Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[TFOGGER]

http://www.9news.com/news/article/209778/339/Family-Man-didnt-know-it-was-an-undercover-cop?odyssey=obinsite


Gotta say, if he had just returned the keys(rather than try and extort money from an old woman), he'd be eating dinner with his family tonight. Based on the size of the knife(9 inch blade), I'm thinking he had more in mind than trimming his fingernails.

[Monky]

I was just reading the article earlier...

I don't know why he would try to swindle an old lady out of her money.. But had he known it was a cop he'd of just given the keys over!

Darwinism at its finest!

[Ronin13]

One, bad idea for the cops to go UC, but I can understand them trying to go about this differently. But seriously! "I have your keys, you can get them back for $50." I'd just retort with "Give me my keys or you can have the police asking you for them." Why would you even try to extort someone? This guy probably got what he deserved, cop or no cop you don't threaten someone with a 9inch knife! What did his family think would happen? What if it was a CCW holder and not a cop?

[Zundfolge]

He didn't know it was an under cover cop ... so its okay to extort people and then pull knives on them as long as they're not cops?

Idiot. And no, he's not a good person. A good person leaves a note saying "I found your keys, give me a call at (303) XXX-XXXX and I'll tell you where you can pick them up"

[Byte Stryke]

while the guy was a dumbass for trying to extort money for finding car keys, I do not believe he should have died over it.

I dont care if you tell me you are fucking Jesus Christ, unless you have a badge and uniformed backup the cop is lucky as fuck he wasn't the one getting shot.

I Heard about this other guy that claimed to be a cop too:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/313831/thumbs/s-ANDERS-BEHRING-BREIVIK-large.jpg

the UC Officer should have had uniformed backup move in to do the arrest.
Period.

[Ronin13]

while the guy was a dumbass for trying to extort money for finding car keys, I do not believe he should have died over it.

I dont care if you tell me you are fucking Jesus Christ, unless you have a badge and uniformed backup the cop is lucky as fuck he wasn't the one getting shot.

the UC Officer should have had uniformed backup move in to do the arrest.
Period.

I agree, bad move on their behalf no bringing badges. Patrol cops trying to be vice [Roll1]
Why wouldn't you have uniformed backup, what do you think was going to happen? "I'm a cop, but I don't have anything to prove I'm a cop."

[hollohas]

Cop should be fired. Attempted extortion or not. If some dude in plain clothes, no cop car and no badge comes up to me and tries to forcibly take me out of my car, I'd have no other choice but to assume he was trying to car jack me, beat me or kidnap me. I'd run his ass over to get out of there. If that didn't work, then he'd be lucky if only a knife comes out.

There have been plenty of cases around the country where bad guys posing as police have hurt people. And any reasonable person would agree that he was justified to defend himself against a plain clothes person with no identification or badge.

If this went the other way and he had killed the plain clothes officer without a badge and survived the resulting police responders, I am willing to bet he would be found not guilty.

I'm sure officer also broke all sorts of department protocol by removing his uniform, not carrying his badge during his shift and driving another person's car to make an arrest. This all adds up to intent in my mind.

This officer played a stupid game and he needs to win a stupid prize.

By Colorado state law, he should be tried for murder. The aggressor and instigator of an altercation cannot use self defense as a defense to murder when the victim of his aggression tries to defend himself with force. I am paraphrasing by memory of course... EDIT: Check out Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1-704 and 18-3-107 for your own reference.

[Irving]

I'm still glad the extortioner died.

[Monky]

So... I'm failing to see howTF the cop has become the bad guy here...

Did I miss something in the article where it states the PD guy stated he was a cop and the guy asked him for ID? When he couldn't produce it then he pulled the knife?

Friel says the officer identified himself as a member of the Aurora Police Department during the struggle, but he did not have a badge on him.

During the struggle, Contreras tried to pull out a knife so the officer fired three times. Contreras was hit and killed.



I miss where it states Contreras asked to see some ID..



Perhaps I need to get my head so far up my ass that I can see a criminal attempting to extort someone as the victim here...

The guy produced a knife... had it been a regular plain clothes citizen w/o a badge who shot him... would it make a fucking difference?

I don't think this criminals first reaction upon the officer identifying himself as an officer was 'Oh he's not a cop he just wants to do harm to my person, I should use this knife I have cleverly hidden just in case something like this were to happen..'

More than likely it was 'Oh fuck a cop, I'm not going to jail'...

Dumb move on the part of a patrol officer to handle this, BUT there had to be other cops aware..

Bad Guys lose... bottom line.

[Irving]

The guy produced a knife... had it been a regular plain clothes citizen w/o a badge who shot him... would it make a fucking difference?



Ummm, YES. He produced the knife while the officer was attacking him through his car window.

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

Cop f'd the dog on procedure, if it's creating this much stir.... but still....."I have your belongings, if you want to see them again it's gonna cost you" - NOT how upstanding citizens go about returning lost property to their fellow neighbors.

Regardless...who brings a knife to a gun fight. I wouldn't go to collect my (or more likely my MOTHERS, in this case) property from some douche bag without a piece. Really, playing the innocent victim in this case won't work...take "cop" out of the equation and what happened in this scenerio?

How did they know which car the keys went too? Did they find them and try them on the door? Did they watch her drop them and see her as a mark?

[Byte Stryke]

So... I'm failing to see howTF the cop has become the bad guy here...

Did I miss something in the article where it states the PD guy stated he was a cop and the guy asked him for ID? When he couldn't produce it then he pulled the knife?

Friel says the officer identified himself as a member of the Aurora Police Department during the struggle, but he did not have a badge on him.

During the struggle, Contreras tried to pull out a knife so the officer fired three times. Contreras was hit and killed.



I miss where it states Contreras asked to see some ID..



Perhaps I need to get my head so far up my ass that I can see a criminal attempting to extort someone as the victim here...

The guy produced a knife... had it been a regular plain clothes citizen w/o a badge who shot him... would it make a fucking difference?

