Cop Freaks Out Over Snowball Fight–Waves Gun

[applecorped]

http://www.nbcwashington.com/weather/stories/Eyewitness_Confirms__Cop_Freaks_Out_Over_Snowball_ Fight_Waves_Gun-79729162.html


According to an eyewitness, a D.C. Police (http://www.nbcwashington.com/topics?topic=District+of+Columbia+Police+Departmen t) detective went nuts after kids pelted his Hummer with snowballs at 14th and U streets NW this afternoon. The cop got out of his car and started waving his gun around. He did not immediately identify himself as a police officer. He calmed down once his fellow police arrived. Apparently, someone called 911 to report a man with gun. The snowball fight had been well hyped on Twitter (http://www.nbcwashington.com/topics?topic=Twitter+Inc.). The news of the incident first broke there.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I don't condone waving a gun at kids (or anyone), of course, and it is sad he lost control like that but if you pelt a complete stranger's moving car with snowballs, expect to get into some very, very serious trouble. Even if a cop isn't in it and the driver isn't packing heat.

You don't throw things at a moving car or non moving car. Not unless you want to be arrested or have the crap beaten out of you by the driver. Period, end of story.

I hope this messy incident at least teaches these people to never do that again. It might have made a great impact if the cop had calmly gotten out of his car, come up to one of them, showed them his badge, turned him around and slapped handcuffs on him and then proceeded onto the rest of the group. That would have been a fright none of them would ever forget.

[Eyeron]

I suspect that because you're dealing with kids and with the added element of the gun, the prudes are going to call for the cops head and he'll probably get into a lot of trouble. Personally, I hope not. I've heard enough of these kinds of stories of people over reacting because of being oversensitive prudes.

[Redtail]

I suspect that ebcause you're dealing with kids and with the added element of the gun, the prudes are going to call for the cops head and he'll probably get into a lot of trouble. Personally, I hope not. I've heard enough of these kinds of stories of people over reacting because of being oversensitive prudes.

Fe-y

[Thunder]

I suspect that because you're dealing with kids and with the added element of the gun, the prudes are going to call for the cops head and he'll probably get into a lot of trouble. Personally, I hope not. I've heard enough of these kinds of stories of people over reacting because of being oversensitive prudes.

um..what does this have to do with sex?

[fuelair]

And, hitting the car with anything - even potentially pretending to throw something at it - can potentially cause the driver to flinch and move the car into one of more of those near the thrower/faker. Especially if there is a crowd.

[gtc]

um..what does this have to do with sex?

Maybe they aren't talking about the kind of snowballs that are composed of ice.

[Eyeron]

Fe-y

Huh?

[shadron]

I suspect that because you're dealing with kids and with the added element of the gun, the prudes are going to call for the cops head and he'll probably get into a lot of trouble. Personally, I hope not. I've heard enough of these kinds of stories of people over reacting because of being oversensitive prudes.

Now, I've been told by any number of the people on this forum that removing a gun from a holster, when you carry that gun legally, concealed or not, is a very serious situation. Either it was needful to do so, or the carrier will loose his privileges (at least that is the word about concealed carry). Now, I don't particularly want to see Horrible Things happen to a cop who has absorbed a lot of training money and who may be of great value to the force when he matures a bit, but simply letting the situation go seems to be rather like breaking a promise about the seriousness with which carriers must take the privilege.

I agree with others about the seriousness of hitting a car with anything; the kids deserve a hard yank on the chain. Is that justification for threatening with a weapon?

[Eyeron]

It's a hard call to say. I can see in some instances where it would be prudent to do so. From the cop's point of view there were a bunch of objects hitting his windshield. From the kid's point of view, it may have been done on accident, or it could even have been done on purpose. Either way, realistically, there should be some consequences for both sides. Because let's face it, anyone will be surprised by a bunch of objects hitting their windshield and that could cause an accident. Right now there is not enough information on the incident.

[Redtail]

Huh?


http://www.elementsdatabase.com/Images/periodic_table1.gif

26.

[Eyeron]

Are you inquiring about my poster name?

It is a pun from that metal. But other than I don't understand your point at all.

[Soapy Sam]

How ironic.

[Redtail]

Are you inquiring about my poster name?

It is a pun from that metal. But other than I don't understand your point at all.

Add Y to that element.

[Eyeron]

Okay, I'll bite why is it ironic? What I said was in light of articles such as the man who got arrested for being naked in his own home and was seen by the cop's wife. I've seen a lot of stories like that in which overreactions and prejudice play in a part in which to declare a person to be the worse scumbag you can imagine over something extremely inane. So what in particular about my state exactly is ironic? Not to mention the overreaction to the kid who drew the crucifix. Or is it another criticism of posting style?

[Redtail]

Okay, I'll bite why is it ironic? What I said was in light of articles such as the man who got arrested for being naked in his own home and was seen by the cop's wife. I've seen a lot of stories like that in which overreactions and prejudice play in a part in which to declare a person to be the worse scumbag you can imagine over something extremely inane. So what in particular about my state exactly is ironic? Not to mention the overreaction to the kid who drew the crucifix. Or is it another criticism of posting style?

