Police Abuse

Dashcam Video Released in Police Shooting of 70-Year-Old Man Reaching For His Cane

South Carolina deputy thought the cane was a shotgun, is heard on the video sobbing after realizing his error

|

Last month, Terrence Knox, a sheriff's deputy in York County, South Carolina, shot 70-year-old Bobby Canipe during a traffic stop over expired plates. Canipe reached into his truck bed for his cane, and Knox fired several shots at Canipe, hitting him once in the lung. Canipe survived the shooting, and Knox was put on paid leave. This week, dashcam video of the incident was released. Watch below:

Prior to the shooting Knox does not sound like he said anything specific to Canpie, except a "hey, sir, sir" that gets louder and turns into an "ohhh" that indicates Knox believed Canipe had reached for a gun. This appears to contradict what police said at a press conference after the shooting, that Canipe exited his vehicle despite being told not to. An order not to exit the vehicle is not heard in the dashcam video.

shot by cop
via WBTV

Knox is heard telling Canipe to drop the gun only after firing several shots at him. He realizes his mistake after Canipe's response (inaudible to me) to the order to drop the gun. Knox is heard sobbing as he tried to help Canipe, promising "to God it looked like a shotgun." His response is noteworthy for how rarely it seems to happen. Nevertheless, the county's sheriff, Bruce Bryant, continues to defend the shooting, insisting Knox had no way to tell the old man wasn't reaching for a shotgun. Bryant also said at a press conference this week that in Knox's position he would have done the same thing, a troubling statement in view of Knox's apparent regret in the moments after the shooting.

The state's Law Enforcement Division is investigating the incident.

NEXT: Vid: Oakland vs. Government Surveillance! Defeating the Domain Awareness Center

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nevertheless, the county’s sheriff, Bruce Bryant, continues to defend the shooting, insisting Knox had no way to tell the old man wasn’t reaching for a shotgun.

    By that ‘logic,’ cops may as well just open fire as soon as drivers pull to the side of the road. After all, they have no way to tell if the driver isn’t reaching for a weapon.

    1. Please don’t give them any ideas.

    2. Right?

      Hey, pigs, protip: if you have no way to tell whether they guy you just pulled over is reaching for (a) a shotgun or (b) something else, keep your fucking gun in its holster. The risk of getting shot because of that uncertainty is part of your job description.

  2. “no way to tell the old man wasn’t reaching for a shotgun”. Out of all the things people may reach for, the police are justified in assuming that whenever the nature of an object may be difficult to establish in a very short period of time, it’s ok to shoot the person holding it.

    That seems insane.

    1. It’s not about sanity. It’s about officer safety. Any threat, even a perceived one, is justification to shoot innocent people and is also a crutch by the rest of the assholes in blue to circle the wagons.

    2. If I get pulled over by the cops, I have no way to know that the officer isn’t going to just walk up to my car and put a bullet in my head. And I know for sure that they have guns on them. So I guess I can shoot them too.

  3. This appears to contradict what police said at a press conference after the shooting

    You mean the cops lied to cover for one of their own? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!

  4. That is a hail of gunfire he unleashes. Good thing he missed with most of it.

    1. Also: one tough geezer.

    2. Good thing he missed with most of it.

      It’s kind of hard to aim straight when you’re in full panic fire mode.

    3. It’s a good thing cops aren’t better shots. It ends up saving lives when every police shooting story ends with: “Officers fired 287 shots, suspect was struck once in the foot”

  5. I’m curious, if this cop was a soldier in Afghanistan, and this guy was an Afghan, would he have gotten shot?

    1. Eh, mebbe.

      On the one hand, I don’t think our guys are pulling people over for speeding or expired registrations, usually its at security checkpoints – with a specific area for stopping and searching vehicles.

      OTOH, they actually have a *reason* to be jumpy during a stop – sometimes those cars blow up.

      1. WRONG, if it were one of us we would have been excoriated for it, ROE cannot shoot at “non-combatants” even if they have guns trained on you and are making shooting motions, until they actually start firing…. but nobody cares about soldier safety

        1. When I went to RTC in Jan 2011, they said pointing weapons was considered at hostile act.

          going by the ROE training I received Hadji’s have more rights to carry than a citizen in the US 2nd amendment be damned apparently. Over there they can walk anywhere they want with guns, here cops are allowed to engage people simply for bearing arms. Like the cops who wasted the kid in California in ten seconds for carrying a TOY gun.

