Off Duty Anaheim Police Officer in a Scuffle over Trespassing when Teens Get Rowdy...

[BaiHu]

https://youtu.be/CTabRBFG5fM

Looks like an ND happens towards the end (2:35-40). Then there's some news coverage. The whole important part doesn't last longer than 4 minutes.

More fallout. His house and his neighbors (mistakenly) was vandalized:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/02/23/anaheim-protest-arrests/

[PNWTO]

The party is already starting... (http://ktla.com/2017/02/22/community-members-protesting-in-anaheim-over-fight-between-off-duty-lapd-officer-who-fired-weapon-at-teenage-boy/)

It will be interesting what comes of this and what exactly the escalating factor was.


Police told KTLA the altercation stemmed from an ongoing issues of the teens walking across the officer's property.

I hope that isn't true. No reason to pick a fight with a bunch of kids for that, IMspeculativeO. Oh well, the truth will get fuzzy after the spectacle is over.

[BaiHu]

It certainly seems like the whole neighborhood was a bit outraged and it seems (my presumption) like the OD LAPD guy ended up 'shouldering' the burden of the 'I can't take it no more!' attitude of the neighbors.

[eb07]

Who cares what happens in another country

[txdpd]

The party is already starting... (http://ktla.com/2017/02/22/community-members-protesting-in-anaheim-over-fight-between-off-duty-lapd-officer-who-fired-weapon-at-teenage-boy/)

It will be interesting what comes of this and what exactly the escalating factor was.


I hope that isn't true. No reason to pick a fight with a bunch of kids for that, IMspeculativeO. Oh well, the truth will get fuzzy after the spectacle is over.

The hedges along the driveways can put the "just walking across his yard" nonsense to rest. I don't know the reason for the confrontation, don't know if it was a good reason, but those idiots weren't just walking across his lawn to get from point A to B.

[Mike C]

The officer is greatly outnumbered, there is also a shit ton of anti-LE sentiment floating around right now. So with that mindset, out numbered, encrouched, encircled, getting shoved and swung at, (@2:10-2:13 mark). I wouldn't be passing judgement so quickly.

Shit, one kid jumped over the hedge moved into the officers blind side and reached back behind his hip after encircling him and cutting off retreat. This is after the officer was physically attacked. Personally, there is no doubt as to what the intensions were of the crowd, (well, at least in my mind). Shitty situation but given the fact that no one has a fucking clue what preempted this or what was going through the officers mind at the time I would with hold judgement. Personally I don't know that I would fair any better given the circumstances and doubt many others would either. If you think you would go sign up for ECQC. Given the stupidity and close mindedness that has been floating around here lately I'd suggest holding off on any stupid MMQB comments. Instead, I would suggest looking at what the officer could do better given the circumstances he found himself in, why not discuss tactics instead. Just my .02

I also want to add that any normal person would get the fuck out of the AO after a weapon was produced. It also sounds like the officer even announced himself as a police officer at one point based on the response of the kid that was being detained, (audio is bad and I've had too much Richard). I am also pretty sure I heard threats being made by the kid to the officer. That being said the fact that the crowd did not disperse until after a shot was fired, (regardless of whether is was an ND) makes me think the kids were up to no good.

[PNWTO]

The hedges along the driveways can put the "just walking across his yard" nonsense to rest. I don't know the reason for the confrontation, don't know if it was a good reason, but those idiots weren't just walking across his lawn to get from point A to B.

I totally agree and I'm sure there was a whole lot more agitating from the kids than we will know. I realize the wording of my previous post was probably not the best.

[Vinh]

So many fecal children and parents... best wishes to the officer and his family. Dude needs to work on his draw, next time those kids come at him, they won't be unarmed.

[Cookie Monster]

One of the many reasons I live on 5 acres in the sticks.

[Mjolnir]

Doesn't seem like an ND.

And I think he was defending himself so it's "all good" to me.
They should use the video to arrest at least two other kids who made horrid decisions.

I wish him well; this is BS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arbninftry]

It's Cali, he will be hung out to dry regardless. He is screwed.

[fishing]

there are alot of other (and better) things the officer could have done in this situation, from the details available to the public now.

[Willard]

there are alot of other (and better) things the officer could have done in this situation, from the details available to the public now.

Please share.

[blues]

Please share.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f8/4d/91/f84d9123c06e24a9e9632f6f721d6984.jpg

[Tabasco]

One of the many reasons I live on 5 acres in the sticks.

Me too.

[fishing]

Please share.

for a start... stayed inside of his crib.

[Shellback]

The officer is greatly outnumbered... This is after the officer was physically attacked. Personally, there is no doubt as to what the intensions were of the crowd...

What officer? You mean the guy who was dressed in street clothes, who didn't present any sort of badge or ID in the video, claiming to be a cop?

"After the officer was attacked?" Again, I see an adult assaulting a minor and his friends coming to his aid.

You stating the guy is an officer is a prime example of MMQB'ing. Without that bit of knowledge it looks like Joe Citizen latching onto a kid, assaulting a minor, getting in over his head and then having an ND. How is anyone there supposed to know he's a cop?

I would think presenting an ID or badge, or having one at the ready, prior to interjecting oneself into an argument amongst teenagers would be wise. It obviously wasn't a life or death "oh shit!" type of situation and could've possibly prevented the escalation.

The problem I see is any wingnut can verbally identify themselves as the police. If that were my child, and they resisted a complete stranger dressed in street clothes, I certainly wouldn't admonish them for their actions. Some guy claiming to be a police officer is assaulting their friend for something they perceive as trivial, they try to intervene and help him, the guy realizes he's getting in over his head and draws his gun, resulting in an ND.

The kid's side (http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/christian-dorscht-anaheim-lapd-cop-officer-video-protests-shooting-shots-video-injuries-photos-father-mother-gofundme/) is the officer called a girl a cunt, for walking on the grass, and he was sticking up for the girl... Not saying that's right or not. Side note, kid's stepfather is an officer as well.

Side by side video with more of what led up to the ND. Multiple people having claimed to have already called the police in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8jIPZ5CP9I

[JTQ]

Without that bit of knowledge it looks like Joe Citizen ... getting in over his head and then having an ND.

I agree. I don't know what I'd do if I were in his position. This looks like a group of kids that have just gotten out of school/off the bus, and have done this (walk through the neighborhood across every body's lawn) every day for the past six months or so. It would piss me off (old guy here), but I probably wouldn't have engaged the mob.


If that were my child, and they resisted a complete stranger dressed in street clothes, I certainly wouldn't admonish them for their actions.

Oh, I would. What were you doing in this guy's yard? Why all the smart mouthing to an adult? If my kid weren't the kid grabbed, why didn't you back off and wait for authorities?

While it is certainly possible these kids were politely walking down the side walk, carrying on with polite conversations, and this guy came out of his house and crossed the street, yelled some derogatory comments to a young lady, for no reason, and a young gentleman stood up for her honor, I suspect that is extremely unlikely.

My kids were pretty well behaved (OK, they were extremely well behaved) throughout their school years, but when they came home and said the teacher/classmate/etc. did something to them "for no reason", I'd contact the school and start with "Here's the 10 year old's (or however old they were at the time) version of the story". Usually (nearly every time), the adult version of the story was different enough to justify the action.

[SigShooter]

Anaheim PD & LAPD will concurrently investigate. Until their investigations are complete, we'd be merely guessing, and my guess is based upon the circumstances, the cop had reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury. We know the cop had a weapon. What we don't know is whether the suspects had weapons. Apparently, one had threatened to shoot the cop, which is a criminal threat.

