• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cop pulls gun on pregnant lady at check out lane...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
TheVrolok said:
So off duty cops can go out and start arguments/fights/harass people and if they push back (literally or figuratively), the cop can simply drawn down on them to "diffuse the situation." I call bullshit on that. Any man who comes back to the line to find his pregnant wife being accosted by a stranger is going to step in and push him away. Because of that the cop decides it's time to draw? Please. If the cop wanted to "diffuse the situation" he could have chosen to not start it in the first place, or once the husband returned and pushed him away simply say, "Alright, we're done here." However, he did neither of those things. None of us were there to see what actually transpired, but from what is written in the article it seems like the cop was heavily in the wrong.
Click to expand...

A cop, like any other citizen in this country, has the right to voice his displeasure, however rude it may seem to others.

No one has the right to physically threaten another for the words another has spoken in this country. If you can not see the difference you need help.
 
HumblePie said:
A cop, like any other citizen in this country, has the right to voice his displeasure, however rude it may seem to others.

No one has the right to physically threaten another for the words another has spoken in this country. If you can not see the difference you need help.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you say that, because the cop was accosting this women, and then once the husband arrived the cop then stepped toward him in a threatening manner. Only at this point did the guy push him away. So when a civilian feels physically threatened and pushes someone away it's not self defense, but when a cop gets pushed and he draws a firearm, it's "diffusing a situation?" And please, there's no need to get pedantic and say, "but but, the cop didn't actually touch the civilian, but the civilian touched the cop!!!!" If you can't see the grey area here, perhaps you are the one that needs help. You're correct in your assertion that a cop has right right to voice his displeasure, even in a rude manner, however, he does not have the right to accost someone else, nor act in a physically threatening manner - two things which he did.
 
TheVrolok said:
It's interesting that you say that, because the cop was accosting this women, and then once the husband arrived the cop then stepped toward him in a threatening manner. Only at this point did the guy push him away. So when a civilian feels physically threatened and pushes someone away it's not self defense, but when a cop gets pushed and he draws a firearm, it's "diffusing a situation?" And please, there's no need to get pedantic and say, "but but, the cop didn't actually touch the civilian, but the civilian touched the cop!!!!" If you can't see the grey area here, perhaps you are the one that needs help. You're correct in your assertion that a cop has right right to voice his displeasure, even in a rude manner, however, he does not have the right to accost someone else, nor act in a physically threatening manner - two things which he did.
Click to expand...

Accosting a person? Wow, nice use of vernacular to make it seem as if the cop was doing anything more than voicing his displeasure at her rude actions. If I'm in line behind her and say something as rude as "Hey you fat bitch, go to a different lane as this is the express lane" then that is not "accosting" her as you put it.

Now if the cop said to her "I'm going to break your fucking legs you fat bitch if you don't move" then that is accosting her. Do you see the difference? From what news I've been able to glean he did nothing of the sort. The cop never threatened any form of physical violence to the couple until he drew his gun.

So no, being rude and calling someone a name is NOT the same level as being physically assaulted.

However, I am not saying this cop didn't make a physically threatening gesture first. The only claim to that is the man who shoved the cop saying the cop step towards them first. We have one side of the story and not the whole story either based upon that article.

Again, if the cop only voiced his displeasure, regardless of how rude sounding it may have been, it does NOT give a person the right to shove that person for sounding like an ass.

In this case, I am going to take the position of the cop's side, unless I get further evidence such as eye witness testimony that does not include the two parties involved, that state which party was doing the physical threatening first. If it was the cop, then he was in the wrong. The guy has a right to defend himself and his wife against perceived physical threats.

If it was the black guy on a macho trip trying to get physical with someone he saw as smaller, weaker, and being an ass at the same time then no the cop was not in the wrong. Experience has led me to be inclined to believe the second scenario I just listed though, although that may not be the truth. I think the reality is the cop said something the bitch didn't like without the cop actually physically threatening anyone. When the husband came back, the bitch probably egged the husband on to do his stance on dominance on the cop, who she didn't know was a cop, just because she married some big guy. Then the whole situation back fired when they realized too late they were physically threatening a cop who pulled his gun out on them. This scenario is typically the reality far more often than not in a situation like this.
 
