Cop with gun versus Squid with camera.

[tallman]

So, motorin LA, he had to control the situation?

That's why he drew the gun?

To prevent flight?

To prevent a rider from attacking him w/a motorcycle?

 

 

If so, then I would ask if that is what you and your brothers do on all traffic stops involving speeding, unlawful lane changes.

 

Here are some other Maryland State Police videos

MARYLAND STATE POLICE PURSUIT ENDS IN FATAL CRASH

US Fed News Service, Including US State News | November 28, 2007 | Copyright

 

The Maryland State Police issued the following news release:

Three men in a stolen vehicle who were wanted for the attempted theft of merchandise from a Calvert County store fled when a state trooper tried to stop them and minutes later were involved in a crash on Rt. 4 that left one of them dead and two seriously injured.

The deceased man's identity has not been confirmed. He was a passenger in the vehicle and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Injured in the crash were Darren D. McCoy, 39, of Bladensburg, Md. and the remaining passenger, who's identity has not been …

 

And another with fatal outcome by Maryland State Police

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ0FYtdOfDw -

 

 

And one with fatal outcomes where the driver didn't stop

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a1_1248044917

 

[upflying]

Just to keep Ca reidents tuned up on our laws, it is against state law to use unmarked cars and UC officers specifically for the purpose of enforing traffic laws.

Yes, a UC car/plainclothes on-duty LEO's can make a traffic stop but their regular duties would have to be some other LEO function such as investigations or admin.

The reason has to do with police impersonators and the legislative mindset that officers enforceing traffic laws should drive distinctlively marked vehicles while in full uniform. Lawmakers also felt voluntary compliance of traffic laws could be attained by the mere presence of black and white nearby.

What kind of voluntary compliance do you get with a UC car working traffic enforcement? Would this Maryland incident escalated to the point it did had this trooper been driving a marked vehicle?

The law..

40800. (a) A traffic officer on duty for the exclusive or main

purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 (commencing with

Section 20000) or 11 (commencing with Section 21000) shall wear a

full distinctive uniform, and if the officer while on duty uses a

motor vehicle, it must be painted a distinctive color specified by

the commissioner.

[eddd]

 

...The reason the officer has his weapon drawn in not for the fleeing possibility, it's for the run-you-down-with-my-motorcycle possibility. The officer is displaying his firearm to show the violator that he is prepared to answer a use of deadly force with his own use of deadly force. He holsters his gun when the motorcycle is turned off and the immediate threat of deadly force is removed. Very appropriate.

 

 

I see no evidence that the rider was going to "run-you-down". If there was a true threat present, then the officer's position put him in harm's way. The mom in the minivan scenario puts this whole thing in perspective. IMO, he let his emotions control his actions, plain and simple.

[yabadabapal]

Picking up on a theme several have mentioned: In so far as I am concerned the civilian control of the police and military is central to concept of a democratic republic which operates under the rule of law. Indeed, I think the central concepts of our idea of Police and Military forces as existing to protect us and to serve us, as opposed to enforce the will of the rulers, is a hallmark of our society and a central tenant of what we call "Freedom."

 

I can understand that civilian authority can sometimes rankle those in our services (see even the word, "services") and that civilian oversight may need to be educated by the professionals we employ, however, I would also encourage those who choose to serve in the forces, and particularly the various domestic law enforcement agencies, to recognize the necessary and valid role of the civilian point of view.

 

There must always exist a balance between authority and freedom, between letting a criminal go (accepting a risk to society) and using extreme measures and authority to effect capture (accepting a different risk to society). This balance is properly expressed by the civilian's will, and it is the lot of the LEO to respect the limits we place on them, and operate within those limits.

 

In the present case the officer uses his vehicle as a weapon in a dangerous manner w/o provocation, and without identifying himself as a LEO, and without attempting a proper stop first. He then, again without even the slightest sign of aggression or non-compliance draws his weapon and advances, still not having identified himself.

 

I think we who have chosen to write here, or write to the proper authorities are saying to the LEOs, who we respect as having a difficult job to do, that this incident crosses a line and reflects a level of authority that is unacceptable to us as the civilians you serve and protect. Primarily because the officer chose techniques that escalated risk rather than minimized them, over a minor infraction that did not pose serious risk to the public.

 

It is very reassuring that nearly everyone here sees the aftermath as unacceptable.

 

+1

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I see no evidence that the rider was going to "run-you-down". If there was a true threat present, then the officer's position put him in harm's way. The mom in the minivan scenario puts this whole thing in perspective.

 

Whether mom-in-minivan or squid-on-bike, the usual scenario is the officer approaching from the rear or side, where he is exposed to little/no risk if the suspect chooses to flee. From what I've seen, in those cases, the officer doesn't draw his gun unless he fears some other threat, like gunfire from inside the suspect's vehicle.

 

In the present case, the suspect was back-pedaling - on a bike with the engine running, in first gear, with the clutch in - as the officer stepped out of his vehicle, which may have seemed (to the officer) like a precursor to lining up the bike for either a clean departure or running the officer down. The officer doesn't know which is next, so he has to be ready for either.

[fatboyjim]

I see no evidence that the rider was going to "run-you-down". If there was a true threat present, then the officer's position put him in harm's way. The mom in the minivan scenario puts this whole thing in perspective. IMO, he let his emotions control his actions, plain and simple.

 

What would you like? A burnout? The vehicle is in gear and running, the officer is in front of the vehicle.

Having been run over by an idiot drunk who accidently dumped the clutch on his Fireblade I'd say better safe than sorry.

[upflying]

A good point, LEO's are trained to approach traffic stops from behind. Officer safety is the #1 emphasis during training.

