When a Cop Needs Help

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, yes. If you saw a normal citizen in the same scenario would you just walk away? Would you want someone to do the same for you?

By the way, at least around here, if a police officer asks for your assistance, you're required to provide it.
 
A lot depends on where you are

In Texas the law requires you to stop and help a law enforcement officer if requested, also. I'm retired military, we tend to do that sort of thing, anyway.

For what it might be worth, when I took the class for my first Texas CHL around ten years ago, the class was held in a hotel that had some other function going on that was attended by area law enforcement officers. A couple of them heard about the class going on, introduced themselves, and "sat in." One was a senior deputy from a large Oklahoma county, who got up the end of the class to review the few differences between Texas and Oklahoma CHL rules, since we are close by the border and have reciprocity. At the end of his talk, he said he had only one request. That was that if we were ever driving in Oklahoma and saw a deputy having trouble with a criminal, we stop and help. It was his personal, stated opinion that a licensed, armed citizen has a duty to assist law enforcement.

If I am in Texas or Oklahoma and see an officer in trouble, I would probably stop and offer help. I might do the same in several southern states, but probably nowhere else.
 
Help Law Enforcement in Gun-Friendly States

I would not be inclined to help law enforcement outside of Texas, Oklahoma and a few southern states because I would not trust the juries or DAs anywhere else. Plus, if I were to help the sheriff or Texas Department of Public Safety trooper, I would trust the officer's discretion. I'm not sure peace officer's have much discretion elsewhere.

I don't mean to offend anyone currently living in liberal or totalitarian states, but that's how I see it. Y'all can vote with your feet, too. I've posted on here before about the sad case of a New Yorker (maybe it was Massachusetts?) I saw in a gun shop a year or so ago, right after he had moved to Texas. He was sure he had to have a license to buy a firearm. He seemed terrified that the shop owner and other customers were trying to get him in trouble by selling him a gun and telling him he didn't need to get a Texas license first.

I try not to go to those kinds of states, even if they have CHL reciprocity with Texas, but if I do, I sure would not be inclined to get "involved."
 
I'd help any cop in trouble. Now, define trouble... :D

EVERYTHING is scenario specific. If you don't go in with your brain engaged first, you will certainly add to the problem. That said, I'd do the best I could to engage the brain and help the best I could after that. I don't think I could do any less regardless of which state I was in too. I'd have to risk our legal system to help another in need.

I have no problem with another feeling differently than that either. People like to throw the word coward around on this topic a lot and I think it's misused. Then again, so is Rambo...

Now just to clarify one point made earlier:

and the Bill of Rights was meant to be non-negotiable regardless of the opinion of the majority.
Click to expand...

I "think" I know what you meant by that but it's important to realize that all the Bills can be changed by the majority. It just has to be one whopper of a majority to do it. :p
 
I think location and context play a big role in the choice whether or not to help. If i'm in downtown LA i know that by the time i can figure out what's going on there are probably have a dozen cruizers on route. I think if you happen to live in a rural area and you know typical response times are fairly long then i could understand someone being more inclined to help.

As far as the city i live in, i've been nothing but harassed by the local PD since i moved, mostly for the way i look i assume. If one of theses guys was in trouble i'd keep driving. If he asked for help i mite not even hear. I know it sounds petty, but i'm not going to risk my own well being for any of these guys.
 
I would definately help out in a life threatening situation. Worry about the legal drawbacks later. A life threatening situation is a life threatening situation. Lets face it, you can usually tell if an officer is fighting for his life.

But ask yourself this, can you watch the news and see officer killed in the line of duty and know you were in a position to at least try to help, but didn't?
 
But ask yourself this, can you watch the news and see officer killed in the line of duty and know you were in a position to at least try to help, but didn't?
Click to expand...

The odd thing about that billydiesel, is that it would affect people in various ways. Some might be tormented for the rest of their lives, and some might sleep fine at night. Stressful situations and 'heroics' is an odd thing. I believe there is a quote out there that goes something like this:

The difference between a fool and a hero is often one well aimed bullet.
Click to expand...

I suppose a lucky shot would suffice there too.

