Posted on 08/04/2015 12:22:26 PM PDT by KneelBeforeZod
Yeah I see where I missed the part about “probable cause”. I would think they don’t have a right then. Of course what is “probable cause”? We had a home invasion in the neighborhood and the cops came down our street looking for him.
If they had wanted to - could they have demanded me to unlock the back gate to see if he had hopped the fence and was hiding in my yard?
I know they did plenty of that in looking for the Boston bomber - not sure how legal it is.
*******************************
If this video is all that it seems, I agree.
“However, the cop did nothing wrong”
Disagree. We’re not talking about a cop walking in on a robbery or even responding to a complaint (the cop said he was there ‘randomly’).
Without any probable cause, there is no reason for him to draw his gun. If I did this, it’d be called “brandishing a weapon” - and that is only one thing the cop did wrong.
One other thing. Is these idiots hiring these extreme controlling mental cases don’t understand tens of millions watch these outrageous videos.
Those same people are now showing up as jurors in court trials.
Do they actually think these types of outrageous behavior are not going to influence millions of those jurors?
If so, I’ve got really bad news for them.
I think he only needs reasonable suspicion, which from a practical standpoint means just about anything.
Has he sued the cop yet?
“The cop showed great restraint”
So you have no problem minding your own business on your own property and having a cop come up to you like this? Not the kind of police state I want to live in. The cop gave no reason for being there.
Notice the cop never moved beyond the sidewalk. The cop knew he had no reason to be there and was in the wrong. Pure intimidation.
Given the erratic behavior of this cop, I wouldn’t take my hand out either. I’d be thinking he’d use it as an excuse to claim he thought I was drawing a gun.
Evidently, the police have been round about there lots since the citizen mentioned it. I suspect that the neighbors are culpable in this.
But, the policeman acted in the worst possible way. All he had to do is after he played the game and returned the filming favor is...get out, go over and ask why the guy is filming him. He drew his weapon..that is correct, it became a weapon as he drew it in an aggressive way. The citizen then, had a right to act in a defensive way. That meant, if the cop would have pointed that weapon, the citizen could have pulled a weapon of his own to respond, if he had one, to defend himself.
You will note that the cop acted aggressively. He forced the citizen back and once the citizen was fully on his property, he could have defended himself.
Even Police officers can be sued for assault.
The man had a right to be there and the cop has the right to patrol and slow down or stop near any home he wants to.
Does anyone know the taper’s backstory? I have no problem with him taping the police, but a cop slowing down near my home does not seem at all suspicious or ominous to me. He seemed rather paranoid about it. He also made some comment to the cop about what the cops had done to his family. I wonder what that was all about.
That's why I asked the questions. There are no legitimate answers to them. Trust me here.
“The cop has the authority to tell you to keep your hands where he can see them”
Not always true.
When you are pulled over for a ticket, let’s say, he can ask you to keep your hands visible. He’s acting in accordance with the law, detaining someone who’s violating the law.
In THIS case, the cop has no justification to do anything but say “Hi”.
If what I quoted from you is ALWAYS true, then cops walking down a busy sidewalk could ask every passerby to keep their hands visible for their benefit.
Sorry, but your insistence on this point is out of context.
I think take your hand out of your pocket is probably a reasonable and legal request. pulling his side arm from it holster WAS OVER THE LINE ! and any political command was both unusual and probably against policy.
My understanding is that “Constitutionalists” is a label....Most usually it is “sovereign citizen.”
Agreed. It seems clear to me that there is a breakdown in the hiring process with some of these cops. Whether it is incompetence or willful disregard of proper hiring procedures will have to be determined, but either way, whoever is responsible should be fired. That may seem severe, but these cops carry guns, so it’s no small matter.
Below are the requirements of the LA PD, which may or may not be of interest to anyone:
http://per.lacity.org/psb/lapd_recruit1.htm
I didn’t notice this before, but the officer did not unholster his gun until AFTER the taper refused to take his hand out of his pocket.
once the guy refused to show his hands, he became a nutjob,....you ignorant excuse for a citizen. The cop had no business confronting the man on His OWN property, committing no crime and the Lic # was already called in, proving the property owner was NOT stealing his own property. Good Lord, read the Constitution or the law instead of watching the Kardashians, fool.
“could they have demanded me to unlock the back gate”
Yes, because in that context, they would be acting in the capacity to protect the public. Note they would actually TELL you why they want the gate unlocked.
In this case, the cop stated no reason for being there or questioning the cameraman.
Does he still expect to collect a pension?
Does his boss still have a job?
All of this is particularly remarkable as it is obviously a town cop harassing a town resident. Where I live at least the town policemen are particularly deferential to us. Even the policemen from neighboring towns are deferential, at least judging by my limited contact with them over the 30+ years I've lived here.
ML/NJ
Yes, yes, I am.
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.