I don't think this criminals first reaction upon the officer identifying himself as an officer was 'Oh he's not a cop he just wants to do harm to my person, I should use this knife I have cleverly hidden just in case something like this were to happen..'

More than likely it was 'Oh fuck a cop, I'm not going to jail'...

Dumb move on the part of a patrol officer to handle this, BUT there had to be other cops aware..

Bad Guys lose... bottom line.

Oh, you are attacking me through my car window while claiming to be a cop but you dont have a badge, uniform or a marked police car...

He might as well have claimed to be the fucking tooth fairy, I wouldn't have believed him either.

bad procedure, bad call, bad shoot and I expect to see the family get a few million on it. Yeah dude was being a jackass and a criminal for the extortion thing, But the cop wrongfully escalated it. HE WENT IN AFTER THE GUY, not as a cop, but as "Some guy claiming to be a cop."

I believe to properly Identify you have to have some sort of proof. Uniform, Badge, I.D.
and this is where he failed. It is the officers obligation to properly identify.

Now had he backed up and let uniforms take him I would say they did it right. But in this day and age I believe half of what I see and nothing "Some dude in Civies" says.

[Irving]

I agree with every single person on this thread.

[BigMat]

Idiot (attempting an arrest without a badge, or uniform, and starting it without informing of status [Slap] ) + scum bag (this one doesn't need to be explained)


This was bound to end poorly.

[islandermyk]

Oh, you are attacking me through my car window while claiming to be a cop but you dont have a badge, uniform or a marked police car...

He might as well have claimed to be the fucking tooth fairy, I wouldn't have believed him either.

bad procedure, bad call, bad shoot and I expect to see the family get a few million on it. Yeah dude was being a jackass and a criminal for the extortion thing, But the cop wrongfully escalated it. HE WENT IN AFTER THE GUY, not as a cop, but as "Some guy claiming to be a cop."

I believe to properly Identify you have to have some sort of proof. Uniform, Badge, I.D.
and this is where he failed. It is the officers obligation to properly identify.

Now had he backed up and let uniforms take him I would say they did it right. But in this day and age I believe half of what I see and nothing "Some dude in Civies" says.
Looks like a macho thing that was going through the mind of the UC


Idiot (attempting an arrest without a badge, or uniform, and starting it without informing of status [Slap] ) + scum bag (this one doesn't need to be explained)


This was bound to end poorly. It would've been pretty cool to have the UC wear a wire, and another LEO from a distant video things to really get the truth out of all this... it all seems shady, but regardless... the guy scum bag probably got what was coming, and the LEO's didn't exactly plan any of this right.. just my $0.02

[Bailey Guns]

I don't think the officer's actions, while poorly thought out, rise to the level of criminal behavior based on the news story.

I really don't understand why the APD officer just didn't call this knucklehead, tell him to give up the lady's keys or else he'd be receiving a visit from the po-po, and advise the guy what he was doing amounted to extortion.

I'm not making excuses for the officer's poor planing but he did identify himself verbally. I don't think there's any statute that requires him to show ID. I could be wrong on that, though. It seems to me it would be no different than if the officer intervened in a crime while off duty and he wasn't able to quickly show his ID/badge.

I'm guessing there's plenty of departmental policy violations to consider but I certainly don't think there's any criminal intent or action on behalf of the officer.

But, seriously...the suspect was a total dumbass in all of this. He should be alive today and it's no one's fault but his.

[Ranger]

I have to say I have mixed emotions about this story. On one hand you have a douche that is extorting someone for lost keys and deserves a major beat down just for that, but on the other you have a cop who had no identification and reached in to apprehend the guy.

It seems to me the douche was justified in defending himself against an attacker who CLAIMED to be a cop. It would seem more sensible to simply take a badge with you (took the damn gun, why not the badge?), exchange money for keys, pull out a badge and tell the guy he is under arrest and if he flees then you have his license plate number (or another cop waiting around the corner).

Wouldn't it have been better to, once the cop saw a knife, have backed away from the car, drawn his/her weapon and started his/her arrest procedure?

So does a asshat deserve death for trying to get money for someone's lost keys? I don't think he does, but that's my opinion. While I totally admit he was wrong, who knows how desperate he might have been for money and this was an opportunity for "easy" money.

[Mobat555]

So wait, if someone did this to any of the people who CCW here, pull a 9" knife on you and attempt to stab you with it. You would run away screaming with stab wounds?

No you would shoot him. The cops intent was to assist a little old lady, you show up cops cars sirens a blazing then you never get the keys back. You put yourself in harms way to assist a citizen in returning their property and someone attempts to do fatal harm to you and you defend yourself.

How in the hell does this make him a bad guy?

[Ranger]

So wait, if someone did this to any of the people who CCW here, pull a 9" knife on you and attempt to stab you with it. You would run away screaming with stab wounds?

To me, that's not the question, the question is was the guy justified in pulling a knife when someone with no ID who claimed to be a cop grabs you through the window of your car. So, reverse the situation, if someone did that to YOU, would you pull a gun on them and ask WTF? I would immediately break their nose and then I would be put in jail for assaulting a police officer and my guess is that the no ID thing would probably set me walking.

[Mobat555]

So, reverse the situation, if someone did that to YOU, would you pull a gun on them and ask WTF?

While I see your point, YOU would not be committing a crime in the process leading up to someone attempting to pull you out of your car. The person in question was committing a crime and escalated it.

[islandermyk]

To me, that's not the question, the question is was the guy justified in pulling a knife when someone with no ID who claimed to be a cop grabs you through the window of your car. So, reverse the situation, if someone did that to YOU, would you pull a gun on them and ask WTF? I would immediately break their nose and then I would be put in jail for assaulting a police officer and my guess is that the no ID thing would probably set me walking.

That's why it seems shady to me. The UC possibly identified himself and the scum bag didn't comply to orders and didn't believe a single word coming out of this UC's mouth. Why did the UC try to grab and pull the scum bag out of his car window? I'm guessing the UC wanted to be a bad ass...

[hollohas]

While I see your point, YOU would not be committing a crime in the process leading up to someone attempting to pull you out of your car. The person in question was committing a crime and escalated it.

