johnclark1102

​First and foremost, I'm not angry and any connotation of such is simply a misunderstanding due to the inability to convey tone through text. I apologize for that. We are having a conversation, and our perspectives are different because of different experience. I will freely admit that my text may have come across as a bit "short", and frankly that's because I grow tired of having conversations about our nation's current state of affairs where talking points are based solely on opinions or false / misleading information, such as the article you posted. There may not be a quantifiable incentive that you are aware of for police departments to report their statistics, but most agencies still do. The incentive can be as simple as an ethical obligation in the interest of justice, or it could be a funding related provision, or recognition by the federal government through programs such as agencies being nationally accredited. There may be no incentive at all. As for a supervisor not taking a complaint, I'm implying that they would based on my personal experience, and you're implying that they wouldn't based on, I don't know what. Again, different perspectives based on different experience. Settlement payouts do not automatically prove wrong doing. Again, from my first hand experience, out of court settlements can simply mean that the cost of fighting a claim in court outweighed the cost of making a settlement. Processing claims in court can take a toll on the system and prevent more pressing matters from being heard in a timely manner. I will agree with you that the abuse claims are completely avoidable, though I would counter that the first step in avoiding those claims would be for citizens to not break the law. As a taxpayer, I do hope my local agencies are doing everything they can to prevent unnecessary law suits. But I also hope that they spend my tax dollars to relentlessly enforce the law and hold law breakers accountable for their poor choices and actions. Personally, I've had mostly great experiences with police officers as well. I've even had guns drawn on me too, during a felony traffic stop. At the time, I had no idea what was going on, but it later turned out that it was certainly not for "no reason". Police are reactionary in nature, everything an officer does is a direct reaction to something someone else did. So, while I knew of nothing that I had done wrong and no laws that I had violated, I still complied with the officers instructions, allowed them to handcuff me and place me in their car. I answered their questions, and was on my way in less than 10 minutes with their sincere apology after they determined that I was not the bank robber they were looking for. My point with that story is, while someone may argue that I had guns drawn on me for "no reason", the reality is the reason was because I was the only person driving away from the bank at 2 in the morning and the silent alarm had been triggered. I didn't know it at the time, but the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe I had robbed the bank, even though I knew I didn't. Your experience will vary. You and I also agree that it is not always the citizen's fault when a poor police / community relationship exists. However, citizens are often responsible for that breakdown just like some police officers are. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions.

​Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion, even if other's disagree with it. But, facts are important in helping us form our opinions so just to clear a few things up, self reported statistics comprised by the FBI are more credible than made up statistics and opinions seen on the nightly news. It doesn't take any money or power to call a local station and ask for a supervisor if you feel you've been mistreated. As for the "scary" settlement number of $735 million, after reading the the article you linked, it clearly explains that is the foretasted budget for the year, not the actual dollar amount spent on settlements. That article is also from 2012. More importantly, that budget plan was not for "police abuse settlements", it was for total settlements for all settlements and lawsuits involving the city. According to that article, those potential settlements include "malpractice in public hospitals, collisions with fire trucks, potholes causing accidents, property damage, and contract disputes." Yes police abuse settlements are included in the city's budget, but using the previous year (FY2011) as an example, the article reports that out of the total of $664 million in settlements, only $119 million was used for police misconduct. That's only 17.9% of all lawsuits settled with the city. The other 82.1% of the settlement funding was used for incidents that had nothing to do with the police. Personally, I think if the citizens want to earn back the respect and trust of the police that protect them, they have to stop breaking the law and accept responsibility for their own actions and poor decisions, instead of treating every police officer as a racist abusive tyrant. This thread wasn't intended to be a debate, I'm just presenting the factual side of the story. If you respond negatively, that's on you.

​I won't shoot anyone, except in accordance with my state's statutes whereby I reasonably believe someone is, or is intending to pose, a threat of deadly force or is attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Then I'll shoot center mass repeatedly until the threat is stopped.

This video has been going around for a while and I love it. Here's a YouTube link for those that have trouble with Facebook's video player. These facts need to be shared because we aren't going to see them on the news.

