Car Pulled Over For Traffic Stop, Man In Passenger Seat Held At Gunpoint For 9 Minutes

[toobfreak]

Why did it take the suspects 9 minutes to find their papers? Oops--my bad!

You obviously didn't watch the video. The cop held a gun on the passenger for nine minutes telling him not to move. The video doesn't show WHEN he was finally free to reach for the papers! First the cop told him to get his papers and when the guy reached for them, the cop flipped out! The guy should have told the cop they were under the seat, but when you are in a situation like that, you get nervous, or, in this case of being pulled over just for speeding, you maybe don't expect it to escalate so quickly and easily.

Funny thing is the guy wasn't even the one who had been driving!

Problem is: WHERE DO PEOPLE KEEP THEIR PAPERS? IN THE GLOVE BOX! Maybe under the seat. Either way, you have to reach into a hidden compartment the cop can't see into where you could have a gun stashed. So maybe this cop needs to rethink how he handles these situations? You can't direct a person to reach into a concealed compartment then turn around and threaten his life because he tries to comply with your order.

 

[Snouter]

Oh I can beat that. Easily. I was held at gunpoint (TWO guns), handcuffed and taken away for the crime of walking home from a trolley stop. And of course for the perverted act of Being The First Guy They Saw. Then they tried to pin me for murder.

Did you fit the description of the perp?

 

[EverCurious]

Why did it take the suspects 9 minutes to find their papers? Oops--my bad!

You obviously didn't watch the video. The cop held a gun on the passenger for nine minutes telling him not to move. The video doesn't show WHEN he was finally free to reach for the papers! First the cop told him to get his papers and when the guy reached for them, the cop flipped out! The guy should have told the cop they were under the seat, but when you are in a situation like that, you get nervous, or, in this case of being pulled over just for speeding, you maybe don't expect it to escalate so quickly and easily.

Funny thing is the guy wasn't even the one who had been driving!

Problem is: WHERE DO PEOPLE KEEP THEIR PAPERS? IN THE GLOVE BOX! Maybe under the seat. Either way, you have to reach into a hidden compartment the cop can't see into where you could have a gun stashed. So maybe this cop needs to rethink how he handles these situations? You can't direct a person to reach into a concealed compartment then turn around and threaten his life because he tries to comply with your order.

And that right there has gotten police killed, because they never expected the driver to shoot them over a fucking broken tail light... I don't blame the officers one bit and frankly I think /everyone/ should have guns on their dumbasses when pulled over - why the hell should an officer risk their lives for us the way we've been treating and blaming them for everything? IF you're a normal person you can keep your fucking attitude in check and follow the officers requests without a problem - regardless of the "scary gun" after all. Perhaps it would teach these punk asses some self control and do them some good...

 

[BULLDOG]

The man wasn't driving, CHiPs officer comes to right door asks for papers, when man goes to get them, cop points gun at him for nine minutes, refuses to stop aiming it at him directly though man's hands were in plain view.

Cop gun 9 minutes - Bing video

Are the police getting a bit TOO edgy or what? I understand their concerns, but did he have to keep a loaded gun aimed at a man's chest? I mean, he could have simply raised it a bit aimed over the car, or kept his hand on it in the holster.

Cops are trained heavily in firearms skills, deft handling, high accuracy, that should give you an edge and confidence, but apparently not here. What next, hold it to the guy's temple with finger on the trigger?

What is wrong with that crazy cop?

 

[BULLDOG]

Later the guy apologized to the Cop for being wrong

Where did you come up with that, or are you just lying again?

 

[Tank]

Later the guy apologized to the Cop for being wrong

Where did you come up with that, or are you just lying again?

Did you watch the video or are you just stupid?

 

[BULLDOG]

Later the guy apologized to the Cop for being wrong

Where did you come up with that, or are you just lying again?

Did you watch the video or are you just stupid?

I watched the video in the OP link. I guess the guy was lucky. Cops in Houston killed a one arm, one leg man in a wheel chair because he had a ball point pen in his hand I guess those three cops were in fear for their lievs from the paraplegic in a wheelchair.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Sometimes firearms skills, deft handling, superior weaponry, and high accuracy aren't enough. That's evident by the high number of law-enforcement deaths lately.

