Saw a man get tazed and arrested today

[Anthony]

Glad to see the 2A is alive and well at POA! The police are there to count the bodies, and file the reports, not to stop the crime, as the can not anticipate where/when the crime will occur. There are good and bad cops. I'd like to think more good than bad.

 

[Norman]

@Josh,

I know of one sergeant who came to work one morning high on cocaine. He was fired before lunch. Twenty years down the drain and NO chance to atone for his sin.

 

[PaulS]

I saw this on the news. They reported the guy ran through the security checkpoint. Supposedly he made it pretty far into the facility before he was finally stopped.

 

[EdFred]

I saw this on the news. They reported the guy ran through the security checkpoint. Supposedly he made it pretty far into the facility before he was finally stopped.

If you're gonna do that, you need a quick change of clothes. Like NBA warm-ups. Head into a rest room stall, strip em off, and walk out calmly.

 

[JB1842]

@Josh,

I know of one sergeant who came to work one morning high on cocaine. He was fired before lunch. Twenty years down the drain and NO chance to atone for his sin.

One of my former supervisors is about 4 years into a 18 year sentence for rape. A-hole was eligible for retirement and officially retired the week before his trial. Thank god his ex was able to get all his pension for alimony and child support.

 

[Lindberg]

In all fairness, I have said nothing bad about police here.

Nonsense. In your first post you said, "I was certain I was going to watch a murder right in front of me." So without having any idea why this man was being arrested, you were certain that the air marshal was going to kill him, and that it would qualify as murder. I'm not going to review the elements of the offense of murder, but you'd have to make some very bad assumptions about that air marshal to come to that conclusion. Based on nothing other than he's a cop.

So you hate cops. It's ok, everyone's got an opinion. No need to be coy about it.

 

[Corpsmaide]

Glad no officers were hurt. Stay safe

 

[SkyHog]

Nonsense. In your first post you said, "I was certain I was going to watch a murder right in front of me." So without having any idea why this man was being arrested, you were certain that the air marshal was going to kill him, and that it would qualify as murder. I'm not going to review the elements of the offense of murder, but you'd have to make some very bad assumptions about that air marshal to come to that conclusion. Based on nothing other than he's a cop.

So you hate cops. It's ok, everyone's got an opinion. No need to be coy about it.

The man was unarmed and had a gun pointed at him. I was taught, and practice, not pointing a weapon at something/someone I am not about to Destroy.

It is an obvious association that seeing a gun pointed at a man that was not cooperating could lead to his death. Because I saw the whole thing (and more than the FAM did), it would have been a "bad shoot."

Simple as that.

 

[RJM62]

The man was unarmed and had a gun pointed at him. I was taught, and practice, not pointing a weapon at something/someone I am not about to Destroy.

It is an obvious association that seeing a gun pointed at a man that was not cooperating could lead to his death. Because I saw the whole thing (and more than the FAM did), it would have been a "bad shoot."

Simple as that.

I really can't fault either the cops or the Air Marshal in this case IF the suspect actually crashed the gate. In that case, you can't just politely insist that he comply. He could have been carrying explosive on or in his person or otherwise been dangerous.

So IF he actually bypassed security and attempted to flee when detected, then in my opinion they had more than enough reason to suspect him of being a threat and acting accordingly; and if that's the case, then I think they did a superb job.

If that was NOT what happened, then I'd have to know all the details; but based on your video, it still looks to me like these two lawmen were professionals, as have been the vast majority of LEOs I've ever dealt with.

I don't hate cops. I love cops. I just hate when cops go bad.

Rich

 

[PeeGee]

Yes - because all or nothing is all we can have. Either have a bunch of crooked and murderous cops, or have anarchy. No in between.

Whatever we do let's not hold police accountable for their actions what so ever. Because that's working really well.

 

[paflyer]

Stay in your bubble, keep your head down, don't make waves, speak when spoken to, don't raise your voice, watch your Ps & Qs, sit quietly until you are called, trim your hair, mind your manners, and most of all - Respect Authority.

I just threw up in my mouth some.

Not a gonad to be found anywhere.

The 21st Century American Male.

