They tried to tase him, twice apparently...it didn't work.

 

He allegedly threatened someone with a gun and there were likely more people there. If he's violent you want them letting him run free?

 

They hadnt searched him yet because he was clearly resisting. Is that a serious question?

 

So you approach him without addressing the gun?

 

I guess my question is, how do you get to that point and be surprised by the gun?

I was planning on sitting this one out BB.

 

Why?

If they thought he had a gun and approached him without addressing that, that's just bad police work. And dangerous for their own sake.

 

 

They obviously felt the need to approach him. Sometimes police work is dangerous. Sometimes they have to approach people with guns.

So you approach him without addressing the gun?

 

I guess my question is, how do you get to that point and be surprised by the gun?

 

He wasn't really complying with their commands, was he?

 

What should they have done differently?

 

In the end, if he reached for the gun then their approach doesn't really matter. They didn't go in guns blazing, they tried to arrest him without using deadly force. If he reached for the gun, that's HIS fault. Would you agree? Shouldn't he beat the responsibility of his own death if that is what happened?

He wasn't really complying with their commands, was he?

 

You either suspect a gun or you don't... Again, how do you get surprised by a gun at that point?

You either suspect a gun or you don't... Again, how do you get surprised by a gun at that point?

 

My guess is even if you suspect a gun, you're still going to be a little surprised even you see it, especially during a fight where they might be trying to grab it.

 

How many times have you wrestled someone who has a gun on them? Oh, and they're not doing what you tell them.

My guess is even if you suspect a gun, you're still going to be a little surprised even you see it, especially during a fight where they might be trying to grab it.

 

How many times have you wrestled someone who has a gun on them? Oh, and they're not doing what you tell them.

 

Zero, because I wouldn't wrestle with someone who I thought had a gun unless it was the absolute last resort. Was that the case in this incident?

I don't find that hard to believe. I have no interest in watching the video, but body cameras come in different varieties. Some attach by the ear like a blue tooth looking thing, some are hooked-on, some are held by magnets. They are not attached in the same location either on officers. If it was knocked off, it should still record the audio.

 

Then that is a defect in design. The point of the camera is to stay intact during conflict to record from the officer's perspective.

Then that is a defect in design. The point of the camera is to stay intact during conflict to record from the officer's perspective.

 

Not it is not. I am not saying it comes off with a brisk wind, but these cameras are accessories, not full-proof encased merchandise. Ever seen a shirt get ripped during a scuffle? I would argue body-cameras are more for recording daily interactions. Physical altercations are few and far in-between.

Not it is not. I am not saying it comes off with a brisk wind, but these cameras are accessories, not full-proof encased merchandise. Ever seen a shirt get ripped during a scuffle? I would argue body-cameras are more for recording daily interactions. Physical altercations are few and far in-between.

 

I appreciate where you are coming from, but if there were no altercations, there would be no need for body cameras. They are intended as a "cover your butt" piece of equipment for THIS EXACT purpose. They failed to function properly for this exact purpose. That is due to some sort of defect, just like other product liability cases.

Zero, because I wouldn't wrestle with someone who I thought had a gun unless it was the absolute last resort. Was that the case in this incident?

 

They tased him, didn't work. What else should they do?

Then that is a defect in design. The point of the camera is to stay intact during conflict to record from the officer's perspective.

 

Are you suggesting they ripped it off on purpose?

I am not suggesting anything. They either didn't put them on properly, or the equipment is defective for its purpose. I have a hard time believing that both officers had their cameras fall off. That was what I was replying to.

I am not suggesting anything. They either didn't put them on properly, or the equipment is defective for its purpose. I have a hard time believing that both officers had their cameras fall off. That was what I was replying to.

 

You ever been in a fight with a body cam on? I've talked to several officers. It can happen.

 

This was not a small man and both the officers were engaged in taking him to the ground. The cameras could have been ripped off. Doesn't mean there is a design defect.

Why?

 

Because I haven't looked at it yet and/or read any of the news stories and I wanted to avoid all the negativity with it.