Local Copper Needs Some Marrow

I know this is last minute, but if you're in the Bay Area today and want to help out a fellow LEO, it'd be much appreciated.

From Claycord.com:

"Sgt. Brian Carter has worked for the Martinez Police Department since 2000. The 36-year-old father of two young sons was diagnosed last year with Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, an aggressive form of cancer involving the cells of the immune system. His cancer went into remission after he underwent chemotherapy and radiation, but returned recently and he must undergo a stem cell transplant at Stanford Hospital, according to Martinez Police Commander Gary Peterson."

Thanks to Claycord.com for making us aware of Sgt. Carter's battle. If you can help out, just follow Claycord's link (above) for more info!

Get there...but safely.

We first saw this picture on The Crossover. HM had some perspectives about the aftermath of an incident of this magnitude. I've got my own...but they're about what happens before the incident and how to avoid the incident altogether.

Let me start by saying, I wasn't driving the Santa Maria PD patrol car involved. I don't know the officer involved. I don't know anything about the incident above what was reported...which was he was responding as a cover car in the pursuit of a burglary suspect. My opinions about officers and speed are not specific to this incident; however, it does serve as a serious reminder about the dangers of outdriving one's abilities.

For those not in the know, let's look at some cop lingo. Code 3 means activating the emergency lights and siren. The purpose behind rolling code 3 is to get other vehicles out of the way so we can get to where we need to go. As my sergeant is fond of saying, "You can drive 10 MPH and still be code 3." All too often, we equate driving code 3 to hauling ass. Not only is that inaccurate, but it can be unsafe.

On the flip side, we have pursuit driving. Pursuit driving should always include rolling code 3, but not every code 3 run is pursuit related. Pursuit driving is typically faster and infinitely more dangerous.

Cops are prototypically engineered to dig on adrenaline. Very little else in life floods the body with adrenaline like driving at triple digits with your hair on fire en route to a dangerous detail where no one knows what's happening. Danger, drama, the unknown? Oh, hell yes! Gets me fired up simply typing it!

The problem comes with a few different issues. First, tunnel vision. Everything around you closes down to just what is immediately in front of you. We become uber-focused on where we're going and what we'll do when we get there that the simple act of actually getting there becomes secondary.

The second issue, appropriately enough, is in fact arriving. How can I expect to help the distressed citizen, the beaten wife, the molested child, my partner fighting for his life if I'm driving outside of my capabilities and end up looking like the destroyed patrol car above?

The solution? Slow it down and drive within your ability. I'm not saying drive Miss Daisy, but clear those intersections at a speed that resembles a vehicle and not a rocket ship. Break out of your tunnel vision. Move your head and eyes side to side. Make it an exaggerated movement, because it won't be as extreme as you think it is.

If you get that adrenaline rush and ignore your training, experience, and common sense, you run the serious risk of not being a help to anyone...because now vital resources have to be diverted to come to your aid.

You won't help anyone by getting there any quicker. I've always loved the old shooting adage "Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast." It applies to a hell of a lot more than shooting.

Stay safe. Slow down. Look. Get there.

Let's talk about speed

Most people think of speeding as exceeding the posted speed limit. While that is technically correct, there is more to it than that. Let me ask you a question. What is the "safe speed" for driving while reading the paper? What about while watching a movie on your inappropriately and illegally placed GPS/DVD player? Ladies, how about while your slappin' on the war paint?

Here's the CA vehicle code section:

Basic Speed Law

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

Nowhere in the section does it mention divided attention or other distracting habits most of us participate in while we're driving. I contend, however, it is implicit...not to mention, common sense (a concept well documented to be lacking). Common sense should tell you that reading the paper while you're driving is inherently unsafe. I would say the safe speed for all of the above listed activities is zero.

If you're scooting along at 35 mph and the speed limit is 35 mph and you are doing any of the above, you are speeding. Your speed is neither reasonable nor prudent. Don't be surprised when I stop you and tell you that very thing.

Oh...and if you pitch a fit? Yeah...get ready to explain yourself in court.

Civilian Review Boards

I know these are nothing new...at least not to us on the Left Coast...but a recent law signed in Sacramento allows for a BART oversight board. What does that mean exactly? It means civilians with no police experience will be looking over the shoulder of BART police.

From the KRON4 news article: "Existing laws allows the board to contract with outside auditing entities, but the new law enables the board to also establish two BART police oversight entities: an independent police auditor and a citizen review board." You can see the entire article here.