I've been in a very few life threatening situations (none involving violence of any sort) and only one afforded me the 'opportunity' to do something even remotely 'heroic' and I opted not to attempt the heroic part. In the end it didn't matter as there were no actual lives at risk but I didn't know that at the time. Heroism is a funny thing. I know we are talking about different situations here but I think the thing that would make a person act without regard to their own danger is the same in each. Self preservation is probably the greatest human instinct when in a threatening situation. It's what fear produces. Heroics are supposed to be odd and rare. Nobody faults the line of soldiers pinned down by fire for not running head long into it to save a wounded buddy, but the guy that does gets a medal for it and is recognized for going above and beyond.

I also think that a lot of peoples 'armchair' reactions to this kind of scenario also may depend on what kind of attitude they have toward law enforcement or society in general. I don't think it guarantees a specific reaction in a situation though.

Bah, these are just my rambling thoughts on a Sunday afternoon. All free opinions for what they are worth.
 
From Parrothead2581:
By the way, at least around here, if a police officer asks for your assistance, you're required to provide it.
Click to expand...
I also live in NC and I don't think that this is true.
Can you provide a link to the law that you are referring to?
 
Guess it depends on the situation?

I'm willing to verbalize with them and take reasonable requests
Click to expand...

I think that this is the key phrase provided the Officer can respond. I worked as a High School Principal for 4 years and my first year on the Job our SRO (School Resource Officer) had to take a 19 year old student into custody. The student was on some type of drug and halfway down the hallway attacked the SRO in front of me. Before I could help I was told to stay back. Seemed like the SRO fought for 5 minutes to subue the kid. All the kids from surrounding classrooms were out in the hallway -- the kid was doing push ups with the SRO on his back trying to cuff him. I kept asking to help but was clearly told to stay clear since the SRO was clearly trying to get his mace and spray the kid (for a second I thought he was going for his gun -- thought oh no with all the kids around). Before he could mace the kid 2 male teachers came flying out of the classroom and jumped into the fight without saying a word. Needless to say the SRO was pissed. He wanted to handle this himself and never lost control.

I could have helped at anytime but followed the direction of the SRO. At the time I thought I should have done more... but I followed his directions and we became friends (the SRO and myself) and I understood the line. I would not want him doing my job unless I asked?
 
Last edited:
Clearly the SRO NEEDED help.
He should not have let his ego stop him from asking for help.

I work at a hospital and when we get a combative patient you call a code for all available staff to help subdue the patient.
Even if the patient is not too big or strong and can be handled by one or two staff members, it's still best to have plenty of help to reduce the chance of anyone (staff or patients) from getting hurt.
A person on each leg and arm and another person to control the head is best...and then a 6th person to start restraining the patient while the others keep him under control.

We don't always have that many staff members available, but it's stupid to refuse the help of those who do come to assist.

Now if the person has a gun...that's a different situation alltogether.
 
Clearly the SRO NEEDED help.
He should not have let his ego stop him from asking for help.
Click to expand...
Huh?? The SRO has the kid under control, and has kept him under control for 5 minutes. The SRO has not indicated there is any problem, and in fact has indicated just the opposite. The kid has not gotten away, has not gotten the upper hand, has not hurt anyone. Don't confuse "doesn't have them in cuffs" with "doesn't have them under control."
 
Huh?? The SRO has the kid under control, and has kept him under control for 5 minutes. The SRO has not indicated there is any problem, and in fact has indicated just the opposite. The kid has not gotten away, has not gotten the upper hand, has not hurt anyone. Don't confuse "doesn't have them in cuffs" with "doesn't have them under control."
Click to expand...
What???

Read it again....

Seemed like the SRO fought for 5 minutes to subue the kid. All the kids from surrounding classrooms were out in the hallway -- the kid was doing push ups with the SRO on his back trying to cuff him. I kept asking to help but was clearly told to stay clear since the SRO was clearly trying to get his mace and spray the kid (for a second I thought he was going for his gun -- thought oh no with all the kids around). Before he could mace the kid 2 male teachers came flying out of the classroom and jumped into the fight without saying a word.
Click to expand...


About 5 minutes of fighting...
A hallway full of other kids...
The SRO was "trying to get his mace" and trying to cuff him at the same time...
The kid was under so much "control" that he was doing push-ups with the SRO on his back...
And all the while, the SRO refusing any help from a school staff member who is standing right there...