Nope. The BG did not escalate it, the no-proof-cop did.

The no-proof-cop escalated a non-violent crime into a fight. The bad guy attempted to defended himself from aggression from someone he has no reasonable belief was a cop. The cop, who doesn't really count as a cop in this situation because the bad guy doesn't have any reason to believe he is one, was not justified in defending himself as he was the initial aggressor. That's Colorado law.

I am always on the side of Law Enforcement. I grew up in a LE family and always give LE the benefit of doubt BEFORE any bad guy and my posts in previous Cop threads prove that. But not this time.

This cop ditched his uniform, ditched his unit, ditched his dash cam, ditched his badge and went after a BG. Something seems fishy to me. Why would the cop ditch ANY evidence he was actually a cop? Why would he ditch the video recorder that could prove what happened? This is very close to enough to prove intent. Even UC carry badges. This cop should be fired at the very least. And instead of the BG being dead, he should be in jail or seeing a judge on extortion charges. BG was wrong, cop was wronger...(that a word?)

[TFOGGER]

Agreed, the cop should have had a badge. Let's not forget, this op was signed off on by his sergeant and his lieutenant, so he should not necessarily be on the hook for procedural gaffes. The BG was in possession of a weapon in the commission of a felony, and escalated to deadly force when confronted. We obviously don't have all of the details here, so passing judgement on the cop may be a bit premature. Still, had the BG not CHOSEN to commit a felony, he would not have been there to be shot, the cop would have been responding to a noise complaint somewhere, and the old lady would have driven her car home from the grocery store. BG made his choice, and it turned out bad, for everyone involved.

[Byte Stryke]

no badge?

No ID?

No Uniformed Backup?

You are simply assaulting another citizen.


He should have had Backup in the area, gotten the evidence he required and called them in for the arrest.
The BG would be in jail, the officer would be responding to a noise complaint, and we would be here bitching about something different [LOL]

[Lex_Luthor]

I agree that we don't have the details of the incident. We don't know exactly HOW the guy responded to the officer's attempt to identify himself as LE.

Was it:
"Oh shit, the cops! You'll never take me alive!" *pulls knife*
or
"I don't believe you, where's your ID?" To which the cop replies, "I don't have my badge on me at the moment."
"Then get away from my car!" *pulls knife*

And then the suspect would have just assumed he was being attacked by any other person.

[Jer]

I agree with every single person on this thread.

I couldn't agree more.

[Byte Stryke]

I Sort of equate this to my last "project" for a major Bank.

I Show up without my Badge
I try to go behind the teller line "Claiming" I work for ____ Bank.
Bank guard slams me to the floor

who's wrong?

[Mobat555]

I Sort of equate this to my last "project" for a major Bank.

I Show up without my Badge
I try to go behind the teller line "Claiming" I work for ____ Bank.
Bank guard slams me to the floor

who's wrong?

Who committed the crime?

[hollohas]

The BG was in possession of a weapon in the commission of a felony, and escalated to deadly force when attacked.

^Fixed it for ya.

Ok then, the BG should be in jail with extortion and possession charges, not dead.

The no-proof-cop escalated it and the BG defended himself against what he was totally justified and reasonable in believing was an attack. I'll say it again, Colorado law does not allow an initial aggressor to use deadly force when the person they are attacking fights back. That's what happened here. Nor does it allow for escalation of force for stolen keys and $100 extortion (even if maybe it should, who wouldn't want to beat someone's ass for that).

These apply because this situation has to be treated as civilian-vs-civilian not cop-vs-civilian. ANY reasonable person would not have believed that guy was a cop.

Mr. no-proof-cop should be in jail and an investigation needs to be done to find out why he and/or his superiors decided it was a good idea to attempt an arrest after making sure he removed ALL proof he was actually a cop.

Look...the dead bad guy was in fact a bad guy, not disputing that. From what we know, this cop is a dummy at the very least and had intent at the most. You simply don't remove all indications you are a cop and then expect to be treated like one.

Now, if he had shown up in uniform like he should have and the BG proceeded to pull a knife...shoot em' dead Mr. Cop...Hollohas would give you a high five.

[TFOGGER]

I Sort of equate this to my last "project" for a major Bank.

I Show up without my Badge
I try to go behind the teller line "Claiming" I work for ____ Bank.
Bank guard slams me to the floor

who's wrong?

The bank guard has legal authority to protect the bank, the BG in this case had no authority. Not saying the cops didn't screw the pooch, but I still assert that BG put himself in a hazardous situation, and knew it (hence the big honkin knife).

I liken this to someone shoplifting that is caught by plain clothes store security on the way out the door. A struggle ensues, because Mr Shoplifter doesn't want to go to jail. Mr. Shoplifter pulls out a knife, and the security guard (in plain clothes) ends up killing the shoplifter. Do we crucify the security guard for not letting the shoplifter go when he pulled out a weapon? What if the shoplifter was actively pursuing the guard, even after the guard chose to step back and let him escape?

[hollohas]

Not saying the cops didn't screw the pooch, but I still assert that BG put himself in a hazardous situation, and knew it (hence the big honkin knife).



So if you need to use your CCW, then you must have put yourself in a bad situation and knew it or why else would you have it, right?

Yes, dumb for the BG to do that. Yes, BG is a tool and should be in jail. YES, BG still has right to defend himself against attack.


What if the shoplifter was actively pursuing the guard, even after the guard chose to step back and let him escape?

If the guard steps back and the shoplifter still attacks him, then yes, by Colorado law Mr. no-proof-security guard can defend himself.

[CrufflerSteve]

The guying demanding money for the keys was a scumbag but even this news report says the cop started the violence. Plainclothes, no badge. I don't think the cop should get convicted but he should be fired for cause. A case of $50 ransom for car keys does not warrant an undercover operation. It sounds like a uniformed cop who really wanted to become a detective but instead should become an ex-cop for being a dumbass.