As I've said previously in the post about being videotaped, I have no problem with my actions being documented. What I do have an issue with is a civilian telling me how to do my job. When my water heater breaks down I don't tell the plumber how I think he should be doing his job. Why? Because I know fuck all about plumbing. I'm relying on the fact that the plumber is sufficiently trained and knows more about his job than me. That'd be why I'm paying him.

You wanna Monday morning quarterback me? Go to the Academy for the five/six month training and learn what it's like to do my job. Get some experience. Walk a mile in my boots. One of my biggest pet peeves is listening to talking heads or, worse yet, random people on the street that the media interviews talk about how the job should be done. I don't have an issue with people asking questions in an effort to educate themselves (obviously...that's why I have the Ask MC posts), but making judgements about what was done based on a very short cell phone video clip is ignorant.

How many times have we heard, "Well, that cop should have shot the gun out of his hand!"? This ain't Hollywood and it sure as hell isn't the way we train. Not only is that kind of thinking ridiculous, it's dangerous. There's a reason we shoot for center mass, people. It's the largest part of the body. It always makes me laugh when people say we should shoot someone in the leg or arm. These are people who: a) watch too much TV and b) have never held, let alone shot, a weapon before.

There is a reason every department has an IA division (Internal Affairs). Those folks are cops. They've done the job. Are they well liked? Not typically; however, I'd rather be judged by them than by a civilian with no policing experience. I'm not looking for a break from IA because we share the badge, but at least I can be confident that they know what my job entails.

Happy takes over...Crossover Ep. 1

Hi there Officers, Patrolmen and whatnot,

I'm your resident Paramedic and I'd like to touch on a few issues from time to time. Thanks to MC for hosting this exchange, I hope to live up to his bawdiness.

I've got an important subject to cover that comes up very infrequently, but after seeing this image recently it is something I want to cover.



Officer Damon Bandenell is recovering from what are described as minor injuries, even though the car seems to tell a different story. Read more at http://www.kcoy.com/Global/story.asp?S=12792890

When you are involved in an accident, injury or anything else where we will need to treat you, we will need you disarmed. You guys are trained to draw and protect your weapon so much you can do it in your sleep. Unfortunately for me and my associates, this can become a hazard if you regain consciousness and feel threatened. Imagine loud voices, strange smells and you are hurt. Tell me honestly your first reflex won't be to your hip.

Let's have two conversations. First, to the LEO who is being treated:

We're on it. You're in our comfort zone now, so just go with what we want to do. If you don't want a cervical collar, but I'm adamant about it, chances are you need it. Remember, you're in my office now and we're going to be doing everything we can to get you home safely. You will be uncomfortable, we may need to cut your uniform off. we will do our best to maintain the integrity of your gear by removing your vest, not cutting it, if we can. Motor Officers, we know your boots are the shit (bawdiness) and if we can get them off we will. If they are damaged, sorry man, had to be done. Feel free to walk into the firehouse alive and well and chew me out. Better than wheeling yourself in to thank me.

Speaking of removing things undamaged, this will also go for your duty belt as well as your service weapon and ALL other weapons you have. If possible, I always get another officer to disarm you since they are trained at doing so. usually there are some bars or stripes nearby to take custody of the belt so rest assured we're not leaving it on the side of the road.

If we leave your backup weapon, mace, taser, etc, you can still be a dangerous person in the ambulance and the hospital or both the rescuers and yourself. So now you're half naked, disarmed and on your back.

Hi there.

Everything we're doing is what needs to be done. Don't want the oxygen on? I don't want to fight you but chances are I'm not pulling it out for fun. Hate needles? You shoot people. If I'm trying to stick you, you need it.

Chances are we will have another officer in the ambulance or following closely. I've even been graced with a police escort to the hospital. No phone calls allowed. besides think of getting that phone call while trying to put the kids to bed, "Honey it's me (sirens in the background) I'm OK, I'll call you back after they get me to the hospital."

Yeah, um...no.

To the Officer doing the disarming: Please listen to us and co-ordinate your actions with ours to ensure the tasks of treating and disarming can be done successfully. If we are using cervical spine precautions, the person holding the head is in charge, since the neck can be most fragile. they also have the best view of the patient from that spot. If you tell them what you need done, they can co-ordinate it with the other rescuers. If we need to roll them, it needs to happen as a team. Tweaking one hip up to get a duty belt out could ruin every precaution we are trying to take.

