PDA

View Full Version : Ex-Cardinals Player's Son Shot by Police


rookie
01-08-2009, 11:16 PM
Bobby Tolan's 23 year old son was shot by police while laying face down in his driveway. The police thought he had stolen a vehicle, even though family members tried to tell them it was their car. The article says the son was a minor league baseball player.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/08/baseballer.shot/index.html

michned
01-09-2009, 12:20 AM
I had a Bobby Tolan-model glove as a kid.

Hopefully he'll survive, although they say his baseball career is probably over. When the officer pushed Tolan's mother, he probably got up off the ground out of instinct because his mom was in danger, and he gets shot for it.

whitesox901
01-09-2009, 12:26 AM
thats too bad, I hope he recovers well

CashMan
01-09-2009, 08:08 AM
COPYRIGHTED TEXT


Gotta love the race card being played. Nothing good ever happens at 2 a.m. If he was trying to get up, the officer didn't know if he was going to fight him or not. Pretty simple in my book, held at gun point, do not make any sudden moves.

itsnotrequired
01-09-2009, 08:51 AM
COPYRIGHTED TEXT


Gotta love the race card being played. Nothing good ever happens at 2 a.m. If he was trying to get up, the officer didn't know if he was going to fight him or not. Pretty simple in my book, held at gun point, do not make any sudden moves.

:rolleyes:

munchman33
01-09-2009, 09:03 AM
Gotta love the race card being played. Nothing good ever happens at 2 a.m. If he was trying to get up, the officer didn't know if he was going to fight him or not. Pretty simple in my book, held at gun point, do not make any sudden moves.

That's such a bull**** excuse. I'm out passed 2 am five nights a week and nothing like that ever happened to me. You mean to say that this happened because of the hour, and that it's his fault for being up at 2 am? :rolleyes: Sorry Gramps, it's time for your meds.

Iwritecode
01-09-2009, 10:51 AM
I had a Bobby Tolan-model glove as a kid.

Hopefully he'll survive, although they say his baseball career is probably over. When the officer pushed Tolan's mother, he probably got up off the ground out of instinct because his mom was in danger, and he gets shot for it.

I'm interested to know why the cops had their guns out in the first place and why they thought that the car was stolen?

soxpride724
01-09-2009, 11:06 AM
I'm interested to know why the cops had their guns out in the first place and why they thought that the car was stolen?

If they had a reason to beleive the car was stolen, then it would constitute a felony.

Felony arrests usually always invole being apprehended at gunpoint.

asindc
01-09-2009, 11:08 AM
COPYRIGHTED TEXT


Gotta love the race card being played. Nothing good ever happens at 2 a.m. If he was trying to get up, the officer didn't know if he was going to fight him or not. Pretty simple in my book, held at gun point, do not make any sudden moves.

There is no excuse for this kind of police work. I'm also curious to know what made the officer think the car was stolen.

CubKilla
01-09-2009, 11:21 AM
Always love the Monday Morning QB's when it comes to police work

hi im skot
01-09-2009, 11:22 AM
Sounds shady, but I'd give it some time for all of the facts to come out.

jabrch
01-09-2009, 12:02 PM
There is no excuse for this kind of police work.

Do you have enough information to draw that conclusion? I don't.



I'm also curious to know what made the officer think the car was stolen.

Whatever the reason is... it is secondary to me. The suspect was being held at gunpoint. Jumping up - bad idea. Police are trained to respond to this as a threat - and for good reason.

I've always had a philospy on any interactions I have with law enforcement... Since I know I did nothing terribly wrong (short of a moving violation) I know that I won't get shot, beaten, or otherwise hurt if I don't do anything that would put a policeman (who is under constant threat and stress from the unknown) to react to. I am polite and courteous, and I follow instructions to the letter. I know there are some people who don't like their manhood challenged, and don't believe that they have to take orders from anyone, right or wrong. That's fine - but I won't blame an officer for reacting to a sudden jerking movement from a suspect - certainly not until I have more facts about what REALLY happened.

Iwritecode
01-09-2009, 12:09 PM
Do you have enough information to draw that conclusion? I don't.





Whatever the reason is... it is secondary to me. The suspect was being held at gunpoint. Jumping up - bad idea. Police are trained to respond to this as a threat - and for good reason.

