Two Cops One Donut is where policing, criminal justice, accountability, and public safety get discussed without the usual echo chamber.
Hosted by Erik Lavigne, a working police sergeant with 20 years of law enforcement experience, TCOD brings together cops, attorneys, criminal justice professionals, critics, content creators, and people with firsthand experience to have the conversations that don't fit into a 30-second clip.
We talk police accountability, use of force, constitutional rights, police technology, training, criminal justice reform, court decisions, controversial encounters, and the policies shaping modern law enforcement.
The goal isn't to defend cops at all costs, and it isn't to bash them either.
When police get it right, we'll say so. When they get it wrong, we'll talk about that too. And when an issue lives somewhere in the gray area, that's usually where the best conversation begins.
You don't have to agree with the host or the guests to have a seat at the table.
Two Cops One Donut exists to bridge the gap between law enforcement and the communities they serve through honest conversation, transparency, accountability, and perspectives you don't normally hear together.
New interviews, discussions, and livestream conversations explore the issues affecting policing and the criminal justice system today.
Listen. Challenge us. Join the conversation. Views expressed by the host and guests are their own and do not represent their respective employers or organizations.
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
0:00
|
17:27
A cop deliberately goes head-on with a wrong-way driver on the highway. Was he protecting other drivers or taking an unnecessary risk?
I called this officer a hero. In this episode, I explain why, address the strongest criticism of his decision, and consider what realistic alternatives he had in that moment.
These intentionally shorter Two Cops One Donut episodes are designed to run 8–15 minutes and focus on one incident, one question, or one talking point. Each is a focused conversation you can finish in a short sitting, with a clear argument and room to consider another perspective. They’re an addition to our longer interviews and panel discussions.
The goal stays the same: recognize good police work, challenge bad decisions, and bridge the gap between law enforcement and the communities we serve.
Listen, decide where you stand, and bring your strongest argument.
Join our Discord!! https://discord.gg/BdjeTEAc *Send us a message! twocopsonedonut@yahoo.com 🔗 Visit us at TwoCopsOneDonut.com & https://www.thedonut.tv/ 📧 Contact us at twocopsonedonut@yahoo.com 🎧 Subscribe to us on Apple, Spotify, and Amazon Music at “2 Cops 1 Donut” Donate Here: https://buymeacoffee.com/twocopsonedonut
🔔 *Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe for more insightful discussions on law enforcement and community safety!* 💬 *Join the conversation in the comments below!*
2 Cops 1 Donut. I'm your host, Sergeant Eric Levine. Before we get started, here's a quick disclaimer. The views and opinions you're about to hear are those of the hosts and guests alone. They don't represent any police department, agency, sponsor, or employer. 2 Cops One Donut isn't responsible for anything said by guests or for any videos, clips, or content shown during the live stream. This show is intended for adult audiences only. We cover real incidents, we show graphic and sometimes disturbing footage, and we don't shy away from strong language or adult conversations. There may or may not also be alcohol involved. Viewer discretion is strongly advised. Everything you hear or see on the show is for entertainment and educational purposes. It is not legal advice, and it's not tactical instruction. And it shouldn't be used for such. By continuing to watch, you're telling us that you understand, you accept all this. All right, now let's get into it.
Today we're going to be talking about wrongway driver and whether police need to intervene. So, with that said, um we are on TikTok, we are on Instagram. We are hoping that you guys would like to chat with us and engage. Um, but before we get to that, um, let's just get right into the topic. I'm gonna make these short and sweet, kind of that mid-level length video. So let me pull my notes up here. Okay. This cop goes head on with a wrong way driver on the highway. Uh I called him a hero, and today I want to explain why, but I also want to hear the strongest arguments for the people who disagree because there's a serious decision that has to happen in this. The officer can get hurt, um, the other driver can get hurt, other people that can get caught and the consequences. So the question is was what that cop did, was that the best realistic option at the moment? If you think it was reckless, tell me what you believe he should have done different instead of uh why that was safer. Let's watch it and then we're gonna work through
it, okay? So I'm gonna pull that video up. Okay, we got the video here. We are going to share. All right, let's make sure we got the best view on that we can get. I don't think we do. There we go. So we're going to hit play. Are you okay with a police officer doing this? I know I sure is hell. Okay.
