Austin Police Chief ‘Sickened and Saddened’ at Arrest of Breaion King

[OIF2]

I think both parties could have handled this better.

She did resist arrest, however.

Roger that. Once you start refusing to obey commands and resist, the cop won't back down and WILL take that person into custody. Doesn't matter what the initial stop was for. Acevedo, who's a former CHP management guy, hasn't put cuffs on someone in well over 20 years; the CHP writes tickets on the freeway and investigates accidents. They don't normally do what regular street cops do daily...deal with uncooperative idiots. Acevedo hasn't a clue what his own cops do; he's a political appointee and a climber with no street time.

As far as "both sides handling this better"...maybe. But what happens is mostly controlled by the suspect's actions. Use of force never looks good, unlike TV. Taking someone to the ground is an approved police technique and used by all US depts. You can't walk away or keep pleading with the suspect to comply. The female suspect was given numerous clear warnings and instructions. Benenglish is spot on...the cop with the big mouth is the real idiot here. You put the suspect into the car, shut up and transport to the station. If the goofball wants to talk, let her babble on and incriminate herself. Too easy.
Bob

 

[Maverick44]

I think both parties could have handled this better.

Well said.

 

[Charlie]

I think both parties could have handled this better.

She did resist arrest, however.

This ^^^^

Austin Police Chief Sickened and Saddened at Arrest of Breaion King


And I am also sickened and sadden with the attitude and lack of professionalism of the Austin police chief!

 

[oldag]

APD chief threw his officers under the bus. That will be great for department morale.

 

[J. Fred]

Roger that. Once you start refusing to obey commands and resist, the cop won't back down and WILL take that person into custody. Doesn't matter what the initial stop was for. Acevedo, who's a former CHP management guy, hasn't put cuffs on someone in well over 20 years; the CHP writes tickets on the freeway and investigates accidents. They don't normally do what regular street cops do daily...deal with uncooperative idiots. Acevedo hasn't a clue what his own cops do; he's a political appointee and a climber with no street time.

As far as "both sides handling this better"...maybe. But what happens is mostly controlled by the suspect's actions. Use of force never looks good, unlike TV. Taking someone to the ground is an approved police technique and used by all US depts. You can't walk away or keep pleading with the suspect to comply. The female suspect was given numerous clear warnings and instructions. Benenglish is spot on...the cop with the big mouth is the real idiot here. You put the suspect into the car, shut up and transport to the station. If the goofball wants to talk, let her babble on and incriminate herself. Too easy.
Bob

Well said Bob. She was the cause of the whole thing from the get go. Sorry the cop had to run his mouth.

 

[zincwarrior]

Argue and fight with cops and bad things happen.
Bob

She wasn't when she was ripped out of the car.
This jerk needs to be fired, immediately.

 

[zincwarrior]

Time was we had police who could deescalate a situation without beating the crap out of someone.

When was that?

She wasn't resisting until he ripped her out of the car and tried to arrest her.
Too many times we see these and think-meh hehe they deserve it. We forget that could have been our wives or our daughters.

I've instructed my daughter how to act around a police officer but teenagers get confused.
Further, if she refuses to provide information to their interrogation is that resisting? We've seen these escalate over and over and over now with video.

Instead of the cop losing his mind he should have backed off mentally and fallen back to professional standards. Ripping someone out of their vehicle is not professional standards.

And now you're going to attack me viciously. Thats fine. But it goes both ways. Just as citizens should act tolerably, so should police. These events are being videoed all the time now, and the repurcussions are happening.

It will only get worse until things change.

 

[cbigclarke]

Kind of reminds me of that situation way back when in South Carolina

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[matefrio]

Cop handled that situation poorly.

In a situation where there are two wrongs the public servant is and should held to the higher standard.

There were racial motivations for the actions of both sides of the altercation as well. She was as much as a bigot as the cop.

 

[texas skeeter]

Darn good post Matey...

 

[Chirpy]

APD chief threw his officers under the bus. That will be great for department morale.

Art usually does that, the most dangerous place to be in Austin is between him and a television camera.

When was that?

She wasn't resisting until he ripped her out of the car and tried to arrest her.
Too many times we see these and think-meh hehe they deserve it. We forget that could have been our wives or our daughters.

I've instructed my daughter how to act around a police officer but teenagers get confused.
Further, if she refuses to provide information to their interrogation is that resisting? We've seen these escalate over and over and over now with video.