I've always had a philospy on any interactions I have with law enforcement... Since I know I did nothing terribly wrong (short of a moving violation) I know that I won't get shot, beaten, or otherwise hurt if I don't do anything that would put a policeman (who is under constant threat and stress from the unknown) to react to. I am polite and courteous, and I follow instructions to the letter. I know there are some people who don't like their manhood challenged, and don't believe that they have to take orders from anyone, right or wrong. That's fine - but I won't blame an officer for reacting to a sudden jerking movement from a suspect - certainly not until I have more facts about what REALLY happened.


It seems really suspect considering the guy was laying on the ground un-armed when he was shot but you're right that there is not enough facts to make a judgement.

Either way, I doubt much if any action will be taken against the officer. That's usually the way it goes...

doublem23
01-09-2009, 12:09 PM
Always love the Monday Morning QB's when it comes to police work

Cops are never wrong.

CubKilla
01-09-2009, 12:27 PM
Cops are never wrong.

:rolleyes:

Missed the point entirely. I don't have the time to spell it out for you either.

spawn
01-09-2009, 01:23 PM
I'm wondering why these police officers thought the car was stolen, especially if it wasn't reported stolen.

Huisj
01-09-2009, 01:30 PM
The thing that still doesn't make sense from it all is why the police even went after these guys in the first place. The article makes it sound like the cops were hiding in the bushes waiting for them to get out of their car. Why would they be doing that? And it makes it sound like they didn't initially identify themselves as police, and that's what made the guys in the car jumpy in the first place.

Very odd situation with lots of loose ends that need to get tied up.

spawn
01-09-2009, 01:33 PM
The thing that still doesn't make sense from it all is why the police even went after these guys in the first place. The article makes it sound like the cops were hiding in the bushes waiting for them to get out of their car. Why would they be doing that? And it makes it sound like they didn't initially identify themselves as police, and that's what made the guys in the car jumpy in the first place.

Very odd situation with lots of loose ends that need to get tied up.
Agreed. I'll withhold judgment until all of the fact are released.

soxpride724
01-09-2009, 01:54 PM
The thing that still doesn't make sense from it all is why the police even went after these guys in the first place. The article makes it sound like the cops were hiding in the bushes waiting for them to get out of their car. Why would they be doing that? And it makes it sound like they didn't initially identify themselves as police, and that's what made the guys in the car jumpy in the first place.

Very odd situation with lots of loose ends that need to get tied up.
The media dosen't always get the whole story. Law enforcement agencies sometimes cannot disclose the entire events that took place during an incident.

asindc
01-09-2009, 02:34 PM
Do you have enough information to draw that conclusion? I don't.





Whatever the reason is... it is secondary to me. The suspect was being held at gunpoint. Jumping up - bad idea. Police are trained to respond to this as a threat - and for good reason.

I've always had a philospy on any interactions I have with law enforcement... Since I know I did nothing terribly wrong (short of a moving violation) I know that I won't get shot, beaten, or otherwise hurt if I don't do anything that would put a policeman (who is under constant threat and stress from the unknown) to react to. I am polite and courteous, and I follow instructions to the letter. I know there are some people who don't like their manhood challenged, and don't believe that they have to take orders from anyone, right or wrong. That's fine - but I won't blame an officer for reacting to a sudden jerking movement from a suspect - certainly not until I have more facts about what REALLY happened.

Fair enough. The witness accounts reported in the story came from family members. So this much is true: Unless someone is privy to information not contained in the article, none of us have enough information to draw a conclusion. This includes concluding that the man who was shot did not provoke legitimate suspicion, or that the police officer's reaction was reasonable in light of the circumstances.

My personal policy regarding having a police officer point a gun at me is similar to yours: No sudden movements, respond to the officer respectfully, and cooperate without protest. Having said that, the reason(s) why the officer shot the man is important to me.

My reaction to reading about the shooting comes from personal experience. I've had a gun pointed at me two times in my life. Both times, it was a police officer.

In one instance, my college roommate and I were exiting a fast food place walking towards my car and an officer ordered us to stop at gunpoint. We did what we were told. After asking a few questions about a bank robbery that had occurred earlier that day (we were not aware of it), he was convinced we had nothing to do it and eventually lowered his gun and allowed us to leave.