... So you think the cop overreacted?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Boys, cool it. Let me bring this thread to an end:

Throwing snowballs deliberately at moving cars is super dangerous. It can cause a huge accident. However, cops also are not allowed to pull out guns on underage unarmed nonthreatening suspects who probably have not committed a crime just because they are friggin' morons.

We all agree, right? Yes? Ok, that's the end of that.

[Redtail]

Boys, cool it. Let me bring this thread to an end:

Throwing snowballs deliberately at moving cars is super dangerous. It can cause a huge accident. However, cops also are not allowed to pull out guns on underage unarmed nonthreatening suspects who probably have not committed a crime just because they are friggin' morons.

We all agree, right? Yes? Ok, that's the end of that.

Pretty much.

[popscythe]

Boys, cool it. Let me bring this thread to an end:

Throwing snowballs deliberately at moving cars is super dangerous. It can cause a huge accident. However, cops also are not allowed to pull out guns on underage unarmed nonthreatening suspects who probably have not committed a crime just because they are friggin' morons.

We all agree, right? Yes? Ok, that's the end of that.

You can't pretend this is a "they did something stupid, he did something stupid, they cancel each other out" situation. He pulled a gun on kids. He pulled a service pistol, probably with no locking slide safety, on children, who threw snowballs, hard, soft, whatever, at his giant car. He pulled a gun on kids for throwing snowballs at his car.

A gun. On kids. For snowballs. He needs to be fired, immediately.

[jiggeryqua]

Right now there is not enough information on the incident.


But that shouldn't stop us having some very firm opinions...if people insist on publishing news stories, who are we to refrain from earnestly and vigorously discussing an incident we know nothing about?


According to an eyewitness


Ah well, I take it back - we have all the information we need...

[king catfish]

You can't pretend this is a "they did something stupid, he did something stupid, they cancel each other out" situation. He pulled a gun on kids. He pulled a service pistol, probably with no locking slide safety, on children, who threw snowballs, hard, soft, whatever, at his giant car. He pulled a gun on kids for throwing snowballs at his car.

A gun. On kids. For snowballs. He needs to be fired, immediately.

Yes. Another narcissistic jack-booted bully who freaked out when his inflated sense of importance was dented when he didn't get the respect he thought he deserved as a VERY. SPECIAL. IMPORTANT. PERSON.

Unfortunately law enforcement attracts this sort of narcissistic jerk.

He should be fired immediately.

[Pantaz]

Unless there is more video than what I saw, there was no "waving" of the gun. The officer held his pistol at his side, pointed at the ground.

[SatanicSheep]

That's what you get for bringing a snowball to a gunfight.

Following eenymeenie's logic the cop shouldn't be fired. Instead the police station should have a hydrogen bomb dropped on it.

[shawmutt]

Unless there is more video than what I saw, there was no "waving" of the gun. The officer held his pistol at his side, pointed at the ground.

But, but...gun waving sounds so much more dramatic!

I heard he was shooting snowballs out of the air and that's what made people call the other cops.

[quadraginta]

Kids are having friendly snowball fight in rare DC winter storm event.

Giant car drives through snowball fight. (Slowly?)

Giant car gets hit by snowballs.

Man jumps out brandishing loaded firearm at kids.

Does the word "escalate" not come to mind?

How about "appropriate response"?

Any thoughts on how this would have played out if the dude hadn't been a cop?

[Eyeron]

... So you think the cop overreacted?

I don't think he did. I can see an incident where gang bangers throw rocks that hit his windshield all of a sudden.

[Thunder]

I don't think he did. I can see an incident where gang bangers throw rocks that hit his windshield all of a sudden.

hmmmm.....:confused:

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Boys, cool it. Let me bring this thread to an end:

Throwing snowballs deliberately at moving cars is super dangerous. It can cause a huge accident. However, cops also are not allowed to pull out guns on underage unarmed nonthreatening suspects who probably have not committed a crime just because they are friggin' morons.

We all agree, right? Yes? Ok, that's the end of that.

I disagree with all of this. I think throwing snowballs at moving cars is a perfectly safe and fun thing to do, and I condone it completely. I also think police officers should be able to wave their firearms around at anyone, at any time, if they so desire. I think the combination of the two situation is a particularly desirable event, and I would like to see it happen more often.

[Arcade22]

hmmmm.....:confused:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gangbanger

[Furcifer]

Anyone defending this cop needs their head checked, I mean that in a friendly lively way. But seriously, he wasn't driving down an Interstate, he's in a residential neighbourhood. He needs to have control of his vehicle, the point about the danger of throwing things at a moving car makes little sense at 30 mph. They train these guys to drive at high speed in pursuit, you seriously think a barrage of snowballs is reason to lose control? He shouldn't be driving if that's going to rattle him to the point where he needs to draw his weapon. And why the hell would you get out of your vehicle if you thought you were under attack? Anyone with any common sense is going to keep their head down and keep driving. This officer is supposed to be trained in observation, I really find it hard to believe he thought himself in mortal danger. Like I said, if he did why would he even stop?