[breakingtime91]

As someone who deals with youth constantly, it is really important to keep your cool. Also you have to look at the outcome of your actions. Regardless if I believe he should of gone out in plain clothes, drawn a gun, and then ND'd almost into a young kid, was confronting these kids worth it? if they were doing something relatively innocent, like walking across your lawn, is possibly losing your job or shooting a teenager over a physical altercation worth it? I also have a much different threshold for drawing my gun, especially on teenagers.

[JTQ]

For the LE folks, lets assume the guy wasn't LE. What should a homeowner do if, for instance, this mob of kids had been walking across the entire neighborhoods lawns everyday for months.

If you get a call saying as much, do you tell the homeowner to get over it and don't bother coming out? Do you respond and tell the kids to get off the lawns? If they don't comply, what do you do next? Is being a jackass kid a crime? Is it trespassing? As a most likely daily occurrence, what happens with a daily call out after some time?

[Shellback]

This looks like a group of kids that have just gotten out of school/off the bus, and have done this (walk through the neighborhood across every body's lawn) every day for the past six months or so.

What were you doing in this guy's yard? Why all the smart mouthing to an adult? If my kid weren't the kid grabbed, why didn't you back off and wait for authorities?

While it is certainly possible these kids were politely walking down the side walk, carrying on with polite conversations, and this guy came out of his house and crossed the street, yelled some derogatory comments to a young lady, for no reason, and a young gentleman stood up for her honor, I suspect that is extremely unlikely...
That's assuming they were in the guy's yard. And on top of that if that's why the guy's pissed why does he drag the kid by the shirt across someone else' lawn and then through the shrubs? He's a hypocritical dickhead if that's his beef.

No one said the guy crossed the street. They probably did cut his lawn, but it is also highly conceivable that he's pissed off at a bunch of mouthy teenagers, who defied his perceived authority, and insulted one of them resulting in them telling him to fuck off and things escalating from there.

[Shellback]

Anaheim PD & LAPD will concurrently investigate. Until their investigations are complete, we'd be merely guessing, and my guess is based upon the circumstances, the cop had reasonable fear of his life or great bodily injury. We know the cop had a weapon. What we don't know is whether the suspects had weapons. Apparently, one had threatened to shoot the cop, which is a criminal threat.

The minor, who was being assaulted, had fear of great bodily injury. That's why his friends were sticking up for him against some wingnut who gets wound up about his lawn and takes the law into his own hands instead of calling the police.

What evidence do you have that he threatened to shoot a cop?

[JTQ]

They probably did cut his lawn, but it is also highly conceivable that he's pissed off at a bunch of mouthy teenagers, who defied his authority, and insulted one of them resulting in them telling him to fuck off and things escalating from there.
Yep, and if any were my kid, they'd get quite the talking to. I'm not saying I'd not be upset about the ND. That's real bad. However, if my kids precipitated this incident they'd be in the wrong and would owe that homeowner an apology.

[Hambo]

For the LE folks, lets assume the guy wasn't LE. What should a homeowner do if, for instance, this mob of kids had been walking across the entire neighborhoods lawns everyday for months.

I had this problem for years because the school district decided my corner was a great bus stop. Frankly the parents who drove their kids two blocks were worse than the kids, but that's another story. To deter kids from coming close to the house, I planted bouganvillea (big plant with big thorns), crown of thorns (stiff plant with nasty thorns), and found/antique roses (not your Jackson-Perkins varieties). Nature's barbed wire is a great way to modify behavior while making your yard look nice.

[Shellback]

Yep, and if any were my kid, they'd get quite the talking to. I'm not saying I'd not be upset about the ND. That's real bad. However, if my kids precipitated this incident they'd be in the wrong and would owe that homeowner an apology.

I agree in terms of putting the kids straight. The dude screwed himself though. He might possibly lose his job, be personally sued for assault, hearing loss, etc. and all for what? To teach those darned kids a lesson!

You think Billy and his buddies aren't gonna remember where the "dick cop" lives? If he's smart dude's checking out U-Haul rental rates right now.

[Doc_Glock]

As a non cop, looking at this video before all y'all's commentary, it looks really bad.

It looks like an adult unnecessarily grabbing and holding a child. It looks like the child's friends trying to help him. It looks like a fool grabbing a gun and having a ND.

I appreciate the commentary thus far from cops and have sympathy for the profession, but I find the gentleman's behavior video frankly fairly indefensible.

[Zincwarrior]

The officer is greatly outnumbered, there is also a shit ton of anti-LE sentiment floating around right now. So with that mindset, out numbered, encrouched, encircled, getting shoved and swung at, (@2:10-2:13 mark). I wouldn't be passing judgement so quickly.

Shit, one kid jumped over the hedge moved into the officers blind side and reached back behind his hip after encircling him and cutting off retreat. This is after the officer was physically attacked. Personally, there is no doubt as to what the intensions were of the crowd, (well, at least in my mind). Shitty situation but given the fact that no one has a fucking clue what preempted this or what was going through the officers mind at the time I would with hold judgement. Personally I don't know that I would fair any better given the circumstances and doubt many others would either. If you think you would go sign up for ECQC. Given the stupidity and close mindedness that has been floating around here lately I'd suggest holding off on any stupid MMQB comments. Instead, I would suggest looking at what the officer could do better given the circumstances he found himself in, why not discuss tactics instead. Just my .02

I also want to add that any normal person would get the fuck out of the AO after a weapon was produced. It also sounds like the officer even announced himself as a police officer at one point based on the response of the kid that was being detained, (audio is bad and I've had too much Richard). I am also pretty sure I heard threats being made by the kid to the officer. That being said the fact that the crowd did not disperse until after a shot was fired, (regardless of whether is was an ND) makes me think the kids were up to no good.


As a CHler that ND would get a non police officer charged and they would likely lose their CHL.

[Zincwarrior]

For the LE folks, lets assume the guy wasn't LE. What should a homeowner do if, for instance, this mob of kids had been walking across the entire neighborhoods lawns everyday for months.



Put up the proverbial white picket fence. If you can't do to HOA then deal with it. Thats life in the suburb. If you don't want kids to cut across your yard then you should not be living in a suburb. Thats the point of why people move there.

But, having lived in SC for years, lots of people had fences up, and not nice ones but craptacular chainlink ones.

[AlwaysLearning]

I had this problem for years because the school district decided my corner was a great bus stop. Frankly the parents who drove their kids two blocks were worse than the kids, but that's another story. To deter kids from coming close to the house, I planted bouganvillea (big plant with big thorns), crown of thorns (stiff plant with nasty thorns), and found/antique roses (not your Jackson-Perkins varieties). Nature's barbed wire is a great way to modify behavior while making your yard look nice.
Kumquat trees/bushes work well also, plus you get food out of the deal.

When I was a kid I would go to my grandparents' house and inevitably my ball/model airplane/paperairplane would fly into the bushes next to the house. It was always a big pain because the bushes were all thorny, and the sideyard (which had a ton of ground level windows overlooking it) was just a mass of rosebushes. Never went back there if I could help it.

As an adult, I understand exactly why they did it. Even though the house had a lot of large windows at ground level, good luck getting up next to those windows without being covered in thorn sticks. Back fence was the same deal.

My grandparents were smart people.

[babypanther]

I'll be interested in seeing the results of the Investigation(s) when they are released, if those are made public. I do not know the trespassing/unwanted guest law in CA, but here where I live and work, I would have tried going that route. If it is the same group of kids, doing the same thing, at roughly the same time frame during the day over the course of 6 months, start taking pictures/filming, and call the cops out to trespass the kids everyday until something changes. Just my .02.

[Mike C]

As a CHler that ND would get a non police officer charged and they would likely lose their CHL.

Obviously you think that I am some how justifying lighting a round off, or that I made or inferred some correlation to a CHL holder. No where did I state such and would appreciate you not trying to contort what I have said. As to your comment about officers having extra latitude. Yes, they do receive some latitude in order to do their job and rightfully so. You can't ask a person to go running to the sound of gun fire or grab a criminal who just committed armed robbery without giving them some lead-way in what they do. I am not going to completely derail this thread but it is imperative for them to have some latitude. Now, whether or not that applies to this specific instance isn't up to me and will be up to his Chain of Command and what ever legal authority is in his municipality.

