Other State Colorado cop who pulled gun on man picking up trash outside his home resigns

[DB is Here]

Colorado cop who pulled gun on man picking up trash outside his home resigns

Read More

 

[The Heretic]

Didn't see what led up to the yelling match so it is hard to tell how quickly it escalated, and I didn't watch the whole vid, but it does appear the cop should have left once the person proved they lived there. Plus it would have been good to know why the LEO was investigating this person to start with. Did someone call the police or was the cop just driving by and decided to hassle him?

Can you imagine what would have happened if the person picking up trash had a firearm on him?

 

[nammac]

Looks like more than just one officer shouldn't be employed for community policing...

Not knowing what transpired earlier, we don't know the whole story, but why did the first officer feel the need to point his weapon at someone picking up trash. Sounds like the officer escalated the situation. Again, just my speculation...

If the student picking up the trash had been armed, omg, he'd probably be dead...

 

[nwslopoke]

When I first moved into my house in a new development and was cutting my lawn one day, a guy drove by and asked who lived there.

I asked him if he thought I went around randomly cutting lawns or maybe like most people, I cut my own lawn? He said, oh I was just looking for houses that would put up signs for my friend running for mayor. He left with me giving him 5 minutes of, I wouldn't vote for your friend if...

 

[titsonritz]

He's lucky he didn't get shot.

 

[surevaliance]

He's lucky he didn't get shot.

For what? That man did not commit any crime, did not physically resist.

 

[titsonritz]

For what? That man did not commit any crime, did not physically resist.

Nor did he comply, and trigger happy cops.

 

[The Heretic]

Nor did he comply, and trigger happy cops.

And he is a minority ethnicity

 

[Alexx1401]

I too would like to know why the first LEO was confronting him. If someone called on him or if he was just driving by and on his own decided the guy looked "suspicious". Would also be nice to see what lead up to the yelling match. This is a great example of why all should have a body cam. So the entire thing would be on tape to see what lead up to this.

 

[surevaliance]

Nor did he comply...

Would you in this situation?

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Anyone dislike how they feel the urge to make note of race every single time with these incidents?

Given the info, what the cop did was wrong no doubt.. but there is no reason to make note of race. None at all.
NBC is up to their typical pandering.

 

[nwslopoke]

It depends. Life in America would be great if race weren't an issue but it is. No where as bad as the media says and probably not a real issue for the vast majority. But minding your own business in not a guarantee of not being harassed.

 

[titsonritz]

Would you in this situation?

Actually yes, you don't fight cops on the street you do it in court, but that doesn't negate that he was lucky for not getting shot. Not saying it was right or wrong, saying he was lucky.

 

[titsonritz]

I too would like to know why the first LEO was confronting him. If someone called on him or if he was just driving by and on his own decided the guy looked "suspicious". Would also be nice to see what lead up to the yelling match. This is a great example of why all should have a body cam. So the entire thing would be on tape to see what lead up to this.

100% agree.

 

[Stomper]

As infuriating as something like this situation is, this strikes me as analogous to a "Terry Stop"....


Origin

1968 Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio.

What is a Terry Stop
The term "Terry Stop," or "investigative detention," refers to the lawful detention of a person, by law enforcement officers, for a brief period of time. This enables officers to maintain safety while investigating a situation. During such a detainment, police are also authorized to conduct what is known as a "weapons pat-down," or a "frisk". A weapons pat-down is a quick, over-the-clothes pat-down that a police officer performs to ensure that the individual being detained does not have any weapons hidden on his person. This is done if the officer suspects the detained individual to be potentially "armed and dangerous."

In order to justify performing a Terry Stop, the officer(s) at the scene must be able to prove specific facts that would lead any reasonable police officer to believe that the detained individual has or was about to engage in illegal activity. For example, a Terry Stop is not to be conducted because a suspect has a history of criminal behavior. The threat must be immediate.

Further, a weapons pat-down must be limited to those areas in which potential weapons could be uncovered. In accordance with the "plain view" doctrine, police are permitted to seize any weapons or contraband they may discover during a frisk.

Purpose of a Terry Stop
The purpose of a Terry Stop is to perform what is essentially a mini investigation for the purposes of confirming whether or not the suspect is, in fact, engaged in a criminal activity. Essentially, the purpose of a Terry Stop is to stop a suspect in order to investigate the matter further, even when the police officer lacks probable cause to immediately make an arrest. If probable cause develops during the Terry Stop, then the officer will make the arrest. If not, then the suspect will be released.

Another purpose of a Terry Stop is to gather information for criminal intelligence that may be used later on, such as suspects' names, addresses, and locations they frequent. This information may help police solve open crimes in the future, by either confirming or discounting the suspicion of a particular individual's involvement in a crime.