He put a lot of people at risk. Not only the kids, but what about the average citizen with a CCW walking down the street? What would you do if you saw someone get out of a car and pull a weapon on a bunch of kids? That doesn't end well in my book. This cop needs some serious time off to think about things.

(someone please get eyeron a periodic table)

[jiggeryqua]

Anyone defending this cop needs their head checked
Anyone coming down firmly on one 'side' of an open-ended debate about an internet reference to a media report (an American media report) of the statement of an 'eye witness' needs their head. Try to think where you last saw it. I bet it's beside the kettle, that's where I leave stuff all the time.

[popscythe]

Any thoughts on how this would have played out if the dude hadn't been a cop?

Civilian who drew gun immediately arrested. Any license to carry a firearm revoked. Criminal and Civil Litigation. Were I the kid's parents, I'd be suing the PD like crazy. At the very least, it looks like the Officer had some trigger discipline, so it was unlikely that he was going to accidentally shoot a kid... Unless he say slipped on the ice and snow and fired his duty weapon in attempt to keep a grip on it. If he's facing the kids and his feet go out from under him, he's now pointing a gun at those kids from the angle he fell. Throw in an accidental discharge, and that's why we don't draw guns unless we plan to shoot someone to death. You don't draw gun unless someone NEEDS TO DIE to defend your or other's lives. Not to "warn them" like in movies, not to "diffuse the situation" by making the other party think YOU are a murderer by pointing a deadly weapon at them. It's just that simple. If he was standing there in the video with one of his many less lethal options in hand, this discussion wouldn't be happening because you can't accidentally murder a child from that distance with a taser or billy club or pepper spray.

As far as supposed gang members and rocks... What if they had thrown FLAMING ROCKS WITH THE COP'S PICTURE CAREFULLY DRAWN ON EACH ONE DIRECTLY AT HIS WINDSHIELD UNTIL IT BROKE, THEN THREW A FIVE GALLON BUCKET OF LIQUID POISON INTO THE BROKEN WINDSHIELD? WHAT THEN? Nobody threw any rocks, bringing that up is nonsense.

[XBoxWarrior]

the "copper" is a douche for driving a penis extender.

then he pulls his (other penis extender) pistol to scare the kids.

please fire this moran before he tazers/shoots an innocent citizen.

/i have had my vehicle hit by snowballs from kids
//i never thought it was an assault on me
///i laughed and drove the fark home

[I Ratant]

Boys, cool it. Let me bring this thread to an end:

Throwing snowballs deliberately at moving cars is super dangerous. It can cause a huge accident. However, cops also are not allowed to pull out guns on underage unarmed nonthreatening suspects who probably have not committed a crime just because they are friggin' morons.

We all agree, right? Yes? Ok, that's the end of that.
.
It's illegal here in the land of fruits and nuts.
Looking at the video of the situation on ABC News tonight, a uniformed officer had his weapon out, when confronting some mouthy kids.

[MikeSun5]

I suspect that because you're dealing with kids and with the added element of the gun, the prudes are going to call for the cops head and he'll probably get into a lot of trouble. Personally, I hope not. I've heard enough of these kinds of stories of people over reacting because of being oversensitive prudes.

:eek: So an adult sworn to protect and serve the public pulls a firearm on a child because he's angry/offended/whatever, and you think people are overreacting?? You really believe that being against pulling a loaded gun on a child is "oversensitive?" Wow. Just wow.

He needs to be fired, immediately.He should be fired immediately.

Thirded.

3bodyproblem and popscythe's last posts pretty much say it all...

Oh yea, and WTF is up with police driving ozone-raping Hummers anyway? I guess it's not unnecessary, what with all the hazardous, rocky terrain of 14th and U St. in downtown DC. :rolleyes:

[Bikewer]

I think the officer producing his pistol was a bit much, myself.

However, I will observe that to many people, the car becomes an extension of one's personal space, and unruly assaults or insults to the car are often treated as if it were one's person.
I have handled fights which broke out because some intoxicated person whizzed on another fellow's car, for instance.
This tendency may increase with the car's cost and thus it's tendency to indicate the status of the owner...

[pgwenthold]

Um, out of control snowball fights are essentially riots. They can result in an awful lot of property damage, especially broken windows. As mentioned, hitting a moving vehicle with snowballs is also potentially dangerous (let's see, the windshield shatters, the driver loses control (btw, if it is heavy snow that means that the streets aren't good for drivers, which is all the more reason to not create a disturbance), slides into a business and people...) Part of the police's job is to protect. That includes protecting property.

I may not agree with the means the policeman took, but I certainly can recognize the need to get the crowd under control.

BTW, I've been in the "mob snowball fight" when in college, and have seen how out of control it can be.

[popscythe]

unruly assaults or insults to the car are often treated as if it were one's person.

Unlawfully, yes, perhaps they are. And they perpetrator of the assault on another person for such insult to his property should be dealt with under due process of law. If the assaulted party actually did damage the property, they too, of course are facing (far lesser) charges.

