Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
As I said, it could be for a myriad of reasons. Just because something has no rational explanation does it mean we have to start concocting stories? That's how religions get started. Maybe his mind was on something else. We assume that officers are locked in and focused but they're human beings, prone to the same loss of focus as anyone else. He could have known the guy. I saw a story earlier that said they were in the Coast Guard at the same time. Stranger things have happened. I don't know. And that's the answer that so many are afraid to even use. I don't know is an honest answer. To say, definitively as you have, that it HAS to be one of these two things, is not an honest answer. Because the answer is we simply don't know why he didn't do any of those things. Humans are not comfortable not knowing. Hell, that's how the majority of the world's religions came into existence. Not knowing is no reason to believe just anything that comes along.
You're a goof is all I can say. There is no reason for this officers repeated mistakes. You want to speculate they could have known each other from the Coast Guard, that's ridiculous. First of all they are seventeen years apart, they served at different times they could not have possibly known each other. Besides during the stop when they were face to face neither indicated they knew each other. The video of the traffic stop alone indicates to me that this is a psyop. The actual shooting video further gives me suspicion. Eight shots no smoke to indicate weapon discharge, no blood on suspect. The officer handcuffs suspect, what the fuck is that, he's no longer a viable threat. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and you're over here trying to tell me there must be some rational variables. It's all bullshit. It was done by design. You're being duped rationalize that.
You're a goof is all I can say. There is no reason for this officers repeated mistakes. You want to speculate they could have known each other from the Coast Guard, that's ridiculous. First of all they are seventeen years apart, they served at different times they could not have possibly known each other. Besides during the stop when they were face to face neither indicated they knew each other. The video of the traffic stop alone indicates to me that this is a psyop. The actual shooting video further gives me suspicion. Eight shots no smoke to indicate weapon discharge, no blood on suspect. The officer handcuffs suspect, what the fuck is that, he's no longer a viable threat. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and you're over here trying to tell me there must be some rational variables. It's all bullshit. It was done by design. You're being duped rationalize that.
Jim
Bertrand Russell said it best and it applies here. The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are cocksure, while the wiser are full of doubt.
If you don't understand it, you've just proven it right.
[QUOTE=Mr MojoRisin;1056591690] I find it unusual that the officer didn't call in the location of the stop or give a vehicle and license plate description./QUOTE]
Was there a MDT (mobile data terminal) in his unit? If so, he doesn't have to call in .... it is input through the MDT. I have not watched the cam ...
Also, if you don't "hear" it on the video sound, he may have called it in prior to activating his overheads, which customarily begins the video recording. Many times officers call in the information while following a vehicle, and depending upon the response (owner of vehicle has outstanding warrant) then the officer may initiate the stop thereby activating the overheads. ALSO, it is sound patrol procedure not to activate the overheads until a good location is selected to make the stop, which is another reason for a delay ... sometimes when the overheads go on people just stop right there and don't even move out of the traffic lane.
Those are technologically potential explanations. I will listen to the video.
I find it unusual that the officer didn't call in the location of the stop or give a vehicle and license plate description./QUOTE]
Was there a MDT (mobile data terminal) in his unit? If so, he doesn't have to call in .... it is input through the MDT. I have not watched the cam ...
Also, if you don't "hear" it on the video sound, he may have called it in prior to activating his overheads, which customarily begins the video recording. Many times officers call in the information while following a vehicle, and depending upon the response (owner of vehicle has outstanding warrant) then the officer may initiate the stop thereby activating the overheads. ALSO, it is sound patrol procedure not to activate the overheads until a good location is selected to make the stop, which is another reason for a delay ... sometimes when the overheads go on people just stop right there and don't even move out of the traffic lane.
Those are technologically potential explanations. I will listen to the video.
#1: It looks like what I said: He activated his lights at a good spot for them to pull over ... into the parking lot of a business with lots of room. The first pass (and only one I did) of listening and watching it sounded like the officer was making an inquiry of him about a traffic violation, and then the citizen is explaining why he doesn't have insurance on the vehicle.
(Did you see him "feel" of the rear fender?) He was not being "casual"!
#2: The officer is going back to the unit with the license to check it. MDT my guess since there is no sound.
#3: The citizen runs ....knows or believes he has a warrant (turned out he did).
There is no such thing as a "normal" traffic stop .. but there did not seem to be anything "strange" about it ... particularly when "we" don't know what onboard equipment he had and what he knew before the stop ... for instance ... if he got a report of the registration and owner, and the guy is telling him he just bought the car, but hadn't really bought it yet so he doesn't have insurance, but the name of the driver's license fits the name on the registration then he knows the guy is lying when he walked back to the car (except he turned his back on him when he did).
That officer made mistakes on the initial stop that have no rational explanation. Common sense would tell you to give your location and a description of the vehicle and plate on a stop. That's just for personal safety. Officers don't know who they are stopping. Walter Scott could have just committed a felony crime in an adjacent town. So tell me all about the rational reasons for not doing so.
Jim
He may have called in the stop before you see the video. Cops do that because they have to pull the vehicles over in a safer area, so he might have been following for some time. And although its standard procedure to ask the "suspect" (i'm using the term loosely) to step out of the car, police officers usually walk up to the window instead. That's been my experience with all traffic stops I've had.
Keep on putting the blame on everything but the fact that there is a real identifiable systemic problem with the Law enforcement in this country.
The suspect is TAZED, DOWN ON THE GROUND, HANDS BEHIND HIS BACK and still gets a UFC-style beatdown from these pigs that you love to glorify. Will this get your attention now, since the victim is white? ?
This is no Liberal or Democrat issue. This isn't a black or white issue. It's a civil rights issue where our liberties are being taken for granted.