    2. Not by our ROE – Positive ID of hostile intent before initiating any force.

  6. Showing some remorse is way better than most of these stories. Cops start shooting way, way too soon (is “instantly” too soon?), but this cop seems to have actually acted mostly like a human being in this case.

  7. This video bought tears to my eyes. The cop seems to be real broken up over this not the usual kill em and fuck em attitude. I am glad the old guy made it.

    1. Maybe this will cause the cop to have second thoughts about his career choice. On one hand, that’s one less cop on the street. OTOH, this one seems to possibly be a somewhat redeemable human being, so I guess I’m kind of torn.

  8. I always store my guns in the bed of my pickup where they are safe from the elements, theft, and rolling around.

    1. …not to mention “unintentional discharge”. Cause I know MY guns just LOVE them some rollin’ around in the bed of a pickup truck…

      1. …not that I’d ever leave a loaded weapon in…oh, never mind!

    2. Unfortunately, real criminals aren’t so smart.

      1. Unfortunately real criminals don’t regard the law so the laws are nullified in the idea that it reduces “crime”

  9. While I generally think that the cops are always completely wrong in cases like this I think in this case the cop is only partly wrong. First if you watch the video the guy clearly picks something out of his truck and in swinging it around seems to point it at the cop which is when he starts firing. Roadside stops are inherently some of the most dangerous for police, and so I’m not sure I can completely fault the cop for firing. But the problem is that from what we see he never tells the guy to get back in his car and the only thing he says is “Sir” before firing. He never said drop the gun or anything like that first, so his first instinct was to believe that it was a gun which may be the ultimate problem is that police have taken this mindset of everyone is out to kill them and they have the most dangerous job that they now think shoot first ask questions later is a good sound policy.

    1. So ‘the ultimate problem’ is police in general have this mindset of shoot first ask questions later, but this officer is ‘only partly wrong’ for following that policy?

    2. He wasn’t fired upon or explicitly threatened, so I can certainly fault him.

      1. The cop, it appears to me, didn’t control the situation very well. That said, on the shabby-ass dashcam, even in a relaxed setting at my desk, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that was a long-barreled gun swinging in the cop’s direction.

        Cops fuck up plenty and he’s not without blame with how that went down, but I think it’s kind of chickenshit to pretend like a reasonable person couldn’t see that cane as a gun barrel.

        If that had actually been a long gun swinging toward him, would you feel it was an explicit threat or would he still have been unjustified in shooting?

        1. If someone actually pointed a shotgun at him, yes. But no one did, so it wasn’t.

          1. Then are you saying it is unreasonable to mistake that cane for a barrel?

            Or that cops’ mistakes are strict liability such that the reasonableness of the mistake doesn’t matter?

            If someone pointed a toy gun or an unloaded gun at the cop would either be an explicit threat?

            Does the cop have to let the other guy shoot first?

            1. “Does the cop have to let the other guy shoot first?”

              I had to in an active war zone, why should cops in peaceful American towns be any different?

              1. I don’t have to let the other guy shoot first in peaceful American towns, why should a cop be any different?

                1. You, a non state actor, can and will be held responsible for your actions. The cops, on the other hand, rarely are.

                  1. Different issue altogether, though I agree.

                2. why should a cop be any different?

                  There are lots of rules that are different for on duty cops. I think that a cop should have to accept more personal danger than an ordinary citizen minding his own business. The question is certainly debatable, but that’s what I think it should be.

            2. Does the cop have to let the other guy shoot first?

              Are you incapable of reading? I literally said “or explicitly threatened” to prevent this stupid argument from developing.

              He shot an unarmed man. I don’t care what he thought he was doing, I care what he did.

              1. I don’t care what he thought he was doing, I care what he did.

                So you’re arguing for a strict liability approach, right?

                Do you consider someone with a realistic toy gun to be armed? Is swinging a realistic toy gun toward someone an explicit threat, in your view?

                If he thought he was shooting a man pointing a real gun at him but it turned out he shot a man holding a toy gun, you don’t care? All you care is that he shot someone who, in retrospect, wasn’t actually a threat?

            3. Yes, the cop has to let the other guy shoot first. That’s the only way to know if it is a real gun. Don’t like it? Don’t be a cop.

