"I Need Ya' Supervisor!!!"

[kryptonite]

I'm sure that is they don't comply and run/resist like you've previously suggested, then that would be far better. Still laughing at how you also previously said gangs are good for the community.

There are bad apples in every walk of life. Dude had every right to shoot his disorderly ***, but didn't and put his life on the line when he could've lost his firearm or even been choked out to death by a man twice his size. That right there proves there's good cops out there.

I get sick and tired of people thinking cops are a bad thing when the vast majority are not.

How can you misunderstand the law so badly?

THE POLICE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SHOOT YOU BECAUSE YOU DON'T OBEY. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SHOOT YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE COMMITING A CRIME.

You have to be threatening their or somebody else's life for them to shoot you.

And it has nothing to do with the vast majority being good cops. That doesn't excuse the bad ones and it doesn't give you the right to sweep the bad ones under the rug.

See, this is the problem. People like you sit on juries and let cops off because sht, dude didn't listen.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

There are bad apples in every walk of life.

We've already established that, but the ones that know about the bad apples and don't say anything are bad apples too.

 

[ScubaCane]

You’re more wrong.

Which part of this mentions your right to speak with a supervisor? I'll hang up and listen

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[ThomasM]

Yeah, I've been reading about this. Him and every cop that knew about it needs to be locked up...and that Sheriff needs to be fired anyway because He knew this guy was dirty before He hired Him.

I never liked "making an example" of someone, as it usually tends to be a bit unfair, but this is an exception. He needs to go away for a very, very long time. So long that other cops think twice before doing the same.

 

[SayWhat]

How can you misunderstand the law so badly?

THE POLICE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SHOOT YOU BECAUSE YOU DON'T OBEY. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SHOOT YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE COMMITING A CRIME.

You have to be threatening their or somebody else's life for them to shoot you.

And it has nothing to do with the vast majority being good cops. That doesn't excuse the bad ones and it doesn't give you the right to sweep the bad ones under the rug.

See, this is the problem. People like you sit on juries and let cops off because sht, dude didn't listen.

What was shown in that video, in the convenience store, he had every right to use his sidearm if he felt it was necessary. In particular when he got off the ground and came after him.

The size of that man would justify beyond a reasonable doubt that he feared for his life.

Nice bold words, but it serves no purpose here. In that situation, he handled jt well, putting his life on the line to save this drunks life.

 

[ScubaCane]

ScubaCane,

…allow me to share this bit of information with you and you can do with it what you will.
1. A police officer looks at it differently. They have to account for lawyers and a courtroom. So they go through training to make sure the lawyers have their shot - without the officers playing legal expert in the field and the city/municipality paying out a settlement.

2. Manager/agents tell their nfl clients to do these things so that they don’t get themselves in MORE trouble by talking doing things that makes the attorneys job more difficult. Basically, they’re told not to say anything; don’t play legal expert in the field; ask for the supervisor.

I googled “4th amendment” and “traffic stop” and this is one of the returns I received:

Traffic Stops and the 4th Amendment - King Law

When the framers of the constitution drafted the 4th amendment, it is safe to say they could not anticipate the invention of the automobile and certainly not their essential function in the daily life of Americans. Fortunately, the constitution was designed as a fluid instrument, as to prevent...

kinglawoffices.com

When the framers of the constitution drafted the 4th amendment, it is safe to say they could not anticipate the invention of the automobile and certainly not their essential function in the daily life of Americans. Fortunately, the constitution was designed as a fluid instrument, as to prevent the government from denying essential protections to new technologies. As a result, we all have certain rights when it comes to traffic stops which prevent law enforcement from taking certain actions.

The Fourth Amendment prevents the government from performing unreasonable searches and seizures. A traffic stop would be considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and in order to be shown as reasonable, the officer needs to show that there is reasonable suspicion to pull over your car. In other words, he or she needs to show that there is a reasonable or articulable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot. So if you have committed some kind of traffic violation in the officer’s presence, the Fourth Amendment won’t help you. But, if you have not committed any crime and the officer has no reason to think that you have committed a crime, he or she has no legal right to pull you over and thanks to the exclusionary rule, any evidence found against you as a result of that stop likely cannot be used at trial.

