Cops turn left in front of fleeing rider to stop him... Holy cow.

[ghaverkamp]

If you didn't dream this up where did it come from?

 

I'll try to type slowly.

 

Russell indicated what his ideal body of law was. What I wrote was based on that. I didn't write about my ideal body of law; I wrote about the laws that we have. (I don't really believe Russell was describing his Utopia either, but maybe he was.)

 

Now, I get that you don't like the fact that there is a pernicious thing called the Constitution that limits the actions of government... Well, that's not entirely true. You want to ignore it when it places limits on law enforcement, but hold it up high when it restricts limitations on gun ownership.

 

I didn't describe anything like my Utopia. It certainly wouldn't require something like a Fourth Amendment to constrain governmental abuses of power. But I don't live in Utopia, and I'd be surprised if there are many people who consider South Carolina their Utopia. But since law enforcement in South Carolina and all the states is restrained and constrained by the Fourth Amendment, I could comment on that.

 

However, like so many, you conflate taking a position on a legal point akin to deep-felt belief on a topic one way or another. That's pretty obvious, since you seem to know where I stand on gun ownership, as opposed to what I believe the Second Amendment says. It doesn't matter that I've tried to explain the distinctions before, because it's clearly lost on a number of people here.

 

And so, I took the legal model that Russell put forth and applied it. You took your own personal distaste with the Constitution of the United States and projected it on me. That's certainly your prerogative, but as I stated, it just shows that you haven't been following the discussion.

[Lawman]

 

"I'll try to type slowly."

 

No need. Type as fast as you like I'll just read slowly cause that's the only way I know how.

 

"Russell indicated what his ideal body of law was.

What I wrote was based on that."

 

I'd say you took quite abit of liberty with that..

 

 

"Now, I get that you don't like the fact that there is a pernicious thing called the Constitution that limits the actions of government...

Well, that's not entirely true. You want to ignore it when it places limits on law enforcement"

 

Talk about not following..

 

"However, like so many, you conflate taking a position on a legal point akin to deep-felt belief on a topic one way or another. That's pretty obvious, since you seem to know where I stand on gun ownership, as opposed to what I believe the Second Amendment says. It doesn't matter that I've tried to explain the distinctions before, because it's clearly lost on a number of people here."

 

I have no idea what goes on in your mind.

 

"And so, I took the legal model that Russell put forth and applied it. "

 

And then some..

 

"You took your own personal distaste with the Constitution of the United States and projected it on me. That's certainly your prerogative, but as I stated, it just shows that you haven't been following the discussion."

 

Just plain wrong..

 

You do a fine job af dishing out sarcasm.. Not as well when you are on the receiving end..

[Lawman]

"Greg's Utopia Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1 ? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to discuss with some friends over a latte and try to come to a consensus."

 

Greg,

The point here is there is no utopia..You want everything in law enforcement to go down picture perfect and are not willing to make any allowances for anything less than perfection..You give a man a badge, a gun, training and pay him $40,000 a year tell him to arrest law breakers and bring them to justice and do it in a reasonable way and then in this case when the trooper stops the biker in a way that no one gets hurt you critcise him because of what "might have happened".. When the only thing that happended was the guy was stopped by the action of the trooper without anyone getting hurt and instead of being happy that the situation turned out the way it did you want to find fault with him because you say his action was not reasonable..Well you weren't there..He was. He made a decision that turned out well and you seem unwilling to even give him the benefit of a doubt. Thankfully your opinion is not mainstream and assuming the earlier article is correct it doesn't appear that those who make the decisons about these matters think like you.. I'm sure you would be able to take your legal expertise, get the required training, pass the test and make a perfect police officer but until you do I think you should be less critical..

[SeanC]

Greg,

The point here is there is no utopia..You want everything in law enforcement to go down picture perfect and are not willing to make any allowances for anything less than perfection.

You know, I've read all of Greg's comments in this thread, and I don't think that's even close to an accurate statement of what he expects from law enforcement.

 

You give a man a badge, a gun, training and pay him $40,000 a year tell him to arrest law breakers and bring them to justice and do it in a reasonable way and then in this case when the trooper stops the biker in a way that no one gets hurt you critcise him because of what "might have happened".

We don't live in a society where the ends justify the means. So of course we criticize actions, and we do so independent of their outcome. You know as well as I that the officer's actions are also being scrutinized by his own department. He's very lucky the outcome didn't result in the perp's death or disability, which likely would have resulted in legal action against him and his department.

 

I'm sure you would be able to take your legal expertise, get the required training, pass the test and make a perfect police officer but until you do I think you should be less critical.

And I think LEOs need to be more open to criticism rather than complaining that non-LEOs should be less critical. You mentioned that the officer made a decision that turned out well, therefore Greg should give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'll venture that had the officer's actions killed the motorcyclist, you'd still defend and excuse his actions (along with every other LEO here).

