Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Law and Order 2 Law and Order 2

08-07-2012 , 04:21 PM
It all could have been avoided if she just would have listened, pvn.


08-07-2012 , 04:24 PM
ya, I can't understand the jail thing

probably some ******ed reasoning that if they taser someone they have to arrest them or something
08-07-2012 , 04:24 PM
that was bad Lirva lol
08-07-2012 , 04:27 PM
08-07-2012 , 04:32 PM
Good to see that "Deaf Guy charges you" scenario I ran on all my firearms students that they all said was stupid and impractical had merit after all.
08-07-2012 , 04:37 PM
Hopefully it didn't start with tasering the bitch
08-07-2012 , 04:40 PM
No. If you injured the deaf guy you failed the scenario.

All he did was run right past you out the door, screaming "POLICE! POLICE!"
08-07-2012 , 04:46 PM
No sticking your foot out for the lulz even?
08-07-2012 , 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkgojackets
how furious would people be if someone was trying to talk to a cop while he was in his patrol car, then stepped slightly in front of it and the cop ran him over.
They'd probably mostly be furious because the guy with the broken foot would be cuffed, beaten and thrown in jail.
08-07-2012 , 08:07 PM
I hate everyone involved in the Ferarri thing. Driver is obv a level 38 douche, but is it really necessary to forcibly yank him out, slam him against the car, and faceplant him to the ground? Lucky he didn't get tazed as well, I guess.
08-07-2012 , 08:29 PM
Yes, it is vitally important to separate an attacker from his weapon as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Tasing wouldn't be necessary, unless it was necessary to maintain positive control or to remove him from his weapon.
08-07-2012 , 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
Yes, it is vitally important to separate an attacker from his weapon as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Tasing wouldn't be necessary, unless it was necessary to maintain positive control or to remove him from his weapon.
Why does this apply when the nature of the weapon is such that the victim must intentionally place himself in a position to be attacked?
08-07-2012 , 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
Yes, it is vitally important to separate an attacker from his weapon as quickly and efficiently as possible.
It is then necessary to slam the disarmed "assailant" against the car and throw him face first on the ground? Typical a**hole cop move ainec.
08-07-2012 , 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR
Why does this apply when the nature of the weapon is such that the victim must intentionally place himself in a position to be attacked?
Placing yourself in danger of being attacked is part of the job.
08-07-2012 , 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
It is then necessary to slam the disarmed "assailant" against the car and throw him face first on the ground? Typical a**hole cop move ainec.
Moving someone forward into an off balance position is standard when applying restraints.

Placing someone on the ground is also a standard placement after arrest, particularly when dealing with a violent suspect.
08-07-2012 , 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
Placing someone on the ground is also a standard placement after arrest, particularly when dealing with a violent suspect.
"Violent suspect"? gmafb. The guy stopped the car and put it park. Cop clearly lost it and needlessly faceplanted the guy. You don't have to carry the water for him.
08-07-2012 , 09:55 PM
"The police looked into it, and the police have ruled that the police did nothing wrong."
08-07-2012 , 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
Placing yourself in danger of being attacked is part of the job.
Putting your foot in front of the wheel and assuming the other guy notices it and isn't capable of driving over it seems like godafwul police work to me.
08-07-2012 , 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
Placing yourself in danger of being attacked is part of the job.
At every possible opportunity, even if there's no upside???
08-07-2012 , 10:08 PM
There's plenty of upside! Look at those extra charges, with a side of being able to smash a douche's face around a little.
08-07-2012 , 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
"Violent suspect"? gmafb. The guy stopped the car and put it park. Cop clearly lost it and needlessly faceplanted the guy. You don't have to carry the water for him.
If he did, I'm not hating on him for it.

I'm just reporting things the way the training division is reporting it to the brass.
08-07-2012 , 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Putting your foot in front of the wheel and assuming the other guy notices it and isn't capable of driving over it seems like godafwul police work to me.
I think we're stretching reality assuming the douche didn't see the cop here.
08-07-2012 , 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn
At every possible opportunity, even if there's no upside???
I don't think "every possible opportunity" is being met here.
08-07-2012 , 10:23 PM
jamming your foot under a car tire falls into the "looking to start something" category IYAM.

What's the worst thing that can happen here? He's got the plate. It's not going to be that hard to find the guy. But oh yeah, the cop might feel like his manhood was questioned, so yeah, I guess nuking the site from orbit would be justified to stop that from happening.

Carry on.
08-07-2012 , 10:24 PM
I think the douche assumed the cop wasn't dumb enough to actually stick his foot under the wheel and the cop assumed the douche wasn't dumb enough to assume that the cop wasn't dumb enough to actually stick his foot under the wheel.

They both pretty much leveled themselves imo.

      
m