A lot of those deaths occur by people shooting police just sitting in their car or something, not even aware or looking, doing paperwork or something, by passers-by who the police are not even engaged with. The cop should have at least aimed the gun towards his legs or dash. A loaded gun aimed at your chest is a threat to your life, aimed at the legs or the dash, the guy had to go that direction anyway to get under the seat! If a cop doesn't feel safe with his GUN DRAWN, SAFETY OFF, IN HIS HAND and ALREADY POINTED AT THE SUBJECT that all he needs is 1/10th second to point, against an unarmed guy sitting back with hands in plain view, I would be nervous of that cop too.

All such behavior is likely to do is further escalate fear of the police and anti-cop reprisal. If you think I'm wrong, fine, let me come to your house and point a loaded .45 at your chest for 9 minutes! See how it feels. You won't like it.

No back stories, please. Our law firm has a nice tight pattern zeroed in on the officer.

There's way more to the story than the video shows. The car was stopped because it whizzed by the officer, doing 85 mph. In the five minutes that elapsed before the video started, the officer had a cordial conversation with the occupants and asked them, for their licenses, proof of insurance, and registration. The occupants spent several minutes looking for them, and the officer saw Mr. Loudmouth reaching under the seat and felt threatened enough to hold him at gunpoint.

The Campbell Police Department has upheld the officer's action...

Campbell Police Defend Gun-Drawn Highway 101 Traffic Stop
BTW, it would suck for someone to come to my door with a loaded pistol. We live pretty far out in the sticks and I hardly ever stray very far from my body armor, night vision goggles, and an AK-47. Besides, after the dogs got through with them, there wouldn't be enough for a proper funeral.

No background stories, please. Our law firm has a nice tight pattern zeroed in on the officer.

 

[toobfreak]

And that right there has gotten police killed, because they never expected the driver to shoot them over a fucking broken tail light.

I can't deny that! Police work is a RISKY business. You can't eliminate the risk. But you have to look at the OTHER side, look at how many innocent people have been killed for absolutely no reason because the police misinterpreted an action, were over-reactive, or had the wrong person? Are you saying they should eliminate as much risk as possible by treating every person as public enemy #1 and putting their life at risk in even the simplest situations? Maybe when the police come to your door to ask for donations to the policeman's ball they should have a gun pointed at you as you open the door. I mean, there IS the risk that you'll open the door with an AK-47 blasting away.

.. I don't blame the officers one bit and frankly I think /everyone/ should have guns on their dumbasses when pulled over - why the hell should an officer risk their lives for us the way we've been treating and blaming them for everything?

I haven't been treating or blaming them! That has mostly come from first BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER, which spurred and inflamed the Baltimore riots and trickled down into these radical hate groups like Black Lives Matter. That has all been coming from the previous federal government. If the police start pointing a loaded weapon at you, right at your chest even when you clearly pose no risk, you will see opinion of the police quickly erode even with the general public. If you had a brain you would realize that the best solution to eliminating risk (when you can) is to make intelligent, smart decisions and base your actions on a case by case basis. Let's face it, there are some very good cops, but then there are some bad ones as well. A one size fits all solution, especially when you are dealing with lives is never the best.

If you really want to eliminate risk, would you have the police at every encounter, even a flat tire, have six cops yank all of the passengers out of their car, throw them on the ground, handcuff their arms behind their back, kneel on their neck with a gun pointed at the back of their head? Congratulations, you have just created a brutal fascist police state.

IF you're a normal person you can keep your fucking attitude in check and follow the officers requests without a problem - regardless of the "scary gun" after all. Perhaps it would teach these punk asses some self control and do them some good...

Maybe. But you overlook the real issue, and that is society. You won't find police pointing guns at people for no immediate reason in Bel Air, or other swanky neighborhoods. The key is to base your actions on the needs of the situation, not by some blanket rule. If you approach a car with your hand on your holster, it shouldn't take a well-trained officer more than a second to react to sudden moves, pull his gun, aim and fire. If the person in the car already has his hand on a gun as well, then there is going to be a problem and you can't eliminate that unless you simply shoot the occupant in the back of the head as you approach every car. You can't eliminate risk and you fail to see that polarity creates polar opposites. The role of an officer is SUPPOSED to be as a friendly neighborhood Constable On Patrol, keeping the peace, diffusing situations, and helping people. What you propose is the militarization of the police into virtual S.W.A.T teams treating every person and every situation with the highest suspicion. All that will get you is MORE people killed, police included, by utterly eroding trust in your police and creating widespread fear and mistrust of them as a potential hair-trigger assassination squad.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The guy should not be reaching under his seat

Good job officer

thanks-----clearly the cop had a reason. Since he did not shoot the guy-----what is the issue?