Frankly I was simply laying out the facts which seems necessary due to some of the dumb ass comments on here as of late. There are some, (a small few) on here who would rather not be confused with facts as their minds and feelings are already made up and frankly I'm sick of it. I didn't want to see a possible learning point for me and others to hear a solid analysis from people who might have been in a similar situation go to waste. When people get on here and make dumb comments and tear down a guy before they even know the facts it discourages learning and information exchange from the experienced to the inexperienced.

[SigShooter]

As someone who deals with youth constantly, it is really important to keep your cool. Also you have to look at the outcome of your actions. Regardless if I believe he should of gone out in plain clothes, drawn a gun, and then ND'd almost into a young kid, was confronting these kids worth it? if they were doing something relatively innocent, like walking across your lawn, is possibly losing your job or shooting a teenager over a physical altercation worth it? I also have a much different threshold for drawing my gun, especially on teenagers.

Your post indicates exactly how windows get broken: do nothing while criminals commit crimes. We don't need James Q. Wilson's treatise on causalities of crime. We know how crime breeds. When we do nothing, we feed the infection.

I'm not sure what you do with kids, but you lack knowledge of law enforcement. And you're naive if you think that kids don't murder.

Are you insinuating that the cop did not retain equanimity under pressure? The cop kept his cool. The suspects caused and escalated this incident. No one has a right to believe that he can commit crime with impunity. The suspects should have anticipated the outcome of their actions.

I'm standing with the cop. He saw criminal activity and tried to stop it. He saw damage to his property and tried to prevent it. If what I believe to be true is in fact true, I'd buy that cop dinner.

Yes, it was worth it. That cop had a right to protect his property. From what I saw on the video, which is not definitive, the suspects escalated the incident. The tall, black kid took a swing at the cop. They encircled him in a very threatening manner.

breakingtime91, it's not your opinion that matters. It will be the cop's interpretation of events at the time he drew his weapon. If he is able to articulate that he was in fear of his life or great bodily injury, he'll be good-to-go. I believe that he'll be good-to-go. Courts have been very clear about cops' perspectives at times of shootings. Courts have said that we cannot repose in safety and presume to know what any cop should have done. We have to look at this from the perspective of cops' training, knowledge, and experience. What you think doesn't matter. In fact, I don't care what you think. I do care what investigations find to be factual. And my guess in that the investigations will find that the cop acted lawfully.

If the suspect whom the cop grabbed was the one who had made the criminal threat on the cop's life, law accords him every right to detain the suspect or arrest him. The suspect has no right to resist. Other suspects who had tried to lynch (take suspect from lawful custody of officer) should have been arrested as well.

[SigShooter]

That's assuming they were in the guy's yard. And on top of that if that's why the guy's pissed why does he drag the kid by the shirt across someone else' lawn and then through the shrubs? He's a hypocritical dickhead if that's his beef.

No one said the guy crossed the street. They probably did cut his lawn, but it is also highly conceivable that he's pissed off at a bunch of mouthy teenagers, who defied his perceived authority, and insulted one of them resulting in them telling him to fuck off and things escalating from there.

Shellback,

You don't have a clue. If the suspect whom the cop had restrained committed a criminal threat, the cop's actions were 100% lawful. The suspect had no right to resist.

Your assuming that the cop was a "dickhead" is ridiculous. Are you going to apologize to the cop if he is found to have acted lawfully.

[CCT125US]

It would be interesting to see the opinions reached, when the "details" are presented via various means. For example, audio only, video only, eyewitness only. And the video seems to start after the initial act, if there was one.

[Zincwarrior]

Obviously you think that I am some how justifying lighting a round off, or that I made or inferred some correlation to a CHL holder. No where did I state such and would appreciate you not trying to contort what I have said. As to your comment about officers having extra latitude. Yes, they do receive some latitude in order to do their job and rightfully so. You can't ask a person to go running to the sound of gun fire or grab a criminal who just committed armed robbery without giving them some lead-way in what they do. I am not going to completely derail this thread but it is imperative for them to have some latitude. Now, whether or not that applies to this specific instance isn't up to me and will be up to his Chain of Command and what ever legal authority is in his municipality.

Frankly I was simply laying out the facts which seems necessary due to some of the dumb ass comments on here as of late. There are some, (a small few) on here who would rather not be confused with facts as their minds and feelings are already made up and frankly I'm sick of it. I didn't want to see a possible learning point for me and others to hear a solid analysis from people who might have been in a similar situation go to waste. When people get on here and make dumb comments and tear down a guy before they even know the facts it discourages learning and information exchange from the experienced to the inexperienced.

Thats a lot of reply to my post :D. I was only pointing out that, had this been a CHL in my state (not in Cali, are they even allowed to own firearms any more) there's no way this comes out good, based on the ND alone.


There's a lot of good info here to read Truest words in the thread!:cool:

[breakingtime91]

Your post indicates exactly how windows get broken: do nothing while criminals commit crimes. We don't need James Q. Wilson's treatise on causalities of crime. We know how crime breeds. When we do nothing, we feed the infection.

I'm not sure what you do with kids, but you lack knowledge of law enforcement. And you're naive if you think that kids don't murder.

Are you insinuating that the cop did not retain equanimity under pressure? The cop kept his cool. The suspects caused and escalated this incident. No one has a right to believe that he can commit crime with impunity. The suspects should have anticipated the outcome of their actions.

I'm standing with the cop. He saw criminal activity and tried to stop it. He saw damage to his property and tried to prevent it. If what I believe to be true is in fact true, I'd buy that cop dinner.

Yes, it was worth it. That cop had a right to protect his property. From what I saw on the video, which is not definitive, the suspects escalated the incident. The tall, black kid took a swing at the cop. They encircled him in a very threatening manner.

breakingtime91, it's not your opinion that matters. It will be the cop's interpretation of events at the time he drew his weapon. If he is able to articulate that he was in fear of his life or great bodily injury, he'll be good-to-go. I believe that he'll be good-to-go. Courts have been very clear about cops' perspectives at times of shootings. Courts have said that we cannot repose in safety and presume to know what any cop should have done. We have to look at this from the perspective of cops' training, knowledge, and experience. What you think doesn't matter. In fact, I don't care what you think. I do care what investigations find to be factual. And my guess in that the investigations will find that the cop acted lawfully.

If the suspect whom the cop grabbed was the one who had made the criminal threat on the cop's life, law accords him every right to detain the suspect or arrest him. The suspect has no right to resist. Other suspects who had tried to lynch (take suspect from lawful custody of officer) should have been arrested as well.

I'm in education but I am also a veteran of fourteen months in Afghanistan, I understand anyone can kill. He didn't keep his cool, he had a ND. Shooting a teenager over an escalated incident involving a lawn is not worth it to me. Just because I am saying this police officer handled this wrongly doesn't mean I don't support police. Anything else you want to be overly aggressive about? Also I understand my opinion doesn't matter, either does yours. No where in my statement says the officer should be punished, just the way I saw it.

[JAD]

Truest words in the thread!:cool:
Nope.


none of it is in this thread

[SigShooter]

One more post talking about each other and not the topic and this thread gets closed.

SigShooter, maybe throttle back on posting, and the attitude, and get to know the forum a bit. There's a lot of good info here to read (and none of it is in this thread).

Hi Tom_Jones,

It's not unusual to find that I'll become upset at unwarranted attacks on cops.

Sorry about the lyric thing. I do have a sense of humor that was refined in uniform. Do you have a jokes section? The most hilarious jokes I've heard have come from cops.