If the officer did have reasonable suspicion to pull you over, a subsequent investigation could still be unlawful. Let’s say for example you were pulled over by an officer for a broken tail light. In this case, you have committed a violation in the officer’s presence and there was reasonable suspicion to make you stop your vehicle so the violation can be addressed. He then writes you a ticket and hands the ticket over to you, thus addressing the violation. However, once the violation has been addressed, if the officer wants to perform a further investigation, he or she must show grounds which provide a reasonable and articulable suspicion which justifies further delay or show that you consented to a search. So if you were to refuse to consent to the search, the officer needs additional reasonable suspicion to continue the investigation. Additionally, a refusal to consent does not create reasonable suspicion, so there is nothing to lose by refusing to consent to a search. If the officer were to search you or your car with no consent and no reasonable suspicion, the evidence against you would again be likely inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.

Now, factor in a drunk of his *** McDowell and asking for the supervisor makes sense.

Was he wrong for getting out of the car? Yes.
Was he wrong for trying to resist arrest? Yes.
Was he wrong/crazy/stupid for trying to disarm officer so that he wouldn’t be shot? Yes (but, there are a few legitimate mitigating factors even if we can’t agree on what they may be)

I appreciate your well thought out post, my only original point was that his request for a supervisor and the officer's refusal to request one is not a 4th amendment issue. I was in LE for a long time in a major metropolitan area, so I have intimate knowledge of traffic stops and the 4th amendment.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

What was shown in that video, in the convenience store, he had every right to use his sidearm if he felt it was necessary. In particular when he got off the ground and came after him.

The size of that man would justify beyond a reasonable doubt that he feared for his life.

Nice bold words, but it serves no purpose here. In that situation, he handled jt well, putting his life on the line to save this drunks life.

That's what you'd do, but then again that's why you're not a cop...Thank God.

 

[SayWhat]

That's what you'd do, but then again that's why you're not a cop...Thank God.

That's pretty sanctimonious on your part.

Fact is, he was within his rights at that time to do whatever he wished. His life was on the line. He's overpowered and could've very easily been choked out if he had let him get his neck.

I'm glad it worked out for both of them. It's just funny seeing all the chicken little's in this thread have their opinions that are clearly wrong in this situation. They both caught a break and sober I doubt the dude acts like that.

 

[kryptonite]

What was shown in that video, in the convenience store, he had every right to use his sidearm if he felt it was necessary. In particular when he got off the ground and came after him.

The size of that man would justify beyond a reasonable doubt that he feared for his life.

Nice bold words, but it serves no purpose here. In that situation, he handled jt well, putting his life on the line to save this drunks life.

And "dude had every right to shoot his disorderly ***" sounds an awful

What was shown in that video, in the convenience store, he had every right to use his sidearm if he felt it was necessary. In particular when he got off the ground and came after him.

The size of that man would justify beyond a reasonable doubt that he feared for his life.

Nice bold words, but it serves no purpose here. In that situation, he handled jt well, putting his life on the line to save this drunks life.

And I've said several times that I think the cop handled the situation well.

Some of your comments sound a lot like you think that cops get to shoot people for not obeying them. Like if a cop said "get out of the car" and I didn't he gets to shoot me.

Maybe that's not what you meant, in which case please just take my bold words as a reminder to all of CIS. Not obeying isn't enough to justify using deadly force.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

I'm sure that is they don't comply and run/resist like you've previously suggested, then that would be far better. Still laughing at how you also previously said gangs are good for the community.

There are bad apples in every walk of life. Dude had every right to shoot his disorderly ***, but didn't and put his life on the line when he could've lost his firearm or even been choked out to death by a man twice his size. That right there proves there's good cops out there.

I get sick and tired of people thinking cops are a bad thing when the vast majority are not.

I am sure you are still laughing because you have absolutely no idea what it is like living in that environment. So just like I am "uniformed" and think "all cops are bad" you are uniformed and think gangs are bad. Luckily for me I know by your posts you don't have the money to actually be of any support to the human rights movement so I have no interest in swaying your opinion.



