Watch: Officer critically wounded after woman in a dress draws a pistol and fires - he was gunned down like an animal

[flippinfleck]

Yeah, those were rookie numbers on his taser.


Terry frisk.


If you don't want your pocketbook searched,
don't leave it within lunging range in the passenger compartment.
Fling it in the trunk or something.

Or, you know, don't tell the officer that you have weed?

/eta : of course, there is a portion of the video that is missing. would have been nice to see the full video from the moment the officer stepped out of the car to the point where she drove off.

 

[KMM696]

My understanding of Terry is search outer garments only on "reasonable suspicion."

There is a "vehicle exception".

https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default...ticles-and-faqs/downloads/other/visorcard.pdf

Scope. If reasonable suspicion exists to believe that the driver or passenger is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon, a law enforcement officer may “frisk” that person, as well as the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle and any unlocked containers in the passenger compartment. While an officer generally cannot “frisk” a locked container in a vehicle (such as a locked glove box), some federal courts, but not all, have started to allow this practice. A law enforcement officer may not “frisk” areas from which a passenger could not retrieve a weapon while seated inside the vehicle (such as a separate trunk compartment). The accessible rear area of hatchbacks, vans, buses, and SUVs are considered part of the passenger compartment.

 

[AHM]

My understanding of Terry is search outer garments only on "reasonable suspicion."

Com. v. Davidson

Com. v. Davidson - 389 Pa. Super. 166, 566 A.2d 897

law.justia.com

You're in for a world of hurt if you think the 57 other states don't have similar case law.

 

[mike59271]

Wow. Imagine how much better this would have been if that was a social worker and not a cop. *literally shaking right now you guys*

 

[pastera]

We don't have the entire story but as soon as the officer knew that his PC was gone (guy wasn't there) the stop should have immediately ended with a "sorry for the stop but your car is registered to a person with warrents" unless the police had specific reason to search the woman herself.

He also should have controlled the situation a lot better - scenes like this when the officer breaks multiple good policies are where we get the reactionary bad policies.

 

[evalance]

That officer was very trusting. He left her alone in the vehicle and let her talk on the phone, smoke, and do whatever she wanted, and took no cover when she started firing. She didn't respond to the taser and he was lucky he had on his vest.

Also I understand the need for the dash cam but should he have blocked her vehicle in?
.

c'mon man dude should've never been a cop look at the size, did he acted right sure but good lord

 

[In God We Trust]

Is that kosher to let someone to keep returning to the car that many times?

No, but many cops get pretty complacent when dealing with women.

 

[evalance]

c'mon man dude should've never been a cop look at the size he was polite but he would've been wacked if it was a dude who had the intend to murder him from the start

 

[dragonballzz]

If you pause at 7:12, it looks like he's bleeding out a milkshake.

Do tasers not work well on fat people?

 

[mibro]

We don't have the entire story but as soon as the officer knew that his PC was gone (guy wasn't there) the stop should have immediately ended with a "sorry for the stop but your car is registered to a person with warrents" unless the police had specific reason to search the woman herself.

That was pretty much my reaction. I think the LEO thought she might be an easy bust so he persisted.

If you pause at 7:12, it looks like he's bleeding out a milkshake.

Unless I'm missing something that chocolate covered mark he's kneeling in is dry paint that was there all along.

However, overdo the fat intake and your blood may look like this:

 

[AHM]

We don't have the entire story but as soon as the officer knew that his PC was gone (guy wasn't there) the stop should have immediately ended with a "sorry for the stop but your car is registered to a person with warrents" unless the police had specific reason to search the woman herself.

Yeah, no.

What kind of Cucktocracy do we have going on here where
if you pull over a car owned by someone whose portrait
is hanging up in the Post Office, the police don't have the right
to debrief the driver on the recent whereabouts of Poster Boy?

Hell, if it's a modern car with GPS and stuff, it won't be long before
they lay down case law empowering the cops to tow the car
to the garage, so that the Boys Down In Geolocation can dump
the OnStar breadcrumb trail to see if they can figure out
where the fugitive is holed up. So get ready for that.

