Atheistforums.com

Don't worry, I am sure there isn't a problem within the cop culture of abuse of authority.

Maybe, maybe not. People abuse their authority all the time because they're human, and of course the cops need the most scrutiny as they are the ones serving the public trust. But I am weary of calling anything a "culture of X" without some statistics to back it up.

If you interfere with police action ... get in their way ... you can be arrested.  Video or stills from a respectful distance aren't a problem, unless you have something to hide.

I no longer give cops permission to search anything of mine without a warrant, not my wallet,  not my phone,  not my car and certainly not my home. I was stopped once for a tail light violation on my way home from work. I had my tools in the trunk and they were confiscated with the claim that they suspected they were burglary tools.  Several of them were air sanders because at the time I did autobody work for a living. I'm not real sure, but I'm pretty sure that most burglary doesn't involve sanding the door down to get in.. Needless to say that I was out quite a bit of money because auto body tools just don't grow on trees. I finally got them all back, but in the meantime had to go buy a whole new set of tools..

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 23, 2016, 09:22:41 PM
Maybe, maybe not. People abuse their authority all the time because they're human, and of course the cops need the most scrutiny as they are the ones serving the public trust. But I am weary of calling anything a "culture of X" without some statistics to back it up.

I'm really not sure what else you can call it when the departments allow them to get away with whatever they want, with the "consequence" a paid vacation.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 23, 2016, 11:54:48 PM
I'm really not sure what else you can call it when the departments allow them to get away with whatever they want, with the "consequence" a paid vacation.

I think the words you're looking for are chicken shit corruption?

I don't know if anyone else heard the cop, but it was pretty clear that the cop said for the guy to get his "hands out of his pocket"... and he said this many times. Why the guy wouldn't take his hands out of his pocket, I don't know, but I can't blame the cop for being cautious if the guy is being stubborn and not taking his hands out of his pocket. He could have a weapon for all the cop knows. As far as I'm concerned this is a pretty shitty video for it's intent.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 01:17:38 AM
I don't know if anyone else heard the cop, but it was pretty clear that the cop said for the guy to get his "hands out of his pocket"... and he said this many times. Why the guy wouldn't take his hands out of his pocket, I don't know, but I can't blame the cop for being cautious if the guy is being stubborn and not taking his hands out of his pocket. He could have a weapon for all the cop knows. As far as I'm concerned this is a pretty shitty video for it's intent.

The cop is the one who escalated the situation in the first place. There was zero reason to get out of his car and confront the guy.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 01:20:11 AM
The cop is the one who escalated the situation in the first place. There was zero reason to get out of his car and confront the guy.

Firstly, the video is chop-cut all to shit. You can't tell what is happening and it's pretty clear it's edited to make the cop look worse than he actually was. Secondly, who in their right mind, put's their hands in their pocket when being talked to by a cop. Would you put your hands in your pocket if you got pulled over? No you wouldn't. This trend of "I can do whatever I want because I'm recording the police is a travesty and only makes real situations overlooked because it's like crying wolf... If a cop asks you to take your hands out of your pocket, you take them out. Period.

Also. The guy immediately defensive to the cop too, which would make any cop suspicious/cautious. Not to mention how we don't know the reason he drove to what looks like the end of a dead-end street with no traffic. It looks too "fixed" of a video in the way of making the cop look bad.

What happened between him videoing the guy back and him opening his door? Oh yeah. You don't know because it was cut out. We do hear the guy harassing the cop about the video tape though. If the guy had his hand in his pocket, it would be a very reasonable cause for the cop to get out of his car. And if you notice, the cop only pulls his gun after the guy gets super defensive (STILL without removing his hands from his pocket)

If you want to perpetuate this "Abusive cop culture" at least use a video with more substance and not one with what seems like all the causes to the effects cut out.

Only in America (and I guess maybe places like Iran, Russia...) do we actually have to make excuses for a cop pulling a gun on someone for recording them....

In a country where cops have the right to cold-bloodedly murder someone because they felt "intimidated" as that person had their back to them, or they feel they can choke and kill someone who isn't even resisting, I think being defensive to a cop is a perfectly reasonable response.