So why did this trooper approach from the front contrary to training? Had the trooper discharged his weapon he would have created a cross fire situation with the trooper in the cage behind the motorcycle.

And what about the trooper in the marked unit? Obviously he knew the UC/plainclothes/off-duty officer but what if he didn't recognize him? Could we have a friendly fire problem with an armed civilian walking up on a traffic stop?

I cannot remember the last time I heard a UC vehicle make a traffic stop. What does occur frequently is a UC vehicle asking (via radio) for a marked vehicle/uniformed officer to make a traffic stop for them. The plainclothes cops stay out of the stop until the uniformed officer has the car stopped and driver identified. Sometimes the UC officer disappears out of fear of being "burned" by the driver and occupants of the car.

[scaudy]

I for one am glad it was not me on the bike. I would have reasoned that a LEO would not have cut me off and came at me with gun drawn for a minor traffic violation dressed in plain clothes in an unmarked car without identifying himself as law enforcement. (that would be crazy imo) Seeing the marked unit aproaching from behind I could justify the guy with the gun wants my bike to make a faster getaway from the LEO persuing him and I probably would have started to bolt to get out of harms way. Or maybe out of panic I left the bike in gear and put my hands up at which time the bike would have moved forward resulting in the officer thinking I was trying to run him over.

[fatboyjim]

Something makes me think this rider is a PITA and maybe has been doing this several times before or the bike is known for being invovled in such.

 

Maybe it was pre planned and the plainclothes officer and unmarked was deployed to block the possibly escape route.

 

Maybe the officer had observed, pursued the bike on an occasion before Saw the bike and called it in and decided due of his previous experience he would block the bike in once the marked unit was behind the rider.

 

Maybe the rider thought the cop was the one his wife ran away with and was worried he was bringing her back.

 

Perhaps the warrant was a telephonic warrant and the signed one lies with the case file, the rider was given the faxed warrant.

 

All of the facts are not available at the moment.

 

As for the officer stopping in front, I wouldn't do that because of previous experience.

 

It would appear that the rider broke Maryland laws by recording the officer without telling him.

 

Sh1t happens. If he hadn’t drawn attention to himself by posting the whole of the footage the second charge would most likely have not been laid.

 

[eddd]

Very well stated Bob.

[rfc1992]

Wow, this is an interesting thread.

 

The first run through of the short video had me wanting to rev the engine and take-off down the yellow line, cut in front of his car, and take the ramp to the right. I would look for rapid direction changes.

 

I saw an unhappy man get out of a car and unholster a weapon. The fact that he seemed to know how to handle the weapon was not in any manner comforting - it said to me "I know how to shoot."

 

I was willing to take a chance on an inability to accurately hit a diminishing moving target with a short-barrel weapon.

 

 

This all kind of "flashed" as I watched.

 

Do I fault the LEO, no. That being said, I like to run from a percieved threat - I did not see him as a LEO.

 

I am in no position to second guess his actions. My actions, however, I believe would have been justified, The Marked Cruiser and all. Since the Supreme Court has determined I have no Right to police protection. I need to respond to the man exiting the car as a threat. Fine me for speeding later.

 

The follow-up actions seemed to be the result of poor negotiation skills - on both parties. What was the public service interest in filing the charge?

 

 

[russell_bynum]

I see no evidence that the rider was going to "run-you-down". If there was a true threat present, then the officer's position put him in harm's way. The mom in the minivan scenario puts this whole thing in perspective. IMO, he let his emotions control his actions, plain and simple.

 

What would you like? A burnout? The vehicle is in gear and running, the officer is in front of the vehicle.

Having been run over by an idiot drunk who accidently dumped the clutch on his Fireblade I'd say better safe than sorry.

 

Realistically, what difference is a gun going to make in that situation? You can't pull the trigger until the rider has the bike aimed at you and dumped the clutch. At that range, by the time you react and pull the trigger, it's too late. Seems like your only viable option is jumping out of the way.

 

Or am I missing something?

[realshelby]

Regardless of the "facts" the public perception of this is that the officer WAY overstepped his rules of duty ( and my perception also).

 

The subsequent search and siezure debacle is something I would expect in Venezuala or other 3rd world country.

 

Bottom line is this is why LEO's don't get the respect 90% of them deserve.

[tallman]

I see no evidence that the rider was going to "run-you-down". If there was a true threat present, then the officer's position put him in harm's way. The mom in the minivan scenario puts this whole thing in perspective. IMO, he let his emotions control his actions, plain and simple.

 

What would you like? A burnout? The vehicle is in gear and running, the officer is in front of the vehicle.

Having been run over by an idiot drunk who accidently dumped the clutch on his Fireblade I'd say better safe than sorry.

 

Realistically, what difference is a gun going to make in that situation? You can't pull the trigger until the rider has the bike aimed at you and dumped the clutch. At that range, by the time you react and pull the trigger, it's too late. Seems like your only viable option is jumping out of the way.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Russel.

When the rider starts backing up, it is only because an unknown car blocks him by cutting in front.

Then a beligerent man, with a weapon gets out.

At this point they are no more than 6-7 feet apart.

The bike backs up some more and the officer covers the ground in 4 steps.

For anyone to think that the motorcycle could accelerate into him, when his car was right behind him, and then escape, is grasping at straws, IMO.

After the bike rolled back another 5-6 feet the bike could have been driven forward along the yellow line to avoid this potential road rager.

At the point where "state police" is said, the officer had placed himself directly in harm's way by standing in front of the bike.

At which point he could clearly see

I ain't buying any of it.

 

I don't think you're missing anything, at least WRT to this .