 

[brien23]

@Josh,

I know of one sergeant who came to work one morning high on cocaine. He was fired before lunch. Twenty years down the drain and NO chance to atone for his sin.

 

[paflyer]

LOL. Balok

 

[paflyer]

Your legs aren't THAT unsteady after a tazing.

And you would know this how?

 

[paflyer]

All you cop haters, think what this country/state/town/ would be like with out them? Are you willing to leave your stuff at home unprotected while you work without any law? because with out enforcement, there is no law.

Yes, when I leave the house the local po po parks in my driveway until I get back. So happy my stuff is protected.

It's also great that they wait in the highway median checking for expired inspection stickers. Where would we be without all of that revenue? And with those new tag cameras, they record the comings and goings of every car. Safe from terrorists! Thank God for the Police!

 

[marcoseddi]

i love how the cleaning lady keeps vacuuming right in the background no care.!!

 

[weilke]

All you cop haters, think what this country/state/town/ would be like with out them?

Oh, that's easy: Pretty much like the western district of Baltimore.

 

[jbaker72157]

And you would know this how?

Can't account for how he knows, but I've been tased for the full ride and as soon as it's over you are good to go. Maybe a little jittery from adrenaline but that's about it.

Also on the OP'S post, the sound of a taser is more of a "POP ticktickticktickticktickticktickticktickticktickticktick"

 

[weilke]

Can't account for how he knows, but I've been tased for the full ride and as soon as it's over you are good to go.

Just as the video showed. For someone to not move after the taser is deactivated is for the fear of getting tased again. If, like the kid at LAX, you are psychotic and rational thought is not your thing, that doesn't work.

 

[SkyHog]

My dad asked, and I have no idea: what was the high pitched whine that started riggt when the taser was fired? It sounded to me like a building alarm, but I didn't think to investigate.

Does a taser make that sound?

 

[EppyGA]

My dad asked, and I have no idea: what was the high pitched whine that started riggt when the taser was fired? It sounded to me like a building alarm, but I didn't think to investigate.

Does a taser make that sound?

Capacitor in the taser recharging?

 

[jbaker72157]

My dad asked, and I have no idea: what was the high pitched whine that started riggt when the taser was fired? It sounded to me like a building alarm, but I didn't think to investigate.

Does a taser make that sound?

Negative, the only sounds produced are a pop sound which is the sound of the charge blowing the blast door off and launching the probes, then the rapid ticking sound of the electrical contacts arcing.

 

[Lindberg]

The man was unarmed and had a gun pointed at him. I was taught, and practice, not pointing a weapon at something/someone I am not about to Destroy.

Then you were taught wrong, which may explain your misunderstanding of the situation. Colonel Cooper's second rule is actually, "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy."

Being willing to shoot someone is not nearly the same thing as being about to shoot someone. I have no doubt that the FAM would have been willing to shoot that guy, even though he didn't look like he was about to.

While I'm a huge critic of the TSA and what we call "airport security," it is what it is. And I see no principled argument why someone who runs through the checkpoint and takes off shouldn't have guns pointed at him.

 

[weilke]

While I'm a huge critic of the TSA and what we call "airport security," it is what it is. And I see no principled argument why someone who runs through the checkpoint and takes off shouldn't have guns pointed at him.

Now that I have seen the earlier part of the incident on the Verne Troyer video, the cop was overly polite with the intruder. He had him stopped already in the hallway. When the intruder pulled loose after that, the time for 'Sir' should have been over and a much faster and aggressive response was warranted.

My problem with the TSA is that they are ineffective for the task to actually defend the airport against a committed attacker. They have been completely neutered in the scope of what they are allowed to do .It is ridiculous that they have to call for the police if someone jumps their checkpoint. Also, the airport facilities are not built in a way to resist an attack, for example the exit hallway just guarded by a TSO or rent-a-cop (late evenings) is impossible to defend against an intrusion. No physical facilities to stop someone who just walks past the TSO. I have been to european airports with what amounts to a sally-port in that exit hallway. You push past the sentinel, he can close off the hallway with the push of a button.

The security of our airports would be much improved if the screening was back in the hands of contractors and each checkpoint was backed up by at least two LEOs permanently stationed there. And no lectern and no i-pad either, your job is to guard the place, not to play candy-crush.

