dash cam saves careers

Messages
2,804
Location
Michigan
Dave, You are absolutely accurate in your assessment that the lady walking in the middle of the road in her own subdivision was breaking the law. I am trying to apply that to my own little yuppie town a mile wide where my neighbors walk their dogs in booties and rain coat (yeah doggie rain coats). I will probably need an app to keep track of how many times my neighbors or their children have been walking, jogging, skateboarding in the middle of the street. If the local PD starts pulling over pedestrians in my little town, I am pretty sure the police chief will have to consider other profession. It may be even worse for the chief if he crosses any of the short tempered Judge, Federal prosecutor neighbors. it is not a question of right or wrong but using common sense and not escalating a situation. It must have been a very slow crime day in Corinth ;-)
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,748
Location
Massachusetts
Dnewton3 Did you get any diversity training as a cop? If you don't mind me asking, why are you no longer a cop. There are tons of rules and laws that allmost never get enforced. Its suspicions that they get enforced when a black woman is walking thru an upper middle class neighborhood in the south. Those guys need to get diversity training. Its like they were going to push back and mess with her more because she was upset they stopped her. I'd be upset too. Fox news is making hay out of this, but I'd bet when most people see that interaction they say to themselves, what is the point here? What are these guys trying to accomplish?
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,651
Location
Iowa
Turtlevette- before the stop, could you plainly see that she was black? I couldn't. She was fully covered in clothes with her back to the cam. It likely could have been Cindy Crawford for all they knew..
 
Messages
3,748
Location
Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Turtlevette- before the stop, could you plainly see that she was black? I couldn't. She was fully covered in clothes with her back to the cam. It likely could have been Cindy Crawford for all they knew..
Possibly, who knows. They did not have to continue to press her after they did know. Shows a lack of sensitivity and care to what's going on in recent events. Cant these guys just back off a bit? The kind of guys who want to do that job for not much money get their jollies by asserting control over people. That woman makes more than the two of them combined and has more education than both of them put together. Where's their respect? Yes they were polite but not respectful.
 
Messages
153
Location
ny
So what are you saying-that once they knew she was black they should have walked away for that reason ? And what does the woman's income have to do with anything ? Respect is a two way street- this woman showed no respect for the laws or the traffic she was impeding.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,598
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Dnewton3 Did you get any diversity training as a cop? If you don't mind me asking, why are you no longer a cop. There are tons of rules and laws that allmost never get enforced. Its suspicions that they get enforced when a black woman is walking thru an upper middle class neighborhood in the south. Those guys need to get diversity training. Its like they were going to push back and mess with her more because she was upset they stopped her. I'd be upset too. Fox news is making hay out of this, but I'd bet when most people see that interaction they say to themselves, what is the point here? What are these guys trying to accomplish?
We get 12 hours of State mandatory "in service" training at the beginning of each year. And we get continuing education in all manner of disciplines throughout the year. Minimum 24 hours required at our Sheriff's Office; I have 47 training hours logged so far this year. I am still an active duty Deputy. Officers have discretion at the street level. Everyone should be thankful for that. It allows us to give warnings instead of citations, etc. FAR MORE people are the beneficiaries of a courtesy warning than ever get tickets, overall. However, when you commit a "crime" (as defined by state statues, you're at the edge of the envelope there. Some crimes actually MANDATE arrest, or the officer is both criminally and civilly liable for failing to do so!). I saw absolutely nothing wrong with what the officers did in this interaction. They witnessed a criminal violation, as well as had a direct complaint from a citizen for the very same issue. I would have handled it the same way. They addressed the transgression with a verbal warning, and cautioned the citizen on the dangers of her own behavior (she could have been run over by a careless driver ...) I didn't think she was out of line in her response at the scene. She was cooperative, answered questions, and was polite. She is afforded the right to take pictures and record the event, per SCOTUS rulings; they didn't try to stop her from doing so. They were professional and she was courteous. There was nothing at the scene that indicated this would have been anything but "normal". Fox News is only "making hay" out of the fact that it is SHE who tried to blow this out of proportion. She is the one who made a big deal out of this. It is she who penned a rather terse, certainly flawed and exaggerated account using her leverage as a "journalist". she is the one who mentioned Freddie Gray and Trayvon Martin, not them. She is clearly the one who is biased; not them. She presumes that her being stopped was due to race, and is either ignorant or arrogant of the fact that she committed a crime. I'll tell you what they were trying to accomplish. They were enforcing the laws they were sworn to uphold. Sorry if you don't see it that way; I do. Admittedly I am biased. I, as well as most officers, don't back down in the face of adversity. We do our jobs despite the fact that we might die in the line of duty. We continue to apply the arm of justice knowing we might get sued. We use our training and our intellect to strike a balance between hard line and lazy. Let's look at the facts, and only the facts: This lady broke the law twice, in front of the officers, and caused a civilian to complain. They approached her with honesty and a professional manner and verified her ID. They advised her of a safer way to travel and explained why it was more appropriate. They gave her a verbal warning, rather than arresting her. Just where is it, specifically, that you think they went off course and violated her rights? Are you suggesting that they should have recognized her race and turned away, giving her a pass because she's black? I have news for you. The did exactly what the general public expects them to do. They saw a crime, investigated it, reasoned it down to a sensible warning, and left. I guess you and I have a severe disconnect in what we think is normal and acceptable. They don't need diversity training. You need to spend some time in a cop car on a ride along. Anytime you're in IN you are welcome to spend some time in my passenger seat.
 
