The uniformed cops story is very believable. Of course they will be thrown under the the Political Correctness bus.

Bulls**t. He was parked illegally. He was not acting as a police officer at the time. Even if he was, the police had no way of knowing this and were doing their duty.

I can't believe the number of comments that think the cops did anything wrong. So many are quick to play the race card and accuse the cops of being racist.

Now with no proof their careers are screwed.

Its almost as bad as your constant defense of the police regardless of their actions.

Once the officer in the vehicle was identified the issue should have been over... but of course it wasn't... how do you rationalize that? The guy was in a Police SUV, wearing his badge around his neck and they ordered him out of the car at gunpoint... I dont know if its racial or not, but its a bad career move regardless.

They did not know it was a cop or a police vehicle at the time. They saw a gun and reacted in a safe manner to protect themselves and others.

Yes, once he was identified and the identity confirmed it should have been over. The off-duty should have drove away from the hydrant and not berate the cops for doing their job. The cops should have apologized and let the man drive away.

The off-duty officer should have understood why the police acted as they did. They followed the law, protocol, and common sense.

Sounds like the off-duty officer escalated it with his "do you know who I am" bulls**t. If he had simply identified himself, all would have been fine.

The off duty cop's story just doesn't sound as believable as the other version that they saw a weapon and yelled "gun".

How could they not know it was a police vehicle? The article states it was a department SUV with police plates... a spokesman for the dept even went so far as to state

"How you can not know or recognize a chief in a department SUV with ID around his neck, I don't know,"

The officer's yelling "GUN" and the chief saying " don't you know who I am" are both disputed statements... we wouldn't know which was truth unless we were standing there...

but regardless... I cant side with the officers who dont know their own chief... this would be like 2 privates shooting Gen. Patreaus as an enemy combatant...

You only get two stars from pulling someone out of a police vehicle, you have to start shooting people to get three stars.

true, but never the less they didn't see it was a police vehicle. Perhaps that is why they should be disciplined. If they fail to notice something like that what else will the fail to see?


True, again the on-duty cops story is far more believable. Still what is really bad, is they are being thrown under the bus. They are being screwed over the claim of one person. No proof, nothing but he-said, they-said. With no proof, there shouldn't be a penalty for any of the people involved.

The only fact we know for sure is the off-duty man was parked illegally.

Obviously they didn't know him. NYPD has a ton of employees. If the chief was their chief, if he is the chief for the area they work in, then yes, they are complete idiots who should be disciplined for the complete lack of awareness.

However if they work in a different part of NY then it would be unlikely for them to recognize him.

I dunno.. I'm going to have to assume that the off duty cop got to his high ranking position for being fair and legit.. and if he says he didnt do anything wrong then I believe him.. I don't see him getting away with making a big deal out of something that he did wrong, ecxpecially since the department let him strip the one cop of his badge and gun and not the other one.. theres no telling what the uniformed cop said to the off duty one in order to upset him and force him to take action after the incident..

I believe this could fully happen — it's not like they'd see him often (or read the news often enough).

I can't really see this as he-said/she-said... The guy they were after is a 3 star Police Captain... I would be far more likely to believe his assessment of the situation than two plain-clothes.

On a lighter note... I'm proud of us for having a civil debate about police actions 2many ;)

:-)

So let me make sure I understand you...
Your [and smarty's] contention is that the higher ranked officer is telling the truth simply because he is higher ranked? Please tell me that is not what you are both saying. Higher rank doesn't mean that one is Perfect without flaws and never speaks an untruth.

If it was a civilian in the vehicle and the 3-star officer was the one who pulled his gun, would you assume the police officer was telling the truth simply because he is a higher rank?

I mean it isn't like a person of high rank or position ever fibbed right? not even to make themselves look good?

Two different scenarios happened here.

Either

1) The cops saw a vehicle parked illegally and went to talk to the driver to inform him he was violating traffic laws.

They neglected for whatever reason to notice that the vehicle was a police vehicle. Perhaps they didn't check first. Is it standard practice to walk around and look at the plate to verify it is a civilian vehicle before explaining to the driver that he is breaking the law?