 

[Lindberg]

Now that I have seen the earlier part of the incident on the Verne Troyer video, the cop was overly polite with the intruder. He had him stopped already in the hallway. When the intruder pulled loose after that, the time for 'Sir' should have been over and a much faster and aggressive response was warranted.

My problem with the TSA is that they are ineffective for the task to actually defend the airport against a committed attacker. They have been completely neutered in the scope of what they are allowed to do .It is ridiculous that they have to call for the police if someone jumps their checkpoint. Also, the airport facilities are not built in a way to resist an attack, for example the exit hallway just guarded by a TSO or rent-a-cop (late evenings) is impossible to defend against an intrusion. No physical facilities to stop someone who just walks past the TSO. I have been to european airports with what amounts to a sally-port in that exit hallway. You push past the sentinel, he can close off the hallway with the push of a button.

The security of our airports would be much improved if the screening was back in the hands of contractors and each checkpoint was backed up by at least two LEOs permanently stationed there. And no lectern and no i-pad either, your job is to guard the place, not to play candy-crush.

You are 100% correct. But the TSOs at the checkpoints are not there to protect the airport. They're there to protect the airplanes (theoretically). The airport police and others are supposed to protect the airport. But airports are generally very soft targets, not much different than a shopping mall. And at some airports there quite a bit that not even behind security.

 

[TommyG]

The recording could also protect the police officer. If the citizen did something to provoke use of deadly force, that would help the officer justify his actions.

Absolutely it can, but in his words it was in case the guys family needed some proof the officers wrongdoing. Just saying Great mindset to have. Guess when he needs help he should call the someone else besides the police.

 

[TommyG]

In all fairness, I have said nothing bad about police here. I think the gun was a bit overkill to a non armed and subdued individual, but they did this the way they should have. Multiple warnings, multiple attempts to get the man to resign, then used nonlethal force as option 1.

If all events went this way, I suspect the majority of the public would have a much different opinion. The cops were good.

Ask NYPD officer Moore about not having a gun ready, oh wait you can't. He's dead. Probably because he was second guessing himself due to this kind of BS. Research that one, guy didn't have a gun, reached in his waistband, and surprise a gun. Maybe you should take a shooting scenario course like this civil rights leader who was very outspoken about police murdering unarmed people.

http://youtu.be/WRHCAUpdAc4

 

[denverpilot]

All you cop haters, think what this country/state/town/ would be like with out them? Are you willing to leave your stuff at home unprotected while you work without any law? because with out enforcement, there is no law.



It gets pretty frustrating when you see this type of sh-t every day, IMHO this perp. should have been shot right away. Bang, problem solved, 10 days off with pay, I'm good with that.

Poor example. All of our stuff absolutely is unprotected in most cities. We already covered this in the alarm system thread.

Property loss/damage? Here's a website. Fill out your own police report for your insurance company. We're busy.

Alarm system? Pay a ransom over and above your taxes, your false alarms are bothering us.

Etc. etc. etc.

Here's what the higher taxes in the big city buys these days...

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...eep-problems-within-denver-sheriff-department

Read the actual report linked if you dare. It's damn near unbelievable how bad the Denver Sheriff's Department is. For those unaware, the Sheriffs only run the jail and serve papers.

All LE work is already farmed out to Denver PD under a long term agreement, since there's no real unincorporated areas of the county.

All they had to do was run the jail. And they've utterly failed. Note the article recommends a number of "solutions" that will require more taxes.

 

[EdFred]

Then you were taught wrong, which may explain your misunderstanding of the situation. Colonel Cooper's second rule is actually, "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy."

Then us lowly civilians are taught differently than those with full citizen's rights. In fact it's against the law in some places.

 

[Lindberg]

Then us lowly civilians are taught differently than those with full citizen's rights. In fact it's against the law in some places.

What schools teach it differently? The NRA gives the rule as, "Always point the gun in a safe direction," without specifying what a "safe direction is." But that still doesn't preclude pointing the gun at a person who you're prepared to shoot, or at least at low ready.

I don't understand what you are saying is against the law.

 

[EdFred]

What schools teach it differently? The NRA gives the rule as, "Always point the gun in a safe direction," without specifying what a "safe direction is." But that still doesn't preclude pointing the gun at a person who you're prepared to shoot, or at least at low ready.

