LEO response to MWAG call

[techguy85]

For anyone interested in listening to the radio traffic, here it is:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/118 ... 0radio.wav" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have the 911 call, but it has the young lady's contact info in it. So I'll need to figure out how to redact that before posting it.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

You can download Audacity and edit the file.

Cut the redaction out and use the 'Generate - Tone' function to insert a beep.

Or send it to me and I'll beep it.

[techguy85]

here's the 911 call. There was a second call, but it wasn't actually a person. It was a dispatcher relaying a 3rd party call.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/118 ... dacted.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[WestonDon]

I got the impression from the recording that the caller was more of a busybody than actually afraid of a crime about to happen. Just my impression. I think it was the "He was loading it" part that made it sound like there was something bad about to happen. Based on the 911 call I think it was a gross overreaction by the responding officer. Of course we still don't know exactly what was relayed from dispatch to the officer.

[docpadds]

Of course we still don't know exactly what was relayed from dispatch to the officer.

That would be in the previous recording that was posted...

[Stryker74]

For anyone interested in listening to the radio traffic, here it is:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/118 ... 0radio.wav" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have the 911 call, but it has the young lady's contact info in it. So I'll need to figure out how to redact that before posting it.

Male hispanic? Geesh, if they are going to see the gun, they could at least get a correct description of the "perp".

You know, at least a little more than "like super sketch".

[techguy85]

I've thought long and hard about this, and just can't shake the feeling that it didn't have to go down like that. others I respect very much disagree with me, but as one of them said to me, that's the great thing about America, we can disagree and still be friends.
I don't remember touching my pockets like the officer says I did in his report, but it is a nervous habit of mine, so I can't 100 percent rule it out. The one thing I will say is that before the gun came out I wasn't nervous or surprised to see him there, I just figured he was there for a routine theft call or something.

[WestonDon]

Of course we still don't know exactly what was relayed from dispatch to the officer.

That would be in the previous recording that was posted...

Right. It's in the transcript. I had forgotten about that. Apparently it was reported as a MWAG. No further information other than location and description. I still think the responding officer grossly overreacted.

[techguy85]

Of course we still don't know exactly what was relayed from dispatch to the officer.

That would be in the previous recording that was posted...

Right. It's in the transcript. I had forgotten about that. Apparently it was reported as a MWAG. No further information other than location and description. I still think the responding officer grossly overreacted.

The radio traffic was linked to above...
Here it is again.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/118 ... 0radio.wav" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Shutterbug57]

So, the cop that was there is an illiterate buffoon. I also always cringe when "officer safety" is cited as a valid reason to commit assault with a deadly weapon as if the officer's rights are superior to any other citizen. Stopping not before I really get going.

[techguy85]

I don't think it is fair to call him that. Again, I don't agree with how he handled it, but from all other indications he's a good guy and a good cop.
Can we consider that he may benefit from additional training on handling these kinds of calls without automatically assuming he's some kind of badge heavy tyrant? After all, there isn't any evidence that he is...

[Shutterbug57]

I don't think it is fair to call him that. Again, I don't agree with how he handled it, but from all other indications he's a good guy and a good cop.
Can we consider that he may benefit from additional training on handling these kinds of calls without automatically assuming he's some kind of badge heavy tyrant? After all, there isn't any evidence that he is...

I got "illiterate" from reading his report. Here is one of the components of the definition of illiterate - Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature. BTW, if my professional communications were at the level he displayed, I would be unemployed.

I got "buffoon" from the rest of his actions. May seem harsh, but he was pointing a loaded firearm at a citizen who had done precisely nothing wrong. IIRC, simply carrying a weapon, OC or CC is not grounds, by itself, for taking any action let alone a "felony/high risk approach" at gunpoint. Given the circumstances and actions, seems, to me, to be a fitting title.

We may see it differently, but, from all I have read here, it seems, to me, to fit.

[docpadds]

I got illiterate from reading his report.

Irony.

[Javelin Man]

I got illiterate from reading his report.

Irony.

Someone called me illiterate once. I told them I had a father like everyone else.

[Shutterbug57]

MWSY : I wonder if an attorney would agree with your take on the officer being "outnumbered" At least, enough to take the case on a contingency basis? Might be interesting to find out.

The reports say that a caller informed police of a man loading a firearm next to his car outside of a store at the shopping center.

The first officer on the scene identified techguy85 and saw that he was not alone. Because he had RAS (911 call) that techguy was armed, it would be reasonable IN MY MIND to assume his partner was armed. That's an assumption I believe the courts would support.

It's one thing for an officer to approach a single person, or even a group of open carriers. It's quite another to approach 2 or more individuals when A) you believe them to be armed, and B) you don't know their intentions, especially when you are alone. I understand (but don't agree with) his decision to do a felony stop.

In this case, techguy and his brother had JUST come OUT of a store. I don't know why the stop had to be made prior to backup arriving...this was not an active shooter incident, so there was no need for the officer to make immediate contact. He could have continued to observe.

I've always said that I want the police to respond to MWAG calls, but that they do not all need to be felony takedowns.

What would everyone recommend that the first officer have done differently, knowing the information he had available to him?

MWSY - I hear what you are saying, but the only thing the officer has RAS for was knowing the guy and possibly 2 guys were armed. He did not have anything, unless I missed it somewhere, that indicated they had, were in the process of or were about to commit a crime. I get being cautious, but I don't get the felony takedown approach when the only thing he knew about the guy(s) was that he/they were conducting a lawful activity.

Using your "you do not know their intentions" statement could be read to say that you understand why a cop would do a felony takedown on an OCer walking down the sidewalk, but I do not believe that is something you would condone. Yet, in the case under discussion, the cop knew as much about techguy as he would about the OCer walking down the sidewalk. He knew both are armed and presumably both have loaded their weapons. Sorry, I think the cop should have used the cover of his car if he had to stop the guys when he did or waited until the backup arrived. If we accept that the felony takedown for simply carrying is in any way normal, it will become normal.