Again... if the guy is on his property doing nothing wrong, and the cop has zero reason to stop, get out and approach him other than, "You were recording me", fuck whatever the cop tells you to do. He is already in the wrong and has lost his "privilege" to boss you around. Does that make it smart to not do what he says? No, that's how you get yourself shot. But that doesn't make his actions acceptable. It's like arguing a robber isn't "as bad" for pulling a gun on someone because the guy didn't just hand him his wallet immediately. Yes, the guy was maybe being an idiot for not handing it over when he knew the guy was a threat, but that doesn't somehow make the robber justified.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 01:35:55 AM
Only in America (and I guess maybe places like Iran, Russia...) do we actually have to make excuses for a cop pulling a gun on someone for recording them....

Why don't you take a moment and read what I said? The cop was clear that the guy needs to take his hand out of his pocket. It's pretty clear that that is what the cop is getting out of his car and pulling his gun for, even despite the desperate attempt to make it seem it's because the cop was "driving around the neighborhood" and pulled his gun because he was being recorded.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 01:47:41 AM
Why don't you take a moment and read what I said? The cop was clear that the guy needs to take his hand out of his pocket. It's pretty clear that that is what the cop is getting out of his car and pulling his gun for, even despite the desperate attempt to make it seem it's because the cop was "driving around the neighborhood" and pulled his gun because he was being recorded.

And again, why don't you take a moment and read what I said? There is no reason for the cop to have ever stopped in the first place where the guy having his hand in his pocket would matter. Unless cops now need to stop everyone who looks at them and dares to have their hand in their pocket.


If the guy isn't doing anything wrong, move the fuck along.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 01:49:09 AM
And again, why don't you take a moment and read what I said? There is no reason for the cop to have ever stopped in the first place where the guy having his hand in his pocket would matter. Unless cops now need to stop everyone who looks at them and dares to have their hand in their pocket.


If the guy isn't doing anything wrong, move the fuck along.

How do you know why he stopped/if he had no reason to stop? Oh yeah. You don't. It was all cut out. Not to mention that you don't know if the cop got a call over the radio. Have you ever listened to the police band on a CB radio? there are tons of calls for cops to check things out at houses for disturbances and suspicious behavior etc. Bottom line is: you don't know why the cop was driving around the neighborhood. You don't know what the guy was doing before hand. You don't know what happened between the cop filming the guy and him getting out of the car. 

You don't know if the guy was doing anything wrong or not. Or even if the cop was called there because someone in the neighborhood called the cops on him.

All these things... you. don't. know.

All I really can go by is that the cop looked like he was asking the guy to get his hands out of his pocket.. which is weird considering this is the video the guy uploaded.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 01:49:09 AM
And again, why don't you take a moment and read what I said? There is no reason for the cop to have ever stopped in the first place where the guy having his hand in his pocket would matter. Unless cops now need to stop everyone who looks at them and dares to have their hand in their pocket.


If the guy isn't doing anything wrong, move the fuck along.

Cops don't need a reason to stop their vehicle, get out and approach an individual and this is how it should be. Because the alternative to that is a police force that is MUCH less able to protect the public effectively. Careful what you wish for.

Also, what EXACTLY was the dude doing before the video began? He claims he was hooking up his boat trailer. But there is no video of that so is that the truth? I have no fucking idea and neither do you.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 01:20:11 AM
The cop is the one who escalated the situation in the first place. There was zero reason to get out of his car and confront the guy.

Cop protocol means they get to escalate not you ... it is the law.  They are not trained to be Mr Rodgers.  And like the IRS, at least in practice, you are guilty until after the judge frees you.  You have no rights (except in Easter Bunny land).

If the man had done anything required the cop stopping and acting the way he did, Pickel the first thing he would do was saying that his to face, esp. while being recorded.

NOT pulling a gun on a man whose hands are busy and focusing to record him. There is nothing in the video indicates that the cop actually was suspicious about the man, other than he started recording him. Why doesn't he say it out loud if there is? It's his first job to inform citizens what is that they are doing requires his intervention. Not to mention it could save his ass if this thing goes bad. Is he that stupid in a climate like this when this is a hot issue?

But an abusive cop who is generally pissed off about people recording cops while abusing and killing innocent people and perfectly know that nothing is actually going to happen here to himself can act like this very easily.


I don't get the general reaction about the civillian. Because forget everything said in the video, watch it mute...he is PULLING A GUN on someone recording him with a cellphone for fuck's sake. How could that be defended as 'we don't know what he did'?