The problem is the cop does not believe in the "Innocent til Proven Guilty" motto of the United States. That has been a problem for a while with the police.
I see them question the Drivers after a traffic stop asking them where they are coming from or where they are going. Which has nothing to do with the reason they got pulled over.

Even though we've had that illogical phrase drummed into us from childhood, it is only a motto of criminal-defense lawyers and weeping thughuggers. Someone is only innocent until he does the crime, not until he is caught after leaving enough evidence to convict him. Legalese is an intentionally misleading jargon designed to confuse the public. Lawyers make most of their money off that confusion.

What absolute BS. I see you have been drinking the kool aid by the gallon.

And your Antifa rotgut has been spiked with LSD--Liberal Sanity Disorder.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And that right there has gotten police killed, because they never expected the driver to shoot them over a fucking broken tail light.

I can't deny that! Police work is a RISKY business. You can't eliminate the risk. But you have to look at the OTHER side, look at how many innocent people have been killed for absolutely no reason because the police misinterpreted an action, were over-reactive, or had the wrong person? Are you saying they should eliminate as much risk as possible by treating every person as public enemy #1 and putting their life at risk in even the simplest situations? Maybe when the police come to your door to ask for donations to the policeman's ball they should have a gun pointed at you as you open the door. I mean, there IS the risk that you'll open the door with an AK-47 blasting away.

.. I don't blame the officers one bit and frankly I think /everyone/ should have guns on their dumbasses when pulled over - why the hell should an officer risk their lives for us the way we've been treating and blaming them for everything?

I haven't been treating or blaming them! That has mostly come from first BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER, which spurred and inflamed the Baltimore riots and trickled down into these radical hate groups like Black Lives Matter. That has all been coming from the previous federal government. If the police start pointing a loaded weapon at you, right at your chest even when you clearly pose no risk, you will see opinion of the police quickly erode even with the general public. If you had a brain you would realize that the best solution to eliminating risk (when you can) is to make intelligent, smart decisions and base your actions on a case by case basis. Let's face it, there are some very good cops, but then there are some bad ones as well. A one size fits all solution, especially when you are dealing with lives is never the best.

If you really want to eliminate risk, would you have the police at every encounter, even a flat tire, have six cops yank all of the passengers out of their car, throw them on the ground, handcuff their arms behind their back, kneel on their neck with a gun pointed at the back of their head? Congratulations, you have just created a brutal fascist police state.

IF you're a normal person you can keep your fucking attitude in check and follow the officers requests without a problem - regardless of the "scary gun" after all. Perhaps it would teach these punk asses some self control and do them some good...

Maybe. But you overlook the real issue, and that is society. You won't find police pointing guns at people for no immediate reason in Bel Air, or other swanky neighborhoods. The key is to base your actions on the needs of the situation, not by some blanket rule. If you approach a car with your hand on your holster, it shouldn't take a well-trained officer more than a second to react to sudden moves, pull his gun, aim and fire. If the person in the car already has his hand on a gun as well, then there is going to be a problem and you can't eliminate that unless you simply shoot the occupant in the back of the head as you approach every car. You can't eliminate risk and you fail to see that polarity creates polar opposites. The role of an officer is SUPPOSED to be as a friendly neighborhood Constable On Patrol, keeping the peace, diffusing situations, and helping people. What you propose is the militarization of the police into virtual S.W.A.T teams treating every person and every situation with the highest suspicion. All that will get you is MORE people killed, police included, by utterly eroding trust in your police and creating widespread fear and mistrust of them as a potential hair-trigger assassination squad.

Why do you try to appease the Liberals by desperately seeking some situation where you can possibly agree with them? They'll use it for their lying talking point "Even the Right Wingers are saying that this is a flagrant violation of proper police procedure."

 

[Tank]

I watched the video in the OP link. I guess the guy was lucky. Cops in Houston killed a one arm, one leg man in a wheel chair because he had a ball point pen in his hand I guess those three cops were in fear for their lievs from the paraplegic in a wheelchair.