If only this guy obeyed their commands. What a degenerate he is having a stroke and not obeying commands.

 

[BS85]

There are some legit retards on this board

 

[88]

 

[SayWhat]

And "dude had every right to shoot his disorderly ***" sounds an awful


And I've said several times that I think the cop handled the situation well.

Some of your comments sound a lot like you think that cops get to shoot people for not obeying them. Like if a cop said "get out of the car" and I didn't he gets to shoot me.

Maybe that's not what you meant, in which case please just take my bold words as a reminder to all of CIS. Not obeying isn't enough to justify using deadly force.

No, a cop doesn't get to shoot someone for them not obeying them. That's common sense.

When someone is agressive and comes at a cop like he did with intent to do harm or harm to others (had he gotten in his car and attempted to drive off into traffic), attacked others, etc then the gloves are off. I'm particular when non-lethal measures are used and have failed.

He showed great resolve and care in not escalating the situation any further than he did. I've had to defend myself against some bigger dudes than me in a drunken state and being sober was a great advantage. I imagine he felt that way, but physically he was in very poor spot to say the least.

 

[SayWhat]

I am sure you are still laughing because you have absolutely no idea what it is like living in that environment. So just like I am "uniformed" and think "all cops are bad" you are uniformed and think gangs are bad. Luckily for me I know by your posts you don't have the money to actually be of any support to the human rights movement so I have no interest in swaying your opinion.



If only this guy obeyed their commands. What a degenerate he is having a stroke and not obeying commands.

You don't know anything. I've known many gang bangers, enough to know it isn't the life they would pick for their kids. It was a life they wanted at one time but then they grew up and realized it was far easier to stay in the game than get out into a legit profession. It's an ugly world that your silly *** has tried to glorify like you just watched some gangster film.

It's amazing how an obviously intelligent person can be as stupid as you are on some issues. You also have absolutely no idea of my finances and the funny thing about that, movements of any kinds have a lot of broke ****s as troops on the ground.

As for your video, what is the context? Why were they called to the scene? Was the car left running? How long had the female officer been there trying to get the guy out of the vehicle? Ultimately, they have to get the guy out, he isn't showing his hands, following directives, etc. Stroke, prior to or after the pepper spray, etc? I can't have an opinion on that one as I don't know the details.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

You don't know anything. I've known many gang bangers, enough to know it isn't the life they would pick for their kids. It was a life they wanted at one time but then they grew up and realized it was far easier to stay in the game than get out into a legit profession. It's an ugly world that your silly *** has tried to glorify like you just watched some gangster film.

It's amazing how an obviously intelligent person can be as stupid as you are on some issues. You also have absolutely no idea of my finances and the funny thing about that, movements of any kinds have a lot of broke ****s as troops on the ground.

As for your video, what is the context? Why were they called to the scene? Was the car left running? How long had the female officer been there trying to get the guy out of the vehicle? Ultimately, they have to get the guy out, he isn't showing his hands, following directives, etc. Stroke, prior to or after the pepper spray, etc? I can't have an opinion on that one as I don't know the details.

Where did I say gang bangers want their kids to be gang bangers? I simply stated they are good for the community. Which is a fact. Prior to gangs starting up the Mob used to come in and run the neighborhoods. Muggers would come and torment the neighborhood. Rapists and serial killers seeked refuge there and the cops would stay away. Gangs keep all of them away and the majority of violence in the neighborhood is gang on gang instead of predator on civilian. Since the gangs in NYC started getting organized murder, muggings, etc. all have dropped significantly in the projects.

Of course the majority of protesters are going to be "broke ****s", but you can't waste your resources trying to recruit them. The ones that want to protest will show up and you spend time trying to recruit the guys who are going to funnel large amounts of capital towards your goal.

The guy had a stroke and crashed his car. Police showed up and you saw the rest.

You can't follow these guys orders. They are giving multiple orders. "get out of the car. STop moving around". How are you supposed to do both? If I was in this situation I would just freeze. Let them taze and pepper spray me and drag me out of the car. If I try and "follow orders" I increased my chances of getting my head blown off because I made a "threatening gesture" or some other BS.