​I know that officer involved shootings are ruled as a homicide; I have first hand training and experience. But "homicide" does not equal "murder". If an officer is involved in an unjustified use of force, they should be charged just like any citizen would be, and they frequently are. That doesn't make headline news, even though it happens all the time. But many people don't seem to understand the legal ground that constitutes justification nor do they understand that the use of force statutes apply to all people, civilians and police officers alike. This thread is about a police officer and his partner who were attacked in an apparent ambush and their attacker's attempt to murder them. Opening fire on two police officers is attempted murder, and it is wrong, no matter what.

​That's because countless civilians have NOT been murdered by the police. A police officer killing someone does not automatically equate to murder. Take a law class. Or at least read a state's statutes regarding the use of deadly force by citizens, and the use of force by peace officers.

Very odd. The community I'm in hasn't experienced this. I just tried to set up a game for testing and it worked without issue.

It means exactly what it says. It's telling you that whatever material you have the "cv_stuff" texture mapped to is set in the materials editor to be use the "vehicle_generic" shaders, but the material isn't configured properly for those shader settings. The error most likely won't negatively impact anything, since GTA will automatically use the "default" settings. But, if you want to get rid of that message, just look through the material that uses that "cv_stuff" texture and reconfigure it in the materials editor to be set up properly. Here's a tutorial on material set up: http://www.lcpdfr.com/page/tutorials/index.action/_/texturing-tips-and-tutorials/gta-iv-material-types-and-setup-r103

Ignoring pay, quality of life, and other career related decisions and solely going on "fun" factor and personal enjoyment, traffic unit all the way. In a car though, not a motorcycle.

Then you made a mistake somewhere. Double check spelling on all the dummy names and be sure you didn't accidentally drag another dummy or mesh out of place when you were adding the new dummies. This is a fairly common issue with zModeler and every RC20 crash I've experienced was related to something being misspelled or misplaced in the hierarchy. Go through it slowly with a fine toothed comb and you'll likely find the issue. Also, make sure you noted the difference in spelling for the primary and secondary dummies: "extra_5" versus "extra5" for example.

It's your hierarchy setup; you don't have enough dummy's or they aren't named correctly for those extras. It needs to be set up exactly like what's in this tutorial: http://www.lcpdfr.com/page/tutorials/index.action/_/vehicle-modification-tutorial/els-setup-in-zmodeler-r77

Everywhere is different. As others have said, my local Sheriff's Office doesn't set the fines because that's all determined by the courts. We also don't issue multiple citations, but rather 1 citation with multiple charges on it. It would likely be difficult for the LCPDFR team to program the script to account for the hundreds of different ways these things are done in the real world to make everyone happy, so they have to do the best they can and come up with something relatively generic.

I would love to get married one day, after 8 years of being in a relationship it's passed time for the next step. Unfortunately, there are still far too many people around the world that aren't allowed to get married, but the momentum of human rights equality is rolling fast now and there aren't many states left in the dark ages.

And I am trying to decide between these two If I get the latter of the two I am going to have the cuffs dangle into my rear pockets. I currently have this in my front. Leave feedback and vote please!! Based on my personal experience, stay away from ASP cuffs. I've seen too many videos and in person demonstrations of people unlocking or breaking them with minimal effort. I trust plastic for a lot of things, but not for handcuffs. I would also personally stay away from single strap carriers. The cuffs jingle and make noise which can give away your position when clearing a building or moving around at night looking for an outstanding suspect. I'm not sure what your agency uniform policy is, some places dictate the number and placement of your cuffs and some don't, but with the Sheriff's Office where I live now the Deputy is allowed to do pretty much any set up they want. My personal preferred set up as has always been a double cuff case on my front right side with two pairs of hinge cuffs, and two single cuff cases on my back sides (one left and one right) with chain cuffs. Yes, I prefer to have 4 pairs of cuffs in case you're alone and something goes sideways with that car full of 4 people and backup isn't nearby, or you get 2 overweight guys that need two pair of cuffs each, or a fellow officer didn't have enough cuffs for the clown car you're arresting, etc. I'm a big guy so carrying 3 cuff cases isn't a space issue for me. I also prefer to have hinge cuffs up front for quick easy access during routine arrests / detentions since they limit mobility better, and have the chain cuffs behind me for a fight when I wouldn't be able to get hinge cuffs on easily and the chain cuffs are on my back so I can still get to them if I'm laying on top of a combative subject. For whatever it's worth, I also swear by the Hindi Safety System for duty belt arrangement. Equipment is ergonomically placed, and mostly any piece can be accessed by either hand, which could save your life. Explorers generally are not armed and are under the direct supervision of full time officers and are really only there to explore and observe. Sometimes they direct traffic at major public events and such. Volunteers on the other hand vary from state to state and agency to agency. Where I live now, the Sheriff's Office has one of the largest volunteer Reserve programs in the country. Our Reserve Deputies are fully state certififed peace officers that have been through the same academy, same selection and hiring process, same training, same testing, as any other police officer. Our Reserve Deputies wear the same uniform, have the same authority, and do the same job as the "regular" Deputies. The only difference bewteen the "Reserves" and the "Regulars" is that the Reserves don't get paid. That's it. Same qualifications, same training, same job, no pay check. Here's the Reserve Command Website if you want to know more: http://www.hcsoreservecommand.org/ Here's a recent video about the program:

