# DC Cop brings gun to snowball fight.



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2009)

Kids in DC set up huge snowball fight via twitter and facebook.
Plain cloth cops car gets hit.
Cop jumps out waving gun.
Local cops get 911 call about nut waving gun.
incident under investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/12/20/nr.dc.snowball.fight.cnn


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 20, 2009)

Was the gun a reasonable response?  Probably not, though a lot depends on exactly what neighborhood.  There's a huge crowd on the scene there, and it was clearly effecting traffic.  Which was already a huge mess at the time...  

However, in many if not most or all states, deliberately throwing a missile (including a snowball) at a vehicle driving down the road or throwing a missile across the roadway is illegal.  In VA, either is a *felony*.  For a very good reason; if the driver panics or otherwise loses control of the car, you've got a very dangerous situation...


----------



## Big Don (Dec 20, 2009)

Sissy


----------



## Carol (Dec 20, 2009)

> D.C. police have said they are investigating the incident. Assistant Chief Pete Newsham, who leads the department's investigative services bureau, has said the detective in question "was armed but never pulls his weapon." Photos and videos posted online appear to contradict that, though none show the detective pointing his gun at anyone.



Uh huh.  And this fellow is likely in charge of the investigation as to whether the detective overreacted?







http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/AR2009122000881.html

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...-cops-overreact-to-snowball-fight-14th-and-u/


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2009)

If a civilian's car was hit by a snow ball, and that civilian then pulled over, got out, drew a weapon and pointed it at the kids tossing snowballs, what would happen?

Was the detectives life in any danger? Was he on duty? Was he in his jurisdiction? etc.


----------



## Carol (Dec 20, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Was the gun a reasonable response?  Probably not, though a lot depends on exactly what neighborhood.  There's a huge crowd on the scene there, and it was clearly effecting traffic.  Which was already a huge mess at the time...



It was in Cardozo, 14th and U.  

IIRC decent neighborhood, but a helluva busy intersection in good weather...


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 20, 2009)

On a totally different subject on the gun drawing thing. If someone hit you with a snowball...out of the blue and you didn't know them, didn't like being struck, and then were struck again. I would charge them if you were willing to sign the charges.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 20, 2009)

You guys are way too strict.

At my school, when you throw a snow ball, you get a snow ball letter. After three letters, you get a phone call home and a stern talking-to.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 20, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> You guys are way too strict.
> 
> At my school, when you throw a snow ball, you get a snow ball letter. After three letters, you get a phone call home and a stern talking-to.


 

WOW. You guys are way too lenient. At the schools I went to, you couldn't even make snowballs at ALL. Throwing one was a suspension( this all came on the heels of a kid taking a "soaker" in the temple and dying, or so the story was made up to tell us).


----------



## thardey (Dec 20, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> WOW. You guys are way too lenient. At the schools I went to, you couldn't even make snowballs at ALL. Throwing one was a suspension( this all came on the heels of a kid taking a "soaker" in the temple and dying, or so the story was made up to tell us).


 
At my school, the teachers used to ask us to make snowballs for them. Now there's a zero tolerance policy against them.

One kid accidentally held two ice cubes together in his hand. He got suspended for "assembling frozen materials."


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 21, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAgQKJuriIo&feature=player_embedded

Personally. I don't know why the Detective chose to draw his gun, and quite frankly, I don't care.

Now that I've watched this.  What I see is a crowd of people shouting "**** you pigs" and antagonizing the police for no reason other than they're disaffected college kids that think its cool.

IMO. Get warrants for each camera there and ID everybody who threw a snowball at a car and charge them with criminal mischief. Then ID'd the guy throwing the snow ball that struck the detective in the face and charge him with battery on a law enforcement officer.

**** the police? 

Stupid college kids?


----------



## xJOHNx (Dec 21, 2009)

It's a snowball.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 21, 2009)

xJOHNx said:


> It's a snowball.


It's a snowball as you say, among friends, but it is intrusive, over the line, and against the law in some cases when used toward strangers. We look at this situation and say we have all had snowball fights as kids. Well when I was a kid it was fun to have, one but it was between us.


----------



## Carol (Dec 21, 2009)

Well...no, its not *a* snowball.  

Its, like, 200 of them.  Or more.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 21, 2009)

xJOHNx said:


> It's a snowball.



Tell ya what. Ill paste you in the face with one out of the blue..as a complete stranger..and we will see what you think of it then.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 21, 2009)

I wasn't there and I don't know the man involved so it might be entirely the case of an instinctive response from him because he felt threatened.  However, it was also entirely the wrong thing for anyone to do, let alone a policeman.


----------



## Joab (Dec 21, 2009)

It seems to me that the plain clothes cop used very bad judgement. How were the kids supposed to know his car was a police car and that he was a police officer when the car looked like a pov and the cop wore no uniform? If he thought the situation was out of hand, why didn't he walk out and initially pull his badge and talk to them, or call for back up with squad cars and uniformed police officers? If I were the kids I would think it was some nut who was out to shoot everybody! Such bad judgement should be investigated, the cop should likely be assigned desk duty until the investigation is over.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 21, 2009)

It also occurs to me that, once the matter dies down in the public gaze and assuming that the incident is brushed over officially, the chap is going to take an awful lot of ribbing from his colleagues .