Instead of the cop losing his mind he should have backed off mentally and fallen back to professional standards. Ripping someone out of their vehicle is not professional standards.

And now you're going to attack me viciously. Thats fine. But it goes both ways. Just as citizens should act tolerably, so should police. These events are being videoed all the time now, and the repurcussions are happening.

It will only get worse until things change.

Agree 100%, I'm amazed that we are all so accepting that a minor traffic stop should turn into a cop throwing you to the pavement just because you don't respect and comply 100% with all instructions given.

 

[OIF2]

And now you're going to attack me viciously.

I won't; you have every right to your opinion (and to express it), no matter what it may be. A different outlook makes this forum interesting.

There's ALWAYS a better way to handle things when you do this job, and people will ALWAYS criticize you, no matter what you did. I would like to know, though, what the cop should have done otherwise, in your opinion. What are the professional standards the officer should have fallen back on?
Bob

 

[zincwarrior]

Cop handled that situation poorly.

In a situation where there are two wrongs the public servant is and should held to the higher standard.

There were racial motivations for the actions of both sides of the altercation as well. She was as much as a bigot as the cop.

Agreed.

 

[zincwarrior]

I won't; you have every right to your opinion (and to express it), no matter what it may be. A different outlook makes this forum interesting.

There's ALWAYS a better way to handle things when you do this job, and people will ALWAYS criticize you, no matter what you did. I would like to know, though, what the cop should have done otherwise, in your opinion. What are the professional standards the officer should have fallen back on?
Bob

Cool! Lets break it down. I'll put these in segments. PoPo and Citizen. I am going by the Austin article that started with him pulling up and her coming out of the car for reference, which later includes the pullout.

Segment One: initial pullup and command to get back in vehicle.
PoPo: Professional.
Citizen: kind of a dumbass. Should have said "ok" and gotten back into the vehicle.

Segment Two: She reaches across to glove compartment. PoPo says stop (I think) I rips her out and does the sling onto the concrete.
PoPo: unprofessional. 1) why the arrest? 2) Why is he pulling her out?-tell her to step out. 3) Why slinging her like a rag doll.
Citizen: nothing else to do.

Segment Three: the post arrest discussion.
PoPo: stupid. This is what will get you fired.
Citizen: stupid. Seriously? Why are you even having a conversation? Anything can be used against you at this point.

 

[OIF2]

Cool! Lets break it down. I'll put these in segments. PoPo and Citizen. I am going by the Austin article that started with him pulling up and her coming out of the car for reference, which later includes the pullout.

Segment One: initial pullup and command to get back in vehicle.
PoPo: Professional.
Citizen: kind of a dumbass. Should have said "ok" and gotten back into the vehicle.

Segment Two: She reaches across to glove compartment. PoPo says stop (I think) I rips her out and does the sling onto the concrete.
PoPo: unprofessional. 1) why the arrest? 2) Why is he pulling her out?-tell her to step out. 3) Why slinging her like a rag doll.
Citizen: nothing else to do.

Segment Three: the post arrest discussion.
PoPo: stupid. This is what will get you fired.
Citizen: stupid. Seriously? Why are you even having a conversation? Anything can be used against you at this point.

OK, I'll play. A couple of things you mentioned are true. I agree that talking to the suspect (especially an agitated one) afterwords is USUALLY pointless and counterproductive. Best to strap them in and transport to the station for booking without comment.

As far as the initial contact is concerned, I also don't see anything wrong...cop was polite and told the driver more than once why she was stopped and what she needed to do. What a lot of people don't understand is that the driver is under a legal detention/arrest at that time. You can't leave and you can't set the parameters of the detention. By signing the citation you agree to a form of bail; your signature is your promise to appear. Until you sign the ticket and are released by the officer you are mandated to cooperate and follow his instructions. You don't tell the cop what he can or can't do. He is in charge of that stop. My experience is that when someone doesn't cooperate on a traffic stop, something is wrong. 99% of violators cooperate on a traffic stop; when they don't, you're stupid not to note the warning signs. Lunging for the glovebox or anything else inside the car after arguing with the cop and refusing to follow his initial instructions means something is very wrong. In that situation the cop needed to control the driver; you don't keep repeating commands that she has already ignored. You don't let her reach around in the car and you don't let her get away. Again, she's ALREADY under arrest.

