Victim Disarmed and Cuffed for his "Safety"

[Shadow Man]

Now we have delved into semantics. I agree; this has run its course.

 

[Werewolf]

If she can't do her job without victimizing people (preclusion of duty), she shouldn't be an officer. Fire her for incompetence or give her reasonable duties.

At the behest of legislators that would legislate every aspect of our lives, and with the support of rampant surveillance and profiling, police are put in situations where they are not safe and cannot reasonably be expected to control or protect anything. The obvious solution is to accept the capacity of LEOs and of law enforcement, in general, in a society with basic property/privacy rights, and legislate accordingly, but instead, we expect them to do the impossible, to police every possible danger, and at any cost to our liberty, and ultimately, safety. The inherent contradiction is terrifying.

A prudent PD would never have hired a woman to operate in the field in the first place. BUT political correctness killed that about 25 or so years ago. Now a 145# woman is supposed to be able to control a 250# man as well another 250# man could. Yeah - and you can polish a turd to the point it gleams like a diamond too.

 

[lobo9er]

baleted

 

[zxcvbob]

A prudent PD would never have hired a woman to operate in the field in the first place. BUT political correctness killed that about 25 or so years ago. Now a 145# woman is supposed to be able to control a 250# man as well another 250# man could. Yeah - and you can polish a turd to the point it gleams like a diamond too.

That little gal at Ft. Hood did OK. She may be an exception.

They never should have sent this bozo out in the field without a partner. She might do just fine when she doesn't have to go solo.

 

[BlayGlock]

And if there wasn't any disciplinary action, as in many places there wouldn't?

Then I would sue for sure. I may even just cuff and detain them the next time I see them

 

[Werewolf]

That little gal at Ft. Hood did OK. She may be an exception.

Didn't she have to shoot the guy rather than control him physically?

 

[Bobarino]

Well, if you have ever been in piblic safety you would know it is the first thing you do is make the scene safe for you then you can make it safe for others.

huh, and all this time i thought it was the job of a public safety officer to do their best to protect and serve the public first and foremost, even at their own expense. it's not very reassuring to know that there is an attitude out that is cop first, citizen/victim second, constitutional rights dead last.

 

[Majik]

I sure hope my tax dollars are not going toward that officer's salary. I can understand an officer telling the civilian to holster, or temporarily relieve the firearm to the officer. This would protect the civilian in the event another officer shows up, doesn't know who he is, sees him with the gun.

Handcuffing is highly uncalled for. Hopefully, the officer was just making an honest mistake, they do have stressfull jobs that can be extreemly dangerous. However, they are supposed to uphold the law, which the officer clearly broke.

 

[KBintheSLC]

A prudent PD would never have hired a woman to operate in the field in the first place. BUT political correctness killed that about 25 or so years ago. Now a 145# woman is supposed to be able to control a 250# man as well another 250# man could. Yeah - and you can polish a turd to the point it gleams like a diamond too.

I sort of agree with you, but there are some gals out there that could likely mop the floor with you or me. The cop in this case was just a wuss, and should not be patrolling the streets. This guy needs to hire an attorney and file suit.

 

[Utah1]

I could see taking the handgun, locking it in the truck and having the guy sit on the curb or something while she waited for backup. To place him in handcuffs is insane, unless he was already causing some other disturbance. If the only reason for the cuffs, was the handgun, she shouldn't be in this profession. To think that she'll be disciplined is a joke, promoted more likely. Most LEOs couldn't care less what the "civilians" think. As far as the Bill of Rights, I think most LE agencies try to get away with as much as they can when it comes to infinging rather than supporting.

There needs to be a lawsuit at a minimum. Until a bunch of the higher ups have to deal with this, there won't be any change. A public relations campaign letting everyone know what happened would also be good.

 

[MinnMooney]

Actually, by taking the homeowner into temporary custody (which is what handcuffing amounts to), the LEO assumed a legally actionable responsibility for safeguarding that homeowner. So it's really one MORE thing for the LEO to worry about.

Precisely !!

The victim was "well known" to the police department so she should have treated him like an ally rather than putting his and her lives in further peril.

