Oh, how we jump to conclusions (myself included)

This pic was on Imgur yesterday. The post claimed that this was a LEO in plainclothes and he was wildly pointing his gun right at the camera. I thought it was reckless at the time.



But, from a different view...



The poster's comments:

Quote :

As we can see, he is using his weapon as a deterrent, but with his finger off the trigger, in an attempt to protect his partner making the arrest. In his other hand you can see the baton that he drew first. When that did not warrant the appropriate response from the crowd, i.e. standing back for their safety and the officers', he drew his firearm. I understand that there have been numerous instances of the over use of force by police, but they still have a dangerous job, and there are some times when drawing a firearm is an appropriate response. One of the officers was punched and kicked in the head during this altercation. Please stop condemning before you truly understand the facts.

Edit: I understand I said undercover in the title. At the time, he was working undercover. He was plain clothed without identifying himself as a peace officer until the altercation started. However, he is not your typical undercover officer that works with the cartel or the mob. In that sense, showing his image is not putting him in any danger.

Eric wrote:

This pic was on Imgur yesterday.  The post claimed that this was a LEO in plainclothes and he was wildly pointing his gun right at the camera.  I thought it was reckless at the time.



But, from a different view...



The poster's comments:

Quote :

As we can see, he is using his weapon as a deterrent, but with his finger off the trigger, in an attempt to protect his partner making the arrest. In his other hand you can see the baton that he drew first. When that did not warrant the appropriate response from the crowd, i.e. standing back for their safety and the officers', he drew his firearm. I understand that there have been numerous instances of the over use of force by police, but they still have a dangerous job, and there are some times when drawing a firearm is an appropriate response. One of the officers was punched and kicked in the head during this altercation. Please stop condemning before you truly understand the facts.

Edit: I understand I said undercover in the title. At the time, he was working undercover. He was plain clothed without identifying himself as a peace officer until the altercation started. However, he is not your typical undercover officer that works with the cartel or the mob. In that sense, showing his image is not putting him in any danger.

Yeah, what a despicable individual actually had the audacity to protect/defend himself and another after being attacked...

When the first photo was published, there was no mention of the LEOs being battered.

Eric wrote:

When the first photo was published, there was no mention of the LEOs being battered.

Would it have mattered?....The photo was presented in order to get an instant reaction because why read the article when the photo and captioning would already make some jump to a conclusion of another 'out of control' officer...See when folks jump to those conclusions and are wrong there's always a chance to change their initial opinions but when officer(s) are in this position they are not afforded that luxury...even when the facts support it's not good enough...In this age of instant distribution of a photo the wildfire can be out of control before there's known facts....

Sorry, MW.  But I am not going to assume that cops are infallible.

You can if you want to.

Eric wrote:

Sorry, MW.  But I am not going to assume that cops are infallible.

You can if you want to.

Was a general comment on not just this photo not personal.... More on how the media puts something out there that are void of facts or that they follow at a later time...but the first impression/observation is difficult to change....

I still think it was reckless. I have read here on this forum that you don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot.

Eric wrote:

I still think it was reckless.  I have read here on this forum that you don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot.

     The officer in question had pulled his baton and that didn't seem to have the desired effect... there is no one formula to follow when there are two officers that are outnumbered by an angry advancing crowd... at that point in time it's about survival.. The officer didn't have his finger in the trigger guard and guessing by the outcome the weapon being drawn may have prevented further escalation of the problem... again it's not a one size fits all solution but the officer would have to be able to articulate his actions and would fall into the category that a 'reasonable' individual would conduct themselves in the same manner...force can be utilized to protect yourself and/or the lives of others....

Officers make felony traffic stops and arrests on a regular basis and yes weapons are drawn and aimed at the suspect(s)...There are training and departmental guidelines as how to conduct these stops/arrests...Even clearing a building or dwelling weapons are out....not going to do you much good holstered...

But, why point the pistol at the cameraman?

That big bad camera isn't going to hurt that cop, unless he is doing something they don't want the public to see. The 'net is full of stories where cops arrest folks for taking video, illegally erasing video on camera phones and the courts routinely tell cops that photography is not a crime.

Eric wrote:

But, why point the pistol at the cameraman?

That big bad camera isn't going to hurt that cop, unless he is doing something they don't want the public to see.  The 'net is full of stories where cops arrest folks for taking video, illegally erasing video on camera phones and the courts routinely tell cops that photography is not a crime.

     So was the final outcome that the officer's actions were justified?...The waters can be muddied with all kinds of other situations listed above but has nothing to do with this incident and whether or not the officer acted accordingly...legally or within his training and department guidelines under these circumstances...

It most certainly has to do with the above situation. There is a pistol pointed right at the cameraman.

I don't think that officers are trained to point their weapon directly at a camera.

Too bad we can't see who is in the area of the "camera" (cell phone?), might have been someone or a group making threats. This is another example where people form strong opinions without the benefit of knowing all the facts.

nochain wrote:

Too bad we can't see who is in the area of the "camera" (cell phone?), might have been someone or a group making threats. This is another example where people form strong opinions without the benefit of knowing all the facts.