I agree. There are a whole lot of great and very knowledgeable posters here.

Somewhere along the line, this post tilted to the emotional. A poster calling the cop involved a "dickhead" was rooted in emotionalism and was way beyond decorum of a forum that's dedicated to fleshing out knowledge.

Attacking cops without sufficient knowledge is getting old, and it's especially harmful to our cops. I will always defend my brother cops until law enforcement investigations indicate otherwise. Media "investigations" (investigative reporters) are hearsay. They're entertainment. That's why I haven't watched network news in years. They're in it for ratings, which become basis for advertising fees.

I know that those not in law enforcement might not have knowledge of law enforcement policies and processes, and why they're in effect. I'm good with such posters asking questions. But I will admit that I become a little upset when posters post their emotional interpretations that are really cheap shots at cops. Instead of assuming that the cop "lost his cool," an honest question of why the cop acted as he did would have been apropos.

Cops who have been 10-8 understand these basic premises. We know to wait for conclusions of law enforcement investigations. We know that cops are forbidden by agencies' policies from discussing ongoing criminal investigations. And I know the the public in general probably has no clue of these basic law enforcement tenets.

There is not much more that I can add other than refraining from emotionalism and waiting for law enforcement investigations to conclude. It's only after law enforcement investigations are concluded will we know facts of this case.

[Zincwarrior]

Nope.

Well we're agreed there is good info then, even if not in the thread.

Also rose bushes as nature's barbed wire. Also Holly bushes. Thats nature's nightmare right there.

[Zincwarrior]

Hi Tom_Jones,

It's not unusual to find that I'll become upset at unwarranted attacks on cops.

Sorry about the lyric thing. I do have a sense of humor that was refined in uniform. Do you have a jokes section? The most hilarious jokes I've heard have come from cops.

I agree. There are a whole lot of great and very knowledgeable posters here.

Somewhere along the line, this post tilted to the emotional. A poster calling the cop involved a "dickhead" was rooted in emotionalism and was way beyond decorum of a forum that's dedicated to fleshing out knowledge.

Attacking cops without sufficient knowledge is getting old, and it's especially harmful to our cops. I will always defend my brother cops until law enforcement investigations indicate otherwise. Media "investigations" (investigative reporters) are hearsay. They're entertainment. That's why I haven't watched network news in years. They're in it for ratings, which become basis for advertising fees.

I know that those not in law enforcement might not have knowledge of law enforcement policies and processes, and why they're in effect. I'm good with such posters asking questions. But I will admit that I become a little upset when posters post their emotional interpretations that are really cheap shots at cops. Instead of assuming that the cop "lost his cool," an honest question of why the cop acted as he did would have been apropos.

Cops who have been 10-8 understand these basic premises. We know to wait for conclusions of law enforcement investigations. We know that cops are forbidden by agencies' policies from discussing ongoing criminal investigations. And I know the the public in general probably has no clue of these basic law enforcement tenets.

There is not much more that I can add other than refraining from emotionalism and waiting for law enforcement investigations to conclude. It's only after law enforcement investigations are concluded will we know facts of this case.

Did he ever identify himself as a police officer?

[JTQ]

The dude screwed himself though. He might possibly lose his job, be personally sued for assault, hearing loss, etc. and all for what? To teach those darned kids a lesson!

You think Billy and his buddies aren't gonna remember where the "dick cop" lives? If he's smart dude's checking out U-Haul rental rates right now.

I agree, and I would probably not have done anything myself simply to avoid the retribution thing, which I believe watching that bunch of kids, would be a real concern.

That's why I asked what the LE folks would do or recommend. I'm not pulling a gun on a bunch of kids walking on my lawn, and while I may make one or two attempts to ask them to stop, I'm not likely to take the confrontation farther than that. I'd rather have them walk on my grass than bust my windows, slash my tires, spray paint my house, etc., which looks like something our off duty officer should expect in the near future.

[Shellback]

That's assuming they were in the guy's yard. And on top of that if that's why the guy's pissed why does he drag the kid by the shirt across someone else' lawn and then through the shrubs? He's a hypocritical dickhead if that's his beef.
Quoting my original statement just to clear things up.

Shellback,

You don't have a clue. If the suspect whom the cop had restrained committed a criminal threat, the cop's actions were 100% lawful. The suspect had no right to resist.

Your assuming that the cop was a "dickhead" is ridiculous. Are you going to apologize to the cop if he is found to have acted lawfully.

IF the kid made a threat, IF. From the videos posted he didn't present himself as a police officer. Until proven otherwise I would assume he's not a cop and resist to the fullest so that he can't be further assaulted by some dude claiming to be the law, while offering no proof.

The guy's dragging some kid around on someone else's lawn, which was his supposed complaint, and through someone's bushes that makes him a hypocritical dickhead in my opinion. My statement has NOTHING to do with him being a cop and I'd say the same thing about anyone else on the planet. I stand by my statement.

Have a good day.

[Zincwarrior]

What is a "criminal threat?" Is that attempted assault?

[SigShooter]

I'm in education but I am also a veteran of fourteen months in Afghanistan, I understand anyone can kill. He didn't keep his cool, he had a ND. Shooting a teenager over an escalated incident involving a lawn is not worth it to me. Just because I am saying this police officer handled this wrongly doesn't mean I don't support police. Anything else you want to be overly aggressive about? Also I understand my opinion doesn't matter, either does yours. No where in my statement says the officer should be punished, just the way I saw it.
Again, you're assuming that the officer didn't keep his cool. For you to make such an assumption, you'd have to put yourself in the cop's shoes and know what he knew at the time of the crime. I think the cop responded quite well to the aggressive actions of the suspects who had him greatly outnumbered; and that's critical: the cop reacted to the criminals' actions.

You must know law and law enforcement practices to have a foundation from which you can interpret the cop's actions. Moreover, because of the felony murder rule, God forbid, had that cop's apparent accidental discharge resulted in the death of another, the suspect and not the cop would have been charged with murder. The alleged AD was a result of the suspect's actions, not the cop's actions. If the cop was in fear of his life or great bodily injury, he was justified drawing his weapon.

My opinion might not matter to you and others without knowledge of law enforcement. However, my training, knowledge, expertise, and experience does matter in court, which is where it will matter if the suspects make it to juvie court. Cops know this to be true.

I'm an honorably retired cop. After I retired, I picked up a single subject credential and taught public high school for ten years. A commonality among teachers who had left college for classrooms was a lack of practical knowledge. They knew theory. But they didn't know whether their theories held real world water. The decades' old admonition of a grad school professor still rings within my ears: theory without fact is fantasy. Here, your theory of the cop's actions doesn't hold water. I can hang with that. But instead of a rush to judgment, an angle you could have taken would have been to ask questions. For instance, a criminal threat is a felony. At that point, the cop had every right to detain and/or arrest the suspect. The suspect escalated the incident by resisting. A suspect has no legal right to resist a lawful detention or arrest.

I've had teachers with whom I worked very confidently tell me that they KNEW something because it was on last night's news. I didn't waste time telling them that news is considered hearsay and not basis of knowledge. News media is entertainment. It should not be considered factual.

BTW, when I'm queried, I respond that I'm a retired cop. I identify myself as a cop. Teaching was a decent gig. It would have been a whole lot better had teachers been accorded discretion. Content standards replaced discretion. School designations (distinguished schools) motivated principals to strive for status above education. In turn, striving to teach kids knowledge and to become lifelong learners was subjugated to pursuit of status. Regardless of what school administrators say, teachers teach to tests, not to relevant subject matter. I've seen teachers examine state test booklets days before tests were administered. Therefore, distinguished school status means little without facts of how it attained that status. Lastly, and I'm going off memory alone here, a teacher's abilities might account for a rise of not more than 10% above a student's innate abilities.