Just so we're clear, drawing a weapon is assault. Threating someone with a gesture is also assault. That police officer assaulted those kids. They, however, may or may not have vandalized the officer's car.

[pgwenthold]

I think the officer producing his pistol was a bit much, myself.

However, I will observe that to many people, the car becomes an extension of one's personal space, and unruly assaults or insults to the car are often treated as if it were one's person.

It may or may not be in the present case, but it doesn't have to be personal. From a cop's perspective, I can easily understand how a mob that is throwing snowballs at moving vehicles is creating a dangerous situation and needs to get controlled. It doesn't matter if it is a hummer or an escort, such activity would raise warning signs.

[Cavemonster]

It may or may not be in the present case, but it doesn't have to be personal. From a cop's perspective, I can easily understand how a mob that is throwing snowballs at moving vehicles is creating a dangerous situation and needs to get controlled. It doesn't matter if it is a hummer or an escort, such activity would raise warning signs.

Of course, and some police action might be entirely appropriate.

But as has been discussed here, no responsible gun owner draws their weapon during a conflict, unless they intend to kill someone.

There is no justification to shoot anyone involved -> there is no justification for drawing a gun.

[Furcifer]

Anyone coming down firmly on one 'side' of an open-ended debate about an internet reference to a media report (an American media report) of the statement of an 'eye witness' needs their head. Try to think where you last saw it. I bet it's beside the kettle, that's where I leave stuff all the time.

I'm not firm on my position. If any additional information becomes available I'll gladly change my statement accordingly. As for the "American" media reference wtf? Were you hoping the BBC would cover it?

[Pantaz]

It appears that many posters here are ignoring some rather pertinent facts. According to the story at http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1209/689050.html:
"Assistant Chief Peter Newsham says the officer was responding to a 911 call reporting a man with a gun in the crowd -- apparently the man was a plainclothes D.C. police detective."

"Newsham says the officer drew his weapon when he spotted a man matching the description of the armed person, but holstered his weapon when he recognized the plain clothes detective."
Sounds to me like the responding officer acted well within normal guidelines.

As for the "man with a gun" that started it all:
"But things started to turn for the worse when the crowd -- some carrying anti-war signs and dressed all in black with masks -- began to pelt passing cars. A plain clothes D.C. police detective emerged from a Hummer -- it's unclear whether it was his personal vehicle or an unmarked police vehicle -- after it was struck. The detective began yelling at the gathered crowd. At one point, he pulled back his jacket, exposing his service weapon -- it's unclear if he did this intentionally."
Without a statement from this detective or from witnesses, all we have is conjecture. If he did purposefully expose his holstered weapon as an intimidation or threat -- certainly possible -- then yes, he should be severely disciplined.

[popscythe]

The story you've posted and the story posted in the OP don't exactly match up.
The OP story says that the officer is on video saying he pulled a gun out because he got hit by snowballs. Your (posted) story says that the cop was pulling a gun on a cop who was brandishing a gun (and engaging in verbal insults) at frightening anarchist-looking people.

I look forward to seeing the truth of the matter.

[thecritta]

Anybody for a yellow snowcone?

[jiggeryqua]

I'm not firm on my position. If any additional information becomes available I'll gladly change my statement accordingly. As for the "American" media reference wtf? Were you hoping the BBC would cover it?

Hmm...

Anyone defending this cop needs their head checked

Sounds pretty firm to me, but perhaps I should have assumed the unwritten qualifying statement that you thoughtfully provided later. As for the American media - well, I'm sure y'all are very proud of it, but it doesn't have the best of reputations with regard to fair, balanced or even accurate reporting. If that opinion makes me a terrorist, so be it...

[WildCat]

Has anybody here even watched the video? These were not childreen having a snowball fight, it was a large group of adults.

Not that the idiot cop should have pulled out his gun, but the claim he pulled it on children is simply not the case.

[popscythe]

Yeah it's definitely not a bunch of nine year olds.

[richardm]

The OP story says that the officer is on video saying he pulled a gun out because he got hit by snowballs.

If you watch the video, though, the un-uniformed cop does say he pulled a gun out because he got hit by snowballs. Also he seems to have it in his hand here (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/12/19/did-d-c-cops-overreact-to-snowball-fight-14th-and-u/) (ooer missus).

[ripsaw_22]

hi all, im new here :)


anyway, here's the youtube code to the video:

"watch?v=sFC8mNdxV0c"

i think its quite clear from this that the cop has an ego problem, and as such should not be trusted with a deadly weapon. this is why im glad most officers in the uk dont carry guns - you get too many jumped up egotistical maniacs doing a job which requires a high level of maturity and restraint, especially when firearms are involved.

Its ok to say 'oh well the people were being idiots', yeah true, but people have the right to be idiots without policemen who are paid to maintain order pulling out firearms in a crowded public area because they felt their manhood was somehow threatened. He is paid to rise above bringing his emotions into things, thats why they let him walk around with a gun surely?

[popscythe]

The idea that any one American has more or less right to carry a firearm than another is preposterous. Almost as preposterous as the assumption that exercising a basic right automatically makes you well trained in the usage of that which you are allowed to keep and bear. But not nearly as preposterous as the idea that a grown man would pull a gun out in a crowd of people because they hit his car with snowballs.