Steve

[Ronin13]

The guying demanding money for the keys was a scumbag but even this news report says the cop started the violence. Plainclothes, no badge. I don't think the cop should get convicted but he should be fired for cause. A case of $50 ransom for car keys does not warrant an undercover operation. It sounds like a uniformed cop who really wanted to become a detective but instead should become an ex-cop for being a dumbass.

Steve

But Steve, he had the op signed off by his SGT and LT! Sounds like some house cleaning is in order for APD.

[TFOGGER]

So if you need to use your CCW, then you must have put yourself in a bad situation and knew it or why else would you have it, right?

Yes, dumb for the BG to do that. Yes, BG is a tool and should be in jail. YES, BG still has right to defend himself against attack.



If the guard steps back and the shoplifter still attacks him, then yes, by Colorado law Mr. no-proof-security guard can defend himself.

I consider everything outside of my control to be a potentially hazardous situation, so I carry. I don't (usually) carry in the bathroom of my own home, as the muzzle flash might ignite the fumes and then.... http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/images/smilies/sm-nuke.gif.

I'm not willing to condemn the cop without knowing the facts. It's entirely possible that the conversation went:

Cop: It's a bad day for you, I'm a police officer. You are under arrest.

BG: You'll never take me alive, coppah!!

Cop: reaches in to grab the keys out of the ignition

BG: Slugs cop

Fight ensues. Curtain falls on on scene of BG laying on the ground bleeding out...

[Bailey Guns]

Cop should be fired. Attempted extortion or not. If some dude in plain clothes, no cop car and no badge comes up to me and tries to forcibly take me out of my car, I'd have no other choice but to assume he was trying to car jack me, beat me or kidnap me. I'd run his ass over to get out of there. If that didn't work, then he'd be lucky if only a knife comes out.

There have been plenty of cases around the country where bad guys posing as police have hurt people. And any reasonable person would agree that he was justified to defend himself against a plain clothes person with no identification or badge.

If this went the other way and he had killed the plain clothes officer without a badge and survived the resulting police responders, I am willing to bet he would be found not guilty.

I'm sure officer also broke all sorts of department protocol by removing his uniform, not carrying his badge during his shift and driving another person's car to make an arrest. This all adds up to intent in my mind.

This officer played a stupid game and he needs to win a stupid prize.

By Colorado state law, he should be tried for murder. The aggressor and instigator of an altercation cannot use self defense as a defense to murder when the victim of his aggression tries to defend himself with force. I am paraphrasing by memory of course... EDIT: Check out Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1-704 and 18-3-107 for your own reference.

While some of your statement is opinion, and some of it I agree with, you're wrong about this (bold paragraph).

While I have serious issues with the decision to go "UC" on this arrest, it was approved by two superior officers, apparently.

Furthermore, Title 16 of the CRS states:

16-3-101. Arrest - when and how made.

(1) An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.
(2) All necessary and reasonable force may be used in making an arrest.
(3) All necessary and reasonable force may be used to effect an entry upon any building or property or part thereof to make an authorized arrest.


16-3-102. Arrest by peace officer.
(1) A peace officer may arrest a person when:
(a) He has a warrant commanding that such person be arrested; or
(b) Any crime has been or is being committed by such person in his presence; or
(c) He has probable cause to believe that an offense was committed and has probable cause to believe that the offense was committed by the person to be arrested.
I can find no statute, nor do I recall one, that required an officer to do more to identify him/herself to a suspect while effecting an arrest than what this officer did. Granted, the suspect had the choice to believe or not believe the officer. It doesn't, however, excuse his behavior.


The only time positive ID of the officer would be necessary, I believe, is when the arrested person is charged with an obstruction/resisting type of crime where the identification of the officer is an element of the offense.


And all the chest-thumping in the world isn't going to change the fact that had it been you in this suspects position and you had killed the officer, you'd likely be going to jail for a long time.


Oh...and BTW. You should also check out 18-1-701 and 702.

[Bailey Guns]

There's more to this statute but it deals with detention settings.


18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a peace officer is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary:

(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or

(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.

(2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:

(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes:

(I) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or

(II) Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or

(III) Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) (b) of this section shall be deemed to constitute justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

(4) For purposes of this section, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody. A peace officer who is effecting an arrest pursuant to a warrant is justified in using the physical force prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the warrant is invalid and is known by the officer to be invalid.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist him to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officer's direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not authorized.

(6) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (5) of this section may use deadly physical force to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:

(a) He reasonably believes that force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) He is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force and does not know, if that happens to be the case, that the peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances.

(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

[Ronin13]

The only time positive ID of the officer would be necessary, I believe, is when the arrested person is charged with an obstruction/resisting type of crime where the identification of the officer is an element of the offense.


And all the chest-thumping in the world isn't going to change the fact that had it been you in this suspects position and you had killed the officer, you'd likely be going to jail for a long time.

So if a guy claims to be a LEO and grabs me out of my car, I should refuse to defend myself if he has no identification as a cop, then he robs me, beats me to within an inch of my life, and he can walk? I think not. I will adequately defend myself in court stating he had no proof that he was a cop, and if I was resisting he should have shown a badge. Any asshole can say they're a cop, the burden of proof falls on their shoulders, prove you're a cop and you can lawfully detain me, otherwise, I'm assuming you're a BG trying to use posing as a cop to get the upper hand.

[Bailey Guns]

Sure...you can assume that. But don't forget we're talking about totality of circumstances.

And you're scenario of being robbed/beaten isn't what we're talking about here. Any officer who's intent on arresting you is:
a) Going to arrest you without incident if you cooperate.
b) Will probably escalate use of force depending on your reaction.
Not to mention if you know you're committing a crime and a guy approaches you claiming to be a police officer and says you're under arrest for (whatever crime you're committing)...ummm..he's probably a police officer. I think your "burden of proof" statement is a little exaggerated and I don't really think it exists.

Besides, if you're resisting, what's the cop supposed to do? Call time out while he gets his wallet/badge out? I think not.

You can always show me in the CRS where it details what type of ID an officer is required to display upon attempting to arrest someone...because I can't find it (with the exceptions of resisting/obstruction type charges).