Do I blame the officer? Not for doing his job, but I've always wondered why he immediately pointed his gun at us and kept doing so the whole time (about 10 minutes). What made him stop us in the first place? Did he notice us through a window as we were placing our orders? (By the way, the guy eventually arrested for the robbery looking nothing like either one of us.) If he thought we were that dangerous, why didn't he call for backup?

If you are wondering why I think the reason(s) why the officer shot Tolan are important, take a look at the questions at the end of this article: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2161212/posts. Now, I think it is prudent that the Bellaire police ascertain all the facts before commenting further, but when they do think it is appropriate to do so, these are among the questions I would like to see answered.

JorgeFabregas
01-09-2009, 02:39 PM
Do you have enough information to draw that conclusion? I don't.





Whatever the reason is... it is secondary to me. The suspect was being held at gunpoint. Jumping up - bad idea. Police are trained to respond to this as a threat - and for good reason.

I've always had a philospy on any interactions I have with law enforcement... Since I know I did nothing terribly wrong (short of a moving violation) I know that I won't get shot, beaten, or otherwise hurt if I don't do anything that would put a policeman (who is under constant threat and stress from the unknown) to react to. I am polite and courteous, and I follow instructions to the letter. I know there are some people who don't like their manhood challenged, and don't believe that they have to take orders from anyone, right or wrong. That's fine - but I won't blame an officer for reacting to a sudden jerking movement from a suspect - certainly not until I have more facts about what REALLY happened.
You never know:
http://www.mercurynews.com/alamedacounty/ci_11387608

munchman33
01-09-2009, 04:02 PM
I'm wondering why these police officers thought the car was stolen, especially if it wasn't reported stolen.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

spawn
01-09-2009, 04:11 PM
It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Well, no kidding. I just want to hear what they have to say about it.

munchman33
01-09-2009, 04:14 PM
Well, no kidding. I just want to hear what they have to say about it.

They won't say anything because the truth incriminates them. If a similar car was stolen, they'd have said that already. But they can't, because it isn't true and it's fully traceable if they tried to lie about it.

I'm surprised so many people are giving the officers the benefit of the doubt. Why not give the poor kid who was shot the benefit of the doubt? What's known publicly strongly favors him.

spawn
01-09-2009, 04:23 PM
They won't say anything because the truth incriminates them. If a similar car was stolen, they'd have said that already. But they can't, because it isn't true and it's fully traceable if they tried to lie about it.

I'm surprised so many people are giving the officers the benefit of the doubt. Why not give the poor kid who was shot the benefit of the doubt? What's known publicly strongly favors him.
I have my own opinion on this, but I want to wait for all of the facts to come out before I pass judgement. I've been racially profiled, so I'm the last person that would come to the defense of these officers. By the same token, I do believe in gathering the facts before placing blame.

Nellie_Fox
01-09-2009, 05:03 PM
They won't say anything because the truth incriminates them. If a similar car was stolen, they'd have said that already. But they can't, because it isn't true and it's fully traceable if they tried to lie about it.

I'm surprised so many people are giving the officers the benefit of the doubt. Why not give the poor kid who was shot the benefit of the doubt? What's known publicly strongly favors him.I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt until the facts are in. The police department will not be releasing things piecemeal because they don't want to have to do retractions and revisions. They won't make any statements until they are done investigating (if they are doing it right.) What has been in the press so far it too bizarre to base any conclusions on.

rookie
01-09-2009, 06:07 PM
I have my own opinion on this, but I want to wait for all of the facts to come out before I pass judgement. I've been racially profiled, so I'm the last person that would come to the defense of these officers. By the same token, I do believe in gathering the facts before placing blame.

Ditto, but I find it interesting that the it seems some people think that only police officers are innocent until proven guilty, but not Tolan.

After the police officers said they thought the car was stolen, why didn't they just ask for license and registration, and check the plates. Why draw weapons? Ok, car stealing is a felony, still why draw weapons if they don't have weapons.? You shoot a guy who is laying face down, and looks up when he hears his mom being manhandled by officers. Yes, we all know you don't move, but please. Easier said than done in that situation. No reason to get shot, officer could have said, "Sir, I am going to have to ask that you stay on the ground." Of course then again, then again Texas, POC, and police is not the best combination.

munchman33
01-09-2009, 06:15 PM
I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt until the facts are in. The police department will not be releasing things piecemeal because they don't want to have to do retractions and revisions. They won't make any statements until they are done investigating (if they are doing it right.) What has been in the press so far it too bizarre to base any conclusions on.