In that situation there isn't time to reach for your gas or stick and maybe yell out a few more commands. You want her out of the car immediately and away from whatever she might have inside. Her actions negate additional commands. He already asked her get back in the car; she refused and upped the ante. Grabbing her and putting her on the ground is within policy. It's not pretty but it is what it is. When people resist, you put them on the ground. You don't want them swinging at you. You use enough force to overcome their resistance. That's policy. On the ground is where you have the advantage. That's where it's easiest to handcuff. The suspect made the decision to go down that road, not the policeman. Because she's a female is too bad, but there's no separate male and female use of force instructions. You argue, refuse to cooperate and then resist, you get taken down. Happens daily in big-city police work.

Art Acevedo is a very poor example of leadership; best thing he could have done was shut up and say the investigation is ongoing.

Still waiting for your alternate plan of dealing with the errant driver...
Bob

 

[benenglish]

Still waiting for your alternate plan of dealing with the errant driver...

Why did the officer want her back in the car?

I once forgot what I was told in driver's ed and got out of my car after being pulled over. I leaned against the car and had my license and insurance in hand, clearly displayed, before the officer got out of his vehicle. I was relaxed and non-confrontational.

Of course, this was the dead of night and he hit me with his takedown lights as soon as I exited. Then he walked up to me, snatched my paperwork from my hand, and walked back to his cruiser without saying a word.

Then another car pulled up and the driver got out and joined me. It seems the officer was writing him a ticket, decided to chase me, and ordered his initial offender to follow him as he chased me. We talked it over and couldn't quite figure out what was going on...but the story is starting to stray, isn't it?

So why would an officer need someone to get back into their vehicle?

 

[OIF2]

Why did the officer want her back in the car?

It's easier and safer on most stops to have the driver in the car, where you can see him. It gives you time to react if he wants to approach you while you're distracted by writing a cite or running the car/suspect for warrants. It's also safer (liability) for the driver to remain in the car while you're conducting the investigation. If the suspect/driver gets out of the vehicle first, before the officer, the cop is at a tactical disadvantage. That's taught in every US police academy on day one of vehicle stops. Once you (the officer) make the decision to take the driver out of the car, something is wrong...an outstanding warrant, an officer safety issue, or a search based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. Refusal to get out of the car starts the use of force thing.
Bob

 

[zincwarrior]

Still waiting for your alternate plan of dealing with the errant driver...
Bob

Sure, at which point Bob? Lets leave out the first segment as we both agreed that the officer handled that very professionally.

So why would an officer need someone to get back into their vehicle?

In ancient times when I started driving I was told the police would want you to get out of the car so they wouldn't be worried about you pulling a gun on them while in the vehicle. That has changed during my life time.

 

[zincwarrior]

It's easier and safer on most stops to have the driver in the car, where you can see them. It gives you time to react if they want to approach you while you're distracted by writing a cite or running the car/suspect for warrants. It's also safer for the driver to remain in the car while you're conduction the investigation. Once you make the decision to take them out of the car, something is wrong...an outstanding warrant, an officer safety issue, or a search based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. Refusal to get out of the car starts the use of force thing.
Bob

There's my problem. I can understand the officer asking you to step out. The officer did not do that in the case in the thread. He grabbed her and swung her around like a rag doll.

How he did that without pulling his back...

 

[OIF2]

There's my problem. I can understand the officer asking you to step out. The officer did not do that in the case in the thread. He grabbed her and swung her around like a rag doll.

How he did that without pulling his back...

I understand the confusion. On MOST traffic stops, you want the occupants to remain in the vehicle. It's safer for the cop and the driver. Once you ask them to get out, you (the officer) have probably decided to do a car search or take someone into custody. The cop on this video, after the confrontation, made the decision to get her out of the car to take her into custody due to her being uncooperative. She had pushed the encounter to beyond the cite stage; he was concerned by her actions that she would either drive away, or have access to a weapon. Not good. He had every right to put his hands on her, due to her actions. When you take someone out of the car you use force; if you have to drag them out, so be it. Notice that it took him a little bit to cuff her; if he wanted to he could have hurt her, but he actually (in my opinion) used the minimal amount of force to cuff her, instead of whacking her.

Swinging her around "like a rag doll" seems to bother you, but he got her out of the car quickly without hurting her. There's no dignity in resisting, which she continued to do. I think he actually did a good job of controlling her without hurting her.

Of course, this is only my opinion, based on 24 years of police work. The internal affairs investigation will reveal the whole story. I do believe that the Chief spoke stupidly and too soon. Best to let the story and investigation play out.
Bob