Not saying it isn't there...just that I can't find it.

[hollohas]

@Bailey

All that is true and I see your point. Ok, the officer was within the law when he tried to arrest the BG. Even if it was the dumbest way to possibly go about it. But are you saying that these statues mean we should all let the next guy who says he's a police officer attack us, handcuff us or kill us because if he actually is a real police officer he's justified in doing so?

I don't think so. I'm not doing shit for some guy that simply says he's a police officer. And if he tires to forcibly detain me, I'm defending myself until he produces a badge.

Because nowhere there does it say that a civilian has to assume a person is a peace officer just because they said so.

Also, I have zero problem with police using force. As I said before I come from a LE family and my own father was involved in a shooting situation (I'll just say he was the victor). I have also defended damn near every LEO use of force story we have ever discussed here. Unlike some here, I respect LEOs until they give me a reason otherwise, not the other way around.

Bailey, I seem to remember you said you used to be LE. Maybe you can tell me, with what we know, why this particular officer removed his uniform, left his badge, left his unit, left his dash cam and drove a private civilian's car to make an arrest???? Something ain't right there...

My father carried his badge even when off-duty...

And if it went the other way and the cop was killed, it would be a hard court battle and the below statute says to me that they would not be able to get the BG on murder of a LEO...

18-3-107
(2) As used in this section, "peace officer or firefighter engaged in the performance of his or her duties" means a peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., or a firefighter, as defined in section 18-3-201 (1), who is engaged or acting in, or who is present for the purpose of engaging or acting in, the performance of any duty, service, or function imposed, authorized, required, or permitted by law to be performed by a peace officer or firefighter, whether or not the peace officer or firefighter is within the territorial limits of his or her jurisdiction, if the peace officer or firefighter is in uniform or the person committing an assault upon or offense against or otherwise acting toward such peace officer or firefighter knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter.

[hollohas]

Cop: It's a bad day for you, I'm a police officer. You are under arrest.

BG: You'll never take me alive, coppah!!

Cop: reaches in to grab the keys out of the ignition

BG: Slugs cop

Fight ensues. Curtain falls on on scene of BG laying on the ground bleeding out...

If that's how it happened, then BG should be dead. But it'd still be fishy as to why the cop would go through all the hassle of making sure he went to make an arrest with absolutely no proof he was a cop...

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah, I was an LEO for about 15 years here in Colorado.

And understand...I agree wholeheartedly that the officer and his superiors used poor judgment in pursuing this suspect as they did. I would've shown up at the meet with the guy (in uniform and marked car) and been straight up with him. Dude...give up the keys or go to jail. Having said that, I don't know what went into the decision making process of the officer and his supervisors. Maybe (probably??) they have information on this we don't have.

My only argument is that the officer verbally identified himself to the suspect. The suspect resisted, the suspect escalated the encounter by producing a deadly weapon and the officer responded. Appropriately, in my opinion.

As to the statute you cited I think you're missing an important point. The statute specifically states:
...if the peace officer or firefighter is in uniform OR the person committing an assault upon or offense against or otherwise acting toward such peace officer or firefighter knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter.
Based again on the totality of the circumstances I don't think it would be difficult at all to prove a case of murder if he'd killed the officer. The guy knew he'd committed a crime and now, suddenly, here's a guy claiming to be a cop saying you're under arrest for exactly the crime you know you're committing. To me, that fulfills the "reasonably should know" part of the statute.

Also, I just watched a video where witnesses stated the officer was simply trying to control/subdue Contreras and verbally identified himself as a police officer several times.

[TFOGGER]

If that's how it happened, then BG should be dead. But it'd still be fishy as to why the cop would go through all the hassle of making sure he went to make an arrest with absolutely no proof he was a cop...

Like I said, nothing says the cops didn't step on their genitalia, but i'm not throwing the cop under the bus just yet. BG made a number of bad choices that led to his demise.

[Byte Stryke]

I personally dont care if it went like this: Cops failed to PROPERLY Identify himself as a law enforcement officer.

Cop: It's a bad day for you, I'm the tooth fairy. You have a cavity.

BG: You'll never take my teeth!

Cop: reaches in to grab the tooth

BG: Slugs cop

Fight ensues. officer is mortally wounded with a toothbrush


Failed to properly Identify.



Lets be realistic, if Some guy in a pickup truck, wearing a white T Shirt and Blue jeans, pulls up next to you and yells out of his window "Pull Over I am a cop!" without showing you a badge or an ID, will you pull over?

[OneGuy67]

@Bailey

All that is true and I see your point. Ok, the officer was within the law when he tried to arrest the BG. Even if it was the dumbest way to possibly go about it. But are you saying that these statues mean we should all let the next guy who says he's a police officer attack us, handcuff us or kill us because if he actually is a real police officer he's justified in doing so?

I don't think so. I'm not doing shit for some guy that simply says he's a police officer. And if he tires to forcibly detain me, I'm defending myself until he produces a badge.

Because nowhere there does it say that a civilian has to assume a person is a peace officer just because they said so.

Also, I have zero problem with police using force. As I said before I come from a LE family and my own father was involved in a shooting situation (I'll just say he was the victor). I have also defended damn near every LEO use of force story we have ever discussed here. Unlike some here, I respect LEOs until they give me a reason otherwise, not the other way around.

Bailey, I seem to remember you said you used to be LE. Maybe you can tell me, with what we know, why this particular officer removed his uniform, left his badge, left his unit, left his dash cam and drove a private civilian's car to make an arrest???? Something ain't right there...

My father carried his badge even when off-duty...

And if it went the other way and the cop was killed, it would be a hard court battle and the below statute says to me that they would not be able to get the BG on murder of a LEO...