Last edited:
TheVrolok said:
So off duty cops can go out and start arguments/fights/harass people and if they push back (literally or figuratively), the cop can simply drawn down on them to "diffuse the situation." I call bullshit on that. Any man who comes back to the line to find his pregnant wife being accosted by a stranger is going to step in and push him away. Because of that the cop decides it's time to draw? Please. If the cop wanted to "diffuse the situation" he could have chosen to not start it in the first place, or once the husband returned and pushed him away simply say, "Alright, we're done here." However, he did neither of those things. None of us were there to see what actually transpired, but from what is written in the article it seems like the cop was heavily in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes
 
classy said:
That's also true, but all these dumb ass posts is ridiculous. If you walk up and see some man in the face of your wife or girlfriend, wtf are you suppose to do. If it went down this way, the cop should be fired and the police department sued.
Click to expand...

Can I sue your employer for stupidity in ATOT? You're probably even at work, unlike this guy.
 
If a 300 pound dude started shoving me and getting in my grill I'd be tempted to brandish if I had a weapon and seriously felt threatened.
 
HumblePie said:
Accosting a person? Wow, nice use of vernacular to make it seem as if the cop was doing anything more than voicing his displeasure at her rude actions. If I'm in line behind her and say something as rude as "Hey you fat bitch, go to a different lane as this is the express lane" then that is not "accosting" her as you put it. Now if the cop said to her "I'm going to break your fucking legs you fat bitch if you don't move" then that is accosting her. Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

Couldn't I say the same, a nice usage of vernacular to make it seem as if the cop was doing far less than being "in her face, yelling at her." Which is what the article states, not that he was simply grumbling his displeasure to her. Of course, we only have the words of the couple - so one can easily just claim they're lying, but as it stands, that's the only description of what happened we have. So, the cop was, in fact, "in her face, yelling at her." I just thought "accost" was quicker to type since it accurately describes the report.

HumblePie said:
The cop never threatened any form of physical violence to the couple until he drew his gun.
Click to expand...

I already asked you to avoid being pedantic when I stated that the cop didn't actually touch the civilian first. Stepping aggressively at someone is physically threatening. Period. This man walked up to find his wife with a strange man "in her face, yelling at her," when he arrives the man, "in an aggressive manner he steps toward" him, so he pushes him away. Sounds completely sane to me. Do you honestly see the need for the cop to draw down on the guy based on this situation?

All you've said here is essentially this, "the cop is in the right because he's a cop, and I'm more likely to assume the statements made by the civilians are lies, or exaggerations, than to believe the cop be in the wrong." Sounds pretty silly to me.
 
HumblePie said:
If it was the black guy on a macho trip trying to get physical with someone he saw as smaller, weaker, and being an ass at the same time then no the cop was not in the wrong. Experience has led me to be inclined to believe the second scenario I just listed though, although that may not be the truth. I think the reality is the cop said something the bitch didn't like without the cop actually physically threatening anyone. When the husband came back, the bitch probably egged the husband on to do his stance on dominance on the cop, who she didn't know was a cop, just because she married some big guy. Then the whole situation back fired when they realized too late they were physically threatening a cop who pulled his gun out on them. This scenario is typically the reality far more often than not in a situation like this.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually read this part until I had responded, but now I know you're just being silly. Please tell me where this is absolutely any evidence of your scenario existing in reality? Sounds like you're just acting out on some sort of preconceived prejudices about who knows what. Is there any particular reason you're calling this lady a "bitch?" Sounds a lot like you simply decided this woman is a white trash bitch and her husband is a big black thug. I have absolutely no idea where you found ground to make those claims - other than your "personal experience."
 
from the article

"I felt someone close behind me. He started being really rude and said, 'Don't you know how to count? You are holding up the whole store," Thurmond recalled.
Click to expand...

You know, someone standing in line behind you in the checkout might be "close" to you. That is not physically threatening at all. Nor was the words he said all that rude in my opinion. I would have said something actually rude.

And, no I don't consider the scenario I described a preconceived prejudice, but what I've seen happen on too many occasion.

Guy A says something Guy B thinks is rude. Regardless of what was said or not, if Guy B is the type of guy to respond physically they are going to. Guy B doing so is in the wrong, not Guy A.

I explained what I thought was the likely scenario.

Husband and wife in a busy walmart take a cart full of items into the express 10 item checkout lane. Both are big people and physically intimidating. They probably do this often because they get away with it. People don't do rude things like what this couple was doing just once in a lifetime. It is something they do because they know no one will stop them. Although I'm pretty sure people have complained before, I know I do when I see shit like that, and I've seen others do it too.

