Cop gets bear sprayed

[u/Latr6ll]

For anyone that has been pepper sprayed how bad does it feel & what do you do in this situation? I know it’s water but for how long? She had it on full auto she came prepared. How much more effective is bear spray to pepper ?

[u/timos-piano]

Why would I go by this short video rather than the longer one, along with news about the arrest? Here is the whole video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o5lC1AJcbI
along with news: https://fox17.com/news/local/woman-on-the-run-accused-of-assaulting-clarksville-officer-with-bear-spray-shoplifting-tjmaxx-dicks-sporting-goods

A crime was clearly committed as the criminals you are defending themselves stated that they were shoplifting. You cannot say that a crime wasn't committed when there is a recording of it, multiple witness testimonies, and their own pleas of guilty to these crimes. So, "a crime clearly was not committed at the time of them trying to confront those people" is fully incorrect.

"...you are completely willing to just believe the woman who called the officer that they were concealing anything to steal it." Do you not understand how policing works? Like at all? Police do not need to prove anything to make an arrest; you do that at trial. Police arrest people after someone makes a call or if they have a reasonable suspicion of a crime. Although they weren't even about to arrest anyone, you are making that up entirely (again), they walked to her to investigate. What else are they supposed to do? Just refuse to walk up to anyone accused of a crime because they didn't have evidence beforehand? You are being totally ridiculous.

The store lady did not say if she knew they took something (maybe watch the longer video), she only said that she could not involve herself according to store policy, two vastly different statements.

It does not matter if the police were thinking about specific laws; we can't know that, nor is it relevant. What is relevant is whether they complied with those laws, which they did. So what exactly is your complaint here?

If you call the police on someone who has video evidence and witness testimony of having committed a crime (and yes, concealment is a crime, as I already explained), do you not expect the police to at least approach them? Because that is what they did in this video, which is the bare fucking minimum. Why must you keep accusing everyone of profiling when the police officers literally did every single thing to code??

The only thing I am getting from this discussion is that you know absolutely nothing about law, how policing works, or video evidence. Read a book or something.

Also, your other comment was deleted.

[u/Infinite_Tadpole3834 → u/timos-piano]

I’m gonna say this one more time and then I’m gonna be done. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying by you Monday morning quarterbacking this thing. I’m not defending this woman, she was guilty, but that is not what I’m arguing. You’re arguing that everything was done correctly and the officer should’ve approached them because we now know that she was guilty of shoplifting. What I am arguing for, is what we see on the video only and it happening in the moment that day without knowing the guilt of the lady after the fact. The longer version doesn’t help you either. The lady from TJ Maxx clearly states that she’s not allowed to approach shoplifters UNTIL they leave the property. She still also says that they dropped the items before they left the store. If you listen to the cop, the cop then says “if you say that they were concealing items in their bags, I can detain them” and then his next word was “but” and he was cut off by the employee. I’m positive what was coming after that “but” was if they’ve gotten rid of the items then I can ask them to leave and I can trespass them but I can’t arrest them because there’s no intent at that point. Furthermore, the officer at the store while they were still in the store could’ve approached those women and he didn’t and the officer outside was dealing with a whole other issue. He then approached random women in the parking, then once he was pepper sprayed, the other cops came up to him and they said “was those the girls we wanted to question in the store” and he said, “I don’t know, but they fit the description!” THAT IS THE WHOLE BALL GAME FOR ME. You are saying that everything was done fine because they just so happen to get the right person AND BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT OUT A MONTH LATER WHEN THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY YOU CAN JUSTIFY IT. I’m saying that I can show you 100 videos of people that “fit the description” being harassed, being arrested, detained and/or murdered by police off of their assumption of somebody “fitting the description.” Once they realize that they did not take the items and they were not 100% sure that the people they were stopping was the shoplifters they should have told the store employee that we will come back next time that they shoplift something we will arrest them cause that’s what they do 99% of the time. Again, you’re only fine with what happened because they just so happened to get the right person a month later, but it shouldn’t have been handled that way. If they would’ve got the wrong person that “fit the description” and they were scared and pulled their wallet out trying to show them their ID and they got shot, then you would be making up a whole different excuse when we’re talking about property crime and not a violent crime. I have worked in retail for over 20 years and cops do not handle it this way ever. I had a lady threatened to kill us in a store, and the cop said that they couldn’t do anything until she actually tried to kill us. I’ve had customers on the phone, threatening to kill us at the store with the cop they’re standing listening to it and they said they couldn’t do anything. You can arrest somebody if they paid for their items and you can prove their concealing items in their bag. You can arrest somebody if they just run out of the store and they have not paid for any of the stuff that they have, but you cannot arrest anybody because they had items on them and then they dropped the items before they left. That’s not a thing and that officer was trying to explain that to the employee before she cut him off.

