• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Reckless & Deadly LEO Video! Lessons to be learned!

neuroblades

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
1,240
Location
, Kentucky, USA
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

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I see a civil suit in that officer's future.
Edit, well duh, it says so right in the article, Falls.:rolleyes:

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.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
This apparently happened back in January of 2013. Is there an update of any kind regarding the situation?
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
“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

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
"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

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
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? :p
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Churchill was an Alcoholic, what's you're excuse? :p

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.
 
Last edited:

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
watching_avengers_i_understood_a_gif_reference-88347.gif
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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.
 
Top