Police Work, Politics and World Affairs, Football and the ongoing search for great Scotch Whiskey!

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

An example of why you don't rush to judgement...

In fifteen years on the street one of the things that really drives me nuts is when I'm conducting an on site investigation (e.g. traffic stop, on street stop, etc) people not involved with this want to just come up close and interfere. Forgive me, but don't come close. I don't know who the hell you are, I don't know if you are a friend of the guy I've stopped and intend to assault me to help him. You wanna video tape me, fine. I'm on public street, it's fair game. However, I will stop you from getting close enough to interfere with my investigation or threaten me.

That being said, I saw this and reviewed the video. What I have seen I cannot fault the officer. He has three people on the ground and is surrounded by potential hostiles. He was asking for back up and did eventually put the man in his car and put the woman in the the truck bed. I would like to know what happened before this video started...and why did Mr Tatkowski decide he had to get out of the car and start swearing at the officer. Again, it's up to Washington Township to investigate the incident, but I don't see, from this video, what he did wrong.



Washington Twp., TPS officer put on paid leave

A Washington Township police officer is on administrative leave after a videotaped traffic stop was posted online and went viral.

Officer Eric Hart is being paid while on leave, Washington Township police Chief Christopher Kaiser said. Officer Hart has worked part-time for the department for about two years.

“He’s not in trouble, but to keep things aboveboard, we put him on administrative leave until an internal investigation is fully complete,” the chief said. “I’m not saying he did anything wrong, but we’re trying to show we’re not trying to sweep this under the rug or cover it up.”

In the four-minute, 50-second video, a woman shouts at Officer Hart that he is harassing people. The woman, who screams and shouts throughout the encounter, also claims Officer Hart smashed her cell phone when she tried to call 911.

In a police report, Officer Hart wrote he was working Sunday afternoon when he stopped a vehicle...in Raintree Village, for having an “altered” license registration sticker.

During the stop, a man, later identified as Aaron Tatkowski, who was in another vehicle, stopped and got out of his truck, and reportedly told Officer Hart, “I’m [expletive] sick of you cops. I’m [expletive] sick of you harassing people for no reason.”

Officer Hart wrote in the report that he ordered Mr. Tatkowski to get back; when he allegedly refused, the officer said he pointed his stun gun at Mr. Tatkowski, who yelled for spectators to videotape the encounter. The passenger from the first vehicle, Cassandra Meyers, got out of the vehicle and approached the officer, who had Mr. Tatkowski handcuffed on the ground.

The officer wrote he had his gun out and pointed through open vehicle doors.

Ms. Meyers was also put on the ground and struggled with the officer until she was handcuffed, the report states.

A witness called 911 to request a Toledo police crew for an “officer in distress.” Toward the end of the video, Officer Hart approaches the man, takes his phone, and tosses it aside, saying Toledo police are on the way.

Officer Hart then told the spectators to leave — in the report, he writes that ordering them to leave is for their safety.

“You don’t need witnesses?” asked one witness.

“It’s on camera, what does it matter?” Officer Hart responds...

...Officer Hart also works for Toledo Public Schools as a school resource officer. On Tuesday, administrators put Officer Hart on paid administrative leave pending Washington’s Township inquiry, said Patty Mazur, district spokesman. She said Officer Hart has worked for TPS about 20 months.

Mr. Tatkowski, 40, was charged with misconduct at an emergency, obstructing official business, and resisting arrest. He was arraigned Monday in Toledo Municipal Court, pleaded not guilty, and was released from the Lucas County jail on his own recognizance.

Ms. Meyers, 21, was arrested and booked into the Lucas County jail Sunday night for obstructing official business, tampering with evidence, fictitious plates, and a tax payment warrant....

53 comments:

  1. You don't see anything wrong with the officer's conduct? He continually pointed his taser at three people who were handcuffed face down on the ground, repeatedly yelling and menacing them with threat of being tased. None of the three suspects were moving, he had no reason to approach with his taser pointed at them. Later he walked away from the handcuffed suspects and took a cell phone away from a person who was calling 911 requesting police assistance and threw it on the ground. Nothing wrong with that either? The person making the call was not near the officer or suspects, and not interfering in any way. Officer Hart may or may not have anger management or other issues, but either way he crossed a number of lines here and should face consequences for his misconduct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't see anything wrong with the officer's conduct? He continually pointed his taser at three people who were handcuffed face down on the ground, repeatedly yelling and menacing them with threat of being tased.

      Yes, he did. It's called covering a suspect and also having his weapon ready in case some of the suspect's buddies wanted to rush the officer.

      None of the three suspects were moving, he had no reason to approach with his taser pointed at them.

      Yes, he did, and yes, they were moving. Then the officer placed the suspect who could do the most harm (the male) in the back of his vehicle. Then he tool care of the woman and boy. That was after he had back up coming.

      Later he walked away from the handcuffed suspects and took a cell phone away from a person who was calling 911 requesting police assistance and threw it on the ground. Nothing wrong with that either?

      Agreed, he shouldn't have done that. Could have damaged someone's property for no reason. But that's not a use of force issue. He should have just said "Sir, officers are coming, please let the call taker know that…" That way unneeded units are not dispatched at high speed to assist an officer in distress.

      Officer Hart may or may not have anger management or other issues, but either way he crossed a number of lines here and should face consequences for his misconduct.

      Anon, name the lines. You are using a straw man argument. Tell me specifically lines?

      Delete
    2. "Agreed, he shouldn't have done that. Could have damaged someone's property for no reason. But that's not a use of force issue." It most definitely is a use of force issue; robbery is the deprivation of the property of another by the use of force, no matter how slight. If a civilian had done this rather than an officer, charges would have been accordingly filed. Why should the law be applied differently here?.

      Delete
    3. Mr Wintercorn,

      It most definitely is a use of force issue; robbery is the deprivation of the property of another by the use of force, no matter how slight. If a civilian had done this rather than an officer, charges would have been accordingly filed.

      I looked up the definition of Robbery in the Ohio Code and it doesn't support that:

      2911.02 Robbery.
      (A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:

      (1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control;

      (2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on another;

      (3) Use or threaten the immediate use of force against another.

      (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of robbery. A violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of this section is a felony of the second degree. A violation of division (A)(3) of this section is a felony of the third degree.

      (C) As used in this section:

      (1) "Deadly weapon" has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

      (2) "Theft offense" has the same meaning as in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code.


      The officer didn't commit a theft (he didn't keep the phone) or was fleeing, so it's not a robbery. And yes, for the tenth time on this post, I agree, he should not have thrown the cell phone. But the phone was not damaged and recovered by its owner (I know that because if it was not those facts would have been plastered over the report). I don't see the officer threatening the phone owner. If you can point that out, please do.

      But the process should take its course and if the DA/Department judge the officer as having gone too far, they shall handle it. Selective coverage and an incomplete report of an incident can lead to misjudgments. Classic case, the recent Martin-Zimmerman case in Florida. To this day there are media outlets that only show pictures of Martin as a 12 year old in his football uniform and refuse to show the picture from his Facebook page, shooting the bird and smoking pot. And only show Zimmerman's booking photo from 6 years ago, but don't show his photo's from the night of the shooting when he was bloodily as hell. Or mention that Zimmerman was smaller than Martin. Facts can get in the way of a good story.

      Delete
    4. Its nice of you to quote the part of the law that benefits your argument.......Just because he didn't keep the phone, wise ass, doesn't mean its not theft. You don't get to bend the law because its a "law officer"

      2913.02 Theft.

      (A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways:

      (1) Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent; (definitely didn't get consent)

      (2) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent; (again never had consent)

      (3) By deception;

      (4) By threat;

      (5) By intimidation. ( most people would agree that he was threatening in posture and words )

      So by definition it was theft.....and he should have been punished for it, just as a citizen would...look around you, read the comments on this and other videos like it...the people are waking up, the police are despised and its because of sheeple like you that our rights are eroded daily...