Were I accorded a life do-over, I'd become a cop. Factually, law enforcement is far more intellectually intensive than teaching. Cops have to thoroughly know myriad topics and be able to apply them in practice. A cop might go from an armed robbery with suspects in custody (high adrenaline) to a subsequent call of a mental victim who's a danger to himself (high empathy), each requiring unique responses and quite different laws. There is a unique fraternity, a palpable bond among cops that doesn't exist in other professions except for the military.

[breakingtime91]

Your whole post assumes I'm like the teachers you knew, for full discretion I am a former marine corps infantryman who was also honorably discharged. With that out of the way, I was never a cop but it doesn't take a cop to recognize that guy lost control of not the only the situation but also instead of descalating it he escalated it by pulling out his pistol and NDing it. We are obviously in disagreement but if that was my co worker I would have to ask him what the fuck he was thinking.

[blues]

There is a unique fraternity, a palpable bond among cops that doesn't exist in other professions except for the military.

I'd imagine that firefighters and I'd hazard a guess that some other groups would also fit that description. For example, I can imagine being a miner working deep underground would foster some strong allegiances.

I think you make some good points but rather than making everything so hard and fast I think there's room around the edges for some give and take.
(Probably ruffle a few less feathers too...though mine aren't ruffled in the least. Just a friendly observation.)

[SigShooter]

Quoting my original statement just to clear things up.


IF the kid made a threat, IF. From the videos posted he didn't present himself as a police officer. Until proven otherwise I would assume he's not a cop and resist to the fullest so that he can't be further assaulted by some dude claiming to be the law, while offering no proof.

The guy's dragging some kid around on someone else's lawn, which was his supposed complaint, and through someone's bushes that makes him a hypocritical dickhead in my opinion. My statement has NOTHING to do with him being a cop and I'd say the same thing about anyone else on the planet. I stand by my statement.

Have a good day.

Your assumptions might get you in a lot of very hot water. A citizen can make an arrest. A suspect has no right to resist a citizen's arrest.

I once had an indoor range moron tell me that no concealed weapons were allowed within his range. He said that he'd personally remove a concealed gun from a cop who is accorded legal authority per the penal code to carry concealed handguns. Had that moron tried to take a concealed handgun from an off-duty or retired cop who was within the penal code, he'd of gone to jail for attempted grand theft from a person and attempted grand theft firearm and possibly attempted strong arm robbery if he were to use force however slight.

Your pejorative opinion that the cop dragged the kid is the way you see it. Cops will see it as a common practice of removing the suspect from a scene in which the cop was in greater danger. Once an arrest is made, a cop can move a suspect. A cop can reasonably move a detainee for safety reasons.

[Zincwarrior]

I'm an honorably retired cop. After I retired, I picked up a single subject credential and taught public high school for ten years. A commonality among teachers who had left college for classrooms was a lack of practical knowledge. They knew theory. But they didn't know whether their theories held real world water. The decades' old admonition of a grad school professor still rings within my ears: theory without fact is fantasy. Here, your theory of the cop's actions doesn't hold water. I can hang with that. But instead of a rush to judgment, an angle you could have taken would have been to ask questions. For instance, a criminal threat is a felony. At that point, the cop had every right to detain and/or arrest the suspect. The suspect escalated the incident by resisting. A suspect has no legal right to resist a lawful detention or arrest.

Did he identify himself as a police officer? When?

What was the arrest for?

What legally constitutional police policy permits an ND?

[SigShooter]

I'd imagine that firefighters and I'd hazard a guess that some other groups would also fit that description. For example, I can imagine being a miner working deep underground would foster some strong allegiances.

I think you make some good points but rather than making everything so hard and fast I think there's room around the edges for some give and take.
(Probably ruffle a few less feathers too...though mine aren't ruffled in the least. Just a friendly observation.)

Hi blues,

You're right. I forgot about firefighters. Thanks for the help.

[SigShooter]

Your whole post assumes I'm like the teachers you knew, for full discretion I am a former marine corps infantryman who was also honorably discharged. With that out of the way, I was never a cop but it doesn't take a cop to recognize that guy lost control of not the only the situation but also instead of descalating it he escalated it by pulling out his pistol and NDing it. We are obviously in disagreement but if that was my co worker I would have to ask him what the fuck he was thinking.

Let's agree to disagree and remain cyber friends. Reasonable people will disagree. The key is to disagree with respect.

I sincerely wish you best of luck.

[Hambo]

He saw damage to his property and tried to prevent it.

I don't know where you live, but where I live property crimes that end with shots fired usually go badly for the homeowner.

[Soggy]

Without the initial offense and initial contact recorded, this is all speculative. My speculation:
I assume based on the behavior of the kid and the crowd the cop ID'd himself and apprehended the kid for doing something wrong. Some in the crowd wanted to spring the kid before the uniforms showed up, and got bolder and bolder, ultimately attacking the cop. Not sure what he was supposed to do at that point, other than let the kid go. He seemed pretty calm throughout.

If he had grabbed the kid for no justification and/or they didn't think he was a cop I don't think there would have be so little initial struggle/violence. They new the kid f'ed up but tried to figure out how far they could push it to get him freed.

[SigShooter]

Hi Hambo,

It wasn't the property crime(s) that caused the cops' alleged accidental discharge. It was one of the suspect's escalating the event to a felony. When he threaten to shoot the cop, it became a criminal threat, which is a felony.

We can't forget that the cop reactive to the suspects' actions. The suspects and not the cop caused the outcome.

[SigShooter]

Without the initial offense and initial contact recorded, this is all speculative. My speculation:
I assume based on the behavior of the kid and the crowd the cop ID'd himself and apprehended the kid for doing something wrong. Some in the crowd wanted to spring the kid before the uniforms showed up, and got bolder and bolder, ultimately attacking the cop. Not sure what he was supposed to do at that point, other than let the kid go. He seemed pretty calm throughout.

If he had grabbed the kid for no justification and/or they didn't think he was a cop I don't think there would have be so little initial struggle/violence. They new the kid f'ed up but tried to figure out how far they could push it to get him freed.

Good analysis.

Freeing a suspect in lawful custody is lynching, a felony. In this case, it looked as though there were a few suspects who were good for attempted lynching.

[Shellback]

Your assumptions might get you in a lot of very hot water. A citizen can make an arrest. A suspect has no right to resist a citizen's arrest...

Your pejorative opinion that the cop dragged the kid is the way you see it. Cops will see it as a common practice of removing the suspect from a scene in which the cop was in greater danger. Once an arrest is made, a cop can move a suspect. A cop can reasonably move a detainee for safety reasons.

A citizen's arrest for what exactly? There are conflicting stories as to what started the chain of events. Everything you're discussing is based off of the assumption that the kid actually threatened him.

I don't see it as pejorative, I see it as descriptive. If someone's latched onto someone else's collar and is pulling them across someone else's lawn, what would you call it?

Can you pinpoint the time, in either video posted, where the guy demonstrates that he's actually a police officer? I don't recall it happening.

[Zincwarrior]

It was one of the suspect's escalating the event to a felony. When he threaten to shoot the cop, it became a criminal threat, which is a felony.
So its permissible to accidentally shoot your firearm? Can you show me that policy?


Good analysis.

Freeing a suspect in lawful custody is lynching, a felony. In this case, it looked as though there were a few suspects who were good for attempted lynching.

Lynching is the extrajudicial murder of someone via hanging.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lynching

[PNWTO]

SigShooter, I think you need to re-read Tom's suggestion and log off for a bit.

[Qaz98]

I don't know where you live, but where I live property crimes that end with shots fired usually go badly for the homeowner.
Jumping in on this thread. I saw this video and another one of the Portland cameraman who pulled his weapon during a black lives matter protest, and was subsequently charged and convicted.

