True, I believe Mr. Velasquez “set” the thug off by not respecting (dissing) his “authority” when shown he was in error.
I agree that the interviewer/supervisor was more than likely attempting some damage control, but at the same time, his tone appears to sound concerned. Whether that means he’s “concerned” about the dept. or Mr. Velasquez, I don’t know, but at least he didn’t exacerbate/escalate the situation by dismissing Mr. Velasquez’s statements.
Agreed on the wannabe “rambo”...I suspect he was embarrassed by his error in pulling Mr. Velasquez over erroneously and his pride/ego got the better of him.
I suppose many leo’s don’t appreciate that sometimes the citizen may know the law better than they.
Agree. There wasn’t any reason to be so aggressively proactively preemptive.
That tack is born of a pervasive attitude within LE in general - albeit largely warranted because of the potential outcome, especially with some potential detainees. In this case, it takes only a few seconds to see this LEO shouldn’t carry a badge, or a gun.
My guess is ego, drugs and more drugs. The department should have screened better.