Agreed.
Probably didn't really understand the situation. Probably still doesn't.
Who knows, maybe speeding.
The officer writing both parties a citation in the accident has nothing at all to do with him not knowing who to write a citation to.
For those who have the TLDR approach to somewhat important things like Oklahoma ( the state law where all of you reside) Statutes for criminal and motor vehicle codes let me break it down for you . YES an officer can write citations to both parties in a traffic accident when it has been determined that both parties violated traffic laws which contributed to the accident.
This thread has left me shocked me with hot little people know about how the law works where they live when it comes to most things that they should know especially since most here probably drive a car.
I was’t going to respond to this thread; but since it has remained on the forum for so long; so, I decided to settle the issues brought forward in discussion.
1) The subject touched the officer.
2) Subject description: elderly male very possibly into his eighth decade; short stature; endomorphic physique with probable arthritic degeneration of the cervical spine causing neck stiffness indicated by moderate kyphosis and probable bilateral limitation in lateral rotation; gait appeared stable but stiff.
3) The officer responded technically within the confines of the law. However, his assessment of the nature of the escalating agitation of the subject and force he employed to maintain control of the situation certainly exceeded that which would have been sufficient on two levels. First, a signature on a summons for a traffic violation is not mandatory unless there are unresolved issues outstanding and in need of further investigation. An arrest for refusal to sign is optional at the officer’s discretion. His demand for a signature and threat to arrest for failure to sign were evidence that the situation had drifted into a battle of wills. The fact that the summons was ready for the subject’s signature indicates that the requisite information had already been obtained from the subjects driver’s license and other documents. Second, the subject’s physical condition posed absolutely no threat to the officer. A step back and warning to caution the elderly subject would have been the next appropriate step. There was something amiss in the officer’s ability to assess the overall situation.
4) Qualification for employment as an OKC Police Officer requires a minimum (4) College Degree, Completion of Police Academy and acceptance after passing Probationary Period under the supervision of experienced Officers. Police Academy training includes information pertaining to assessing the various factors related to subject behavior which include: age; sex; race; ethnicity; language; medical, developmental, psychological, emotional, issues subsequent to the effects of illicit drugs, alcohol, prescription medications, and/or issues related or suggesting criminal activity or intoxication as well as shock, confusion or agitation following accidents, trauma, injury or death of a loved one or friend, weather exposure or other factors. Police work is dangerous, complex demanding profession that requires intelligence, intuition, good judgement courage and integrity.
5) Officer performance: The officer employed far more physical force than needed to maintain situational control. He failed to assess and recognize the nature of the subject’s agitation which (aside from the traumatic experience of a vehicular accident) was in all probability related to a degenerative neurocognitive deficit related to his advanced age coupled with perceived disrespect from a much younger person. In short, he failed to appropriately assess and cope with the subject’s behavior and acted inappropriately. One is compelled to ask the question as to how he might handle a near term pregnant woman whom had just seen her husband beaten to death by a thugs by drug cartel gangsters.
6) Conclusion: The officer was not guilty of criminal behavior as he acted within the confines of the law. His take down and arrest were executed perfectly, but despite his enormous physical advantage and fast response, he made no visible attempt to prevent the subject’s skull from impacting the ground. If I was evaluating the incident and the officer’s performance, I would terminate his employment The subject he arrested posed no greater threat than dry leaves blowing by his jackboots on a gentle spring breeze.
1) The subject touched the officer.
2) Subject description: elderly male very possibly into his eighth decade; short stature; endomorphic physique with probable arthritic degeneration of the cervical spine causing neck stiffness indicated by moderate kyphosis and probable bilateral limitation in lateral rotation; gait appeared stable but stiff.
3) The officer responded technically within the confines of the law. However, his assessment of the nature of the escalating agitation of the subject and force he employed to maintain control of the situation certainly exceeded that which would have been sufficient on two levels. First, a signature on a summons for a traffic violation is not mandatory unless there are unresolved issues outstanding and in need of further investigation. An arrest for refusal to sign is optional at the officer’s discretion. His demand for a signature and threat to arrest for failure to sign were evidence that the situation had drifted into a battle of wills. The fact that the summons was ready for the subject’s signature indicates that the requisite information had already been obtained from the subjects driver’s license and other documents. Second, the subject’s physical condition posed absolutely no threat to the officer. A step back and warning to caution the elderly subject would have been the next appropriate step. There was something amiss in the officer’s ability to assess the overall situation.
4) Qualification for employment as an OKC Police Officer requires a minimum (4) College Degree, Completion of Police Academy and acceptance after passing Probationary Period under the supervision of experienced Officers. Police Academy training includes information pertaining to assessing the various factors related to subject behavior which include: age; sex; race; ethnicity; language; medical, developmental, psychological, emotional, issues subsequent to the effects of illicit drugs, alcohol, prescription medications, and/or issues related or suggesting criminal activity or intoxication as well as shock, confusion or agitation following accidents, trauma, injury or death of a loved one or friend, weather exposure or other factors. Police work is dangerous, complex demanding profession that requires intelligence, intuition, good judgement courage and integrity.
5) Officer performance: The officer employed far more physical force than needed to maintain situational control. He failed to assess and recognize the nature of the subject’s agitation which (aside from the traumatic experience of a vehicular accident) was in all probability related to a degenerative neurocognitive deficit related to his advanced age coupled with perceived disrespect from a much younger person. In short, he failed to appropriately assess and cope with the subject’s behavior and acted inappropriately. One is compelled to ask the question as to how he might handle a near term pregnant woman whom had just seen her husband beaten to death by a thugs by drug cartel gangsters.
6) Conclusion: The officer was not guilty of criminal behavior as he acted within the confines of the law. His take down and arrest were executed perfectly, but despite his enormous physical advantage and fast response, he made no visible attempt to prevent the subject’s skull from impacting the ground. If I was evaluating the incident and the officer’s performance, I would terminate his employment The subject he arrested posed no greater threat than dry leaves blowing by his jackboots on a gentle spring breeze.
Just wanted her number...
He was reacting to his training, period. Anyone who thinks different has NO clue about law enforcement. Don't touch a cop, period. Dude needs to pay his fine and go away.
Please, tell us what "clue" we should have when using deadly force during a non-threatening traffic encounter becomes acceptable. I'm truly curious.
Or perhaps we do understand how the law works and realize that the blind enforcement of such only requires the mental aptitude of a monkey, and the brawn of a gorilla.
Using one's brain to discern the difference between some 25 year old thug poking an officer and the incident so candidly captured on bodycam we discuss here shouldn't be a monumental task.
Alas, it is - or there is simply a lack of self-control, either brought about by substances in the officer's system, or possibly just the effects of being elevated to a position higher than other citizens. Much like a child throwing a tantrum, the officer in question likes to throw things when he doesn't get his way.
I have friends that are cops and I would be absolutely shocked and ashamed if any of them acted like this towards an elderly man.