As a commercial airline pilot, I always hate to see crashes at all, especially resulting from pilot error. It's miraculous that people survived this incident and I feel for the families of those that did not, but frankly, an engine failure on takeoff is something commercial airline pilots train for repeatedly and should be a completely manageable and recoverable incident. When I first saw the video, my personal opinion based on my training and experience is that they experienced an engine failure followed by an improper reaction from the crew that led to a loss of control. In a multi engine airplane, there is a speed designated Vmc (Velocity, Minimum Control) that is the airspeed at which, with an engine inoperative, it is not possible to control the airplane. Losing an engine during takeoff and climb is the single highest risk point of any flight in a multi engine airplane because the aircraft is already at low speed (close to Vmc) with high power (causes the aircraft to roll towards the dead engine). After reviewing the data that has been made public from the Flight Data Recorder, this accident appears to be even more related to pilot error and their improper reaction to an engine failure. The first step after recognizing an engine failure is to advance BOTH throttles to maximum. You do not, under any circumstances, react by reducing power. The FDR seems to indicate that the right hand engine failed, and the crew reacted by not only reducing power (HUGE MISTAKE and completely AGAINST PROCEDURE) but they also reduced power on the left engine that was still operating and treated it as the failed engine, shutting it down, closing the fuel valves, and manually feathering the engine, effectively making the situation unrecoverable. When we refer to a propeller being "feathered", what it means is that the blades of the propeller actually rotate in their housing to be parallel with the wind. This stops the propeller from rotating, which significantly reduces the drag on that side of the airplane and makes the airplane much easier to control. The aircraft in this accident was equipped with an auto-feather system, and the FDR shows that the right engine failed and was auto-feathered as it was supposed to be. However, the crew reacted by manually shutting down and feathering the left engine. The crew appears to have created a dual engine failure and doomed this airplane, based on the FDR data. As for "what's going on with the Asian airlines", that's a much longer story but basically, from my experience it's a culture problem. I've flown airplanes since I was 15 years old, half of my life at this point. I've flown with a lot of different people from all over the world. I've taught students from all over the world. Based on my experience with foreign pilots, the problem is in their culture. For example, Asian pilots are notorious for their focus on rote memorization of manuals. I could ask any of my students what the manual says on page 127 and they could quote me the entire page, when I asked them what any of that meant or how to practically apply that information, many of them couldn't do so. Most of the Asian student's I taught had a hard time doing anything outside a normal procedure that was established in a book and could be executed through rote memorization alone. They had little to no correlation skills and if anything abnormal happened, they didn't know how to react. A larger problem with a lot of countries as far as commercial aviation goes relates to their Crew Resource Management training, and again, their culture. Here in the US for example, we have completely changed our CRM practices and culture in the last few decades. Gone are the days where the Captain was considered to be "god" with the final authority and decision making skills beyond reproach. Today, we are not a Captain and a First Officer, we are a crew that must work together and with each other at all times, including with the flight attendants, air traffic controllers, company maintenance personnel, dispatchers, and everyone else that could be a valuable resource for us in an emergency. We have accepted the inevitability of human error, and minimize the risk by ensuring that we both do everything in a standardized way, communicate effectively about everything we are doing no matter how small it may seem, and attempt to ensure that we both have a "shared mental model" about what we are doing and why we are doing it. The chances that both of us will make the same mistake at the same time are nearly impossible, and if one of us does make a mistake, the other one points it out. However, many other countries still have deep roots in a "patriarchal" type system, where the Captain is god and is not to be questioned, even if he's doing something wrong; you do not dare challenge him. Communication is also a problem in some countries, where each pilot is just doing their own thing and not communicating it to the other pilot. This type of culture in many countries extends beyond a professional setting, where children are taught growing up that you do not question or disrespect your father, do not challenge authority, do not bring shame upon your family, etc. One need only look as far as the Tenerife Airport Disaster or more recently, the Air Asia crash to see how profound of an effect bad CRM and authority culture can have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