That is quite possibly unfair given the size of the crowd and his surmisable sense of threat but it is human nature. "Hey, aren't you the guy who pulled your gun on a kid with a snowball!?" :lol:.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 21, 2009)

Joab said:


> If I were the kids I would think it was some nut who was out to shoot everybody!



And then throw a snowball at him?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2009)

Shooting an angry gun waving person who's coming at you waving a gun and swearing and threatening you is usually self defense.

Unless it's a cop, then it's a crime.

How would the uniformed police who responded have handled it if they did NOT recognize the gun waver as one of their own?
If a civilian had been the one waving the gun, wouldn't he be sitting in a lock up somewhere, maybe tased or sprayed as a result and facing a dozen or 2 charged for unlawful this and unlawful that?

Is waving a gun in response to a snow ball fight an acceptable action?
Was his life in danger?
Is it acceptable for a cop but not a civilian to draw a gun whenever they feel angry?

Crowds anger is understandable. Friendly get together disrupted by a gun waving idiot with a 9-11 call to the cops having to be made only to find out that the idiot is a cop.  Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in local law enforcement.

Situation needs to be investigated, and if any LEO's violated procedure or the law, dealt with, as should happen to anyone else who is found to be in error in this situation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2009)

And the guy who threw the snowball at the gun waver?  
Book him on an idiocy charge. Not because the hit a cop....because he threw a snowball at a guy waving a gun. You can probably add a few other real charges there, but lets be honest, being a convicted idiot just sounds better.
The couple of verbally abusive idiots in the mix also are at fault.

The biggest fault IMO lies with the plain clothes, who should have just kept driving after his vehicle was hit.  Hey, that's what I'm always told, keep driving, don't stop. He is the one who by getting out of his car, drawing his gun and threatening the crowd caused the mess.  Could have drove on a bit, radioed in and let the uniforms handle it while then doubling back to help them ID anyone necessary.

I also see the plain clothes getting physical, pushing, shoving, and verbally abusive once the uniform arrives.  The uniforms looks to be trying to diffuse the situation which could have turned into a riot. Every uniformed cop I saw looked to be behaving professionally and deescalated a tense situation. That's important to note. Despite staring down the barrels of over 200 snowballs they looked to have kept their weapons holstered.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Dec 21, 2009)

Maybe he just wanted to play and had those new Ice Bullets?  You know, rubber bullets, wooden bullets, now new Ice Bullets, from Coors?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2009)

I suspect if it was Coors being tossed around things would have been less controversial. After all, in DC you settle things over beer.


----------



## oldnewbie (Dec 21, 2009)

One more thing to add to my list of why I live in Florida.....

No Cop gun waving snowball fights........

(By the way... what's a snowball..? ):rofl:


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 21, 2009)

seasoned said:


> It's a snowball as you say, among friends, but it is intrusive, over the line, and against the law in some cases when used toward strangers. We look at this situation and say we have all had snowball fights as kids. Well when I was a kid it was fun to have, one but it was between us.


And when someone you didn't know pelted you -- or someone you did know, but who picked a bad moment -- you got pissed.  Especially if the "snowball" was actually a ball of hard ice...

It's one thing if everyone is playing.  It's another if you involve someone who's not playing and doesn't want to play.

I'm not saying the detective was right in drawing his gun.  I think there's a lot of explaining he needs to do.  There is room to justify it... but he has to make that explanation.  And, given the circumstances, some of that explanation will have to become public.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 21, 2009)

I felt bad for the uniformed cop shown on camera in the news report, carrying his gun. I'm sure some viewers thought he was the one the reporters were talking about.

The anchor had the reporter clarify that he was not the one who initially pulled a weapon but merely that he went to the scene, having been told that someone was brandishing a gun. Under those circumstances, it made sense for him to have his weapon out. Notice how quickly he holsters it once he's spoken to people at the scene.


----------



## xJOHNx (Dec 21, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Tell ya what. Ill paste you in the face with one out of the blue..as a complete stranger..and we will see what you think of it then.


I'll shrug it off. My ego isn't big enough to start a verbal/non-verbal fight over a snowball. I might get pissed because it hit me in the face when I wasn't expecting it, but using force/curse words to make my point? Not likely.

I would expect the same from policemen. Who should have a thicker skin than me.

As for the rest, I follow bob's last two posts.

p.s. It snows here too, I got hit by snowballs all day by kids. And yesterday, and the day before.

p.s.2: There was a big snow fight here on thursday, cops got hit... they just started throwing back.


----------



## KELLYG (Dec 21, 2009)

Damn it was just kids having a snow ball fight.  I spirals soo out of control that guns are drawn??  Where did common since go this whole deal is ridiculous!


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 21, 2009)

My opinion is in line with JKS. I don't think the situation called for drawing a weapon.

However, Im not letting the participants off of the hook. The place for a snowball fight is in a park or a lot somewhere, not at a corner of a major metropolitan city. I call that disorderly conduct". It interferes with traffic, has the potential to involve people who will look at getting struck as an offense and has the potential of damaging property. I would have dispersed them.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 21, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> My opinion is in line with JKS. I don't think the situation called for drawing a weapon.
> 
> However, Im not letting the participants off of the hook. The place for a snowball fight is in a park or a lot somewhere, not at a corner of a major metropolitan city. I call that disorderly conduct". It interferes with traffic, has the potential to involve people who will look at getting struck as an offense and has the potential of damaging property. I would have dispersed them.


Plain clothed, with your gun drawn and without your badge out?


