Floyd BWC released

[DRT]

You pointed out a incident where a corrupted cop, botched a drug raid and two innocent people died. I never said that corruption didn't exist. I said, I will ALWAYS take the side of law enforcement, meaning, they will always be innocent until proven guilty in my book. They do a job, day in and day out that most of us don't have the balls to do; so for that reason they will Always get the benefit of the doubt in my book. Especially when presented only with the evidence that comes off the 6 o'clock news. I hope that rationalization is sufficient enough for you, and that you don't feel the need to send me any more PM's trolling for confrontation. Have a good one.

This is a good policy imo.

I know, that's why I usually stay out of the PACE forum.

LOL. You gotta have thick skin and learn not to take it personally.

[WItoTX]

Only thing I would give George Floyd over other recent incidents is that he did not try to run or overpower/take the officer’s weapon

Because there was no pregnant lady for him to attempt to shoot in the belly.

[Hoggslayer]

This is a good policy imo.

LOL. You gotta have thick skin and learn not to take it personally.

LOL. I do most of the time.

I take the PM's (from other people) trolling for confrontation a little more personal than normal responses. The way I figure, If I'm going to confront someone on their views, it should be in public where they have a chance to defined their stance.

[DRT]

I agree. Say it for all to see.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[SabineHunter]

LOL. I do most of the time.

I take the PM's (from other people) trolling for confrontation a little more personal than normal responses. The way I figure, If I'm going to confront someone on their views, it should be in public where they have a chance to defined their stance.

awww.....didn't mean to hurt your little feelings.....LOL

[Hoggslayer]

awww.....didn't mean to hurt your little feelings.....LOL

You never saw any crying from me. I defended my stance just fine, with a what I think was a intelligent, respectful response.

Most of us on here can share a respectful difference in opinions. Unlike your response above, or the one you sent me in the PM because you didn't like my public answer.

[SaltwaterSlick]

Jay, brother he ain't worth the words... Just do a search on his posts. You'll see a very clear pattern emerge. Some folks just like to argue.

[Hoggslayer]

Jay, brother he ain't worth the words... Just do a search on his posts. You'll see a very clear pattern emerge. Some folks just like to argue.

I know Charlie, but I've yet to see a intelligent argument. Believe me I'm not loosing any sleep over it.

[RiverRat1]

You never saw any crying from me. I defended my stance just fine, with a what I think was a intelligent, respectful response.

Most of us on here can share a respectful difference in opinions. Unlike your response above, or the one you sent me in the PM because you didn't like my public answer.

This ones easy. You, like most other decent people, support LEO's and assume they're better than gang bang criminals on drugs. He thinks the opposite and will not let up. He will keep coming at this from every different angle trying to pry open something/anything in hopes the LEO is wrong. It's disgusting.

[SaltwaterSlick]

Tim it's a lot simpler than that... It's just plain trolling to get an argument going... some folks just feed off this kind of stuff...

[ttechdallas]

Several folks posting not wanting to admit they were wrong...

I haven't posted but I was wrong. Though I never thought he was guilty of murder. Now I'm thinking any charges should depend on whether or not that was a trained, approved tactic at least somewhere in his recent background.

What is going to hurt the officer in the trial though is when they focus in on the look on his face with all those bystanders begging him to just check his pulse.

[glen]

TT you are spot on. Intent is out. If he was trained then reckless is out. If he was trained 15 plus years ago and the Department has not continued to train or update I don’t see proving any culpable mental state. Negligence on the Department for “fail to train” has nothing to do with Officer. Horrible situation no doubt.

[RiverRat1]

I haven't posted but I was wrong. Though I never thought he was guilty of murder. Now I'm thinking any charges should depend on whether or not that was a trained, approved tactic at least somewhere in his recent background.

What is going to hurt the officer in the trial though is when they focus in on the look on his face with all those bystanders begging him to just check his pulse.

IMO this is a huge slippery slope. Where would the law drawn the line? There's literally endless situations that LEO's deal with every day. Should they train for every endless possibility?

The "what-ifs" would go on forever.

[Quackerbox]

Only here to mention I was trained the same way glen was.

Alone and with 2 officers. Same technique in my basic academy, patrol techniques and a ground fighting class. The last of which taught by some very skilled grappling and jujitsu fighters


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[glen]

RR - TT is spot on. If they didn’t train this technique and something else he could be negligent in his actions. If they didn’t train anything and it was just do what you think will work then he is not being negligent. If he was trained he is just doing as trained