Those pink circles look like dummies, they're supposed to be there. The car isn't missing any parts, the livery texture is transparent. Go to where the textures are and look for police_sign_1 or something like that and replace it with a texture that isn't transparent. Then re-import the car.

I believe that's an actual 911 call, I've heard that recording before.

I've been in a relationship for 8 years now. Sometimes I miss having alone time, after 8 years anyone would get on your nerves sometimes no matter how much you love them... But at the same time, my job has me away from home 4 days a week at least so I also miss being at home a lot. It's a vicious circle.

Here's the settings I'm using. However, I'm also using the CryENB, so what looks good in my game may be very different from your game. Here are some videos of my settings in use, with my ENB. Feel free to try it out and see if it works for you. [ ENV LIGHTING ] Range_PRML = 30 Inten_PRML = 6 Range_SECL = 4 Inten_SECL = 7 Range_WRNL = 4 Inten_WRNL = 7 Range_TKDN = 8 Inten_TKDN = 8 IntMult_Crnas = 0.2 EnvMult_Morning = 0.2 EnvMult_Evening = 0.4 EnvMult_Night = 0.8

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, the difference in the two chargers you posted pictures of is simply the model year. Dodge changes the body style of the Charger based on the model year, and they went to the full tail light assembly (all the way across the back) a few years ago. That tail light assembly is one of Dodge's signatures, like the cross hair grill, and the tail light style is on a lot of Dodge vehicles including the Charger, Challenger, Dart, and Durango. The older body style Charger in that picture also appears to have after market tail light assemblies installed, those are not the tail lights installed from the factory.

Unfortunately that didn't work. Turns out, the problem was with the "misc_l" that contained the lighting equipment and other police gear. Through process of elimination, exporting the car without that object worked fine. So, I rebuilt the entire "misc_l" object again and then added it back to the car and it worked fine the second time around. As usual with the zModeler problems I've encountered in the last year since I've been learning how to do this stuff, I have no idea what I broke the first time around or what I did differently to not break it the second time... But hey, at least it's fixed now. Thanks for the help!