You know that if someone sashayed past Rooster Cogburn
on a wanted guy's horse, that wasn't getting ignored.


Hell, some day they'll computerize the outstanding judgments against people,
and if Poster Boy has lost a lawsuit (or owes a criminal fine),
that car is getting confiscated by the police as partial repayment.

He also should have controlled the situation a lot better - scenes like this when the officer breaks multiple good policies are where we get the reactionary bad policies.

If you want to cut to the heart of the matter,
was the department recently ordered
to ignore any less-than-airtight, less-than-epic infraction
that might result in a RiotLootBurn of the entire city
if the bust went pear-shaped?

but many cops get pretty complacent when dealing with women.

Speaking of pear-shaped situations...

However, overdo the fat intake and your blood may look like this:

Don't I see those on the truck stop cash registers candy impulse-buy racks
on the way home from the Dayton Hamvention?

 

[pastera]

Yeah, no.

What kind of Cucktocracy do we have going on here where
if you pull over a car owned by someone whose portrait
is hanging up in the Post Office, the police don't have the right
to debrief the driver on the recent whereabouts of Poster Boy?

cuck·old
/ˈkəkəld,ˈkəkōld/
nounDATED
a man whose wife is sexually unfaithful, often regarded as an object of derision.

How the hell is anyone a cuck for standing up for their rights.
Get over yourself - I didn't expound on the lawful conversation that the officer could have with the woman asking about the wanted guy - a consensual conversation where she would likely, and within her rights, tell him to piss off and leave.

Hell, if it's a modern car with GPS and stuff, it won't be long before
they lay down case law empowering the cops to tow the car
to the garage,

Get a warrant to search the car no case law needed; just follow the existing constitutional process.

If you want to cut to the heart of the matter,
was the department recently ordered
to ignore any less-than-airtight, less-than-epic infraction
that might result in a RiotLootBurn of the entire city
if the bust went pear-shaped?

What does poor management of the department have to do with allowing the officers to perform illegal searches?
However, we don't know if the bag search was voluntary (even though police will lie about the voluntary status of a search) without the entire video to review.

 

[babygorilla]

He let her get in and out of the vehicle WAY too often, should have cuffed her after the first time.

 

[Rye]

Lot's of monday morning QB'ing and lawyers in this thread. Ask this. Under what conditions is it right to run from law enforcement, draw a gun and shoot at the cop? Regardless of the petty little arguments and insults being thrown, there is never a situation warranting her reaction. And she's dead for that reason only! FFS!!!

 

[Nick Leduc]

Looks like the officer missed a few key training days. The linked video has been used for years to show why you don't let someone back into a vehicle once they exit. And clearly he missed PT day. Being a LEO can be a physical job. Why someone that is in that shape can still be allowed to be employed is beyond me.
Auburn, MA has a officer that has to be 450lbs. I watched him struggle to walk 10 feet and get in his car. No way he can do his job safely. But then you have Auburn PD on FB bragging about "physical evaluation day". They refused to answer what the requirements were to get a "pass".

 

[AHM]

How the hell is anyone a cuck for standing up for their rights.

The civil right to associate unquestioned
with a convicted felon who has six outstanding arrest warrants?

​

2010 Tennessee Code​

Title 39 - Criminal Offenses​

Chapter 11 - General Provisions​

Part 4 - Criminal Responsibility​

​

39-11-411. Accessory after the fact.​

​

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:​

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;​

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or​

punishment; or​

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.​

...​

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.​

That right there is probably grounds for detention.

Get over yourself - I didn't expound on the lawful conversation that the officer could have with the woman asking about the wanted guy - a consensual conversation where she would likely, and within her rights, tell him to piss off and leave.

About the car she was driving (without a license):
did she steal it from the fugitive,
or was she operating it because she was harboring him?

Get a warrant to search the car no case law needed; just follow the existing constitutional process.

The existing constitutional process gave us Terry Frisks.


Don't be surprised when some court discovers a penumbral shadow
that allows for roadside GPS dumps with no legislation.

What does poor management of the department ...

When the police so fear riots and lawsuits that they refuse to enforce the law,
the result is Baltimore.

