Skip to comments.Air Force apologizes to family after armed traffic stop (Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio)
Posted on 04/11/2014 4:17:30 AM PDT by Timber Rattler
click here to read article
OK, you're on to me...I'm heading up a global conspiracy to make the U.S. government and its overcharged security apparatus look bad.
You can go back to your haiku now...
Agreed. Here’s how I parse the non-sense:
The word “originally” gives away that “subsequently” the plate number on the ladies’ vehicle miraculously did NOT come back as stolen.
AF Mistake One: Databases do not change themselves, so this implies the guards either misread the plate or mis-entered it “originally”.
AF Mistake Two: Rather than recheck competently first, they put innocent ladies and children at high risk, and reaped a ton of bad publicity.
AF Mistake Three: Rather than admit their own fault, the AF used fairly talented spin doctors concoct dodgy language to shift blame to the database.
AF Mistake Four: Gave the game away by using the word “originally”.
AF Mistake Five: Their dodgy language implies that they are checking plates while people are LEAVING, instead of when entering the AFB. Hopefully this is a by-product of their overall lie, not that they actually let dangerous terrorists and car thieves prowl the base unvetted, but do care when they leave. Like most guests, these ladies and children likely spent hours at this really great air museum, affording plenty of time to re-check evidence, and safely apprehend any car thieves after they park their vehicles. I suspect that they DID check the plate going in, but got no hit because someone put in the correct number. If so, their use of “originally” was not only stupid, but false.
The head of security should be fired, along with everyone involved in the post-incident lying. But they might be promoted instead, since facile lying is the gold standard of government.
Isn’t the stolen vehicle database, federal? That was the direction of my comment.
Since the guards saw me every day and knew that I didn't have a weapon (the metal detector would have gone crazy if you even had on a belt), they let me back out onto the unsecure side and said "what did you do?
Database error, couple of hours waiting for it to get straightened out. Had to wait until the next day to get back in, took a pretty good hazing when i got there.
But the guards were very professional and did not overreact in the least.
..The police response, given that information, was appropriate.
No, it wasn’t.
This was a family with kids.
The *appropriate* response is to stop the car maintain distance and call out the driver to step out showing hands.
Pulling guns on women and children? Appropriate?
Mayhaps you want to rethink that statement.
Spent my time in the U.S.A.F working in classified facilities for all but a year of that. I worked inside the fence that was inside the fence, with the use of deadly force authorized.
We never ran into this type of issue. Of course, that was 20 years ago, and not right after a shooting on Fort Hood, and not after 11 years of continued warfare fighting terrorism.
It bothers me that they were looking at all the cars in the lot. Observers are going to report such activity in this era of high security. Stupid thing to do.
Of course, the family had a perfectly innocent reason for their behavior, because they were looking at all of the out of state license plates. I will confess that I did the same thing when I was driving out of this museum lot last year, because there really were people from all over the country. I also had a patrol vehicle behind me by the time I left, come to think of it. I guess my license plate came back clean!
The situation was cleared up when the police checked the VIN number, after the family had been detained. The use of the word "originally" would differentiate the License Plate Check, which indicated a stolen vehicle, and the VIN Number check, which indicated that the vehicle was not stolen.
For a reported stolen vehicle on a military base?
I suspect the fact that they were women and children accounts for the remarkable level of restraint.
I believe they found out in about 10 minutes that they had made a mistake. The rest of the time was spent on how they were all going to cover their asses.
***I spent 10 years in the Air Force. The base police did not instill confidence.***
Back when I was in, 1966-1969, the wore an AP patch for AIR POLICE. Everyone referred to them as APES.
Their name was later changed to SP (Security Police).
Needless to say, they deserved the moniker APES.
Thank God it sounds like the police went home safe and sound.
Nothing else matters.
“It bothers me that they were looking at all the cars in the lot. Observers are going to report such activity in this era of high security. Stupid thing to do.”
Cops look at the license plates all the time.
Amazing how much freedom we’ve lost.
At least in the sense that there's no extra charge for the civics lesson.
It’s allegorical. To the left, if you want to purge voting rolls to ensure only eligible people vote, you’re called a racist.
It was just an oblique reference, not intending to be applied to this specific story. Just another suggestion that we all suffer when a government agency does its typical crap job.
Heck if they were in LA they woulda been shot at about 79 times.
Here is the correct approach by those doing a necessary job in a society of free peoples :signalling the vehicle to stop ,and a cautious approach with HOLSTERED weapons until close enough to see the occupants were an older woman and children,at which time a slight relaxation in posture would have been appropriate,followed by a REQUEST for license and registration,and a question as to the reason for "cruising the parking lot". the assumption that everyone is a criminal and dangerous until proven otherwise is a complete reversal of traditional America,and that viewpoint neds to be eradicated from police training and policy. There is entirely too much willingness and desire to point guns at people by cowards in uniform. Yes,I said COWARDS, and I mean it!This nation is beset by cowards in uniform who shoot out of unreasoning fear that every and any movement is “reaching for a weapon”. These cowards routinely shoot dogs that are no threat,and unarmed people.Then their bosses defend those acts.
It's been over twenty years since I wore a badge,did traffic stops,responded to accidents, and prowler calls,etc.;and my gun stayed in the holster unless there was a real threat.If there seemed to be potential them my hand was on the holstered gun.Pulling a weapon unless actually threatened creates more danger for everyone and is usually punished if a mere "civilian" dares such a thing. (Another artificial distinction promoted by statists;police ARE civilians.)
But I did have a comrade in uniform who thought it prudent to always pull his gun on routine traffic stops;and the department later had another who pointed his gun at a mother who drove slowly to a safer spot before pulling over.
My instructor long ago told us never point a gun at anything you didn't want to shoot.the chances for “accidental” shots fired by startled ,nervous holders is very high.
There is no good reason for the actions of these Air Farce officers,anymore than the vast majority of guns pointed at people by government agents.
And that was no apology issued by the Air Farce but a CYA press release instead.An true apology would have been delivered in person by the chief and officers involved.The sovereign immunity doctrine protects too many incompetents and powertrippers.
You are too kind!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.