          2. Frankly, even if he did point a shotgun at the cop I don’t think that’s cause to open fire.

            1. Why not?

              1. Is it loaded? Is it a toy gun? Cop doesn’t know until those are determined so until then he should hold his fire.

                1. Perhaps the rifle is shooting blanks. Does the cop have to wait until he is hit and feels damage?

        2. I think cops need to accept more personal danger than a typical citizen. Especially in something like a traffic stop situation where it is extremely unlikely that the person you are dealing with will try to kill you.
          The cop needs to be certain that there is a gun before he starts shooting.

    3. Roadside stops are inherently some of the most dangerous for police,

      yes because they often get run over by cars.

      If you take the totality of circs here, he was clearly an old man, he was clearly moving very slowly… the cop presumably had cover behind the door of his vehicle (something they’re trained to do) and he’s lucky he didn’t shoot Mrs. Canipe in the back of the head.

      It’s clear the officer didn’t try to cover or justify his action after-the-fact, something all too many officers do in their twisted attempts to justify shooting someone who turns out to be unarmed.

      I’m not sure what the ultimate answer here is– certainly an administrative penalty might be in order. Knox should be thankful Canipe wasn’t killed.

      1. It’s clear the officer didn’t try to cover or justify his action after-the-fact, something all too many officers do in their twisted attempts to justify shooting someone who turns out to be unarmed.

        He didn’t have to. The department did it for him. You know, when they insisted that the guy was ordered to stay in the vehicle when he clearly was not, and when they insisted that the cop ordered him to drop the “gun” before shooting when he clearly did not.

        In spite of the video, you can be sure that the official record contains both of those falsehoods.

      2. He should be charged with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon.

        1. Those kinds of charges are only for us “civilians.”

      3. the cop presumably had cover behind the door of his vehicle

        I agree with most of the other posters here that the cop was in the wrong and that generally cops should be held to a MUCH stricter ROE, but I have to point out that car doors make really shitty cover. They might stop birdshot, but they simply can’t stop anything more substantial, like pistol bullets, buckshot or slugs. Unless they’re armored, which I doubt is the case for most police cars.

        Doors are concealment at best, not cover.

        1. Im pretty sure cop cars have armored doors/ bullet resistant glass expressly for this purpose.

          If they don’t then then should, so that way cops can be trained to take cover instead of laying down covering fire.

          1. I’ve never heard of it actually being done, and I doubt most departments would have the money necessary to do so.

          2. Pretty sure you’re wrong about this. Bullet resistant glass is very thick and while you could put some kevlar inside the door I’ve never heard of patrol cars doing it.

          3. Police cars are made of the same tin foil as ordinary cars because that is what they are, unmodified with the exception of gizmos and divider glass.

            The doors won’t stop a slug unless they get lucky enough to hit the latch mechanism. The magic doors you see in cop shows always make me laugh. You get better protection hiding behind the tire.

    4. Roadside stops are inherently some of the most dangerous for police. . .

      Bullshit.

      They’re certainly not 100% safe, but considering how many traffic tickets are given out, how many DUI stops are made and how rarely a cop bites it *at all* (taking in *total* cop deaths per year), traffic stops are extremely safe.

      And anyway – the ‘inherent danger’ is the justification for using SWAT teams to serve warrants and raid the homes of suspected petty drug offenders. If the *cops* thought traffic stops were that dangerous then they would be using more heavily armed teams to do them

      1. Well, they are a lot more dangerous than the stops at Dunkin Donuts and the strip club.

    5. police have taken this mindset of everyone is out to kill them

      WAR ON COPS!!111!!!11!! /cop-derp

      1. If they think that then maybe they shouldn’t be taking cushy jobs as state agents piking along to get thier pensions.

  10. Nevertheless, the county’s sheriff, Bruce Bryant, continues to defend the shooting, insisting Knox had no way to tell the old man wasn’t reaching for a shotgun.

    And I have no way of knowing the person skulking around outside my house isn’t wearing a uniform he bought at an army surplus store.

    But I suspect the sheriff won’t sign off on it as a good shoot when I plug him.

    1. I also have no way of knowing the cop walking up to my car isn’t reaching for his handgun, but I still don’t think it’s justified to shoot someone who pulled me over.

      1. I also have no way of knowing the cop walking up to my car isn’t reaching for his handgun,

        You can be pretty sure he is. It seems to be SOP that they have a hand on the pistol butt as they approach the car.