So while you're watching that, one of the things I wanted you to pay attention to is the decision before the impact. If you had noticed, he stayed directly behind the vehicle that um while he was going to look for that driver, the wrong way driver, and he decided to get out from behind what would have ultimately been his protection and veer out to make a head-on impact with the wrong way driver. Um, so what does the officer appear to be trying to prevent on this? Do you think that he was trying to um not get in the accident himself? Do you think it was just a panic moment? I don't believe it was. I think it was a conscious decision. So that's part of the thing that we have to discuss is was it a conscious decision? So I am going to play it one more time, now that you kind of understand where my mind was at when I was looking at this. I'm gonna play it one more time, and I want you guys to tell me, do you think that he was trying to avoid head on impact and just panicked? Or do you think that it was an intentional movement?
SPEAKER_00
So I'm gonna play one more time. Let me share the screen again. All right, and we're gonna play. Are you okay with a police officer doing this?
SPEAKER_01
No, but it's he's gonna be a little bit.
SPEAKER_02
Before he even gets hit. So to me, I believe he did this intentionally, and that's my reasoning and rationale behind it.
Um, for me, the central issue is the danger of the vehicle traveling the wrong way on the highway. Okay, there's debate whether or not that that's what he was doing, that he was going after that driver or not. Um I believe that he was on the freeway trying to go find this wrong way driver. That's what the report was saying. Uh, but we don't have any official documents saying that. So um every decision uh has a consequence, obviously. So intervening creates risk, letting the situation continue creates risk. So these are things that we got to think of while we're deciding what we should do with this wrong way driver. We have to weigh both. So we're gonna talk through that. So the vehicle um is traveling at a high rate of speed, obviously coming the other way. I I don't know if that's a freeway, a uh a highway, just a two-lane, regular two-lane road. It looks like it's a freeway. Uh or or I'm sorry, it looks like it's a highway.
SPEAKER_00
So um the camera, uh I'm looking at my notes here.
SPEAKER_02
The the the the camera is able to point out the speed at which that driver was going. And I think that you could tell he was going the the dri I'm when I'm saying the driver, I'm talking about the police officer, the police officer's speed. He he was starting to get some unstable wheels. You could, or hit either that or his wheels weren't balanced very well at a higher speed because you could hear it rattling, so he started to slow down, and that's when you can see the headlights coming off in the distance. Now, one other question I have is why the hell wasn't that other driver getting over? That kind of bothered me. So I'm looking at the comments. I was going twitchy. I appreciate you being on. Um, this one is a lot earlier than I normally do. Uh, so I want to judge the the choice of using what could reasonably see and know before the collision. What else could he have done? What did he have available to him? Uh, because the outcome it belongs in the conversation, and so does the information available when he made the decision. So he knew he had a wrong way driver coming. He knew it was on the highway, and he had to pass cars to get up there. And it just barely missed that car that was ahead of him. So it's it's obvious that there's something going on. Either this is a suicide attempt or this was a drunk driver. It ended up being a drunk driver, by the way, just in case you didn't know. So here's why I defend the officer. Uh, this is why I called him a hero. My read is that this officer put himself in harm's way to stop a dangerous situation, so from reaching somebody else. And that matters to me because in a day and age where true heroics uh either get used way too loosely, um, or they don't, they just simply it doesn't exist. So, how many truly heroic things have you seen from police? Uh, it doesn't happen that often. I could tell you, me as a police officer of 20 years, I I couldn't tell you of something that I have done looking back. I mean, I I just couldn't tell you something like something like that, that type of self-sacrifice. I've never had to put myself in that position. He was accepting a serious personal risk while trying to protect the other drivers. And that's part of the decision that I respect the most in this one. That's why I'm making such a big point to share this. But there's three points that I want to make. The public was already facing a threat. Wrong way driver. I don't feel like I need to explain this, but maybe I need to. Um, he posed a real danger to the other drivers that were driving the right way, and this officer had to intervene. So to me, there's no other discussion as far as that part goes. He had to do this, there's no other choice. Um, so I would like to know from y'all like what could happen while the vehicle continues to travel down the highway if he doesn't intervene. I think you know the answer to that. He's gonna go ahead on with some innocent person that didn't see it coming. It's more than likely gonna be a family of 20 that was on their way to a family reunion to celebrate um three of those kids in the car getting accepted to doctor school. That it always ends up that way. So that's that's probably what would happen. So um, let me see.
SPEAKER_00
My second point, um doing nothing.
SPEAKER_02
If he does nothing, like what is the public going to do to him? If if he does not intervene, if he doesn't go head on with that car, what is the public going to say? He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Um but either way, I'm glad he made this decision. Um and he puts his own safety on the line. That's my third point. You know, the willingness to I mean, guys, you hear you heard the impact on that. That was no light feat. Now, I I give him credit. I feel like he was trying to angle. I don't feel like he was exactly trying to go head on, but how the hell do you how do you really measure that at night, headlights blinding you? Like, I think he did amazing for for what he had. Um, I believe uh wholeheartedly that he may have prevented other people from being seriously hurt. Now, I can't give you number of lives that he saved. We don't get to watch uh an alternate version of this um where the vehicle keeps going. So obviously I'm speculating. Uh, but my position comes from the fact that he faced uh a real threat. And that's the and that's the reason I believe he acted the way that he did.