Messages
28,123
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
They did not have to continue to press her after they did know. Shows a lack of sensitivity and care to what's going on in recent events.
Read her take, and the chief's take, published at the same time, here. You might want to look at this meme, too, for the heck of it. It provides a very concise summary of the situation. As I mentioned in another thread, I recall a very prominent First Nations leader's response to a similarly false complaint made to him by a First Nations person in an encounter with police. This chief, who does give the police a fair drubbing and holds them accountable, was very upset with the false complaint. He told the complainant that the police have a job to do and did it correctly in his case. He also advised him that frivolous and false complaints against police undermine efforts against real injustices done by police and against real racism in the system. It wastes resources that could be used in those incidents. It also makes people more skeptical about real complaints, doing a disservice to everyone involved. He also very bluntly told him to pull his head out of his rear end and get his life in order.
 
Messages
3,748
Location
Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Dnewton3 Did you get any diversity training as a cop? If you don't mind me asking, why are you no longer a cop. There are tons of rules and laws that allmost never get enforced. Its suspicions that they get enforced when a black woman is walking thru an upper middle class neighborhood in the south. Those guys need to get diversity training. Its like they were going to push back and mess with her more because she was upset they stopped her. I'd be upset too. Fox news is making hay out of this, but I'd bet when most people see that interaction they say to themselves, what is the point here? What are these guys trying to accomplish?
We get 12 hours of State mandatory "in service" training at the beginning of each year. And we get continuing education in all manner of disciplines throughout the year. Minimum 24 hours required at our Sheriff's Office; I have 47 training hours logged so far this year. I am still an active duty Deputy. Officers have discretion at the street level. Everyone should be thankful for that. It allows us to give warnings instead of citations, etc. FAR MORE people are the beneficiaries of a courtesy warning than ever get tickets, overall. However, when you commit a "crime" (as defined by state statues, you're at the edge of the envelope there. Some crimes actually MANDATE arrest, or the officer is both criminally and civilly liable for failing to do so!). They gave her a verbal warning, rather than arresting her. Just where is it, specifically, that you think they went off course and violated her rights? Are you suggesting that they should have recognized her race and turned away, giving her a pass because she's black? I have news for you. The did exactly what the general public expects them to do. They saw a crime, investigated it, reasoned it down to a sensible warning, and left. I guess you and I have a severe disconnect in what we think is normal and acceptable. They don't need diversity training.
I'm going to disagree and say they do and you do too. Its incredulous to me that you haven't already had it. If they had arrested her, they'd have a civil suit on their hands. They might have one anyway. I bet you don't see anything wrong with many other cases where the public has paid millions because of over zealous cops. Don't back down in the face of adversity? You're way out there if you think that woman was a threat. If it were me on patrol, I'd simply driven past her to make sure she wasn't drunk then moved on to real police work
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,431
Location
Phoenix
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Dnewton3 Did you get any diversity training as a cop? If you don't mind me asking, why are you no longer a cop. There are tons of rules and laws that allmost never get enforced. Its suspicions that they get enforced when a black woman is walking thru an upper middle class neighborhood in the south. Those guys need to get diversity training. Its like they were going to push back and mess with her more because she was upset they stopped her. I'd be upset too. Fox news is making hay out of this, but I'd bet when most people see that interaction they say to themselves, what is the point here? What are these guys trying to accomplish?
We get 12 hours of State mandatory "in service" training at the beginning of each year. And we get continuing education in all manner of disciplines throughout the year. Minimum 24 hours required at our Sheriff's Office; I have 47 training hours logged so far this year. I am still an active duty Deputy. Officers have discretion at the street level. Everyone should be thankful for that. It allows us to give warnings instead of citations, etc. FAR MORE people are the beneficiaries of a courtesy warning than ever get tickets, overall. However, when you commit a "crime" (as defined by state statues, you're at the edge of the envelope there. Some crimes actually MANDATE arrest, or the officer is both criminally and civilly liable for failing to do so!). They gave her a verbal warning, rather than arresting her. Just where is it, specifically, that you think they went off course and violated her rights? Are you suggesting that they should have recognized her race and turned away, giving her a pass because she's black? I have news for you. The did exactly what the general public expects them to do. They saw a crime, investigated it, reasoned it down to a sensible warning, and left. I guess you and I have a severe disconnect in what we think is normal and acceptable. They don't need diversity training.
I'm going to disagree and say they do and you do too. Its incredulous to me that you haven't already had it. If they had arrested her, they'd have a civil suit on their hands. They might have one anyway. I bet you don't see anything wrong with many other cases where the public has paid millions because of over zealous cops. Don't back down in the face of adversity? You're way out there if you think that woman was a threat. If it were me on patrol, I'd simply driven past her to make sure she wasn't drunk then moved on to real police work
I'm shocked they even got out of the car. Pedestrians walking in the middle of the street are a common occurrence in every suburban neighborhood I've ever lived or spent any time in. It's not uncommon for me to encounter people walking side by side 2-4 people across while performing all kinds of crazy upper body exercises.
 
