' game; won'y be able to check any comments 'til much later today.)

I apologize for reposting this but why was the driver left alone sitting in the car for 5-6 minutes? Seems like a very long time for this type of situation.

 

[Lost Lake]

I won't quote anyone but my take on the officer's actions AFTER finding the gun are a bit different than I would expect.

An officer in his right mind would first of all be cautious about guns, and probably ask if there are any weapons available immediately. I have been stopped for speeding and the Wisconsin cops ask this question, and we were a no-carry state!

Secondly, the man is standing with his hands in the air explaining there is a gun on his hip. He is not threatening in any way. The ONLY reason to get more excited at this point is because the officer is too good for our society, knows the rules too well, is tired of having to deal with those less intelligent than himself, a king having to deal with commoners. Now he has an excuse to really belittle the low-lifes (in his opinion) that he is forced to share the planet with. In fact he several times mentions he should severely punish these people and he says he has the power to end their life and would have no regrets.

I think if you watch the video with this thought in mind, that the officer is a super-human being and is disgusted with his chore of babysitting simple minded inferior folks, you will agree with me.

This is no man we want serving the public, and his attitude shows he should not have a gun at his disposal.

 

[PDL]

Since the cops knew it was a bad area, at night, and apparantly recognized the female and rear seat male; it was stupid of them not to remove and secure the driver before searching the car. Bad police work with a bad officer that escalated. The talking officer seemed to project a lousy, combative attitude from the start.

Today's update on the ohio ccw site says the officer was relieved of all duties in June. Doesn't say what up with him now.

To me his terroristic threats rose to the level of a crime. But at the very least, both officers should be on the unemployment rolls. And they should be banned from any law enforcement type job.

Edit to add:

Fox news just posted the story on it website. It includes a quote from the Canton Police Chief. Outlook don't look good for the officers.