Plain-clothed cop pulls gun on speeding motorcyclist [VIDEO]

[MinuteMan47]

It is a double standard, but as of right now filming a LEO without his permission is illegal in Maryland, absurd IMO and hopefully this case will be the reason that law is changed.

DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO!

 

[mrjarrell]

It is a double standard, but as of right now filming a LEO without his permission is illegal in Maryland, absurd IMO and hopefully this case will be the reason that law is changed.

Actually, it's not illegal in Maryland. The cops and the prosecutors are misapplying the law in this and other cases. Their courts have already ruled that videoing is legal. Radley Balko has covered this extensively.

 

[sj kahr k40]

Actually, it's not illegal in Maryland. The cops and the prosecutors are misapplying the law in this and other cases. Their courts have already ruled that videoing is legal. Radley Balko has covered this extensively.

Hadn't heard that yet, thanks for the info.

 

[HICKMAN]

With no audio, we are unclear WHAT was said. However, it will say that a badge around the neck would go a lot further in identification if it goes to court. I keep a badge on a neck chain in my car for that very reason while I'm off-duty.

Roger that, my only point here is A GUY WITH A GUN gets out of a car.


Would everyone just assume right away he's an LEO and not a carjacker?

Even flashing lights in an unmarked car would have made a difference here.

Glad it ended better than the other cop/motorcycle video.

 

[Denny347]

But it is a demonstration of force.
When does a demonstration become invocation?

Pulling the trigger? That makes it a bit too late to dispute it, doesn't it. I'd rather be a little bit early in an assumption than dead, courts be damned.

Well, officer presence is a demonstration of force as well. Demonstration is NOT application of force and I have not found a court decision that says different. Excessive force only covers APPLICATION not demonstration.

EXCESSIVE FORCE
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.
Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.

Or
COPS Office: Use of Force

I search a building for an alarm with my gun drawn. Does that mean that I will automatically fire if I find someone? No, it means that I am prepared to if warranted. I pulled up on a vehicle that was carjacked with the suspect behind the wheel. I got out with guns drawn (duh right?) and he took off in the car. He drove away from me so there was no way I could shoot him even if my gun was drawn. I gave chase and we eventually caught him. I have stopped burglary suspects at gun point, should I not do that? They were unarmed. We are allowed leeway in this because we are reactive. We cannot shoot someone provocatively and are always at a tactical disadvantage. The law allows this.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

IF that is the case, it would change my stance. However, going off of the video clip that I watched, I stand by my prior posts.

And that's the danger of trying to judge a situation based on a video. Usually there is no way to determine if the video has been edited, re-dubbed, or otherwise tampered with. TV networks do it all the time.

 

[JBusch8899]

A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest. Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.

Government obtains authority from the people.

Only people have rights. Law Enforcement obtains their authority from the government.

It may appear a matter of semantics, but its important to recognize that such authority is not intrinsically provided.

 

[PatriotPride]

And that's the danger of trying to judge a situation based on a video. Usually there is no way to determine if the video has been edited, re-dubbed, or otherwise tampered with. TV networks do it all the time.

Exactly. I gave my opinion based off of the video that was presented. I searched with no luck for the longer, unedited version. If that were presented, based off of other members' statements, I'm sure I would change my view on how I would have reacted during THIS particular stop. Nothing like a good ol' spin to get everyone riled up

 

[Denny347]

Government obtains authority from the people.

Only people have rights. Law Enforcement obtains their authority from the government.

It may appear a matter of semantics, but its important to recognize that such authority is not intrinsically provided.

Not my definition but point taken.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's the lengthier version of the video. Not much to it except his ride.

YouTube - nikotyc's Channel

Also, here's a good article on the matter from Carlos Miller.

 

[HICKMAN]

Guess I'm not he only one who might mistake an off-duty cop for a regular

Cop uses Taser on another in Mass. off-duty spat - Yahoo! News

 

[dross]

I search a building for an alarm with my gun drawn. Does that mean that I will automatically fire if I find someone? No, it means that I am prepared to if warranted. I pulled up on a vehicle that was carjacked with the suspect behind the wheel. I got out with guns drawn (duh right?) and he took off in the car. He drove away from me so there was no way I could shoot him even if my gun was drawn. I gave chase and we eventually caught him. I have stopped burglary suspects at gun point, should I not do that? They were unarmed. We are allowed leeway in this because we are reactive. We cannot shoot someone provocatively and are always at a tactical disadvantage. The law allows this.

Are you assuming there was something particular about this traffic stop that warranted having a drawn gun? Being called to a potential burglary I can understand. Traffic stops for speeding are another thing, aren't they?

 

[PatriotPride]

Guess I'm not he only one who might mistake an off-duty cop for a regular

Cop uses Taser on another in Mass. off-duty spat - Yahoo! News

Good grief! There's not a dispute in the world that can't be solved by a massive jolt of electricity to the testes

 

[HICKMAN]

Here's the lengthier version of the video. Not much to it except his ride.

YouTube - nikotyc's Channel

Also, here's a good article on the matter from Carlos Miller.

seeing that version, I know there is a cop car behind me, not just the dude getting out of the car with a gun. This video clears it up a little better.

 

[Joe Williams]

Are you assuming there was something particular about this traffic stop that warranted having a drawn gun? Being called to a potential burglary I can understand. Traffic stops for speeding are another thing, aren't they?

