Posted on 08/04/2015 12:22:26 PM PDT by KneelBeforeZod
No one knows what the cop saw, but when the cop later indicated that he was not there for any particular reason, we can conclude that WHATEVER the cop saw, was of no import.
If he had seen something, he would’ve said so, such as, “I notice you have marijuana plants in your front yard...”
The fact that the cop had NO reason to approach the cameraman is the entire point of this.
Who didn't know that?
See post 174.
I did. And again, who didn’t know that?
I'm sure you do. But everyone has an opinion and most are biased. Ya see your buddy wouldn't even be allowed on a jury for a criminal case because of who he is.
That's like having the MSM moderate the debates after they've clearly, repeatedly and intentionally maliciously lied and slandered Trump. This makes them a de facto participant.☺
Or like being a defendant walking into court and seeing the jury full of the prosecutors relatives and friends. You're guilty...lol
This is no bueno.
An officer does not need probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to approach someone. To briefly detain and question and frisk, they need reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause is only needed for an arrest, extended detention or a search.
He’s also a founder of the AZ Citizens Defense League, which lobbies for gun rights at the legislature.
Sounds like there is history between the PD and this guy. Sadly, there are still some officers that have not gotten that citizens have a right to film and they should be not taking it personal.
I blame this on poor policies by police leadership.
They do if they expect to exercise their authority qua authority.
You seem to have a great capacity to studiously ignore that salient point.
Why is that?
Apparently some “sovereign citizens” who consider themselves above all or most laws inaccurately call themselves “constitutionialsits”. I did not know that until I read this thread and was initially put off by that comment by the officer. Now it makes more sense.
The officer had the right to approach him. He might have had some reasonable suspicion to question him, we don’t know. Regardless of that he certainly had the right to ask the guy to take his hand out of his pocket. Not 100% if he could order it, but once the guy refused and started acting so frantically, he certainly has reasonable suspicion and reason to believe the guy might be a danger.
The courts have given the police a great deal of lattitude when if comes to protecting their safety.
Yes we do. It has already been pointed out to you he told the man he stopped randomly.
Again, you're "oversights" seem to have very narratively consistent loci.
And I have personally taken some of it away.
Don't be surprised if you see more.
Now over 15,000 hits.
The guy was lucky he did not get killed.
I think they still do. However, the people who hire them are not interested in their knowledge of the Constitution. They are only interested in their obedience to orders.
Did I miss something? What is it that you describe as "acting frantically"?
That is a subjective term, but he was squeling “don’t touch me” and other things in a high pitched voice.
He honestly seemed like a bit of a nut, and in the cop’s place, unless I was absolutely certain he was unarmed, I would be genuinely concered that the guy might pull a gun and shoot me or a knife and charge me.
I find it odd how this is considered some horrible abuse by the cop. The cop did not unholster his gun until the guy refused to take his hand out of his pocket. He kept the gun pointed downward. He was not verbally abusive to the guy yelling at him and in no way physically harmed him.
If you want to quibble with the cop’s methods, go ahead, but making this out to be some outrageous act is absurd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.