      Delete
    5. Its nice of you to quote the part of the law that benefits your argument.......Just because he didn't keep the phone, wise ass, doesn't mean its not theft. You don't get to bend the law because its a "law officer"

      Actually, dumb ass I was answering Mr. Wintercorn’s statement about it being robbery, which it’s not. You put up the definition of Theft from Ohio law and you seem to be missing the critical point

      2913.02 Theft.

      (A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways:…


      The officer exerted control over the phone for about two seconds. You wanna make that case, be my guest. The DA will laugh in your face. If two neighbors had a similar issue, and Mr Smith grabbed Mr Jones phone and threw it on the ground, it would not be theft. If there was damage, it would be, by Ohio Code, Criminal Mischief:

      2909.07 Criminal mischief.
      (A) No person shall:

      (1) Without privilege to do so, knowingly move, deface, damage, destroy, or otherwise improperly tamper with the property of another…


      Source: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2909.07

      Something you obviously don’t know James is law is not an exact science. You go to a DA and say “This is what I got”, but the follow on question is “Can I make a case…” Any Ohio DA would look at this and say “Theft?…Robbery?…you gotta be kidding.

      James, hate to shock you but the officer was cleared and returned to full duty. Also, you seem to miss the entire point of this post. Don’t judge the full story by a limited view. A classic example is Rodney King. Every video shown on TV was of the man on the ground getting hit by the officers in the head. That, by itself, is use of deadly force and cannot be justified in this case. However, what was usually left out. The chase of King in excess of 80 mph, King charging the officers, getting up after being tazed twice, the face this "innocent man" was on parole for robbery, etc.

      Or a more modern example, Mr Martin and Mr Zimmerman. After Zimmerman shot Martin, what were the pictures shown on most "objective" media sources? Obama’s son as a sweet junior high school football player, a five year old photo. They didn’t show the tatted up punk who was suspended from school for fighting. What was shown of Zimmerman. A booking photo from six years previous. Newer photos of both were available. But showing Zimmerman with head injuries or Martin smoking pot wouldn’t have fit the narrative.

      Hope this clears this up. You want to respond, find. Please keep it clean and hope you had a great weekend.

      Delete
    6. "Full duty," in this case is as a part-time school resource officer. Where I come from, school resource duty is where you put your losers. Hart was out of control.

      Delete
    7. Well his actions in regards to the phone fall under the federal law of extortion at the very least. Also I have watched the video several times and wiggling a leg is not a threatening nor aggressive movement. The male suspect was on his back with his feet flat on thee ground making his getting up difficult at best as that is a control position. At the point this footage was shot the situation should had been considered a safe controlled situation. the officer then forced the non resisting male suspect to his stomach and then performed an unsafe lift by himself that could had resulted in injury to himself and/or the suspect. he then was overly physical with both the female and juvenile suspects. This is a classic example of how not to handle such a situation and look forward to seeing this reviewed for years to come in police science classes nationwide.

      Delete
    8. "...Obama’s son as a sweet junior high school football player..."
      No, no racism there.
      Hardly surprising, as most overt Fascists are racists as well.

      Considering the guy who you support the abuse of had committed NO crime, and his offence was simply stating to the piece of pork that he was sick of bacon harassing people, there was NO action that this cop did that was justifiable.

      The problem is not so much the plethora of bad cops who abuse their power, it is that other cops would support their abuse of power, rather than condemn them.

      Kind of telling that you would hold up a regular perpetrator of domestic abuse and a murderer (who claimed things that were physically impossible to claim "self-defence", and then go on to talk about manipulation of images, when the homicidal vigilante intentionally gained massive weight before appearing in front of a corrupted jury with a prosecutor who intentionally threw the case...

      But hey, who would expect a slave trader for the prison industrial complex to do anything different than you are doing?

      Delete
    9. Anon, you seem to have a problem comprehending the English language, so let me help you. The full quote:

      …Or a more modern example, Mr Martin and Mr Zimmerman. After Zimmerman shot Martin, what were the pictures shown on most "objective" media sources? Obama’s son as a sweet junior high school football player, a five year old photo. They didn’t show the tatted up punk who was suspended from school for fighting…

      This was a criticism of the media for trying to frame the discussion as a racial incident which it wasn’t. You may remember NBC News doctoring the 911 call? Nah, probably not.

      As far as “Obama’s son”, B Hussein Obama said “If I had a son he’d look like Treyon…”, so where is the racism there?

      As far of the rest of your rant:

      Considering the guy who you support the abuse of had committed NO crime, and his offence was simply stating to the piece of pork that he was sick of bacon harassing people, there was NO action that this cop did that was justifiable.

      Translated into English, you think the officer was unjustified in taking action against the third person, Mr. Tatkowski. Let’s go over the report, shall we.

      In a police report, Officer Hart wrote he was working Sunday afternoon when he stopped a vehicle...in Raintree Village, for having an “altered” license registration sticker.

      During the stop, a man, later identified as Aaron Tatkowski, who was in another vehicle, stopped and got out of his truck, and reportedly told Officer Hart, “I’m [expletive] sick of you cops. I’m [expletive] sick of you harassing people for no reason.”

      Officer Hart wrote in the report that he ordered Mr. Tatkowski to get back; when he allegedly refused, the officer said he pointed his stun gun at Mr. Tatkowski, who yelled for spectators to videotape the encounter.


      So Mr. Tatkowski was not involved in the matter but put himself into it. If he simply did was the officer told him, back off, he could have made comments or video taped the matter and bring it up to the cop’s supervisor. No, he didn’t. And seeing the officer was surrounded by potential hostiles, he had legitimate concern for his safety.

      So Anon, please go away. If you wish to comment further, fine, just keep it clean. And I would suggest you have someone competent in the English language exit your screed before you post.

      Delete
  2. He needs his face stomped in, power hungry pig!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon. sounds like you are the person with anger management issues here. I don't see the officer stomping people in the face. Now please make your comments on this blog a bit more thoughtful.

      Delete
  3. Scary that he works in schools. Hope he loses that job. He's a menace to children.
    I'm sick of hearing what a tough job cops have and why they respond the way they do. With cops like this no wonder people don't want to lose their firearms. Not to worry. The bully will point his gin at the wrong person and become another statistic. If this is how he handles a traffic stop he won't be around long. looks like the typical fat bully cop that couldn't get a real job. Most cops are like this. Ill trained and uneducated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sick of hearing what a tough job cops have and why they respond the way they do.

      Anon, if you don't want to hear it, fine. You seem to not like it that as police we deal with humans and that makes it complicated. Sometimes we handle people better than others. The point I was making with this post is don't rush to judgment. Like the Zimmerman case from last year, the immediate propaganda put out by the objective, fair, nonpartisan and unbiased media is this was a white (Hispanic) who gunned down an innocent black kid. And all the TV stations, etc. put out six year old pictures. Martin as the innocent looking junior league football player. Not the tatted up street punk with a record and pictures on his Facebook page showing him smoking pot. Or of Zimmerman. They didn't show the current image of an employed married man who volunteered in his community as well as a neighborhood watchman. The put forward a booking photo from six years ago when he was arrested for a non-related issue. And for some reason the media wouldn't put out the pictures of Zimmerman's head showing lacerations on the back of his scalp.

      The point I'm making with this is we don't have a full picture right now and we should wait till it comes out before we make a final judgment. What I'm about to type is speculation. Did the man and woman charge the officer prior to the video filming? That would make the officer apprehensive. Or did the TV station cut the start of the video? Not out of the realm of possibility. NBC edited the 911 audiotape of Zimmerman to make it look like he was a racist.

      With cops like this no wonder people don't want to lose their firearms.
      No, I didn't want to loose them before I was a cop.

      Not to worry. The bully will point his gin at the wrong person and become another statistic.

      Anon, there is a great thing called spell check. You may wanna try it sometimes. It will make you look a little less ignorant. BTY, a statistic of what? The number of cops killed a year in the line of duty?


      If this is how he handles a traffic stop he won't be around long. looks like the typical fat bully cop that couldn't get a real job. Most cops are like this. Ill trained and uneducated.

      This wasn't a typical traffic stop, but an incident where another person decided to stick his nose into an officer's investigation. But back to my earlier point, we don't know the full story. Let this be fully investigated.