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 21, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Plain clothed, with your gun drawn and without your badge out?


 
Did I say that?


----------



## Carol (Dec 21, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> Damn it was just kids having a snow ball fight.  I spirals soo out of control that guns are drawn??  Where did common since go this whole deal is ridiculous!



By all accounts it was not just kids having a snowball fight.  It was either adults, or people as large as adults, in a fight organized via facebook and twitter, involved over 200 people, on a busy intersection in one of the most violent cities in America. 

I'm not saying the detective did the right thing by drawing his sidearm...but the threat to public safety is not difficult to understand.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 22, 2009)

Washington Post EXCERPT:
Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier Monday issued a statement to the community saying she watched the footage and it is "obvious" that the detective pulled his weapon in response to thrown snowballs hitting his Hummer.


> &#8220;Let me be very clear in stating that I believe the actions of the officer were totally inappropriate!


----------



## Carol (Dec 22, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Washington Post EXCERPT:
> Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier Monday issued a statement to the community saying she watched the footage and it is "obvious" that the detective pulled his weapon in response to thrown snowballs hitting his Hummer.



Good.  Maybe she can tell that to her Assistant Chief who claims he never drew his gun.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 22, 2009)

Carol said:


> By all accounts it was not just kids having a snowball fight. It was either adults, or people as large as adults, in a fight organized via facebook and twitter, involved over 200 people, on a busy intersection in one of the most violent cities in America.
> 
> I'm not saying the detective did the right thing by drawing his sidearm...but the threat to public safety is not difficult to understand.


 
Thats all I'm sayin. :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 22, 2009)

Carol said:


> Good. Maybe she can tell that to her Assistant Chief who claims he never drew his gun.


 
I think he deserves more punishment for the lie than he does for the act. Personally.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2009)

> "Let me be very clear in stating that I believe the actions of the officer were totally inappropriate!" Lanier said in a statement. "In no way should he have handled the situation in this manner."Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier said she had watched video clips from the weekend confrontation and has no doubt that the off-duty officer pulled his gun after snowballs hit his personal vehicle during Saturday's record snowfall.
> ...
> "It is very obvious to me that the officer pulled his service weapon in response to the snowballs hitting his vehicle. I have no doubt about this, nor has the officer denied the accusations," said Lanier.
> ...
> ...




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580757,00.html


Let me say that while I hope he receives some action, no one was hurt and I don't think he should lose his job over this. The article says he's a 25 yr vet with a good track record. DC shouldn't lose an otherwise good cop over a minor issue, especially if they use it as a learning experience.



I also hope that -all- the footage is being reviewed and any of the instigators also dealt with if possible.


----------



## Carol (Dec 22, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I think he deserves more punishment for the lie than he does for the act. Personally.



They are two different officers.  

There's the Detective that drew the gun, then the Assistant Chief that's head of Investigative Services saying the detective  never drew the gun, and was instead carrying a cell phone.  Uh huh. 

The detective will likely get disciplined in some way, yet I suspect the Assistant Chief will see no disciplinary action out of this, which does not sit well with me at all.

Although, I may have a new code word.  "I'm going to the range, want to get your...cell phones...and come with me?"  :lol:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 22, 2009)

So let me get this straight...

Cop driving through the neighborhood in a city known for its violence sees about 200 people in the street throwing snowballs at each other (what looks to be one factions vs. another) as well as some pushing and shoving. 

Rather then driving blithely through, he stops, maybe at what he thinks is a major fight, with his gun drawn, stands next to his vehicle (rather calmly I think), gets on his police radio (ostensibly to call for assistance). Oh, and after he gets hit with several snowballs, still does not physically confront the crowd, as an "enraged" (to quote a report on foxnews.com) person might.

I'm sorry, what is the problem here...???

I think some major assumptions are being made here:

1. The cop knew this was merely a snowball fight, and not a major fight or a brewing fight.

2. The cop only stopped because he was upset that a snowball hit his vehicle, otherwise he would have continued driving. 

3. That snowballs even hit his car. Nothing in the video that I have seen, nor any statement made by the officer, shows that. 

Now, do I know that this was this detective's reason for doing what he did? Nope. But how do you know why he did it either? Considering that he is a 25 year law enforcement veteran who has gone through an extensive background check at some point in his career, I will, from my limited perspective, give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 22, 2009)

Fun in the snow, is a couple of kids tossing snowballs back and forth. Heck, my wife and I did it with our kids as they were growing up. I don't ever remember getting into a snowball fight with any neighbors, although at times I felt like it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I definitely don't remember nailing any strangers as they passed my house, or cars for that matter. But lets have common sense prevail, 200 people in a snowball fight has the potential to get way out of hand very, very fast. The fact that it was a police officer who's car got pelted, and in turn himself as he exited his car is a plus, because he was able to handle the situation, then and there. If it would have been anybody else that got out of their car, after getting pelted, and then got pelted themselves, could have been a recipe for disaster. The fact that the cop got hit as he got out of his car proves that this friendly little snowball, frolic in the snow, could have turned into a mob action very fast. Remember 2's fun, 200, a mob.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 22, 2009)

Is a snowball deadly? :idunno:

Anyway... two words: Anger Management.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Dec 22, 2009)

No a snowball isn't deadly, but a snowball fight of this magnitude could easily get out of hand and turn into a real fight.

I wasn't there so can't comment on all the details, put there could have been alot more involved here that could easily constitute disturbing the peace.

