His past crimes should not affect whether police acted correctly.
‘
When someone has warrants out for their arrest, it’s a totally new game.
It’s a Criminal - and one with great motivation to escape. Many Cops are killed by those wanting to escape Capture and their date with Justice.
‘
You have a lot of nerve expressing a rational thought.
“His past crimes should not affect whether police acted correctly.”
A person’s criminal history can help police expect how the person is likely to act under certain circumstances. Thus a threat assessment can be made and the public protected from a likely threat. The threat may be removed.
That is just dumb. Police officers get info for every call. Priors, weapons etc. that is SOP. Officers going on a call for a violent suspect with a history of resisting arrest are going to be in a different frame of mind than on a welfare check.
simply incorrect. that why cops have radios and dispatchers; so they can figure out if their current subject of interest is violent and/or wanted.
I agree except when there are warrants and information like using a gun in a crime. Past behavior predicts future behavior. He also has injured a cop in the pst.
You are being way to reasonable. That’s not what we do here.
Right....so “armed and dangerous” is just a little ditty the police use for killers.
what if the cops were acting on current crime?
some sort of altercation took place by the passenger rear of the vehicle prior to the walk-around. Probably when a tazer was deployed? A tazer being deployed as a prelude to arrest? Was the walk evading arrest? Did the officers tell him they were arresting him on a warrant prior to tazing him?? What caused both cops to draw their guns?
as seen at 24 seconds here (good video on all the questions):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGA_Bn72TEU
A momma bird will lead danger away from their babies in a car. This daddy bird led danger to them. His behavior doesn’t add up to the ‘good samaritan’ breaking up a fight between two women. Which brings back the question, why was he tazed?
“His past crimes should not affect whether police acted correctly.”
BS.
If law enforcement on scene knew of his past propensity to have and threaten with firearms then it very much should have entered the picture.
If they had already run him and knew he had warrants outstanding to include his gun crime and resisting arrest history, they it should have come into the picture.
I don't think this is correct, in fact I think it is a really stupid attitude to have.
If he has a propensity to fighting police, his past crimes are very relevant.
If he is 72 years old and is reaching in his car for a fresh hearing aid battery the cops are wrong. But I don't see that in this case.
>> His past crimes should not affect whether police acted correctly.
Past crimes certainly factor into the prosecution and sentencing of repeated criminal behavior. Not sure what you mean by “police acting correctly”, but it makes sense for LEOs to also account for past criminal behavior when confronting a subject.
Regarding the necessity of such force, if LEOs are permitted to permanently subdue a subject, then there’s nothing to debate other than the possibility of modifying the arrest protocols.
Let’s say the subject got into the vehicle. What do the LEOs do next? Stand in front of the car? Engage in a dangerous pursuit? Walk away? A difficult situation.