7
192

[–] NiceBuns 7 points 192 points (+199|-7) ago 

You only unholster your weapon if you plan on using it. Fuck this cop.

2
7

[–] zambeezy 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

As an officer, yes. As a citizen, no. Showing a would-be assailant you're armed and ready to defend yourself can be useful self-defense without having to fire.

Just wanted to clear that up for anyone wondering how legally-carrying citizens handle that.

0
10

[–] CatFarm 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Of coarse you would only do that if there was actually a threat. This guy was filming.

0
6

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Isn't it illegal to "brandish" a weapon to scare someone?

0
2

[–] 9sj3n 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

his fight or flight mechanism was full throttle, he felt that he had no other choice. he should retire. burnout cops like that have no business holding a gun and badge. He was trying to instigate and/or intimidate, and didn't even know it.

[–] [deleted] 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

3
-3

[–] RumbledFeathers 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

You want to talk about fucking statistics and generalizations? Want to know why officer shootings are at an all time high? This is why. Black males are committing fifty fucking percent of the murders in the united states. They make up maybe 6-7? of the total population. Why is it OK to generalize cops but not black males? Cops are the ones who have to deal with dangerous criminals. Black males are the ones prostituting women, raping, murdering, selling drugs, etc.. But somehow the people who have to fucking deal with literal urban blight are the bad guys. You guys are so fucking full of shit if you were given enemas you'd be buried in fucking match boxes.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

22
104

[–] 2716057 22 points 104 points (+126|-22) ago 

I'm probably going to get downvoated out of existence for this, but there was a TON wrong with this video:

Let's preface this by saying that unholstering his weapon was not the correct action by the cop. That shouldn't have happened for this scenario. He was in the wrong, but that doesn't mean the guy behind the camera was in the right...

The cop stopped, saw a guy filming, and ran the truck's plates. This is all within the cop's standard duty, and he's free and clear to run any plates he wants, and to stop wherever he wants, and talk to anyone he wants... just like the guy is free to film whoever he wants, and say whatever he wants to the cop.

The cop was also in the right to ask the guy to remove his hand from his pocket. This, again, is SOP for when addressing a person. It's for the cop's safety, as well as the safety of the guy behind the camera. You don't want something going wrong and either the cop or the camera guy getting wrongfully shot.

This is when the cop puts his hand on his sidearm and disengages the retention. Again, this is correct and the cop is still in the right. When the camera guy refuses to remove his hand from his pocket, he is perceived to be a threat, and the officer acted appropriately.

Then the cop removes his sidearm and, even though he never points it at the guy behind the camera, falls squarely into the wrong. There was no observable threat of deadly force, and therefore the officer is, at this point, not authorized to use deadly force... and the drawing of a deadly weapon is tantamount to the use of deadly force.

To put that last sentence into perspective, if the camera guy pulled a weapon on the cop, he has displayed the use of deadly force and the cop has every right to draw his own sidearm and shoot the camera guy. But this door swings both ways: since the civilian didn't show signs of using deadly force, the cop wasn't authorized to do the same. The officer can rest his hand on his sidearm, and he may disengage the retention, but he may not remove it from the holster until he is authorized to used deadly force.

TL;DR: The cop was wrong for unholstering his weapon. The camera guy was wrong for not removing his hand from his pocket. The cop was doing everything right until he removed his sidearm... even putting his hand on the grip and disengaging the retention.

0
21

[–] wingsandgills 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I thought this was considered a police stop, and thus required reasonable suspicion. But I'm super-uneducated in this area so maybe you can clarify some things. Maybe the cameraman met the criteria for reasonable suspicion, because although he was on his own property, the cop didn't necessarily know that and assumed he was loitering? Or was this not a police stop but just an officer approaching someone cold and giving them an order (for their safety or not) and that's okay?

I've always been taught that if an officer makes it clear you're being detained, you should comply and then get the details and/or complain later, because the cop may have information you don't leading to their decision. So the cameraman should have, for his safety at the very least, taken his hand out of his pocket. But I just wonder to what extent officers are allowed to stop people and tell them to do things, even things as simple as taking their hands out of their pockets.

Later in this thread you say an officer can request that someone do anything, take hands out of pockets, do jumping jacks, etc. I think this is definitely false. There is a limit to what a non-police civilian is required to do by order of a cop. But tbh I don't know what that limit is.

2
25

[–] 2716057 2 points 25 points (+27|-2) ago 

This wouldn't be considered a police stop due to the fact that there is no suspicion of a crime. It would be considered a police interaction, thus entitling both parties to act upon their own accord.

That being said, if this were a stop, and he were being detained, it is always best to comply and argue about the officer's actions in a court, where it can be witnessed and documented.

Since this was simply an interaction, the cop can make a request (like to remove his hand from his pocket) and the cameraman can deny it... as is what happened. I'm not saying that this is the right thing to do, or even a smart move, but he was within his right...

Just as the cop was within his right to place his hand on his sidearm, become suspicious of the man's confrontational attitude and refusal to pull his hand out of his pocket, and disengage the retention.

Where the interaction got out of hand was where the officer removed his sidearm from its holster. There was no deadly force observed, therefore the officer had no right to initiate deadly force (draw his sidearm from its holster). The only thing the officer was allowed to do was "rest" his hand on his sidearm.


To answer the last part of your post, if you're being detained, the officer essentially has you in custody and can do anything they want to you, with the exception of physical harm when unnecessary. They can handcuff you, put you in a patrol car, and take you to jail... if you're being detained. If you escalate things, then their level is allowed to escalate as well, but only enough to justifiably get you under control... they can't break your neck because you verbally yelled and got confrontational.

