Customer Service skills are a good thing. I also support any waitress, cashier etc that you yell at yelling back at you FWIW.

But we're talking about something more. Not merely verbal abuse, we're at this point discussing verbal abuse alongside postures that could be deemed, depending on training and life experiences, to be physically threatening.

I know that last point is a major point of contention between us, but perception matters. It MUST matter.

You cannot write laws regarding defense where someone must be absolutely certain they're in danger before responding, nor can you write laws requiring someone to physically be attacked prior to attacking them.

I can show you several dash cam videos like the one Smooth posted with the boxer, only they don't end nearly as pretty. In fact I'd likely need to label a few NSFW.

You must allow people (not officers) to respond to the perceived threat of attack, because in far too many cases, once the attacks started, it's too late to respond.

I'm speaking in generalities here, as I've said I maintain this was not the BEST course of action for this officer to take. However, that in itself is not automatically unjustifiable.

I would say my bias is at worse equal to yours and very likely less than yours.


This is irrelevant. If I used the argument "If he'd drew his gun, screamed "**** YOU BITCH" and shot her in the head, now THAT would be unjustifiable!", it would be pointless, because it's not in the facts of the case we're discussing right now.

You're attempting to show some uses of force are inappropriate and unjustifiable. I agree. That holds no bearing on the justifiability of this specific incident at issue.

Lol I knew this would be the follow up, completely missing the point. Assuming I had a duty to control the situation, on a list of ways I would've tried to calm that woman down or control her, punching her in the face would've been somewhere after hypnotism.

Why couldn't the cop just wrestle her down? Striking doesn't seem a very effective option here. Aren't cops supposed to train constantly on these types of situations so they know the most effective move without having to think about it?

That's my idea. See start of the thread. Where we're at now is some attempting to convince me that these situations have only one correct answer and the rest are both wrong and unjustifiable.

Would you agree with a statement that most of the time when officers are "doing their job" they are getting in a position to attack?

And that's why I used the example of a bouncer in a similar situation as those jobs are physical as well sometimes and people put their hands on them too sometimes. And if 2 chicks bicker and lightly scuffle with a bouncer and the dude hauls off and punches her in the face he is fired.

No. Carrying weapons =\= "Position to attack"

Cops can do so much crap and get away with it that unless they are close to saint like they will be corrupted by the rest of the cops a lot of who think it's cosher and a ok to physically abuse people with a thus against them mentality. So they don't care. Even dbl, who is probably more restrained than at least 90% of cops thinks it's ok for them to yell at people and behave disrespectfully as long as the suspect is doing so. At most all jobs this is def NOT ok, for cops it is standard to the degree that a saint of a cop compared to most cops thinks it's ok.

I was thinking more of how they walk up to people, force people off the road, and then there is the whole kicking in doors with the guns drawn.

And if carrying weapons =\= "position to attack" why are the police so concerned if others have weapons. I think anyone that says the laws are applied equally to the police and people that are not the police are either very mistaken or very dishonest.

edit to add: If I look out my window and see one person holding another person at gunpoint, and I have a clear shot at either of them, under what circumstances would I be justified in shooting one of them? What if I watch them go to the next step and see someone shoot someone else in the street?

We've discussed this before. This isn't even an AC thing, this is a Utopian fantasy you're living in. Even in ACland, there will need to be a group capable of enforcing rules on others property as well as enforcing the order of the court. Call them "Police", call them "DRO's", call them "Magic Fairy Dust Sprinklers" it's irrelevant. They must exist. Agreeing with the justifiableness of running a car off the road or kicking in a door is acceptable, even healthy. Pressing for a fantasyland world where NO ONE whether public or private entity has the capabilities to do these things is merely wishful thinking.

That's an incredibly complicated question to answer with the incredibly limited information you have provided.

I agree this is not a state thing. I am just pointing out that different rules apply to the police than to other people. I know they laws aren't written that way, but the law still is that way. Police personal have a different set of rules applied to them. There might be times that kicking in a door (or punching someone in the face) is warranted. These should be evaluated based on the circumstances of the situation, not on who someone is employed by.

People who punch chicks in the face when in a very minor scuffle and think they are justified are not capable of carrying a gun and badge and having power over everyone else.

And I agree, and honestly fairness is more important than ever. I'm not a cop anymore, but my work still puts me in situations where I stand a higher than the average chance of having to shoot somebody or fight somebody.

I need these laws to be enforced justly, and fairly. In my experience they have been.

Just out of curiosity, why are you so incredibly stuck on the sex of the suspect?

This seems to be repeated over and over, while other than a few fat jokes the fact she likely had 60lbs on him is ignored.

Is that even real? I ask because I've never heard such a ******ed approach to attempt to gain consent to search in my life.

If it is real, what a ****ing ******.

Thinks like that happen so rarely over here - almost never - all your American guns and "get off my property" mentality just fuels violence.

Which part are you talking about? Letting him out of the ticket and asking to search the car, or throwing a temper tantrum? Because the blowing up part wasn't an attempt to gain consent, he just blew up and hauled ass out of there. It's so over the top that I'm kind of questioning whether it's real or not myself. I've had cops get visibly pissed when I refused to cooperate, but that dude went from calm to bat **** crazy so fast that it seems staged.

[ ] GUNZ!!!

[ ] Get off my propertyz!!

[ ] PRIVATE PROPERTYZZZZ

Wut

No, it's pretty much everything. The standard way of doing the traffic stop consent is to exaggerate your PC while asking for consent, essentially bluffing them into a false "We can do this the easy way, or the hard way" line, when in reality, it's "You can allow me to do this or I can't do it at all.". But, just like poker, sometimes they've actually got a hand, so if you're going to try this you better be sure of yourself.

plus the temper tantrum is hilarious. It could very well be staged. I was involved as an adjunct instructor. I was certified to teach Verbal Judo as well as Crisis Intervention Training, alongside being a defensive tactics instructor. We used to create fake dashcam videos quite often to create "right way/wrong way" videos, because they're both entertaining and seem to work.

This may be someone else doing that as part of a lesson on Search & Seizure.

Probably in part due to my age, the 'you don't hit a woman' and also because they are simply much less able to engage in a physical fight with a man and come out on top. Coudn't you kick the shat out of pretty much any woman who even outweighed you by 100lbs even? I'm 250lbs and am pretty sure I could kick pretty much any woman on the planet's ass unless she was highly skilled at physical combat.

It seems unreal to me too. My only way of understanding it is that he had preplanned the 'I'm not going to give you a ticket' as a strategy to use figuring he could get the guy to consent since he was doing him a favor by not giving him a ticket. Then when the guy refuses consent the cop is left kicking himself in the ass because now he can't even give him the ticket, the wig out was so over the top though it seems unreal to me lol

With your mentality, I wouldn't be so sure. Until you actually have to fight a woman in self defense, you'd probably be shocked to discover how much better fighters they are than men.

Women are vicious. You let a woman get her hands on you, you'll end up scratched/choked/injured before you realize it and attempt to disengage.

Men are stronger though. There's reason why girls always need someone to open jars for them.

A man could really hurt a woman with one clean punch.