If you're walking down the street minding your own business and you get hit in the face hard by a snowball, that could be seen as assault.

Remember fun is fun when everyone involved is having fun, that doesn't give anyone the right to infringe on your personal space and well being in the name of fun.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 22, 2009)

I think it's possible the Assistant Chief spoke before seeing all the video & photos.  In some -- it does look like he had a radio or cell phone.  But he shouldn't have made any sort of definitive statement before getting all the facts.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2009)

Lets look at one of the facts we do have.....  Guy had a gun, clear as day, and some asshat still hit him deliberately with a snow ball.  The situation had the potential to go south fast.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 22, 2009)

Didn't the asshat hit the unmarked car of the off-duty cop?

Either way I look at it, the cop made a bonehead decision. Getting out of the unmarked car brandishing a gun was one. If he thought that the situation needed to be brought under control, don't you think asking for some uniformed backup staring down 200 people would be a reasonable thing to do?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2009)

Someone hit the car which pissed off the bonehead who stopped and got out waving a gun. He's lucky no one else there pulled theirs and dropped him.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 22, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Didn't the asshat hit the unmarked car of the off-duty cop?
> 
> Either way I look at it, the cop made a bonehead decision. Getting out of the unmarked car brandishing a gun was one. If he thought that the situation needed to be brought under control, don't you think asking for some uniformed backup staring down 200 people would be a reasonable thing to do?



I have to agree. Yes, a group of 200 people can get out of control. Introducing a lone gun into that situation does not seem sensible to me. He could have identified himself as an officer (since he was in street clothes and his personal vehicle), but in a crowd of 200 people chucking snowballs during a snow storm, who is going to hear it?

Then, you have other officers arriving (such as the uniform in the first video) who do not know that it is a police officer with a gun because he did not radio in that he was there and had his weapon out. If he perceived the situation to be a threat to public safety, he might have told someone.


----------



## Carol (Dec 22, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Someone hit the car which pissed off the bonehead who stopped and got out waving a gun. He's lucky no one else there pulled theirs and dropped him.



Lucky?  Only cops and criminals can carry in the district.

Decent residential neighborhood with a largely educated demographic...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2009)

I thought they gave the folks in DC back their 2nd Amend rights?


----------



## Carol (Dec 22, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I thought they gave the folks in DC back their 2nd Amend rights?



Hmm...

In practice?  I'm honestly not sure.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 22, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Did I say that?


No, of course you didn't, that's the point.  The conversation isn't really about what you might do that would be totally justified and sensible, it's that this officer didn't do any of those things.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 22, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So let me get this straight...
> 
> Cop driving through the neighborhood in a city known for its violence sees about 200 people in the street throwing snowballs at each other (what looks to be one factions vs. another) as well as some pushing and shoving.
> 
> Rather then driving blithely through, he stops, maybe at what he thinks is a major fight, with his gun drawn, stands next to his vehicle (rather calmly I think), gets on his police radio (ostensibly to call for assistance). Oh, and after he gets hit with several snowballs, still does not physically confront the crowd, as an "enraged" (to quote a report on foxnews.com) person might.


He stops, pulls his gun, and paces back and forth in front of his car and that's "calm"? Gets on his police radio to call for assistance? Who's assuming now? So far the reports all say the other officers showed up as a result of 911 calls about him, and pulled their guns when they arrived, only holstering them after recognizing him. And there's is clear video of the officer getting aggressive after the other cops show up.



> I'm sorry, what is the problem here...???


The problem is though there is a lot still to figure out here, you are certainly looking at this with a slanted view.



> I think some major assumptions are being made here:


Yes, there are.



> 1. The cop knew this was merely a snowball fight, and not a major fight or a brewing fight.


Major brawls start with snowball fight a lot where you live?



> 2. The cop only stopped because he was upset that a snowball hit his vehicle, otherwise he would have continued driving.


Possibly, but no other reasons have come forward yet, and he didn't ID himself.



> 3. That snowballs even hit his car. Nothing in the video that I have seen, nor any statement made by the officer, shows that.


There aren't any videos available for when his care stopped, but he definitely isn't acting calm as you claim in any of the ones available, and he doesn't engage in any appropriate actions if he stopped for law-enforcement reasons.



> Now, do I know that this was this detective's reason for doing what he did? Nope. But how do you know why he did it either? Considering that he is a 25 year law enforcement veteran who has gone through an extensive background check at some point in his career, I will, from my limited perspective, give him the benefit of the doubt.


Good for you, I'm glad you have respect for LEOs, so do I. But that doesn't excuse bad behavior and fortunately not having concrete evidence of his motives doesn't undermine the video. You don't have to know motive if the actions are clear.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 22, 2009)

blindsage said:


> He stops, pulls his gun, and paces back and forth in front of his car and that's "calm"? Gets on his police radio to call for assistance? Who's assuming now? So far the reports all say the other officers showed up as a result of 911 calls about him, and pulled their guns when they arrived, only holstering them after recognizing him. And there's is clear video of the officer getting aggressive after the other cops show up.
> [/quote}
> 
> Ok, being in a situation where there are people all around you, I would not stay in any one place.  I would keep moving so as to watch my own back.
> ...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 22, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> I have to agree. Yes, a group of 200 people can get out of control. Introducing a lone gun into that situation does not seem sensible to me. He could have identified himself as an officer (since he was in street clothes and his personal vehicle), but in a crowd of 200 people chucking snowballs during a snow storm, who is going to hear it?
> 
> Then, you have other officers arriving (such as the uniform in the first video) who do not know that it is a police officer with a gun *because he did not radio in that he was there and had his weapon out.* If he perceived the situation to be a threat to public safety, he might have told someone.