[Darth Rotor]

You can't pretend this is a "they did something stupid, he did something stupid, they cancel each other out" situation. He pulled a gun on kids. He pulled a service pistol, probably with no locking slide safety,
Why did you assume this? I smell someone with a lack of skepticism here.
He pulled a gun on kids for throwing snowballs at his car. A gun. On kids. For snowballs. He needs to be fired, immediately.
How much time have you spent in DC?

Unlike your overwrought reaction to this, I don't think he ought to be fired. Nobody got hurt. I suspect he needs a bit of remedial training, and some guidance from his departmental leadership on such scenarios.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Unlike your overwrought reaction to this, I don't think he ought to be fired. Nobody got hurt. I suspect he needs a bit of remedial training, and some guidance from his departmental leadership on such scenarios.

DR

So when is brandishing a firearm with the intent to threaten a crime?

[Bikewer]

The more detailed account posted above does shed light on what might have occurred.

However, if a single officer were to respond to such an incident (as I have) and observed a large, unruly crowd possibly out-of-control and damaging property.....Standing there in plainclothes and drawing one's weapon would most decidedly NOT be the appropriate reaction.
One would....
1. Retreat.
2. Observe.
3. Call for a proper uniformed response, dependent on the size and activities of the crowd.
The old sobriquet, "One riot, one Ranger" may sound cute, but it's not very effective.

[ponderingturtle]

The more detailed account posted above does shed light on what might have occurred.

However, if a single officer were to respond to such an incident (as I have) and observed a large, unruly crowd possibly out-of-control and damaging property.....Standing there in plainclothes and drawing one's weapon would most decidedly NOT be the appropriate reaction.
One would....
1. Retreat.
2. Observe.
3. Call for a proper uniformed response, dependent on the size and activities of the crowd.
The old sobriquet, "One riot, one Ranger" may sound cute, but it's not very effective.

I am reminded that things like this have gotten police shot by other officers who were in uniform.

[screensnot]

I watched a few of the youtube vids. I couldn't find any showing the immediate events that led to the cop drawing the gun, so it's impossible for me to say who if anyone is in the right or wrong. But here are a few observations anyway:

The snowballers weren't kids, for the most part at least. I would guess that the average age was 25.

They were having a good time, and didn't appear to have an destructive attitude.

They were divided in two teams. Each on opposite sides of a street. There was very light traffic on the street, probably because of the amount of snow that they had recently received. When cars were passing through, the teams were backing up onto the sidewalk on their side of the street. Some snowballs were being thrown when cars came through, but I didn't see anyone trying to hit the cars. They were throwing over the cars. When the street was clear of traffic, the snowballers would move into the street, and a mad flurry of snowballs were flying.

Again, it seemed to be all in good fun. If there was any intent to hurt someone or something with the snowballs, I doubt there would be so much laughing and smiling faces.

My guess is that the detective's car got inadvertently hit by some snow, and he overreacted by getting out of his vehicle to complain about it. Then, some of the snowballers decided he was being a douche, and started targeting him directly. Then the cop drew his gun. Again this is all guesswork.

He was driving an H2, so I can also imagine a few people in the crowd might have actually targeted the vehicle directly in the first place (some people don't like the H2 for various reasons), but I couldn't find any video that could either confirm or deny that.

The uniformed cop told the crowd to just go back to their snowball fight, and go to the precinct later, if they wanted to make a complaint. That seems to show that the uniformed cop believed the snowballers were simply having some innocent fun, and the snowball fight didn't pose any real threat to people or property.

To sum it up, my guess is the H2 driving cop is a jackass.

[Furcifer]

Has anybody here even watched the video?

Um no :boxedin: I was responding to what was on local news and what I read here. I can't get video worth a crap right now. Looks like two different stories got mixed up or grossly distorted. I've got to see the video.

[Furcifer]

As for the American media - well, I'm sure y'all are very proud of it, but it doesn't have the best of reputations with regard to fair, balanced or even accurate reporting. If that opinion makes me a terrorist, so be it...

Hardly a terrorist. Perhaps a little wiser than me. I can't get a decent feed and don't know exactly what I saw the other night (I swear it was Saturday night, but it could have been Sunday) The best I can tell the cop was being a jerk, but not to children. I'll be over by the kettle ;)

[Darth Rotor]

So when is brandishing a firearm with the intent to threaten a crime?
What are you talking about?

[Bill Thompson]

rjHCI4W5D30

I guess even becoming a detective does not remove the anguish of being a black man with a small penis.

[ponderingturtle]

What are you talking about?

When is it appropriate to stop and pull a gun on people because they threw a snowball or a few snowballs at your car? Does it change if you are a plain clothes police officer?

Pulling a gun because someone pisses you off, that sounds like the kind of thing that could in many places get carry permit revoked.

[patchbunny]

When is it appropriate to stop and pull a gun on people because they threw a snowball or a few snowballs at your car? Does it change if you are a plain clothes police officer?

