Clark Co deputy shoots & kills off-duty Vancouver police officer

[bkroger86]

Responding officer got some splain'n to do !!!

Not if his union lawyer is any good. And Clark County Sheriffs don't require body cameras either.

 

[Member 53328]

Not if his union lawyer is any good. And Clark County Sheriffs don't require body cameras either.

If a sheriff trusts his deputies then there is no reason for a body camera. Sadly in todays world you have to defend and justify every little thing you do so body cameras are needed to a certain degree. Although I don't agree with wearing them.

 

[bkroger86]

If a sheriff trusts his deputies then there is no reason for a body camera. Sadly in todays world you have to defend and justify every little thing you do so body cameras are needed to a certain degree. Although I don't agree with wearing them.

Do you think the dead cop will get justice if there are no cameras and we only get to hear one side of the story?

 

[The B]

If a sheriff trusts his deputies then there is no reason for a body camera. Sadly in todays world you have to defend and justify every little thing you do so body cameras are needed to a certain degree. Although I don't agree with wearing them.

"if a sheriff trusts his deputies"... wow

how about we expect our officers to be legally above reproach? following the law theyre sworn to uphold to the letter, in all things? if this is our standard, there is absolutely no way body cams can be harmful and instead be incredibly beneficial tools to prosecution

if i was a sworn officer on patrol, i dont think id be willing to work without a body cam. if i had to beat the shît out of someone or shoot someone, id absolutely want full video documentation of the incident to prove i followed policy and the law and was totally justified in my use of force.

but im not a sworn officer - i have this idealized picture in my mind of a law-abiding law-enforcement officer that apparently doesnt actually exist in the wild

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Active armed robbery going down here now. 7 cop group with dog going yard by yard. I thought about this thread before approaching the supervisor to tell him I opened the gate to the back yard for his guys. I kept my hands out of my pockets and didn't wear a coat just so he knew there would be no surprises.

 

[Alexx1401]

Active armed robbery going down here now. 7 cop group with dog going yard by yard. I thought about this thread before approaching the supervisor to tell him I opened the gate to the back yard for his guys.

Don't walk up to him gun in hand and you should be fine

 

[The B]

Don't walk up to him gun in hand and you should be fine

emphasis on the "should be fine"

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The guy on point had blaze orange bits on his clothes and seems to have a gas grenade launcher in addition to other weapon(s). Other guys looked armed normally and no high vis clothing but hard to tell.

This is a crappy screenshot of iPad with my phone:

 

[Member 53328]

"if a sheriff trusts his deputies"... wow

how about we expect our officers to be legally above reproach? following the law theyre sworn to uphold to the letter, in all things? if this is our standard, there is absolutely no way body cams can be harmful and instead be incredibly beneficial tools to prosecution

if i was a sworn officer on patrol, i dont think id be willing to work without a body cam. if i had to beat the shît out of someone or shoot someone, id absolutely want full video documentation of the incident to prove i followed policy and the law and was totally justified in my use of force.

but im not a sworn officer - i have this idealized picture in my mind of a law-abiding law-enforcement officer that apparently doesnt actually exist in the wild

Well if every cop was as you described then there would be no need for body cameras. But people aren't perfect and make mistakes. I PERSONALLY (meaning my opinion) don't like body cameras. And by your language on how you would deal with people I am glad you're not a sworn officer. Again my opinion.

 

[Member 53328]

Do you think the dead cop will get justice if there are no cameras and we only get to hear one side of the story?

Maybe. Maybe not. Depending on how the off duty LEO presented/conducted himself could justify the shooting. But we haven't seen the footage so I can't speak to that. Cameras can be beneficial and harmful. Either way a cop lost his life which saddens my heart.

 

[Alexx1401]

I know when the cams first hit I heard a lot of the LEO's I work with saying they had reservations. I was big on them from day one. Mostly because I got so sick of hearing scum scream and lie after dealing with an LEO. Since many of these lead to time consuming and costly investigations. I LONG felt the one solution would be charge the people who lie with a real crime and make it painful. That of course is not going to happen so camera's work. The other was there is a few, VERY few real jerks who should never have gotten the LEO job. Those few make the rest look bad and feed the anti Cop media. The camera's make it harder for them to hide and easier to weed them out.

 

[danarzh]

The biggest take away seems to be that the deceased should have stayed inside his home instead of trying to confront the suspect and he would still be alive. The second biggest take away is that when you go outside to confront the suspect, don't rely on the suspect complying with your attempt to detain him just because you have a gun. The third takeaway seems to be that if you are attempting to detain someone and you are in possession of the firearm - distance is your friend, the deceased was stabbed multiple times and lost possession of the firearm at the hands of the suspect - distance was obviously not kept.

Although I agree that us as civilians should follow those ideas, an off duty cop (even though he's off duty) has the duty to do what he can to protect the public, which puts them in much higher risk than us. He's not required to, but as a good cop, he's called to. Such a sad series of events.

 

[American123]

Although I agree that us as civilians should follow those ideas, an off duty cop (even though he's off duty) has the duty to do what he can to protect the public, which puts them in much higher risk than us. He's not required to, but as a good cop, he's called to. Such a sad series of events.

I understand and agree, though since the criminal was not seemingly in the process of committing a felony at THAT moment in time, the off duty could have waited for backup, even coordinated with responding officers, before going outside. There's a lot of things that went wrong, tactics, communication, etc the first dominoe that set the rest in motion was trying to solo with the criminal and losing.