Thats just too easy of a reason.....sure all that were there were on their way to church services and the cop just pulled his weapon for no reason whatsoever....they were trying to help the officers....

Eric wrote:

But, why point the pistol at the cameraman?

That big bad camera isn't going to hurt that cop, unless he is doing something they don't want the public to see.  The 'net is full of stories where cops arrest folks for taking video, illegally erasing video on camera phones and the courts routinely tell cops that photography is not a crime.

The 'net' [yahoo] had stories that the oldest daughter of the cowh is pregnant too....doesn't make it all true...

Eric wrote:

It most certainly has to do with the above situation.  There is a pistol pointed right at the cameraman.

I don't think that officers are trained to point their weapon directly at a camera.

Could he have been scanning the area when the photo was taken?....What was going on around the camaeraman?...Again....and again....was the officer justified in his actions under the circumstances?...That's the only question...If an officer had been battered and the crowd was advancing then certainly he was justified to protect himself and others from further injuries and/or harm...

Trained to aim in the direction of potential danger/threat..From those photos can't see how anyone can logically conclude there was no threat in the near proximity to where he was aiming...when outnumbered possibly outgunned it's all about survival and protection...

Here is a few of scores of videos where police intimidate video photography.  This is a real problem and the comparison to a pregnant presidential daughter is absurd.

How about this


or this


or this


or this

Eric wrote:

Here is a few of scores of videos where police intimidate video photography.  This is a real problem and the comparison to a pregnant presidential daughter is absurd.

How about this


or this


or this


or this

   The daughter reference is not absurd....points out that while most on the net may be factual there are things that just aren't true that make it on the net too...Not a criticism except to what can be bs made to look factual...

    Sorry the photos/videos enclosed couldn't be opened...but understand that videoing officers certainly has been a problem and the only exception would be that the individual is too close and interfering with the officer(s) duty then that would be obstruction otherwise doubt today that there is an officer out there that doesn't understand or expect to be videoed by someone..There is no expectation of privacy in a public setting.....Once again IF an officer crosses that line and was not justified in their actions then they should suffer the consequences...just don't see whats so difficult to understand about that...it happened...will happen and because some do doesn't mean that it's all officers...

Has anybody else had trouble viewing the videos I posted?

They work on my PC and on my iPad.

I agree that a videographer needs to be clearly out of the way. And some videos are clear evidence that the person doing the video is in the way, or by their taunts, asking for trouble.

But, when someone is on their front porch, videotaping an arrest on the street 40 feet away, they shouldn't have been rushed and manhandled for videotaping. Damn, I wish I could find THAT one. These are not isolated incidents, MW.

Eric wrote:

Has anybody else had trouble viewing the videos I posted?

They work on my PC and on my iPad.

I agree that a videographer needs to be clearly out of the way.  And some videos are clear evidence that the person doing the video is in the way, or by their taunts, asking for trouble.

But, when someone is on their front porch, videotaping an arrest on the street 40 feet away, they shouldn't have been rushed and manhandled for videotaping.  Damn, I wish I could find THAT one.   These are not isolated incidents, MW.

"Once again IF an officer crosses that line and was not justified in their actions then they should suffer the consequences"....Seems pretty straightforward....In the very first example provided the caption: One cop gets fired, another disciplined for this incident---problem solved...

Not just in videotaping but in other areas also....if officer(s) are in a lawful place conducting business in a legal manner then their actions are/will be justified if not there should be punitive measures taken...

The problem is that people standing in lawful areas like a public sidewalk across the street, cops come up and demand an ID from the videotaper, even though the law states that you only have to show your "Papers" if you are accused of a crime.

Ever since the Rodney King videotaped beating, the cops realize they cannot beat the hell out of a citizen with impunity.  The obvious solution is to keep people from videotaping, and it is done every day.

Isolated incident?  No.

Here is a link, which obviously won't work for MW, but for others that want to see what is going on...
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/

A disclaimer. As I said earlier, some tactics of videotapers appear to be baiting the cops to do something illegal... and some people get too close to a crime scene, actually getting in the way of the job the LEOs are there to do.

I was taught to respect those in authority. This included the police in all capacities - deputy, police officer, state trooper.

I was also taught that a citizen is innocent until proven guilty.

I think both sides cross the line. And thus begins the fray.

I often say the world needs to take a nap. A long nap.

Video shows a police officer punching an unarmed suspect 6 times in the face. The officer has since been promoted to Sargeant.

Denver cops were caught on camera repeatedly punching a man in the face, causing his head to bounce off the pavement, before tripping his pregnant wife who was pleading with them to stop, causing her to fall flat on her face.

But then they realized another man had been recording them.

One cop can be heard saying “camera” before storming up to Levi Frasier, snatching his tablet against his objections, deleting footage and handing it back, confident they had destroyed the evidence.
But Frasier had his tablet synched to a storage cloud where the video file ended up before it was deleted, which is how he was able to provide Fox31 with the footage.

The news station, in turn, did an excellent job, dedicating more than six minutes to the segment.
Denver police, of course, have gone into complete spin mode, telling reporters they had not seen the footage after two days of receiving it, but insisting that Frasier visit them at the station anyway to file a complaint, which is really just an invitation to more intimidation tactics.