The official "Ask a cop/deputy anything!" thread

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Tonight somebody wanted my attention, but became irate when I gave it to them……undivided.


I had just finished assisting a partner with a traffic collision when a male Hispanic adult driving a silver Nissan Altima pulled up and started motherfucking us, intent on inciting a response. The driver was playing his music loudly, so I waited for him to drive about 50' away so I could initiate a traffic stop using 27007 CVC as my probable cause. Additionally, his registration was a month expired. I know what you're thinking, "But Sedan, those are such petty violations. Why even waste your time?!!" I don't disagree, but this particular individual went out of his way to attract my/our attention, so when these types need a little LEO love, I oblige them…..happily.

Anyway, I initiated the traffic stop and the driver immediately began acting like the asshat I expected him to be. He was recording our interaction using his cell phone (…but he was smart enough not to have it in his hand while it was pointed in my direction, and instead leaned it up against the gear shifter; a true "film law enforcement on a traffic stop" professional). During the interaction he played the victim, called me a bully/thug, lamented about the defund movement and how he has donated tens of thousands to cops. The distinction, he clarified, was he loved cops, but hates Deputies. Oh!…and he mentioned - at least a dozen times - that he was the principal at a local elementary school and he was going to call the mayor. He also threatened to post our interaction online, which I welcomed him to do. He brought up officer/deputy salaries multiple times and complained about crime and drug use within the city limits. Not once did he acknowledge the facts my partner relayed to him about the D.A.'s position on crime and choosing not to file charges on those arrested for the very issues he complained about. He would rather assign blame on law enforcement rather than addressing it with those who are at fault for rising crime rates and no accountability for criminals perpetrating the crimes. He had a major chip on his shoulder, and he thought name dropping and loose threats were going to give him leverage. Once he knew that his words had no effect on me, he requested the presence of a Sergeant. Forty wasted minutes later he finally left the scene, citation in hand and vowing to see me in court. I cannot wait to show the judge my body worn camera footage. He's going to lose. They always do when they behave in the manner he exhibited.

Off for three days now. Yay!

I miss the job sometimes, there is a list of petty offences that fit guys like this perfectly. Back in the day of paper DL we had an offence, Fail to sign DL in ink.....that always got a response.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

Can someone from the east coast FOIA that footage for their own personal amusement?????

Originally Posted by F30lolz

I could post it if there was a method to upload video on the forum.

Why people want to attract attention when they have something expired (license/insurance/reg) is behind the Darwin Award. 'Lettuce' know how court goes, very eager!

Exactly! This dude thought he was going to roll by and yell expletives in our direction for his own amusement, and we wouldn't find a way to generate our own amusement.

[F30lolz]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

Can someone from the east coast FOIA that footage for their own personal amusement?????

Off topic but I drove through Highland (Bear Mt Bridge), Newburgh Beacon Bridge and Woodbury Commons last Sunday and was surprised to see toll booths were missing. It’s about time Dutchess/Orange and Rockland Counties joined the 21st century!

Back on topic, while driving on the NYS thruway southbound, everyone was driving UNDER the speed limit as a NYS Trooper was driving in the right lane. Driving my bro in laws F30, I passed said trooper while in the middle lane.

Nothing happened.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by F30lolz

Off topic but I drove through Highland (Bear Mt Bridge), Newburgh Beacon Bridge and Woodbury Commons last Sunday and was surprised to see toll booths were missing. It’s about time Dutchess/Orange and Rockland Counties joined the 21st century!

The NYS Bridge Authority (owners of the Bear Mountain, Newburgh-Beacon, Mid-Hudson, Kingston-Rhinecliff, and Rip Van Winkle bridges) is just about completed with their toll-by-mail conversions. Some people are not happy about losing the unique architecture of the Bear Mountain and Rip Van Winkle toll booths, though. AFAIK, every tolled Hudson River crossing north of Manhattan will be paid only through EZ-Pass or toll-by-mail in the next month or so.....

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Tonight somebody wanted my attention, but became irate when I gave it to them……undivided.


I had just finished assisting a partner with a traffic collision when a male Hispanic adult driving a silver Nissan Altima pulled up and started motherfucking us, intent on inciting a response. The driver was playing his music loudly, so I waited for him to drive about 50' away so I could initiate a traffic stop using 27007 CVC as my probable cause. Additionally, his registration was a month expired. I know what you're thinking, "But Sedan, those are such petty violations. Why even waste your time?!!" I don't disagree, but this particular individual went out of his way to attract my/our attention, so when these types need a little LEO love, I oblige them…..happily.

