It's high time for a video of a great cop

[PUMPKIN]

i also want to give props to the OHP LEO that footballed the POS carjacking dirtbag doper in the nads the other night!!!!

I really cant believe the chief of ohp went on tv and said "we will not treat our prisoners like that."

The guy stole one of your cruisers!! Big deal if he got kicked in the nuts. World of candyasses anymore.

Just My Opinion <----------

 

[Glock 'em down]

I don't think there's any overriding need to establish that he's not a minor and a felon if he has given you no reason to be suspicious of them. There are a ton of things minors and felons can't do and it appears the police don't scrutinize these other cases that heavily. You probably wouldn't stop and question a guy in dress blues just because he might be a felon, or too young to serve.

Felons come in all shapes and sizes. Most of them dress and act like scumbags because they have some kind of persona, image and reputation to keep. I've interviewed well groomed felons in business suits as well. All I'm saying is that yes, in some states (not Oklahoma - sorry) it is a 2nd Amendment right for LAW ABIDING people (NOT felons) to openly carry a weapon.

Here in good ol' Oklahoma, if I see a guy totin' an iron, walking down the street in the town that I am sworn to protect, whether he looks like a scumbag or an established member of society, I'm gonna shake him down and see what his/her intentions are. As I posted earlier - it is unlawful to open carry a firearm in Oklahoma.

If he's a law abiding citizen, more than likely, he's not gonna have a problem telling me who he is and what his business is. If he's a "good guy" he's gonna go thru the proper steps to obtain his SDA card and do it legally. If so, I may or may not see his weapon anyway. Unless he can't conceal worth a damn and his printing gives him away. Yes, I'm one of those who gives folks a once over to see if I can see any strange bulges anywhere. At least that's the excuse I give to Mrs. GED.

People don't evade simple questions by the police like "what's your name?" unless they are hiding something. That's just like guys screaming about how drug tests violate their civil rights. If they ain't using drugs, why would they ***** and moan about having to piss in a cup?

The officer was very polite and professional. In his jurisdiction, where OC is lawful, I suppose he did the right thing. I still think he just took for granted that the guy was legit. If it had been me, I would have tried a little harder to obtain more info from him. Just telling me his name was "Jeremy" isn't near enough info when he's carrying a pistol in my town.

 

[BadgeBunny]

With the number of workplace shootings, road rage, domestic violence shootings happening in the world today I'd much rather an officer in my community be like GED than the other guy. If GED can articulate (and it certainly appears he can) a valid reason for the stop there is no reason for him not to follow through until he is satisfied that the person is not a threat to anybody.

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... You cannot tell someone's intentions or character just by looking at them.

 

[Glock 'em down]

Thanks sweetie.

 

[Michael Brown]

Police/citizen relations in some communities have become so adversarial, it's no wonder the citizens are actively out to bust cops.

This is a huge pet peeve of mine i.e. the perception that police corruption is more rampant today than it was in the pre-internet age.

Law enforcement as a profession, at least in a great number of larger cities, have gone so far in the direction of attempting to self-police that it seems inconceivable that any educated and logical person could possibly argue that police corruption is more common these days.

What has changed is the availability of video and other information.

Is anyone seriously going to argue that today's law enforcement is as corrupt as that of the 1960's south or New Jersey or Chicago?

If so, you really haven't been looking.

The opportunities to report and investigate police misconduct are rampant these days; Heck, my department has an anonymous tip line and an internet reporting system!

I cannot speak to the level of misconduct in small agencies in rural America but after spending almost two decades in law enforcement, I am fairly confident that despite the misconduct or alleged misconduct of some, things are waaaaaaaaaaaay better than they were when I was growing up.

Anyone who truly believes differently is viewing the issue from an emotional rather than logical point of view.

Michael Brown

 

[LightningCrash]

Here in good ol' Oklahoma, if I see a guy totin' an iron, walking down the street in the town that I am sworn to protect, whether he looks like a scumbag or an established member of society, I'm gonna shake him down and see what his/her intentions are. As I posted earlier - it is unlawful to open carry a firearm in Oklahoma.

Title 21 § 1289.6 defines an exhaustive list of circumstances where open carry is permitted. Most of the things guns are commonly used for on a daily basis are covered for open carry. If I lived real close to H&H I would just put it on OWB and walk over. If you stopped someone under those circumstances it would just be a mistake.