With much respect to Sig shooter and all LEOs (I mean that sincerely, not aarcastically) it seems like this cop makes a flaw that others caught on video have. He his authority oriented rather than goal oriented. For me, if I'm pulling my weapon, my goal is to end a threat to my life. What was his goal? It seemed like he was more set on establishing his authority over the kids. Now, it's a bit trickier with Castle Doctrine, for sure. The Portland cameraman could have, and should have turned tail. Again, trickier from a legal standpoint if Oregon has a stand your ground rule. To me, the way he draws his weapon, it doesn't appear to be done with urgency, but rather to establish his dominance over the group.

The next level is, if you have a right to do something, is that your only answer? Yes, you have a right to defend your property. Is drawing the best answer on trespassers? Yes, I may have a right to stand my ground, but is that the best answer if confronted?

Maybe I was brainwashed by people that taught me, who were also LEOs and Border Patrol, but I've trained to give loud verbal warnings if I was afraid "Stop! I have a weapon, and I will fire if you come closer!" and once it's drawn and the threat continues, give up space (for tactical purposes) and scream again "do not move towards me any more or I will take that as a threat on my life! " or words to that effect. Maybe that's not how others train or mentally prepare for an encounter.

Open to thoughts.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[SigShooter]

Zincwarrior,

Extremism is logical fallacy. I know your intention. It ain't gonna work. Your non sequitur was classic extremism with the intent of isolating minutiae that you hoped would invalidate my post. I'm sorry that it didn't work out for you.

Please, in the future, do not misconstrue my posts or intentionally contort them in effort to advance your agenda. You know damned well that nowhere have I ever remotely intimated that it an accidental discharge is permissible. You made that up. I know why you did.

This in the 2015 version: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=405a.

of the felony formally known as lynching:

Specifically, Penal Code 405a provides the definition: "The taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer is a lynching." Penal Code 405b provides the penalty: "Every person who participates in any lynching is punishable by imprisonment...for two, three or four years."

Source: http://www.shouselaw.com/lynching.html

Hence, prior to its 2015 amending, the CA Penal Code (Anaheim is in CA) referred to the taking of a prisoner from lawful custody of a cop as lynching, a felony.

A cardinal rule of history is to never examine a historical event out of the era and context in which it occurred. We all know the historical definition of lynching. Now you know the legal definition of it.

[Hambo]

Your non sequitur was classic extremism with the intent of isolating minutiae that you hoped would invalidate my post.

One word: decaf.

[Soggy]

Open to thoughts.



If one assumes he had legal authority to detain the kid (which none of us know, but is possible): He was doing something lawful, was carrying out his duty, and was already assaulted by the mini mob before he took his weapon out. They were obviously escalating the confrontation, and were looking for opportunities. They could have just stood there, recorded the confrontation, and waited for the uniforms to show up. They chose to attack a police officer instead*.

(*again, assuming he id'ed himself, and/or all these people already new each other from living in the neighborhood)

[Shellback]

Interesting tidbit from the OP's article:

“In the officer’s mind, he heard the young man say he was going to shoot him. He thought he had a gun,” said the officer’s attorney, Larry Hanna, in a statement.

“It was a warning shot to get this crowd of people away from him who were intent on doing him bodily injury and it’s shown on the video he was doing no bodily injury to the young man.”

[Zincwarrior]

Zincwarrior,

Extremism is logical fallacy. I know your intention. It ain't gonna work. Your non sequitur was classic extremism with the intent of isolating minutiae that you hoped would invalidate my post. I'm sorry that it didn't work out for you.

Here's where I scratch my head and have to ask...what?
(ok excuse for one of my favorite quotes..."extremism in the defense of liverty is no vice!"



Please, in the future, do not misconstrue my posts or intentionally contort them in effort to advance your agenda. You know damned well that nowhere have I ever remotely intimated that it an accidental discharge is permissible. You made that up. I know why you did.

I'm confused. Thats literally what you typed, hence my asking the policy supporting your statement.


This in the 2015 version: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=405a .

of the felony formally known as lynching:

Specifically, Penal Code 405a provides the definition: "The taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer is a lynching." Penal Code 405b provides the penalty: "Every person who participates in any lynching is punishable by imprisonment...for two, three or four years."

Source: http://www.shouselaw.com/lynching.html

Color me surprised. Thanks!

[Zincwarrior]

If one assumes he had legal authority to detain the kid (which none of us know, but is possible): He was doing something lawful, was carrying out his duty, and was already assaulted by the mini mob before he took his weapon out. They were obviously escalating the confrontation, and were looking for opportunities. They could have just stood there, recorded the confrontation, and waited for the uniforms to show up. They chose to attack a police officer instead*.

(*again, assuming he id'ed himself, and/or all these people already new each other from living in the neighborhood)



Agreed. The only remaining issue would be the ND.

[Qaz98]

[QUOTE=Soggy;568821] They were obviously escalating the confrontation, and were looking for opportunities.

I agree. I guess what I'm getting at, is that recent criticism against cops is that they do not seem adept at de-escalating a situation. De escalation sometimes requires losing face in the short term. No doubt he was attacked by the kids. I'm also not arguing that he had a right to pull his weapon of he feared for his life. Although, cops no longer get a free pass on using that defense, because people will pass judgement based on video of the encounter. Right or wrong as that may be, because you can't really tell someone how they should have felt in a particular situation. And when a South Carolina cop says he was I. Fear of his life, and the video shows the bad guy running away from you, we'll, there may be law enforcement and tactical philosophy behind that type of shooting, but its not apparent to the regular Joe. And it's the regular Joe that will be the jury.

I can't cut and paste that Portland cameraman link. Probably worth its own new thread but similar IMO.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[TAZ]

I am thoroughly confused this event. I can see why the officer/homeowner felt threatened after someone tackled him and another person tried to hit him. However I'm not clear on what lead up to the guy grabbing a kid by his shirt and dragging him across the yard?

Were the kids seriously just walking across someone's front yard? Were they doing damage to the yard? Not sure what the laws are in California, but for Christs sake it's not Grand Torino and I'll stack bodies like cordwood. I remember as a kid walking home from school cutting across people's front yards all the time. Heck we played smear the queer in front yards that didn't have trees on them all the time. Now we didn't damage or trash the property though.

Not sure what kind of privacy expectations you have with an unfenced yard either. I seem to recall being on a jury pool for a public intoxication case where the guy was arrested on his front porch.

If they were just walking on the yards then I'd say the guy and his neighbors need to get a life. If the kids were doing propert damage or peeking in windows then it's a different story.

[Cypher]

Hi Hambo,

It wasn't the property crime(s) that caused the cops' alleged accidental discharge. It was one of the suspect's escalating the event to a felony. When he threaten to shoot the cop, it became a criminal threat, which is a felony.

We can't forget that the cop reactive to the suspects' actions. The suspects and not the cop caused the outcome.


If it wasn't a negligent discharge the cop purposely fired a "Warning shot". In what jurisdiction are warning shots legal?

[breakingtime91]

I am thoroughly confused this event. I can see why the officer/homeowner felt threatened after someone tackled him and another person tried to hit him. However I'm not clear on what lead up to the guy grabbing a kid by his shirt and dragging him across the yard?

Were the kids seriously just walking across someone's front yard? Were they doing damage to the yard? Not sure what the laws are in California, but for Christs sake it's not Grand Torino and I'll stack bodies like cordwood. I remember as a kid walking home from school cutting across people's front yards all the time. Heck we played smear the queer in front yards that didn't have trees on them all the time. Now we didn't damage or trash the property though.

Not sure what kind of privacy expectations you have with an unfenced yard either. I seem to recall being on a jury pool for a public intoxication case where the guy was arrested on his front porch.

If they were just walking on the yards then I'd say the guy and his neighbors need to get a life. If the kids were doing propert damage or peeking in windows then it's a different story.