Anyway, I initiated the traffic stop and the driver immediately began acting like the asshat I expected him to be. He was recording our interaction using his cell phone (…but he was smart enough not to have it in his hand while it was pointed in my direction, and instead leaned it up against the gear shifter; a true "film law enforcement on a traffic stop" professional). During the interaction he played the victim, called me a bully/thug, lamented about the defund movement and how he has donated tens of thousands to cops. The distinction, he clarified, was he loved cops, but hates Deputies. Oh!…and he mentioned - at least a dozen times - that he was the principal at a local elementary school and he was going to call the mayor. He also threatened to post our interaction online, which I welcomed him to do. He brought up officer/deputy salaries multiple times and complained about crime and drug use within the city limits. Not once did he acknowledge the facts my partner relayed to him about the D.A.'s position on crime and choosing not to file charges on those arrested for the very issues he complained about. He would rather assign blame on law enforcement rather than addressing it with those who are at fault for rising crime rates and no accountability for criminals perpetrating the crimes. He had a major chip on his shoulder, and he thought name dropping and loose threats were going to give him leverage. Once he knew that his words had no effect on me, he requested the presence of a Sergeant. Forty wasted minutes later he finally left the scene, citation in hand and vowing to see me in court. I cannot wait to show the judge my body worn camera footage. He's going to lose. They always do when they behave in the manner he exhibited.

Off for three days now. Yay!

Dumb stuff like this is why I liken law enforcement to the customer service arm of the government.

Play nice and you can get your refund, some store credit, some coupons, and maybe keep whatever item you had an issue with.

Play stupid games, and they have the power to deny your refund, kick you out of the store, get you arrested, whatever, and at the end of the day regardless of either scenario it's no skin off their back and your complaint wasn't really with them to begin with.

I remember I did a ridealong one time with a buddy, we pulled over a guy for expired tags who had been lurking around a particular alley we noticed twice and then took off (albeit driving normally) when he saw us. He had some court papers that looked in order to get to a custody hearing, and was polite with us, so my buddy gave him a fixit for the tags and wished him well to get to his hearing.

About 2 hours later the vice squad popped him for dealing, complete with baggies, scales, cash, everything. Court papers were faked too. We stopped by to say hi, the look on his face was rather mournful.

If he'd not pushed his luck, he'd probably have been fine for another day or whatever. You never know who's lying and who's telling the truth with their sob story after you pull them over, but it's always worth treating customer service with respect.

[Lady Jane]

Budget cuts?


Attachment 2746658

Members of the SBS, en route to a CT exercise in London.

[Sedan_Clan]

I'm elated about the Rittenhouse verdict. I've supported him and his right to self defense from the beginning. This may mean more work for me over the next few weeks, but I'll gladly face the mobs - again - in the spirit of protecting our rights as Americans.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I'm elated about the Rittenhouse verdict. I've supported him and his right to self defense from the beginning. This may mean more work for me over the next few weeks, but I'll gladly face the mobs - again - in the spirit of protecting our rights as Americans.

More often than I would like, I find myself believing the so called "justice system" is really "just-a-system" (pro tip - when you say that together quickly it still sounds like "justice system") rather than one that dispenses actual justice.

That said, I'm glad in this case that he was acquitted.

Then again, you have the case where a rich kid raped 4 girls over a period of time at parties at his house as a juvenile and got nada in terms of jail time. Just probation, has to register as a sex offender (but which class is still to be determined)...I look at that and go "why - how is that just?"

Drunk driving is another case where justice usually doesn't prevail.

I generally find myself wishing this crap would happen to the judges right after they fail to dispense justice so they can personally experience the anguish. And then have some other judge echo their ruling back to them to see how they feel.

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

More often than I would like, I find myself believing the so called "justice system" is really "just-a-system" rather than one that dispenses actual justice.

That said, I'm glad in this case that he was acquitted.

Then again, you have the case where a rich kid raped 4 girls over a period of time at parties at his house as a juvenile and got nada in terms of jail time. Just probation, has to register as a sex offender (but which class is still to be determined)...I look at that and go "why - how is that just?"

Drunk driving is another case where justice usually doesn't prevail.

I generally find myself wishing this crap would happen to the judges right after they fail to dispense justice so they can personally experience the anguish. And then have some other judge echo their ruling back to them to see how they feel.

Many years ago a judge that I was often in front of and who was very soft on crime had his home B&E'd, the misunderstood individual shit on the living room carpet and pissed all over the kitchen. This judge before this would routinely give B&E artist probation (the maximum penalty for residential B&E in Canada is Life), after his experience as a victim he started laying down the hammer. The problem with many judges is they live a very privileged life and can't actually connect with victims.