Here's to TOTAL CONTROL by GOV'T. FORCES !! Hip - hip - hurray and Heil.

 

[carbuncle]

I've had a couple of situations where I had to defend myself, the police have been called and I sat in cuffs for a little while while the situation was sorted out. Both times the cuffs came off, I got a polite and sincere apology and the other parties became free guests at the prestigious Greybar Hotel (with free limo service!). I can't fault the officers for needing to secure the environment before they can start trying to sort through the events.

 

[Sam1911]

I've had a couple of situations where I had to defend myself, the police have been called and I sat in cuffs for a little while while the situation was sorted out.

Lets take a look at that: If you've had to defend yourself then, by your own admission, you have committed some act (a threat, brandishing a weapon, assault, or even homicide) that would be a serious crime -- pretty much all of them felonies -- if you don't have proper justification. The officer is not 'cuffing you for your safety in that circumstance, nor even really for his/hers. They're cuffing you because there is a 33% chance that you are going to jail, a 33% chance that the other guy is, and a 33% chance that both of you are. Illegal acts have been committed, and they're prepared to arrest and charge you -- unless they see overwhelming evidence that you had justification to resort to violent action.

In the instance at hand, there is no reason to even consider arresting or charging the property owner (once he/she's been identified as belonging there). That doesn't make any sense. They have committed no crime. They haven't called you to say that they've shot someone or stabbed someone or beaten someone. They're "guilty" of nothing more than asking for assistance. The idea that the person who called you to the scene and has asked for your help poses a threat to you and must be subdued before you can go find the OTHER threat on site -- is absurd.

If the person surrenders their weapon to the officer, produces identification as being the "Reporting Person", perhaps is even on the phone with the dispatcher when the responding officers arrive on scene -- disarming that person is quite illogical (though not uncommon) but restraining that person in the manacles of a captured felon? That's insane.

-Sam

 

[HunterBear71]

This is one of the more annoying scenarios I have ever contemplated. I really don't have an adequate vocabulary to express the anger and contempt I feel for the responding officer.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Looks like all worked out in the end. Maybe a different officer would have handled it differently, but the bottom line is she needed to get the scene under control. And she did, and all went to bed safely that night.

+1. It's unfortunate, but today's victim is literally sometimes tomorrow's perpetrator. Add to that the fact that what you're dispatched to may or may not be what is actually going on when you get there and taking the gun away from the guy with the gun and putting him in cuffs makes a whole lot of sense. (Though I do agree with getting him out of the scene and into a squad car, like Cosmoline mentioned.)

 

[dec41971]

That little gal at Ft. Hood did OK. She may be an exception.

They never should have sent this bozo out in the field without a partner. She might do just fine when she doesn't have to go solo.

No sexism or disrespect intended, but I suggest you all check out the real facts of exactly what happened. I think people have a tendency to grasp onto heroic initial TV stories that are often inaccurate. She can handle herself fine, and we should not use that incident to illustrate what females are capable of, nor incapable of. This had nothing at all to do with male/female but merely luck perhaps but facts are facts, and that's not quite how it all went down. I hate TV reporters (more like bozos making up stuff for ratings) jumping all over a fresh incident and reporting without enough facts. Jessica Lynch also valiantly fought off the Iraqis firing until she was out of ammo. Turns out she was injured when the Humvee she was in collided with another, and she never fired a single shot. I feel sorry for the people who are portrayed to have done what they never did. Someone else made up the story, not them. Then one day truth is revealed, and it looks like they lied. Sorry Off Topic, but felt like you ought to be ware to check the facts.

I don't understand hand cuffing this victim, seems to me commonsense was not applied here. But I realize I was not there, and the accounts maybe colored by opinions of those reporting it. But still, I'd be P.Oed if I were him.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

More Drift

I see we're drifting again.

You will remember that a couple of pages ago I said we weren't going to pursue the "personnel policies" aspect of this event.

Nonetheless, I see that we're slipping back into that.

Tell you what, I think we've gotten all the nutrition out of this one.

If there are further developments in this case, feel free to open a new thread.