Another excellent article and very good descriptive analysis. Great job on being fair to the retired Chief Leal but providing commentary devoid of reference to the actual policy and guidance given to the officer, and the fact that the suspect was possibly winning against the officers when they did was necessary and appropriate. Planting seeds of doubt because a retired commentator wants to be on the news in a case like this was very bad and could have been much worse. Keep up the great work DC!
I honestly don’t think the Chief is a bad guy. But imagine being the cop in that situation? Having to hear this - from a retired Chief in the news. Just awful.
If you are going to criticize cops (as I often do in these cases) - then point out at the exact issue. Cite the law, policy, or training that the cop violated. That’s my whole thing. Honest criticism.
I agree with you wholeheartedly up to and including the requests for apologies to the officers. I don't know how much street patrol action Texas Rangers get but.... Seems researching the departments policies would have led the retired chief to a different conclusion.
Well, here's the problem as I see it with these so-called experts. The vast majority of them are career bureaucrats who spent very little time on the road and what time they did spend on the road was usually a progression of positions to eventually lead them to become a chief or Sheriff, etc. There's a black female, former Sergeant with LAPD who is often used to give expert opinions and she is simply not qualified in my opinion. She was one of those people who was fast-tracked because she was black and female and educated but somehow she only made it to a Sergeant's position, not to demean Sergeants but she should have, in the time that she spent in that agency if she was so sharp, had much higher rank. But, I've never heard her support a police use of force, instead using her bully pulpit to criticize every shooting that she's been called on to opine on and as far as I can tell she's never been right. This Chief sounds like the same type of person. He seems to be giving an opinion solely because he was a chief at one time. I retired in 2012 but since that time I have run my own Pro law enforcement page and I have continually educated myself on use of force laws and agency policies throughout this country and I'm probably better versed now than I was when I was on the road as a command lieutenant. These so-called experts are a dime a dozen and I would question whether or not he's actually an expert and could testify in court or if he's simply one of these Talking Heads that local news stations use because of his former position. It sounds from your breakdown of his comments that he needs to stop running his mouth because he's woefully inadequate when it comes to understanding use of force and policies of the agency he's referring to. As a side note, I didn't like a lot of what these two officers did. I didn't like the nonchalant way the primary officer stood in front of the suspect just a few feet away in a piss-poor field interrogation stance that left her wide open to attack had he decided to do so and as you pointed out, searching him prior to handcuffing him once she determined that he had warrants and he was under arrest. Hopefully her agency will provide her with some retraining in that area.
So. My initial post about this case on X was criticism of: 1) searching without handcuffs / not controlling the hands. And 2) pointing the gun at him well after he was handcuffed.
I’m sensitive to the de-escalation policy stuff because if a cop gets in an OIS and doesn’t give the warnings etc - they will be fired. So. She had to.
Another excellent article and very good descriptive analysis. Great job on being fair to the retired Chief Leal but providing commentary devoid of reference to the actual policy and guidance given to the officer, and the fact that the suspect was possibly winning against the officers when they did was necessary and appropriate. Planting seeds of doubt because a retired commentator wants to be on the news in a case like this was very bad and could have been much worse. Keep up the great work DC!
Thank you! I always appreciate your feedback sir.
I honestly don’t think the Chief is a bad guy. But imagine being the cop in that situation? Having to hear this - from a retired Chief in the news. Just awful.
If you are going to criticize cops (as I often do in these cases) - then point out at the exact issue. Cite the law, policy, or training that the cop violated. That’s my whole thing. Honest criticism.
I agree with you wholeheartedly up to and including the requests for apologies to the officers. I don't know how much street patrol action Texas Rangers get but.... Seems researching the departments policies would have led the retired chief to a different conclusion.
Well, here's the problem as I see it with these so-called experts. The vast majority of them are career bureaucrats who spent very little time on the road and what time they did spend on the road was usually a progression of positions to eventually lead them to become a chief or Sheriff, etc. There's a black female, former Sergeant with LAPD who is often used to give expert opinions and she is simply not qualified in my opinion. She was one of those people who was fast-tracked because she was black and female and educated but somehow she only made it to a Sergeant's position, not to demean Sergeants but she should have, in the time that she spent in that agency if she was so sharp, had much higher rank. But, I've never heard her support a police use of force, instead using her bully pulpit to criticize every shooting that she's been called on to opine on and as far as I can tell she's never been right. This Chief sounds like the same type of person. He seems to be giving an opinion solely because he was a chief at one time. I retired in 2012 but since that time I have run my own Pro law enforcement page and I have continually educated myself on use of force laws and agency policies throughout this country and I'm probably better versed now than I was when I was on the road as a command lieutenant. These so-called experts are a dime a dozen and I would question whether or not he's actually an expert and could testify in court or if he's simply one of these Talking Heads that local news stations use because of his former position. It sounds from your breakdown of his comments that he needs to stop running his mouth because he's woefully inadequate when it comes to understanding use of force and policies of the agency he's referring to. As a side note, I didn't like a lot of what these two officers did. I didn't like the nonchalant way the primary officer stood in front of the suspect just a few feet away in a piss-poor field interrogation stance that left her wide open to attack had he decided to do so and as you pointed out, searching him prior to handcuffing him once she determined that he had warrants and he was under arrest. Hopefully her agency will provide her with some retraining in that area.
Thanks for your comments!
So. My initial post about this case on X was criticism of: 1) searching without handcuffs / not controlling the hands. And 2) pointing the gun at him well after he was handcuffed.
I’m sensitive to the de-escalation policy stuff because if a cop gets in an OIS and doesn’t give the warnings etc - they will be fired. So. She had to.