Also, use your jargon when speaking to the patient, your injured officer. If they hear familiar language they will likely relax and let it happen more so than if you call out "John, dude, gimme your gun!"
As soon as you have the duty belt and weapon removed, secure it as you need to, we need to get in and do our work.

So to sum up: You will be confused. You will be disarmed. We'll do our best to keep your gear workable for tomorrow. Let us do what we need to do to keep you healthy and safe.

I'd expect nothing less from you. Got a question?

Hit me up at thehappymedic@gmail.com

The Crossover

In the spirit of Medic 999's "The Handover" Blog Carnival, HM and I have agreed to release the reigns of our respective domains. Happy will guest host a post here and I will dominate HMHQ.

Why in the hell would we do such a thing? Well, frankly, we've both got some shit to say to our respective comrades across the aisle, if you will. Some of it may be critical and some of it may be light-hearted. All of it, however, will be (as per usual) educational, entertaining, and from the heart.

Police and Fire have had a long-standing and time-honored tradition of giving one another a hard time. At the end of the day, we both joined our respective service because we felt a need to help others. That is truly the spirit in which Happy and I write and why we feel confident in giving over control to the other.

The first post will be scheduled very soon...so stay tuned!

Teamwork

Yet another reason I love my job...teamwork. Since my wildly disappointing high school basketball career was the highlight of my teamwork in the sports field, I couldn't be happier to be a part of a team that wins one from time to time in my chosen profession.

The team mentality is a special one and the home it has found in public service is unique. A fact to which both cops and firefighters can attest. Today was one of those days. We didn't save the world and most of the citizens in Town (with a few dozen exceptions) will be none the wiser, but I was proud to be a part of the team today.

First thing out of the gate, dayshift units respond to the other end of Town for the report of subjects breaking into cars. Long story short, we (and by we, I mean a trainee...credit where it's due and all) caught the two little pricks that were responsible. Here's where the teamwork comes in...

All of the victims lived in the trainee's beat. There were something along the lines of ten to twelve separate victims of both auto burgs and vandalisms (both felony and misdemeanor). The trainee caught the responsible parties. He was going to be in for a long day of writing paper, interviews, and transporting. The other beat officers and myself took paper on all the victims.

This is what I'm talking about when it comes to teamwork. There were no traffic related issues with this caper...but I still took three reports. This crime only occurred in one beat...but the other beat cops took between six and eight other reports between them. None of us bitched about it, we just did our job.

Sure, it sucked having to be cooped up in the PD to write all the reports we had, but it was a great job by the trainee and all involved. We got the job done today. Two shitbirds went to juvenile hall. A bunch of citizens feel vindicated about their police department. We were initially greeted with understandable anger ("Hey, your car got broken into.") and then gratitude ("We caught the little bastards.")

So, kudos, to my teammates at Town PD. I was proud of all of us today!

Mehserle

For everyone who is convinced Mehserle is the devil incarnate and a soulless wretch, please note this was written pre-verdict.


Johannes Mehserle letter to the public

The Grant family has asked repeatedly for admission and apology. Do you think this will quell lawlessness and animosity? Me, neither. I can neither put myself in the shoes of Grant's family nor those of Mehserle's family...not to mention the man, himself.

This is a tragedy regardless of viewpoint or perspective. As I am a police officer, I am trusted to make life and death decisions. In a split second, mind you. Let's say for the sake of argument, Mehserle was acquitted. He still would have to live with the very things he describes in his letter.

I can only pray for healing...on all sides.

OPD Motor Competition

If you're a Motor in the Bay Area, or you just want to watch those who are, come on down to the Oakland PD Motor Competition on 7/10/10.

Click here for more information...

Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend this year due to prior commitments (and a sick little one). If you're able to make it, you'll see an amazing display of riding abilities.

If you do make it...tell 'em MC sent you!

Recognition

I was pleasantly surprised to be contacted by the editor for criminaljusticdegreeschools.com today.

I was told the blog had been named as one of the Top 50 Criminal Justice Blogs. I am going to assume "in the known universe" was left off for some reason. (Originally, I was going to say "in the universe" but there could be some outside the known universe and I didn't want to seem cocky).

At any rate, I am honored to be included amongst a number of other sites...many of which I link to already (you're welcome, fellow honorees). You can check out the other 49 slightly less cool sites here.