[russell_bynum]

Tim,

That's pretty much what I was thinking.

 

The wiretapping thing is really bad, but this whole thing just seems like a bad deal all the way around. ...unless there's some killer piece of evidence that we haven't seen yet.

 

I still don't understand why he was being pulled over in the first place.

[Skywagon]

A long and interesting thread. It is easy for me to say what I would do based on what I saw. Who knows if the video captures it all; but based on what I saw, the officer would have created a far more dangerous situation because of the actions I would have taken. Most likely I would have fled and hoped I didn't get shot. Second most likely is there would have been a gun fight and I am pretty sure I would have lost. I do keep the Kimber 45 within about a 3 second draw all the time in the ready and hot mode. CCW. Living in Houston where crime and jackings are so high, thats what I thought was happening. If I had noticed the guy in the rear view mirror coming hard at me, I would have already been trying to outrun him or I would have had my gun drawn as soon as I stopped. His first step out of his car, would have been his last, gun showing or not. I may not be as goodd a shot as the officer, but I target shoot about 150 rounds every Sunday in a club. I am a reasonably good shot.

 

What a mess either one of those scenarios would have been. Near the beginning of this thread, Bob talks about what an officer should do when off duty. Bob...agree with you 100%. Be a great witness and wait for the on-duty guys unless a life is in danger.

 

Thank goodness the outcome is only a dispute over what was proper conduct by the rider and the officer. What if the rider really had pissed off a road rage Houstonite. Ugly. Drive in Houston like the guy next to you will shoot you if you misbehave. There are several no-bills in Houston for road-rage was the cause. Passenger gets out of car, sticks hand in car window, shot. No issue.

[DaveTheAffable]

Regarding the traffic stop -

 

I am amazed at the number of people who haven't read this thread, haven't read supporting news articles, haven't listened to what the rider of the bike has said.

 

- The rider KNEW he was speeding, and believed he was going to be pulled over because of the unmarked who had been chasing him, and then passing the marked car which joined in the ultimate stop.

 

- The LEO DID identify himself within a FEW SECONDS of getting out of the car, AND the marked trooper was stopped behind the rider. Maybe he didn't identify fast enough or good enough...blah..blah

 

- There is no prohibition on video taping. It's audio taping. Not all cameras mounted on a helmet do both, so just because the officer saw it at the time, doesn't mean he had formed the opinion or understanding that it was on, recording, and recording audio.

 

- Let's get real... after speeding, pulling wheelies, seeing an unmarked chasing you over the speed limit, then joined by a marked unit... how many of you would think the clean cut guy getting out was there to leave his beautiful car abandoned in the middle of the road so he could steal your rocket ride?

 

- None of you would have tried to escape, or shoot the first officer because you would have seen and experienced the same thing the rider did, "Crap. I got caught. An unmarked in front, and a marked trooper in back. I guess I'm getting a ticket for all the wheelies and speeding I've been doing."

 

There's a whole community here that should be saying, "Wow.. see what wreckless riding does, the danger it causes, the work that it puts law enforcement to under go." Instead, it's bag on the LEO?

 

Go read the trucking forums. See how truck drivers bag on LEO's continously... and then go tell the families of the 8 motorcycle riders that died in Phoenix when a trucker slammed into them recently that LEOs should go easier on truckers.

 

INCREDIBLE!

 

Affably,

[David]

Speaking of "reading the thread" please try that and note how many of us don't have a problem with the stop but what followed.

[DaveTheAffable]

Speaking of "reading the thread" please try that and note how many of us don't have a problem with the stop but what followed.

I did notice David, but thanks for the reminder.

 

I too am really bothered by the Offfice of the Maryland State Tropoers making the decision to invade this guys home under the pretense of it being "private" conversation. I think it was a knee jerk reaction, after the fact, and I bet even if they prevail it makes them look bad and was poorly executed.

[tallman]

Dave,

Please link to where the rider says he knew the unmarked car was a police vehicle.

Second, I reviewed the video and the marked car stops, the officer gets out, without drawing his weapon.

In addition, the marked car, which is behind the rider doesn't have lights on.

So, how did this chase occur?

If the rider was fleeing he could have gone to the right where the white van had gone.

I still maintain the officer in mufti was over zealous and compared to the actions shown on the video of the officer in uniform, over the top.

 

If this was a chase, why didn't the marked cruiser have the lights on?

Something doesn't add up.

I'm sure a whole raft of details and facts will eventually come to light.

[Indy Dave]

 

Go read the trucking forums. See how truck drivers bag on LEO's continously... and then go tell the families of the 8 motorcycle riders that died in Phoenix when a trucker slammed into them recently that LEOs should go easier on truckers.

 

INCREDIBLE!

 

Affably,

 

That's a pretty cheap shot all around. I'm not going to dignify it further.

[Skywagon]

Dave...First huge respect for leo's, military, and all things patriotic. I'm a member of the 100 org. How different would it have been if the officer came out of the car holding up his badge instead of a weapon? As I carefully stated, I am sure we don't have all the facts and all the video. I did notice on the long video when the biker turns around at the ~2:25 mark and sees the marked car he goes one handed and seems to be preparing for a stop. Based on what I saw, and I did read about 10 pages of the thread, the officers actions were too strong and with me personally would have resulted in one of us getting hurt..

 

And to prove the point of respect fot the law...Age 55 and never ever a ticket..not even a parking ticket. Lucky maybe, respectful...definitely.

[Flash62]

I've been following this incident for a couple of days on 2 different forums and it has generated quite a bit of discussion for obvious reasons.

