Quick Summary
- Cop stops suspect.
- Cop says, "Settle down. I'm not going to arrest you. I'm just putting you in cuffs for my own safety."
- Suspect maintains innocence.
- Cop says, "Okay, you are under arrest."
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Yeah, after the computer comes back with outstanding warrants.
Ephemeron.
No, you're completely misrepresenting the second part. They don't promise you won't be arrested, they simply assure you that at that very moment you're being detained, not arrested. If they find a reason to arrest you, they will. If they don't, you're free to go. The reason they detain people straight away is for the safety of everyone, and to allow them to do their investigation without having to worry about anyone who might have a damn good reason to hurt them, or at least impede their efforts. There's nothing wrong with any of that, at all.
The idiot formerly known as Heez.
> The reason they detain people straight away is for the safety of everyone,
I'm not quite sure that I can agree with that. Only one of the two parties is known to be carrying a gun. And far more people are shot by police in a year than police are shot by citizens. Who is really safer by cuffing the detainee?
Besides, I've never seen a case on the show where a detainee was cuffed "for everyone's safety" where the detainee wasn't eventually arrested. When the cuffs come out, it's a done deal.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Complete horse$hit, I've seen many segments where people who were detained were released. The fact that the officers have guns, tasers, and training is exactly why detaining a suspect is for their own protection. It protects them from themselves by severely limiting their ability to resist, and get themselves injured or killed. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
The idiot formerly known as Heez.
> I've seen many segments where people who were detained were released.
Detain? Yes, a few. Detained with handcuffs? Never. I'm not, however, saying that it absolutely never happens; I've probably only seen about 30% of the episodes over the years. I imagine that it is possible that it could happen. But, I've never seen it.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
They detain people with handcuffs all the time.
share> They detain people with handcuffs all the time.
And I'm like, "Hey, only one of has a gun and is trained to kill people. Who is the real danger here?"
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Most of the other threads I responded to, I saw you as the one giving the logical answers to questions. Here, not so much.
You just have to accept that they handcuff for the protection REGARDLESS of whatever weapons they have or they know, prior to handcuffing. Suspects can still use their elbows, arms, legs, etc. The point is to hinder them from getting away or causing further harm, even if they DO NOT have a weapon.
Better watch out, better start crying. Better hurry up, run and hide. Krampus is coming to town! >:)
> You just have to accept that they handcuff for the protection REGARDLESS of whatever weapons they have or they know, prior to handcuffing. Suspects can still use their elbows, arms, legs, etc. The point is to hinder them from getting away or causing further harm, even if they DO NOT have a weapon.
Except that cops are slapping on the handcuffs with almost no reasonable suspicion that the suspect may cause trouble. It's almost always done as a standard precaution solely for their own peace of mind.
If we extend that thought, we might as well let cops shoot and kill anyone that they detain. That will provide the ultimate amount of safety and security for the cop. Being a cop should be a zero-risk job, right?
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Then again, if you saw it from their end, they are using the bias of chance. Since most of their arrests have been on people that retaliate, they will probably do it.
If I applied it to my situation, where it had gotten to that point, I would just allow them to do it and see what would come out of it.
In cases like this, it is more of how they see you handle the situation than the situation itself. What I mean by that is, even if they do that to you, they want to see how you will react. If you have no reason to be guilty, you would know that and probably would remain calm (it is another test). If you were guilty of something, more often than not, you would have a problem with them doing it.
It is not always full proof and yes, cops do seem to shoot on site now.
Better watch out, better start crying. Better hurry up, run and hide. Krampus is coming to town! >:)
> Then again, if you saw it from their end, they are using the bias of chance. Since most of their arrests have been on people that retaliate, they will probably do it.
Oh, from a personal point of view, I understand completely why they do it; their own personal safety is more important than anything else, including other people's safety and their own duty and oaths that they swore to.
But, as a taxpayer that pays them to take risks, I am offended when they always put their own needs first and, as a result, treat everyone that they encounter as a criminal.
As for retaliation, it is fairly predictable that people who are abused by the police will seek retaliation. You are a fairly logical person, so answer me this; why do policemen abuse suspects when they know that it will result in retaliation against them or other cops?
> If I applied it to my situation, where it had gotten to that point, I would just allow them to do it and see what would come out of it.
Sadly, you would have no choice in the matter. If the cop decided to put the cuffs on you, it will happen whether you "allow it" or not.
How would you feel if the police department put a new policy into effect that every driver stopped for a traffic infraction would automatically be handcuffed at gunpoint and put into the back seat of a police car while the officer talks to him and writes out the ticket -- for his own safety?
Certainly every single point you've made about officer safety can be applied to this situation as well, right?
> In cases like this, it is more of how they see you handle the situation than the situation itself. What I mean by that is, even if they do that to you, they want to see how you will react.
But, that's not their job to trick you into confessing to some unknown crime. They saw you speeding and stopped you to give you a ticket. That's it. Period. The department employs detectives to go out and investigate crimes. The job of an officer on the street is to stop crime that he sees.
> If you have no reason to be guilty, you would know that and probably would remain calm (it is another test).
But, that is not a legal reason to think like that. Just because a person asserts their legal right does not make them a criminal. Unfortunately, police think exactly that way.
> It is not always full proof and yes, cops do seem to shoot on site now.
Yes. And more people are thinking like you do that, if a cops shoots someone, they probably deserved it. And if a few innocent people get killed along the way, oh well -- that's just tough noogies.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
The other *beep* the pigs do is to say "get out of the car real quick just for a second"...in other words, get out of the car, I'm arresting youu, but I'll say real quick to get you to think you're going to be on your way soon and you'll remain calm, but really I'm going to haul your asss to the city jail and throw you in a cage w the lowest scabs on earth.
shareYou forgot the " can you step out of the car REAL QUICK JUST FOR A SECOND"" which translates to I WANT YOU OUT OF THE CAR ACTING CALM, SO I'LL TELL YOU IT'S JUST FOR A SECOND, THAT WAY WHEN I CUFF YOU AND SAY IT'S JUST TO DETAIN YOU, YOU'LL BE CALM STILL AND NOT PUT UP A FIGHT".....cops r diicks
share