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough earlier, what I meant about the use of the video is that the law only cares about what happened up until the point where the officer decided to shoot. The law only cares if his decision was reasonable given the circumstances known to him at the time. So we can sit here and freeze frame the video all day long, but the fact that the suspect turned out not to have a weapon at that moment isn't relevant to the case, because the officer didn't know it at the time and in fact had the reasonable belief that the suspect did have a weapon. That's all I meant about the use of the video, only the part leading up the moment of the shooting is legally relevant to whether or not the officer committed a crime. That conversation would simply be another example of different cultures. Yeah, the US allows the use of force, including deadly force, under a variety of circumstances. It all has one thing in common though, the only thing that matters is what the actor reasonably believed to be the truth at the time he made the decision to use force. The specifics vary from state to state, but here in Texas for example, I am legally allowed to use force, including deadly force, against someone attempting to break into my home, car, or place of employment. That would be considered justified because it's reasonable to believe that someone breaking into my home is doing so for the purpose of stealing my property or harming me or my family, and I am allowed to use force to protect people and property. There's also this section that establishes that you cannot be prosecuted if the use of force is reasonable as defined by the other statues: Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter. If you'd like to get a headache reading legal BS, here's the sections of the Texas statues most related to this discussion: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm 9.31 covers use of force in general, and 9.32 specifically covers use of deadly force. I agree that a different mindset from the officer might have led to a different outcome. However, in this case, the suspect was in fact a known criminal who might have shot the officer, and the officer was mentally prepared to and had the right to defend himself. If the officer didn't have this mindset upon realizing who the suspect was, the outcome of this incident might have been a dead police officer. The loss of life is tragic either way, but it is a reality of police work that you must be prepared to defend yourself, with deadly force sometimes. My definition of a normal human being's survival instinct is that if you believe someone is going to kill you, you try to kill them first, by any means necessary. That doesn't just relate to firearms. Deadly force can be a blade, blunt object, or even your hands and feet. If you believe you are about to die, it's normal to fight back, and the reality is that sometimes the only way to stop the other person from killing you is to kill them first. I'm a big supporter of body and car cameras, because more often than not they show that the officer was right and the suspect was wrong. We've had several officers in my area cleared recently when suspects alleged misconduct,claiming that officers said they'd let someone go for a sexual favor, or that the officer mistreated them, etc, and the body camera footage turned out to prove that the suspect was lying. However, the body camera solution is not as simple as local governments taking note of the benefits. Who's going to pay for those cameras? They're not cheap and most agencies are already on a tight budget. My local Sheriff's Office is one of the largest in the country and they have officers using personal money to buy personal rifles and shotguns to carry on duty because the agency doesn't have the funding to buy department owned weapons. We don't have the funding to pay 2 Deputies to ride in a car together, so instead we send them out alone. If they're lucky, people like me volunteer as Reserve Deputies and put on the uniform and go out to do the job for no pay just to increase the manpower on the streets and help serve our communities. What about the privacy rights issues for the general public? What about people who are not involved in an incident being recorded? They are not under investigation, they are not being detained, and yet they are being recorded on both audio and video just because they happen to be in the 7-11 store when the officer walks in to get his coffee, or they happen to be at the restaurant the officer is eating at, or they happen to be walking by on the street while the officer is handling a call. There are a lot of people in this country that believe these types of things are a violation of a citizens right to privacy. There's also the unintended consequences that people don't think about given the current climate against police in this country. Many officers I know have said they'd be happy to wear a body camera, but if they do, discretion goes away. Everyone gets a ticket or everyone goes to jail. If everything is on video, they don't need an over zealous defense attorney pulling up past videos to try and claim that an officer is racist, or sexist, or treats people differently in any way. So, everyone gets treated the same; everyone gets a ticket or everyone goes to jail.

I don't think the law is hopelessly vague, and the video evidence may be used in court, However, the video will be used to show what the officer knew at the time, and why he came to the belief that the suspect intended to harm him. As I said before, freeze framing the video one second at a time as the suspect raises his hands may lead us to the whole truth, but that is not what the law judges someone on. As for stopping an officer from murdering someone and claiming he felt threatened, he has to be able to back up that claim before a jury of other people who will look at the facts the officer had at the time and determine if the officer's feeling was reasonable. If the jury finds that an officer's actions were not reasonable, he get's convicted, just like anyone else. For this part of the conversation, I was working under the impression we were discussing how we would react under the situation presented in this incident, since your post was specifically discussing this officer's actions. Because as a police officer, you are sworn to enforce the law and arrest people who break the law, and to defend the lives and property of the people around you. Sometimes that requires the use of force, which officers are granted as part of their powers of arrest. No, it really isn't disgusting. Since you're form the UK and have expressed your displeasure for firearms, I'm going to work under the logical deduction that you don't have any first hand experience with using firearms. I do have that experience, and I have defensive tactics training from both a citizen self defense and police tactics point of view. 6 bullets is not excessive in the real world, and doesn't even always result in the death of the person being shot. Most people without first hand firearms experience have nothing to go by but the false images they see on TV and in the movies; the false belief that anyone with a firearm can shoot people in the arm or leg with 100 percent accuracy at any distance and under any circumstances, and that a single shot to a persons's extremity will leave the falling to the ground screaming in pain, no longer posing a threat. The reality is, that's not at all how it works in the real world. I've used this video in another thread a while back, and there are countless other videos to illustrate the point, but this is one of the most recent ones that happened near my city. In the video, the officer fires 15 rounds. Despite putting that much lead downrange, his adrenaline rush, stress, his footing, a moving target, shooting through a car window, and all of the other factors involved only allowed him to hit the suspect 5 times. 5 hits out of 15 shots, that's how it works in the real world most of the time. In the same video, despite being shot 5 times including twice in the face and twice in the chest, the suspect not only SURVIVED to be convicted, but he was not screaming in pain or incapacitated after being shot in the face and chest. His adrenaline rush suppressed his injuries, and he was coherent and compliant after the shooting, exiting the vehicle and laying down on the ground when commanded to do so by the officer. That's why everyone with firearms defense training is trained to aim center mass (largest target) and to keep shooting until the target is no longer an active threat. Sometimes that takes 2 shots, sometimes it takes 6, sometimes it takes 15. Sometimes a person is still capable of being a threat, even after they have been shot multiple times. It's a crime to MURDER someone, not to kill them. Killing someone in self defense is not a crime, whether you are a police officer or a civilian. Police officers are bound by the same deadly force laws that civilians are in this country. The only slight exception, is that police officers have the right to arrest people and civilians don't, and sometimes the use of deadly force happens as part of the arrest. But when it comes to the use of lethal force in general, police officers and civilians alike must have a reasonable belief that the person they use force against poses an imminent threat of harm; police are not special just because they have a badge. I've never really agreed with the UK style of policing, because I'm not from the UK and it doesn't make sense to me. Different cultures, different experiences. That's why I would never attempt to second guess a UK officer's actions. I don't know anything about the law, or cultural values, or procedures in that country. You're right, I don't know who you are or how you'd react. But, I believe that any human being's survival instinct would kick in if they were faced with the circumstances this officer faced, and any human being would be willing to use deadly force if they thought it necessary to save their own life. I assume that you are a normal human being.