Even if they were doing more then walking across the yard, wouldn't it be better to call for uninformed officers? If a stern get out of my yard doesn't work, then my next step would be to disengage and call 911. If they started to enter my home, the name of the game changes

[Cypher]

I don't have nearly enough information to comment intelligently but I can say this, if I was that out numbered and the only person in danger was me I would have backed off and waited for the Cavalry.

I didn't see any imminent threat to anyone's life that required an arrest RIGHT NOW.

[txdpd]

In most big cities you're going to have to expect around an one hour response time from the cops to get to a call like this. That's a minimum four officer response with a stage up, as demonstrated in the video these situations are riots waiting to happen. With afternoon traffic starting to pick up, it'll be at least an hour and two is more realistic.

The unfortunately reality for a lot of people is that when they have problems like this, they are on their own.

I'm not sure when it became so taboo to stand up for yourself.

A lot of people have a tendency - especially people that have the experience to know better- to look at a situation that went south and decide that things would have worked out differently for them, not because they have power of hindsight, but they operate off the assumption that they can't fuck things up. The people in this thread that watch a video and use it to fluff their egos, are the same ones that will screw the same thing up and cry the loudest for sympathy. Any of us can get caught up in a mob kids in a public place in a blink of the eye and for no rhyme or reason we suddenly become the center of attention to a pack of rabid dogs. There's a lot to learn from this, but why bother?

[Qaz98]

Here's the other scenario I saw. I agree with above, too. I think some of us view these situations and just mentally through our mind what we would do in a similar situation. Of course , everyone has a game plan until they get punched in the face .


https://youtu.be/FH7aTp8DsVI


Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk

[blues]

Even if they were doing more then walking across the yard, wouldn't it be better to call for uninformed officers? If a stern get out of my yard doesn't work, then my next step would be to disengage and call 911. If they started to enter my home, the name of the game changes

Assumes facts not in evidence. I'm shocked, dismayed and somewhat taken aback that you could author such a thing. ;)

(So, auto-correct or subliminal error? :p)

[chl442]

Hi Tom_Jones,

It's not unusual to find that I'll become upset at unwarranted attacks on cops.

Sorry about the lyric thing. I do have a sense of humor that was refined in uniform. Do you have a jokes section? The most hilarious jokes I've heard have come from cops.

I agree. There are a whole lot of great and very knowledgeable posters here.

Somewhere along the line, this post tilted to the emotional. A poster calling the cop involved a "dickhead" was rooted in emotionalism and was way beyond decorum of a forum that's dedicated to fleshing out knowledge.

Attacking cops without sufficient knowledge is getting old, and it's especially harmful to our cops. I will always defend my brother cops until law enforcement investigations indicate otherwise. Media "investigations" (investigative reporters) are hearsay. They're entertainment. That's why I haven't watched network news in years. They're in it for ratings, which become basis for advertising fees.

I know that those not in law enforcement might not have knowledge of law enforcement policies and processes, and why they're in effect. I'm good with such posters asking questions. But I will admit that I become a little upset when posters post their emotional interpretations that are really cheap shots at cops. Instead of assuming that the cop "lost his cool," an honest question of why the cop acted as he did would have been apropos.

Cops who have been 10-8 understand these basic premises. We know to wait for conclusions of law enforcement investigations. We know that cops are forbidden by agencies' policies from discussing ongoing criminal investigations. And I know the the public in general probably has no clue of these basic law enforcement tenets.

There is not much more that I can add other than refraining from emotionalism and waiting for law enforcement investigations to conclude. It's only after law enforcement investigations are concluded will we know facts of this case.

SigShooter,
Attacking cops on pistolforum ? What else is new . And yeah I must say the shit is getting pretty old.
Whole Lotta Monday morning quarter backing going on. But hey , what else is new ? There was a whole lot of derp in the Glock ejection thread when guys who were cops for years offered their opinions based on a great deal of experience in the matter .Oh but wait , no one needs an Apex extractor or any of the fixes suggested in that thread , but everyone with a glock needs a gadget .

[blues]

...nah...

[Kukuforguns]

I am thoroughly confused this event. I can see why the officer/homeowner felt threatened after someone tackled him and another person tried to hit him. However I'm not clear on what lead up to the guy grabbing a kid by his shirt and dragging him across the yard?

Were the kids seriously just walking across someone's front yard? Were they doing damage to the yard? Not sure what the laws are in California, but for Christs sake it's not Grand Torino and I'll stack bodies like cordwood. I remember as a kid walking home from school cutting across people's front yards all the time. Heck we played smear the queer in front yards that didn't have trees on them all the time. Now we didn't damage or trash the property though.

Not sure what kind of privacy expectations you have with an unfenced yard either. I seem to recall being on a jury pool for a public intoxication case where the guy was arrested on his front porch.

If they were just walking on the yards then I'd say the guy and his neighbors need to get a life. If the kids were doing propert damage or peeking in windows then it's a different story.
The answer as to what caused the officer to grab the subject is unclear, which is one of the reasons why you are seeing so much discussion.

The officer apparently believed that the subject said, "I'm going to shoot you." (Footnote 1) The officer apparently believed the subject was going to shoot him and acted to detain the subject. Under California law, it is a crime to threaten someone with death or great bodily injury:


Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison. For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household. "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

P.C. 422

Given that the subject was not visibly armed, there is some question as to whether the threat was "so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific" to convey "an immediate prospect of execution of the threat" to cause the officer to reasonably fear for his safety. The question of whether the officer had probable cause to believe a crime had been committed is a different question than whether a crime actually was committed. Probable cause is a significantly lower threshold than beyond reasonable doubt. Given that the subject admits saying "I'm going to sue you" and the similarity between "sue" and "shoot," the officer's stated belief that he heard a threat has independent corroboration. On the whole, I think the officer probably had probable cause to arrest the subject. A conviction on the threat, on the other hand, is unlikely.

That being said, the officer showed poor judgment. He confronted the youths before he heard what he perceived as a criminal threat. Why? This is how fights get started, right? Poor judgment.

Moreover, he arrested the subject while off-duty in a jurisdiction other than his employer. Because the officer is employed by LAPD, was off-duty, and was in Anaheim, the LAPD's policies are implicated:


230.10 RESPONSIBILITY OF OFF ‑ DUTY OFFICERS. Under California law, both on-and off-duty officers have peace officer authority as to any public offense committed or which there is probable cause to believe has been committed in his presence and with respect to which there is immediate danger to person or property, or the escape of the perpetrator of such offense. However, on‑duty officers outside the City limits who are not acting within the scope of their employment as Los Angeles Police officers on matters of direct concern to the City and off-duty officers both inside and outside of the City limits are to give first consideration to causing the appropriate action to be effected by the responsible law enforcement agency. Such officers should then act only after consideration of the tactical situation and of their possible liability and that of the City of Los Angeles.

In other words, the officer should have attempted to have Anaheim PD make the arrest if that was feasible. This policy clearly indicates that LAPD doesn't want off-duty officers making arrests unless there is an immediate danger or that the subject is likely to escape. It's not clear to me that the officer violated this policy, but an argument could be made that he failed to give first consideration to cause the APD to arrest the subject. The officer could have, if he had a cell phone with camera, taken a picture of the subject and forwarded it to the APD. He could have called APD (again if he had a cell phone with him). Presumably the the investigation is going to attempt to determine why the officer believed an immediate arrest was necessary. Since the officer states he believed he was in danger of being shot, the issue is going to be whether his belief was reasonable. My bet is the the Dept. determines that there is insufficient basis to conclude that his belief was unreasonable.

The LAPD policies anticipate warning shots:

Warning Shots. Warning shots shall only be used in exceptional circumstances where it might reasonably be expected to avoid the need to use deadly force. Generally, warning shots shall be directed in a manner that minimizes the risk of injury to innocent persons, ricochet dangers and property damage.