... have to do with allowing the officers to perform illegal searches?

Every search in this incidence will be found to be legal.

However, we don't know if the bag search was voluntary (even though police will lie about the voluntary status of a search) without the entire video to review.

Consent is not an element of a Terry Frisk.

 

[pastera]

The civil right to associate unquestioned
with a convicted felon who has six outstanding arrest warrants?

​

2010 Tennessee Code​

Title 39 - Criminal Offenses​

Chapter 11 - General Provisions​

Part 4 - Criminal Responsibility​

​

39-11-411. Accessory after the fact.​

​

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:​

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;​

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or​

punishment; or​

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.​

...​

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.​

That right there is probably grounds for detention.



About the car she was driving (without a license):
did she steal it from the fugitive,
or was she operating it because she was harboring him?


The existing constitutional process gave us Terry Frisks.


Don't be surprised when some court discovers a penumbral shadow
that allows for roadside GPS dumps with no legislation.


When the police so fear riots and lawsuits that they refuse to enforce the law,
the result is Baltimore.


Every search in this incidence will be found to be legal.


Consent is not an element of a Terry Frisk.

I missed the fact that she had no license so the detention would be legal as would the resulting search(s).

As far as the registered owner being a wanted felon - that would explain a stop but if the driver was otherwise legal then the seisure should stop there and any further interaction should be consensual. That ended up not being the case here but I was clear that was the situation I was responding to.

As far as your comment "did she steal it from the fugitive" - facts not in evidence. Did the officer have any reasonable suspicion that this was true?
If lack of knowlege as to a non-owner current permission to use a vehicle was PC to stop and detain then you can stop any car at random because you don't know if the driver is the owner or if they have explicit permission.

 

[AHM]

I missed the fact that she had no license so the detention would be legal as would the resulting search(s).

I was totes willing to ignore that for the sake of your hypotheticals.

Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if some such drivers could delay a full car search
until either a warrant was obtained,
or the car contents were "inventoried" after towing.

IIRC, the inventory trick is a poor second best to taking the time for a warrant,
but I think police who are impatient still get it to work some of the time.
It just complicates the prosecution's case.

As far as the registered owner being a wanted felon - that would explain a stop but if the driver was otherwise legal then the seisure should stop there and any further interaction should be consensual. That ended up not being the case here but I was clear that was the situation I was responding to.

Well, if it's a crime to harbor someone that one knows to be a fugitive,
I'ma guess one has to act very shocked, shocked that there's warrants out on them
to avoid getting jacked up for Accessory.

And if one does put on a good act,
it appears that in TN one still has to appear to be forthcoming
about the whereabouts of the I-can't-believe-he's-a-fugitive
in order to continue to avoid arrest.

Is it really up to a traffic cop to conduct that interrogation
in a parking lot during a traffic stop?
Or is the shocked associate going for a ride to a nice spartan
interview room down at the precinct house?

Maybe it's not a foregone conclusion,
but pretext for questioning by detectives indoors seems easy for me to imagine.

As far as your comment "did she steal it from the fugitive" - facts not in evidence. Did the officer have any reasonable suspicion that this was true?

"This isn't your car. Q: Are you driving it with the owner's permission?"
"No" => Uh oh.
"Yes" => "He has six warrants, where is he?"
"I take the fif" => Also not good?

On this last one, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here,
but I'm not having any flash of insight as to how
refusing to answer that question ever entitles one
to drive off from the traffic stop in a car that one doesn't own.
Tentative conclusion: it doesn't ever work like that.

(In the "Yes" case, it at least allows for the chance of
driving off if the story is good, right?
I just don't think there's a good story when the owner is a fugitive).

If lack of knowlege as to a non-owner current permission to use a vehicle was PC to stop and detain then you can stop any car at random because you don't know if the driver is the owner or if they have explicit permission.

Requires Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime has been committed,
or is about to be committed.

It must be based on specific and articulable facts,
taken together with rational inferences from those facts.

The suspicion must be associated with the specific individual,
and must be more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.

Et cetera (see the Wikipedia article).

---

Thank you for your consideration.