 

While the motorcyclist was obviously breaking a few traffic laws I feel the officer was a little over the top and showed bad judgement in drawing his firearm. Also for not yelling "POLICE" at the same time. He was a little slow with that little piece of information. He did manage to keep his gun at the low ready position and at no time actually pointed it at the rider. Personally it's not something I would get all worked up over. If he had actually pointed the pistol at the rider I would have a different opinion.

 

I do have far more of an issue with the whole felony arrest, recording a private conversation issue. This happened in a public place with no expectation of privacy and this is way overboard. Anymore, it seems that recording contact with an officer is something that should not be frowned upon as it helps to keep EVERYONE honest.

 

On a side note, as a CHL holder, there would be no way I would try to draw on someone that already had the jump on me and had their weapon at the low ready.

[ratfink]

 

I was always taught by WW2 vets with some experience in shooting people, not to draw on anyone unless I intended to send some hot lead in their direction.

 

Would you rather have LEO's wait until the suspect draws before the officer is permitted to display the firearm at low ready?

 

Perhaps.

[DaveTheAffable]

 

Go read the trucking forums. See how truck drivers bag on LEO's continously... and then go tell the families of the 8 motorcycle riders that died in Phoenix when a trucker slammed into them recently that LEOs should go easier on truckers.

 

INCREDIBLE!

 

Affably,

 

That's a pretty cheap shot all around. I'm not going to dignify it further.

 

If there was anything "cheap" about it.... I'll apologize immediately! I mourn for those riders and their families.

 

But I think it's a more than fair comparison:

 

MC Riders, Truckers, Car drivers, all complain about how "they" are singled out. None of us like to be recieve a speeding award.

 

If this MC Rider had hurt someone before he was stopped, we would have been upset.

 

If the trucker who killed those 8 in AZ had been stopped two minutes before, by a AZ State Trooper who had his gun out when he stopped the trucker, the trucker forums would be full of people crying foul... and 8 of our friends would be alive.

[AZKomet]

I hereby rename this thread. It shall now be called: The topic that wouldn't die b/c everyone has an opinion!!!!!!

[jaytee]

Picking up on a theme several have mentioned: In so far as I am concerned the civilian control of the police and military is central to concept of a democratic republic which operates under the rule of law. Indeed, I think the central concepts of our idea of Police and Military forces as existing to protect us and to serve us, as opposed to enforce the will of the rulers, is a hallmark of our society and a central tenant of what we call "Freedom."

 

I can understand that civilian authority can sometimes rankle those in our services (see even the word, "services") and that civilian oversight may need to be educated by the professionals we employ, however, I would also encourage those who choose to serve in the forces, and particularly the various domestic law enforcement agencies, to recognize the necessary and valid role of the civilian point of view.

 

There must always exist a balance between authority and freedom, between letting a criminal go (accepting a risk to society) and using extreme measures and authority to effect capture (accepting a different risk to society). This balance is properly expressed by the civilian's will, and it is the lot of the LEO to respect the limits we place on them, and operate within those limits.

 

In the present case the officer uses his vehicle as a weapon in a dangerous manner w/o provocation, and without identifying himself as a LEO, and without attempting a proper stop first. He then, again without even the slightest sign of aggression or non-compliance draws his weapon and advances, still not having identified himself.

 

I think we who have chosen to write here, or write to the proper authorities are saying to the LEOs, who we respect as having a difficult job to do, that this incident crosses a line and reflects a level of authority that is unacceptable to us as the civilians you serve and protect. Primarily because the officer chose techniques that escalated risk rather than minimized them, over a minor infraction that did not pose serious risk to the public.

 

It is very reassuring that nearly everyone here sees the aftermath as unacceptable.

 

+1

 

And this is the only really worthwhile opinion in this thread, IMHO. Virtually any non-LEO citizen would see this as unreasonable police behavior *fully* justifying civilian oversight. I strongly suspect that the end of this will not be a commendation for the police officer.

 

For you LEO's who do a tough job, thank you for your service and please keep this thread (and the others like them) in mind when interfacing with the public.

 

JT

[Kathy R]

Chad F ...

Law Enforcement is a career where 95% of the time people hate to see you. The other 5%... you took too long to get here; you didn't find my stuff; can’t you just stop this crazy motorcycle rider before he kills someone?

 

Sort of like this community, 95% of the members support Law Enforcement, the other 5% you can't please. In this thread it really doesn't matter what any LEO says, they're wrong.

 

Hi Chad,

 

I wave at officers in my community. I want them to know that I am glad to see them cruising around. Why, I wave at officers wherever I am. I got a smile today as I rode by a state officer.

 

As for this on line community it's hard to poll folks who read only. My experience in all the years I've been here is that folks are smart and know why we are thankful for the majority of good officers, but mindful of the small percentage who stick out like a sore thumb and give you and I fits. It's the same in any job. I was in the mortgage industry for 20 years. Yeah. I get it.

[Dundee387]

To answer your question...

 

Gun was never pointed at the motorcyclist, and the cop identified himself as state police. I think if the cop was going to take action in this case, he should have exited his vehicle with badge in hand. There was no need for a firearm, if what we saw in the video was all that really happened.

 

The cop will get some "re-training", and maybe a letter in his personnel file. The unlawful recording charge will get thrown out. Life will go on...

 

If it were me, I'd just shut the bike off and follow commands.

 

[Boone60]

To answer your question...

 

Gun was never pointed at the motorcyclist, and the cop identified himself as state police. I think if the cop was going to take action in this case, he should have exited his vehicle with badge in hand. There was no need for a firearm, if what we saw in the video was all that really happened.

 

The cop will get some "re-training", and maybe a letter in his personnel file. The unlawful recording charge will get thrown out. Life will go on...