"The department’s assistant chief says they’re investigating how the officers on the scene mistakenly determined that the SUV Tolan and his cousin were driving had been stolen."

This doesn't leave a lot of room for anything but racial profiling. There's giving benefit of the doubt, and there's going out of your way to believe bull****.

EnglishChiSox
01-09-2009, 06:38 PM
Ditto, but I find it interesting that the it seems some people think that only police officers are innocent until proven guilty, but not Tolan.

After the police officers said they thought the car was stolen, why didn't they just ask for license and registration, and check the plates. Why draw weapons? Ok, car stealing is a felony, still why draw weapons if they don't have weapons.? You shoot a guy who is laying face down, and looks up when he hears his mom being manhandled by officers. Yes, we all know you don't move, but please. Easier said than done in that situation. No reason to get shot, officer could have said, "Sir, I am going to have to ask that you stay on the ground." Of course then again, then again Texas, POC, and police is not the best combination.


It is worrying that shooting is the first reaction, compared to some other restraining techniques or even telling the person to stay down.

CLR01
01-09-2009, 07:01 PM
Everyone seems so trigger happy in 2009.

Medford Bobby
01-09-2009, 10:11 PM
Do you have enough information to draw that conclusion? I don't.





Whatever the reason is... it is secondary to me. The suspect was being held at gunpoint. Jumping up - bad idea. Police are trained to respond to this as a threat - and for good reason.

I've always had a philospy on any interactions I have with law enforcement... Since I know I did nothing terribly wrong (short of a moving violation) I know that I won't get shot, beaten, or otherwise hurt if I don't do anything that would put a policeman (who is under constant threat and stress from the unknown) to react to. I am polite and courteous, and I follow instructions to the letter. I know there are some people who don't like their manhood challenged, and don't believe that they have to take orders from anyone, right or wrong. That's fine - but I won't blame an officer for reacting to a sudden jerking movement from a suspect - certainly not until I have more facts about what REALLY happened.
I was once questioned for a neighborhood gas station armed robbery and the local District 8 saw me run out of my alley (cause it's cold) out toward a bar in the hood and came in and pulled me out of the bar and took me down the street to the just robbed gas staiton. (I had just drove past this station about 20 minutes before and saw all the squad cars there.)

They took me out of the car and took me to the owner and asked me if I was his guy. Then the officer said "Take a good look at him and is said IS THIS THE GUY!! Luckily the owner said NO and the officers said thanks for the HELP!!
Later when I was a police aide at 8th District I asked several officers about that, and they said I did the right thing to cooperate and not be a butt....:bandance:

Though I always wondered what would have happened if that guy said "Yes"!:o:

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2009, 01:22 AM
Ditto, but I find it interesting that the it seems some people think that only police officers are innocent until proven guilty, but not Tolan.I haven't seen anyone say that. Not only is Tolan innocent until proven guilty, but quite clearly is innocent. That doesn't automatically make the cop a racist killer. Clearly, something very tragic happened, but none of us know the details. Do you really think this ten-year veteran cop suddenly decided to go out and shoot a black guy one night? It's possible, but highly unlikely.

After the police officers said they thought the car was stolen, why didn't they just ask for license and registration, and check the plates. Why draw weapons? Ok, car stealing is a felony, still why draw weapons if they don't have weapons?You always draw your weapon on a felony stop. Always. If you wait until you find out the felons have a gun, it's too late. Unfortunately, when you find out they aren't, but they physically resist, the gun in your hand becomes a liability rather than an asset.

You shoot a guy who is laying face down, and looks up when he hears his mom being manhandled by officers. Yes, we all know you don't move, but please. Easier said than done in that situation. No reason to get shot, officer could have said, "Sir, I am going to have to ask that you stay on the ground." Of course then again, then again Texas, POC, and police is not the best combination.And you don't know that this is what happened. You weren't there, and neither was I. I just can't imagine a cop firing only because someone started to get up off the ground. Do you have any idea how often that happens? People are always getting squirrely on these type of stops. I know I always thought that I'd be far more likely to get shot because I hesitated too long than I was to shoot too soon. I lived in fear of actually having to shoot someone. I have over 150 years of police work in my immediate family, and only one of us ever had to shoot anyone.