And by the by....if you're new to the blog, please realize all the arrogant bravado prior to this sentence is meant to be humorous. Welcome to the lighter side of law enforcement, kids!

The Dead Horse

By now, you may have tired of my harping on slowing down and buckling up, but after seeing the video that follows at HMHQ and reading his take on it, I couldn't resist nicking it from him and sharing it here.

Some of what follows seems to be dramatized and some seems to be taken from dash cams or security cams. Either way...powerful.




This is why I write damn near every seatbelt violation I see. This is why I put up with your "I just left the bank" bullshit. If you're too stupid to put the damn thing on, I will act as your common sense. I will impact your wallet. I will piss you off. In reality, though, you are pissed that I caught you being an irresponsible dumbass. In reality, I may have saved your life. Don't believe me? Check this out...

So, you say you want Justice?

Other than one post, I've avoided posting about Mehserle for a year and a half now; however, since I run the risk of being directly impacted this week when the verdict is reached, I figured now was as good a time as any to give my opinion.

First, some points of law. Let's start with looking at the three sections of the CA Penal Code being considered by the jury.

187.  (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, 
with malice aforethought.

192.  Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. 

It is of three kinds:    

(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.    

(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; 

or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, 

in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. 

This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.

**I've not added the third as vehicular doesn't apply here.**

The three charges the jury is considering are second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. I'll be using some bits of the jury instructions in this post, but if you are interested in reading the full jury instructions in the case, click here.

The judge instructed the jury regarding the charges saying, "The crime of second degree murder and the lesser included crime of voluntary manslaughter require proof of the union, or joint operation, of act and wrongful intent. For you to find a person guilty of either of these crimes that person must not only intentionally commit the prohibited act, but must do so with a specific intent and mental state. For you to find a person guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense to the crimes of second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, a person must do an act with criminal negligence."

There are more instructions in the 500s section of the jury instructions (that are length-prohibitive for posting). In that section, the judge goes into depth regarding the definitions and requirements for the three charges.

Now, what is my opinion? I think Johannes Mehserle made a tragic error. I am glad he is no longer a police officer. Having said that, however, I don't think the charges against him apply. Let's keep in mind that a lot of my opinion stems from media coverage and my experience as a police officer. No, I wasn't at the trial. No, I wasn't on the BART platform on that day.

BART's FTO program is five months long. (In my original BART post, I said 18 months, I have since learned differently). BART extends to four separate counties. That means the officers have to learn each county's laws. In addition, they have to familiarize themselves with muni codes for each city BART travels through, not to mention all the jails and court systems associated with those cities/counties. All that on top of learning how to be a police officer as well. My point? Mehserle was a BART cop for two years. That means he was on his own for about 18 months. He was still a rookie. They say in order to be a competent police officer, one needs five years on the street. He was not an experienced police officer. I am not offering excuses, simply facts.

In my opinion, there is absolutely no intent associated with this incident. That takes second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter off the table. The judge instructed the jury, "The defendant is not guilty of second degree murder or the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter if he did not have the intent or mental state required to commit the crime because he mistakenly believed a fact, namely, that he had drawn his taser and not his firearm. If the defendant's conduct would have been lawful under the facts as he believed them to be, he did not commit second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter."

It has been purported that Mehserle believed he was drawing his taser. Let's ignore the cell phone videos, media coverage, and witness statements for a moment and look at common sense. Does it make sense that an officer, rookie or vet, would pull his duty weapon on a crowded platform with witnesses everywhere in a day and age of cameras documenting one's every move, and intentionally kill a man while he is on the ground and unarmed? Give me a break.

Voluntary manslaughter requires a killing in the heat of passion. The judge's instructions were as follows: "A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. The defendant killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion if: 1) The defendant was provoked. 2) As a result of that provocation, the defendant acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured his reasoning or judgement AND 3) The provocation would have caused a peace officer of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation, that is, from passion rather than from judgement.

I would argue Mehserle wasn't provoked. I would argue he was there doing his job. But, for the sake of argument, let's say #1 is met. Both in the trial and the Grant family statements to the media, much has been made of Mehserle's lack of emotion on the night in question. #2 seems to be an impossibility to reach as well. Those two points alone call up enough reasonable doubt in my mind.