  11. Video not working for me. Anyone else having issues?

  12. I always store my guns in the bed of my pickup where they are safe from the elements, theft, and rolling around.

    That used to be a problem for me, but now I just put the spare tire and a length of tow chain on the Purdy, and it stays put.

  13. I saw the video this morning on CNN and was pleased (as pleased as one can be in this situation) that the officer seemed to express genuine remorse over his actions.

  14. I had a crabby old lacrosse coach in college who would say, every time you said, “Sorry, Doc,”

    DON’T BE SORRY, BE RIGHT.

  15. insisting Knox had no way to tell the old man wasn’t reaching for a shotgun.

    I had no way of knowing he wasn’t reaching for a bazooka, so I shot him.

    I had no way of knowing he wasn’t reaching for a tank, so I shot him.

    I had no way of knowing he wasn’t reaching for an aircraft carrier, so I shot him.

    I had no way of knowing he wasn’t reaching for a nuclear weapon, so I shot him.

    I often employ this logic when I’m out hunting. Something moving in the bushes…could be an attacking mountain lion or a grizzly bear, so I shoot first and ask questions later. It works about 10% of the time. The other 90? Well, I feel bad for all those hunters I’ve shot, but at least I made it home to my family safely.

    1. Id laugh if it wasn’t so depressingly true

    2. My uncle the dairy farmer used to paint his cows with the word COW in international orange paint during hunting season. It didn’t always work.

  16. I’m sure that this cop is the laughing stock of his department for showing emotion like that.
    “Oh look, it’s crybaby Knox! Want to go to the range? I’ll bring you some tissue!”

  17. I’m starting to come to the conclusion that the only thing to do when pulled over is to place your hands on your head or awkwardly stick them out the window so that the cop can see them clearly at all times, and whatever you do don’t move too fast when getting your vehicle registration out of the glove compartment. It seems any sudden movement is prone to set them off.

    Oh, and don’t lock eyes with them either, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge…

    1. Yeah. Don’t get out of the car.

      1. It’s common knowledge where I live to turn off your car, throw the keys on the dash, and sit there with one hand on the steering wheel and the other holding your papers when a policeman approaches.

        1. East Berlin circa 1946?

          1. New Jersey. So, close enough.

            1. Yup. And by doing this, I’ve had cops give me a break and write me up for “no seatbelt” (no points, small fine) instead of what they pulled me over for, like doing 83 in a 55 (4 points, big fine).

              1. My BiL is an NYPD cop and he told me to just put my hands on the steering wheel. If the cop sees you moving about in the car, reaching for the glove compartment, etc. he/she has no way to know what you are reaching for…and you know what happens next.

      2. I thought it was never get out of the boat?

      3. It used to be you were supposed to get out of the car. Which makes sense to me, as when you are standing next to the car you are in plain view, can’t drive away, etc.

        Really, making people stay in their cars seems a lot more dangerous, to me.

  18. Police departments all over routinely show this video in training. So I guess if you had that on the mind, you might think that any old man reaching for something is about to kill you. But fuck, there’s some middle ground between letting some guy kill you and shooting a guy the second he grabs something.

  19. It seems like these cops are just terrified of any interaction with the public. They think any time they pull someone over or encounter another person that it’s going to turn into a gunfight. I think that really speaks to the mentality of cops and the mentality of whoever trained them.

    1. Everything I see from reporting on these types of police abuses confirms that law enforcement is full of the biggest set of cowards in the country.

      1. Yeah they’re either sociopaths that get off on abusing their authority or they’re afraid and ready to lash out at anything they deem threatening. They probably really internalize the WAR ON COPS bullshit.

    2. I remember a couple of years ago there was a story on reason (tried doing a search but couldn’t find it) about some police chief or perhaps a higher up in the FoP, I forget which, going off about a “war on cops” or some such bullshit. And of course it was all because of the increase in “right wing rhetoric” and “don’t tread on me” attitudes common amongst the Tea Party crowd. Because apparently he thought tea partiers were out hunting cops for sport or some shit.

      I suspect that “OMG war on cops!!!11!!” mindset has permeated a lot of police departments and they’re now being conditioned to regard anyone they come in contact with as a potential violent terrorist or something.

      1. Which is pretty funny as most of the right wing in the US is pretty pro-police.

    3. Just to play devils advocate (I agree with your statement otherwise)

      The training these guys receive would scare the beejebus out of Rambo. And it gets reinforced over and over and over again.