"The department’s assistant chief says they’re investigating how the officers on the scene mistakenly determined that the SUV Tolan and his cousin were driving had been stolen."

This doesn't leave a lot of room for anything but racial profiling. There's giving benefit of the doubt, and there's going out of your way to believe bull****.Of course they were mistaken. That's already been established. But it leaves a lot of room for what the officers believed to be true at the time of the stop.

What hasn't been established is why they thought it was stolen. I know I once made a felony stop on a carload of teens because an ISPERN (Illinois State Police Emergency Radio Network) dispatch had gone out of a strong-arm robbery just occurred, describing the exact car. After I had them stopped, the DuPage Sheriff cancelled the wanted broadcast because a citizen had jumped to conclusions, seeing these kids simply driving away from the area immediately after someone's purse was snatched. By the way, the kids were white suburbanites.

They had done nothing, but my stop was perfectly legitimate based on the information I had at the time of the stop, despite the fact that they had done nothing. The worst part was that, since they had done nothing (and they were teenagers) they were argumentative and uncooperative the whole time I was getting them out of the car, refusing to do what they were told and generally acting like fools, refusing to "assume the position, demanding to know why I was stopping them, etc. Since there were five of them, I was jumpy as hell until I got the "all-clear." Did I have them at gunpoint? You bet. Did their parents file complaints and want me crucified? Oh, yeah.

So, since none of us know what information the officers were acting on (I can't imagine even the most racist of cops saying "hey, there's black kids in a car. It must be stolen; I think I'll make a felony stop") and since none of us know what happened after the stop (other than that someone got wrongly shot) let's not jump to conclusions about who did what.

CleeFan101
01-10-2009, 01:35 AM
cops arent supposed to shoot at people if they run away, the only excuse is if it was a violent individual that the officer felt threatened by. Im taking criminal classes and shooting the kid here makes no sense unless the kid had a gun on him or the cop thought he was reaching for one.

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2009, 02:01 AM
cops arent supposed to shoot at people if they run away, the only excuse is if it was a violent individual that the officer felt threatened by. Im taking criminal classes and shooting the kid here makes no sense unless the kid had a gun on him or the cop thought he was reaching for one.First of all, what does that have to do with the case in question? Nowhere does it say the kid was running away. So you've introduced an irrelevant factor into the equation.

Second, you're incorrect. A fleeing forcible felon who represents an ongoing threat to the public if not immediately apprehended can be shot while fleeing. You may be taking "criminal classes," but I teach them.

Again, you have no idea what happened. None. You've read one news report. You weren't there. You haven't heard a single word of the officer's version of events. But you feel equipped to make a judgment.

munchman33
01-10-2009, 03:33 AM
Of course they were mistaken. That's already been established. But it leaves a lot of room for what the officers believed to be true at the time of the stop.

What hasn't been established is why they thought it was stolen. I know I once made a felony stop on a carload of teens because an ISPERN (Illinois State Police Emergency Radio Network) dispatch had gone out of a strong-arm robbery just occurred, describing the exact car. After I had them stopped, the DuPage Sheriff cancelled the wanted broadcast because a citizen had jumped to conclusions, seeing these kids simply driving away from the area immediately after someone's purse was snatched. By the way, the kids were white suburbanites.

They had done nothing, but my stop was perfectly legitimate based on the information I had at the time of the stop, despite the fact that they had done nothing. The worst part was that, since they had done nothing (and they were teenagers) they were argumentative and uncooperative the whole time I was getting them out of the car, refusing to do what they were told and generally acting like fools, refusing to "assume the position, demanding to know why I was stopping them, etc. Since there were five of them, I was jumpy as hell until I got the "all-clear." Did I have them at gunpoint? You bet. Did their parents file complaints and want me crucified? Oh, yeah.

So, since none of us know what information the officers were acting on (I can't imagine even the most racist of cops saying "hey, there's black kids in a car. It must be stolen; I think I'll make a felony stop") and since none of us know what happened after the stop (other than that someone got wrongly shot) let's not jump to conclusions about who did what.

So you expect me to believe that:

1.) Using his gun instead of his taser, which he was carrying, was the right thing to do.

2.) That the kids stole a car and drove it to a white neighborhood and parked it on someone elses driveway.

