TexasCHLforum.com

This could look bad from the dashcam to some but was obviously justified by the bodycam pov. Trinity PD figured out how to do it. Others can too.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAy ... 09/07/pov/

Even on the dashcam pov, it was obvious the cop saw something that caused his a reaction. That is not evident in all videos and the more povs the better.

It's a shame the Bexar County deputies weren't wearing bodycams.

mojo84 wrote:This could look bad from the dashcam to some but was obviously justified by the bodycam pov. Trinity PD figured out how to do it. Others can too.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAy ... 09/07/pov/

Even on the dashcam pov, it was obvious the cop saw something that caused his a reaction. That is not evident in all videos and the more povs the better.

It's a shame the Bexar County deputies weren't wearing bodycams.

Totally agree.

dlh

Outstanding job by the Officer!

Be sure you look at the sign on the rear of the stopped vehicle. I would say that Officer Wheeler "came and took it."

Such a sign invites a stop and search of the vehicle, probable cause or reasonable suspicion notwithstanding. These can usually be manufactured after the fact.

Jim

b322da wrote:Be sure you look at the sign on the rear of the stopped vehicle. I would say that Officer Wheeler "came and took it."

Such a sign invites a stop and search of the vehicle, probable cause or reasonable suspicion notwithstanding. These can usually be manufactured after the fact.

Jim

A "Come and Take it" sign invites a search? Why is that?

Taypo wrote:

b322da wrote:Be sure you look at the sign on the rear of the stopped vehicle. I would say that Officer Wheeler "came and took it."

Such a sign invites a stop and search of the vehicle, probable cause or reasonable suspicion notwithstanding. These can usually be manufactured after the fact.

Jim

A "Come and Take it" sign invites a search? Why is that?

I did not say "authorizes;" I said "invites." A big difference.

Jim

b322da wrote:

Taypo wrote:

b322da wrote:Be sure you look at the sign on the rear of the stopped vehicle. I would say that Officer Wheeler "came and took it."

Such a sign invites a stop and search of the vehicle, probable cause or reasonable suspicion notwithstanding. These can usually be manufactured after the fact.

Jim

A "Come and Take it" sign invites a search? Why is that?

I did not say "authorizes;" I said "invites." A big difference.

Jim

Why? Who are you quoting that said "authorizes" instead of "invites"?

The officer saw the gun on the seat. That's why he took action. Nothing indicates the Come and a Take It sticker had anything to do with this. Manufacturing probable cause and reasonable suspicion after the fact is contrary to the Constitution and is not in the publics best interest. Why chase these rabits when they have nothing to do with the topic?

b322da wrote:

Taypo wrote:

b322da wrote:Be sure you look at the sign on the rear of the stopped vehicle. I would say that Officer Wheeler "came and took it."

Such a sign invites a stop and search of the vehicle, probable cause or reasonable suspicion notwithstanding. These can usually be manufactured after the fact.

Jim

A "Come and Take it" sign invites a search? Why is that?

I did not say "authorizes;" I said "invites." A big difference.

Jim

You still didn't answer the question

Taypo wrote:

b322da wrote:

Taypo wrote:

b322da wrote:Be sure you look at the sign on the rear of the stopped vehicle. I would say that Officer Wheeler "came and took it."

Such a sign invites a stop and search of the vehicle, probable cause or reasonable suspicion notwithstanding. These can usually be manufactured after the fact.

Jim

A "Come and Take it" sign invites a search? Why is that?

I did not say "authorizes;" I said "invites." A big difference.

Jim

You still didn't answer the question

If you still think I am ignoring you, you are correct.

Jim

mojo84 wrote:

b322da wrote:

Taypo wrote:

b322da wrote:Be sure you look at the sign on the rear of the stopped vehicle. I would say that Officer Wheeler "came and took it."

Such a sign invites a stop and search of the vehicle, probable cause or reasonable suspicion notwithstanding. These can usually be manufactured after the fact.

Jim

A "Come and Take it" sign invites a search? Why is that?

I did not say "authorizes;" I said "invites." A big difference.

Jim

Why? Who are you quoting that said "authorizes" instead of "invites"?

The officer saw the gun on the seat. That's why he took action. Nothing indicates the Come and a Take It sticker had anything to do with this. Manufacturing probable cause and reasonable suspicion after the fact is contrary to the Constitution and is not in the publics best interest. Why chase these rabits when they have nothing to do with the topic?

Sorry, mojo. I ignored my own vow to never again use subtlety. It was not, by the way, directed at you, but rather at another commentator.

I will drop it as wasted effort. It invites misunderstanding and then, too often, indiscretion on my part. I regret I appear to have offended a very good commentator on this forum.

Jim

No biggy. Just trying to understand your point.

Subtlety, sarcasm and jokes are sometimes hard to get across in written media like this. I too come across wrong at times unintentionally. Please don't be discouraged or offended when people challenge you or ask for clarification. Most of the time it is well intended. There are a few that would argue if one said the sun is hot or water is wet. You'll figure those folks out soon enough. I'l

I'm sure you have much to offer considering you are senior to most of us on here. Don't give up on us.

Schleprock wrote:

mojo84 wrote: There are a few that would argue if one said the sun is hot or water is set.

I, kind sir, will quite ably argue with you that although the sun is indeed quite hot, that water is certainly not set!!

mojo!!

See, that didn't take long. I concede this one Good one.

I hate autocorrect. Not only does it correct my misspellings, it decides what words it prefers.

AndyC wrote:Are you calling him old??

I tell you something, and I'm sure most if not all would agree - if I were a cop and my dept didn't happen to issue bodycams, I'd be investing in one for myself tout-de-suite. Excellent link, btw - thanks

I agree in general, but it is not without its own risks. I also have read of some departments that specifically ban body cameras, they don't want individual officers winging it with their own cameras.

We tend to think only of the camera being on during things like in the OP, but what if your personal, not-department-authorized camera is on when you are in someone's home for a non-criminal interaction -- are you invading their privacy? What if something embarrassing for the homeowners happened and it comes to light you videoed that? Can you be sued? Will the department, or the police union if you have one, back you up when you had a piece of unauthorized gear, even if they didn't explicitly ban cameras? Fire departments and EMS crews have had trouble with these kinds of issues, so a lot of FDs and ambulance services are banning personal recordings/pics on duty, just for this reason. To some extent, when people call on public services, they become part of the public record, but the public also still frowns on people being unnecessarily embarrassed or humiliated as well.