- Mar 31, 2007
I agree with most of this. I do think public scrutiny had a factor in this, but I agree it didn't have to do with some of the flaws that occurred. It definitely could have been handled differently, but I try not to judge another officer. It's easy to pick apart a video after the fact and say they could have or should have done something differently. Can I ask what your profession is? You seem knowledgeable about law enforcement, but don't come across as someone in law enforcement.Going to disagree a bit here. A taser and/or OC are considered a higher use of force than just going hands on and yanking them out. The more plausible explanation for why they didn’t go immediately to hands on, is because they aren’t well trained in physical control to the extent they are with a taser and OC and there is less chance of injury with tools. It’s not wrong to give a suspect time to comply but after a few orders, it’s time to pull them out of the car. Never, under any circumstances, let them stay in the vehicle. (Can’t just shoot them though).
It’s also better to get them to step out before they realize they aren’t going to immediately be on their way or their car is going to get searched. Officer should not have mentioned narcotics to the suspect. Instead, simply telling them to step out of the car so you can talk to them—because it’s dangerous for you to stand in the road, usually works. In my state, the car can be searched for “inventory” since the driver didn’t have insurance or a license, and the officer was going to tow it. I’m not familiar with Oklahoma law, however. From a tactical perspective there were several errors in the video and I don’t believe it had to do with increased public scrutiny.