      As far as the rest of your comments on my inability to get a job, you're just showing ignorance again. I've personally field-trained rookies with master's degrees, formerly working as bankers, hospital technicians, etc. In Texas to become a police officer you need at least 60 hours of college or two years in the military. So are you gonna show you're ignorance again and insult veterans.

      How about this Anon. I'll put you in the position. You're a cop who pulls over a car for a traffic violation. A second car drives up and the driver gets out, screams “I’m [expletive] sick of you cops. I’m [expletive] sick of you harassing people for no reason.” Tell us Anon, how is it handled?

      Delete
    2. You're going to say you didn't want to "loose" your guns, and then go on to condescend someone over a typo? Take a good look at your keyboard, sport. The I is next to the U.
      The rest of the idiocy you're spouting is just as inane. Then again, why would we ever expect a cop to admit another cop EVER does anything wrong? It isn't as if cities around the country have to pay out tens of millions of dollars every year to settle police misconduct cases, is it?
      The real problem is that you're a pack of thugs. You rape, murder and maim with impunity. You do it because you can, and without consequences.
      Police unions are worse than the criminals you cowards supposedly protect us from, and should be disbanded. In no other profession is an employee given a paid vacation while a bullshit investigation into abuses.

      Delete
    3. I didn't say anything about "loosing guns". If you want to challenge something I said, simply challenge it in an intelligence and thinking manner. And yes, spell check would have not caught the error, but grammar check (part of any decent word processor) would. My bad.

      …why would we ever expect a cop to admit another cop EVER does anything wrong? It isn't as if cities around the country have to pay out tens of millions of dollars every year to settle police misconduct cases, is it?

      Hey, if the cop does wrong he should be held to account. I've witnessed Houston area cops sent to prison for Official Oppression and other felonies and I say fine, This was after an investigation by the police and the DA's office, an indictment by a grand jury and a conviction by a jury of his peers in a public trial. I think those are some of the rights guaranteed by a document you seem to have ignorance of, the Constitution of the United States.

      My issue with some of the commenters on this is they want to convict the man without a trial. Just because Officer Hart and I put on a badge doesn't mean we gave up our right to "due process of law".

      The real problem is that you're a pack of thugs. You rape, murder and maim with impunity. You do it because you can, and without consequences.
      Police unions are worse than the criminals you cowards supposedly protect us from, and should be disbanded. In no other profession is an employee given a paid vacation while a bulls$%^ investigation into abuses.


      Rape, murder and maim with impunity? Must have missed that part of field training. And I'm a member of a union for one major issue. If I shoot a man who's running at me with a knife in his hand I'm going to do something very logical, shot his ass. And after the initial stuff, I will call my union paid attorney because the waste of sperm's momma will come out and scream "You shot my son, I'm so depressed, he was so good, let me get my lawyer…"

      Yes, lawsuits are a fact of life in today's society, no matter what the profession. And I've seen many a profession that has paid administrative leave during an investigation. An investigation is required after a shooting and if there is no question of it being a justified shooting, it is generally so the officer can come down. Shooting a man is not a simple as the TV makes it seem. But if the officer did nothing wrong, then he needs to have his income. Also while on suspension the officer generally loses overtime and police related extra employment, so he his loosing money. Make you feel better Astrodog?

      PS:

      ...then go on to condescend someone over a typo?

      BTY Astropup, “condescend’ is not a noun but a verb. A proper way to compose this is “write in a condescending manner to someone over a typo”

      Delete
    4. "I didn't say anything about "loosing guns"
      Really? So you didn't say this:
      "No, I didn't want to loose them before I was a cop. "
      Ok, then.

      Ok, so there's never been a single allegation, proven or unproven, of cops raping, maiming or murdering. Thanks for clearing that up, Officer Friendly.
      I'm a union member, too. The difference here is that your taxes don't go to fund any misconduct I may commit. And if I do something explicitly wrong, my union can't stop the company from firing my ass.
      Would lawsuits specifically involving police misconduct be lost at such astounding rates if there were, as you infer, so few cases of police misconduct? Don't worry, though, I'm not asking you to actually think or anything, so you're off the hook there.

      "BTY Astropup, “condescend’ is not a noun but a verb. A proper way to compose this is “write in a condescending manner to someone over a typo”"
      In that sentence, "condescend" is used as the verb. Maybe it's you who needs a little brush-up on his critical reading skills.
      But hey, I'm sure your 2 year degree in Criminal Justice trumps my BA in English Lit in every way when it comes to the ise of language.


      Delete
    5. I meant "use of language."
      Sorry to take away your chance to feel superior.

      Delete
    6. OK, a little context Astro...

      "With cops like this no wonder people don't want to lose their firearms.
      No, I didn't want to loose them before I was a cop. "

      I was answering this statement. I don't want to loose my guns. Then again I need to insure they are safe from the leftists in this country, not the cops out there.

      Ok, so there's never been a single allegation, proven or unproven, of cops raping, maiming or murdering. Thanks for clearing that up, Officer Friendly.

      I never said anything to imply police are completely innocent, have never disgraced their uniform, have not committed crimes on or off duty, etc.

      Now Astro, try reading before you type a comment like this:

      Hey, if the cop does wrong he should be held to account. I've witnessed Houston area cops sent to prison for Official Oppression and other felonies and I say fine, This was after an investigation by the police and the DA's office, an indictment by a grand jury and a conviction by a jury of his peers in a public trial. I think those are some of the rights guaranteed by a document you seem to have ignorance of, the Constitution of the United States.

      It's all a process. If a cop is accused of a crime, have it investigated and in the case of a misdemeanor, send it to the DA for charges. In the case of a felony, the grand jury. Then the officer can defend himself in a public trial. You know, that doesn't sound like I'm saying "k, so there's never been a single allegation, proven or unproven, of cops raping, maiming or murdering."

      BTY, it's Sergeant Friendly, not officer.

      I'm a union member, too. The difference here is that your taxes don't go to fund any misconduct I may commit. And if I do something explicitly wrong, my union can't stop the company from firing my ass.

      One, taxes don't fund misconduct. They pay to provide for a police voce. You, if you do something wrong, do the misconduct. Two, my union can't stop me from being fired. But they can provide representation, legal council and assistance if an officer is unjustly terminated.

      Would lawsuits specifically involving police misconduct be lost at such astounding rates if there were, as you infer, so few cases of police misconduct? Don't worry, though, I'm not asking you to actually think or anything, so you're off the hook there.

      You are engaged in ad hominem attacks, showing you really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Some stats Astropup, please. You can sue for anything. Out of each 100000 interactions with the public, how many times will there be a lawsuit? And of those, how many are lost? There are facts, please share your extensive knowledge.

      But hey, I'm sure your 2 year degree in Criminal Justice trumps my BA in English Lit in every way when it comes to the ise of language.

      As far as your typo in "ise of language" Astropup, pointing it out don't make me feel superior. I don't need that. I'm just pointing out simple errors. I've worked as an Army officer and police officer where incorrect grammar use is frowned upon. Hate to think you got a BA in English lit with such poor grammar skills.

      I have a bachelor's, not in criminal justice but social science and am one forth the way through my master's degree in intelligence studies. Now showing your inability to frame a decent argument without weak rhetorical actions and assumptions makes me question your claim of an English degree or even a decent high school education.

      Delete
    7. ""With cops like this no wonder people don't want to lose their firearms.
      No, I didn't want to loose them before I was a cop. "

      I was answering this statement. I don't want to loose my guns. Then again I need to insure they are safe from the leftists in this country, not the cops out there."
      Firstly, you're going to attempt to soldier on in correcting the spelling and grammar of others, aren't you? It's LOSE you moron.

      "Now Astro, try reading before you type a comment like this:

      Hey, if the cop does wrong he should be held to account. I've witnessed Houston area cops sent to prison for Official Oppression and other felonies and I say fine, This was after an investigation by the police and the DA's office, an indictment by a grand jury and a conviction by a jury of his peers in a public trial. I think those are some of the rights guaranteed by a document you seem to have ignorance of, the Constitution of the United States."