So they are in line and someone complains, this time it's a cop. What is their response? Shoving back. Resorting to physical violence. Why? Because they are big, used to intimidating others, and used to getting away with their behavior. Resorting to physical violence FIRST is a learned response. It comes from doing it before.

We don't have the full story, but I'm less likely to believe the slanted article when it tries to use such "heart touching" imagery as a couple 1 week away from their due date.
 
HumblePie said:
... snip ...
Click to expand...

Wow, so now you don't see how the woman would have naturally turned around to address the man commenting behind here and he may have (likely from the statements) escalated from there?

Honestly, I'm not arguing with you anymore. From the OP you've already decided that you, personally, know all the parties involved and what transpired - even if you have no evidence (in fact the only evidence is dissenting) at all. Sounds like you had to wait behind someone in an express lane once and now need to rant about it. Your first instinct is that she had a cart full of items? Why? No reason at all. She's 40 weeks pregnant, maybe she just wanted a few things and brought her husband to help her.. holy shit, they forgot eggs, "Please honey, go grab some quickly." Rather than leave the line and re-enter to wait longer, the husband tries to quickly scurry to find his wife some eggs. Was it inconvenient for those in line? Absolutely. So what? 40 week pregnant lady? Cut her some slack. Instead, to you, she's immediately a "bitch" and he's just some guy being "macho." Hey, you could be right - at this point I see absolutely no reason to believe it, but you could be. However, I like to lean a little on the safer side of not making baseless assumptions. It must be rough to look at things the way you do.
 
JSt0rm said:
How would this of played out if it was just a normal citizen pulling a gun on this couple?
Click to expand...

Again, it all depends on who threatened physical force first.

We have a couple that admits to shoving first, but is trying to claim that the cop "step in" closer to them first. That might be the truth, but I doubt it. If it is the truth and the cop stepped into their personal space, which is about 3 feet around someone, then the cop is in the wrong unless he identified himself as a cop first with what his intentions were to start with. Now if it's just that the cop was talking to them in a "rude" manner as perceived by a couple of idiots who don't like people questioning their actions, as is the more likely scenario, then the cop is very justified in drawing his gun when they shoved him. Same for an ordinary citizen.
 
I wish I could pull a gun out every time I feel threatened by someone, must be fucking nice to be a cop off duty and be able to get away with that shit. I'd be in jail in a heartbeat if that had been me.
 
HAL9000 said:
So does the OP not think the police officer was in the wrong here when he clearly was?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think the officer was in the wrong based off a slanted article and testimony from one of the parties in the scenario. Video, secondary eye witness testimony, and the cops testimony are needed before any guilt is assigned to the cop. If the cop actually threatened physical violence first, then the husband is well within his rights to defend himself and his wife from harm using what level of force he feels needed to protect themselves.

I have my own supposition of how the scenario played out and is a statistically higher probably of being the truth given the current level of evidence. Which is that the couple was in the wrong, the cop was in the right, and the couple is now back tracking to not only save face but make a quick buck as well of a possible lawsuit.
 
Seems like a simple case of 2 jack asses in one place at the same time. The lesson here is to learn to let unimportant things go so they don't turn into bigger issues and to keep your mouth shut, off duty cop or fat ass.
 
I'm annoyed by self centered people every damn day yet I don't think pulling a gun is necessary in anything but the most dire situations.
 
HumblePie said:
No, I don't think the officer was in the wrong based off a slanted article and testimony from one of the parties in the scenario. Video, secondary eye witness testimony, and the cops testimony are needed before any guilt is assigned to the cop. If the cop actually threatened physical violence first, then the husband is well within his rights to defend himself and his wife from harm using what level of force he feels needed to protect themselves.

I have my own supposition of how the scenario played out and is a statistically higher probably of being the truth given the current level of evidence. Which is that the couple was in the wrong, the cop was in the right, and the couple is now back tracking to not only save face but make a quick buck as well of a possible lawsuit.
Click to expand...

If someone 'gets in your face' and threatens you, don't pull a gun threatening to kill them. It's a disproportionate response.
 
LiuKangBakinPie said:
Agree. Wait for other person to draw firearm first then get shot trying to draw yours. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Or alternatively just assume that when you get into a disagreement with a family over queuing they are preparing to execute you for disagreeing with them and pull your weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top