Reckless & Deadly LEO Video! Lessons to be learned!

[neuroblades]

This is a frightening experience and a great lesson to be learned about how to handle LEO's that have NO IDEA what the gun laws are! The initial officer is reckless and deadly in his premature drawing of his sidearm on an innocent civilian in public. He demonstrated highly illegal reaction and I can't even being to mention how many criminal charges could be and might still be brought to bear on him. One thing's for sure, he definitely DOES NOT need to be behind a firearm, let alone being an LEO!

In all my years of open & concealed carry I have only encountered 3 LEO's that were as reckless, dangerous & deadly as this one. I personally was involved with one such incident and thanks to dashcam video of the incident, that female officer lose her job!

The problem begins with LEO's don't know the law(s) pertaining to Open Carry and is extended further when LEO's forget whom they serve as public servants! Granted there are some good & decent LEO's out there and those are the one's that know the law pertaining to Open Carry and they also know how to properly treat others that they serve.

http://bearingarms.com/video-of-gra...cident-that-sparked-federal-lawsuit-released/

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I see a civil suit in that officer's future.
Edit, well duh, it says so right in the article, Falls.

In light of recent experience, I would recommend remaining silent when questioned by law enforcement; not even explaining how one's conduct is legal. On the side of the road, an officer is unlikely to be of any mind to have some slick talking jive turkey dissuade from what he thinks is his appointed guardianship of the peace.

Telling the police how you are legal gets them thinkin'. One of those thoughts that might not have occurred otherwise is how to find something in the law that can be twisted to their advantage or to cloud the issue of an illegal detainment. If he is thinking he's doing the right thing, he's unlikely to critique his own performance and find errors.

 

[Grapeshot]

This apparently happened back in January of 2013. Is there an update of any kind regarding the situation?

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Well not quite That open access. Try as I might, I can't find the text of the accusation anywhere without a subscription to someone.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

In the video at about 32 second mark, the Suburban approaching the incident comes to a stop, and one can only imagine the confusion and apprehension the driver must have experienced. Particularly if that Suburban contained family such as children, approached in a menacing manner by an overweight police officer with a handgun pointed directly at their vehicle. At what point would you surmise you were not the object of officer Waddle's attention, and some guy strolling down the sidewalk was?

I certainly wouldn't have considered that a pedestrian engaged in what appears to be legal activity to be the ambush target. An impulsive person with strong maternal or paternal instincts MAY have availed themselves of a defense, the best one at hand being that Suburban, the Jenny Craig candidate soon to become an imbedded hood ornament.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I recall a service that hooks up with pacer that required no CC .... search forum to find, I forgot

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

MichiganLiveNews.com
Dispatcher knew open carry was legal.
Dispatcher reassured the caller that the citizen's conduct was legal.
Dispatcher still dispatched an officer to check out "suspicious conduct."


I've said it before, I say it again, Any and All conduct can be "suspicious" as long as you don't have to answer "suspicious of what?"

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Plaintiff: "May I ask why I'm being stopped?"
Officer: "Because you have a handgun walking down the street. That's why."
Plaintiff: "Lawful possession of a handgun is not a ... reason to detain me officer."
Officer: "Yes it is, until I figure out what's going on."

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/01/dashcam_video_grand_rapids_pol.html

I imagine someone, somewhere would take offense or issue with me labeling this "Isolated Incident" 88,690, and that I should simply state "has anyone ever encountered similar behaviour before"?

Now, let's not jump to conclusions that the question would serve to establish a pattern among certain government agents.

 

[Primus]

Plaintiff: "May I ask why I'm being stopped?"
Officer: "Because you have a handgun walking down the street. That's why."
Plaintiff: "Lawful possession of a handgun is not a ... reason to detain me officer."
Officer: "Yes it is, until I figure out what's going on."

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/01/dashcam_video_grand_rapids_pol.html

I imagine someone, somewhere would take offense or issue with me labeling this "Isolated Incident" 88,690, and that I should simply state "has anyone ever encountered similar behaviour before"?

Now, let's not jump to conclusions that the question would serve to establish a pattern among certain government agents.

There we go now your getting it. I'm impressed. Lol

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

"How do I know you're not (a felon, a prostitute, a rapist, drunk driving)?" is NOT the same as, "I can articulate a reasonable suspicion that you are in violation of State Code ________."

 

[davidmcbeth]

Plaintiff: "May I ask why I'm being stopped?"
Officer: "Because you have a handgun walking down the street. That's why."
Plaintiff: "Lawful possession of a handgun is not a ... reason to detain me officer."
Officer: "Yes it is, until I figure out what's going on."

.

Should have continued....