      Umm, yeah. The only problem, Officer Friendly, is that I never typed that. Again, reading comprehension.

      "One, taxes don't fund misconduct. They pay to provide for a police voce. You, if you do something wrong, do the misconduct. Two, my union can't stop me from being fired. But they can provide representation, legal council and assistance if an officer is unjustly terminated."

      Really? Name one other union in existence that can get a paid vacation for an employee accused of sometimes heinous crimes. That's just one example of how police unions differ from all others.And what the hell is a voce?

      "
      Would lawsuits specifically involving police misconduct be lost at such astounding rates if there were, as you infer, so few cases of police misconduct? Don't worry, though, I'm not asking you to actually think or anything, so you're off the hook there.

      You are engaged in ad hominem attacks, showing you really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Some stats Astropup, please. You can sue for anything. Out of each 100000 interactions with the public, how many times will there be a lawsuit? And of those, how many are lost? There are facts, please share your extensive knowledge."

      And you're still a condescending prick who really isn't smart enough to win this argument. How many of the thousands of lawsuits filed must cities specifically set aside funds for? I can think of one: Police misconduct. If you know of another example, please share.

      "As far as your typo in "ise of language" Astropup, pointing it out don't make me feel superior. I don't need that. I'm just pointing out simple errors. I've worked as an Army officer and police officer where incorrect grammar use is frowned upon. Hate to think you got a BA in English lit with such poor grammar skills."

      Maybe I should "loose" my degree then. They could give it to someone like yourself. You have, after all, demonstrated such superior intellect.







      Delete
    8. "
      I have a bachelor's, not in criminal justice but social science and am one forth the way through my master's degree in intelligence studies. Now showing your inability to frame a decent argument without weak rhetorical actions and assumptions makes me question your claim of an English degree or even a decent high school education."

      Sure you do. As for my college education, it was paid for by the GI Bill. I earned that by leaving some of my blood in Tal Afar Iraq in 2005. I'm curious as to how you slipped through OCS with your demonstrably low intelligence. Assuming, of course, that that wasn't another of your bullshit stories. Buck up though; the courts have ruled that it's ok to get rid of police officers with high IQs. What we're left with is, well, you.


      http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.821570-Court-OKs-barring-High-IQ-cops-reasonable-or-discrimination-against-the-intelligent

      It's also hilarious to read your inept asinine attempts at debating, all the while using your demeaning cop tone. Or whining about being the victim of ad hominem attacks, only to launch right into an ad hominem attack.
      The problem here, Officer Friendly, is that you aren't intelligent enough to pull this off. You're also accustomed to people deferring to your authority even when they know you're wrong. Sorry, but I'm just not in the mood to do that.

      I also notice you didn't readdress this:

      "PS:

      ...then go on to condescend someone over a typo?

      BTY Astropup, “condescend’ is not a noun but a verb. A proper way to compose this is “write in a condescending manner to someone over a typo”

      Is it because you know were made to look like an idiot? Did you finally realize that I was using "condescend" as a verb, and in your attempt to correct me, you actually used it as an adjective? Should we move on to gerunds and participles now?

      Soldier on, Officer Friendly. Making you look like the knuckle dragging dimwit you are is loads of fun.

      PS
      The next time you're whining to you fat buddies at Dunkin Donuts about everyone hating you, ask yourself why. Nobody likes an unintelligent, hypocritical loser telling them how they should think.
      And remember, you're a cop. You don't make the laws, you don't interpret the laws. Your betters do that. You're not nearly as special as you believe. You're a public servant. Now go make me some coffee.

      Delete
    9. You make many an assumption, which makes an ass out of you (as if your writing didn't show it). You assume I went though OCS. I didn't. There are many ways to earn a commission. The academy, ROTC or a direct commission. In may case, it was through ROTC on scholarship.

      Two, cops are modern. We don't do Dunkin Donuts, we do Starbucks. Get something right.

      Three, yes, larger cities put money on the side to pay for civil actions as part of their annual budget. Smaller municipalities generally pay for it as they go along or use insurance. In case you don't know this, there are more functions than policing that cities do, like fire protection, courts, water, etc. And sometimes people decide to sue, hoping to get a quick settlement, e.g. the office slut decides to sue for sexual harassment, or the local environmental group file against a city for not planning for a green zone in the middle of I-10. It's the cost of doing business. An interesting stat I was given from a friend in our legal department. The city attorney for Houston can authorize on his own a settlement for up to 50 thousand. The city attorney for New York can authorize ten million.

      As far as your rant, it's not worth the electrons butchered to type it. So Astro, please go on. You may have the last comment if you will, but please keep it clean. And just remember, when something is going bump in the night outside, after you call 911 your ass will be protected by someone better than you. Have a nice life.

      Delete
    10. "You make many an assumption, which makes an ass out of you (as if your writing didn't show it). You assume I went though OCS. I didn't. There are many ways to earn a commission. The academy, ROTC or a direct commission. In may case, it was through ROTC on scholarship. "

      Reservist. That says it all.A couple ogf questions: Rank at the time of ETS, and MOS.
      Since you're not all that bright, and are probably lying anyway, I'll help you out: Use some caution and do your research well, one of them is a trick question.

      "Two, cops are modern. We don't do Dunkin Donuts, we do Starbucks. Get something right."

      Something? By that you mean everything I said.

      "As far as your rant, it's not worth the electrons butchered to type it. So Astro, please go on. You may have the last comment if you will, but please keep it clean. And just remember, when something is going bump in the night outside, after you call 911 your ass will be protected by someone better than you. Have a nice life."

      That's double-speak for "I don't know how to address the rest of your argument, so I'll attempt to minimize and ignore it. It's not as if you actually have the ability to generate the synapses required to make an intelligent argument.
      I notice you didn't address a single item in which you were proven wrong. Typical. Just like a person from a state that's given us such mental giants as Rick Perry and G.W. Bush.
      Run along now, Officer Friendly. You need to make an attempt to earn that princely sum of $55870 (as of 2011).
      The day I need a fat POS who couldn't cut it in the military to "protect" my ass is the day I deserve to be robbed and murdered. I have never, and will never, depend on the police for anything. I'm a better shot than any cop I've ever met, and I have experience in fighting actual combatants, not the civilians the police are employed to oppress.
      You're correct about one thing though: I'm also done with this. Arguing with a Texan is like winning a spelling bee with a group of ninth grade dropouts: Sure you'll win, but you'll end up as stupid as they are. Double that for a Texas cop.
      See you around, Officer Friendly. Keep patting yourself on the back for your non-existent courage and accomplishments. You have some defenseless civilians to trump assault and trump up charges against. Happy hunting.



      Delete
  4. "Covering his suspect"? wow, I sure hope she doesn't just get up and whip that officer until he was unconscious ... CUFFED WITH HER HANDS BEHIND HER BACK DOWN ON THE GROUND. Brilliant.
    And, "threw it on the ground". Really? Seriously? Come ON, is this the kind of behavior that we as the public should accept from someone in authority that is TRYING to gain our respect? No.
    You're a moron. Talk about losing all objectivity. Blind support. That's just as offensive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Covering his suspect"? wow, I sure hope she doesn't just get up and whip that officer until he was unconscious ... CUFFED WITH HER HANDS BEHIND HER BACK DOWN ON THE GROUND. Brilliant.

      Anon, allow me to quote myself because reading comprehension seems to be a weak spot for you. What I have seen I cannot fault the officer. He has three people on the ground and is surrounded by potential hostiles. Yes, he has three suspects on the ground and is surround by people and he doesn't know if they are hostile. They may want to friends of the suspect and he is alone out there. Back up has not arrived. So he will need to be prepared if something goes bad. Personally I would not have had my Taser out, but my Sig.

      And, "threw it on the ground". Really? Seriously? Come ON, is this the kind of behavior that we as the public should accept from someone in authority that is TRYING to gain our respect? No.

      I'll give you that. He should not have thrown it away, just told him that the cavalry was on the way. Read my earlier post….oh, yea, reading. Kind of not your thing.