Fourth Amendment and the Terry Stop
The Fourth Amendment does not specifically permit a police officer to conduct a brief, investigatory stop and detainment, when that officer has a reasonable and clear suspicion that the individual being detained is engaged in criminal behavior. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects law enforcement in that it allows officers to stop suspects and investigate them even before they have the probable cause necessary to make an arrest.

An example of a Terry Stop that was conducted illegally occurred in 2017, when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents at JFK airport boarded one of the planes and demanded that all of the passengers on board provide proof of identification before leaving the plane. Such a demand might be legal if the passengers were trying to get into the country illegally. However, this Terry Stop violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, due to the fact that the passengers on board the plane were all legally permitted to be on U.S. soil.

How Long is a Terry Stop
An individual can be detained at the scene in a Terry Stop for as long as it takes the officer(s) to conduct a thorough enough investigation to either confirm or deny probable cause to arrest. If the person is detained for too long without the establishment of probable cause, then he or she may have a civil case for having been unlawfully detained.

Typically, officers follow the unwritten "20-minute rule." This means that, if probable cause is not established within 20 minutes, the suspect must be released. However, it is important for officers to remember that every case is different, and, while 20 minutes may be excessive for one investigation, it may not be enough for another. Delays that the police inflict, such as waiting longer than 20 minutes for back-up to arrive, cannot justify the delay of a Terry Stop release, and will almost always be used against the officer(s) involved.

 

[titsonritz]

As infuriating as something like this situation is, this strikes me as analogous to a "Terry Stop"....

And to make it worse, the dude is in his own yard.

 

[CountryGent]

Would you in this situation?

I would have. Deescalate, have a calm conversation with the officer, and continue on unharmed. If he thought they were out of line, he could file a formal complaint. Evidently, the officer didn't handle it correctly according to their policy, otherwise I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have resigned. Though we don't see the full story in the video, I can understand the man's frustration, considering he's at his home, and it is somewhat a stretch to call that lawn-care tool "a weapon". But getting heated isn't helping anyone.

(This isn't completely academic either; last month I heard vehicles coming up our hill in this high-crime, rural area at a great speed, I stashed a piece in my waistband, and stepped out to see two Sheriff's Deputies loudly saying "Lets see your hands! Keep'em in sight!". I complied right away by putting palms forward and hands up. Things got cordial. Turns out the alarm malfunctioned, sent the panic signal, and 45 minutes later the police got here. They checked my ID to confirm that I was, in fact, the home owner and not someone saying they are. They thanked me, advised me to call the alarm company, and took off.

In that incident, I'm pretty sure if I mouthed off, or worse, got aggressive with them, bad things could have happened very fast. Instead I had a polite conversation with two officers of the law, I was made aware of a problem with our ADT system, and my wife is not a widow nor my children orphans.)

 

[Alexx1401]

Actually yes, you don't fight cops on the street you do it in court, but that doesn't negate that he was lucky for not getting shot. Not saying it was right or wrong, saying he was lucky.

Yep the way he was screaming at them it was highly surprising he did not get Tasered. Hard to say since we come in mid story here. He may well have been hoping the LEO would use force so he could get a huge pay out later. Again it's hard when we do not get to see what lead up to this.

 

[American123]

If this is as simple as the video portrays it to be.

Power hungry cops, fire them all. There is no reasonable reason to draw a gun on anyone who is not readily able to or indicating an attack on the officer is being made.

This is, "I have a gun, and you have to be afraid of my authority and it and listen to me."

People with this mentality shouldn't have a badge.

 

[Alexx1401]

In that incident, I'm pretty sure if I mouthed off, or worse, got aggressive with them, bad things could have happened very fast. Instead I had a polite conversation with two officers of the law, I was made aware of a problem with our ADT system, and my wife is not a widow nor my children orphans.)

GREAT example of how to do it correctly. If I was in my yard picking up trash and some LEO's stopped? I would put down the stuff and show them ID. Would I "like it" ? No. Would I let it turn into a me screaming at them thing? No.
In what seems like another life I was a supervisor at a refrigerated warehouse. Alarm system could not be "turned off". Way it worked was you went in, call the alarm Co, give a code. One morning I show up, it's HOT outside, I am tired. Go in start coffee for me and crew. Go back out to car have a snow suite over one arm and pick up a gun. We worked into the late night and I carried there. I turn around to see LEO standing there. He asked me, you work here? You have an alarm going off. I laughed, he followed me in, I called alarm Co, handed him the phone. Now if he had ordered me to show hands and such, (to this day I wonder if he saw the gun) I would have done just what he told me to do. Now of course this was not my own yard but still. A little calm and adult action goes a long way.