Pulling a gun because someone pisses you off, that sounds like the kind of thing that could in many places get carry permit revoked.

I am a civilian with a carry permit. If I pulled my firearm because my car or myself were struck by snowballs, I'd be in jail for brandishing at a minimum, and the revocation of my carry permit would be the least of my problems. Snowballs do not meet any criteria for the use of deadly force, especially if it was my car that was struck. "Officer, my car was struck by a snowball so I stopped my car and pulled out my firearm." "Why didn't you just drive away and call the police?"

I've seen a single video on AP. From what I observed the plainclothes cop was not handling the situation well at all.

ETA: I see that he's been assigned to desk duty.

[Pantaz]

Additional video was played on the news this morning. The plain-clothes detective DID draw his weapon! The video was very short, and low-resolution, but it definitely showed him coming around the front of his vehicle with the gun in his hand. Major idiot!

Latest story says (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1209/689439.html): "A veteran D.C. police detective is on desk duty and faces possible termination after he was caught on tape with his weapon drawn during a snowball fight at 14th and U streets on Saturday."
. . .
Asst. Chief Peter Newsham said. "Nowhere in police department policy would it allow for a member to use a service weapon for a snowball fight. You would have to be confronted with deadly force or someone else would have to be confronted with deadly force for you to use a service weapon, and I don't think snowball would rise to that situation."

[Bikewer]

The quote from the assistant chief mirrors the "use of force" policies that are virtually identical in police departments all over the country.
There must be imminent threat of deadly force in order to justify drawing one's weapon.

[I Ratant]

The quote from the assistant chief mirrors the "use of force" policies that are virtually identical in police departments all over the country.
There must be imminent threat of deadly force in order to justify drawing one's weapon.
.
The LHS is in an area where a police presence is frequent. Seeing officers walking in the neighborhood with their weapons out is unsettling.

[popscythe]

Why did you assume this? I smell someone with a lack of skepticism here.

Not that your attempt to discredit me isn't amusing, but the vast majority of police service weapons do not feature the type of safety that you must deactivate by moving a locking lever on the slide, such as the Glock model 22, (No, it's not a .22LR caliber handgun) which is far and away the most common police service weapon in the United States. These weapons do not feature that variety of safety (though they have a safety mechanism that prevents the weapon from being fired when dropped, or fired unless the trigger is actually depressed) in order to save human lives when they ACTUALLY need to draw their weapons and defend themselves quickly. Standard police procedure in every department I have read about is to carry your service weapon in condition one, and as such, the general rule is "don't take your death dealer out of your pants pocket unless someone is killing someone" (more or less ;)).

If you want to talk about assumptions, why would you assume someone is making assumptions simply because you disagree with them?

As for you not thinking the officer in question should be fired, that's your opinion. The law says otherwise. Not only should he be fired, but he should be charged with the relevant crimes, which would automatically bar him from police service if he were convicted of.

[lionking]

The guy was a real jerk. A desk is the place for him, but not necessarily dismissal.

[ponderingturtle]

The guy was a real jerk. A desk is the place for him, but not necessarily dismissal.

So, what kind of crimes can police commit that get ignored? Others have said that if they acted in this fashion, they would be arrested and charged.

[lionking]

So, what kind of crimes can police commit that get ignored? Others have said that if they acted in this fashion, they would be arrested and charged.
Sure I see your point and will not shed too many tears if he is dismissed. I just think that an error of judgement like this (if it's his first) doesn't necessarily warrant dismissal. Having said that, given the publicity this has received, I think he will get the sack.

[Cavemonster]

Sure I see your point and will not shed too many tears if he is dismissed. I just think that an error of judgement like this (if it's his first) doesn't necessarily warrant dismissal. Having said that, given the publicity this has received, I think he will get the sack.

Eh, if he'd been pelted with a snowball, misread it as a more serious attack and reached for his gun, that might have been an error of judgement.

In the video, he very deliberately walks toward the snowballers, telling them "You're going to jail- And you're going to jail and you're..." Then he very deliberately pulls back his coat and grabs his gun. Later he's very clearly still angry as he says on camera that he grabbed his gun because they were throwing snowballs at him.

He had plenty of time to think, clearly understood what was happening, and yet he still brought out a deadly weapon, and felt justified in it significantly later when the other officer had arrived. He's not a young officer either.

[Furcifer]

The guy was a real jerk. A desk is the place for him, but not necessarily dismissal.

I'm not so sure. The way it appears he lied at first. If he did he needs to be fired and charged. I think it's different because he's a detective.

[quadraginta]

I'm not so sure. The way it appears he lied at first. If he did he needs to be fired and charged. I think it's different because he's a detective.


The man has no business in law enforcement. He has no business in any occupation which provides him with an excuse to wear or use a firearm, or a position to exercise authority over strangers.

This is not meant as an indictment. Not everyone is suited for such work. He has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that he isn't.

[lionking]

I'm not so sure. The way it appears he lied at first. If he did he needs to be fired and charged. I think it's different because he's a detective.
As someone who was involved in the task of dismissing cops (true, I was Director of Human Resources for Victoria Police for 7 years), it's far, far easier to put someone in into an administrative role than go through the long, costly and often futile process of sacking one. Whether the cop deserved it or not.