      You're a moron. Talk about losing all objectivity. Blind support. That's just as offensive.

      Anon, somewhere out there your elementary school teacher is ready to kick your ass. I make no attempt to call myself objective or unbiased. I call them as I see them and for the most part, from the evidence presented, I cannot fault the officer's actions. Again, if you are offended by what you read on this blog, please, go back to reading comic books in your mom's basement. I got a family to take care of, a job to do and a life to live. Have a great life yourself...

      Delete
  5. I don't recall the kid doing anything. Appears he just handcuffed him for being in the truck. KId probably asked, "Hey what are you doing to my mom?"

    What galls me is after they are handcuffed on the ground, in his anger he threatens them with a weapon. Why? Then he orders the guy making a phone call to get off the phone, grabs his phone and throws it. He also destroyed the phone of the female occupant of the truck when she tried to call 911. I'd call 911 if this maniac was threatening me. That this occurred in Ohio is not a surprise. The last mass shooting of US citizens by guardsman took place in Ohio.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't recall the kid doing anything. Appears he just handcuffed him for being in the truck. KId probably asked, "Hey what are you doing to my mom?"

      Actually he wasn't handcuffed. Look at the video.

      What galls me is after they are handcuffed on the ground, in his anger he threatens them with a weapon. Why?

      Read my previous comments. He is alone, outnumbered with hostiles around. Again, in this situation, I would have my pistol out, not my Taser.

      Then he orders the guy making a phone call to get off the phone, grabs his phone and throws it.

      Agreed, as I've said, he should not have done that.

      He also destroyed the phone of the female occupant of the truck when she tried to call 911. I'd call 911 if this maniac was threatening me.

      Ok Anon, I checked the article and this is what is in it reference a phone. "The woman, who screams and shouts throughout the encounter, also claims Officer Hart smashed her cell phone when she tried to call 911." That's not a fact in evidence but a claim of a suspect. I've been lied about from more than one suspect in my 15 years on the street so let's just say I'll reserve judgement until more evidence comes out.

      That this occurred in Ohio is not a surprise. The last mass shooting of US citizens by guardsman took place in Ohio.

      OK, what does that have to do with this? The officer's parents were children when Kent State happened. In rhetoric this is called a Straw Man and its use shows a weakness of argument.

      Delete
  6. So the "Blue Wall" stands True...deny, deny, deny. Really, does that Officer look scared of the crowd. I think not. Not once do you see him requesting backup quickly or even finding out as to how much longer for them to arrive. Radio was on his shoulder. Almost 5 minute video and no backup yet. Then the way he jerked that guy up by his pant waist/belt, all the time screaming for him to get up. The guy was clearly having a hard time getting up. Jerked up by waist with head/feet dangling above ground unable to get a footing all while handcuffed. Why wasn't he placed on knees first and then lifted up? Simple answer, the Officer was angry. Clearly he handled the situation wrong. Must of thought he was dealing with school kids and able to bully everybody. And where exactly does the charge "misconduct at an emergency" come into play. What was the emergency? Again, where was the backup for this emergency? Sounds like another catch-all charge when you have little else. I'm sure Officer Hart's report will be exaggerated to cover all his actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the "Blue Wall" stands True...deny, deny, deny.

      Ok, I’ll ask. What is being denied here?

      Really, does that Officer look scared of the crowd. I think not. Not once do you see him requesting backup quickly or even finding out as to how much longer for them to arrive. Radio was on his shoulder. Almost 5 minute video and no backup yet.

      You know how scared a man is by looking at him on a phone video. You are a better man than I. And many a man. Also, you said something that reinforces my point. He has been calling for backup and it’s taken over 5 minutes to get assistance. I patrol in a large city and if I call for help it should be there in less than five minutes (and a helo may be there sooner). When you patrol more suburban/rural areas your backup may be more than a few minutes away. I spoken with friends who are retired troopers and that was something in the back of their minds when they pull over someone. Your backup may be quite some time away.

      Also, you’re missing a few points. The officer started with a traffic stop of another vehicle and then Mr. Tatkowski approached him. Tatkowski has nothing to do with the traffic stop that I can see. But the officer doesn’t know that. Tatkowski may be a friend of the other driver who wants to help by jumping the officer. You don’t know that, I don’t know that, and the officer at the time of the incident didn’t know that. That causes fright.

      Then the way he jerked that guy up by his pant waist/belt, all the time screaming for him to get up. The guy was clearly having a hard time getting up. Jerked up by waist with head/feet dangling above ground unable to get a footing all while handcuffed. Why wasn't he placed on knees first and then lifted up? Simple answer, the Officer was angry. Clearly he handled the situation wrong. Must of thought he was dealing with school kids and able to bully everybody.

      Ok, you know everything. As I asked Anon above, how would you have handled it?

      And where exactly does the charge "misconduct at an emergency" come into play. What was the emergency? Again, where was the backup for this emergency? Sounds like another catch-all charge when you have little else. I'm sure Officer Hart's report will be exaggerated to cover all his actions.

      Here is the definition from Ohio law

      2917.13 Misconduct at emergency.

      (A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:
      (1) Hamper the lawful operations of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person, engaged in the person's duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind;
      (2) Hamper the lawful activities of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the person's duties in an emergency facility;
      (3) Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind…
      …(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of misconduct at an emergency. Except as otherwise provided in this division, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the first degree.


      Again Anon, tell us, how do you handle it.

      Delete
  7. That you can't see what is wrong with this officer's conduct in this video is troubling. And it is the core problem that produces incidents like this which stir up people's anger against the police. What is wrong with this officer's conduct is obvious to most people - the brutality, the disrespect for the people involved, the disrespect towards and unwarranted assault on the property of the man on the phone, the agitation of the officer which anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of crowd psychology could tell you only fed into the agitation of the crowd and the persons involved and did nothing to improve the officer's safety. Or the way the officer picked up the man and especially the woman. Or the endangering of the child laying on the road, or the babies in the vehicle mentioned, who were left unattended due to the officer's actions. Or how about the blatant violation of the rights of these individuals for no other reason then that they questioned an authority figure acting in a questionable way? Are you above the law and common decency simply because you are an officer on the job? Are you above accountability to the people you are hired to protect and serve? Do you have special rights?

    It is this sort of arrogance, exhibited by the officer in this video and by the writer of this article which produces incidents like this, and which is making the people of this country ever more angry. And that is not good, because there are a lot of good cops out there who take seriously their oath to preserve and defend the constitution, who respect people and do their job because they want to make things better - and the arrogance of individuals like this cop are reflecting badly on these good officers and will only make it increasingly harder for them to do their jobs. The people are getting mad, and it is only a matter of time before your arrogant behavior breaks the illusion of the police being the good guys and the legitimate authority - and when that happens you won't have crowds standing around video taping - you will have mobs descending on these officers and detaining them. And no one, myself included, wants to see things have to progress to that point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Brown,

      One, thank you for actually putting a name to your comments, unlike the other people who have made comments.

      Two, a fact of law you are blatantly missing. ” assault on the property of the man on the phone…”. Humans are assaulted, not things. Property is not assaulted, it is damaged. Under Texas penal code it call Criminal Mischief. Also, animals are not assaulted or damaged, they are subject to animal cruelty.

      What is wrong with this officer's conduct is obvious to most people - the brutality,

      Ok, specifics please. What is brutal. I’ll give you a definition so we’re all on the same sheet of music. Brutal, “extremely cruel or harsh; very direct and accurate in a way that is harsh or unpleasant; very bad or unpleasant.”

      Now, what was brutal? Having the man and woman on the ground? Sorry but that gives the officer the best ability to control his suspects. Having the kid on the ground? OK, again he’s may or may not be a suspect right now but the officer is responsible for that kid right now. So the best place for him may be on the ground and the officer is making decisions under some pressure (see previous comments on possibly having unfriendly’s in the group out there)

      Or how about the blatant violation of the rights of these individuals for no other reason then that they questioned an authority figure acting in a questionable way?