What could have he done in day light in front of his own house that needs A cop PULL A GUN on him when he is busy recording it AFTERWARDS? Seriously?

Simple idea I would like to share.

Do as the officer asks, he has a gun, afterward you can file a compliant and maybe make a shit load of money. Win!
Ignore the officer, get defensive with officer with a pulled gun, get mouthy with officer with pulled gun, make your beneficiaries rich. Win for them!

I'm with Pickled on this one.  The cop did not pull a gun "on him", either.  He drew his weapon, but he never aimed it at him and he only drew it after asking the man to take his hand out of his pocket and the man responded, "No!".  If I were a cop, I would draw my weapon too at that point.  And the only reason we "know" that the cop stopped for no reason other than that the man was filming him is that the man makes that claim in this highly edited video.  Further, the man IMMEDIATELY gets confrontational.  Even from just his voice you can tell he's clearly agitated, a warning sign every officer is trained to watch for, I'm sure.  I can tell you from experience it makes a cop very, very nervous if you reach into your pocket while talking to them.  I did it once on instinct looking for my keys when an officer asked if there was anything illegal in my car.  I was immediately cuffed and searched.  I did not find that unreasonable.  He asked if I had anything illegal, I immediately reach for my pocket.

There are definite problems with our police force today.  That is absolutely undeniable.  But that doesn't mean every cop is dirty or every cop is out to shoot first and ask questions later.  This video is obviously edited to make the cop look absolutely as bad as possible and even with all that editing the man behind the camera still looks like the dick to me.  If that's the worst you could dredge up on the cop, never pointing his gun at you, never verbally threatening you, not even taking you down when you verbally and forcibly refuse to take your hand out of your pocket, instead choosing to become combative then probably nothing really happened.  In fact, at one point in the video the cop starts to raise his gun, but he stops before it's pointed at the guy.  What does that tell you?  Why would he raise is gun at all if he wasn't going to point it at the guy, and knowing that he was being recorded?  He saw something he identified as a possible threat and was getting ready to respond just in case he had to, but since he never identified it as a definite threat and had no desire to hurt the guy, the barrel never pointed at the suspect.

This man CLAIMS that the only reason this cop got out of the car was because he saw that he was being recorded.  Well, what happened to "Prove it or STFU"?  Because I see no proof of that here.  I see a belligerent man working very, very hard to escalate the situation and STILL only mildly succeeding.  A hand in your pocket IS threatening to a cop.  You may think, "What is that pocket going to hide compared to his gun?"  How about meth or some other substance which could be absorbed through the skin?  What about a used needle?  What about a bloody finger infected with Hepatitis?  There are PLENTY of things you could hide in a pocket which aren't weapons but are still a real threat.  Personally, I thought this cop acted with restraint and a damned site more respect than he was getting.

If you also notice. The cop only pulls his gun out of his holster AFTER the guy shouts at him. The guy is suspicious even to a viewer. I don't even like cops, but I have to side with this one in this video.

It's pretty clear from the video that the cop only stopped his car in the first place because he noticed he was being recorded. Everything that followed is entirely on him for deciding to pick that confrontation. Could the cameraman have handled it better? Absolutely. Is it ultimately his fault for this confrontation happening? No.

When it comes to people who are given authority over other people, the phrase, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," absolutely applies.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 24, 2016, 12:29:25 PM
It's pretty clear from the video that the cop only stopped his car in the first place because he noticed he was being recorded.

No it isn't. There isn't enough information in the video to say one way or another. The video "claims" a lot of things, but shows zero information supporting it and conveniently has all the video where something would have happened to trigger something else cut out. Like the little strip of time between where the cop was recording the guy and the cop getting out of his car.

It's all cut out and you do not know that the cop just so happened to be driving around the neighborhood... and in a dead-end street... and decided to harass this guy at the end of the street.

You don't know why the cop was there in the first place. You don't know why the cop was recording the guy. What we DO know is that the cop told the guy to take his hand out of his pocket many times. If the cop was dispatched there because of a disturbance of some sort by a neighbor or something, the cop would have reason to be suspicious off the bat.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 12:40:09 PM
No it isn't. There isn't enough information in the video to say one way or another. The video "claims" a lot of things, but shows zero information supporting it and conveniently has all the video where something would have happened to trigger something else cut out. Like the little strip of time between where the cop was recording the guy and the cop getting out of his car.