 
You have no evidence to show that.  What is your real world experience with the way that police dispatch / 911 center works?  I can tell you that miscommunications happen in small agencies, much less one that has 4,050 officers divided between seven police districts.  And that is just at the station level, not including specialized units and such with their own radio channels.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 22, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Someone hit the car which pissed off the bonehead who stopped and got out waving a gun. He's lucky no one else there pulled theirs and dropped him.


 
What is your evidence that someone hit his car with a snowball? Making up your own facts, or just repeating what a "news" article says doesn't make it true.

I thought you were more of a skeptic then that.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 22, 2009)

I'm thinking that some people haven't bothered to watch the video.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What is your evidence that someone hit his car with a snowball? Making up your own facts, or just repeating what a "news" article says doesn't make it true.
> 
> I thought you were more of a skeptic then that.


The articles I've read stated that, and I quote:


> People squealed as they hurled balls of snow across the largely deserted road. Then, a snowball or two slammed into a Hummer. The driver, a plainclothes detective whom D.C. police refused to identify, got out, drew his gun and exchanged angry words with revelers, according to video footage and witnesses.





> Then a maroon Hummer pulled up and was hit by snowballs. A man in plainclothes got out with a gun in his left hand.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/AR2009122000881.html
Monday, December 21, 2009 



> Cop says on video he pulled a gun because he was hit with a snowball





> An off-duty member of the Metropolitan Police Dept. was reportedly driving his personal car in the area when the car was suddenly pelted with a barrage of snowballs, according to a statement from the MPD.


http://www.nbcwashington.com/weathe...t_Over_Snowball_Fight_Waves_Gun-79729162.html*
*Mon, Dec 21, 2009



> Police said Monday they were looking into reports that a plainclothes officer pulled a gun after he and his personal car were hit by snowballs. Police say witness accounts and videos from the scene appeared to support the claims.


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/21/crimesider/entry6005292.shtml
December 21, 2009

So.....?

Am I yet again citing crap sources, or should I limit myself to commenting only on what I have direct interaction with, or can someone point me to the Galifrayian Consulate so I can hitch a ride in the next TARDIS visiting DC last Saturday?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 22, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The articles I've read stated that, and I quote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/AR2009122000881.html
> Monday, December 21, 2009
> 
> ...


 
To me, its not a matter of quoting crap sources. What I am offering is that we have a news report of facts not in evidence. Those news organizations that you listed do not cite the source of their information, which is what amounts to evidence. Unless the writer was there, then without citing their source, it amounts to speculation. 

A news article is not a source, unless it cites what the author sees. I will give it a measure of being an accurate depiction of facts if a witness is named.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 22, 2009)

Remember people, I am only offering a *possible* reason for his actions.  I do not know whether my hypotesis was also his reasoning.  What is irritating, however, is the prejudgement on the basis of a video.  

Now, do I think he made a *tactical *error.  Absolutely.  But it is not one that warrants such vitriol by the public, though I may understand it.  The public has very little, if any, understanding of what is involved in police use-of-force situations, and therefore make judgements out of ignorance.


----------



## Carol (Dec 23, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What is your evidence that someone hit his car with a snowball? Making up your own facts, or just repeating what a "news" article says doesn't make it true.
> 
> I thought you were more of a skeptic then that.



The detective behaved more like hothead that got pissed because his pwecious wheels were hit by a snowball, rather than behaving like a mature, responsible 25 year veteran of the force.


----------



## Carol (Dec 23, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Remember people, I am only offering a *possible* reason for his actions.  I do not know whether my hypotesis was also his reasoning.  What is irritating, however, is the prejudgement on the basis of a video.
> 
> Now, do I think he made a *tactical *error.  Absolutely.  But it is not one that warrants such vitriol by the public, though I may understand it.  The public has very little, if any, understanding of what is involved in police use-of-force situations, and therefore make judgements out of ignorance.



The ignorant public of whom you so disdainfully speak of caught a veteran detective behaving badly and caught highly educated (Juris Doctorate from Maryland), high ranking (Assistant Chief) brass in a lie.

Think about that before making a pandemic denigration about us, mmmkay?

EDIT:  I apologize, especially to you 5-0, for my gruff tone in this post.  For reasons completely unrelated to the subject at hand, I'm not in the best temperment at the moment and I'm afraid my rotten mood coming across in my writing.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 23, 2009)

While I think it was not the smartest thing to do, I also think it's getting way overblown. If he had actually pointed it at someone I would be more concerned.


----------



## Carol (Dec 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> While I think it was not the smartest thing to do, I also think it's getting way overblown. If he had actually pointed it at someone I would be more concerned.



Agreed, but the story doesn't have the legs it does simply because a few officers of the MPD made a call that, under the microscope, proved not to be the best call.  If the story was about an officer getting free coffee from a convenience store, the story may not even make the 11pm local newscast.

The story has the legs because it illustrates issues that some citizens have with police coverage...and it happened in the most over-hyped media market in the country.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 23, 2009)

Carol said:


> The detective behaved more like hothead that got pissed because his pwecious wheels were hit by a snowball, rather than behaving like a mature, responsible 25 year veteran of the force.


