Victoria PO Investigated After Tasing 76 Year Old Man

a reply to: roadgravel

I guess you're confused then, because as long as radios have been in cars, cops have listened to the radio.

Not sure why you're so stuck on the ability to have music on and still be aware of your surroundings. Millions of people do it every day. It's not magic or sorcery, promise.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The only reason I can think that he went hands on was because it appears the man was returning to his car.

The officer may have asked him to stop and when he didn't he went hands on.

Or maybe he didn't tell him to stop at all and just went hands on. I don't know I wasn't there.

The officer may have thought that he was going to retrieve a gun.



That is why you make the person stay in the car during a traffic stop. If they get out I make them come to me and stand in front of my car. I DO NOT let them back in the car until I am finished.

Now I am NOT defending the officers actions.

Just offering another perspective.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Then we're at an impasse. We don't know what was said to make him think he needed to grab the guy. And I can't come up with anything that would've made me do what he did.

I like all kinds of music. I like gangsta rap, not particularly because of the lyrics, just the beat and cadence and so on. Ya heard? *drops mic and exits*

He showed that the cop didn't know the law so the man was going to be arrested. This is complete BS.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Oh believe me I get that. But why let him out in the first place? And once he's out, why chase him around? I just don't get anything this fella did. But he lost me at step one, much like it appears he lost you as well

The officer grabbed him as he stood, right after pointing to the plate. The man wasn't walking away or to his car.

I imagine the man can't understand be grabbed over a mistaken traffic ticket.

a reply to: roadgravel

Just giving what may have been the officer's perspective.

Not excusing his actions.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: roadgravel

Just giving what may have been the officer's perspective.

Not excusing his actions.

Sure, I understand.

But

The only reason I can think that he went hands on was because it appears the man was returning to his car.

I didn't see it in the video but maybe. Nothing like having a new guy on the job.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Just giving what may have been the officer's perspective.

Not excusing his actions.

Yes just offering another perspective, not defending. Wish more people would understand that thought process.

Just like when some will offer another perspective for the victim and will then get called a criminal apologist or sympathizer.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

And I have to add, this is the different kind of training some people want.

I don't think it is right or rational to assume everyone is going to go back to their car and shoot you if you allow them too.
And save the "well what am I suppose to do? Wait till he has the gun and shoots me!?" response, that is not what I am asking for just a better way of having officers deal with the everyday public besides "they are all out to kill you" thought process.

As this is what it leads to, young and dumb cops abusing a man cause he doesn't know how to handle the situation he created with out resorting to violence.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I get what you're saying, but the flip side of that coin is I really don't have any way of knowing why you want to go back to your car. Any excuse you give can be legit. And it may not be legit. I have no way of knowing. The only way to know would be to wait until you come back out of the car with your registration or a gun. Even if I stand right next to you, I see you reaching for a gun, then what? Yank you back out of the car? Well you already have a gun. Slam the door on your legs? Doesn't effect the gun in your hand. Tase you? Shoot you? Now there's an outcry about how you were just going to move it or were just getting ready to hand it to me and I over reacted.

Bottom line, he shouldn't have let him out of the car to begin with. He shouldn't have followed him all over the place. He shouldn't have let a stop for a very minor infraction, at best, get away from him.

I have no idea why it's all in italics. I'm posting from mobile and it looks normal to me

a reply to: Shamrock6

Bottom line, he shouldn't have let him out of the car to begin with. He shouldn't have followed him all over the place. He shouldn't have let a stop for a very minor infraction, at best, get away from him.

But once he lost control, his training is to now gain control by any means necessary right?
With the thought process of "If I don't, I may lose my life."
That is the training people want changed or reformed in some way.


Fixed the italics

a reply to: Sremmos80

Again, without audio, I have no way of knowing why he went hands on. Maybe the guy said "eff you pig I'm gonna go inside and get a gun and pop a cap in you" in which case yea, I'd go hands on too. Maybe the officer didn't like the guy's attitude and decided to show him who's boss, in which case yea, totally unjustified. And you can't train that out of somebody who already has that chip on their shoulder. No amount of training is going to keep somebody like that from doing what he did, if that's why he did it.