 

If it were me, I'd just shut the bike off and follow commands.

 

If the badge holder has the belt threaded (how I would wear it) and not clipped on, that badge will come off only if the belt is removed. That can't happen when if it is also holding the holster and gun. When the officer reholsters the weapon, he makes sure that the badge and weapon remain visible, and he turns so the officer in the marked vehicle can also see.

 

[MotorinLA]

 

Go read the trucking forums. See how truck drivers bag on LEO's continously... and then go tell the families of the 8 motorcycle riders that died in Phoenix when a trucker slammed into them recently that LEOs should go easier on truckers.

 

INCREDIBLE!

 

Affably,

 

That's a pretty cheap shot all around. I'm not going to dignify it further.

 

Now you know how many of the LEOs on this board feel about the comments some of the posters here are throwing around. Difference being I will "dignify" it with a response.

[MotorinLA]

So, motorin LA, he had to control the situation?

That's why he drew the gun?

To prevent flight?

To prevent a rider from attacking him w/a motorcycle?

 

 

If so, then I would ask if that is what you and your brothers do on all traffic stops involving speeding, unlawful lane changes.

 

Here are some other Maryland State Police videos

MARYLAND STATE POLICE PURSUIT ENDS IN FATAL CRASH

US Fed News Service, Including US State News | November 28, 2007 | Copyright

 

The Maryland State Police issued the following news release:

Three men in a stolen vehicle who were wanted for the attempted theft of merchandise from a Calvert County store fled when a state trooper tried to stop them and minutes later were involved in a crash on Rt. 4 that left one of them dead and two seriously injured.

The deceased man's identity has not been confirmed. He was a passenger in the vehicle and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Injured in the crash were Darren D. McCoy, 39, of Bladensburg, Md. and the remaining passenger, who's identity has not been …

 

And another with fatal outcome by Maryland State Police

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ0FYtdOfDw -

 

 

And one with fatal outcomes where the driver didn't stop

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a1_1248044917

 

To answer your first couple of questions, the answer is “yes”, controlling any situation is the only way to stay safe. Once you let the other party have control of your contact, your chance of getting hurt or killed increase exponentially.

 

Asking if every traffic stop is conducted at gun point is pretty ridiculous and I suspect you know that it is ridiculous, but you're stirring the pot.

 

Every situation dictates a different approach. I have drawn and pointed my gun at people during traffic stops that were initiated for infractions. This usually occurs when the driver or other occupant(s) of the vehicle does something to make me believe that he/she/they is a possible deadly threat to me or someone else. I have drawn my weapon and kept it low ready many other times for similar situations. There is no master recipe for how to conduct a traffic stop. Every situation is fluid and you must react accordingly.

 

Many officers have been killed through the years by drivers who crack open their door and turn their upper body to the left to create a better shooting platform. This is not a common action for most people on a normal traffic stop in California. So, if you do these specific things, my gun will be in my hand and you will be ordered to put yourself in a position of disadvantage before I approach. There are many things that may seem mundane or insignificant to normal people that have a completely different meaning to a police officer. When a police officer acts according to what he/she perceives as a warning sign of danger, you may end up with a gun in your ear, even if your intentions were innocuous. Better me having to explain why I pointed a gun at you, than my family being notified that I died because some @$$hole got the drop on me.

 

By the way, pointing a gun at someone is not considered a “Use of Force” (at least not around this region) until you pull the trigger. Show of force? Yes. Use of force? No.

 

BTW what do the other links have to do with the discussion at hand? Other than the fact they involve MD State Police.

[Agent_Orange]

[tallman]

The other links?

WEll the last one shows a driver who ran and didn't comply.

In that case there was a crash, deaths, and the officer rightly (becasue of the flight) apporached the vehicle loudly directing the driver and with a drawn weapon.

That circumstance dictated that action.

The post in this thread didn't.

The other link shows the outcome of a pursuit over attempted theft of merchandise. No one was injured or at risk for death or harm.

Perhaps the State Police should review pursuit policy.

Baltimore, which was in Maryland last I looked has a different policy.

 

The situation was already under control when he pulled his car in front, unless one defines control as having a weapon at low ready.

To distinguish between that and pointing it at the rider is moot.

You know that if the situation was reversed they would have shot the rider.

 

The cruiser was already behind the rider.

No need for the officer in mufti to exit his vehicle.

If he was really concernded for his safety, and the safety of the drivers around him, let the uni take over.

Become a good witness, not a belligerent.

 

And what does a car stop, where the driver hides behind a door have to do with a motorcycle stop?

The rider is in plain view, no place to hide, so comparing a car stop and shoot to this is disingenuous.

You say I'm stirring, yet you bring in totally different scenarios and justify show of force so that an Ahat doesn't get the drop on you.

OK, stick to this sitution.

Why then was the uniformed officer walking up, with no weapon drawn?

Why were there no lights flashing?

Because one officer was doing a good job and reacting appropriately and one wasn't.

Check my posts, you'll see I'm very proLeo, and have many friends.

Passed motorman this morning riding in the fog.

He was stopped behind downed vehicle in the road and risking his safety directing traffic around it in the dark/fog.

He did wave back when I waved.

 

Just as in any profession, some members act improperly.

That's all this is about, IMO.

I also await disclosure of all the facts.

Not cya mode to justify the actions, but real facts.

I'd love to have interviewed the officer in the marked car on the scene before any contact with the off duty officer.

Seems to me that if the off duty officer handled it correctly by drawing his weapon first, then the officer in uniform should be asked why he failed to respond in similar fahion.

Doesn't that show a lck of support for a fellow officer whose life was at risk?