I'm also glad Rittenhouse was acquitted, the MSM is currently losing their collective left wing minds. It should be interested to see if the DA appeals, I doubt it, and if Rittenhouse starts filing lawsuits.

[vreihen16]

Just saw this one on the news. Dumb kid on probation and suspended goes out street racing in a bright yellow Mustang, teases multiple officers trying to provoke high-speed chases, and is surprised that he ultimately got picked up at his apartment when he thought he got away clean. He bought the car from someone on Farcebook, and thought that he was invincible because the plates were still in the seller's name.....

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by Murf993

Many years ago a judge that I was often in front of and who was very soft on crime had his home B&E'd, the misunderstood individual shit on the living room carpet and pissed all over the kitchen. This judge before this would routinely give B&E artist probation (the maximum penalty for residential B&E in Canada is Life), after his experience as a victim he started laying down the hammer. The problem with many judges is they live a very privileged life and can't actually connect with victims.

I'm also glad Rittenhouse was acquitted, the MSM is currently losing their collective left wing minds. It should be interested to see if the DA appeals, I doubt it, and if Rittenhouse starts filing lawsuits.

"Misunderstood individual "

[bucketfoot]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I'm elated about the Rittenhouse verdict. I've supported him and his right to self defense from the beginning. This may mean more work for me over the next few weeks, but I'll gladly face the mobs - again - in the spirit of protecting our rights as Americans.

Let me start by saying I have no issue with gun ownership. I was brought up with guns and learned about gun safety from the start. At the same time I have no issue with educational requirements being a part of ownership (nor do I believe do most gun owners).

I admittedly do not know the details of the case but the thing that troubles me about this and several other cases is if you put yourself into the position of fearing for your own life, how do you then have the right to kill someone else over that fear?

Honestly I have no idea if the correct decision was made here, but the bottom line is the judicial process was followed and like it or not people need to live with it.

I'll add that if some other gun owner had shot him, they probably would have been proclaimed a hero by many gun owners and seen as an example of why people should be allowed to carry guns.

Just the rambling thoughts of an old fart...

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

Let me start by saying I have no issue with gun ownership. I was brought up with guns and learned about gun safety from the start. At the same time I have no issue with educational requirements being a part of ownership (nor do I believe do most gun owners).

I admittedly do not know the details of the case but the thing that troubles me about this and several other cases is if you put yourself into the position of fearing for your own life, how do you then have the right to kill someone else over that fear?

Honestly I have no idea if the correct decision was made here, but the bottom line is the judicial process was followed and like it or not people need to live with it.

Just the rambling thoughts of an old fart...

You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right not to be assaulted. You have the right to defend life and property. Rittenhouse went there - as a trained EMT with a first aid kit - to help the citizens of Kenosha (..where he was a lifeguard and where his father lived). Just because he was present in a location where unrest occurred didn't give people the right to assault him. The law doesn't require one to retreat in order to enact self-defense actions either (…although Rittenhouse ran from the mob and they chased him. Again, he had every right to defend himself).

As for the example of another gun owner shooting him….


….if there was no cause and no violation of law on behalf of Rittenhouse in that scenario, those gun owners would've been subjected to the punishment(s) allowed by law. You need to be able to justify deadly force. Even as a cop, if I shoot somebody that merely has a firearm in their possession, but who didn't commit an action that justified deadly force (..e.g…pointing the firearm at me or somebody else; pointing it at themselves is not justification), I'm going to prison.

[bucketfoot]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right not to be assaulted. You have the right to defend life and property. Rittenhouse went there - as a trained EMT with a first aid kit - to help the citizens of Kenosha (..where he was a lifeguard and where his father lived). Just because he was present in a location where unrest occurred didn't give people the right to assault him. The law doesn't require one to retreat in order to enact self-defense actions either (…although Rittenhouse ran from the mob and they chased him. Again, he had every right to defend himself).

As for the example of another gun owner shooting him….


….if there was no cause and no violation of law on behalf of Rittenhouse in that scenario, those gun owners would've been subjected to the punishment(s) allowed by law. You need to be able to justify deadly force. Even as a cop, if I shoot somebody that merely has a firearm in their possession, but who didn't commit an action that justified deadly force (..e.g…pointing the firearm at me or somebody else; pointing it at themselves is not justification), I'm going to prison.