[WildCat]

As someone who was involved in the task of dismissing cops (true, I was Director of Human Resources for Victoria Police for 7 years), it's far, far easier to put someone in into an administrative role than go through the long, costly and often futile process of sacking one. Whether the cop deserved it or not.
So true. Remember the off-duty Chicago cop caught on tape 3 years ago beating up a female bartender? He was finally fired a few days ago. I bet he'd still be a cop if there was no video of the incident.

eta: here's the clip

zp5837FiUdI

[MikeSun5]

So, what kind of crimes can police commit that get ignored?

Driving infractions.

[ponderingturtle]

Sure I see your point and will not shed too many tears if he is dismissed. I just think that an error of judgement like this (if it's his first) doesn't necessarily warrant dismissal. Having said that, given the publicity this has received, I think he will get the sack.

So just charge him with the crimes like you would anyone who wasn't a cop.

[Darth Rotor]

Not that your attempt to discredit me isn't amusing, but the vast majority of police service weapons do not feature the type of safety that you must deactivate by moving a locking lever on the slide, such as the Glock model 22
I thank you for the summary on the details of police side arms, which informs your assumption.

This is significant ... how?
As for you not thinking the officer in question should be fired, that's your opinion. The law says otherwise. Not only should he be fired, .
Apparently not.

He's been assigned to a desk. See above.
At some point, the detective called for assistance. According to witnesses, one of the uniformed officers that responded pulled out his weapon as he approached the plainclothes detective. As soon as the detective identified himself, the uniformed officer put his gun back in the holster, police said.

In a video posted to YouTube, the police officer identifies himself as “Detective Baylor” and in response to someone saying that he pulled a gun on a snowball fight, he says: “Yes, I did because I got hit with snowballs.”

According to 3D Commander George Kusik, the uniformed officer conducted himself appropriately. The incident between the detective and the snowball-throwing crowd is still under investigation by internal affairs and an officer has been placed on non-contact duty.
It is interesting to see what conclusions y'all are leaping to, which the department isn't: ya see, they are investigating.


To PT: police officer drawing a weapon is frequently necessary in the course of duties, for most citizens not. If he has exceeded department guidance on that, as Bikewer points out, he's doubtless in for discipline and hopefullly remedial training. Did he threaten to shoot someone? I don't see that in the story.
The man has no business in law enforcement. He has no business in any occupation which provides him with an excuse to wear or use a firearm, or a position to exercise authority over strangers. This is not meant as an indictment. Not everyone is suited for such work. He has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that he isn't
Would you please wipe that last fleck of foam from your lips? I don't think I've seen a more pointless, emotional post from a usually sane poster.

As to the bolded part, sorry, yes it is, the way you wrote it.
As to the italicized part: really? I'll let his department determine that. They may agree with you, they may not.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

To PT: police officer drawing a weapon is frequently necessary in the course of duties, for most citizens not. If he has exceeded department guidance on that, as Bikewer points out, he's doubtless in for discipline and hopefullly remedial training. Did he threaten to shoot someone?

The point is that brandishing a weapon is often a crime in itself. If he did not have justification to pull his gun then he broke the law, rather like if he beat someone because he did not like them for some personal reason.

What crimes will you excuse police officers for? Note that proper actions in the course of their duties are not crimes.

What laws can you break at your job and not get fired for?

[Darth Rotor]

The point is that brandishing a weapon is often a crime in itself.
Would you please try to stop with the bait and switch BS?
If he did not have justification to pull his gun then he broke the law, Might Have Broken for broke to match your opening remark regarding "often a crime."

Shooting someone is often a crime, and cops now and again shoot people.

There is quite a bit that is uncertain, and his department will find one of a few things:

1. He behaved appropriately. Not likely, given the non contact decision
2. He broke departmental rules/regs, in a minor way, and needs discipline/remedial training. Likely, depengin upon what the investigation finds.
3. He broke departmental rules/regs in a major way, and criminal charges may be forthcoming: also likely, depending upon what the investigation turns up.

Your leaping to conclusions is amusing. We know a small amount about this story from the news clip. The department wants to know more. There may be good reason to charge him.

DR

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Would you please wipe that last fleck of foam from your lips? I don't think I've seen a more pointless, emotional post from a usually sane poster.

As to the bolded part, sorry, yes it is, the way you wrote it.
As to the italicized part: really? I'll let his department determine that. They may agree with you, they may not.

DR


Sorry to disappoint you, DR.

I have zero tolerance for this sort of behavior. If subsequent information proves that I have jumped to conclusions I will freely admit my error, but in this particular case I have seen enough to suit me. I didn't make up my mind at the first report. I waited to see if any extenuating circumstances surfaced. They haven't. This is not the sort of situation where "Maybe he had a good reason. We'll see." cuts the mustard any more.