He was not a paraplegic, he was not in a wheel chair, he had a fake leg and could walk, he tried to stab the cop and it was just two Cops

 

[BULLDOG]

I watched the video in the OP link. I guess the guy was lucky. Cops in Houston killed a one arm, one leg man in a wheel chair because he had a ball point pen in his hand I guess those three cops were in fear for their lievs from the paraplegic in a wheelchair.

He was not a paraplegic, he was not in a wheel chair, he had a fake leg and could walk, he tried to stab the cop and it was just two Cops

Houston cops kill a lot of amputees for no reason.This is the one I was talkin about. I don't doubt there were plenty of others

 

[blastoff]

Screw the loudmouthed asshole. He obviously knows the camera's running, and by the way where is it? The video shows no shaking or movement so the driver's not holding and operating it. Is it affixed somewhere inside the car and if so for what purpose?

 

[BULLDOG]

Screw the loudmouthed asshole. He obviously knows the camera's running, and by the way where is it? The video shows no shaking or movement so the driver's not holding and operating it. Is it affixed somewhere inside the car and if so for what purpose?

Probably there to document the cop killing him in case his finger slips after 9 minutes.

 

[Tank]

Houston cops kill a lot of amputees for no reason.This is the one I was talkin about. I don't doubt there were plenty of others

Looks like they did the guy a favor

 

[EverCurious]

Maybe. But you overlook the real issue, and that is society. You won't find police pointing guns at people for no immediate reason in Bel Air, or other swanky neighborhoods. The key is to base your actions on the needs of the situation, not by some blanket rule. If you approach a car with your hand on your holster, it shouldn't take a well-trained officer more than a second to react to sudden moves, pull his gun, aim and fire. If the person in the car already has his hand on a gun as well, then there is going to be a problem and you can't eliminate that unless you simply shoot the occupant in the back of the head as you approach every car. You can't eliminate risk and you fail to see that polarity creates polar opposites. The role of an officer is SUPPOSED to be as a friendly neighborhood Constable On Patrol, keeping the peace, diffusing situations, and helping people. What you propose is the militarization of the police into virtual S.W.A.T teams treating every person and every situation with the highest suspicion. All that will get you is MORE people killed, police included, by utterly eroding trust in your police and creating widespread fear and mistrust of them as a potential hair-trigger assassination squad.

And I disagree with the bold above. The role of the police is /enforcement/ the rest of it's secondary. Personally, as a law abiding woman who has children in the world, I enjoy that the police are busting the criminal asses and throwing them in jail; or killing them if they're so stupid or violent as to warrant it. I simply have /zero/ patience nor sympathy for criminals, much less the ones who would attack police - if they're willing to attack an armed officer, they will abuse the innocent and largely helpless citizenry. Police should be highly suspicious - the vast majority have a family to consider and an obligation to make it home every night. AND /we/ the law abiding public should fucking realize how stressful and dangerous their jobs are and not get "offended" if they have guns drawn to protect their asses. I'm a military brat, MP's will come up on you guns drawn and frankly it's not that big a deal - shouldn't be for the police either, but the criminals have used the D and SWJ's to push this narrative that police are not fighting a war - they are though, and it's a deadly one, probably even more lethal that a modern "actual" war frankly...

 

[toobfreak]

And that right there has gotten police killed, because they never expected the driver to shoot them over a fucking broken tail light.

I can't deny that! Police work is a RISKY business. You can't eliminate the risk. But you have to look at the OTHER side, look at how many innocent people have been killed for absolutely no reason because the police misinterpreted an action, were over-reactive, or had the wrong person? Are you saying they should eliminate as much risk as possible by treating every person as public enemy #1 and putting their life at risk in even the simplest situations? Maybe when the police come to your door to ask for donations to the policeman's ball they should have a gun pointed at you as you open the door. I mean, there IS the risk that you'll open the door with an AK-47 blasting away.

.. I don't blame the officers one bit and frankly I think /everyone/ should have guns on their dumbasses when pulled over - why the hell should an officer risk their lives for us the way we've been treating and blaming them for everything?