3.) An old couple claiming to be his parents and owners of the vehicles walk out of the residence, substantiating their story, were actually part of a ruse and were robbing the house along with the youths.

The thought process it takes to make a situation where the officers were correct in their judgement is downright ridiculous. At some point he had to realize how completely off base he was. That should have been when the parents walked outside. Unless, of course, he was a complete moron.

No, the logical choice is he was wrong, and he pushed it for personal reasons. You can say that isn't necessarily true, but there's little reason to believe that. It doesn't add up. He ruined a young man's life because of his hate. I hope the legal system moves quickly to put this scum away for a long time.

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2009, 03:49 AM
So you expect me to believe that:

1.) Using his gun instead of his taser, which he was carrying, was the right thing to do.

2.) That the kids stole a car and drove it to a white neighborhood and parked it on someone elses driveway.

3.) An old couple claiming to be his parents and owners of the vehicles walk out of the residence, substantiating their story, were actually part of a ruse and were robbing the house along with the youths.

The thought process it takes to make a situation where the officers were correct in their judgement is downright ridiculous. At some point he had to realize how completely off base he was. That should have been when the parents walked outside. Unless, of course, he was a complete moron.

No, the logical choice is he was wrong, and he pushed it for personal reasons. You can say that isn't necessarily true, but there's little reason to believe that. It doesn't add up. He ruined a young man's life because of his hate. I hope the legal system moves quickly to put this scum away for a long time.You've made up your mind, based on a news story. You have no idea what went on at the house, nor do I. You apparently don't even care to hear the officer's side of the story, which he would be nuts to give to the press at this stage.

I am reserving judgment until all the facts are in; I'm not asking you to believe anything. You are willing to ascribe "personal reasons" without knowing the officer at all. It must be nice to be able to read a news story and be absolutely sure that you have all the facts you need to make a judgment on someone's motives.

munchman33
01-10-2009, 11:18 AM
You've made up your mind, based on a news story. You have no idea what went on at the house, nor do I. You apparently don't even care to hear the officer's side of the story, which he would be nuts to give to the press at this stage.

I am reserving judgment until all the facts are in; I'm not asking you to believe anything. You are willing to ascribe "personal reasons" without knowing the officer at all. It must be nice to be able to read a news story and be absolutely sure that you have all the facts you need to make a judgment on someone's motives.

Nellie - there is already a lot known. My point is there isn't a whole lot of truth that can come out to make this okay. Like I said, at some point he HAD to realize he was wrong. Maybe he was trying to teach the kid a lesson about respect, so he kept going. BUT HE SHOT HIM. And a million times over he was wrong.

soxpride724
01-10-2009, 12:38 PM
First of all, what does that have to do with the case in question? Nowhere does it say the kid was running away. So you've introduced an irrelevant factor into the equation.

Second, you're incorrect. A fleeing forcible felon who represents an ongoing threat to the public if not immediately apprehended can be shot while fleeing. You may be taking "criminal classes," but I teach them.

Again, you have no idea what happened. None. You've read one news report. You weren't there. You haven't heard a single word of the officer's version of events. But you feel equipped to make a judgment.


Most civilians do not know this fact, thank you for explaining it!

Nellie_Fox
01-11-2009, 01:40 AM
Nellie - there is already a lot known. My point is there isn't a whole lot of truth that can come out to make this okay. Like I said, at some point he HAD to realize he was wrong. Maybe he was trying to teach the kid a lesson about respect, so he kept going. BUT HE SHOT HIM. And a million times over he was wrong.
No, there's not already a lot known. You don't have the officer's version or the police department's version. You have news reports based on one side's version of events. There's always the possibility that if everyone has simply cooperated while things got sorted out, the tragedy would not have occurred.

There is nothing that can come out that will make it okay that an innocent man got shot by the police, and I never said there was. What I said was that people should not jump to "racist cop making a stop for no reason other than the race of the driver, and taking the first chance to shoot someone." What I said was that I've been on felony stops that were perfectly justified by the facts I had at the time of the stop, but that it turned out the the people I stopped were innocent of any wrongdoing once all the facts were known. Sometimes they were cooperative and did what they were told while things got clarified, sometimes they didn't, and the times that they didn't were much more dangerous for everyone involved.

There will be a price to be paid for being wrong, but all I'm asking is that people not be so quick to accuse the cops of evil motives before all of the facts are known.