18-3-107
(2) As used in this section, "peace officer or firefighter engaged in the performance of his or her duties" means a peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., or a firefighter, as defined in section 18-3-201 (1), who is engaged or acting in, or who is present for the purpose of engaging or acting in, the performance of any duty, service, or function imposed, authorized, required, or permitted by law to be performed by a peace officer or firefighter, whether or not the peace officer or firefighter is within the territorial limits of his or her jurisdiction, if the peace officer or firefighter is in uniform or the person committing an assault upon or offense against or otherwise acting toward such peace officer or firefighter knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter.


I'm going to agree with Bailey on this one. His expressed opinions, based upon the information thusly provided in the news story, are in line with my own.

I would also question why the officer needed to handle it in this manner as there are other ways it could have been handled. Not to say it was wrong, as there are a number of different ways to 'skin the cat', so to speak, that gets us to the same conclusion of the incident. I don't know why he didn't have a partner nearby in a marked vehicle, or even a uniformed partner in an unmarked vehicle in the parking lot. There is sufficient information missing in the news report to not want to speculate on this.

As to why he didn't have a badge with him, I think that is a pretty easy answer, assuming this was a patrol officer. He makes the decision he is going to meet the guy and he gets approval from his superiors. He removes his shirt, which has his badge pinned to it, along with his vest and duty belt and leaves them in his vehicle. Most patrol officers do not carry or have immediately available to them a chain badge carrier to wear the badge around his neck, nor a belt badge carrier for attaching a badge to his belt, while on patrol. They may have such items back at the station, or at home. Toss on a jacket or a sweatshirt and you got what he thought would be sufficient for such an endeavor.

[Bailey Guns]

Lets be realistic, if Some guy in a pickup truck, wearing a white T Shirt and Blue jeans, pulls up next to you and yells out of his window "Pull Over I am a cop!" without showing you a badge or an ID, will you pull over?

Totally inappropriate analogy. And, Byte, you don't get to decide what is the appropriate way for an officer to make an arrest...state statute does.

[CrufflerSteve]

And here's another story:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18560988

Cop couldn't prove he was a cop. There have been enough police impersonators that there have been public service announcements about how to deal with it. Bailey Guns has a point but not much of one to me since it seems like the cop was the assailant. If someone in plainclothes comes up to me and says he's a cop and wants my wallet, good luck to him.

Steve

[Byte Stryke]

As to the statute you cited I think you're missing an important point. The statute specifically states:
...if the peace officer or firefighter is in uniform OR the person committing an assault upon or offense against or otherwise acting toward such peace officer or firefighter knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter.


So now what is defined as "Reasonable"?
We submit to every jackhole that says "I Am a COP and you are being searched!"

you and your family murdered and found in a ditch 3 weeks later. Don't say it won't happen, it has.

yeah fuck that.
Reasonably, a reasonable undercover officer would reasonably have a reasonable contingent of reasonably uniformed officers reasonable at hand to reasonably execute the arrest.

Define reasonable.
I do not believe it is reasonable for someone to submit as a potential victim based purely on the verbal say so of another single person.


a single person approaches me claiming to be PD?
Show me a badge, credentials AND a marked vehicle. otherwise, its your word against mine.

[hollohas]

To me, that fulfills the "reasonably should know" part of the statute.



I didn't miss that part and you're right, it might.

But man,that seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me. Could go either way. I know hypotheticals are dumb but this has me thinking...

-I rear-end some dude (a traffic accident...I know what some of you sickos were thinking)
-Dude gets out of his car, comes back and says "I'm a cop, get out of your car".
-I say show me your badge.
-He says, "I'm a cop" again...multiple verbal identifications...
-I say "nope".
-He tries to forcibly remove me and detain me.
-I am going to resist and defend. Ain't no doubt about it.

Is it reasonable to assume a LEO may show up at an accident and tell me to get out of my car? Sure. But is it also reasonable to think the guy may have wanted to kick my ass ala road rage? Yup, no matter what he said. Happens all the time. There's your slippery slope.

[Bailey Guns]

a single person approaches me claiming to be PD and tells me I'm under arrest for a crime I know I'm committing?

Had to fix it for you to make it a reasonable analogy to the encounter we're discussing.

[Byte Stryke]

Totally inappropriate analogy. And, Byte, you don't get to decide what is the appropriate way for an officer to make an arrest...state statute does.

OK if a guy in plainclothes comes up and wants to put you and your family in handcuffs, and haul the lot of you off. But he has no badge, no marked car and no credentials...

he lunges into your car.

[Bailey Guns]

I didn't miss that part and you're right, it might.

But man,that seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me. Could go either way. I know hypotheticals are dumb but this has me thinking...

-I rear-end some dude (a traffic accident...I know what some of you sickos were thinking)
-Dude gets out of his car, comes back and says "I'm a cop, get out of your car".
-I say show me your badge.
-He says, "I'm a cop" again...multiple verbal identifications...
-I say "nope".
-He tries to forcibly remove me and detain me.
-I am going to resist and defend. Ain't no doubt about it.

Is it reasonable to assume a LEO may show up at an accident and tell me to get out of my car? Sure. But is it also reasonable to think the guy may have wanted to kick my ass ala road rage? Yup, no matter what he said. Happens all the time. There's your slippery slope.

I'm not arguing that sort of thing happens or might happen. There's a story HERE (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/28684331/detail.html) about it recently happening in the metro area. But, one of the victims said something about the encounter just didn't "feel" right. Maybe I'm wrong but I think most people, in most circumstances, are going to know if it's a real cop or not. Whether they act on their hunches or don't is another matter.

And I certainly hope some of you guys have a really good attorney on retainer if you really do react in a real world situation the way you say you will on this forum you're gonna need one.

[Bailey Guns]

OK if a guy in plainclothes comes up and wants to put you and your family in handcuffs, and haul the lot of you off. But he has no badge, no marked car and no credentials...

he lunges into your car.

Misses point again....


"OK if a guy in plainclothes comes up, verbally identifies himself as a police officer and states my family members and I are under arrest for a crime we just committed (and we know we committed) and wants to put you and your family in handcuffs, and haul the lot of you off. But he has no badge, no marked car and no credentials..."
Fixed again.