      That’s what they were doing, questioning an authority figure? All we know is what the officer said and now what the defendant said. Also, see my original comment, “Again, it's up to Washington Township to investigate the incident”

      Are you above the law and common decency simply because you are an officer on the job? Are you above accountability to the people you are hired to protect and serve? Do you have special rights?

      No, I’m not above the law and we have a special law just for when we go beyond lawful authority. In Texas it’s called Official Oppression. And I have only the same rights you have…I’ll leave it to you to try and figure them out, because your expressed knowledge of law is lacking.

      Again, I’m not saying out and out the officer did no wrong. I said this has to be investigated, but from only this video I cannot see wrong. Sorry, sometimes the street can be ugly.

      Delete
  8. You seem to be forgetting one major point. Everything prior to the video is Officer Hart's statement only. Nobody has come forward to back it up. (These is no police video, car pointing wrong way). So you can only go by Officer Hart's statement that Mr. Tatkowski actually did do what is stated. Officer Hart was blocking Mr. Tatkowski's driveway with his car. So he parked his truck and attempted to get out. I would have gotten out too. Mr.Tatkowski statement was “He hollered for me to get back in my truck, so I got back in my truck,” “Next thing you know, I’m yanked out of the truck and it made my girlfriend say a few things (given, don't know what she said). He yanked her out of the truck.” OK, so who's lying and when did free speech become against the law? Based on this statement, no charges should have ever been filed. If your point is that the Officer was Scared or Frighten then obviously his statement can be wrong considering fear makes people perceive things differently. Or are you saying that Officers don't make mistakes?

    Now, I live in a very rural area that is only serviced by Sheriff patrol. Even with that, it always less then 5 minutes for anybody to respond. This was in a populated township so I don't buy the theory that backup takes so long.

    Are you saying that jerking a suspect up by the waist is how you would do it? Is that what you were taught? Every handcuffed person I've seen have been lifted up to their knees and then raised to a standing position. The reason behind it is to prevent injury to suspect and also it's a controlled situation.

    Sorry, your Ohio Law is a catch all for everything. Let's call it an emergency for charges but keep everything else Routine.

    As I understand it, this Officer's main job was as a School Resource Officer. I have dealt with a few of them before and they seem to be good people but bored by the job in a School. They are far removed from the normal police encounters and therefore lack experience in dealing with actually on-street police duties. I believe he may have been trying to do right but when confronted with the situation, well let's just say he didn't handle it well. The retired troopers you know were probably full time dealing with this kind of thing almost everyday. They are properly trained and experienced. I think it all comes down to a part-time school cop who lacked the experience to deal with a real-life situation.

    You would think that if he was so frightened that a person calling Police stating "Officer in Distress" would be much appreciated for a quick response. Instead, he grabbed the guy's cellphone and tossed it aside. Isn't that considered Assault?

    I guess we wait for the investigation results and I'm pretty sure that most charges will be thrown out. Officer gets a slap on the hand. Just seems like that how it goes in these cases. I'm done with it...moving on

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, I missed nothing. To quote myself, “. I would like to know what happened before this video started...and why did Mr Tatkowski decide he had to get out of the car and start swearing at the officer. Again, it's up to Washington Township to investigate the incident, but I don't see, from this video, what he did wrong.” Yes, this is still open and I’ll leave for the department to investigate. You’re red herring about free speech, words are not illegal. Approaching an officer in a hostile manner as he is conducting an investigation can be.BTY, it’s not my “Ohio Law”, I’m a cop in Texas.

      “Now, I live in a very rural area that is only serviced by Sheriff patrol. Even with that, it always less then 5 minutes for anybody to respond. This was in a populated township so I don't buy the theory that backup takes so long.”

      You know how long it takes for every police agency to respond in your area. That’s good to know. I can’t tell you that and I work in the 4th largest city in America. Sorry, your throwing out stuff hoping something will stick.

      “Are you saying that jerking a suspect up by the waist is how you would do it? Is that what you were taught? Every handcuffed person I've seen have been lifted up to their knees and then raised to a standing position. The reason behind it is to prevent injury to suspect and also it's a controlled situation.”

      Actually I’m taught to get him in a sitting position, cross one leg under the knee of the other and pull up. I don’t’ know what he was taught. If he handled the suspect differently than he should have, then his department will have to handle that.

      “You would think that if he was so frightened that a person calling Police stating "Officer in Distress" would be much appreciated for a quick response. Instead, he grabbed the guy's cellphone and tossed it aside. Isn't that considered Assault? “

      No, it is not and your reading comprehension is lacking. From my post above, “Humans are assaulted, not things. Property is not assaulted, it is damaged. Under Texas penal code it called Criminal Mischief. Also, animals are not assaulted or damaged, they are subject to animal cruelty.”

      “I guess we wait for the investigation results and I'm pretty sure that most charges will be thrown out. Officer gets a slap on the hand. Just seems like that how it goes in these cases. I'm done with it...moving on”

      You have already convicted the man, you are good. We gotta get you in the DA's office or in a judgeship. This proof beyond a reasonable doubt and conviction by a jury of your peers is so inconvenient. So please, move on and enlighten others with your insight.

      Delete
  9. I thoroughly enjoy that he was so worried about the handcuffed people on the ground he had to point a taser at them... yet he had no issues turning his back on them for minutes at a time and even walking a long distance away from them to interact with other citizens.

    Then there's the issue of taking a citizen's cell phone away who is not interacting with the officer or menacing him in any way. This citizen was dialing 911 and was forced to stop. It makes no difference that the officer disagrees with why the 911 call was being placed... it was unwarranted in every circumstance for a peaceful, non-combative citizen who is clearly in the video standing at a very long distance away from the officer to be forced to stop calling 911.

    You know.. It's clear that we missed some crucial minutes before this video started. Who knows what threats were made and I'm not going to question why the officer had these people handcuffed and on the ground because we clearly don't know as the video starts after they are already cuffed. I'll just focus on how an officer can feel these 3 people are such a threat he needs to hold a taser on them yet feels OK walking a long distance away from them to interact with citizens that are doing NOTHING to bother the officer.. That is, other than dailing 911 and recording him.

    It's a thankless job that our fine officers usually perform day in and day out. It's the bad apples that make the populace dislike police in general and instead of defending these bad apples you would think you would want to rid yourself of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “I thoroughly enjoy that he was so worried about the handcuffed people on the ground he had to point a taser at them... yet he had no issues turning his back on them for minutes at a time and even walking a long distance away from them to interact with other citizens.”

      Seeing the whole video is four minutes and fifty seconds long I doubt he turned his back for “minutes at a time”. I’ll leave it to you to count if you want. Also, other than the guy with the cell phone what other citizen did he interact with.

      “Then there's the issue of taking a citizen's cell phone away …officer to be forced to stop calling 911.”

      Again, I agree, he shouldn’t have done that. It’s needlessly destructive of another’s property.

      “You know.. It's clear that we missed some crucial minutes before this video started. Who knows what threats were made and I'm not going to question why the officer had these people handcuffed and on the ground because we clearly don't know as the video starts after they are already cuffed. I'll just focus on how an officer can feel these 3 people are such a threat he needs to hold a taser on them yet feels OK walking a long distance away from them to interact with citizens that are doing NOTHING to bother the officer.. That is, other than dailing 911 and recording him.”

      One, I’ve said multiple times I would not have a Taser out but my Sig. The officer is surrounded by potential hostiles and his back up is not there yet. Now we seem to agree with something, the video does not show the whole story. And I’m saying let the system go through and determine if this officer did wrong. If he did, hold him accountable.

      “It's a thankless job that our fine officers usually perform day in and day out. It's the bad apples that make the populace dislike police in general and instead of defending these bad apples you would think you would want to rid yourself of them.”

      May I quote you, “. Who knows what threats were made and I'm not going to question why the officer had these people handcuffed and on the ground because we clearly don't know as the video starts after they are already cuffed.” Again, his actions must be judged in full and that’s not coming from this video or the statements of the defendants. Yes, I’ve seen bad apples tarnish the reputation of many a good apple. But you have already decided, with limited knowledge, this guy is wrong. I’m saying let the system work its course and determine if that is so or not.