Plaintiff: then I am placing you under citizens arrest for kidnapping ...
Cop: What?
Plaintiff: You are under arrest, put your hands up!

(his argument that he's a cop doing his job does not exist until plead in court)


I think anytime you think that a cop does not have RAS, an arrest is in order.

 

[OC for ME]

“Deffert was alone, and was loudly talking to himself,” Moe wrote. “Based on the area, and Deffert’s unusual behavior, R/O (responding officer) was concerned Deffert may have mental issues and was about to commit a violent crime."

This is the part where the cop gets off the hook. Drawing down on a citizen who is engaged in lawful behavior.

Now, will R/O draw down on other folks who display unlawful behavior in his opinion.

It is a sad day where a cop's opinion can be or will be justified in drawing down on a LAC.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

This is the part where the cop gets off the hook. Drawing down on a citizen who is engaged in lawful behavior.

Now, will R/O draw down on other folks who display unlawful behavior in his opinion.

It is a sad day where a cop's opinion can be or will be justified in drawing down on a LAC.

Moe must have hearing like a Vulcan, hearing someone from that far away supposedly talking to himself.

I will note that officers talk to each other and discuss strategy, one of the symptoms of schizophrenia is talking to oneself, or rehearsing conversations. If an officer wants to create doubt there's no reason not to use something that can't be disproven.
he was talking to himself
he was walking in an agitated manner
he was clenching his buttocks
he was too polite
he wasn't polite enough, etc.

:shocker::shocker: oh crapdoodles, I rehearse conversations all the time. (But so did Winston Churchill PM of Great Britain)

 

[Maverick9]

"How do I know you're not (a felon, a prostitute, a rapist, drunk driving)?" is NOT the same as, "I can articulate a reasonable suspicion that you are in violation of State Code ________."

Jeeze, can't you see the Officer Primus is just saying he'd like to stop every driver to find out...if...they're, um, oh, a rapist.

Perfectly logical (though time consuming).

HTH.

 

[DrakeZ07]

Moe must have hearing like a Vulcan, hearing someone from that far away supposedly talking to himself.

I will note that officers talk to each other and discuss strategy, one of the symptoms of schizophrenia is talking to oneself, or rehearsing conversations. If an officer wants to create doubt there's no reason not to use something that can't be disproven.
he was talking to himself
he was walking in an agitated manner
he was clenching his buttocks
he was too polite
he wasn't polite enough, etc.

:shocker::shocker: oh crapdoodles, I rehearse conversations all the time. (But so did Winston Churchill PM of Great Britain)

Churchill was an Alcoholic, what's you're excuse?

 

[Grapeshot]

Gentle[strike]men[/strike]persons, if you please.

 

[Rusty Young Man]

Churchill was an Alcoholic, what's you're excuse?

That while Sir Winston Churchill may have been found drunk on occasion and this William Moe was wrong in how he chose to handle the situation, Churchill would be found sober the next morning and Moe will still be found wrong in the morning.:lol:
[Just a play on one of Sir Winston Churchill's more (in?)famous utterances]

OT: Can't shake the feeling that pretty soon this whole "he looked suspicious, but I don't know why" thing will become routinely accepted as RAS. Scary and sends chills down my spine to even think about it.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

That while Sir Winston Churchill may have been found drunk on occasion and this William Moe was wrong in how he chose to handle the situation, Churchill would be found sober the next morning and Moe will still be found wrong in the morning.:lol:
[Just a play on one of Sir Winston Churchill's more (in?)famous utterances]

OT: Can't shake the feeling that pretty soon this whole "he looked suspicious, but I don't know why" thing will become routinely accepted as RAS. Scary and sends chills down my spine to even think about it.

I think you are right. There appears to be a full court press going on to indoctrinate the peons that it has been resolved that for officer safety, all rights will be voluntarily relinquished. Anyone objecting will be shamed and shunned, and their character disparaged to include disregard for the safety of the children and having terrorist ties. After all, they have a hard job to do, and rights are overrated anyways. You need security more than freedom, and best you divert your attention from quaint outdated documents and worship your protectors. Do as your told, and you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

That while Sir Winston Churchill may have been found drunk on occasion and this William Moe was wrong in how he chose to handle the situation, Churchill would be found sober the next morning and Moe will still be found wrong in the morning.:lol:
[Just a play on one of Sir Winston Churchill's more (in?)famous utterances]

OT: Can't shake the feeling that pretty soon this whole "he looked suspicious, but I don't know why" thing will become routinely accepted as RAS. Scary and sends chills down my spine to even think about it.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

When I was being deposed in relation to the Great Gary Prikle Park Pirkling, the county attorney representing the two officers I was suing tried to put across the theory that they only needed 'mere suspicion' in order to make a detainment.
It didn't go over well for her.