Or, as I originally asked, does it show something else?

Stay safe.

[RPG]

Bottom line is this is why LEO's don't get the respect 90% of them deserve.

 

Best quote of the entire thread

[Indy Dave]

 

Go read the trucking forums. See how truck drivers bag on LEO's continously... and then go tell the families of the 8 motorcycle riders that died in Phoenix when a trucker slammed into them recently that LEOs should go easier on truckers.

 

INCREDIBLE!

 

Affably,

 

That's a pretty cheap shot all around. I'm not going to dignify it further.

 

Now you know how many of the LEOs on this board feel about the comments some of the posters here are throwing around. Difference being I will "dignify" it with a response.

 

fair enough - start a new thread or continue the old one - I'm happy to respond and "dignify". This is a significant hijack (which I am all to good at doing myself). There's enough tit for tat on this subject in this thread already.

[scaudy]

I don't see how questioning the actions of one officer in one situation translates to an all out attack and lack of support for all LEO's. I don't get that from this thread but maybe I am missing something.

[MotorinLA]

Tallman,

thank you for your response and explanation. I think I have a better understanding of what your point is now. I understand that as someone who is not familiar with police work, although you support law enforcement, it is difficult to understand a justification for why someone would have a gun drawn on what appears to a "normal" traffic violation stop.

 

I have no more information about the background of this stop than others here, so I'm also basing my observation largely on speculation about the surrounding circumstances of the stop. Here is what my speculations are so far:

1. The officer in the video is an UC officer and was working at the time of the stop.

2. MD State Police is having a "problem" with squids "stunting" on their freeways.

3. MD State Police is having a problem catching these "stunters".

4. MD State Police is being scrutinized for their pursuits / pursuit policy.

5. Based on the last three above MD State Police is deploying UC officers on the freeway to assist in stopping these "stunters" and to avoid pursuits.

6. #5 would explain why the marked unit did not turn on its lights and siren, because that is an immediate pre-cursor to making these "stunters" run.

7. The "stunter" in the video knows he is being stopped by the police (as someone who has stopped in excess of 10,000 cars, I have experience in observing people and seeing when they know their being stopped, or suspect their being stopped). I believe this rider strongly suspected that he was going to get stopped by the police.

8. Once he realizes that he is in fact getting stopped (the unmarked car blocks him off on the right) he does not turn his bike off and sit still. He in fact acts like he is trying to attempt to flee.

 

Based on this I was trying to give you examples of a police officer's mindset in these kinds of situations. The officer(s) are conducting a traffic stop and the violator is immediately displaying signs of non-compliance. At this point it is critical for an officer to assert control over the situation to avoid creating a more dangerous situation. The UC officer does this through a show of force (draws gun) to discourage the violator from escalating the situation into something much more serious than a traffic violation.

 

As a police officer you deal with a very high number of unknowns during most of your contacts. The serial killer you may stop for a common traffic violation may look no different than the father of three on his way home from work. As such, a police officer must learn to read small signs in behavior to keep safe. Sometimes these signs are correct and you end up pointing your gun at the serial killer and sometimes these signs are accidental and you end up pointing your gun at the father of three going home to his kids. As a police officer I'd rather mistakenly point my gun at the father of three and have to explain myself, than not point my gun at the serial killer. I think this is the point that is difficult to accept for many people who criticized the officer in the video. They assume the rider is a "good guy" and can't understand how it is right for the officer to draw his gun on a "good guy". Again the point is that the UC officer exiting the car has no way of knowing if this is the "good guy" or the "bad guy".

 

Every police officer wants to go home to his/her family at the end of the day. What has bothered me throughout this thread is how many posters condemn the actions of the officer, stating that he is out control, that his actions are completely unreasonable, that he should be disciplined, etc. The people that offer these statements are admittedly not police officers, yet they speak as if they are qualitified to dictate police tactics and policies. It is these kinds of comments that make the work of police officers more dangerous and more difficult to accomplish. People see this video, form the opinion that the officer is out of control (which as a police officer I completely disagree with), call/write/e-mail their opinions to the police department, city hall, the media, etc. As a result, very restrictive policies are often put in place, not because there was a real problem but because there is a perceived problem in the eyes of Joe Citizen, the Monday night quarterback. These policies can dictate tactics that are literally dangerous to the officers that they are being imposed on, as they make these officers have to perform their duties in a way that places them more in harms way. The public looks to law enforcement to keep them safe as law abiding citizens, yet constantly make it more difficult for law enforcement officers to meet this expectation. If you place too many restrictions on law enforcement and make the work even more dangerous than it already is at present, then you will get police officers that perform their jobs poorly and public safety will suffer.

 

Do you understand my frustration now?

[tallman]

Certainly.

But, again, the perception you have and all the what if scenarios don't address the visual data in this thread.

You make broad statements about safety, caveated by saying since I'm not LEO I can't understand.

No sir, that isn't accurate at all.

I have had family and friends murdered.

I've had family and friends beaten to death.

I know first hand about the violence in the world around us.

I've been robbed at gunpoint, attempted mugging at knifepoint.

I've had my home and business burglarized 7 times.

I came home to find a burglar in my residence.

I've had people try to force their way into my home and fight them off while 911 was called.

I've been a hit and run victim twice.

I've been shot at wal;king down the side of the road, on my motorcycle, while riding a bicycle.

My father, a decorated veterean was mugged, my mother fought off a rapist.

We had a serial killer in our home who was employed by a service contractor hired by my parents.

Spider sense and a baseball bat kept him from doing who knows what.

I could go on, but none of this has to do with the thread.

How about you?

Should I say that because you haven't experienced these things then you can't understand crime?