I haven't been treating or blaming them! That has mostly come from first BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER, which spurred and inflamed the Baltimore riots and trickled down into these radical hate groups like Black Lives Matter. That has all been coming from the previous federal government. If the police start pointing a loaded weapon at you, right at your chest even when you clearly pose no risk, you will see opinion of the police quickly erode even with the general public. If you had a brain you would realize that the best solution to eliminating risk (when you can) is to make intelligent, smart decisions and base your actions on a case by case basis. Let's face it, there are some very good cops, but then there are some bad ones as well. A one size fits all solution, especially when you are dealing with lives is never the best.

If you really want to eliminate risk, would you have the police at every encounter, even a flat tire, have six cops yank all of the passengers out of their car, throw them on the ground, handcuff their arms behind their back, kneel on their neck with a gun pointed at the back of their head? Congratulations, you have just created a brutal fascist police state.

IF you're a normal person you can keep your fucking attitude in check and follow the officers requests without a problem - regardless of the "scary gun" after all. Perhaps it would teach these punk asses some self control and do them some good...

Maybe. But you overlook the real issue, and that is society. You won't find police pointing guns at people for no immediate reason in Bel Air, or other swanky neighborhoods. The key is to base your actions on the needs of the situation, not by some blanket rule. If you approach a car with your hand on your holster, it shouldn't take a well-trained officer more than a second to react to sudden moves, pull his gun, aim and fire. If the person in the car already has his hand on a gun as well, then there is going to be a problem and you can't eliminate that unless you simply shoot the occupant in the back of the head as you approach every car. You can't eliminate risk and you fail to see that polarity creates polar opposites. The role of an officer is SUPPOSED to be as a friendly neighborhood Constable On Patrol, keeping the peace, diffusing situations, and helping people. What you propose is the militarization of the police into virtual S.W.A.T teams treating every person and every situation with the highest suspicion. All that will get you is MORE people killed, police included, by utterly eroding trust in your police and creating widespread fear and mistrust of them as a potential hair-trigger assassination squad.

Why do you try to appease the Liberals by desperately seeking some situation where you can possibly agree with them? They'll use it for their lying talking point "Even the Right Wingers are saying that this is a flagrant violation of proper police procedure."

No appeasement. Just the facts.

 

[toobfreak]

And that right there has gotten police killed, because they never expected the driver to shoot them over a fucking broken tail light.

I can't deny that! Police work is a RISKY business. You can't eliminate the risk. But you have to look at the OTHER side, look at how many innocent people have been killed for absolutely no reason because the police misinterpreted an action, were over-reactive, or had the wrong person? Are you saying they should eliminate as much risk as possible by treating every person as public enemy #1 and putting their life at risk in even the simplest situations? Maybe when the police come to your door to ask for donations to the policeman's ball they should have a gun pointed at you as you open the door. I mean, there IS the risk that you'll open the door with an AK-47 blasting away.

.. I don't blame the officers one bit and frankly I think /everyone/ should have guns on their dumbasses when pulled over - why the hell should an officer risk their lives for us the way we've been treating and blaming them for everything?

I haven't been treating or blaming them! That has mostly come from first BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER, which spurred and inflamed the Baltimore riots and trickled down into these radical hate groups like Black Lives Matter. That has all been coming from the previous federal government. If the police start pointing a loaded weapon at you, right at your chest even when you clearly pose no risk, you will see opinion of the police quickly erode even with the general public. If you had a brain you would realize that the best solution to eliminating risk (when you can) is to make intelligent, smart decisions and base your actions on a case by case basis. Let's face it, there are some very good cops, but then there are some bad ones as well. A one size fits all solution, especially when you are dealing with lives is never the best.

If you really want to eliminate risk, would you have the police at every encounter, even a flat tire, have six cops yank all of the passengers out of their car, throw them on the ground, handcuff their arms behind their back, kneel on their neck with a gun pointed at the back of their head? Congratulations, you have just created a brutal fascist police state.

IF you're a normal person you can keep your fucking attitude in check and follow the officers requests without a problem - regardless of the "scary gun" after all. Perhaps it would teach these punk asses some self control and do them some good...

