Air fresheners are illegal in Minnesota

#626
#626
lawgator1 said:
Exactly.

The problem is the effort to collectivize these incidents as though the fact that the person ultimately injured is black means they are the same situation. Absolutely not.

For example, putting a knee on someone's neck for 9 minutes is far different than in the heat of the moment firing a gun thinking its a taser. One has plenty of time to reflect on what he's doing. The other is reacting in seconds to an evolving situation.

The fact that both men are black is literally the only similarity. But the anti cop element of the left wants to ignore those differences simply to promote the agenda that policing is racist.

I'm not naive. There are certainly common elements in SOME cases. But if the distinctions that are meaningful aren't drawn, then that tends to minimize the occasions when it really does matter.
Click to expand...

One thing I'd like to add to this (could be unrelated, I didn't see her duty belt setup)

But any department that would allow a Taser on the same side as a firearm should seriously have their head examined. They make a cross draw Taser holster for that very reason. In the heat of the moment, an officer can mistakingly pull their firearm instead of an LTL device.

Again, I don't know if this is the case, but if she was allowed to carry the device on her strong side, that entire department was wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Rickyvol77
#627
#627
Grand Vol said:
One thing I'd like to add to this (could be unrelated, I didn't see her duty belt setup)

But any department that would allow a Taser on the same side as a firearm should seriously have their head examined. They make a cross draw Taser holster for that very reason. In the heat of the moment, an officer can mistakingly pull their firearm instead of an LTL device.

Again, I don't know if this is the case, but if she was allowed to carry the device on her strong side, that entire department was wrong.
Click to expand...
Agree and no matter what, this and the male officer's failure to handcuff quickly is a serious indictment on this department's training and FTO programs
 
#629
#629
hUTch2002 said:
Dude, what has happened to you?
Click to expand...


I deal with the after-effects of this improper and illogical equating of cases all day long, very day. Its very frustrating to me that both sides of this debate want to take the one or two things in common with them to weave an overall narrative when even a cursory examination of the facts reveals they are different at a fundamental level.

Example: People lumping in the Floyd case, or the recent Wright shooting case near there, with the traffic stop gone awry of the US Army officer in Virginia.

The right: They failed to comply and that is what caused the problem.

The left: They were black men mistreated by the police who are racist.

The defect in the reasoning of the right is that Wright violently resisted arrest during his traffic stop, justifying one degree of force; Floyd resisted his arrest at a low level, but then stopped, and the Army officer did the wrong thing by defying the traffic stop and then repeatedly refusing lawful orders to get out of the vehicle, which in my view justified the use of OC spray and in fact his case is really not about use of force, at all.

Each case was a different use of force, in response to different resistance, over different periods of time. You cannot say simply:"They should not have resisted" because its is more complicated than that.

The defect in the reasoning of the left is ultimately similar. Floyd resisted for a time, but then stopped and force was still intentionally used over a period of time. In the case of Wright, the officer reacted to a sudden and urgent situation thrust upon the officers when Wright escaped lawful arrest on the warrant, struggled to get away, and got back in the car. That officer had maybe 2 seconds to react, not nine minutes. And the Army officer did just about everything wrong. His claim has no merit at all, as far as I can see.


But in the end, as long as people pick and choose the details they like to weave a story, divorced from the full context of each situation, then that argument is due no weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, NEO, volinbham and 1 other person
#630
#630
Grand Vol said:
One thing I'd like to add to this (could be unrelated, I didn't see her duty belt setup)

But any department that would allow a Taser on the same side as a firearm should seriously have their head examined. They make a cross draw Taser holster for that very reason. In the heat of the moment, an officer can mistakingly pull their firearm instead of an LTL device.

Again, I don't know if this is the case, but if she was allowed to carry the device on her strong side, that entire department was wrong.
Click to expand...

And it contributed to the negligence and there will have to be a payment. But does not mean that, for example, if the officer used the taser then that would have been wrong.

The error was not in using the force she intended, it was that she accidentally in the instant she had to react, used the wrong force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chatsworth_vol, NorthDallas40 and AM64
#631
#631
lawgator1 said:
And it contributed to the negligence and there will have to be a payment. But does not mean that, for example, if the officer used the taser then that would have been wrong.

The error was not in using the force she intended, it was that she accidentally in the instant she had to react, used the wrong force.
Click to expand...

I think we're in agreement. My point is she allegedly thought she was holding a Taser. My point (and I've seen it before) is if the handgun and Taser are on the same side (instead of a cross draw) this kind of thing becomes far more likely in the heat of the moment. You want to subdue a suspect/perp and your Taser goes bang instead.

Having the LTL option that is shaped like a pistol on the opposite side from the firearm and proper training helps prevent this. Again, I'm not sure if this was the case (it's likely it is) but as a general rule of thumb, one should never carry two similar shaped objects in the same side.

It's like departments that carry shotguns with both LTL and regular loads in patrol cars. It's an accident waiting to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and AM64
#632
#632
AM64 said:
We need to demilitarize cops - back way up from the 9/11 kneejerk reaction that started an even more toxic culture in police departments. It's a tough job, not one I'd want, and apparently too many people become cops for the power trip. I'd start with cars brightly painted in the yellow and blue style like Europeans, and the reflective uniforms used there, too. Less equipment on the belt might help with the misidentification of weapons.

Another great example is the traffic stop of an Army LT in uniform in VA. I'd argue that his one transgression other than possibly speeding or whatever got their attention was the temporary tag behind a too tinted rear window. Other than that, he drove to a lighted spot and stopped, and the cops handled it completely wrong from there. No excuses for that kind of performance. The cops acted like rabid pit bulls.