[hollohas]

Most patrol officers do not carry or have immediately available to them a chain badge carrier to wear the badge around his neck, nor a belt badge carrier for attaching a badge to his belt, while on patrol.



You could also say that he didn't have his gun's holster because it was on his duty belt, next to the badge on his shirt, but he brought the gun with him...


Toss on a jacket or a sweatshirt and you got what he thought would be sufficient for such an endeavor.

If such an "endeavor" was so important that it required supervisor approval and an undercover operation, I find it hard to believe he thought a sweatshirt was sufficient...one would have to not be too sharp to think that.

OneGuy, you're a LEO too correct? Can you tell me you would go to make a probable arrest without your badge?

Bailey, you know the statutes well. All LEOs can carry concealed anytime they want but do they have to have proof they are a LEO while carrying?

[Byte Stryke]

Misses point again....

"OK if a guy in plainclothes comes up, verbally identifies himself as a police officer and states my family members and I are under arrest for a crime we just committed (and we know we committed) and wants to put you and your family in handcuffs, and haul the lot of you off. But he has no badge, no marked car and no credentials..."
Fixed again.


yeah still misses...

lets make it even more accurate

"That is driving the victims car and is probably be out for vigilante justice"

still doesn't address the "reasonable" clause of the statute

I do not believe it "unreasonable" for a law officer to produce his badge and credentials upon identifying himself. I Do find it unreasonable that a law officer would not have these on his person to produce when performing an arrest.

BUT, being as you are a former law officer and not in Adams county, we dont have to worry about you sitting on his jury.
And as I am more than due...

[hollohas]

And I certainly hope some of you guys have a really good attorney on retainer if you really do react in a real world situation the way you say you will on this forum you're gonna need one.

This coming from the guy who just told a story of pulling a gun on a guy in his store who gave him the evil eye and used strong words and another guy who wanted to kick his dog...Not saying you were wrong in either instance, just saying you're quick to pass judgement on me for saying I would defend myself against anyone that ATTACKED ME.

Before you're start thinking that I would shoot any guy that comes up to my car and tries to remove me, let me set the record straight. I would first simply try to drive away.

[Bailey Guns]

That's a fact. I've been dismissed from jury duty immediately every time I've been summoned.

I don't think there is a definition of "reasonable" under Title 18...but I don't recall for sure. But it basically means:

Reasonable man theory refers to a test whereby a hypothetical person is used as a legal standard, especially to determine if someone acted with negligence. This hypothetical person referred to as the reasonable/prudent man exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others' interests. This serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. For example, the decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

[Bailey Guns]

This coming from the guy who just told a story of pulling a gun on a guy in his store who gave him the evil eye and used strong words and another guy who wanted to kick his dog...Not saying you were wrong in either instance, just saying you're quick to pass judgement on me for saying I would defend myself against anyone that ATTACKED ME.

Before you're start thinking that I would shoot any guy that comes up to my car and tries to remove me, let me set the record straight. I would first simply try to drive away.

You've got your stories mixed up. The first guy was a convicted felon - who I had arrested (for burglary) - who wouldn't remove his hand from his pocket (and it appeared he had his hand wrapped around something in said pocket) and was, in fact, giving me the "evil eye" for no good reason inside my business. I felt he was a distinct threat.

The other guy threatened to kick my dog. Nobody kicks my dog. In neither case did I say I was justified...that was for the sheriff's deputies to decide.

Also...that statement was not meant towards you in particular. Just a generic statement. And I haven't passed judgment on anyone. Just trying to present an opposing and informed point of view.

[OneGuy67]

You could also say that he didn't have his gun's holster because it was on his duty belt, next to the badge on his shirt, but he brought the gun with him...



If such an "endeavor" was so important that it required supervisor approval and an undercover operation, I find it hard to believe he thought a sweatshirt was sufficient...one would have to not be too sharp to think that.

OneGuy, you're a LEO too correct? Can you tell me you would go to make a probable arrest without your badge?

Bailey, you know the statutes well. All LEOs can carry concealed anytime they want but do they have to have proof they are a LEO while carrying?

Yes I am.

I usually carry a badge on me at all times, so I can't answer that particular question in the light of the circumstances presented in the Aurora case. I can say if I am in the middle of dealing with a person who is actively resisting and I am yelling at him I am the police (as indicated in this situation by witnesses), I'm not going to stop going hands on to crack open my credentials in my back pocket.

In the cop world, you need supervisor approval to do most everything, other than basic law enforcement. He would be off the street to handle this incident, so other officers would have to take his calls, he might be out of district, etc. So, having supervisor approval isn't out of the norm for something like this and it isn't something that would be "normally" a big deal.

As for clothing, I don't know what he was wearing. I am assuming, based upon what could be immediately available for him to wear, that officers do tend to keep in vehicles. My old agency had packages of sweat pants, sweat shirts, socks and slipper type shoes in bags in the trunks of patrol vehicles to give to victims in the event clothing was needed (water emersion, fire escape, assault, etc). I don't know if Aurora does similar, but a sweatshirt, sweater or an unmarked jacket isn't out of the ordinary.

As for his gun, yep, his duty holster would be on his belt, but that doesn't stop someone from tucking in a gun into his pants.

Law Enforcement agencies tend to put the 'CCW' language on the identification cards, so his police ID card would be his 'CCW'.

[hollohas]

You've got your stories mixed up. The first guy was a convicted felon - who I had arrested (for burglary) - who wouldn't remove his hand from his pocket (and it appeared he had his hand wrapped around something in said pocket) and was, in fact, giving me the "evil eye" for no good reason inside my business. I felt he was a distinct threat.

The other guy threatened to kick my dog. Nobody kicks my dog. In neither case did I say I was justified...that was for the sheriff's deputies to decide.

Also...that statement was not meant towards you in particular. Just a generic statement. And I haven't passed judgment on anyone. Just trying to present an opposing and informed point of view.

IMO you were right in both...but you may need a good attorney too. ;)

[hollohas]

Yes I am.