      Delete
  10. I agree with you; let the investigation by the department run it's course. Let the facts decide the issue. Where I take exception with you is your comment that you don't see anything that the officer did wrong. Sorry; I disagree. There is no one who wants to give a cop the benefit of the doubt more than I do. However, this is not the poster boy for 'good cops', or 'proper procedure'. I don't care how you argue it, he is a soup sandwich. Anger management? Engaging in angry verbal exchanges with handcuffed persons? Who teaches that and at what academy? How about trying to calm the situation? How about maintaining control of your emotions so as not to escalate the problem? It is about accomplishing the mission, not dominating other people. Pointing taser at handcuffed persons, lying prone in the street? Tactically? Why? None of them made any attempt to stand. Were they verbally hostile? Yes. And maybe the reason they were verbally hostile was in at least part due to the way the officer was responding to them. Physically threatening? Nothing in the tape shows any attempt by any one of the three on the ground to stand or physically confront the officer. And what about leaning in, bringing the taser closer to the subjects while screaming 'shut up'? Is that a proper tactic? Does that exhibit an officer who is in control of his own emotions? Is that an authorized use of force? You don't like what someone is saying, so you are going to threaten them with a taser? Fear for his safety from the crowd? Always a concern. However, he he was not pointing the taser at the crowd. In fact, he barely paid any attention to the onlookers; like the group that gathered behind him, or the one alongside the trailer across the street. Except for when he took the one citizen's phone and tossed it, and then shouted commands to someone off camera to back up, he pretty much ignored the by-standers. If he was worried about the bystanders turning hostile, why did he not have his taser ready when he approached them? And considering the totality of the circumstances; where the stop occurred, and the apparent hostile attitude of the people involved in the stop, why not wait for his backup before pressing the investigation? Why not play it cool until the blue cavalry arrives and then press the investigation into the cause for the stop? While I am now one of the unclean masses known as a 'private citizen', I was a police officer for over 26 years; and a supervisor for about half of that. I spent my career on the road, not behind a desk. Certified as an instructor in both defensive tactics and firearms. From that perspective, there is not much in that tape that demonstrates anything positive on the part of the officer. His attitude as well as his tactics are questionable at best. What occurred prior to the start of the tape may very well justify the cuffing of all parties. However, the actions on the tape alone brings into question his judgement, maturity, and training. His actions reflect poorly on himself, his agency, his training, and, unfortunately, the entire police profession.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, thank you for giving a cop the benefit of a doubt and being the first commenter to understand that my point was to let the process go through. With many of these incidents the local media and professional agitators likes to hang the officer before he has a chance to give his side of the story. If the man did wrong, let him as needed be retrained, disciplined, suspended/terminated and if needed, prosecuted. But that should not be on just one video tape. I would like to see what happened before the beginning of this tape.

      I agree, he was pissed off but I don't know why? Could be he is a bit short tempted for the job, yes. Could also be he had a bad day and he took it out on these people, yes. Or both the suspects had throated him, said something "nice" and gotten under his skin, true. That has to be determined.

      A point I've made with other commenters is if I was on the scene I would like have my pistol not, not the Taser. The suspects are pretty much secured, but the crowd is not and I want to make sure, if one of the suspect's buddies is thinking of doing something stupid, I have a weapon ready. From the article this was the suspect's neighborhood and presumedly these are his friends. At the point he picked up the male suspect he presumedly felt secure enough to put his Taser back in the holster. I don't know what he was looking at on the other side of the camera, so let's let that play out. And one thing I really want to see is how the witness's recollection will change if they are asked to sign an affidavit. Knowing they are now liable for perjury makes many a witness "revise" their initial statement. I speak as a 15 year veteran cop, all on patrol and recently been promoted to sergeant.

      Your point about waiting for backup is valid, but from the article the officer had already pulled over the other car for the "altered license plate" and that's when "… a man, later identified as Aaron Tatkowski, who was in another vehicle, stopped and got out of his truck, and reportedly told Officer Hart, 'I’m [expletive] sick of you cops. I’m [expletive] sick of you harassing people for no reason.'" Agreed, if there was already a threat there, ask for backup before you act. The video taped stuff started after the initial traffic stop.

      Anon, thank you for the best comment on this post and for your 28 years of service. Hope you have a great weekend.

      Delete
    2. By professional agitators, are you suggesting that his neighbors were just looking for a way to stir up trouble? Because they saw a lot more than you did, and it seemed pretty clear that they were very unhappy with the way the cop was handling the situation. And they are the public.

      I mean, it all started as a parking/traffic/license plate violation, right? Even if the guy in the pickup was angry, is it so important that the cop assert his authority that he's got to start handcuffing people? Are traffic tickets supposed to become life and death situations? Couldn't he have just written the ticket and left? Face it, he lost his cool and made the situation worse. I wouldn't have been surprised if this video had ended in a shooting, he was so agitated. And if the "suspects were so dangerous, why did he leave them sitting on the tailgate of the pickup while he strolled over to grab and toss an innocent citizen's phone?

      If this is all OK with you, it's probably best for all concerned that you're no longer a police officer, "serving and protecting" the good citizens of the United States. That's the kind of shit we used to blame the Russians for doing to their people. With that kind of "protection", I'll take my chances with my neighbors before I call the cops.

      And yes, I know what it means to serve. Security, 9th SRW, USAF 1975-1981.

      Delete
    3. Calm:

      Hello and welcome to the blog. Hope you had a great Christmas and Happy New Year.

      By professional agitators, are you suggesting that his neighbors were just looking for a way to stir up trouble? Because they saw a lot more than you did, and it seemed pretty clear that they were very unhappy with the way the cop was handling the situation. And they are the public.

      Calm, let me put myself in context seeing you are not:

      Anon, thank you for giving a cop the benefit of a doubt and being the first commenter to understand that my point was to let the process go through. With many of these incidents the local media and professional agitators likes to hang the officer before he has a chance to give his side of the story. If the man did wrong, let him as needed be retrained, disciplined, suspended/terminated and if needed, prosecuted. But that should not be on just one video tape. I would like to see what happened before the beginning of this tape.

      Yes, it started as traffic violation. If you actually read the article, the suspect on the ground was the man who approached the officer as he was conducting the traffic stop and saying those nice words, “I’m [expletive] sick of you cops. I’m [expletive] sick of you harassing people for no reason.”, and when the officer ordered the Mr. Tatkowski to back away, he refused. It was at that time the officer drew his Taser.

      Now Calm, I see you put your service up to justify your opinion. Cool, opinions are like certain body parts, we all have them. I’ve been on the street for 15 years and recently promoted to Sergeant. And we don’t deal with military personnel who tend to be a bit more responsive to authority.. BTY, I’ve retired from 23 years in the US Army and USAR (87-10) so I know what I’m talking about. But something I should point out to you, the streets are scarier than they were in late 70s and early 80s. The gangs have gotten worse, we’re dealing with possible terrorist threats, criminals are more game to challenge to cops now, etc. Sorry, but policing has to be more assertive.

      To answer your questions from your second post, in order, yes and no. Yes, the “primary concern of police officers is their own safety”. As I’ve said to many a rookie I’ve trained, “You made it to this roll call, now we’re going to make it to the next.” And no, we’re not justified in “doing just about anything to civilians in order to feel like they're in control.”

      My two points I made in this post were from my viewpoint, limited by the video, I could fault the officer for his actions (other than throwing the phone) and two, we need to let this go through the process to see if he was or was not justified in this use of force. The article mentioned this was being investigated guess what, he was cleared.

      http://acopswatch.blogspot.com/2013/11/here-we-go-again-why-you-dont-fly-off.html

      So Calm, please calm down and read before commenting. Have a great day.

      PS: Although I’ll let this one slide, I like to keep my blog family friendly. Please, no use of S@#$, F@#$ or the other capital curse words.

      Delete
    4. I could fault the officer for his actions (other than throwing the phone) and two, we need to let this go through the process to see if he was or was not justified in this use of force. The article mentioned this was being investigated guess what, he was cleared.