View attachment 361963
Click to expand...
Wow. I hadn’t seen the VA thing yet. I just watched the video and that’s crazy. That cop was definitely way over the line in many ways. Now he has lost his job, will likely struggle to find work anywhere, and has done a lot of damage to his local department and city. One thing that needs to happen in some way is some kind of assessment to try and ascertain a person’s demeanor. Cops have to be patient, level-headed, and more. They have to know they’re going to meet resistance, anger, confusion, and everything else and be able to handle it. Certain people are cut out for it and others aren’t. It’s like being a Special Ed teacher. Not everyone has the right mindset and demeanor to do that job and it can have very bad consequences if you have the wrong person in that role. The same is true of police officers. I don’t know what the right answer is but, as I believe someone posted in one of these threads, we’ve all experienced cops on a power trip at some point. That kind of personality has to be rooted out and hopefully never hired in the first place going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#633
#633
hUTch2002 said:
That kind of personality has to be rooted out and hopefully never hired in the first place going forward.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the way law enforcement as a whole has been demonized, being more selective isn't really going to be in the cards at the moment.

Trust me, I agree with you on principle, but it's not going to get any better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and Ttucke11
#634
#634
Grand Vol said:
One thing I'd like to add to this (could be unrelated, I didn't see her duty belt setup)

But any department that would allow a Taser on the same side as a firearm should seriously have their head examined. They make a cross draw Taser holster for that very reason. In the heat of the moment, an officer can mistakingly pull their firearm instead of an LTL device.

Again, I don't know if this is the case, but if she was allowed to carry the device on her strong side, that entire department was wrong.
Click to expand...

pretty sure I saw a picture of her (not from this incident) and her tazer is holstered on her left. It's also bright yellow.

hard to see how she made this mistake quite frankly.
 
#637
#637
lawgator1 said:
I deal with the after-effects of this improper and illogical equating of cases all day long, very day. Its very frustrating to me that both sides of this debate want to take the one or two things in common with them to weave an overall narrative when even a cursory examination of the facts reveals they are different at a fundamental level.

Example: People lumping in the Floyd case, or the recent Wright shooting case near there, with the traffic stop gone awry of the US Army officer in Virginia.

The right: They failed to comply and that is what caused the problem.

The left: They were black men mistreated by the police who are racist.

The defect in the reasoning of the right is that Wright violently resisted arrest during his traffic stop, justifying one degree of force; Floyd resisted his arrest at a low level, but then stopped, and the Army officer did the wrong thing by defying the traffic stop and then repeatedly refusing lawful orders to get out of the vehicle, which in my view justified the use of OC spray and in fact his case is really not about use of force, at all.

Each case was a different use of force, in response to different resistance, over different periods of time. You cannot say simply:"They should not have resisted" because its is more complicated than that.

The defect in the reasoning of the left is ultimately similar. Floyd resisted for a time, but then stopped and force was still intentionally used over a period of time. In the case of Wright, the officer reacted to a sudden and urgent situation thrust upon the officers when Wright escaped lawful arrest on the warrant, struggled to get away, and got back in the car. That officer had maybe 2 seconds to react, not nine minutes. And the Army officer did just about everything wrong. His claim has no merit at all, as far as I can see.


But in the end, as long as people pick and choose the details they like to weave a story, divorced from the full context of each situation, then that argument is due no weight.
Click to expand...

I just liked this post.

World has gone mad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#641
#641
Rickyvol77 said:
i've had the rabbit hole discussion with you before, but what "gun laws" are you referring to? Felony possession of a weapon with intent to go armed, stolen firearm, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment? Those are the only "gun laws" i've ever arrested anyone for
Click to expand...
I thought I had said whatever gun laws we had before 1986.
 
#644
#644
C-south said:
What absurd laws? Expired tags? Reckless driving? Running red lights/stop signs? The laws aren’t the problem it’s the lawless idiots on the other end.
Click to expand...

Hypothetical: What's the downside of pulling someone over for expired tags and stopping at that violation. Forget the "this person has a warrant from 3 years ago on stealing beer from a convenience store so let's bring him in" or the "outstanding warrant for drug possession". Write the citation for the tags. Make a note of the make, model, address etc of the person and hand that off to other cops if the department wants to go after the person in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tastylicks
#645
#645
volinbham said:
Hypothetical: What's the downside of pulling someone over for expired tags and stopping at that violation. Forget the "this person has a warrant from 3 years ago on stealing beer from a convenience store so let's bring him in" or the "outstanding warrant for drug possession". Write the citation for the tags. Make a note of the make, model, address etc of the person and hand that off to other cops if the department wants to go after the person in the future.
Click to expand...


That just seems completely absurd to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ttucke11
#647
#647
volinbham said:
Hypothetical: What's the downside of pulling someone over for expired tags and stopping at that violation. Forget the "this person has a warrant from 3 years ago on stealing beer from a convenience store so let's bring him in" or the "outstanding warrant for drug possession". Write the citation for the tags. Make a note of the make, model, address etc of the person and hand that off to other cops if the department wants to go after the person in the future.
Click to expand...
Because of lawyers departments will be liable if that person then goes and robs, kills, assaults etc right after this encounter. And because criminals would never be apprehended and run every single time causing more dangerous situations
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#648
#648
Rickyvol77 said:
Because of lawyers departments will be liable if that person then goes and robs, kills, assaults etc right after this encounter. And because criminals would never be apprehended and run every single time causing more dangerous situations
Click to expand...

How are you liable for an act that hasn't been committed?

I'd say you'd run less since the stop won't result in arrest. Currently the incentive is to run because it's not stopping at the citation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#650
#650
volinbham said:
I'm sure that will be examined - she's something like a 28 year veteran of the force; you'd think she'd been through tons of training but maybe the older cops slack off the protocols?
Click to expand...

Or they are probably like a lot of departments that don't like paying overtime for training and pencil whip it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top