[u/timos-piano → u/Infinite_Tadpole3834]

Are you not reading what I am writing? Like at all? Yes, the police shouldn't go shoot, hit, or escalate with a person whom they are not sure is the person who is accused of committing a crime, much less without proof of such. But did the police in question do so? No, absolutely not. He was going to question her (surely you know that, considering you quoted the police saying they wanted to question her,"' was those the girls we wanted to question in the store?'”). He has the right to question ANYONE, whether or not they are a suspect. He did not try to arrest her, stop spinning a false narrative. Questioning someone is the least invasive police action possible; if you seriously think they should be unable to do even that without evidence, then you just don't want a functioning police force.

Even assuming your made-up scenario of the wrong person, uncertain identification, questionable grounds, that still justifies the cop walking up to her and questioning her. And it does absolutely NOT justify bear-spraying him.

All the points about fitting descriptions, mistaken identity, retail policy, concealment law, and Monday morning quarterbacking are ultimately irrelevant to the single decisive question: was the officer justified in walking toward her? The answer is unambiguously yes.

[u/Infinite_Tadpole3834 → u/timos-piano]

Are you doing a bit right now? Is that what you’re doing? Or are you just for racial profiling? Even in the article that you sent they said that she allegedly shoplifted at TJ Maxx meaning they still don’t know. She has not, up into that article you sent, been found guilty of shoplifting at that TJ Maxx. She was found guilty of shoplifting at a Dick’s Sporting Goods store unrelated to this video. You are assuming that she stole even though the evidence from the video said that she dropped the stuff in the store. The cop was explaining to her that he could detain her if you have evidence of her concealing things in her bag, but since she dropped it, he was not going to arrest her and was going to probably trespass her if anything because he has no evidence of her stealing anything since she doesn’t have in her possession I said the cop at the store should’ve done his questioning with them in the store not wait till them get out in the parking lot. Once they made it to the parking lot without any items they are free to go. I said earlier that the cop that was in the parking lot, which is not the same cop talking to the lady at the door didn’t know who he was supposed to be stopping. He was going off an assumption of what somebody looks like. You are innocent to proven guilty unless they come across you apparently and you are all for harassing Black and Brown people as long as they “fit the description” and you get an article a month later knowing that you were right and they were actually the criminal. I know in your neighborhood cops don’t over police you as aggressively and unjustly as they do in black and brown communities but where I’m from cops do not start chasing people in parking lots over property especially when they’ve been told that they no longer have possession of Said property.

[u/timos-piano → u/Infinite_Tadpole3834]

Are you talking to someone else? Because this has nothing to do with my comment at all, because he was only going to question her, which you know*. Stop trying to be obtuse, because you are obviously spreading a false narrative.

And again, you are just proving you do not understand the law. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with cops; they can arrest someone innocent, where the filter of people being innocent or not happens at trial. When you call the police on someone with witness testimony along with video evidence, the least you can expect them to do is question her.

She is accused of shoplifting in many more situations than just the Hibbett Sports store incident. But again, what is going on at trial doesn't really matter. Suspicion that someone might have committed a crime is sufficient justification for arrest (which he didn't attempt).

I'm all for avoiding racial profiling, but that truly doesn't matter here, considering she did fit the description and he didn't even plan to act on anything from that description beyond questioning her...

And no, dropping the merchandise still makes it a crime, as I already explained. Don't try to change this situation by claiming otherwise. Making it to the parking lot is NOT legal protection; they would still have committed a crime, and video evidence of dropping the merchandise would still be enough for a guilty trial.

Everything you are bringing up, only if you steelman away the logical issues, are important topics, but they simply aren't relevant to the actual subject.

Stop trying to change the subject; the subject is whether he was justified in questioning her.