Officer pulls firearm, instead of taser

[Averageman]

A nationwide mandatory Healthcare insurance being required by law in this country would be a huge undertaking and is highly unlikely for at least the term of the current Supreme Court.

Fixed it for you. See how that worked out for us?

[26 Inf]

I think it is important to debate seatbelt laws because as I said earlier, your Officer pulls the guy over for not wearing his seatbelt and in the meantime I pass the scene while riding a motorcycle without a helmet or a seatbelt and I'm fine.

If you want me to "Back the Blue" how about lets support a lot more "Protect and Serve" as opposed to some crazy Sheriff of Nottingham tactics to drum up some tax revenue.

The motorcycle helmet analogy has some merits but also some flaws. There are significantly fewer motorcycles on the road than other vehicles. Most motorcycles are capable of carrying rider and one passenger, whereas common vehicles are capable of driver and four passengers. According to NHTSA helmets are over 33% effective in reducing fatalities for the operator and 40% for passengers. Another consideration is that helmets reduce injury/fatality due to head injury. Other than head injuries, which in one study accounted for 56% of fatalities, there are many other causes of death in motorcycle fatalities, blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen leading them.

Seat belts, on the other hand, protect the occupant from numerous mechanisms of injury. NHTSA rated their effectiveness at reducing fatalities at 45%. I've helped extricate folks from hellacious crashes who survived because they were wearing their seatbelts.

Quite frankly, I think folks are fools if they don't wear seat belts while in a vehicle, or helmets while riding. Especially if they spend a great deal of time preparing to protect themselves from more statistically unlikely events, such as gunfights.

As far as seatbelt tickets being a revenue stream, in my state, Kansas, seat belt violations carry a fine and reduced/no court costs. I believe the current fine is $30.00.

I do agree that in many cases officers use seat belt violations as PC for pretextual stops, stops where enforcement of the violation which authorized the stop is not the primary purpose of the stop. The Supreme Court has several times ruled pretextual stops are legal, regardless of the underlying purpose, so long as there was a violation to warrant the stop.

One way to combat the practice is to bug your legislators to change your state's seat belt laws, making not wearing your seat belt a secondary violation, rather than a primary violation which an officer can stop you for.

Or, vote Democrat for enough election cycles for them to really stack the courts with liberal judges.

[Hmac]

Fixed it for you. See how that worked out for us?

You think healthcare and firearms possession are the same things as viewed by the current Supreme Court?




.

[Averageman]

You think healthcare and firearms possession are the same things as viewed by the current Supreme Court?




.

Before Kavanaugh, yes. I do think they saw the legalities of the Affordable Care Act along with it's penalties as a right the government had to impose this tax on American Citizens.
There has been some speculation in print that Roberts made this decision based upon what he felt was the need to show himself as unbiased and as reaching out to the more liberal Judges on the SCOTUS. If that is true it should scare the hell out of you.
I would suppose the Second Amendment is looked upon as fluid and capable of being changed as the times change and there are many examples of how they have done exactly that over the years. We have seen, as the "Bumpstock" ban shows, rather than take a stand on the Constitutional legalities of certain parts of the Second Amendment, they simply take a pass.
So what happens in the future, if for some reason the Court rules in favor of some issue that favors Conservative ideals over the progressive socialists ideals? Will the next issue be concerning the Second Amendment and will Roberts again feel the need to reach across the bench and give the progressive socialists a win?
That should really be concerning to you.

[jsbhike]

You think healthcare and firearms possession are the same things as viewed by the current Supreme Court?




.

Usually the safest bet to place in that venue is for the current Dred Scott or Fred Korematsu to end up losing

[Averageman]

The motorcycle helmet analogy has some merits but also some flaws. There are significantly fewer motorcycles on the road than other vehicles. Most motorcycles are capable of carrying rider and one passenger, whereas common vehicles are capable of driver and four passengers. According to NHTSA helmets are over 33% effective in reducing fatalities for the operator and 40% for passengers. Another consideration is that helmets reduce injury/fatality due to head injury. Other than head injuries, which in one study accounted for 56% of fatalities, there are many other causes of death in motorcycle fatalities, blunt trauma to the chest and abdomen leading them.

Seat belts, on the other hand, protect the occupant from numerous mechanisms of injury. NHTSA rated their effectiveness at reducing fatalities at 45%. I've helped extricate folks from hellacious crashes who survived because they were wearing their seatbelts.

Quite frankly, I think folks are fools if they don't wear seat belts while in a vehicle, or helmets while riding. Especially if they spend a great deal of time preparing to protect themselves from more statistically unlikely events, such as gunfights.
True and I would agree with you, however everyday people jump out of airplanes, smoke cigarettes, climb mountains, sit in your recliner and drink a half gallon of cheap vodka, handle poisonous snakes and as the video shows ride around in a Cruiser with an untrained partner who is just as likely to shoot you as the Perp who's kicking your butt.
You can almost take as many stupid chances as you want and do many, many dangerous things, but if you're sober, on your way to work, obeying all other laws and minding your business, you better be wearing your seatbelt.