Maybe. But you overlook the real issue, and that is society. You won't find police pointing guns at people for no immediate reason in Bel Air, or other swanky neighborhoods. The key is to base your actions on the needs of the situation, not by some blanket rule. If you approach a car with your hand on your holster, it shouldn't take a well-trained officer more than a second to react to sudden moves, pull his gun, aim and fire. If the person in the car already has his hand on a gun as well, then there is going to be a problem and you can't eliminate that unless you simply shoot the occupant in the back of the head as you approach every car. You can't eliminate risk and you fail to see that polarity creates polar opposites. The role of an officer is SUPPOSED to be as a friendly neighborhood Constable On Patrol, keeping the peace, diffusing situations, and helping people. What you propose is the militarization of the police into virtual S.W.A.T teams treating every person and every situation with the highest suspicion. All that will get you is MORE people killed, police included, by utterly eroding trust in your police and creating widespread fear and mistrust of them as a potential hair-trigger assassination squad.

Why do you try to appease the Liberals by desperately seeking some situation where you can possibly agree with them? They'll use it for their lying talking point "Even the Right Wingers are saying that this is a flagrant violation of proper police procedure."

No appeasement. Just the facts. If I try to avoid stating a truth just because it might occasionally agree with a liberals, then am I not just as bad as them? The difference is that liberals NEVER admit to agreeing with a conservative.

 

[oldsoul]

And that right there has gotten police killed, because they never expected the driver to shoot them over a fucking broken tail light.

I can't deny that! Police work is a RISKY business. You can't eliminate the risk. But you have to look at the OTHER side, look at how many innocent people have been killed for absolutely no reason because the police misinterpreted an action, were over-reactive, or had the wrong person? Are you saying they should eliminate as much risk as possible by treating every person as public enemy #1 and putting their life at risk in even the simplest situations? Maybe when the police come to your door to ask for donations to the policeman's ball they should have a gun pointed at you as you open the door. I mean, there IS the risk that you'll open the door with an AK-47 blasting away.

.. I don't blame the officers one bit and frankly I think /everyone/ should have guns on their dumbasses when pulled over - why the hell should an officer risk their lives for us the way we've been treating and blaming them for everything?

I haven't been treating or blaming them! That has mostly come from first BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER, which spurred and inflamed the Baltimore riots and trickled down into these radical hate groups like Black Lives Matter. That has all been coming from the previous federal government. If the police start pointing a loaded weapon at you, right at your chest even when you clearly pose no risk, you will see opinion of the police quickly erode even with the general public. If you had a brain you would realize that the best solution to eliminating risk (when you can) is to make intelligent, smart decisions and base your actions on a case by case basis. Let's face it, there are some very good cops, but then there are some bad ones as well. A one size fits all solution, especially when you are dealing with lives is never the best.

If you really want to eliminate risk, would you have the police at every encounter, even a flat tire, have six cops yank all of the passengers out of their car, throw them on the ground, handcuff their arms behind their back, kneel on their neck with a gun pointed at the back of their head? Congratulations, you have just created a brutal fascist police state.

IF you're a normal person you can keep your fucking attitude in check and follow the officers requests without a problem - regardless of the "scary gun" after all. Perhaps it would teach these punk asses some self control and do them some good...

Maybe. But you overlook the real issue, and that is society. You won't find police pointing guns at people for no immediate reason in Bel Air, or other swanky neighborhoods. The key is to base your actions on the needs of the situation, not by some blanket rule. If you approach a car with your hand on your holster, it shouldn't take a well-trained officer more than a second to react to sudden moves, pull his gun, aim and fire. If the person in the car already has his hand on a gun as well, then there is going to be a problem and you can't eliminate that unless you simply shoot the occupant in the back of the head as you approach every car. You can't eliminate risk and you fail to see that polarity creates polar opposites. The role of an officer is SUPPOSED to be as a friendly neighborhood Constable On Patrol, keeping the peace, diffusing situations, and helping people. What you propose is the militarization of the police into virtual S.W.A.T teams treating every person and every situation with the highest suspicion. All that will get you is MORE people killed, police included, by utterly eroding trust in your police and creating widespread fear and mistrust of them as a potential hair-trigger assassination squad.

Why do you try to appease the Liberals by desperately seeking some situation where you can possibly agree with them? They'll use it for their lying talking point "Even the Right Wingers are saying that this is a flagrant violation of proper police procedure."

No appeasement. Just the facts. If I try to avoid stating a truth just because it might occasionally agree with a liberals, then am I not just as bad as them? The difference is that liberals NEVER admit to agreeing with a conservative.

If I try to avoid stating a truth just because it might occasionally agree with a liberals, then am I not just as bad as them?

Yes. The truth is the truth, it matters not who agrees with or likes it.