Finally, there is the third charge of involuntary manslaughter. From the jury instructions: "The defendant committed involuntary manslaughter if: 1) The defendant (a) committed a crime that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the way in which it was committed or (b) committed a lawful act, but acted with criminal negligence; and 2) The defendant's acts unlawfully caused the death of another person.

It seems the key in this charge is "criminal negligence". Once again, from the jury instruction: "A peace officer acts with criminal negligence when the way he acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful peace officer would act in the same situation that his act amounts to a disregard for human life or an indifference to the consequences of that act....In considering whether the defendant's conduct was criminally negligent, you must not consider the consequences of that conduct. You must focus on the question of whether the defendant's conduct itself was reckless and whether his actions were such a departure from the actions of a reasonable peace officer in the same circumstances that his acts amounted to a disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of his acts."

The last instruction with regard to this charge is key. From the jury instruction: "In considering whether the defendant's conduct was criminally negligent, you should consider all the evidence in this case, including whether the defendant's conduct violated applicable policies and training. A finding by you that the defendant acted in reasonable compliance with applicable policies and training would tend to negate a finding that he acted with criminal negligence. A finding by you that the defendant did not act in reasonable compliance with applicable policies and training would tend to support a finding that he acted with criminal negligence."

This is key because if he acted in accordance with BART policy and training, criminal negligence is more difficult to prove, thus, reasonable doubt. Prior to this incident, I don't believe BART had a policy regarding where on one's person one was required to carry a taser. Much has been said since then about weapon confusion and making sure the taser is a cross draw. That is to say if you are right handed, your duty weapon is worn on your right hip and your taser on your left. It would not surprise me if BART has not enacted that very policy since this incident happened.

If you truly want Justice, you must follow the rules of law. Is BART being civilly sued? Is Mehserle? Oh, most assuredly. The Grant family is going to get paid. In this case, I think they should. Now, I'm not extolling the virtues of Oscar Grant by any means. This whole thing could have been avoided from the outset if he had A) not been in an altercation and B) not resisted. Neither of those actions, however, deserved anything close to the result he received.

At the end of the day, Mehserle made a deadly error. As I read both the law and the jury instructions, I don't think Mehserle is guilty of a crime. As much as race has been ballyhooed about in this case, it seems to me that both the media, community, and Grant family have assigned that particular label. If Justice is truly blind, race shouldn't play into this at all.

Where will Justice be when opportunistic vandals destroy downtown Oakland? Where were the riots for the four CHP officers killed this month? Listen people, civilized folks don't riot. Civilized folks don't loot. Civilized folks don't react to a tragedy in order to use it as a crutch to commit a slew of crimes.

It is a sad state of affairs when the hard working, law abiding citizenry and merchants of Oakland are going to be doubly victimized when the verdict is announced. Make no mistake, it doesn't matter what the verdict is to the kinds of scumbags that will be "protesting". Look at Los Angeles. The Lakers won the NBA championship and people "celebrated" by vandalizing and looting. There were arrests. People got hurt. It was a fucking sporting event! This issue is so much more volatile it nearly defies definition.

Truth be told, I don't really believe the majority of people the media has featured in the last year and half. I don't think they want Justice...at least not true Justice. When the trial first started, people were screaming for first degree murder. These are the uneducated, ignorant (albeit angry) masses. Their knowledge of law is non-existent. They simply want their pound of flesh. That is their perverted sense of "justice". They want to get back at the cops that have been locking up their baby's daddies. They want to rail against decades of perceived inequities. They want an excuse to rape and pillage (be it figurative or literal). In short, they want legalized, sanctioned anarchy.

While they are committing a litany of crimes, we, the police, will still be out there enforcing the law. We will not bow to the mob mentality. We will win the day. The sad thing is I agree with those that have called for Justice in this case. I just adhere to a different, more lawful, sense of said Justice. Hold Mehserle responsible for what he did to the fullest extent of the law. It needn't be solely criminal law, either. He and/or his department should be held civilly responsible for the actions of that night. Unfortunately, tempers are running high in and about the city of Oakland and I don't think the kinds of people that will be running rampant have any desire to have any kind of intellectual discussion about rules of law.

On a final note, if you find yourself wearing a badge and a gun this week, take heart! Believe it or not, the senseless bullshit we are all about to endure is not truly reflective of the citizens of Oakland or its surrounding cities. Take care of one another, keep your heads down, and we will come out the other side.

Happy Birthday, America!