As far as seatbelt tickets being a revenue stream, in my state, Kansas, seat belt violations carry a fine and reduced/no court costs. I believe the current fine is $30.00.
The fine can be as high as $250.00 here in Texas and often is.

I do agree that in many cases officers use seat belt violations as PC for pretextual stops, stops where enforcement of the violation which authorized the stop is not the primary purpose of the stop. The Supreme Court has several times ruled pretextual stops are legal, regardless of the underlying purpose, so long as there was a violation to warrant the stop.
Same thing with a tail light being out, it's a dandy way to pull someone out of their car and do what is basically a field sobriety test.
Having had to submit to this in my own damned driveway, I'm not a real fan of these things being used to "Fish" for other violations.


One way to combat the practice is to bug your legislators to change your state's seat belt laws, making not wearing your seat belt a secondary violation, rather than a primary violation which an officer can stop you for.
That's highly unlikely, these petty former suggestions that have now become Laws are simply too convenient and lucrative to ever be changed.

I'm all about obeying the law and yes as annoying as it is, I wear a helmet on my motorcycle and a seatbelt in my car, not because these things might be laws, but because it's common sense to me.
It's just annoying to me, on the very few occasions it has happened to me, to be the subject of a LEO's fishing expedition. Even more than that though it doesn't do any good for public relations between the general public and Law Enforcement.

[Hmac]

Lot's of noise to signal in this post.

However inane the laws are, that is a legislative issue of broader perspective likely to do with child safety & government incurred health cost of the uninsured, the time suck of getting pulled over doesn't warrant anyone to violence.

My take after participating in, witnessing, or attempting to repair as a first responder hundreds of instances of violence.

The initial officer that got grappled was face down in a position of tremendous disadvantage, being hit from the top rear in a way he could not defend against, with face inches off the pavement. Another blow to his head/neck could easily kill or permanently disable him. People are killed and paralyzed via blunt force strikes quite frequently. The pavement presenting a countercoup surface greatly increases the likelihood. Additionally, the officer underneath the suspect could easily have had his service weapon used against him, the other officer, and the public within a 1/4 to 1/2 second.

There is a fair argument that a Taser would have been the wrong decision. In my, and many others, experience they are not a reliable and repeatable means of stopping someone fast. If you have a time & distance, likely numerical, advantage it can be useful as a step in escalation of force. But perhaps not the right choice here with a very bad outcome to the disadvantaged officer possible inside of a second. A small physically weak officer who cannot or will not effectively intervein physically also, obviously, limits use of force options. Policy may also prevent less than lethal (intended) kinetic blows via baton or boot.


If that police department authorizes deadly force against imminent death or bodily harm, against imminent harm as most PD policy does, I would imagine deadly force intervention is justified.

More signal/noise. Whatever the circumstances or laws...she accidentally shot him when she meant to use a Taser, risking the perp's death and her partner's. Sheesh.



.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

I'm all about obeying the law and yes as annoying as it is, I wear a helmet on my motorcycle and a seatbelt in my car, not because these things might be laws, but because it's common sense to me.
It's just annoying to me, on the very few occasions it has happened to me, to be the subject of a LEO's fishing expedition. Even more than that though it doesn't do any good for public relations between the general public and Law Enforcement.

I'm sorry that you have experienced "fishing expeditions." I am having a hard time trying to figure out what these fishing expeditions are though.

-Traffic violation happens.
-Officer conducts completely legal and reasonable traffic stop on vehicle
-Officer runs clearance on driver, who comes back without warrants and with valid drivers license. Vehicle is registered and insured.
-Officer, having no PC to search vehicle, now may ask to search your vehicle, or has to let you go on your way.

How is this different than any other traffic stop? How do you know the officer was on a "fishing expedition" and not just pulling traffic. There are a few different types of cops, some pull traffic for interdiction, some pull traffic because they like pulling traffic and believe in traffic safety measures. The latter does not go on "fishing expeditions", but may ask to search a car if they feel something is hinky. How do you which one you are dealing with?

Bad guys drive cars. More felony arrests are made off of traffic stops than any other contact. Traffic stops are a necessity to public safety as they facilitate the removal of dangerous felons off the street, as well as help (slightly) curb the flow of dangerous driving.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

More signal/noise. Whatever the circumstances or laws...she accidentally shot him when she meant to use a Taser, risking the perp's death and her partner's. Sheesh.



.

I say, let the courts decide her fate. The scumbag got a nasty surprise for sure, one that may or may not have been justified (lets ask a jury). I do know one thing, she did not "knowingly or with intent" use deadly force. She intended to use a less lethal device, but instead put countless lives in danger. Thank god it was at the angle it was, and not through badguy and into anyone else.

I think she is 100% guilty of reckless endangerment....

[jsbhike]

I say, let the courts decide her fate. The scumbag got a nasty surprise for sure, one that may or may not have been justified (lets ask a jury). I do know one thing, she did not "knowingly or with intent" use deadly force. She intended to use a less lethal device, but instead put countless lives in danger. Thank god it was at the angle it was, and not through badguy and into anyone else.

I think she is 100% guilty of reckless endangerment....

Judge already dismissed.

A bit surprised she resigned and do wonder if she will get on with another agency.