Have you researched whether more cops are killed on traffic stops, or responding to burglaries?

 

[sj kahr k40]

I think the plainclothes cop put himself in a very bad position, if he thought a felony stop was nessasary then do a felony stop, don't get out were you put the officer behind the rider in the line of fire or put yourself in the line of fire from him, which is what he did.

 

[MinuteMan47]

seeing that version, I know there is a cop car behind me, not just the dude getting out of the car with a gun. This video clears it up a little better.

It looked like the same version to me... Only 2 seconds longer??? Someone is on to us!

Here's the lengthier version of the video. Not much to it except his ride.

YouTube - nikotyc's Channel

Also, here's a good article on the matter from Carlos Miller.

 

[Colt556]

And that's the danger of trying to judge a situation based on a video. Usually there is no way to determine if the video has been edited, re-dubbed, or otherwise tampered with. TV networks do it all the time.

So why do cops use them as evidence all the time? They are just as capable of altering tapes as the geeks who post on You Tube. If the guy was running, as some of you ascertain, he was pi$$ poor at it. He was only charged with doing 80mph, not fleeing, evading or anything else until he posted the video on You Tube. Also in the interview for the TV News it showed his helmet with the camera mounted on top. The thing sticks up about 3" and is obviously a camera. The cops had to have seen it during the stop and ticketing. Was his arrest and other charges just in retaliation for him posting the video and bringing heat on them?

 

[finity]

So you would draw your weapon because a car cut you off? Then shoot the man as he got out of his car? What if it was just someone pissed because you was speeding and maybe cut him off, endanger his family that was in the car with him?

No. You would be drawing your weapon because a car cut you off then man got out of his car WITH A GUN running toward you. HE would be the one endangering his family, not you.

I actually think that police officers should go to jail for pulling a gun on an unarmed person.

If any of us did that, you'd take us to jail, but somehow, police are allowed to use a gun as a negotiation tool while we'd go to jail, probably for a felony, for the same thing.

Trying to use a gun as a negotiation tool can never go well anyway. What are you going to do if he tries to ride away? Shoot him? I highly doubt it.

It is bad tactics to have a gun in your hand unless you're going to be able to use it. I'd love to see some statistics on how many of these so-called "felony stops" result in bad things happening to police officers.

I guess they never taught you that the safest place for your gun is in your holster, that you're taking a risk every single time you draw it, and combined with the fact that most dead cops were shot with their own gun, to think wisely before drawing down.

But then again, I don't see this changing anytime soon, and it's not like I have much sympathy to someone who runs from the cops. But drawing a gun on someone when you have no intention of ever pulling the trigger intentionally sounds like the beginnings of a bad shoot every time it happens.

Then again, it's pretty rare to see them rule something a "bad shoot" even when the evidence is overwhelming that it is.

While I can see the intent of your post I tend to disagree with the idea of "don't pull it unless you're going to use it".

It's my understanding that the law sees the pointing of a gun as reasonable force in a situation where using reasonable force would be justified (i.e. you catch someone stealing your stuff). You can't actually shoot it unless you can use deadly force, though. Even if you don't shoot it may convince the BG to comply with your requests.

OTOH, that is only when you have evidence (or at least PC) that a crime has actually been committed.

The law tells an officer (or anybody else) when they can legally arrest someone. I would hope that the law that Denny quoted on pointing a firearm doesn't give carte blanche authority for LEO's to draw on ANYONE in ANY encounter when the officer is acting in the scope of their official duties. I would think that if they can't arrest them for one of the listed offenses (or obviously self-defense) that they wouldn't be allowed to draw & point their weapon at them either.

Someone driving fast (or even running away) is not PC that they have committed a felony (even reckless driving is only a B misdemeanor). I think the SCOTUS said that but I'd have to find it.

I think it takes more than just driving fast to establish PC for a LEO to pull their gun & point it at someone.

OTOH, I can see where the cop would want to have his hand on the gun or even out BUT NOT POINTED in certain situations.

I doubt that this was one of those situations. I mean he was on a motorcycle & the cop could easily see his hands. He was not a threat. It's not like the cop could just shoot him for running away. I think the SCOTUS said that, too.

Again, we have all the parts now to where an automatically traffic law complying car can be manufactured. It would be so nice to be INCAPABLE of exceeding the speed limit, or swerving into lanes, etc.

I fear it will never happen, just because of the loss of revenue, and power trips.

No thanks. I wouldn't want the state to have that kind of control over me. It's interesting how some people (including gun-owners who don't want the government infringing on THEIR 2A rights) are Ok with the government having more control of people in general.

 

[MinuteMan47]

Again, we have all the parts now to where an automatically traffic law complying car can be manufactured. It would be so nice to be INCAPABLE of exceeding the speed limit, or swerving into lanes, etc.

I fear it will never happen, just because of the loss of revenue, and power trips.

No thanks. I wouldn't want the state to have that kind of control over me. It's interesting how some people (including gun-owners who don't want the government infringing on THEIR 2A rights) are Ok with the government having more control of people in general.

Pretty soon cars will have tracking systems in them called "GPS" and a company is going to make lots and lots of money knowing where people are all the time. Then if the government wants to incapacitate a particular vehicle they could do so with the click of a mouse...I think they said the company was going to be called "OnStar"...