 
Ok.  So how many "mature, responsible 25 year veterans of the force" do you know, and know well enough to be able to say what their reaction would be in this situation (though not through 20/20 hindsight)?  And even then, where do you get your expertise to be able to make such an opinion?

And tell me, to what specific actions are you objecting?  Saying that he acted like a hothead is all well and good.  That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  But it doesn't make for good debate.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Dec 23, 2009)

Is almost causing a riot what we want in a 25 yr veteran?


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 23, 2009)

Not at all a helpful tone to be taking, *Kenpo*.  

*Carol*'s opinion doesn't require law enforcement experience to make.  She's one of 'your' clients and how she feels about how those enforcing the laws carries weight regardless (given that, as far as i know) she's not a criminal.

This is not anything I want to really get my feet into as I'll just get told to "butt out Limey!" but when those upon whose cooperation your job depends show powerful negative responses to something maybe it's a good idea to listen?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 23, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Not at all a helpful tone to be taking, *Kenpo*.
> 
> *Carol*'s opinion doesn't require law enforcement experience to make. She's one of 'your' clients and how she feels about how those enforcing the laws carries weight regardless (given that, as far as i know) she's not a criminal.
> 
> This is not anything I want to really get my feet into as I'll just get told to "butt out Limey!" but when those upon whose cooperation your job depends show powerful negative responses to something maybe it's a good idea to listen?


 
Thank you.  And I'll forgive  your Limey-ness.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





The point I was trying to make, perhaps badly, was that having an emotional reaction to a video, especially in light of a law enforcement professional giving you a perfectly plausible explanation for the actions is not helpful in a debate.  

She made an opinion about what a "mature, responsible 25 year veteran of the force" in their right mind would do.  I don't think that asking her how she has come to that understanding of what such a person should do is inappropriate.  And that's why I also asked her what specifically she objected to.  Without knowing that, what she said is a rant, and of no use in a debate.

As I said, having an opinion is fine, but it does nothing to enhance a debate.

The fact of the matter is that *all* police uses-of-force can *look* bad without proper context.  As professionals, it is our responsibility to make decisions based on the law, our training and experience, and department policy.  It is the legal, training and policy aspects of this issue which should be subject to debate and to which the public should have input.  You cannot deny a person their experiences.  You can only ask if their behavior is consistent within the framework of the other three.  If not, then appropriate actions against the detective should be taken. 

But as I stated before, just watching a video doesn't tell the whole story.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 23, 2009)

The Last Legionary said:


> Is almost causing a riot what we want in a 25 yr veteran?


 
Is he causing the riot, or are the people who are engaging in an illegal act, and then violently responding to a police presence causing the riot?  

Of course, I'm guessing that your answer is likely to be the cop.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree, though you might want to take a look at my posts regarding the legal aspects of what he did, and how they were justified, if a bit reckless.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 23, 2009)

{nods with understanding and agreement}  That is a most true and undisputable point in your penultimate paragraph (in post#67).

Thanks indeed for clarifying and elaborating and also for your forgiveness  and :thumbsup:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 23, 2009)

Food for thought for those who want to judge based on video alone:

http://blutube.policeone.com/Clip.aspx?key=BC26982214F7DEA2

I will try to embed the video a little later, when I learn how.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 24, 2009)

Try as I might, even after talking to an ITC guy, still don't know how to embed it, so I guess you'll just have to go to the link and see the video.


----------



## dnovice (Dec 24, 2009)

He was trying to flaunt his authority plain and simple. If he really felt that the two factions engaging themselves were gang members, why wouldn't he simply call for back up and wait... Its what a nyc cop, or any other cop i hope, would do when he is outnumbered by hostiles to degree the DC cop was. So suffice it to say he 1) didn't think they were a threat, 2) he thinks he's rambo. I doubt he thinks he's rambo.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 24, 2009)

dnovice said:


> He was trying to flaunt his authority plain and simple. If he really felt that the two factions engaging themselves were gang members, why wouldn't he simply call for back up and wait... Its what a nyc cop, or any other cop i hope, would do when he is outnumbered by hostiles to degree the DC cop was. So suffice it to say he 1) didn't think they were a threat, 2) he thinks he's rambo. I doubt he thinks he's rambo.


 
Who said gang members?  What about just a fight.  I've seen fights spontaneously erupt for the smallest reasons.

And even the LEO's here said that tactically he shouldn't have done what he did.  I will leave you with the fact that after being out of the field for a while (he is a detective), his tactical prowess is gonna go out the window.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 24, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Who said gang members? What about just a fight. *I've seen fights spontaneously erupt for the smallest reasons.*
> 
> And even the LEO's here said that tactically he shouldn't have done what he did. I will leave you with the fact that after being out of the field for a while (he is a detective), his tactical prowess is gonna go out the window.


 

We have fights that do that, we send in the Royal Military Police, such is their presence that the fighting spontaneously stops the minute they turn up....... as everyone regroups and charges them instead, it does your heart good to see it.


----------



## xJOHNx (Dec 24, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Who said gang members?  What about just a fight.  I've seen fights spontaneously erupt for the smallest reasons.
> 
> And even the LEO's here said that tactically he shouldn't have done what he did.  I will leave you with the fact that after being out of the field for a while (he is a detective), his tactical prowess is gonna go out the window.



