Medway Officer Draws Gun on Homeowner After Possible B&E Call from Neighbor

but if you were a homeowner, and someone was on your property uninvited at 0700, and you decided to give up cover and confront the person, you would have your firearm in your hand... maybe concealed behind your back, but you'd have it out just because.
Unfortunately, in many towns in Mass, if that firearm is seen, you will be charged with a crime.
 
Why do the curtains look like a CCP flag?

Didn't read the whole thread, but did the cop have her sidearm pointed at the homeowner? Or just in her hand? There is a big difference.
This young lady looks to be about 120lbs soaking wet. I would suggest drawing ahead of time may have been prudent.
[rofl]
Ummm, it IS A public school. Borscht is on the menu at lunch if you're interested.


As far as this incident, this is why a 120# female, or most 120# males, (Manny Paceau (sp) or MMA typed ripped guys are exception. . . but are going to be rare in the wild) should not be police ossifers. She has no choice BUT to deploy a weapon to keep herself safe while by herself. That's just a recipe for disaster. a 6'0", 180# man would have his hand ON his gun casually and that's about it.

Although I had a cop friend that passed on a few years ago after 30 or so years of copping. He said today's ossifers are too quick to hte gun. He could count on 2 hands the times he had to pull his sidearm. Of course, he was 6'5" 250 as well. So that helped. But he was old-school and old-school doesn't just pull a gun for every situation. "B&E? Pull your sidearm. Domestic? Pull your sidearm. Cat stuck in a tree? Pull your sidearm. Old lady needing help crossing the street? Pull your sidearm." He said he had to tell more than one rookie officer to put their gun away.

All THAT said, given that they gave the job to a 120# female, her going low-ready during investigation is reasonable. Pointing the gun?? Not reasonable.
 
So OP wants police to respond unarmed against an unknown person who might be doing a B&E in the daytime.

Got it.

It's understandable why police arriving might think this was a burglar, because that's what the 911 caller said.

But let's be real, a typical homeowner doing yard work at 7am doesn't look all that much like a break in artist.

But never mind that. Cop arrives, swiftly determines the call was a hoax. NOW they should be looking into the caller. Why did they call in a SWAT on the neighbor? Shouldn't that neighbor be facing 20 to life for attempted murder by proxy?
 
Nashville was/is an international news event, and they released the video in a record amount of time... normally they don't release until there is some review, investigation, cripes they even released the Officers names immediately which is unheard of.

Outside of a handful of people, nobody GARA about Mendon, but if you want to send a FOIA request to their C.O.P. all it will take is 2 minutes to compose it and they will probably email you the file.

For the record I have requested the video via a FOIA request

Any update on the video request?
 
I sent it to the wrong department, I have not looked into the actual department has cameras, my mistake
 
Bikes are commonly used in the commission of B/E. We once had a serial B/E guy who used a mountain bike as his primary mode of transportation while he was “working” He also only did breaks at night and when it was raining hard . When he was finally caught he said the bike was small, quiet, could go places a car could not and was faster than most people could run. He used the rain to mask any noise he made when breaking in, plus he felt secure because he said he knew us guys (Cops) didn’t like to get wet YMMV
 
Bikes are commonly used in the commission of B/E. We once had a serial B/E guy who used a mountain bike as his primary mode of transportation while he was “working” He also only did breaks at night and when it was raining hard . When he was finally caught he said the bike was small, quiet, could go places a car could not and was faster than most people could run. He used the rain to mask any noise he made when breaking in, plus he felt secure because he said he knew us guys (Cops) didn’t like to get wet YMMV
From the press release:
...at about 7:03am. The caller reported seeing a male wearing all black emerge from the Woodline
It was 7am on a work day, and the caller reported seeing the man emerge from the woodline with no mention of a bike at all. The very first thing the (newly appointed) chief does in his statement is harp on the fact that there was a bike leaning on the house and that thieves sometimes use bikes to commit crimes. This is an obvious attempt to lay down some smoke for the officer's actions of approaching the homeowner from behind with her firearm pointed directly at him, which is what was being stated by the wife before it was taken down.


This post deserves a repeat:
I don’t know what happened “in this case”, but I do know that police statements cannot be trusted. They “frequently” use tactics to mislead or misrepresent what happened. They’ll embellish minor or insignificant details that are favorable to their own actions or unfavorable to the “suspect”. They’ll downplay, soften, hide, coverup or ignore details that are unfavorable to themselves. They’ll add additional and often irrelevant details not related to what actually happened. And they’ll use vague and misleading language.

This release by the chief has the signs of all of those things.

Very first thing is about a bike leaning against the house and then includes the additional comment that criminals often use bikes. Well so do everyone else including children for playing and adults for exercise and sport. But that’s not mentioned. It’s also not mentioned what type of bike or where it was. It could have been a small pink child’s bike for all we know. It’s also interesting how this is the very first detail noted.

Then it mentions him “crouching” and wearing all black, both clearly meant to convey negative intent on the person. He could have been “crouching” tying his shoe while wearing a black business suit. Don’t know because of their vague and possibly misleading language.

It then emphasized how she never pointed her gun directly at him. Maybe she’s crossed eyed and pointed it at him but her aim was off? I joke here, but I’ve read the same exact thing before only for video to come out later and that be a flat out lie.

Then she used “verbal commands to control the situation” and “determined he was a resident”. Vague. What commands? What was his response? How did she determine that? What came next? Did she cuff and stuff him, get his ID, and then let him go? Notice the lack of specific details other than her not pointing her gun directly at him?

Then it’s more comments about how dangerous these calls are and again how she didn’t point her gun at him.

Then it’s how cops are “frequently” killed on calls like this. Embellishment and exaggeration. Yes, cops are sometimes killed, but no, it’s not at all frequent. Clearly misleading.

He’s “never” seen any of his officers do anything wrong? Again, additional and irrelevant comments that are also rather unbelievable.

There’s more but the point is, the framework of his statement is explicitly designed to make them look as good as possible while purporting to explain what happened while actually providing almost no real details.
 
[rofl]
Ummm, it IS A public school. Borscht is on the menu at lunch if you're interested.


As far as this incident, this is why a 120# female, or most 120# males, (Manny Paceau (sp) or MMA typed ripped guys are exception. . . but are going to be rare in the wild) should not be police ossifers. She has no choice BUT to deploy a weapon to keep herself safe while by herself. That's just a recipe for disaster. a 6'0", 180# man would have his hand ON his gun casually and that's about it.

Although I had a cop friend that passed on a few years ago after 30 or so years of copping. He said today's ossifers are too quick to hte gun. He could count on 2 hands the times he had to pull his sidearm. Of course, he was 6'5" 250 as well. So that helped. But he was old-school and old-school doesn't just pull a gun for every situation. "B&E? Pull your sidearm. Domestic? Pull your sidearm. Cat stuck in a tree? Pull your sidearm. Old lady needing help crossing the street? Pull your sidearm." He said he had to tell more than one rookie officer to put their gun away.

All THAT said, given that they gave the job to a 120# female, her going low-ready during investigation is reasonable. Pointing the gun?? Not reasonable.
Then instead of re-defining “reasonable” based on sex, stop hiring 120# female cops.
 
Back
Top Bottom