Chief: Officer's behavior at hospital 'very embarrassing'

source
Kunkle said that for Powell to draw his gun at first may be defensible. The SUV had not immediately stopped for him. People were piling out of it. The situation was uncertain.
Click to expand...

Asked at Thursday's news conference what officers are trained to do in such a situation, Kunkle said even someone with no police training should have known better than to do what Powell did.

"I don't know how you train for these circumstances, other than to hire people with common sense and good people skills," he said.

Department officials say the now-infamous video will likely make its way into the police academy's training curriculum.

Kunkle said the internal investigation against Powell will focus on conduct reflecting poorly on the department, as well as making unwarranted threats of arrest.
Click to expand...

interesting.....
 
Then again, you could consider the officer's refusal to allow Moats to see his mother in law a failure to act since 2 nurses were sent outside to inform him of that.
Click to expand...
that has nothing to do with a law.
 
ASLGAL said:
Whether specific or in general Jiro is right.
Click to expand...

The transcript of the video proves that Moats did not run a red light. I suggest that you read it.

As for Jiro's comment, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
 
Hear Again said:
I wasn't referring to this case. I was talking in general.

Then again, you could consider the officer's refusal to allow Moats to see his mother in law a failure to act since 2 nurses were sent outside to inform him of that.
Click to expand...

hence... he may have broke his department policy but he broke no law.
 
Kunkle said the internal investigation against Powell will focus on conduct reflecting poorly on the department, as well as making unwarranted threats of arrest.
Click to expand...
If that is their focus he may not be disciplined or at least not much
 
Hear Again said:
The transcript of the video proves that Moats did not run a red light. I suggest that you read it.

As for Jiro's comment, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...

I saw the video and he ran thru red.
 
Jiro said:
hence... he may have broke his department policy but he broke no law.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. His job is to protect and serve which this officer clearly did not do.

Hence, the reason for disciplinary action.
 
But it has everything to do with an officer's responsibility to protect and serve.
Click to expand...
No it has absolutely nothing to do with the it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hear Again
The transcript of the video proves that Moats did not run a red light. I suggest that you read it.

As for Jiro's comment, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

I saw the video and he ran thru red.
Click to expand...
Thank you, where on earth did you get the idea he did not run the light Hear Again?
 
Hear Again said:
It doesn't matter. His job is to protect and serve which this officer clearly did not do.

Hence, the reason for disciplinary action.
Click to expand...

you are confusing "to protect and serve" with department policy. For example - in a city with high-rate of crime, the department policy requires at least 2 units (4 officers) to respond to 911 call. If there is no available back-up available, they are not constitutionally required to protect and serve you immediately.

read up on it. you'd be surprised.
 
Hear Again said:
Any discipline is better than none.
Click to expand...

please do remember that if you want to keep disciplining and finger-pointing at police officers over anything - you are dangerously limiting law enforcement's ability to protect and serve for public. This is why I urgently ask the public to exercise with extreme caution and to not act on its hindsight.
 
Hear Again said:
The transcript of the video proves that Moats did not run a red light. I suggest that you read it.

As for Jiro's comment, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...

whose transcript???
 
Jiro said:
please do remember that if you want to keep disciplining and finger-pointing at police officers over anything - you are dangerously limiting law enforcement's ability to protect and serve for public. This is why I urgently ask the public to exercise with extreme caution and to not act on its hindsight.
Click to expand...

Is that a fact? :hmm: I supposed that proves that the police feels that they are above the law, and can do whatever they please because they wear a badge, if you don't like what the police does, then you will not be protected by them. Interesting.. Thanks for proving me right.
 
IMO, I feel that the public shouldnt assign blame until the investigation by IA is completed. I think both parties were at fault for what happened to a degree but that's just my opinion.

I can see and understand the view that officers become jaded and hesistant in a potential dangerous situation but I can understand why the family drove and acted like that.

It is a situation that ended with nobody winning.
 
Cheri said:
Is that a fact? :hmm: I supposed that proves that the police feels that they are above the law, and can do whatever they please because they wear a badge, if you don't like what the police does, then you will not be protected by them. Interesting.. Thanks for proving me right.
Click to expand...

that makes no sense. How are they "above the law" for not protecting you? Find me in the law that requires officer to protect you and to give his life away for you. It's not because they are above the law for not protecting you. it's because they fear for their own life. They are not Secret Service agents nor privately-hired bodyguards.

However - many officers do valiantly protect and serve for public on daily basis. kudos to them.
 
shel90 said:
IMO, I feel that the public shouldnt assign blame until the investigation by IA is completed. I think both parties were at fault for what happened to a degree but that's just my opinion.

I can see and understand the view that officers become jaded and hesistant in a potential dangerous situation but I can understand why the family drove and acted like that.

It is a situation that ended with nobody winning.
Click to expand...

:gpost::gpost::gpost:
 
Jiro said:
that makes no sense. How are they "above the law" for not protecting you? Find me in the law that requires officer to protect you and to give his life away for you. It's not because they are above the law for not protecting you. it's because they fear for their own life. They are not Secret Service agents nor privately-hired bodyguards.

However - many officers do valiantly protect and serve for public on daily basis. kudos to them.
Click to expand...

Hear Again said any discipline on that police officer involved is better than none, and you respond and said "remember that if you want to keep disciplining and finger-pointing at police officers over anything - you are dangerously limiting law enforcement's ability to protect and serve for public." So that supposedly means the police officer involved should not be disciplined? If that is so, then that means they are above the law, they can do whatever they please to do.

It's not hard to understand. ;)
 
Cheri said:
Hear Again said any discipline on that police officer involved is better than none, and you respond and said "remember that if you want to keep disciplining and finger-pointing at police officers over anything - you are dangerously limiting law enforcement's ability to protect and serve for public." So that supposedly means the police officer involved should not be disciplined? If that is so, then that means they are above the law, they can do whatever they please to do.

It's not hard to understand. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is a police misconduct in this issue but further flaming and furor on him is not needed. I'm just giving you a friendly warning about the possible ramification out of it. By fingerpointing and raising hell whenever you don't like what you see from police, you will severely limit their ability to protect and serve for you.

For long.... police officers have always been the first responder to any emergency situations. Most of situations requires immediate medical assistance. Obviously the officer is not an EMT but some situations are urgent. For example, the car got into bad accident. The situation could be bad because there was gas leak all over and there could be fire. So the officer removed the driver from the car and later the car caught fire and blew up.

The result - the driver sued police department for millions of dollars because he was paralyzed as the result of officer removing him. Since then - the officers no longer render medical assistance and they have to wait for EMT/Firemen to provide medical assistance.
 
Back
Top