McKinney officer resigns due to actions in pool party video

Good for the cop.

He shouldn't be demonized for doing his job.

He did his best to control an out of control situation and you have all these arm chair cops and lawyers criticizing his every move on the internet based on a few seconds of video and widely spread lies on what has really occurred.

Hopefully there will be a gofundme page set up to support him.

Maybe then he can move away from this kind of trash and not have to deal with them ever again.

Lol I'm sorry. Had to create an account after going through this thread.


A lot of misinformation/total lack of knowledge in this thread, especially with an eyewitness account of the situation that directly opposes what the talking heads are saying.

The girl in the video was refusing to cooperate.

The officer pulled his gun as a warning to the two individuals coming up behind him yelling. Notice how after he does, they run away, and he turns back to the girl? Right before the two officers come into frame the officer in question is turning away and has his sidearm at his side. It certainly wasn't a case of the other officers coming up "trying to make him chill", nor did he look like a rampaging cop on the loose.

He was the senior officer true, but he also had to respond alone at first. He had other people involved in the ruckus sitting down waiting patiently, and seemed to have the situation well in hand except for one mouthy teenage girl. He wasn't beating her, she didn't have her arms up saying don't shoot. And yet I see comments Like "He looked and felt an ass and his ego got hurt so he took it out on the kids" and other insults, because the mighty armchair cops/detectives and social justice warriors of ATS know the whole situation front and back and are certainly never wrong.

I thought ATS was about denying ignorance, yet it seems many want to fall right in to the trappings of those who desire a race/civil war.

originally posted by: MoreBeer
Good for the cop.

He shouldn't be demonized for doing his job.

He did his best to control an out of control situation and you have all these arm chair cops and lawyers criticizing his every move on the internet based on a few seconds of video and widely spread lies on what has really occurred.

Hopefully there will be a gofundme page set up to support him.

Maybe then he can move away from this kind of trash and not have to deal with them ever again.

I'm curious, would the police chief who said the officers actions were indefensible an armchair cop. Did the police chief base his comments on a few seconds of video and widely spread lies?

Or perhaps he talked to the 12 officers who were there and 11 of those officers informed him that their senior officer was out of line.

a reply to: FraggleRock

You and I know he is pandering to the media who has already tried and convicted the cop because he dared enforce the law on a protected class.

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: MoreBeer
Good for the cop.

He shouldn't be demonized for doing his job.

He did his best to control an out of control situation and you have all these arm chair cops and lawyers criticizing his every move on the internet based on a few seconds of video and widely spread lies on what has really occurred.

Hopefully there will be a gofundme page set up to support him.

Maybe then he can move away from this kind of trash and not have to deal with them ever again.

I'm curious, would the police chief who said the officers actions were indefensible an armchair cop. Did the police chief base his comments on a few seconds of video and widely spread lies?

Or perhaps he talked to the 12 officers who were there and 11 of those officers informed him that their senior officer was out of line.

Or maybe this chief has no other choice but to follow along with the paradigm shift.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
The girl in the video was refusing to cooperate.

How so? The officer tells the group she was part of to leave at the 2:38 mark in the original video. They are in the process of leaving when he seeks her out at about the 3:00 mark of the original video. If he tells her to leave and shes leaving, how is she not cooperating?

because the mighty armchair cops/detectives and social justice warriors of ATS know the whole situation front and back and are certainly never wrong.

Do you apply this to the police chief who said this officers actions were indefensible?

originally posted by: FraggleRock

How so? The officer tells the group she was part of to leave at the 2:38 mark in the original video. They are in the process of leaving when he seeks her out at about the 3:00 mark of the original video. If he tells her to leave and shes leaving, how is she not cooperating?

walking around doesn't automatically mean they are leaving.

Do you apply this to the police chief who said this officers actions were indefensible?

I already responded to this.

originally posted by: MoreBeer

You and I know he is pandering to the media who has already tried and convicted the cop because he dared enforce the law on a protected class.

I know no such thing and I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from dictating such assumptions.

11 officers acted appropriately and 1 did not. The chief decided that 1 in 12 was in the wrong.

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: MoreBeer

You and I know he is pandering to the media who has already tried and convicted the cop because he dared enforce the law on a protected class.

I know no such thing and I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from dictating such assumptions.

11 officers acted appropriately and 1 did not. The chief decided that 1 in 12 was in the wrong.

Its a fair assumption in most other cases, but not this one?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Its a fair assumption in most other cases, but not this one?

Since when is it fair for someone to dictate someones opinion? He believes the chief is pandering, I do not.

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Its a fair assumption in most other cases, but not this one?

Since when is it fair for someone to dictate someones opinion? He believes the chief is pandering, I do not.