I bear injuries from overzealous police. When I got mine I was blocks away from a demonstration I knew nothing about and was guilty of having the wrong haircut. I get reminded about them every time I get a chest x-ray ("How did you break that rib?"). The cuts and bruises healed long ago. I got the teeth fixed. I know other people who have been injured by out of control officers. I have personally witnessed multiple occasions of dangerous disregard for bystanders by police not only in the tremulous 60s and 70s, but in every decade since.

My personal (not) favorite was when I was playing league darts in a neighborhood tavern with my wife and infant children having dinner. The local SWAT team burst in with sawed-off shotguns to apprehend a dangerous high school kid in possession of marijuana. They had the wrong kid. It turned out to be his brother they wanted. No one ever did explain why they couldn't have just waited.

Shotguns pointed at my wife and kids, DR. For a reefer bust they could have made anywhere.

In this case of snowball rage the dog has already attacked once. It just didn't bite anyone hard enough to draw blood.

This time.

I don't blame the dog, but it doesn't need to be running loose in the neighborhood any more.

The only thing which even creates a suggestion of dispute in this case is the man's position in law enforcement. If he had been a private citizen we would not be having this discussion. We'd be debating how long he should be locked up.

It is the very fact that he performed under the color of law which makes the incident so egregious. There has always been too much wiggle room for these sorts of transgressions, and it is not to anyone's advantage to downplay the severity of it. Law enforcement should be held to a different standard, but it should be a higher one, not one to hide behind.

[fuelair]

The more detailed account posted above does shed light on what might have occurred.

However, if a single officer were to respond to such an incident (as I have) and observed a large, unruly crowd possibly out-of-control and damaging property.....Standing there in plainclothes and drawing one's weapon would most decidedly NOT be the appropriate reaction.
One would....
1. Retreat.
2. Observe.
3. Call for a proper uniformed response, dependent on the size and activities of the crowd.
The old sobriquet, "One riot, one Ranger" may sound cute, but it's not very effective.But in those days, the Ranger was free to shoot as needed without much worry about answering for it later.:D:D:D

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle
So, what kind of crimes can police commit that get ignored?

Driving infractions.
.
Arbitrarily pulling over, questioning, arresting persons doing nothing more than not being white.

[MikeSun5]

Arbitrarily pulling over, questioning, arresting persons doing nothing more than not being white.

That too... Hey, the list goes on and on actually... what about writing tickets for not speaking English (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/24/dallas-cops-ticket-38-drivers-for-not-speaking-eng/?feat=article_top10_commented) (ignored for 3 years)? :D

[I Ratant]

.
Arbitrarily pulling over, questioning, arresting persons doing nothing more than not being white.
.
Probably one of those sheriffs that works 19 hour days, 12 days straight*.
I bet by the middle of the term coherence and common sense are long gone.
.
*Some local sheriffs pull down $200,000 plus a year doing this.

[screensnot]

writing tickets for not speaking English (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/24/dallas-cops-ticket-38-drivers-for-not-speaking-eng/?feat=article_top10_commented)

I wish I could say I'm surprised about that story.

[Furcifer]

As someone who was involved in the task of dismissing cops (true, I was Director of Human Resources for Victoria Police for 7 years), it's far, far easier to put someone in into an administrative role than go through the long, costly and often futile process of sacking one. Whether the cop deserved it or not.

It's the union thing isn't it? That's the first thing that comes to mind when you say something like this. Assuming the AU police have I union, I bet this is the case. The freakin union has a lawyer and free time to fight tooth and nail for the guys like this, while the city has a limited budget.

The other reason I can see for keeping him is the fact that dismissing him seems to leave them wide open to appeals. If they fire him for lying I can see the phones lighting up with lifers calling their lawyers and screaming "I told you so!".

All I know is the last job on Earth I would ever want is being a police chief. It's hard enough supervising people without guns and a god complex :D

[ponderingturtle]

Would you please try to stop with the bait and switch BS?
What bait and switch. I was always talking about brandishing a firearm, and its legal consequences.

[ponderingturtle]

Would you please try to stop with the bait and switch BS?
Might Have Broken for broke to match your opening remark regarding "often a crime."

Shooting someone is often a crime, and cops now and again shoot people.

There is quite a bit that is uncertain, and his department will find one of a few things:

1. He behaved appropriately. Not likely, given the non contact decision
2. He broke departmental rules/regs, in a minor way, and needs discipline/remedial training. Likely, depengin upon what the investigation finds.
3. He broke departmental rules/regs in a major way, and criminal charges may be forthcoming: also likely, depending upon what the investigation turns up.

So you think it is impossible that he violated the law.

[GlennB]

So you think it is impossible that he violated the law.

Given that Darth quite clearly stated "3.... and criminal charges may be forthcoming ..." then he's obviously including legal violations as a possibility. So why are you awarding Darth an opinion he clearly doesn't hold?

[ponderingturtle]

Given that Darth quite clearly stated "3.... and criminal charges may be forthcoming ..." then he's obviously including legal violations as a possibility. So why are you awarding Darth an opinion he clearly doesn't hold?

The thing is that this is the kind of thing that gets non police gun owners arrested, and lose their carry permits. Why should he have a job if he can't carry a gun?