      Opps, typo I missed. Should have said "I could not fault the officer for his actions (other than throwing the phone)..."

      My bad.

      Delete
  11. I hope this Nazi cop lost his job, Period. (If not, the whole town needs to march in the street and boycott/occupy the police station until he's fired; he's a danger to the entire town.) He also needs to be sued.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, hate to tell you this, but the officer was cleared.

      http://acopswatch.blogspot.com/2013/11/here-we-go-again-why-you-dont-fly-off.html

      I've posted on how my city's local rag is on a tear about cops killing "unarmed" suspects. They cite an example of an officer I know. They say how the officer shot the man as the suspect was fighting. They leave out the fact the turd was trying to push the cop off a bridge over US Highway 59. If the fall wouldn't have killed the cop, the vehicles on the highway would have. That is the legal requirement for use of deadly force.

      The point in both cases. Don't jump to conclusions.

      Merry Christmas Anon

      Delete
  12. In encounters with the public it seems as if the primary concern of police officers is their own safety, and they feel justified in doing just about anything to civilians in order to feel like they're in control. If you think threatening to taser a handcuffed man lying on the ground because he's yelling is somehow justified as a safety issue, why bother with any training requirements for police officers? Just load the cops up with weapons, and tell them "the minute you feel uncomfortable, escalate!"

    ReplyDelete
  13. "He has three people on the ground and is surrounded by potential hostiles."
    This shows exactly why you're a bad police officer. You're not in a war zone, this is America. Those "potential hostiles" are the people you're sworn to protect and serve. They pay you their tax money for that service, not to treated like enemy combatants. Policing has been getting safer over the years but you act like your taking fire every day, it's pathetic and you're cowards. The military doesn't even use the tactics you use. Everyone in the military is trained not to point your weapon at something your not willing to destroy and you cowards point your guns at innocent people everyday for the slightest infraction. The fact that everyone on this thread tells you that you're wrong and yet you still defend that scum is another reason why people like you shouldn't be a police officers, you just can't be taught. The fact that Martin had some pics of him smoking weed and flipping the bird means absolutely nothing, it has no relevance at all what so ever. If people deserved to be shot for crap like that the whole human race would be gone. You're a terrible human being and i hope you get shot so we can post pics of you as a kid messing up like all kids do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gee, where to start Anon. And please, get some asprin and whiskey or get ready to enjoy the stroke.

      Anon, have you ever been trying to handle a tense situation in “Da Hood”, being one of the few white guys, surrounded by a couple of dozen pissed off people who have nothing to do but drink beer and be pissed off? I doubt so. I don’t know if you work. Hate to shock your naive image but many of America’s inner cities have war zones in them. And I’ve seen public housing projects that are worse than some 3rd World hell holes I’ve seen in my travels. Kinda funny, they have 30,000 houses or rent subsidized apartments, but they have 50,000 cars. But they all look upon you as the invader and will assault you as soon as they have a chance. BTY, most of the people I patrol are not “tax payers” but “tax collectors”, i.e. disability payments for depression, SSI, etc.

      Everyone on the thread may tell me I’m wrong and if they are all wrong, guess what, I’m right and they are wrong. Hate to shock you Anon (guess you were sleeping in this part of class) being right or wrong is not a consensus, it’s a fact.

      You seem to have an issue when I pointed out how the media et all tried to change the narrative of the Zimmerman-Martin case. They initially only showed 6 year old pictures of a junior high school kid, not the pictures of 17 tatted up punk, out of school because he was suspended for fighting. And they made sure to only post pictures of Zimmerman from a booking 6 years before. Gee, kinda strange they would do that. Or the term “white-Hispanic”. Or the fact NBC news doctored the phone conversation between Zimmerman and the police call taker. Forgive me but in both my careers I’ve had reporters try to twist my words or take me out of context to fit a narrative. Hate to tell you Anon, reporters cannot be trusted.

      Has policing gotten safer in the last few years? Depends on what you call “safer”. Have police shooting deaths declined in the last few years, yes. We can thank a recently passed chemist from DuPont for that. She invented Kevlar in the late 1960s and it’s use has saved countless lives. Are few people dying from gunshot wounds, or trauma period, yes. Again, it’s from the advances in trauma treatment in the last 40 years. But are people more prone to violence, is our society more corse, absolute. And we are the guys who have to deal with it. So forgive me with cop’s are a bit paranoid as we go onto patrol, but if you want to know why, I suggest you look upon www.odmp.org and get a list of reasons why we’re suspicious of others.

      As far as you wishing me dead, you ain’t the first and you likely will not be the last. But you seem to have some anger management issues. Go see a shrink.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The point of so many of these comments is you are an arrogant prick and you demonstrate it regularly by trying to cite how much smarter you are than the commenters. It is disgusting that asshats like you have a badge.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your assessment requires a belief the officer told the truth about what happened before the cameras started.

    Further, your assessment requires people not believe their own eyes, that's called gaslighting.

    Police will continue to face hostility from the public when it sides with reckless conduct. You call that appropriate, the people call it excessive.

    See the tension?

    At some point, that tension will build to something nasty. I would encourage you to listen to the public and evaluate how they want you to police ... and this is the important thing ... you police with the permission of the public. If at any point you think that they are not in charge, then you need to get a new job. If you do not think you can perform the duties of a police officer without acting outside the parameters the public establishes, then get another job.

    You have NO right to be a police officer. It a privilege granted to you by the largess of the people, whom you are tasked with serving.

    If the idea that you are a civil servant, beholden to the public offends you, then move on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your assessment requires a belief the officer told the truth about what happened before the cameras started.

      Your evidence the man lied?

      “Gaslighting>” (http://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/emotional-psychological-abuse/gaslighting-definition-techniques-and-being-gaslighted/)

      “Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse where the abuser manipulates situations repeatedly to trick the victim into distrusting his or her own memory and perceptions. Gaslighting is an insidious form of abuse. It makes victims question the very instincts that they have counted on their whole lives, making them unsure of anything. Gaslighting makes it very likely that victims will believe whatever their abusers tell them regardless as to their own experience of the situation. Gaslighting often precedes other types of emotional and physical abuse because the victim of gaslighting is more likely to remain in other abusive situations as well.”

      Damned, this dude was good. He “manipulates situations repeatedly to trick the victim into distrusting his or her own memory and perceptions.” in a matter of a few seconds. Impressive.

      “Police will continue to face hostility from the public when it sides with reckless conduct. You call that appropriate, the people call it excessive.”

      No, you call it excessive, you don’t speak for “the people,” but yourself. And that is your opinion. Fine, opinions are like certain body parts, everyone has one. I take it you didn't notice he was investigated and cleared.

      You have NO right to be a police officer. It a privilege granted to you by the largess of the people, whom you are tasked with serving.

      Wrong. I never said I had a right to be a peace officer, BTY, rights are not granted by the people, but by your Creator. Authority is issued to me by the state via a peace officer’s license. The state has given me certain authorities, such as power to detain and arrest, legally carry a weapon openly or concealed, to conduct investigations of people, etc.

      If the idea that you are a civil servant, beholden to the public offends you, then move on.

      I have a decent comprehension of the English language, but can you try this one again. Sounds more like BS than the other six paragraphs.

      Delete
  17. Well obviously we understand out you're wrong when it becomes clear that that family was back in their vehicle and were forcefully removed by the officer for no reason which then led to the video we saw. You have to be extremely blind to not realize how wrong the cop was here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...removed by the officer for no reason..."

      Sorry, you may want to read the original post:

      "Mr. Tatkowski, 40, was charged with misconduct at an emergency, obstructing official business, and resisting arrest. He was arraigned Monday in Toledo Municipal Court, pleaded not guilty, and was released from the Lucas County jail on his own recognizance.

      Ms. Meyers, 21, was arrested and booked into the Lucas County jail Sunday night for obstructing official business, tampering with evidence, fictitious plates, and a tax payment warrant...."

      Delete
  18. lol "potential hostels".
    He created an extremely hostile situation. He is totally at fault.

    ReplyDelete