I usually carry a badge on me at all times, so I can't answer that particular question in the light of the circumstances presented in the Aurora case. I can say if I am in the middle of dealing with a person who is actively resisting and I am yelling at him I am the police (as indicated in this situation by witnesses), I'm not going to stop going hands on to crack open my credentials in my back pocket.



Agreed and wouldn't expect any officer to. But in this instance it sounds like he had plenty of time to do that before hands on.


As for his gun, yep, his duty holster would be on his belt, but that doesn't stop someone from tucking in a gun into his pants.

As for him not having a chain to put his badge on, that wouldn't stop him from putting it in his pocket.


Law Enforcement agencies tend to put the 'CCW' language on the identification cards, so his police ID card would be his 'CCW'.

Thank you for the clarification on my question.

[OneGuy67]

Agreed and wouldn't expect any officer to. But in this instance it sounds like he had plenty of time to do that before hands on.

As for him not having a chain to put his badge on, that wouldn't stop him from putting it in his pocket.

I re-read the news reporting and it isn't clear as to how the events occurred once he identified himself or told the suspect he was under arrest. He might have had time as you indicate to be able to pull his ID or a badge if he had one on him, but he might not have had that time. I don't know and the reporting doesn't clarify.

Did he identify himself or tell the suspect he was under arrest and the suspect attempt to put the vehicle in gear to leave and the officer reached in to kill the vehicle, where he got punched several times? Hell, I don't know and again, the reporting doesn't indicate. There had to be a reason he tried to grab the guy through the window instead of opening the door to gain access to the guy.

Sure, he certainly could have put his badge in his pocket. It still goes back to the above paragraph.

[Byte Stryke]

That's a fact. I've been dismissed from jury duty immediately every time I've been summoned.

I don't think there is a definition of "reasonable" under Title 18...but I don't recall for sure. But it basically means:
Reasonable man theory refers to a test whereby a hypothetical person is used as a legal standard, especially to determine if someone acted with negligence. This hypothetical person referred to as the reasonable/prudent man exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others' interests. This serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. For example, the decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-woman-sexually-assaulted-by-2-police-impersonators-in-aurora-20110727,0,6155236.story

so much for "reasonable".

Friel said each suspect wore a dark blue police style uniform with a gun-belt and displayed a badge.

[Bailey Guns]

IMO you were right in both...but you may need a good attorney too. ;)

Pretty sure the statute of limitations is up on those two!

[Beer]

[Bailey Guns]

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-woman-sexually-assaulted-by-2-police-impersonators-in-aurora-20110727,0,6155236.story

so much for "reasonable".

Yeah...that would be the story I linked to in one of my earlier posts.

So...now you're not going to believe someone in uniform is a cop, too?

[hollohas]

I have told my wife time and again not to pull over for anyone at night until she gets to a well lit and populated area because of this. And call the police to confirm especially if she doesn't see red, white AND blue lights as well as flashing headlights. She's not going to pull over for any piss ant little light bar or small flashing red/blue light that a BG can buy at RadioShack. That sucker better be lit up like forth of July before she pulls over in a dark secluded area. And any "reasonable" officer would understand.

[Bailey Guns]

I have told my wife time and again not to pull over for anyone at night until she gets to a well lit and populated area because of this. And call the police to confirm especially if she doesn't see red, white AND blue lights as well as flashing headlights. She's not going to pull over for any piss ant little light bar or small flashing red/blue light that a BG can buy at RadioShack. That sucker better be lit up like forth of July before she pulls over in a dark secluded area. And any "reasonable" officer would understand.

When I worked in remote areas of the county I had that happen several times. As long as there was some sort of acknowledgement that I was behind them I just followed until they stopped.

I have no problem with that and it's probably good advice.

[Irving]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but I find it pretty hard to believe that anyone could possibly work the angle that the police officer was defending himself. From the story, it sounded like the guy was sitting in his car with the door closed, holding the keys out of the window. If you are reaching into someone's car, through the window, and the person inside the car pulls out a knife, the proper defensive action is to quickly take ONE step backward from the vehicle. Now you are out of danger. You don't shoot until the person with the knife is outside of the vehicle with nothing between you.

[Irving]

When I worked in remote areas of the county I had that happen several times. As long as there was some sort of acknowledgement that I was behind them I just followed until they stopped.

I have no problem with that and it's probably good advice.

I have many times in the past, pulled completely off the highway at the next exit so as to not stop ON the highway. I just get over immediately, turn on flashers, drive slow. No one has ever had a problem with it before. Now I just stop as soon as possible. If I'm in an unsafe area, the officer has a speaker he can use to direct me.

[Bailey Guns]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but I find it pretty hard to believe that anyone could possibly work the angle that the police officer was defending himself. From the story, it sounded like the guy was sitting in his car with the door closed, holding the keys out of the window. If you are reaching into someone's car, through the window, and the person inside the car pulls out a knife, the proper defensive action is to quickly take ONE step backward from the vehicle. Now you are out of danger. You don't shoot until the person with the knife is outside of the vehicle with nothing between you.

I don't think it started out as the officer defending himself. It started out as the officer attempting to take the person into custody. It's not uncommon to have to remove someone from a car to do that. I'm just speculating that's how this started based on the news story. Unfortunately, it escalated from there. But you're right...it didn't need to.

Even the fact that it escalated is unfortunate since the APD officers obviously knew who this guy was. It probably would not have been difficult to get a warrant and pick him later.

I find it's a lot easier to armchair-quarterback this whole thing as opposed to being there and making the decisions on the spot, under pressure. My office chair is comfy.

[Graves]

Yeah APD screwed the pooch but honestly...should there really be protocols to keep a two bit asshat like this around? He'd still be alive if he wasn't such a scum bag. Fuck him, we're better off without him.

/thread

[Bailey Guns]

He'd still be alive if he wasn't such a scum bag. Fuck him, we're better off without him.

/thread

Well...that's pretty hard to argue with.

[Ronin13]

Well...that's pretty hard to argue with.

I said the same thing... can't argue with solid logic. Call me harsh, crass, insensitive, whatever, but he had it coming.