I go to underground shows with up to 300 people in small venue's. Last 2 years there was 1 fight.

Two sides of the medallion


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 24, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Try as I might, even after talking to an ITC guy, still don't know how to embed it, so I guess you'll just have to go to the link and see the video.


I don't think you can embed it here.  That sort of thing is limited a bit because it's easy to end up with a hot linking situation, and site policy generally forbids hotlinking.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2009)

Our current setup doesn't allow that site to embed (we have to hard code per site).  I'll shortly be doing a major upgrade though that might add that ability (still reading through all the new bits).

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Carol (Dec 24, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Thank you.  And I'll forgive  your Limey-ness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The explanation you gave was inconsistent with comments from the Chief of Police of the MPD that were indirectly referenced to earlier in the thread.

Specifically, here is a post from BigDon, it was made before I noticed any of your contributions in the thread so I am not sure if you saw this.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1251044&postcount=33




> She made an opinion about what a "mature, responsible 25 year veteran of the force" in their right mind would do.  I don't think that asking her how she has come to that understanding of what such a person should do is inappropriate.  And that's why I also asked her what specifically she objected to.  Without knowing that, what she said is a rant, and of no use in a debate.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that *all* police uses-of-force can *look* bad without proper context. As professionals, it is our responsibility to make decisions based on the law, our training and experience, and department policy. It is the legal, training and policy aspects of this issue which should be subject to debate and to which the public should have input. You cannot deny a person their experiences. You can only ask if their behavior is consistent within the framework of the other three. If not, then appropriate actions against the detective should be taken.
> 
> But as I stated before, just watching a video doesn't tell the whole story.



You're implying that I made up my mind just from watching a video.  

However, please note that there is more content here than just a video. 

For example, a Google news search on "DC snowball fight" returns over a thousand hits.

The post from BigDon that I referenced above is a link to a Washington Post article, which links to another Washington Post article. The latter contains the full public statement by the Metropolitan Police Department's Chief of Police.   

Here is the link for convenience, it can be found many other places on the web as well.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/the-district/dc-police-chief-laniers-statem.html

Chief Lanier has stated that the detective got out of the car in response to the snowballs hitting the vehicle:



> It is very obvious to me that the officer pulled his service weapon in response to the snowballs hitting his vehicle. I have no doubt about this, nor has the officer denied the accusations.



Chief Lanier on the detective's behaviour:



> Let me be very clear in stating that I believe the actions of the officer were totally inappropriate! In no way, should he have handled the situation in this manner.



Chief Lanier did not care for the overhyped coverage...



> ...it does not sit well with me that the negative actions of one officer has become viral during a time when so many officers have done so much good.



...but encouraged the videos and feedback from the public.



> The video clips and the number of witnesses willing to come forward have proven a point I have reiterated, you are the additional eyes and ears in the community and your feedback in solving criminal complaints are crucial.
> 
> My office is receptive to this kind of information.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Dec 24, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> This is not anything I want to really get my feet into as I'll just get told to "butt out Limey!" ...



Sorry for the thread drift, but I couldn't let this pass.

Suke, you've alluded to getting your knuckles rapped in the past for commenting on US politics. Apart from the fact that this thread is in The Study -- not the US Poli sub-forum -- as I perceive it, MT is essentially international, even though it originates in the USA, by virtue of the fact that it's on the WWW. 

I'm sure if he were so inclined, Bob could lock people out of political discussion based on geographic location, but I don't see that happening. Occasionally, Aussies, Brits and Canucks might be seen as telling Americans how to do things, but heck, it's not like America or Americans are never known for telling the rest of the world what to do.

It bothers me no end that someone of your reputation (both in rep points and personal character) should feel constrained from voicing an opinion. I've seen entire discussions of health care in the US Politics forum built upon mis-information about Brit and Canadian health insurance. Similarly, you, Tez and others have been there to correct mis-perceptions S/D rights in GB. And good on you for it.

Hell, it's a discussion forum. Let's discuss. Being thoughtful, critical, or even boldly opinionated are not tantamount to being disrespectful of others or their homelands.  So speak up, Suke. I've got your six.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2009)

I'm sending all the Brits lemons and carbonated water this holiday.  This way, they can be bubbly lemon n limeys.   (7Up, Sprite, etc).


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 24, 2009)

:lol:  Be warned ... that may make us burp ... or worse!

Sorry for the big off-topic but as I'm already typing (allbeit through drooping eye-lids) and am about to go to bed (it being 3:30 here) a huge Merry Christmas to everyone here (we'll do the Happy New Years another day ).  May your day be as full of celebration and as free of stress as circumstances allow.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 26, 2009)

Carol said:


> The explanation you gave was inconsistent with comments from the Chief of Police of the MPD that were indirectly referenced to earlier in the thread.


 
Fair enough.  But lets understand the full context of what she said, which I think is telling of her view point.



> Let me be very clear in stating that I believe the actions of the officer were totally inappropriate! In no way, should he have handled the situation in this manner. We have taken swift action by placing him on non-contact status *until all the facts are gathered* and discipline is handed down.


 ​She has already made up her mind without all of the facts.  Her very statement alone makes this a *political* issue, not one of the officers behavior.  How does she know how the situation should have been handled if she doesn't have all of the facts?  She has already pre-judged him.  Once again, we give criminals a fairer deal than that.  