That's fine. but you seem to be disregarding the possibility altogether.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Not disregarding any possibility, I simply don't agree with that conclusion.

In very few instances has media scrutiny made a police department change it's mind on the actions of one of it's officers. Look at almost all of the recent cases that have gotten the most attention and notice how the department, including the chiefs, have almost always had the backs of the officers. No pandering. Yet this time the chief declares that his officer acted inappropriately and it's pandering?

When we criticize we're "armchair" cops who don't know anything...
When the police chief criticizes, he's pandering...

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Not disregarding any possibility, I simply don't agree with that conclusion.

In very few instances has media scrutiny made a police department change it's mind on the actions of one of it's officers. Look at almost all of the recent cases that have gotten the most attention and notice how the department, including the chiefs, have almost always had the backs of the officers. No pandering. Yet this time the chief declares that his officer acting inappropriate and it's pandering?

That same media scrutiny has caused officers to resign, such as with officer Wilson in Ferguson. The narrative is such that it doesn't even matter what an individual/suspect has done anymore, only that the officers become the focus of the media microscope. Therefore it stands to reason that a police chief will pander to avoid "rocking the boat" at this point.

When we criticize we're "armchair" cops who don't know anything...
When the police chief criticizes, he's pandering...

We are discussing an issue in a forum called "Posse Comitatus" with an icon of a riot geared cop beating someone. Its as much a collective gathering of pitchforks as it is reasonable discussion here.

a reply to: FraggleRock

Yep cops cant do their job now if it comes to black people!! Every move they make is going to be scrutinized.

You all jump up and say this is awesome....BUT is it?

IF they can't arrest and detain and jail black people even half as much...crime WILL soar....and those private prisons in the US need filling still....so guess who will fill them? YES the WHITE man so it comes back on you anyway!!

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

That same media scrutiny has caused officers to resign, such as with officer Wilson in Ferguson. The narrative is such that it doesn't even matter what an individual/suspect has done anymore, only that the officers become the focus of the media microscope. Therefore it stands to reason that a police chief will pander to avoid "rocking the boat" at this point.

And even in those instances when an officer resigns, the department will still support their actions seemingly unconcerned about rocking any boats.

What I believe we have here is a police chief who legitimately thinks his, now former officer, acted inappropriately. I believe this because he, unlike us, has had the opportunity to speak with all the officers on the scene. The fact that the offending officers actions were so unlike the 11 other officers tells a lot, and I think that influenced his comments more than any suspected need to pander.

a reply to: FraggleRock

in defense of the police officer, he was surrounded by a group of unruly people when he drew his gun. the police had little to no control of the men and women in the street. some were running, some were yelling at the police, some showed aggression towards the police.

was drawing a firearm excessive?

maybe it was.
but the situation in my opinion was unsettled enough to warrant the officer drawing his weapon.

a reply to: Edumakated

I can see why he drew his weapon, that is about the only thing I agree with.

You should never run up to a cop like those kids did.

But you can not resist arrest when you are not yet under it, and talking back is NOT illegal.
The first protects your speech from the state.
I know you champion the first, please champion it when it comes to talking back to police.
STFU will work sure, but it cannot be the standard.

If I want to mouth off to a cop, I am well within my rights to do so.

a reply to: projectbane

No one is saying anything near that.

The thing people are mad at is how he man handled that girl for talking back.

Sounds like the cops needed to called, I agree.
The guy was chasing people that ran, agreed.

He then gets all crazy and starts going off on people that other police officers are calmly talking too, then grabs a girl for back talking.
That is not him doing his job.
As for the two kids that thought they would come to the girls rescue, that was a bone head move.

The meat of this story is how he treated that poor girl, IMO that is what he is in trouble for

originally posted by: subfab

in defense of the police officer, he was surrounded by a group of unruly people when he drew his gun. the police had little to no control of the men and women in the street. some were running, some were yelling at the police, some showed aggression towards the police.

was drawing a firearm excessive?

maybe it was.
but the situation in my opinion was unsettled enough to warrant the officer drawing his weapon.

It's most definitely a debatable point. At that point the officer had put himself in a vulnerable position. It could be reasonably argued that multiple individuals rushing at you in that moment could be perceived as a legitimate threat. So it can be an understandable reaction that he pulled his firearm.

My issue is with what placed him in that position. His treatment of the female is the most egregious of his actions. As I've already pointed out, he told them to leave and they were leaving. Why did he determine he needed to seek her out and proceed to physically throw her around? Everyone around her while she walked away was doing just as she did, yet it was her that drew this officers ire, why? Was she not walking fast enough? Was she too vocal for his liking?

a reply to: FraggleRock

good point.

there may be no single answer but rather a list of mistakes by all people involved.