Um but I also don't want to discredit the criticisms that people have. I think there's some serious criticisms that they do hold merit. Um the strongest objection that I saw is that the intervention itself could have made the situation worse. And I think that's a fair concern. Um, that collision could have put the officer, the other driver, and nearby people in danger. It could easily have careened and smacked into other people. Now, we did see the traffic conditions. There was very few people out on the road. So I think he I think he measured it properly. So uh a serious defense of that decision has to account for the risk, too. Um, what evidence would show that intervention increased danger to others? Um, was there genuinely safer options available at the time? These are things that we have to consider. What additional footage or information would would help us answer those questions? Did another car have a dash cam where we could have seen another angle? Did the car that we got in a wreck with have a dash cam? And these are becoming more and more prevalent. So I think these things could make a it could make for better training later. Um, I can respect the officer's courage and still ask hard questions about the decision he made. And I think that if we're ever going to take policing seriously and have that transparency and accountability that we need to always debrief any situation, how can we have done it better? So looking at that, that's kind of how I'm looking at it. How could he have done this better? I don't know that he could have. I think this was the only option he had. But I don't want to discredit other options. Um, if new evidence were to show up uh that he passed up clearly safer options, um, would that matter? Would that change your opinion? Because this is when we talk about qualified immunity, these are those type of decisions I'm talking about, where he made a split-second decision and it could affect other people, other people's rights, other people's safety, and it could have gone bad. And I think this in particular is a great example where cops would need that qualified immunity protection. And I'm not gonna go down the QI road because I also admit qualified immunity is flawed and it's broken and it needs to be fixed. So uh I digress. Um but that's how we keep this conversation honest, um, including
when you initially agree with the cop, you know, thinking of these things. Um let's let's think of a couple alternatives people might suggest um and and and try to test those fairly. Uh what about waiting for more help? That was one that people came out. Was more help close enough to help in the decision making? What happens if the officer waits? Um, would waiting create better options or allow the danger to keep moving? So these are things that we got to keep thinking about to keep the discussion going. Um, what about keeping track of the vehicle? You know, could the officer have spun around maybe and gone the wrong way himself and tried to track it? Um, could the officer give other officers safer opportunities to intervene? What risk remains uh for the other driver while the vehicle continues? Um what does this, you know, personally, uh what does this clip let us conclude about whether that option was practical? So these are things that we got to consider. Um another proposed alternative needs to fit the actual time, space, people available in that moment. I want to apply the same tests to the decisions that I'm defending. So that's that's me. I'm trying to play, when you guys hear me talk about this, I'm trying to play every angle on this. So I want to look at, I want to look at the cop through the worst lens possible. I want to look at him through the best lens possible and try to meet that happy median. So if you disagree with me, what specific decision in this do you think he should have made instead of going head, head, head on with this car? So um, Trevor, damn, you're on early today. Yeah, because I'm just making the short one. I am gonna do a longer one later. This one, I'm I'm testing the waters here. So, and what makes that option safer under the circumstances that we can see? So that's what I want you guys to think about. Um, I want you to drop those in the comments. Uh so I want I want to know in the chat later on in the comment section. Um,
would you judge this decision differently if the officer had been seriously injured? Think about why. Okay. His injury would matter enormously. It would also be worth separating our emotional reaction to that outcome from how we assess this uh and the choices that he had beforehand. Um so I think I'm gonna let you guys mold that over in your head, right at that 15, 16 minute mark that I wanted to do it. But for me, the evidence of a safer option that was actually available would matter. So would evidence about the danger of the collision created for other people? Um I'm sorry, so would evidence about the danger of the collision with created for other people. Um so I want you guys to uh name what evidence that would support what the officer did, and I want you to name what evidence would support against it. Um how do we recognize the good police work? This is it, right here. Share this stuff. This is the stuff that we want to save and share. So um use this case to explain um, you know, if you're for or against public safety, uh, the judgments they make. This is a great case to use. That's why I wanted to use this one. It's such a good case because there is real arguments that can be made against it, and there's real arguments that can be made for it. So that's that's why I chose to share this one. I'm curious what you guys think on this one. And uh that's it. That's all we got for this. I'm gonna end this one. I appreciate it, and um we're gonna we're gonna go live again um in a little bit, and I'll be I'll be back. Take it easy.
.png)