Of course not.

I would not go to bat for a teacher who was involved with a student.

It is wrong and probably illegal.

Everyone realises that, except maybe those doing that.

You don't have to be a parent or teacher to understand that.

LEO's don't get a pass in my book.

They're human.

We all want to go home to our family at the end of the day.

LEO's have chosen a high risk profession and are held to a different standard.

That doesn't justify abuse of their position.

You know that and I'm sure agree.

What we disagree on, in this thread is whether the off duty (and so far that is what he was described as) needed to act in the manner he did when the unifromed officer acted totally different.

So, yes, frustration issomething that citizens and lEO's share in a situation like this.

First that someone acted like the rider did on a public road.

Second, that the LEO acted the way he did.

The blog sites are full of divided opinions about what he did.

The investigation will take a long time and the results will not please everyone.

Best wishes.

[Twisties]

If he knew he was being stopped, and intended to flee, why did he stop for the traffic? Wouldn't he have simply proceeded along the shoulder?

 

Either he knew he was being stopped and was in full cooperation, or he had no idea he was being stopped.

 

His knowledge that he was being stopped is in no way relevant to Uhler's actions.

 

The question of whether Officer Uhler knew the rider knew is relevant. If Uhler did know that the rider knew, then rider's coming to a stop would indicate cooperation and strongly argue against Uhler's actions.

[Matts_12GS]

This probably will require more "sternly worded letters" to the PDs in question.

[Twisties]

Here is what my speculations are so far:

1. The officer in the video is an UC officer and was working at the time of the stop.

2. MD State Police is having a "problem" with squids "stunting" on their freeways.

3. MD State Police is having a problem catching these "stunters".

4. MD State Police is being scrutinized for their pursuits / pursuit policy.

5. Based on the last three above MD State Police is deploying UC officers on the freeway to assist in stopping these "stunters" and to avoid pursuits.

6. #5 would explain why the marked unit did not turn on its lights and siren, because that is an immediate pre-cursor to making these "stunters" run.

 

There is evidence that this rider was not stunting. There is no evidence that this rider was riding in an unsafe manner.

 

MD police may be having these problems, but I fail to see any relevance to this case, or any justification for the use of these high risk apprehension techniques in any event. Are we now at the point where everyone is guilty because of what others have done? Are you justifying increased level of force against Blacks because Blacks have higher arrest and conviction rates? I didn't think so. This line of reasoning is offensive. Treat people based on THEIR actions please.

 

7. The "stunter" in the video knows he is being stopped by the police (as someone who has stopped in excess of 10,000 cars, I have experience in observing people and seeing when they know their being stopped, or suspect their being stopped). I believe this rider strongly suspected that he was going to get stopped by the police.

8. Once he realizes that he is in fact getting stopped (the unmarked car blocks him off on the right) he does not turn his bike off and sit still. He in fact acts like he is trying to attempt to flee.

 

Based on this I was trying to give you examples of a police officer's mindset in these kinds of situations. The officer(s) are conducting a traffic stop and the violator is immediately displaying signs of non-compliance.

 

If these are the officer's mindset, then this officer needs to be relieved of duty immediately as he is clearly unable to handle the job and is a danger to himself and the public.

[MotorinLA]

If he knew he was being stopped, and intended to flee, why did he stop for the traffic? Wouldn't he have simply proceeded along the shoulder?

 

He might not have been sure he was being stopped until the UC officer blocked him off on the right. Doesn't mean he had no idea the police was behind him and he didn't intend to flee.

 

Either he knew he was being stopped and was in full cooperation, or he had no idea he was being stopped.

 

Ah, if only the world was that simple. Knowning he's being stopped and being in cooperation is not the same, that's been my point during this whole discussion.

 

His knowledge that he was being stopped is in no way relevant to Uhler's actions.

 

Absolutely it is relevant. If the violator knows he is being stopped, he's actions during the stop are motivated by completely different thoughts than if he does not know he is being stopped by the police. If Uhler believes the violator knows he is a police officer, then the actions of the violator are those of someone attempting to not comply with a police detainment, not someone who is reacting to a perceived car-jacking as some previous posters have suggested.

 

The question of whether Officer Uhler knew the rider knew is relevant. If Uhler did know that the rider knew, then rider's coming to a stop would indicate cooperation and strongly argue against Uhler's actions.

 

I've had too many people come to stop, only to floor the gas and speed off again to make that a logical conclusion. Stopping does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that a violator/suspect does not intend to flee or fight.

 

I am simply asking that you not be so quick to condemn the actions of the officer, based on your own observations and experiences. Unless you have a long history of being stopped by the police repeatedly and have fled from the police in the past, you will have difficulty understanding the officer's actions. This is not a put down, I'm just pointing out that you may not have enough information to make a good assessment of what happened in this video.

 

[Indy Dave]

1. The officer in the video is an UC officer and was working at the time of the stop.

2. MD State Police is having a "problem" with squids "stunting" on their freeways.

3. MD State Police is having a problem catching these "stunters".

 

 

Yet NONE of this happened (as has been pointed out by several posters) within view of either Law Enforcement Unit, at least based on the longer video. So, which has been pointed out, all of this arose from a mildly speeding (at times) motorcycle. After passing the marked unit, the rider pretty much keeps pace with a cage.

[MotorinLA]

If these are the officer's mindset, then this officer needs to be relieved of duty immediately as he is clearly unable to handle the job and is a danger to himself and the public.

 

You best relieve the majority of police officers of the their duty then, because that is how a very large portion of police officers think. It is what keeps them alive. Go put in an application and become a police officer, just make sure you're carrying a large life insurance policy to take care of your family for when you're killed on duty.