 

[Alexx1401]

I understand and agree, though since the criminal was not seemingly in the process of committing a felony at THAT moment in time, the off duty could have waited for backup, even coordinated with responding officers, before going outside. There's a lot of things that went wrong, tactics, communication, etc the first dominoe that set the rest in motion was trying to solo with the criminal and losing.

Yep. This is getting beat to death but bottom line does not change. The off duty LEO put himself and his family in harms way over poor choices. He went and almost gave the scum his own hand gun. Then got himself killed in the process and for what? Being an LEO I would expect him to know a little better than others to NOT do exactly what he did. When he was on duty and was going to roll up on a call like that would he expect to see an off duty LEO he had no way of knowing, out there with no markings showing he was a good guy, with gun in hand? There is a duty to stop and think before you act too. Now a couple families have to live with this mess that could have been sooooo easily avoided. As long as I have been on the net I have been seeing an amazing amount of the keyboard bravado from people who carry. Claiming they would not "allow" the scum to get away with stuff. All too often one of them actually does jump in and it turns out just like this did, tragedy. Cops roll up on something and see someone with a gun in hand, who is not clearly a "good guy", the person with gun in hand becomes an instant target. Do not be the target when you do not have to.

 

[The B]

Although I agree that us as civilians should follow those ideas, an off duty cop (even though he's off duty) has the duty to do what he can to protect the public, which puts them in much higher risk than us. He's not required to, but as a good cop, he's called to. Such a sad series of events.

no... he had no duty to anyone when not on duty. cops are civilians.

 

[bbbass]

I know when the cams first hit I heard a lot of the LEO's I work with saying they had reservations. I was big on them from day one. Mostly because I got so sick of hearing scum scream and lie after dealing with an LEO. Since many of these lead to time consuming and costly investigations. I LONG felt the one solution would be charge the people who lie with a real crime and make it painful. That of course is not going to happen so camera's work. The other was there is a few, VERY few real jerks who should never have gotten the LEO job. Those few make the rest look bad and feed the anti Cop media. The camera's make it harder for them to hide and easier to weed them out.

My radio shop sold body cams to LE orgs here in several city/co... It was a hard sell at first, as it was seen as a way to document LEO mistakes. HOWEVER, after a LEO was cleared in an OIS in Enterprise involving a father with a son claiming things happened differently, LEO opinions quickly changed. The DAs were glad to have video evidence that disputed perp bogus claims and statements. IMO, those perps should be charged with lying to the POPO, fraud, whatever.

Interesting that in the current permissive enviro, DAs no longer want to use video evidence, unless it is against LE.

Commish Hardesty in Portland will not allow LE to have body cams. She was all for it when she thought it would document POPO misbehavior, then changed her mind when it showed crooks behaving badly.

 

[MarshalChillN]

That witch ( Hardesty) needs to fly away !
The perps that make bogus claims should be charged with perjury and heavily fined !

 

[bionic knees]

one thing for certain reading this thread, our trains of thought do not run on the same tracks.

 

[Alexx1401]

My radio shop sold body cams to LE orgs here in several city/co... It was a hard sell at first, as it was seen as a way to document LEO mistakes. HOWEVER, after a LEO was cleared in an OIS in Enterprise involving a father with a son claiming things happened differently, LEO opinions quickly changed. The DAs were glad to have video evidence that disputed perp bogus claims and statements. IMO, those perps should be charged with lying to the POPO, fraud, whatever.

Interesting that in the current permissive enviro, DAs no longer want to use video evidence, unless it is against LE.

Commish Hardesty in Portland will not allow LE to have body cams. She was all for it when she thought it would document POPO misbehavior, then changed her mind when it showed crooks behaving badly.

Now that makes perfect sense. The original reservations probably were LEO's thinking they would be looking for things to blame them for. Also makes perfect sense that the morons who hate Cops to now not want the camera's. Since they want to find any excuse to not punish the scum. Can't have the scum on video since makes it a harder sell to the ignorant in the public to go along with letting them out over and over.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Now that makes perfect sense. The original reservations probably were LEO's thinking they would be looking for things to blame them for. Also makes perfect sense that the morons who hate Cops to now not want the camera's. Since they want to find any excuse to not punish the scum. Can't have the scum on video since makes it a harder sell to the ignorant in the public to go along with letting them out over and over.

This makes me think that this video evidence thing may also translate to our situation in terms of protests. Let's say u accidentally drove into a protest. Then let's pretend u had 360 degree video recording via car cams that capture everything. No matter what your actions were (let's assume you took really good actions for the sake of argument though), you have the ability to tell your side of the story and have video to back it up (assuming ur cams caught everything I mean).

Contrast that to having no cams yourself but 10-30 protesters have cams. It's possible that the edited video segments that show u in the worst light will come out and the parts that supports you may well not be shown at all.

One side note/digression is that in Clint Smith's teachings he mentions backing up (a perceived passive action) and many poeple mention verbal commands such as "stop" or "stop, get back" etc which all support you as stopping the attack and the defender vs being an aggressor. FWIW Massad Ayoob and the active self protection guy both have some good videos in this regard, especially in regards to trying to de-escalate, which could help you in court later -especially if others heard it or you have video evidence of it.