Without that audio we have no way of knowing. I lean heavily toward the officer could've handled this differently from step one and never lost control. I lean heavily toward he could've regained control verbally, which is included under "any means necessary." But it's kind of hard to say training would fix something when we don't know why he did what he did.

Talk about the police over reacting and escalating the situation. The poor guy was 76 years-old! What kind of threat could he be to the officer that would justify this cops actions? There needs to be re-training of police officers across the U.S. on how to react and de-escalate situations with unarmed civilians. Unless this cop's life was in danger, he has no right to tazer and wrestle an unarmed civilian to the pavement. This cop's young age and attitude, clearly shows he thinks he can manhandle and tazer anyone that pushes his buttons. Forget the investigation, this cop is a liability to the police force. He needs to be fired.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Do you really think at 76 a person ceases to have any vitality, fitness, and ability? Do a smidge of research. You'll find articles about cops being shot, and killed, by people in their 70s. And in their early teens.

Still not condoning what this cop did, but I AM attempting to deny the ignorant belief that there's an age limit to physical ability.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Still not condoning what this cop did, but I AM attempting to deny the ignorant belief that there's an age limit to physical ability.

I'm 56 and I'm in pretty good shape, but I certainly can not move as quick and as fast as I did when I was in my 20's. You simply cannot compare the quickness of a 23 year-old cop with a 76 year old. Not only that, he was unarmed! Vitality has nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Shamrock6

Still not condoning what this cop did, but I AM attempting to deny the ignorant belief that there's an age limit to physical ability.

I'm 56 and I'm in pretty good shape, but I certainly can not move as quick and as fast as I did when I was in my 20's. You simply cannot compare the quickness of a 23 year-old cop with a 76 year old. Not only that, he was unarmed! Vitality has nothing to do with it.

I didn't compare their quickness. At all. At any point. My point was that a 76 year old is entirely capable of being a threat to somebody, because the comment was made that a 76 year old CAN'T be a threat to anybody. Everything you said falls under why I also said "still not condoning what this cop did."

A Victoria police officer whose use of force against a 76-year-old man gained national attention was fired Monday.

Link

After almost a month-long internal investigation by the Victoria Police Department, Chief J.J. Craig announced in a news release that Robinson violated three department policies: conduct and performance, use of force and arrest without a warrant.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Sremmos80

Every time you ask a question I feel like it's a loaded one lol

I don't know if it was something on my end or not but I couldn't hear any audio besides the music until after he went hands on. I don't know what the verbal exchange was prior to that, so I don't know what made the officer think he needed to go hands on (no, that's not a defense, I just plain don't have the info and don't know if it's the video or something on my end), but I really just don't understand why he felt the need to go hands on at all.

Does the "music playing" in the police car confuse the audio recording equipment from determining whether to use the car feed or the lapel mic? Wondering if the music should be turned off during a stop, maybe the mic audio was drowned out until the officer got vocal enough... this music "tactic" may have been planned. Maybe he has reviewed plenty of other stops on video and determined the best way to keep the camera on and still be a thug.

originally posted by: roadgravel
A Victoria police officer whose use of force against a 76-year-old man gained national attention was fired Monday.

Link

After almost a month-long internal investigation by the Victoria Police Department, Chief J.J. Craig announced in a news release that Robinson violated three department policies: conduct and performance, use of force and arrest without a warrant.

Finally, some proof that there are good police, administrations, and department's out there. If more would stand up and accept responsibility, maybe we would see some of the hatred toward cops, and yes, the hatred toward citizen's cease. Congrat's to the police chief. When department's across the nation are open, honest, and hold their officer's accountable like this chief, most of the problems we face in relations could disappear very shortly.

Thanks roadgravel for this update.