Posted on 10/14/2025 11:25:50 AM PDT by Red Badger
Whatever “academy” they train with should teach them not to assume too much.
I would agree except for the fact that they deliberately muted their body cams while discussing the case.
And they ignored the guy who suspected a stroke.
They killed that man through gross negligence. Decorating lampposts is a more appropriate punishment, IMHO. Matter of fact, just muting/shutting off their body cams should be a 6 months in prison offense in and of itself.
Cops do a very important job, but ignorant malicious thugs like this do NOT belong in any position of authority over others.
Someone who’s having a stroke probably has impaired judgement as well. His mind was damaged by the stroke. EMS should have taken him with an escorting officer. Bad judgement all around.
Interesting information, Thanks for telling us.
A high proportion of police officers are x-military. That in itself is not at all bad unless they are not retrained into a "protect and serve" mindset. Leaving them with a "close and destroy" mindset would have obvious side affects.
The Pentagon insists on collecting "After Action Reports", which are carefully analyzed. The results of those studies are looped back into policy and training doctrines. That is why our combat doctrine bears little resemblance to that of WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, so on. Do police agencies perform similar doctrinal assessments?
I suspect we will disagree on this.
In my opinion, malice is fraught with deliberate intent.
I think these guys were doing it on the fly and making bad and lazy choices as they went along (like the guy who only performed 3 out of the 10 required steps)
The only way I could see it being malice (and on this I have no doubt someone could build a case I think, if they were so inclined) is if the police in question had some degree of dislike and contempt for ANY person they suspected of being under the influence of something while driving, and allowed that to drive their actions, and deliberately allowed the victim’s stroke to extend until the guy died.
Obviously, if they knew the guy, had some history, and disliked him, making those bad choices, that would indeed be malice.
But there isn’t any indication they knew who the guy was, so for malice, someone would have to prove they had a measurable and recorded dislike for people who drank and drove. If there was a recording of someone saying “I hate these pieces of crap who take drugs and drive...” a prosecutor could likely make the charge of malice stick.
“One thing nearly all highway police do is assume any condition is drugs or alcohol.”
Not in this case.
“I wonder why he didn’t want to go to the hospital to get checked out when he experienced blurred vision while at work.”
Have you ever had a stroke? I have. a stroke is in your BRAIN. You don’t think or act rationally or correctly during a stroke.
Jeessh! What the hell is wrong with you people?
Now drugs are the first thing they think of.
Because this has been going on for at least 100 years where the police think the guy is drunk or on drugs and it turns out he is ill. In fact, it predates cars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.