Besides which, I have already stated the the tactics used, *if* his reasoning was the one I positied, were bad.  And I already stated that the practices of the D.C. Metro Police Dept. may have dictated that he do something else.  However, I don't believe that it is fair to characterize a detective as a "hothead" or "bonehead" until the facts of the case are laid out.  Maybe he did act out of anger, I can't know that.  But the condemnation that is ensuing for this detective before the facts of the case are out is deplorable.

If my reasoning is correct, and again, I have no way of knowing, then this is a training issue.  The detective should be re-trained in how to handle such situations.  This would  not be an issue of punitive discipline.




> You're implying that I made up my mind just from watching a video.
> 
> However, please note that there is more content here than just a video.
> 
> ...


 
None that I have seen that have cited a specific source of information.  They say what happened without having been there.  And, it appears, that the only sources that they may have are the people who were involved, hardly an unbiased source.

Of course, to be fair, I haven't seen *all* of the articles.



> Chief Lanier has stated that the detective got out of the car in response to the snowballs hitting the vehicle:


 
But without having been there, and not having received information from the detective himself, and admitting to not having all of the facts, how can she say that?  Can she read the officer's mind?  Can she really tell him why he did what he did?  

Let's examine something else that the Chief said:



> It is very obvious to me that the officer pulled his service weapon in response to the snowballs hitting his vehicle. I have no doubt about this, *nor has the officer denied the accusations*.


 
Is this the same as an admission? Did the detective admit that this was the reason?  Or is she merely saying this because it already supports her pre-judgement of the situation, about how the reasons are supposedly "obvious".  (I hate it when people say that, by the way, because it is condesending to those that don't see thing in your world view.)

Quite frankly, this man is in fear for his job now.  I wouldn't say anything except in the presence of my attorney, as is his right.  

Even if I were to agree that the detective's vehilcle was hit by snowballs, that may have merely been the impetus to make him aware of what was occurring around him, rather then getting out of his vehicle out of anger.  I find it hard to believe, though not entirely impossible, that a person who is so enraged about their vehicle getting hit with snowballs would then merely get out of his car and get on a police radio while standing there getting pelted with insults and snowballs (to his face no less).  And while getting hit, continues to just stand there until a uniformed presence arrives.  These are not the reactions of an "enraged" person, in my opinion.



> Chief Lanier on the detective's behaviour:


 
Once again, I will continue to state that she has admitted to not having all of the facts, which renders her opinion to a certain degree, uninformed.

Either way, she could simply be arguing that even if the detective's belief was reasonable, his tactics were not, and were not in keeping with the department's training.  Of that, she can judge.  As she said in her statement:



> This officers conduct, in no way, reflects the training and the standards we hold each officer to at the Metropolitan Police


 
She is commenting on the aspects of his training, not his demeanor.  She is not saying that he did it because he was pissed off.  She said he was outside the scope of his training.  Hence, my call for "education based discipline" rather then punitive.​


> ...but encouraged the videos and feedback from the public.


 
As well she should.  The police are public servants, that I truly believe.  If they want cops out there arresting bad guys, that's what they should get.  If they want to make a department impotent, that's what they should get as well.  

In my department a few years back, we had a major video taped incident.  The D.A.'s office filed charges related to excessive use-of-force against two officers.  What's funny is, during the trial, they eventually conceded that at least half of the force used was justified.  Their own court certified use-of-force expert was against them.  But, because this video was seen around the world (we had one guy in vacation in France, and he saw it there), there was a call for action, whether justified or not.  This could be an example of the same thing.

BTW, the two officers were acquitted, and won a multi-million lawsuit against the city for wrongful termination.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 26, 2009)

5-0, 
I'd to hope that there was some justification for the guy's actions.  Maybe he saw a wanted subject in the crowd; maybe he simply saw a riot forming and dangerous behavior.  The crowd was sufficient justification, if he was taking action, for having his weapon out.  None of the videos I've seen show him brandishing it by pointing it at people; this is an important note.  And, I agree, Chief Lanier has, by her statements certainly created an impression that he's going to be punished.

And he should be, if his actions were those of a hothead. 

But, if his actions were a simple mistake, then they should be handled and treated as such, with retraining.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 9, 2010)

Washington DC cop who drew gun at snowball fight to get 10 day  suspension, not for gun, but for not filing report: http://is.gd/a4FeY


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 9, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Washington DC cop who drew gun at snowball fight to get 10 day suspension, not for gun, but for not filing report: http://is.gd/a4FeY


 
Interesting.  Man, if we had to write a report after every time that we detained someone, we would be spending hours on paperwork everyday, rather than doing something that was actually productive.

But, I guess that's their policy....


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAgQKJuriIo&feature=player_embedded
> 
> Personally. I don't know why the Detective chose to draw his gun, and quite frankly, I don't care.
> 
> ...


 
You heard 1 person yell "**** you, pig", not the whole crowd.  It seemed like a while before anyone in the crowd realized the guy was a cop...most were just calling him "a guy with a gun at a snowball fight."  

Not saying everyone there was entirely innocent.  Me, I'd have beat feet the moment the guy drew a gun; throwing snowballs at him after that was just plain retarded.  

I dont know if the crowd was breaking any laws by starting the snowball fight to begin with.  I'm quite certain the investigator was out of line by drawing his weapon and getting into a confrontation over a snowball hitting his car, rather than just sit tight and wait for back up.  In short, the responding officer had two guilty parties to deal with.


----------