If he's a law abiding citizen, more than likely, he's not gonna have a problem telling me who he is and what his business is. If he's a "good guy" he's gonna go thru the proper steps to obtain his SDA card and do it legally. If so, I may or may not see his weapon anyway. Unless he can't conceal worth a damn and his printing gives him away. Yes, I'm one of those who gives folks a once over to see if I can see any strange bulges anywhere. At least that's the excuse I give to Mrs. GED.

People don't evade simple questions by the police like "what's your name?" unless they are hiding something. That's just like guys screaming about how drug tests violate their civil rights. If they ain't using drugs, why would they ***** and moan about having to piss in a cup?

The officer was very polite and professional. In his jurisdiction, where OC is lawful, I suppose he did the right thing. I still think he just took for granted that the guy was legit. If it had been me, I would have tried a little harder to obtain more info from him. Just telling me his name was "Jeremy" isn't near enough info when he's carrying a pistol in my town.

I agree with this, except for the part where all good guys are going to get an SDA card. There are lots of hunters, hobbyists and target shooters with no need for CCW or an SDA pistol permit. A good guy looking to carry for self defense is probably going to get his SDA pistol permit.

With the number of workplace shootings, road rage, domestic violence shootings happening in the world today I'd much rather an officer in my community be like GED than the other guy. If GED can articulate (and it certainly appears he can) a valid reason for the stop there is no reason for him not to follow through until he is satisfied that the person is not a threat to anybody.

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... You cannot tell someone's intentions or character just by looking at them.

and I think if there's a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed then it's all fair game.
I just don't think a generic report of "Hey I saw someone with a pistol on 2nd Street" is any indication that a crime has been committed. I feel like there should be more to go on. If the report is "I saw someone with a pistol on 2nd Street and he was screaming at someone in anger".... hey we're in business.

 

[rustbuilder]

I'll play devil's advocate here.

Is it acceptable to initiate a traffic stop on an individual obeying all traffic laws on the sole assumption that they might have no insurance or a valid driver's license while they are in control of a vehicle?

The gentleman had broken no laws and the officer knew it. In Oklahoma can an officer stop you from walking down the street, request you identify yourself, and then open an investigation without any wrongdoing?

Only if you live in the village!!Haha Iam going to say the cop smelled the bait and knew he was setup and simply wanted out of the situation,And did so.

 

[Glocktogo]

This is a huge pet peeve of mine i.e. the perception that police corruption is more rampant today than it was in the pre-internet age.

Law enforcement as a profession, at least in a great number of larger cities, have gone so far in the direction of attempting to self-police that it seems inconceivable that any educated and logical person could possibly argue that police corruption is more common these days.

What has changed is the availability of video and other information.

Is anyone seriously going to argue that today's law enforcement is as corrupt as that of the 1960's south or New Jersey or Chicago?

If so, you really haven't been looking.

The opportunities to report and investigate police misconduct are rampant these days; Heck, my department has an anonymous tip line and an internet reporting system!

I cannot speak to the level of misconduct in small agencies in rural America but after spending almost two decades in law enforcement, I am fairly confident that despite the misconduct or alleged misconduct of some, things are waaaaaaaaaaaay better than they were when I was growing up.

Anyone who truly believes differently is viewing the issue from an emotional rather than logical point of view.

Michael Brown

I can't disagree with this, but you know that in today's society, perception is reality. Of course you didn't have video of police corruption in 60's Chicago. It was kind of hard to get the whole community up in arms when all you heard was unsubstantiated rumors. Now it's simple, just post a video on youtube.

I didn't say that it was the fault of one side or the other, just that relations are strained. IMO, there shouldn't be sides. Officers are part of the community and their relationship with the law abiding segment of the community should reflect that.

 

[MFCEO]

youtube comments. lol

 

[BadgeBunny]

and I think if there's a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed then it's all fair game.
I just don't think a generic report of "Hey I saw someone with a pistol on 2nd Street" is any indication that a crime has been committed. I feel like there should be more to go on. If the report is "I saw someone with a pistol on 2nd Street and he was screaming at someone in anger".... hey we're in business.

And which citizen gets to be right on what's reasonable suspicion?? The one who was worried enough to call it in in the first place or the guy walking down the street??

The officer is simply doing his job by checking out the call. Seems to me that the most logical road would have been to answer the officer's questions so he could go back to generating revenue ...

You guys debating what all an officer should or should not do would be saying he should have checked him out better if the guy had gone and shot someplace up after the stop.

And Michael is right. Things are WAY better for civilians now than when we were growing up. It's too bad that is often at the expense of the officer's safety.