[MotorinLA]

1. The officer in the video is an UC officer and was working at the time of the stop.

2. MD State Police is having a "problem" with squids "stunting" on their freeways.

3. MD State Police is having a problem catching these "stunters".

 

 

Yet NONE of this happened (as has been pointed out by several posters) within view of either Law Enforcement Unit, at least based on the longer video. So, which has been pointed out, all of this arose from a mildly speeding (at times) motorcycle. After passing the marked unit, the rider pretty much keeps pace with a cage.

 

 

This makes no sense. Why would the officers stop the rider in the first place if there was no violation? Your logic appear fuzzy at best.

[Indy Dave]

1. The officer in the video is an UC officer and was working at the time of the stop.

2. MD State Police is having a "problem" with squids "stunting" on their freeways.

3. MD State Police is having a problem catching these "stunters".

 

 

Yet NONE of this happened (as has been pointed out by several posters) within view of either Law Enforcement Unit, at least based on the longer video. So, which has been pointed out, all of this arose from a mildly speeding (at times) motorcycle. After passing the marked unit, the rider pretty much keeps pace with a cage.

 

 

This makes no sense. Why would the officers stop the rider in the first place if there was no violation? Your logic appear fuzzy at best.

 

EXACTLY! The light is coming on!!!

 

Take a look at the video again. If not mild speeding, what exactly did the LEO's pull him over for? Everything in the video happens before passing either unit. from what we can see, they have no idea what's he's done. This has been mentioned by several posters.

 

It seems like your basing a lot of things based on the entire video and not what the LEO's could have seen or known he did.

 

edit: He finishes the wheelie at the 28 second mark. He doesn't pass the unit in the median until 50 seconds later - a mile or so since he did the wheelie, shielded, BTW, by the bus - so it's not like he was seen for the other side of the road anyway.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I've had too many people come to stop, only to floor the gas and speed off again to make that a logical conclusion. Stopping does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that a violator/suspect does not intend to flee or fight.

 

Ayup. Watch "Cops" a few times: a zero-MPH vehicle isn't enough, especially if the brake lights are lit (which means the car is still in gear, ready to launch). Under these conditions the officer will often yell up "turn the car off". Likewise, Uhler has no reliable signs of compliance from the rider - in fact, the backpedaling looks an awful lot like a prelude to a launch (either toward Uhler [which is why the gun is out] or toward freedom) - until the rider finally turns his engine off and puts the bike on its sidestand.

[upflying]

Has it been established yet if the trooper was on or off duty? If he was on-duty and part of an undercover traffic enforcement unit targeting wheelie/reckless/failure to yield squids, why wasn't he attired for on-duty traffic enforcement? He should have been wearing some sort of tactical attire that is emblazoned with the word "police" including but not limited to a badge or shield hanging from a chain around his neck. And if the trooper was part of a targeted traffic enforcement operation, why was he driving a 5 year old Chevrolet Malibu? You would think a UC trooper working high speed traffic enforcement would be issued a speedier car..able to keep up with and identify 150+ mph squids. Such special enforcement units almost always coordinate such enforcement with LEO aircraft. Such UC operations always involve two officers, where is the partner in the Malibu?

I worked many (non-narcotics) UC assignments and I am always attired with blue jeans, full duty belt, running shoes, ballistic vest and a raid jacket. This "bust" clothing is cleared marked "police" front and rear. This is to prevent suspects from thinking I am another crook planing to rip them off. If I was not clearly identified as a cop, that suspect could defend himself by saying he didn't know I was a cop when he tries to shoot me. This also prevents "friendly-fire" incidents from occurring.

This trooper could have easily been attired in similar bust clothing while still concealing his UC status as he drove that Chevy Malibu..if that is in fact a MSP UC car.

Based on what I see in the video and without knowing all the facts, I would conclude this trooper was off duty based on the casual, street clothing he was wearing. As such, acting as if he was on-duty by approaching the motorcyclist in this manner was inappropriate and unsafe.

As I mentioned earlier, my first reaction is the trooper was about to "carjack" (taking a vehicle through force or fear) the motorcyclist.

Appropriate action for an off-duty LEO reporting a reckless motorcycle is to remain in the car, be a good witness and let the on-duty uniform folks do their thing.

If this trooper was on-duty the supervisor who planned and coordinated this operation needs retraining.

I'd love to hear the MSP side of the story.

[Twisties]

I am simply asking that you not be so quick to condemn the actions of the officer

 

I have not condemned the officer. I have asked politely that there be an investigation. Personally I am still hoping for exonerating evidence that justifies the officer's behavior. It is not beyond the pale at this point to imagine that entire situation as presented is intended to mislead. I would be quite relieved to learn of some such situation.

 

However, we are discussing the facts as we have them at this point, and in my latest post I was responding to your specific suppositions as to a possible mindset of the officer. This is a purely hypothetical argument at this point, not a condemnation of the officer. My response was prefaced "if."

 

Your position, if I am understanding you, is based on a lot "ifs" and potentials. Things that others have done, and this rider could do. I am not in denial of those possibilities. However basing law enforcement actions on these possibilities, absent any particular evidence that the suspect is prone to such, simply isn't going to fly. That would result in maximum use of aggressive techniques in all interactions: You wouldn't be able to speak to a man walking down the street until you had him in a straitjacket.

 

In this case my concerns are apparent use of high risk techniques w/o justification and the apparent attempt by the department and legal system to harass on trumped up charges in the aftermath. The latter is more concerning and got the most space in my letter.

 

Please, have a nice afternoon, and lets meet in good cheer at a BMWST event sometime!