      And every time an Officer is shot they break down exactly what happened to the second and evaluate what the Officer could have done differently.

      Of course, this all boils down to “shoot first and ask questions later”

      Or as my Dad the former NYPD officer says “Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six”

      1. I more or less agree with you. I guess my point is that they shouldn’t be trained like that.

        Also it seems like when they make the wrong choice they’re rarely held accountable for it. So they’re not often “tried by twelve”.

        1. To make sure they get the point, the shoot / don’t shoot simulators come with a tazer like electrical shock to simulate being hit by a bullet if they fail to shoot. If they shoot someone reaching for a cane, they don’t get punishment.

  20. Stupid asshole. At least the guy was remorseful.

    Apparently roughly 10 cops killed in traffic stops per year (excluding stops where they are clearly pursuing a known felon).

    Seems like they’re taking out way more than that in “civilians”.

  21. OK, hold it. I can easily imagine that a cane looks a lot like a shotgun when lying in the bed of a pickup. I’m fed up to my teeth with cops going all psycho on people, but IN THIS ONE CASE out of the scores I’ve read about in the past decade, I sympathize with the cop. Not the cops; the (you should pardon the expression) flat-footed defense of the shooting stinks of the “We are the elite, and if our job kills random bystanders that’s necessary” attitude I despise. But the individual cop, having been surrounded by the ‘just come home safe” crap the police are told to make their job sound dangerous and glamorous, seeing what he thinks is a shotgun and grabbing for his gun ? HIM I sympathize with.

    He is a victim of the Police mindset; it has made him a killer. From the sounds of his grief I would say that it hasn’t made him a thug.

    Yet.

    1. Yeah, he made a mistake. A mistake that involved shooting an unarmed nonthreatening person, so he should face the punishment for the mistake regardless of how sympathetic he may or may not be.

      BTW: The guy survived the shooting, so it has only made him an attempted killer.

      1. “Nonthreatening” kind of begs the question doesn’t it?

        1. No it doesn’t. The guy didn’t have a weapon, and is way too old to beat up the cop barehanded. He wasn’t a threat.

          1. Something has to be a weapon to have appeared to have been a weapon? Something has to be a threat to have been reasonably perceived as a threat?

            The typical standard for lethal self-defense is a reasonable belief you are subject to death or seriously bodily injury. It doesn’t have to be a correct belief, it just has to be a reasonable one. Do you think that standard should be changed such that error about the perceived threat nullifies a claim of self-defense?

            1. It should be changed for cops. If they want to be congratulated for signing up for a dangerous job, they need to accept the dangers of the job.
              As several people note above, soldiers are often expected to be certain of a threat before shooting in much more dangerous situations. Why not cops?

      2. Attempted killer is a little much, obviously this guy is no killer he has too much of a conscience for it, the question i have is, if hes so anxious he shot first before confirming a weapon, should this man be allowed to continue being a cop?

        1. The question, in my mind, is WHY he was so anxious, when police deaths on duty are so rare. And I think the answer is the whole “policing as war” nonsense that we have been sold. By the cops. By the State. By so many action films that too many people take to be real when they are dark fantasy.

        2. No, “attempted killer” is not a little much. It’s entirely accurate. When you riddle another person with gunfire and the target by some miracle survives, we call that attempted murder.

    2. Just wait until he is totally reinforced by his coworkers and superiors.

      “Damn right you did the right thing.”

      “You can never be to quick to act, because you may not come home next time.”

      “Could be nothing, but it could also be a gun… way to fall back on your training!”

      1. Yeah, combined with some friendly ribbing for the immediate grief he showed when he saw the cane wasn’t a shotgun. You know, to toughen him up a bit.

        1. “It is a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth.”

      2. That’s one reason why I kind of hope for his sake that he quits. Right now he’s still able to feel remorse and is still a redeemable a human being. It’ll suck that there will be one less halfway decent person as an LEO, but really, what difference does one non-shithead cop make at this point? There’s so many shitheads that one less non-shithead won’t matter.

  22. Keep in mind, too, that fundamentally this guy got shot because he didn’t pay his taxes on time.

    1. And yet someone called me ridiculous the other day when I said that “you’d put a person at gunpoint because he refused to bake a cake”.

  23. I realize when reporters interview people they don’t tend to editorialize back at their subject about how they feel about the response they were given.