[russell_bynum]

And I think LEOs need to be more open to criticism rather than complaining that non-LEOs should be less critical. You mentioned that the officer made a decision that turned out well, therefore Greg should give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'll venture that had the officer's actions killed the motorcyclist, you'd still defend and excuse his actions (along with every other LEO here).

 

I've got no issue with criticizing LEO's, but IMO, when you run, you get whatever you get. Again, I realize that isn't reality here...just my opinion.

[PRC]

My goodness....Bad guy ran...bad guy gets wrecked....bad guy understands...cost of doing business. As to the legal eagles out there, well ya know, not everything fits into black and white, you must see gray. Anywho, I believe that this thread has became a fine example of verbal masturbation . Also why I choose to live in a mostly conservative part of the US.

 

Now ya'll go be about yourselves...I shall return to the shadows!

[motorman587]

I guess their spilt second decision was too slow.........

 

 

http://www.odmp.org/officer/19359-sergeant-stephen-liczbinski

 

http://www.odmp.org/officer/19358-deputy-sheriff-william-howell-jr.

 

[BruceWA]

I'm wondering if the LEO would have puuled in front of an auto or truck to block???

[ericfoerster]

you'd still defend and excuse his actions (along with every other LEO here).

 

Not really true, Sean. About 50% of what I wrote on this thread was goading. I love to stir the pot on these "Cop" issues. There are more than a few people here who really know my take on this stuff.

Some are easier to get to twist, other need a little work. Remember back to psychology class in college when the professor made you defend a point of view that you didn't really like?

I just love to see some of the same ol guys just get all twisted up, and yes it's usually the same ones over and over again.

You are wrong until you see it their way...period.

 

And I think LEOs need to be more open to criticism rather than complaining that non-LEOs should be less critical.

 

And I think folks who say things like this should go to a police academy and work the streets for a while.

I would value your opinion much more if you able to see both sides of the issue. As of now, most here don't have a clue and it shows.

 

As shocking as it is to some, I am as liberal in my views as some here appear to be.

I've still not really given my true view on the tape and my thoughts, nor will I. This officer did a job and it's been hashed out by the folks to whom it really matters.

 

 

 

[Shaman97]

Quote:And I think LEOs need to be more open to criticism rather than complaining that non-LEOs should be less critical.

 

And I think folks who say things like this should go to a police academy and work the streets for a while.

I would value your opinion much more if you able to see both sides of the issue. As of now, most here don't have a clue and it shows.

 

As specious a statement as I've seen in this discussion.

 

We can all say 'unless you've done the job I do, you shouldn't comment' but things can't work that way. We routinely critique Doctors' performance, though we don't attend medical school. We recognize poor engineering details(we ride some of them, and comment in the appropriate DB section), though we all ourselves don't have engineeroing degrees. It's not that we don't want to do all of these things, but we can only squeeze so many careers into a lifetime.

Oversight of police performance is not only a necessity; it's a good thing as well.

 

Over the past few years, I've seen stories on television where a LEO fired on a driver of a car that was headed straight at another officer. Justification: the perp was using a deadly weapon, so the LEO was justified on firing at the perp. OK, I'm good with that, but then why isn't it considered deadly force when an officer deliberately puts his car in the path of a speeding motorcycle? Neither speeding or evading pursuit is in itself a deadly act...why the deadly force in order to stop him? That seems to be an unreasonable use of police power.

[David]

About 50% of what I wrote on this thread was goading.

 

No offense to you personally, as they say, but I don't know if I buy that. I'll give you this, though: it's a really convenient way to not take responsibility for what you've written.

 

Rather than throw out a blanket half-denial, the honorable thing to do would be to point out what portion was goading and what wasn't.

 

I don't goad people in these threads--these issues are too important to our culture and mutual understanding. I am genuinely interested in what you really think, Eric. Your perspectives are insightful. I'm here to learn. Along the way, I'll post what I think, right or wrong, but it'll always be what I think. [where is that thumbs up smiley]

[ericfoerster]

It's pretty easy to follow.

 

You run from the cops and bad things might happen.

 

If you look back towards the begining there is sure sign from me that I had my pole in the water, it's very obvious.

 

Sometimes the internet is a source of fun to me. You see, I am in the middle of nowhere and I seek interaction with folks on a higher IQ level.

I do not seek my answers to cultural issues here. To me that is one of the problem with America; we are a nation of lemmings, unable to think for ourselves and we just follow the herd. I'll find my answers to those questions in other places.

 

My name is Eric and I approve this ad.....and all that I've written before.

 

 

 

 

[Boffin]

 

Sometimes the internet is a source of fun to me. You see, I am in the middle of nowhere and I seek interaction with folks on a higher IQ level.

 

 

 

That is the first time that I have seen trolling defined as seeking interaction on a higher IQ level.

 

Andy

[ericfoerster]

I enjoy banter with Greg, an aspiring attorney. Others here also provide insight that I really admire and enjoy, even if it's pulled out of them.

 

I really don't see a problem with that.