This actually seems to a situation in which a warning shot was appropriate. The violence against the officer was increasing and it appears that the officer could have been overpowered in the near future, at which point an argument could be made the deadly force would have been appropriate.

Footnote 1: I note that the subject denied making a threat to shoot the officer. The subject stated he threatened "to sue" the officer.

[JDD]

A citizen's arrest for what exactly? There are conflicting stories as to what started the chain of events. Everything you're discussing is based off of the assumption that the kid actually threatened him.

I don't see it as pejorative, I see it as descriptive. If someone's latched onto someone else's collar and is pulling them across someone else's lawn, what would you call it?

Can you pinpoint the time, in either video posted, where the guy demonstrates that he's actually a police officer? I don't recall it happening.

In an attempt to get something useful out of this thread:

I have LEO authority. When I leave the house (and I don't intend to consume alcohol) I am carrying a concealed firearm. When I am armed, I have my badge, credentials, and spare mags. I wear my badge in a way that it will be the first thing that is visible if I draw my firearm.

From a tactical perspective, is this not a universal rule? I can understand not having a badge if you are undercover, but it seems like such a basic thing. This is especially true if you are in a place with complex and restrictive CC regulations, and you are carrying on your creds.

[breakingtime91]

Assumes facts not in evidence. I'm shocked, dismayed and somewhat taken aback that you could author such a thing. ;)

(So, auto-correct or subliminal error? :p)

lmao, I typed it while working out. Damn "smart" phones.

[BehindBlueI's]

From a tactical perspective, is this not a universal rule? I can understand not having a badge if you are undercover, but it seems like such a basic thing. This is especially true if you are in a place with complex and restrictive CC regulations, and you are carrying on your creds.

My badge is *always* immediately in front of my holster when I'm off duty. That's typically were it stays on duty as well, but I will sometimes move it to my chest if the situation dictates. Supposedly that makes you less likely to get popped in a Blue on Blue shooting.

[BehindBlueI's]

If it wasn't a negligent discharge the cop purposely fired a "Warning shot". In what jurisdiction are warning shots legal?

Our general orders have actually flip-flopped on this. When I came on, it was "no warning shots". Then we got language that mirrors what's been posted about "ok...but you better have a damn good reason". Now it's prohibited again. I don't think anyone ever actually fired one, and the change in the middle may have been due to trying to get compliance with some certification. Or it might not have. It's the only reason I can think of that we briefly allowed them, though.

[JDD]

My badge is *always* immediately in front of my holster when I'm off duty. That's typically were it stays on duty as well, but I will sometimes move it to my chest if the situation dictates. Supposedly that makes you less likely to get popped in a Blue on Blue shooting.

That is exactly what I do. We were not initially issued badge holders that included a neck chain (although they had loops for it, but I have obtained one that has them).

I toyed with the idea of using velcro to stick one of our badge patches to the outside of my holster for when I am off duty, but it looks too sketchy, and it leaves me unable to wear it around my neck.

They have started also shifting to POLICE sashes that you can carry on your belt and deploy quickly.

[Shellback]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8jIPZ5CP9I

Watch the first couple minutes. One hand on the kid and one hand picking up a backpack casually talking to him. No command presence, not verbalalizing the fact that he's LAPD, not issuing commands to bystanders or the subject. No hand control, nada.

I call bullshit on the whole thinking he was gonna get shot.

[ssb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8jIPZ5CP9I

Watch the first couple minutes. One hand on the kid and one hand picking up a backpack casually talking to him. No command presence, not verbalalizing the fact that he's LAPD, not issuing commands to bystanders or the subject. No hand control, nada.

I call bullshit on the whole thinking he was gonna get shot.

I think the off-duty arrest attempt, if that was indeed the guy's intention, stemmed from the supposed threat to sue and/or shoot that they're bickering about in the first few minutes. I think the gun draw and (if intentional) the shot had more to do with the number of kids joining the tug-of-war over the kid (some of whom throw punches). That likely set off lots of alarm bells that said "disparity of force."

In the provided video, he does not identify himself as a police officer and say something to the effect of, "I'm a cop, and I'm going to arrest you because you issued a criminal threat against me." I'm inclined to believe that, had he said something like that, the kids' tone (which is to some extent being played up for the camera, IMO) would have shifted from "you can't be doing that stuff to a minor, you're gonna get in trouble" to something along the lines of "how do we know you're a cop?" if they wanted to keep defending their friend, but of course that's all speculative and thus probably out of bounds according to some here.

Neighbor dude with the cane doesn't seem as freaked out about everything as the kids do. Perhaps he knows what the guy does for a living. It's plain to me that those kids either don't know he's a cop, or in the alternative they're intentionally ignoring that possibility to play things up for the camera.

[TGS]

From a tactical perspective, is this not a universal rule? I can understand not having a badge if you are undercover, but it seems like such a basic thing. This is especially true if you are in a place with complex and restrictive CC regulations, and you are carrying on your creds.

I generally only wear my belt badge off duty if I'm carrying OWB, flying, or went straight from work to whatever I'm doing.


They have started also shifting to POLICE sashes that you can carry on your belt and deploy quickly.

Are the new classes getting those?

[TAZ]

I'm going to go with BS on the argument that he felt the kid was serious. If he felt that the kid was being serious and posed a real threat to him, he needs to go back to academy and do some remedial training. I'm no cop, so I may be off on this, but I don't think that is how you deal with someone you believe is a lethal threat. Pretty sure the kid would be on the deck and in cuffs not being dragged around by his shit tail.

It's not taboo to stand up for yourself. It's also not taboo to use your brain to make decisions instead of your ego. Not saying that trying to detain the kid was wrong as I've still not seen what actually precipitated the initial confrontation, but you need to think through what you're doing. Is this mess he is dealing with worth trampled grass or butthurt?

[JDD]

I generally only wear my belt badge off duty if I'm carrying OWB, flying, or went straight from work to whatever I'm doing.

Are the new classes getting those?

Why wouldn't you wear your badge? I don't carry appendix so perhaps my calculus would be different if I did... Its an easily carried, easily concealed piece of kit that assists in establishing authority, and that can substantially aid in preventing me from getting shot. Also, if my badge is showing, my gun is also showing. Since I spend a fair bit of time in an environment that is chock full of Federal Facilities/parks and that has issued few carry permits, it makes sense to ensure that my status is absolutely not ambiguous.

The sashes, I have encountered them most in protection type roles, moving outward from highest profile down.

[TGS]

Carrying AIWB, it likely is not visible if I draw. I wear it 10 O'clock. Used to wear it 2 O'clock, but it had a habit of slipping to close to the pistol which interfered with establishing a master grip. If I utilize the tac-badge in my usual daily duties where I'm wearing street clothes, it's coming off the belt and going around my neck anyways. Unless I'm in a suit or business casual, It's just on the belt for storage until I put it around my neck.

Personally I like wearing it as a neck badge better, but the huge belt clip on the back prevents that from being either comfortable or concealed in normal clothing. I have a 2nd tac-badge holder that I ripped the clip out of just so I can wear it strictly as a neck badge, but I rarely use it because of our job duties requiring frequent wear on the belt in suits and I'm afraid that swapping the badge back and forth would break the money-clip style attachment on the shield.

Due to this my idea is to shoot the threat to the ground and hold my cred wallet/badge above my head. It may not be a universal solution, but I feel pretty comfortable with it. There are verbal identifiers up in this area that are, IMO, more important than a neck badge.

[GuanoLoco]

IMHO this dude has some seriously poor decision making skills combined with an out of control ego that won't allow him to disengage.

There is all kinds of downside and little/no possible upside in the present and future. What was he thinking?

He's lucky the situation didn't end worse than it did.