Police officer attacks woman in convenience store

[LGA]

What a hero this guy is, he bravely steps into the line of duty to help protect his son...wait, it was his son that rear-ended someone. But clearly the son feared for his life, the passengers in the other car were armed to the teeth...except that you would think he'd report that in his initial statement. The poor defenseless son...who was carrying a loaded weapon. That cop clearly had to take down the meanest, most deadly member of the other vehicle...thus why he attacked her from behind while holding a loaded weapon against her.

I don't know how anyone can defend this guy, he basically went off the handle and very well could have done a lot more damage. He clearly lied almost about everything involved in the story. This guy should be out of a job, not reinstated in 8 days, what happens if his son runs over a pedestrian? Is he going to go and shoot the pedestrians family to teach them a lesson?

[narbeZ]

I defend this guy. I also defend bertuzzi.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're joking right? There's nothing to indicate there was even an offense committed, let alone an offense that would require the drawing of a firearm and the placing of it against someone's head.

There's no attempt to make an arrest at any point, this isn't police activity, it's a thug who happens to be wearing a blue shirt. If you're cool with cops who go around menacing people with their authority in order to deal with personal issues I guess his being back on duty makes sense, otherwise I have no idea where you're coming from.

What? Holy overblown batman. I just wrote what I observed in the video. How is what I wrote defending the decision of the cops in any way?
Did you even read when I said " then after her lipping them off they lose their cool again." Holy man, no need to attack my post, I realize the cops are in the wrong here.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

What? Holy overblown batman. I just wrote what I observed in the video. How is what I wrote defending the decision of the cops in any way?
Did you even read when I said " then after her lipping them off they lose their cool again." Holy man, no need to attack my post, I realize the cops are in the wrong here.

Weird way to hold a gun against her neck like that though, as it looked like he was pressing the side of the barrel against her. Definetely could have handled that better. Looks like they try to make the arrest, then realize others are around, back off to gain control of everyone, then after her lipping them off they lose their cool again.

What's wrong with the guy being back on duty after 8 days though?

Unless that last line is supposed to be in green text I'm not really seeing where you indicate that you think this guy is in the wrong.

Could have handled that better? That's for situations of bad judgment, not clear cut battery on a civilian by an police officer with a personal vendetta. Your post came off as an attempt to downplay the seriousness of what the cop did.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by valo403

Unless that last line is supposed to be in green text I'm not really seeing where you indicate that you think this guy is in the wrong.

Could have handled that better? That's for situations of bad judgment, not clear cut battery on a civilian by an police officer with a personal vendetta. Your post came off as an attempt to downplay the seriousness of what the cop did.

It wasn't and my second one still wasn't. My god, can't you grasp that.
Asking a question about the 8 days doesn't downplay the incident. What I'm getting at is most people keep their jobs until they are found incompentent or guilty. You claim he should immediately be thrown out of the force, I say let him work until the investigation proves otherwise. Unfortunately, you think by me saying so, that I'm saying the attack on the woman was justified.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

It wasn't and my second one still wasn't. My god, can't you grasp that.
Asking a question about the 8 days doesn't downplay the incident. What I'm getting at is most people keep their jobs until they are found incompentent or guilty. You claim he should immediately be thrown out of the force, I say let him work until the investigation proves otherwise. Unfortunately, you think by me saying so, that I'm saying the attack on the woman was justified.

Most people aren't issued guns and the power to arrest at their jobs.

[EDBTZ12]

Why would a police officer be any different than any other civilian when faced with a charge that is serious. You are innocent untill proven guilty and if this cop hasn't been found guilty yet he should be allowed to stay on the job unless his bail was denied.

I'm in no way defending what this guy did but when a cop tells you to put your hands up it's usually not a good idea to talk back and become all bitchy. Even if he did attack her from behind she should have still put her hands up and after she was arrested she could have filed a complaint with the police department. Nothing good is gonna come from mouthing the officer even more especially when he's mad and has a gun.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

Nothing good is gonna come from mouthing the officer even more especially when he's mad and has a gun.

Nothing good except the thousands of dollars she will get in her lawsuit....

[valo403]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

Why would a police officer be any different than any other civilian when faced with a charge that is serious. You are innocent untill proven guilty and if this cop hasn't been found guilty yet he should be allowed to stay on the job unless his bail was denied.

I'm in no way defending what this guy did but when a cop tells you to put your hands up it's usually not a good idea to talk back and become all bitchy. Even if he did attack her from behind she should have still put her hands up and after she was arrested she could have filed a complaint with the police department. Nothing good is gonna come from mouthing the officer even more especially when he's mad and has a gun.

How do you know he said anything about putting hands up? There's no audio on the tape and he grabbed her within 5 seconds of entering the store. Nothing indicates that he said a word and there is plenty of evidence of lies throughout his story.

As for your first point, a police officer is different than any other civilian because they are a police officer. I don't really get how that's confusing. Their job is to uphold the law, if you are charged with not doing so you shouldn't be on the street with a gun at your hip and the power to arrest. This guy was back doing just that in just over a week despite the fact that internal affairs hadn't even come close to finishing an investigation. I never said that he should be fired without an investigation, but he certainly shouldn't be back in regular duty before something this serious is investigated.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by EDBTZ12

Why would a police officer be any different than any other civilian when faced with a charge that is serious. You are innocent untill proven guilty and if this cop hasn't been found guilty yet he should be allowed to stay on the job unless his bail was denied.

I'm in no way defending what this guy did but when a cop tells you to put your hands up it's usually not a good idea to talk back and become all bitchy. Even if he did attack her from behind she should have still put her hands up and after she was arrested she could have filed a complaint with the police department. Nothing good is gonna come from mouthing the officer even more especially when he's mad and has a gun.

Of course he should be back at his job...if his job involves sitting at a desk, answering a telephone, awaiting termination.