News >> Browse Articles >> Crime News
over 1 year ago
16116 articles submitted
March 12, 2013
I have some concerns with how this whole thing played out.
1) The off-duty officer is under the same obligation and legal requirement under law given the circumstances to produce LICENSE, REGISTRATION and PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE as the citizen he was involved in the collision with. He can not tell me that he does not know this or that his police officer status exempts him. How many times has he responded to similar collisions and requested the same from the involved parties? Other than verbally stating he was a police officer and obviously off-duty, he made no attempt to identify himself by showing any of the above required items. Instead, he said "You aint seein, nothing." at some point adding all of the "F" bomb references advising the other party to get out of his face.
2) 99.9% of the time, my weapon is holstered and covered when I am off duty. Seldom is it ever on my lap or under my leg unless I had perceived a threat while traversing through an area. This weapon appeared to have been pulled from the center console area and while not directly pointed at the other party, its unholstered presence could be perceived as threatening. I did not see at any point where the driver of the truck was in the personal space of the off-duty to warrant removal of the firearm from a holster. If the firearm was otherwise unsecured, he, the off-duty could have done a better job securing the weapon without giving the appearance that the firearm was pulled on the other party.
3) The collision appeared to have occurred in the middle of traffic. Both vehicles appeared to be fully operational and could have as well as should have been moved to the right shoulder and out of the way of traffic. Their little hissy fit with each other almost caused a couple of secondary collisions.
4) This was for all intents and purposes, a minor traffic collision. It happens. Granted, people get a little disjointed. THIS WAS A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT...... NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS..... NOT an ON PURPOSE and definitely NOT a contempt of the off-duty or the other involved party. Get on with it and simply exchange information as required and give it to your insurance company.
This whole incident after the collision was avoidable and should never have occurred. Congratulations on his youtube performance. I don't think he made himself look very good.
It would be a judgement call by the chief or review panel.Weapon was not aimed,but probably shouldn't have been displayed.I did;t see any threats by either man.In the two states I worked and the state I currently reside ,both operators are required,by law to exchange information.
Save time in your search for a criminal justice degree program.
Use PoliceLink's School Finder to locate schools online and in your area.
Rockland man accused of attacking roommate with metal bar
5 people hurt in shooting at house party in Livermore
49ers defensive end arrested, charged with felony domestic violence
Man in custody after toddler thrown from parked car
Kenner robbery suspect arrested after police chase on Causeway
© 2014 PoliceLink