Again I do not know the details of this case, but did he or did he not point his firearm at someone first thus causing the altercation? I'm sure this was the case in at least one other ongoing instance, but am not certain in his case.

If he did not, I agree with you 100%.

I guess in general what I am trying to say/ask is that if you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

Again I do not know the details of this case, but did he or did he not point his firearm at someone first thus causing the altercation? I'm sure this was the case in at least one other ongoing instance, but am not certain in his case.

If he did not, I agree with you 100%.

I guess in general what I am trying to say/ask is that if you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created.

No he did not. The individual pointed the firearm at Rittenhouse first. The media lied the entire time, but it was revealed in court testimony - by the person he shot - that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse first. I appreciate that he didn't perjure himself on the stand and was truthful.

[IllSic_Design]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

Again I do not know the details of this case, but did he or did he not point his firearm at someone first thus causing the altercation? I'm sure this was the case in at least one other ongoing instance, but am not certain in his case.

If he did not, I agree with you 100%.

I guess in general what I am trying to say/ask is that if you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created.

He did not

[cmyx6go]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

Again I do not know the details of this case, but did he or did he not point his firearm at someone first thus causing the altercation? I'm sure this was the case in at least one other ongoing instance, but am not certain in his case.

If he did not, I agree with you 100%.

I guess in general what I am trying to say/ask is that if you point a gun at someone and they then do something out of the fear you caused, are you justified in using deadly force for a situation that you yourself created.

No, he did not. He was walking down the street with the rifle hanging in front of him pointed down. He was then being chased by the mob. He had a skateboard whipped at his head. He was kicked to the ground. He only shot after being attacked. Do I think it was bright for him to be walking around with a rifle even if his intentions were good? No. But he didn’t start the altercation other than walking around holding a rifle. Unfortunately, if you didn’t watch the trial, you didn’t see the videos and the MSM didn’t report the facts or the videos. They just spewed their narrative.

[________]

At some point people will have to start asking themselves "why is the media pushing a version of a story?"

[bucketfoot]

I couldn't say if the media lied or spewed a narrative as frankly I tend not to follow things like this and let the judicial process play out instead.

It is really only after that happens that you can actually get the facts. So I appreciated the insight from those of you who kept a closer eye on this.

[cmyx6go]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

I couldn't say if the media lied or spewed a narrative as frankly I tend not to follow things like this and let the judicial process play out instead.

It is really only after that happens that you can actually get the facts. So I appreciated the insight from those of you who kept a closer eye on this.

I have to say that I previously have had mixed feelings on whether trials should be televised as it usually becomes a circus with the lawyers playing to the cameras. It’s a good thing this was televised so people can see the truth.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

I have to say that I previously have had mixed feelings on whether trials should be televised as it usually becomes a circus with the lawyers playing to the cameras. It's a good thing this was televised so people can see the truth.

I was glad this trial was televised as well. People needed to see this.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

No he did not. The individual pointed the firearm at Rittenhouse first. The media lied the entire time, but it was revealed in court testimony - by the person he shot - that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse first. I appreciate that he didn't perjure himself on the stand and was truthful.

Originally Posted by IllSic_Design

He did not

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

No, he did not. He was walking down the street with the rifle hanging in front of him pointed down. He was then being chased by the mob. He had a skateboard whipped at his head. He was kicked to the ground. He only shot after being attacked. Do I think it was bright for him to be walking around with a rifle even if his intentions were good? No. But he didn’t start the altercation other than walking around holding a rifle. Unfortunately, if you didn’t watch the trial, you didn’t see the videos and the MSM didn’t report the facts or the videos. They just spewed their narrative.

Honestly, I'm disappointed - I expected better from each of you. You are all focusing on the last attacker who had a gun. Who cares?

If the first killing was justified, then so was the rest, because they had a skateboard and a gun.

However, the first had NEITHER. You guys should know better. It all hinged on the first, if the first was good, the rest was righteous. But the mentally unhinged first one there, he didn't have a gun. And Rittenhouse was running from him, yes...but then it was between cars, can't really see, gunfire in distance, etc...is it good or not? We don't know, but some of the evidence that came out was VERY INTERESTING. Like him having his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun when he was shot. That to me, along wiht other things that came out that we didn't know about initially from the MSM, suggests Rittenhouse got it right.

But there was no firearm pointed at him in the first one or the second, so let's not go down that path. Its a non starter. Rittenhouse was the first one on scene with a prominently displayed firearm out of all the people who were killed / injured. Full stop.

This was an extremely interesting case, and I'm happy with the conclusion, but bucketfoot has a valid question.