Dear America,

You kick ass.

Love,

MC

ASK MC

In a recent post, Rickety made a comment and asked the following:

I do have to ask though, what's your opinion of incidents where police go out of their way to interfere with photographers?

I'm seeing reports of officers demanding that cameras be turned off and images deleted, confiscating cameras or memory cards, or even arresting photographers. I'm not talking about protesters filming each other as they engage in riot, I'm talking about folks photographing public buildings, photographing police action from across the street, or even posting video or photos to the web after the fact when it went unnoticed during the incident in question.

In short, police have a well-established power to photograph and video their interactions with citizens, but increasingly seem to feel that there is no reciprocal right. Where do you stand on that?

This kind of thing is becoming more and more prevalent in today's society. Here is a recent example of this very thing from Seattle, WA.

I could have a whole separate post on this video alone. Suffice it to say, videos like this are not unusual. As I type this, there is a jury in Los Angeles deciding the fate of former BART officer Johannes Mehserle based by and large on video shot during the incident.

For years now, we have been trained to act like we are being videotaped. When we (and for that matter, you) are in public, we have no expectation of privacy. That means any of us can be taped at any time. I believe I've mentioned it before, but I carry a digital audio recorder on me all the time. I tape almost all of my stops. Why? Probably not for the reason you think. I don't necessarily use it for evidentiary value; rather, I use it to cover my ass. I've had a number of baseless complaints. I've had people straight out lie in said complaint. The audio tape has saved my ass every time.

Some of my co-workers have started carrying lapel video cameras. Personally, I'm all for it. The public at large has little or no idea the abuse cops take every day. I'm not talking about getting beat down, just simply the attitudes. You all are more familiar with it because you've been here for a couple of years and have read the stories of my experiences.

To more directly answer the question, I have no problem being taped. As in most things, though, there is a caveat. I've seen cops get baited into a confrontation so the "photographer" or "videographer" can get some sensationalized material to show how "abusive" cops are. If you're not being an asshole for the simple sake of being an asshole, tape away, Geraldo Rivera.

Rickety, insofar as things being confiscated, my only guess to that would be if the material contained some evidence of a crime. Having never experienced anything along these lines, though, I can't truly answer that question with any kind of certainty. I will say, to answer your initial question, going out of one's way to interfere with someone operating a video camera (be they amateur or professional) is asking for trouble and only makes it look as if there was something to hide. Act professional (both sides of this debate) and there should be little to no issue.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that there is an increasing feeling that no reciprocal right exists. Most cops I know have no problem at all being filmed. Further, like I said before, there are an increasing number that are doing the filming themselves. Perhaps turnabout is fair play. Maybe it's time for the public to be concerned about their conduct during interaction with the police.

They could all end like this

On May 20, 2010, West Memphis Police Officers Bill Evans and Brandon Paudert were killed by Jerry Kane and his 16 year old son, Joseph. You can read the article, written by PoliceOne's Senior Editor, Doug Wyllie, below.

JONESBORO, Ark. — Two pieces of raw video surfaced late Wednesday, June 30, showing cop killers Jerry Kane and his 16-year-old son, Joseph Kane, murdering West Memphis Police Officers Bill Evans and Brandon Paudert along Interstate 40 on May 20th. Evans had pulled over a minivan driven by 45-year-old Kane, who during the traffic stop is seen leaving his minivan at Evans' request.

Related Articles: Killer of 2 Ark. officers had anti-government links'All hell broke loose' in West Memphis ambush Related content sponsored by:

One video, taken from Officer Evans' vehicle, shows that initial part of the stop, as well as a view from Paudert's vehicle as he arrives on the scene and swings in behind Evans' SUV. Then, the teenager is seen exiting the passenger side of the van and opening fire with an AK-47. Minutes later, the video shows both suspects returning to the van and taking off.

A second video, taken from dashboard and surveillance cameras mounted above the parking lot of the West Memphis Walmart, shows the gun battle that took place approximately 90 minutes later, when police found the suspects in a Wal-Mart parking lot.

"Prosecutor Mike Walden says Jerry and Joseph Kane would have faced capital murder charges had they not been killed in a shootout with police in the parking lot of a West Memphis Walmart in May," reported Chuck Bartels of the Associated Press.

WMCTV News reported that Wakden further said, "It has not been a difficult call for this office to say that this was a justified shooting."

