Can harrasment get officers killed?

While doing the daily browsing of the grey area of the web watching funny, weird, tragic, Etc. videos, I stumbled upon this one.
I don't know if this video or the topic has been discussed here but here it is, and here is the question.
Were these officers profiling and or just harrassing these people?
If so, do you think this is why the officer was killed?
Video
The video is EXTREMELY edited and gunshots end up as gaps in the sound but it will give you some idea of how things went down.
In the article it says these people were pulled over for suspect of driving without insurance.
Does anyone believe this should be just cause for a stop?
Daily Mail did a write up and it shows photos, where you can see this officers glamour photo proudly posing with his tricked out AR-15, too bad he did not keep that same vigilance the night of his death.
I wonder what this officers previous record would say about him, complaints, Etc.

Dangerous job. Having a badge does not mean you have the default-setting of ''just'' or "righteous". Living in California, Ive seen more than my fair share of given power growing like a cancer into assumed power with law enforcement. There's no effing way this guy could have known i he was insured or not. Period.

reply to post by g146541


Sorry, but there was NO justification in shooting this cop. Now I am of the mindset the officers routinely overstep their authority and act as bullies, but to kill someone for this? It is far better to be educated in the law then to take the law into your own hands.

Originally posted by g146541

I don't know if this video or the topic has been discussed here but here it is, and here is the question.

The video, no. The topic, yes. It's been discussed to death recently and it's getting sickening.

Were these officers profiling and or just harrassing these people?

Neither. They were doing their jobs. Stop using keywords like profiling that the media throws at you everyday and learn to think for yourself. The only profiling and harrassing I'm seeing is people here who are like the man who killed the officer. He was seen on tape harassing the officer while he was shooting him, and the main reason he was shooting him was becasue he profiled the officer as being "evil" somehow. Much like what you're doing by posing the types of questions you are.

You're trying to come across as unbiased about this whole thing, but your agenda is clear. I'm saying this because you REALLY can't be that naive. I don't know who's paying you to circulate this garbage, but they're not getting their money's worth.

If so, do you think this is why the officer was killed?

The officer was killed because the shooter was like so many other people on this board who thinks police officers should only do their jobs within the parameters that we set. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I know what you're thinking too; "Well it should work that way because our tax dollars pay their salaries." On that level you're right. But I think that every person in America should do a ride along with officers for one month before they even attempt to pass judgement on them doing a job that most people here wouldn't have the stomach for.

In the article it says these people were pulled over for suspect of driving without insurance.
Does anyone believe this should be just cause for a stop?

As if the above questions weren't bad enough, you have to throw this into it all to really show off your lack of understanding of how things work in the real world. Every law enforcement agency in the country has the capabilities of running a vehicles plates to see whether that vehicle is insured or not. The only reason the article stated that the driver was suspected of it was because that part of all this wasn't run through the legal system for a judge to determine. "Due process" ( More media driven keywords) wasn't served. Which is redundant when you realize that the computer system already did it 30 seconds after the plate was ran. Sorry, but due process WAS served.

I wonder what this officers previous record would say about him, complaints, Etc.

And I wonder how long the killers rap sheet is because a person who is capable of doing something like that, you really have to question what kind of person they really are. That's the side of the fence I'm on. The side that is going to question John Q Public before I question an officer. The side that doesn't believe it's necessary to want officers to uphold a "higher standard", whatever the hell that is, ( Again, OP, stop repeating keywords like that, pretending you know what you're talking about.) because they have to deal with scum like that everyday.

When I was in the Army we had a drill seargant who told us all that he wasn't going to ask us to do something, he wasn't going to hold us to standards, that he can't physically do himself. He was twice our age, we had to go through VERY rigorous training for 12 weeks and he kept pace with it all like a young buck.

I don't see anyone here doing that. I don't see anyone here who could deal with the public at it's worse, day in and day out, AND listen to the kind of garbage that's circulating the country right now, and not snap.

You people are amazing.

Evidently, the answer is "Yes".
I spent 18 years in Arkansas - back then (1970s), the driver gets out of the car, goes to the trunk behind the car and waits for the officer with ID in hand and hands fully exposed. I never heard of a routine insurance check. Suspicion of driving without insurance is a ludicrous excuse for a stop. Firing on a LEO is complete insanity (unless of course your own life is threatened by the LEOs unlawful/unjustifiable aggression, but that's another matter entirely).
I hope Schmidt DOES affect the way Arkansas LEOs handle traffic stops, but I doubt they'll get the message -
that is, not to harrass folks with frivilous traffic stops and remember "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are constraints that protect BOTH the LEO and the citizen.

ganjoa

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by g146541

 

Sorry, but there was NO justification in shooting this cop. Now I am of the mindset the officers routinely overstep their authority and act as bullies, but to kill someone for this? It is far better to be educated in the law then to take the law into your own hands.

Agreed, there was no justification for murder.
But, how many people have been stopped by the police for no reason other than having been profiled and been beaten?
I wonder if the bad guy in this scenario had dealt with other officers or this officer before?
I certainly would not allow myself to be oppressed by anyone, but in these days it seems those who do oppress go to guns way too quick.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


I have only one agenda and most people who have read my posts know what it is and I am out front open about it.
However, that is not the topic here so...
You say these officers were doing their jobs, are insurance checks SOP?
I use the word profiling as that is exactly what it was, this is not a keyword or anything special, it is real and has meaning.
And for what reason does an officer need to check a passenger in the backseat??
Unless he was waving around drugs and or a gun.
Still think these officers were doing their jobs, or were they fishing?
"Us people are amazing", yes.
We see the truth and call it what it is.

Obviously the cop would know theres no insurance BEFORE the stop.....
Suspicion is putting it politely.....
Id say they were being pretty respectful......the gun play took them by surprise entirely.....

When people kill there's always a reason, at least in the mind of the killer. Whether or not we consider it murder is largely a matter of how much everybody else agrees with the killer's justification.

If you try to spread the idea that killing for any reason other than defense is justified, or expand the concept of "defense" to nebulous extremes, then you're trying to make it more likely that in the future, when someone is choosing whether or not to kill, their pool of justifications is that much larger and their perception of consequences is lessened.

Yes, a few of your words said "I don't condone this. But your entire tone says "They had it coming".

Originally posted by stirling
Obviously the cop would know theres no insurance BEFORE the stop.....
Suspicion is putting it politely.....
Id say they were being pretty respectful......the gun play took them by surprise entirely.....

Of course they were taken by surprise, any master is shocked when the dog has had enough and bites.
Maybe they wanted the last person cuffed before they decided to be jerks, some officers prefer their prey cuffed.