The SRO definitely showed poor decision making skills.

Who knows what would have happened had the two male teachers had not intervened.
Maybe he would has maced the kid....
Maybe he would have maced other kids in the hallway...
Maybe he would have had the mace taken from him and had been maced himself...
Maybe some friends of the kid might have attacked the SRO...
There's simply no way of telling what might have happened.

But one thing is for sure...
The SRO did NOT have things under control.
If he did then he would not have been trying to get to his mace.

There's no shame in admitting that you need help.
And it's often stupid and prideful to refuse help.
And the SRO should give a big thanks to the teachers who intervened and brought the ordeal to a quicker conclusion, without the SRO using mace in a hallway full of other innocent kids.
 
Good point EasyG...

Mace doesn't dissipate well in school hallways.

Even if none of the kids were ACTUALLY affected by the mace (which I'm sure some would have), there would have been dozens complaining of trouble breathing etc. and their parents would threaten to sue.

Not to mention, 3 on 1 reduces the chances of hurting the kid.

Teachers did the responsible thing and the SRO was arrogant and too concerned with his ego.
 
Help out the best way you can but use a little common sense. If help means staying out of the way and making a phone call telling the Station telling them where the bad guys are, do it. It could mean shooting at the bad guy if an officer is down. But the biggest hazard to you is other Cops responding to the scene and mistaking you for the crook and shooting you. Make sure everyone knows you are not the bad guy including the Officer needing your help.
 
...

As a bouncer, I have ended up helping the police out on a number of occassions, many were simply restraining perps when there were too many for one officer to watch. I would approach the situation and radio for the cop. Yes, they have a radio on their belt, but another one is firmly in place inside their cruiser or on their motorcycle. Since most officers leave their vehicles runnig during a traffic stop, the door should be unlocked. Also, the unit number is painted in big letter on said vehicle, so call it in for the officer. Then, if it is safe and reasonable to approach, inform the officer and BG of your intent to intervene. If the cop calls you off, then stay a safe distance away. You will probably be called as a witness later on, so hang around. If the cop asks you to engage or the BG then engages you, the game is on. It may be that the moment ofdistraction you provide is the window the officer needed to re-take control.
 
Police have been there many times when I was a young dumb ass teenager and they put me right.

I'd owe them my gun if they needed it.
 
Read it again.
Click to expand...
OK, I read it again. Don’t see anything that changed.
About 5 minutes of fighting...
A hallway full of other kids
Click to expand...
So what? Officer still has the kid, the kid hasn’t gotten away, nothing bad is happening.
The SRO was "trying to get his mace" and trying to cuff him at the same time...
Click to expand...
Again, so what? Sounds like the officer has things under control, and is in the process of taking steps to further enhance that control if needed.
The kid was under so much "control" that he was doing push-ups with the SRO on his back
Click to expand...
Once again, so what? The kid is wasting his energy, the cop has a good position, sounds like the cop has things in hand.
And all the while, the SRO refusing any help from a school staff member who is standing right there
Click to expand...
Which pretty much suggests the officer felt that no assistance was needed.
Who knows what would have happened had the two male teachers had not intervened.
Click to expand...
Yes, who knows? The officer may have just held on to the kid until he tired out, then cuffed and stuffed him. Maybe the staff meembers should have been getting their kids back into the classrooms, which was their responsibility, instead of interfering with someone else. Maybe they should have done their job instead of trying to do the officers job.
But one thing is for sure...
The SRO did NOT have things under control.
If he did then he would not have been trying to get to his mace.
Click to expand...
That is a heck of an assumption without any real evidence to support it. In fact, the evidence we have (the officer statement) directly contradicts it.
There's simply no way of telling what might have happened.
Click to expand...
That is true, thus your fanciful worst-case scenarios are just that, fanciful.
 
It was said that the kid was on drugs of some nature...and had the strength to do pushups with the SRO on his back....

As I said before, I work in a large hospital and we routinely get combative patients, some on drugs as well.

And I can tell you with 100% certainty, only a fool would attempt to subdue such a person all by themselves when help is readily available.

The SRO was wrong; of that there is no doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top