Brian Pfleuger wrote;
Quote:
|
There's a whole bunch of assumptions floating around, made mostly of whole cloth.
|
Of course, the OP posted a video that none of us were on the scene for,
anyone who posts an
opinion can only work from assumption.
Quote:
|
It was quite obviously a minor accident.
|
How so ? This seems to be an assumption on your part.
Quote:
|
There isn't the slightest evidence that there was any concern whatsoever about injuries or "shock".
|
My point exactly.
Quote:
|
Obviously, he needed more than insurance but the tone and words indicate it's minor.
|
However the drawn firearm indicate it is not "minor" in the slightest.
Quote:
|
No evidence at all that a person should have been "in shock" or anyone has any injuries.
|
Indeed, there is no "evidence"
either way, whether it be from the accident or, self inflicted thus, the need for the officer to enter.
Quote:
|
We can't see the suspects face at all. The facial expression and eyes could be telling the officer that this is much worse than what we see. He has 6 years experience. We have poor visibility, low detail on the subject and 2 minute video with the officers arms in the way.
|
Agreed, the quality is poor, but it is all we have to rely on for discussion purposes.
Quote:
|
Why now, unless his experience and training are telling him he has to?
|
That is, indeed, the point of discussion.