    But for the love of God will someone start reminding Police Officers that “Officer Safety” is not in fact a part of the job description.

    Yes, you might get shot. Yes, you might die.

    If you cannot live with these things, then perhaps you should find a different line of work that does not involve firearms.

    1. I wouldn’t mind as much if so many incidents didn’t look one whole hell of a lot LESS reasonable than this one.

      I still think that a cane could look a lot like a shotgun, under the circumstances here. I don’t WANT to be second-guessing cops on the street. But the “cop on the street” has, over the past couple of decades, shown that he lacks sense. And that his superiors are unwilling to call him on particularly egregious idiocy.

    2. But Capo, they are HEROES!

  24. Ask yourself this:

    You’re carrying concealed (legally). You’ve been in a minor traffic accident with somebody. You both pull over to the side of the road. The other guy is old and reaches into the back of the pickup and pulls out a cane.

    You empty your weapon into him.

    Do you think you’re gonna walk? Really? I would have a hard time saying that its reasonably to interpret any long, cylindrical object as a gun, and to assume that anyone holding such an object is going to start shooting at you with no preliminaries.

    So, unless you give cops a different standard for self-defense, this was a bad shoot. The cops conclusion that he was in such imminent danger of death that he had to start shooting was not reasonable.

    1. Just like they let off that guy who shot up a car full of teenagers ’cause he thought he saw a shotgun, right?

  25. Is it just me or do the cops in all of these wrongful shootings seem to just wildly empty their magazines in the general direction of the “threat”. I mean wtf happened to controlled pairs?

  26. As soon as I heard this story I knew it would end up on Reason and the faux libertarian cop-bashers would come out in force. I see I was correct. It has been stated before but, I think it bears repeating that cop-bashing will keep libertarianism on the sidelines of mainstream politics. Monday morning quarterbacking makes me ill but, as a libertarian LEO I will give you my insight on this. Did the officer use poor judgment? The answer is yes and no. Clearly the officer believed the cane was a shotgun and was being pointed at him. I think where the officer went wrong, as often happens in these types of cases, was that he failed to consider the totality of the circumstances as well as his own position and surroundings. Optimally, the officer should have fell back to the rear of his unit. With the benefit of cover and the lights in the face of the elderly man, he could have reassessed the situation and hopefully figured out it was only a cane. It is difficult at best to train someone to have that kind of tactical awareness. It is more of an instinctual thing. My prayers go out to Mr. Canpie and Officer Knox.

    1. Officer, I understand your point that this was an mistake that was more likely due to poor training or execution than malicious intent. But your disdain for “cop bashers” seems to miss the growing outrage over the countless videos and stories of LEOs abusing the constitutional rights of Americans. Excessive use of force (and then claiming assault), arrests over people filming police activity, civil asset forfeiture shakedowns, planted evidence, malicious prosecutions of innocent people, etc….these thing are deeply harming the relationship between the citizens and law enforcement. As a libertarian, I would think you would be concerned about the degree to which too many law enforcement officers evade or, even worse, disregard the civil liberty protections we have as citizens.

      1. Sorry my reply is late. Of course, I am deeply concerned about all the things you mentioned. My point is that there is a segment of the libertarian community who claim the flag of libertarianism only because they want to use narcotics (but still get free healthcare) and hate cops. What needs to be understood is that calling officers “pigs” and such accomplishes nothing. LEO’s, being proud, stubborn types of people, tend to dig in their heels and have their view of “undesirables” confirmed. In my experience most LEO’s are decent people trying to make a living and improve the world a little. It is the system that needs to change and the LEO’s will change with it. 25 years ago, 8 grams of weed was a definite arrest. Now, most of the cops I know couldn’t be bothered to mess with it. Changes in the LEO community do happen albeit a bit slowly. But that’s government for you. Certainly LEO’s need to be criticized when their actions are beyond the pale. Such as the recent raid by the ATF. Those guys are wrong, they know they are wrong and they don’t care. Fuck them. Federal guys are a different beast though. Most of your local LEO’s don’t do this stormtrooper shit unless it’s narcotics (generally speaking, plenty of exceptions I’m sure.

  27. Do people normally put a rifle or shotgun to the ground and lean on it like it is a cane?

  28. certainly an administrative penalty might be in order. Knox should be thankful Canipe wasn’t killed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.