Bertrand Russell said it best and it applies here. The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are cocksure, while the wiser are full of doubt.
If you don't understand it, you've just proven it right.
You stated there was a myriad of reasons why the officer may not have called in his location or description of the vehicle. You stated they may had known each other from the Coast Guard. I shot that notion down with obvious facts and you come up with this silly little cliché.
You stated there was a myriad of reasons why the officer may not have called in his location or description of the vehicle. You stated they may had known each other from the Coast Guard. I shot that notion down with obvious facts and you come up with this silly little cliché.
Jim
He doesn't even know why he went into the military. How would he know that?
Oh, wait ... first he said people do it to kill people. THEN he said he didn't know.
#1: It looks like what I said: He activated his lights at a good spot for them to pull over ... into the parking lot of a business with lots of room. The first pass (and only one I did) of listening and watching it sounded like the officer was making an inquiry of him about a traffic violation, and then the citizen is explaining why he doesn't have insurance on the vehicle.
(Did you see him "feel" of the rear fender?) He was not being "casual"!
#2: The officer is going back to the unit with the license to check it. MDT my guess since there is no sound.
#3: The citizen runs ....knows or believes he has a warrant (turned out he did).
There is no such thing as a "normal" traffic stop .. but there did not seem to be anything "strange" about it ... particularly when "we" don't know what onboard equipment he had and what he knew before the stop ... for instance ... if he got a report of the registration and owner, and the guy is telling him he just bought the car, but hadn't really bought it yet so he doesn't have insurance, but the name of the driver's license fits the name on the registration then he knows the guy is lying when he walked back to the car (except he turned his back on him when he did).
This is a link to a real traffic stop. The officer gives descriptions and locations over the radio. No matter what the equipment in your car capabilities are. Giving the description and plate info over the radio of the car you are stopping is essential for an officer's safety. Besides that all radio communication is recorded and can be referred back to if need be.
This is a link to a real traffic stop. The officer gives descriptions and locations over the radio. No matter what the equipment in your car capabilities are. Giving the description and plate info over the radio of the car you are stopping is essential for an officer's safety. Besides that all radio communication is recorded and can be referred back to if need be.
The video of the OP you showed was a "real traffic stop"!
The MDT records everything transmitted and is stored in a mainframe at the terminal through which it is transmitted. The purpose of the MDT is to reduce radio traffic through the dispatch system, and also allows officers to communicate details over a channel that is not susceptible of being overheard on a "scanner" ... if a radio were used it could be.
The video of the traffic stop of the OP did not begin until both vehicles were turning into a parking lot and you have no idea what was on the radio before that time. You are extrapolating from another stop unrelated.
Do you recall the misinformation on the Officer Wilson "stop" of Brown who was walking in the street? The "speculation" of what Wilson knew and didn't know based on "early" reporting? The same here.
You don't hear it on the unit cam recording released, so according to you it did not happen. That is simply not necessarily accurate. If he had radio traffic prior to activating his overheads for the stop, then it would not be recording on his unit cam. It would be recorded at dispatch on their recording system.... just like any MDT transmissions.
FYI: Texas Highway Patrol Officers rarely use radios in their traffic stops now. They use MDTs with global positioning auto type stamped on the transmission logs. That is "safer" than radio transmissions. Do they have radios .. of course .. including hand-helds. The gps reading shows on the dispatcher's screen and the dispatcher can tell another unit exactly where the unit check out with a gps reading. That is more accurate than an officer giving out cross streets or block numbers.
The video of the OP you showed was a "real traffic stop"!
The MDT records everything transmitted and is stored in a mainframe at the terminal through which it is transmitted. The purpose of the MDT is to reduce radio traffic through the dispatch system, and also allows officers to communicate details over a channel that is not susceptible of being overheard on a "scanner" ... if a radio were used it could be.
The video of the traffic stop of the OP did not begin until both vehicles were turning into a parking lot and you have no idea what was on the radio before that time. You are extrapolating from another stop unrelated.
Do you recall the misinformation on the Officer Wilson "stop" of Brown who was walking in the street? The "speculation" of what Wilson knew and didn't know based on "early" reporting? The same here.
You don't hear it on the unit cam recording released, so according to you it did not happen. That is simply not necessarily accurate. If he had radio traffic prior to activating his overheads for the stop, then it would not be recording on his unit cam. It would be recorded at dispatch on their recording system.... just like any MDT transmissions.
FYI: Texas Highway Patrol Officers rarely use radios in their traffic stops now. They use MDTs with global positioning auto type stamped on the transmission logs. That is "safer" than radio transmissions. Do they have radios .. of course .. including hand-helds. The gps reading shows on the dispatcher's screen and the dispatcher can tell another unit exactly where the unit check out with a gps reading. That is more accurate than an officer giving out cross streets or block numbers.
I understand what you're saying. But I just have a feeling there was no radio transmission before the video went on. I am sorry the whole incident has a scripted appearance.
You stated there was a myriad of reasons why the officer may not have called in his location or description of the vehicle. You stated they may had known each other from the Coast Guard. I shot that notion down with obvious facts and you come up with this silly little cliché.
Jim
And it turns out there were a myriad of reasons to explain why he he acted the way he did. Just like I said there were. I never stated the coast Guard anyhow as fact. I said stranger things have happened. And it's not a cliche. The fact that you think it is says a lot about you. Russell was a brilliant man. The fact that you cast off his thought as cliche is unfortunate.
I understand what you're saying. But I just have a feeling there was no radio transmission before the video went on. I am sorry the whole incident has a scripted appearance.
Jim
If his location was transmitted by his mdt, there wouldn't need to be radio transmission. You're trying to find something where there's nothing. Occams razor dictates we go with the one that has the least assumptions.