Messages
2,302
Location
ohio
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
If it were me on patrol, I'd simply driven past her to make sure she wasn't drunk then moved on to real police work
How does one determine if a person is drunk by driving by?
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Thread starter
Messages
8,598
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I'm going to disagree and say they do and you do too. Its incredulous to me that you haven't already had it. If they had arrested her, they'd have a civil suit on their hands. They might have one anyway. I bet you don't see anything wrong with many other cases where the public has paid millions because of over zealous cops. Don't back down in the face of adversity? You're way out there if you think that woman was a threat. If it were me on patrol, I'd simply driven past her to make sure she wasn't drunk then moved on to real police work
Again - you are full of accusations but have not shown any specific evidence that would indicate they need "diversity training". What is it specifically that you can point to in this situation that alludes to a racial event? What is it that exhibits to you the cops did anything but investigate a crime, as defined by TX state law, after they witnessed it and another citizen complained about it? Just driving past that woman would not have provided any opportunity for them to assess her state of mind, etc. Like it or not, SCOTUS case law allows that once reasonable suspicion has been established, verifying ID and asking questions to ascertain the status of a person IS ALLOWABLE under the Constitution. How do they know anything about her until they ask questions? For all they know, she may have had a warrant against her. I have lost track of the times I've arrested someone for a valid warrant, simply having the RS of a traffic stop as the means of contact. It is possible that a civil suit could get filed; there is nothing that stops anyone from filing a suit. But it very likely would have been dropped or dismissed due to a baseless claim. Your inflammatory language aside, there is NOTHING to indicate that this event was racially driven. There is CLEAR evidence of her committing a crime; that is plainly obvious in the video, and substantiated by a third party civilian complaint. Further, there was absolutely no use-of-force used in the contact context. so please be specific and tell us where you believe her civil rights were violated, and make sure you use examples of legal precedence to support your claims. Also, for those of you whom don't pay close attention, I ask that you go back and watch the video and then read the Chief's account. This was a training event. The officer that did most of the speaking was a trainee; the other is an FTO (field training officer). Note that the trainee is doing the work and the FTO is generally observing. This is totally normal in this kind of work. The FTO is allowing the trainee to develop his "case" as it presents itself. As taken from the outset, this was a crime committed in the presence of two cops; they have a sworn obligation to investigate it and they did. The FTO was likely using this opportunity as a means to judge the skills and discretion of the trainee. The FTO is there to reinforce good behaviors and inhibit/correct bad ones. So as much as this was a little incident, it was a great chance for the FTO to see how the rookie handled himself. Again, here are the facts: Woman commits crime twice; citizen complains and cops witness. Cops approach and ask for ID; establish credibility and assess state of mind. Cops offer advice for safety and give verbal warning rather than arrest. Event ends with no one thrown to the ground, no raised voices, no verbal threats, no guns drawn, etc. So puh-leeeezeee tell me where you think the cops violated her rights, and what they did that makes you think they need a more diverse approach. Be specific; what words were spoken, what tone was taken, what directives were given that indicates this was anything but a simple LE training interaction? Ask yourself this question ... Had this been a white male that was stopped, what can you point to that would have shown an improper action taken by the police? BTW - I do get diversity training every year. And I do work in a very diverse area quite often. Your incredulous attitude belies my actual training and experience; I have far more skills than you seem to want to recognize. I counter with this: How much LEO training do you have under your belt? Again, I encourage you to go on a ride-along, but please take with you an open mind and not your preconceived notions. And then take some legal classes, so that you understand what Statutory and Case laws exist. PS - when I spoke of not backing down in the face of adversity, I was speaking generically and not specific to this woman. However, I do stand by the concept of ignoring one's race in terms of investigations. If race is a key descriptive indicator, it should be used in refining the suspect class; if not, then it should be ignored. I will not turn away from an investigation simply because I'm concerned that I might get sued. If that were the measure of every LEO interaction, no one would ever be stopped because EVERY interaction has the POTENTIAL for a suit. PSS - ANYONE is a potential threat, by the way! Admittedly the level of the threat varies depending upon the situation, but for you to assert that she was no threat shows your complete ignorance of how many times officers die in the line of duty because the potential threat becomes a life/death situation.
 
Last edited:
Messages
105
Location
NE
I would like to submit this video from a body cam, not dash cam. I did not see a thread on this. If this does not demonstrate an officer acting in defense of his or her life then I am not sure what does. I agree, dash cams and body cams should be a requirement.
 
Top