Phucked around and found out thread. Stories of dirtbags doing dirtbag things and taking dirtnaps or finding out the reward isnt as they thought.

[Texasgordo]

FAFO is for the idiot recording. If there's a gunfight going on in my backyard I'm laying on the ground so I don't catch a bullet.

 

[V-Tach]

 

[V-Tach]

 

[Cool 'Horn Luke]

Why were they being so nice? I was literally expecting to see "the community" dumping his nearly lifeless body into a drainage ditch. Did anyone else see the discrepancy in ethnicity? Hows that immigration working out for you England?

 

[Texasgordo]

Retards vs floods

 

[Hoji]

Retards vs floods

Should have listened.

 

[1911'S 4 Me]

Retards vs floods

Should have let the raghead alone to stay in her car.

 

[pronstar]

Not firearm, but…

 

[BRD@66]

Looks more like assault with a deadly weapon than FAFO to me.

 

[deemus]

Looks more like assault with a deadly weapon than FAFO to me.

I had the same thought.

 

[benenglish]

Looks more like assault with a deadly weapon than FAFO to me.

The statement from the department in the aftermath was that the officer who blocked the path was doing it because the ATV was going so fast it was going to kill some of the joggers/walkers seen earlier in the video. It was an heroic officer throwing himself in front of a projectile that was aimed at innocents.

Well, they didn't use exactly those words but that was the tone.

I would have been willing to believe them if they hadn't also claimed that the ATV rider had an option other than hitting the cruiser, that there was enough room behind the cruiser to go around. Conveniently, that's something we can't confirm from the video but seems a highly suspect claim given the narrowness of the path. Also, if that were true, then the ATV would have also been able to swerve around the foot traffic and didn't need to be instantly stopped.

When LEAs lie that transparently it leaves a really bad taste in the mouth, doesn't it?

Whatever happened to hitting your lights and siren to tell a speeder you're coming after them so they can pull over for you and wait for you to turn around and get back to them? I've responded in exactly that manner before getting a ticket and so has every member of the family that raised me. In this case, lights and siren would have probably either caused the speeder to slow down/stop and/or alerted the foot traffic that something was happening.

But maybe that's just me.

Far more likely, it seems to me, is that the compulsion to be in control of the scene is so strong in (some) police officers these days that they'd happily sacrifice their vehicle and risk the life of a speeder just so they can wrest control of the instant situation, forcing anyone they deem necessary to respect their authori-tie. I theorize the officer was personally insulted that someone would commit such a flagrant violation right in front of them and the officers gut reaction was violence. I'm not comfortable with LEOs whose instant, default, gut reaction is violence.

But, again, maybe that's just the way it looked to me.

---------------------------------

Postscript - This thread was, I thought, supposed to be about people who initiate violence and then find the situation blows up on them, generally resulting in the initiator being hurt. This situation is just the opposite so I felt justified in putting down a few thoughts about it. Sorry to anyone who objects to me initiating that sort of thread drift. I hope I haven't caused a total derailment, just a temporary distraction.

I guess we'll see.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

I think that their both dumbasses.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[V-Tach]

To me.......he FAFO.........dumbass...

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Is it also possible that he was turning around and didn't even see the guy?

Then made up the story to cover his ass?

 

[Moonpie]

I think that their both dumbasses.

Who? Them pricks over in the 30SC thread?

 

[13centkiller]

The statement from the department in the aftermath was that the officer who blocked the path was doing it because the ATV was going so fast it was going to kill some of the joggers/walkers seen earlier in the video. It was an heroic officer throwing himself in front of a projectile that was aimed at innocents.

Well, they didn't use exactly those words but that was the tone.

I would have been willing to believe them if they hadn't also claimed that the ATV rider had an option other than hitting the cruiser, that there was enough room behind the cruiser to go around. Conveniently, that's something we can't confirm from the video but seems a highly suspect claim given the narrowness of the path. Also, if that were true, then the ATV would have also been able to swerve around the foot traffic and didn't need to be instantly stopped.

When LEAs lie that transparently it leaves a really bad taste in the mouth, doesn't it?

Whatever happened to hitting your lights and siren to tell a speeder you're coming after them so they can pull over for you and wait for you to turn around and get back to them? I've responded in exactly that manner before getting a ticket and so has every member of the family that raised me. In this case, lights and siren would have probably either caused the speeder to slow down/stop and/or alerted the foot traffic that something was happening.

But maybe that's just me.

Far more likely, it seems to me, is that the compulsion to be in control of the scene is so strong in (some) police officers these days that they'd happily sacrifice their vehicle and risk the life of a speeder just so they can wrest control of the instant situation, forcing anyone they deem necessary to respect their authori-tie. I theorize the officer was personally insulted that someone would commit such a flagrant violation right in front of them and the officers gut reaction was violence. I'm not comfortable with LEOs whose instant, default, gut reaction is violence.

But, again, maybe that's just the way it looked to me.

---------------------------------

Postscript - This thread was, I thought, supposed to be about people who initiate violence and then find the situation blows up on them, generally resulting in the initiator being hurt. This situation is just the opposite so I felt justified in putting down a few thoughts about it. Sorry to anyone who objects to me initiating that sort of thread drift. I hope I haven't caused a total derailment, just a temporary distraction.

I guess we'll see.

Officer had lights activated and the ”path” is an actual full size road, complete with center line, that has been shut down to vehicles. The officer clearly moves over to block the lane of traffic the atv is hauling azz in where moments before you saw a couple with a stroller in that lane. He is barely moving and the right lane is open for the asshat on the atv to avoid collision if he were actually in control of his vehicle and paying attention.

I see no reason to denigrate the officer or question his motive…..or accuse him of violence. Why defend the clown on the atv when his actions clearly caused his own pain?

Upon further review……this is a good stop!

 

[benenglish]

Upon further review……this is a good stop!

As I said, I would have been willing to accept that until I heard the police chief so obviously lie. He knew they needed to provide a cover(up) story so he provided one, even though the details were impossible.

Of course, there is another possibility. He may have been telling the truth when he said (without using the word "procedure") that their procedure was to pull into the path of ATVs who are riding where they're not supposed to. That seems to me to be a pretty novel policing concept: First contact is to consistently either ram oncoming traffic or create a situation where you'll be rammed by oncoming traffic. Deadly force as a tool for making initial contact is something I hadn't heard of before.

Like I said, maybe that's just the way it looked to me.

 

[DoubleDuty]

As I said, I would have been willing to accept that until I heard the police chief so obviously lie. He knew they needed to provide a cover(up) story so he provided one, even though the details were impossible.

Of course, there is another possibility. He may have been telling the truth when he said (without using the word "procedure") that their procedure was to pull into the path of ATVs who are riding where they're not supposed to. That seems to me to be a pretty novel policing concept: First contact is to consistently either ram oncoming traffic or create a situation where you'll be rammed by oncoming traffic. Deadly force as a tool for making initial contact is something I hadn't heard of before.

Like I said, maybe that's just the way it looked to me.

Law enforcement doesn't always use the brains they were given. Plenty of times situations have been mishandled.

 

[festering]

 

[benenglish]

Warms the heart.