Another rare occurrence

The old man wasn't presumed innocent by the officer was he, now? Let's be honest.

Again, we don't know the facts, so I'm not inclined to persecute either one at this point. You seem to be all on-board with crucifying the LEO before his side of the story is told. Your call. Don't get it twisted, I have met plenty of policemen who have the big badge, little wang problem. I have also known dozens more who are perfect examples of the type of person who should be wearing the badge. A few bad apples spoil the bunch, so let's see what happens when the officer's side of the story comes out. That's being honest.
 
Probably not behind bars, but definitely should have the DL revoked if this is his 2nd health-related incident. The cases where officers have been accused of using excessive force are still few and far between compared to the total number of incidents. Depending on the situation (who knows if the old guy was combative or tried to leave the scene), the use of force may have been justified. I have to imagine it would be extremely difficult to remain unbiased throughout a LEO career when it comes to dealing with certain situations. Every last move is scrutinized.

Trust me, more than likely he already had been told not to drive.
 
With your background in law enforcement, tell us how, in your expert opinion you'd have handled this? The old man committed no crime, but the cop did.

So with your bright(?) legal mind you're saying it's legit to make a citizen's arrest of a driver who is, in fact, not drunk and there is no evidence to support him being drunk? All you have is a disoriented 70 YO man involved in an auto accident. I think I can see why you changed careers.

You're an internet tough guy, but there are a lot of people out there I'd love to see you try to make a citizens arrest for a simple auto accident where they are in fact not drunk.

Actually the old man did commit a crime. In Vermont the specific wording is Driving off a road laned for traffic. I was charged with it when I ran off a road and hit a tree. I did not see anything about the cop arresting the guy but rather detaining him until local cops arrived. Big difference.
 
Destruction of private property isn't a crime . . . :rolleyes2:



Actually the old man did commit a crime. In Vermont the specific wording is Driving off a road laned for traffic. I was charged with it when I ran off a road and hit a tree. I did not see anything about the cop arresting the guy but rather detaining him until local cops arrived. Big difference.


Again, not worthy of the level of response.

What *actually* happens if he runs off? He'll be charged anyway and he won't be hard to find.

We live in a world where insurance is mandatory and police tell us to file our own traffic accident reports on their website.

I got hit in a hit and run last year. The dispatcher told me if I was okay, and couldn't read the temp tag in the window of the other car in the rain as they took off, not to block traffic and to drive myself to the nearby PD station to file a report.

I didn't even rate a cruiser. The cop at the station handed me a business card without his name on it that had the self-serve accident report website printed on the back and bid me a nice night.

Property damage isn't worthy of detaining him, really. Just a bored and angry cop showing off for his buddy.
 
Actually the old man did commit a crime. In Vermont the specific wording is Driving off a road laned for traffic. I was charged with it when I ran off a road and hit a tree. I did not see anything about the cop arresting the guy but rather detaining him until local cops arrived. Big difference.

And that makes it OK to assault a old man and try to suffocate him with you knee? Wow

Probably be safer to settle for lawlessness than risk "law enforcement"

"Frank why did you shoot that scumb bag old woman?"

"Well Bob, she parked over 19" from the curb"

"f'ing animals! Good shoot Frank"
 
Back
Top