Also, "get out of the car or I am going to smoke you" sounds appropriate to you? You should be able to murder someone because they are not cooperating, while not being a threat? Not to mention the guy is basically unconscious.

I don't even care about the ridiculous overuse of pepper spray being sprayed on the guy.

You know who beats people up because they "disrespected them verbally"? Criminals. If a gang did this I am sure you would demand the gang to be arrested and they shouldn't be offended like little millennial snowflakes? However, these men are fully within their rights to mock and officer. That is freedom of speech. I am sure you will say "They have no respect for authority and deserve the beating".

 

[Pb cane]

That was just a ****ty situation for all involved. Both sides showed restraint until the situation was escalated and ultimately, it doesn't look good for either party.

It was a simple roadside stop. Those should never get to the point it just did and its a breakdown by all involved, including the current culture (police culture, too) we are in.

Malik McDowell being told he was going to be shot by a white police officer, who at any time, could have justified shooting him with lethal intent...yeah, I am not sure many of you in the same situation wouldn't have tried to fight for your life. I'll agree in part with @Tetragrammaton Cane that one of the main issues is that an officer is the "boss" or has the mentality of one in that situation. How difficult was it to simply have a conversation with the man. It starts as a very confrontational situation and an officer expects people to remain cool and compliant with the constant worry or an officer escalating the situation. If you're Malik McDowell...a 6-foot-6 black man...why wouldn't you walk in the store? You know the store has cameras. Many other cops wouldn't have had their body cam or dash cam on - conveniently - in a situation like that.

idk guys...just a ****ty situation for both guys that likely could have been handled by both, in a different manner.

Roadside stops...should be as simple as...here is your citation, if you have an issue, see you in court. No signature needed. Hand it to the guy and be gone. Would wager that curbs a lot of roadside police issues.

How can it be as simple as here is your citation if he refuses to hand over his liscence? Is the officer supposed to guess his name? This is 100 % the fault of mcdowells

 

[Pb cane]

You’re purposely looking for a fight because nowhere have I said that McDowell was not wrong. Which would obviously mean that I believe he assaulted the officer. But the idea, that the officer had the right to use extreme force (kill him) because he disobeyed some orders is nonsense.

What else is he supposed to do? Call the police

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

What else is he supposed to do? Call the police

Which of these choices would someone with a functioning brain choose?

Option A: Call for backup so that 4-5 officers can takedown the 300 pound football player with no chance of either the athlete or the officers getting hurt.

Option B: Try and take the guy down and run the risk of him getting the upper hand and killing you OR begins to get the upperhand and you are forced to kill him.

 

[Pb cane]

He wasn’t possibly intoxicated, he was definitely intoxicated did you see the BAC?

Yes, of course, McDowell was wrong, but why tempt fate? Just wait for backup and arrest his *** when he steps outside the store.

If your a cop you never let them out of your sight

It's weird how the term law enforcement has the word force in it, but people get so bent out of shape when they use it. They are not law suggestion officers. Bottom line is, people need to obey the law and listen when a law enforcement officer is talking to them. If you are innocent, don't act guilty. Don't act like the laws don't apply to you. It's freaking common sense.

I get it, there are some bad cops out there. If I had my way they would be the first buried under the prison. This guy isn't one of them, though.

Best comment of the day

 

[Pb cane]

Which of these choices would someone with a functioning brain choose?

Option A: Call for backup so that 4-5 officers can takedown the 300 pound football player with no chance of either the athlete or the officers getting hurt.

Option B: Try and take the guy down and run the risk of him getting the upper hand and killing you OR begins to get the upperhand and you are forced to kill him.

Which of these choices would someone with a functioning brain choose?

Option A: Call for backup so that 4-5 officers can takedown the 300 pound football player with no chance of either the athlete or the officers getting hurt.

Option B: Try and take the guy down and run the risk of him getting the upper hand and killing you OR begins to get the upperhand and you are forced to kill him.

When he calls for a backup they don't just show up in seconds. In the meantime he can't let the perp out of his sight