I don't understand what you are saying is against the law.

I can't find the exact code in the MCL right now, but here it is unlawful to point a weapon at someone - unless you're a police officer.

 

[FastEddieB]

I can't find the exact code in the MCL right now, but here it is unlawful to point a weapon at someone - unless you're a police officer.

I think that would only be illegal sans articulable justification.

In that case, in FL it would be an Aggravated Assault, since it puts the victim in fear of injury from a deadly weapon.

Other states may vary, of course.

As an aside, officers often get dispatched to calls where a subject is being detained at gunpoint by a citizen. In my experience, that's rarely a problem, with provisions in the law for "citizen's arrest" - as it should be.

 

[EdFred]

I think that would only be illegal sans articulable justification.

In that case, in FL it would be an Aggravated Assault, since it puts the victim in fear of injury from a deadly weapon.

Other states may vary, of course.

Well, as a non-officer I can't point a weapon at someone just because they won't listen to me (or someone else). Which is what we saw in the video.

 

[Anthony]

I can't find the exact code in the MCL right now, but here it is unlawful to point a weapon at someone - unless you're a police officer.

That is correct. The gun is not supposed to come out of the holster unless your life is in imminent danger. Pointing a gun at someone to make a point, even if you just intend to stop a perceived threat that is not yet life threatening, will get you arrested, and your gun rights revoked.

 

[EdFred]

That is correct. The gun is not supposed to come out of the holster unless your life is in imminent danger. Pointing a gun at someone to make a point, even if you just intend to stop a perceived threat that is not yet life threatening, will get you arrested, and your gun rights revoked.

There's a bit of wiggle room with that here. The gun can come out in some non-life threatening situations, but still not allowed to point it at the person. Like being mugged without the mugger having a weapon.

"Give me your wallet!"
"Sure, let me get it." (remove weapon)

Still can't point it at him and tell him to get lost though.

 

[Lindberg]

Well, as a non-officer I can't point a weapon at someone just because they won't listen to me (or someone else). Which is what we saw in the video.

That's all you saw in the video, huh?

 

[Clark1961]

There's a bit of wiggle room with that here. The gun can come out in some non-life threatening situations, but still not allowed to point it at the person. Like being mugged without the mugger having a weapon.

"Give me your wallet!"
"Sure, let me get it." (remove weapon)

Still can't point it at him and tell him to get lost though.

I'm sure that situation could get real interesting real fast from a legal standpoint in some states...property protection outside the home in Colorado is not reason to draw but even an unarmed person can present a threat of bodily injury

 

[FastEddieB]

There's a bit of wiggle room with that here. The gun can come out in some non-life threatening situations, but still not allowed to point it at the person. Like being mugged without the mugger having a weapon.

"Give me your wallet!"
"Sure, let me get it." (remove weapon)

Still can't point it at him and tell him to get lost though.

That strikes me as insane.

Though laws differ from state to state, I cannot imagine the victim of an attempted robbery ever being charged with a crime for using a firearm in self defense, including the pointing of that weapon at a perpetrator.

Read this:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

(Bolded mine)

Since "mugging" - actual strong-armed robbery - is a forcible felony, pointing a gun at a perpetrator is fully justified - in Florida, anyway!

 

[Clark1961]

That strikes me as insane.

Though laws differ from state to state, I cannot imagine the victim of an attempted robbery ever being charged with a crime for using a firearm in self defense, including the pointing of that weapon at a perpetrator.

Yup, the laws get a little insane...what exactly was the threat which required the person to defend themselves vs defending property? There has been some resolution with castle doctrine and stand your ground laws but it seems to me that it can be a quagmire if you're outside your home and the great bodily harm threat is arguable in the eyes of either LE, DA, or even an amulance chasing lawyer who hasn't eaten in a week.

edited to add 'great' in front of bodily harm since defining 'great' just adds to the legal fun

 

[Lindberg]

I can't find the exact code in the MCL right now, but here it is unlawful to point a weapon at someone - unless you're a police officer.

Maybe that's the case in Michigan. But it would surprise me. There's no provision like this in the Michigan code?

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.