Everyone is free to have and express their own opinion, even if others disagree with it. I didn't take what you said out of context. The video evidence is helpful in determining the whole truth, but it isn't what the investigators will use to determine if this officer committed a crime, because they can't. As I explained in an earlier post, the law for use of force in the US only requires that a person have a reasonable belief that someone intends to harm them, based on what they know at the moment they make that determination. Whatever the truth turns out to be after that point isn't relevant to the investigation or whether a law was broken by the officer. We can review the video footage frame by frame all day long, but it won't change the circumstances of what the officer believed in the fraction of a second he had to make his decision, and that's what he must be judged on under the law. The video footage up to that point supports the narrative that the suspect was non compliant and the officer had reasonable cause to believe the suspect intended to harm him, whether he actually did or not is not relevant under the law. Actually this is where you're 100% wrong. Factually wrong. Why? Because if you were in this situation, you would be an American police officer and you would be required to have a gun, and be willing to use force against people to affect an arrest and to save other people's lives and property. Since you're not an American police officer and you're not in a life or death moment, you can only speculate and assume how you would react under the circumstances that this officer faced. No, I haven't been pulled over as a known convicted felon with a gun in my glove compartment, and that's not what I was saying nor am I assuming anything when discussing my personal, first hand experience. I have been pulled over with a gun on my person however. I've also been pulled over and held at gun point by multiple officers, as I described in my previous post. Your previous post postulated that, "...if a cop points a gun at you and says don't move, would you move?" well you can't assume the answer would be no..." My post answered that by stating that in my personal case, I don't have to assume the answer would be no, because I have in fact had a cop point a gun at me and tell me not to move. And, I didn't move; no speculation or assumptions required. No other circumstances or conditions were included in your hypothetical scenario, nor in my personal experience. I also never said that I know what is going through the mind of a criminal. Quite the opposite, I said that I know what is going through the mind of a police officer.

I absolutely agree with this. In my opinion, part of the reason "race" is still a thing today is because people make it a thing. I think this point is irrelevant. The officer doesn't have the luxury of evaluating the situation one second at a time in freeze frame. He has a fraction of a second to assess, decide, and react, he must do that based on the information he believes to be true at the time, and if he makes the wrong choice he could be dead. If it was your life on the line you wouldn't take that chance any more than I would, or than this officer did. I don't have to assume the answer would be no, I know it would be because I've been there. When I was ordered out of my car at gun point during a traffic stop, sure my heart was racing. But I wasn't "panicked" and at no point was I afraid for my life, because I knew that I did nothing wrong, I knew that I had no intention of hurting the officers, and I knew that I would comply with any instructions I was given and be compliant, as required by law and because it's the right thing to do. I also know that complying with their orders would show them that I was not a threat, and that they would not fear for their lives, and that they would not harm me. After I complied with their orders and answered their questions, it turns out they had reasonable suspicion that I had robbed the bank I had just pulled out of. I answered their questions, showed them the cash and ATM receipt in my wallet, and was on my way in less than 10 minutes with their apologies. That's how it works when you are a law abiding citizen that embraces your civic duty to understand the fundamentals of the law and aid public servants whenever possible.