The video below is raw footage from the patrol car's dash mounted camera. It is lengthy, but at around the 11:00 minute mark, you can see what appears to be Jerry's hands on the hood of the car. One of the officers is standing directly in the camera's line of sight and you see him react to something Jerry did off camera. Soon thereafter, Joseph gets out of the stopped minivan with an AK-47. There is nothing graphic on the video and there is no sound. The killing takes place off camera. Eventually, the killers get back in the car and drive away.

BLUtube is powered by PoliceOne.com

Why did I spotlight this video? There are so many reasons. Primary amongst them, though, is the simple fact that I want those of you who aren't cops to have a better understanding of what possibilities we face every day and on every stop. Would you suspect a 16 year old kid to get out of his dad's minivan and open fire on you? Of course not. Fatal mistake.

In this day and age of budget shortfalls, police layoffs, fire stations closing, and people bitching about public safety retirements, I can only say you don't run the risk of this happening to you in your sterile 9 to 5 job. So, yeah, we deserve every fucking penny we make (and then some). If we're lucky enough to make it to retirement at all, that is. I don't want to politicize this tragedy, but it does serve as a reminder that we live dangerous lives and do the dangerous shit that the rest of you either are too afraid to do or have no desire to do. I don't care if you work in the inner city, in a small town, or out in cow country. Crazy, dangerous people live all over the world and we could stop them at any time for a variety of reasons.

The last video below shows the two murderers in a Wal-Mart parking lot. They were killed in the ensuing gun battle. Ultimately, this saved taxpayers all kinds of time and money. Sadly, it is a foregone conclusion that the surviving Kane family will more than likely sue. They will more than likely get paid. Know why? It's cheaper to settle than fight. Still, neither murdering piece of shit Kane will have the opportunity to do something like this again.

BLUtube is powered by PoliceOne.com

You thought this was a good idea?

Here's something interesting about Law Enforcement. People feel either motivated or otherwise oddly moved to talk to us while we're obviously otherwise occupied. They seldom say, "Excuse me" or anything along those lines. They just walk up and start yapping. I don't think I'll ever understand the phenomenon.

I don't walk into your office where you push your papers and crunch your numbers and start talking to you while you're with a client. What makes you think you should just come up to me and offer your (often unqualified) opinion? Case in point...

This past week, I stopped a lady for gridlock. Basically, that means she entered the intersection without the ability to completely traverse the intersection. This resulted in her green light cycling to red and now the other direction can't enter the intersection at all because she's blocking. When I contacted her, she had a good attitude and I told her I was going to give her a warning. I had just launched into a little educational explanation of what she did wrong when this happened:

MC: When you enter an intersection, you have to be able to go all the way across...

NAUD (Nosey Ass Univolved Driver) off to my right: She doesn't deserve a ticket!

MC (turns to look...dons appropriate "are you fucking kidding me right now" look): Excuse me?

NAUD: It wasn't her fault. She couldn't make it through the intersection. I'm a witness. (looks at driver) I can write you a letter if you need one.

MC: Thanks ever so much for your opinion, sir. As it happens, however, she did indeed commit a violation and I was just in the midst of explaining what she did to her. I also already told her she would be receiving a warning. You can go ahead and leave now, sir.

Now, this may not seem like a big, hairy deal to most of you, but I assure you it's a pet peeve shared by a number of LEOs. First of all, just walking up to an officer in the midst of a traffic stop is neither smart nor safe. For all I know, you could be some lunatic related to the driver I've just stopped. Maybe you swore when you got out of prison, you'd never go back and have extended that weird proclamation to family members as well. Sound paranoid? Probably, but check it out, so far I've gone home every day to kiss the Wife and Kids. If you think that's a weird perspective, do me a favor, stay the fuck out of law enforcement. You'd probably either end up dead or, worse, you could get me killed. A healthy suspicion of people is life affirming in my line of work.

Secondly, I don't care about your opinion regarding my traffic stop. So if you feel motivated to make an issue of it and take it too far (which is in my estimation, not yours, by the way), you are running the risk of impeding me in my duties and that could land you in jail.

Lastly, if you're all butt hurt about what you saw and you just can't stop yourself from letting it go, why don't you just do what I'm sure your mom tried to instill in you (and failed apparently) and say, "Excuse me, officer, when you're done may I have a word?" I'd be more than happy to agree and perhaps we could have a civil discussion about what you think you saw and the law.