But, if you're not being detained, you are free to walk away as you please. It's like seeing a cop on the side of the road... you don't even have to acknowledge their presence. Which is why this officer gave the cameraman the choice to stay outside and talk, or to go back into his house. The cameraman wasn't being detained, so he was free to roam about as he pleased.

And this is a two-sided coin. You are free to come and go, but the cop is free to watch you come and go as well (within reason, of course). And, if you walk into your yard and start throwing rocks through your neighbor's window, well, now you've broken the law and the cop that wasn't going to detain you will probably take you in for something that would have earned you some kind of warning and a slap on the wrist, had you not been a dick to the officer ten seconds ago.

0
9

[–] whynotanon1 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

"Hey you there college girl, show me your tits."

I think it should be obvious that police orders have to be reasonable and aimed at safety.

0
0

[–] 9sj3n 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

assumed he was loitering?

they can't serve if they can't be trusted to use proper judgement

if they retrospectively choose this motive, then they are just full of shit and wanted to intimidate/instigate. either way you put it, they need to be replaced

[–] [deleted] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

8
-4

0
1

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Technically what worries me is people will say refusing to do what a cop says at all, including unlawful requests that have nothing to do with safety, could be construed to be a threat in and of itself, which warrant the threat of lethal force.

0
0

[–] 2716057 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Correct. If you're being belligerent and intentionally confrontational, and you make some sudden movement towards a police officer, this can be construed a threat on the officer's health, well being, and/or life. And, when the officer has less than a split second to react, the safest bet is to neutralize the potentially life-threatening gesture with deadly force.

By not simply taking his hand out of his pocket, this man was literally risking his life. It's not like he was NEVER going to take it out of that pocket again, he just didn't want to do it because the officer asked him to... like a four-year-old. He was intentionally being difficult and belligerent with the officer, which is the problem I have with this video.

Yes, I concede that the officer was in the wrong by actually unholstering his weapon (which I conceded to in my OP), but the man was wrong for antagonizing the officer. By supporting this attitude and these decisions, we're saying it's okay to act like this when in a police confrontation.

What if a kid saw this video, the comments supporting it, and imitated exactly what this man did... but gets shot? Is it Voat's fault? Is it YouTube's fault? Is it the camera man's fault? Is it the kid's fault?

No. It'll be the police station's fault, in the court of social justice, and riots will ensue and it'll be all over the news... all because of some idiot (and some kid imitating the idiot), intentionally antagonizing the police so he can make a viral anti-cop video.

0
1

[–] hirolash 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You sir are 100% correct. Law enforcement personnel have a dangerous job and they need to reasonably protect themselves against harm but not at the expense of the public good and ordinary citizens. The whole thing comes down to them believing there safety is more important than a normal citizen's safety is wrong, to protect and service still needs to mean something.

0
0

[–] 2716057 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well, you sort of slip up there... The last sentence you said has been deemed irrational, and an unexpected standard by the Supreme Court.

The ruling is a little nebulous and wordy, so the synopsis is: the police responsibility isn't inherently understood to protect the public citizens, and no such special relationship between the police and their people exists. So, if an officer saw you being beaten to death in the middle of the street, that officer has no legal responsibility to stop the beating, or to protect you.

I don't agree with this, but it's a ruling from the Supreme Court. I agree with you on how it SHOULD be, but that's just not the way it is.

5
77

[–] White_Raven 5 points 77 points (+82|-5) ago 

"Some kind of constitutionalist...crazy guy"

Wow. I have no words to describe my absolute fury.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 32 points (+34|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] 9sj3n 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

they are clearly trained to control, not uphold our values

1
26

[–] Cobra_Kai 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Cop: "Are you some kinda crazy constitutionalist?"

Me: "You mean like Thomas Fucking Jefferson?"

1
2

[–] ThomasJefferson 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Can confirm

0
7

[–] BrownMoses 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

"Are you some kind of crazy guy that cares about your individual rights?"

0
5

[–] 1570372 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Holy fuck, I could not believe he said that either I'm shocked. Ding ding ding we found a rotten one.

1
29

[–] whynotanon1 1 points 29 points (+30|-1) ago 

Jesus christ.

"What are you some constutionalist?"

No respect for the constition from this officer, he mocks it.

2
9

[–] 404_SLEEP_NOT_FOUND 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

While holding a gun on an unarmed citizen. People need to stop watching football, vicariously living through star athletes, and wake the fuck up.

0
0

[–] Speculater 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You mean American?

2
19

[–] Kiwibomb 2 points 19 points (+21|-2) ago 

As old as that cop was... I think it's time he retire.

3
8

[–] 1570417 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

Retire with no pension.

3
2

[–] zambeezy 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

That officer may have been the poster child for good cops up until this incident. You do not know anything about him or his career, yet you are so quick to pull his pension? Some of the worst ignorance I've seen in this thread and this is a paramount example.

0
18

[–] theoldguy 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

The statement "You guys have done enough to my family" seems to point to prior history with this cop shop.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] 9sj3n 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

instigation mode, activate

3
16

[–] Freakfarm 3 points 16 points (+19|-3) ago 

dirty cop plain and simple.

3
13

[–] carlip 3 points 13 points (+16|-3) ago 

This is proof you are their enemy.

0
7

[–] BrownMoses 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It's good that more and more people are coming to realize this everyday.

load more comments ▼ (39 remaining)