He rolls down a window, the police see a weapon , pull theirs for safety and demands that the driver exit the vehicle.

The driver gets very cocky due to his high rank, starts mouthing off about "do you know who I am", finally identifies himself to which one of the police questioned the truth of the matter. Perhaps because he felt that such a high-ranking officer would have acted with more civility, would have announced himself immediately and wouldn't have parked in front of a hydrant.

OR

2) The cops saw a vehicle parked illegally and went to talk to the driver to inform him he was violating traffic laws.

They neglected for whatever reason to notice that the vehicle was a police vehicle. Perhaps they didn't check first. Is it standard practice to walk around and look at the plate to verify it is a civilian vehicle before explaining to the driver that he is breaking the law?

[or they knew it was a police vehicle, but proceeded on anyway?]

then the cops just pull out their weapons simply because he was parked illegally. They held him at gunpoint and refused to listen to who he was.

Seriously which scenario sounds more likely?

BAH... double post...

No... i would'nt infer that at all... however ... do you honestly believe that the police never lie to cover their asses when they make a mistake or act overzealously?



Most likely a combonation of both... I wouldn't condone the actions of the Capt. if he DID say "Dont you know who I am" instead of just showing them his badge... it sounds like a lot of ego came into play here and it cost some people their carrerrs...

HOWEVER... there are two facts you are glossing over that makes me side with the Capt.

1. Nowhere in the article does it state he was parked illegally... it states he was parked "NEAR" a hydrant... not in front of it...
to assume he was parked illegally is ... well... an assumption with no basis on the facts presented here...

2. HE WAS IN A FREAKING POLICE SUV!!! These vehicles have police plates... if these guys made detective and didn't know to look at the plate of the vehicle they were approaching... I'm sorry... they dont need to be police... it reeks of ineptitude or ignorance or both... They are paid to notice things, to take information and evedence and assess a situation before they walk up and point a gun at you.

No, of course they do. That was my point. Obviously one is lying. It sounded like you were saying since he was a 3-star, you'd believe him. I was saying that 3-star or not. Cop or not. He could very well be lying. Personally I still think he is. At the very least he is stretching things.


You are correct, still it is likely that he was parked too close to the hyrdant if only in the opinion of the officers if nothing else. This is why they approached the vehicle unless they did just because they like messing with people (which is possible, but not as likely).

That is why I side against the capt.


2. HE WAS IN A FREAKING POLICE SUV!!! These vehicles have police plates... if these guys made detective and didn't know to look at the plate of the vehicle they were approaching... I'm sorry... they dont need to be police... it reeks of ineptitude or ignorance or both... They are paid to notice things, to take information and evedence and assess a situation before they walk up and point a gun at you.[/quote]On that point I'll concede that they may have screwed up. Perhaps they didn't take the time to walk around to examine the plate. Perhaps they didn't really think anything of it. They could have felt (wrongly or correctly) that he was in violation of traffic laws and was going to ask him to move his vehicle. They then saw the gun and reacted as trained.

Should they have spotted the plate? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I don't know what the protocol is here. Maybe examining the plates first would have been a good idea. It could also be that they didn't think anything of it. They thought it was going to be a 12-second conversation, hardly requiring looking at he plates first.

It was only after seeing the gun that it grew testy.

As I said in a previous comment, I'll concede the possibility that they screwed up by not looking to see if the gentleman was on the job or not, but the capt is also to blame.

[I would like to know why plain clothes cops concerning themselves over a parking violation?]

If they were working traffic and stopped his vehicle, they would of course run his plates first. But since he was parked and they were just going to tell him to move the vehicle it would be unlikely for them to look at the plates first.

I have been talked to by the police while I was in a parked vehicle. The police came and talked to me without walking around to look at the plates first.

Again?

This is NOT the first time this "three star" officer has been involved in this sort of situation.

This is funny because I am currently reading a book titled "The Race Card" by Richard Thompson Ford (acquired by my library Jan 2008) and it specifically mentions this happeneing and the white officer being disciplined.

Either someone is reporting old news or this guy is some sort of publicity hound trying to push his agenda.

Really? Any links to previous hapenstance?