It's all cut out and you do not know that the cop just so happened to be driving around the neighborhood... and in a dead-end street... and decided to harass this guy at the end of the street.

You don't know why the cop was there in the first place. You don't know why the cop was recording the guy. What we DO know is that the cop told the guy to take his hand out of his pocket many times. If the cop was dispatched there because of a disturbance of some sort by a neighbor or something, the cop would have reason to be suspicious off the bat.

The full uncut video suggests otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYONo5LeWDs

First of all, we can clearly see the boat he's working on as he backs away from the cop. We can clearly see him empty his pockets out onto the car. The cop knows for a fact that he's not armed. Any claim to the contrary after that part of the video is total horse shit.

Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing that the cameraman could have handled it better, he certainly could have. But the fact of the matter is that the cop initiated and escalated an unnecessary confrontation.

While I agree that everyone has the right to video anybody in the public space, I would have to ask the guy what was the purpose of the video in the first place?

I don't how batshit crazy the rest of you are, but if a cop car comes down my street I welcome it. I wave and if he stopped would go over and talk to him. I can tell you one thing I would NOT do. Stop what I am doing and throw a camera at him. Really? Do you think he is going to pull into someones driveway and rob a house?

Maybe, if a cop was driving down a street and suddenly a guy stops fucking with a boat he might be stealing and starts recording him, he might be thinking this guy is expecting to get arrested and wants make sure he doesn't  get the shit beat outa him. Let's see what the fuck is up to.

If that was not a cop car but a car full of black kids, he would have been accused of racism just by videoing them eh, and everybody would be saying, why that fucker was just stirring up them innocent kids and getting them all excited so they stopped and beat the fuck outa the guy and mother fucker deserved it too.

"We're at that address" Suggests that he was called there.

Also. If he was called there and there for reasons to be suspicious of this guy (noise complaint/suspicious activity/etc)... the guy approaching his car would be a reasonable possible threat, which seems like the reason the cop got out. Everyone knows you do not approach a cop car when they are pulling someone over or interrogating someone. It's protocol. That doesn't change if it's the guy that is under suspicion or even not under suspicion, but if he was only called over there to check something out. If the guy looks unnecessarily spooked, there is reason to be suspicious and cautious.

Oh. And another thing.

The guy is complaining about the cop driving around the area? Isn't that called "patrolling"? And isn't that why another word for "cop car" is "patrol car"? That is the police's JOB... To patrol.

Seems to me like the officer was doing his job and only responding to what seemed like a potentially hostile guy. Even in the full video that you provided, Hijiri it comes off as that.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 12:23:53 PM
If you also notice. The cop only pulls his gun out of his holster AFTER the guy shouts at him. The guy is suspicious even to a viewer. I don't even like cops, but I have to side with this one in this video.

Shouts at him? It doesn't flow that way. The only reason that cop gets out of his car in the first place BECAUSE he is being recorded. And he pulls out of his gun to SCARE him afterwards. Also, in a country where cop brutality is a hot issue it is very normal for someone to panic and raise their voice in that situation.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 01:16:06 PM
Shouts at him? It doesn't flow that way. The only reason that cop gets out of his car in the first place BECAUSE he is being recorded. And he pulls out of his gun to SCARE him afterwards. Also, in a country where cop brutality is a hot issue it is very normal for someone to panic and raise their voice in that situation.

From the second video, the cop gets out of his car after the guy gets closer. If the guy is suspected of something and then he approaches the cop car, that is plenty reason for the cop to get out.

And then the cop pulls good gun after the guy gets loud with him.

-Sent from your mom

And also. The guy says "Oh now he thinks he's funny, recording me back"

Even that's pretty ballsy and seemingly suspicious.

-Sent from your mom

Yes I heard the "We are at the address" too. That actually raises suspicion against the cop under this circumstances. By the way who is we? He is alone in the car. And he sounds pretty much like trying to scare the guy with that.

If there was a real dangerous reason, if he got complaint, or a report, he would declare it as soon as he got out of the car or jump with his gun pulled out of the car and inform him not to move. 

But what does he do? He stops because he is annoyed of being recorded, he gets into a squabble with a man about being recorded, trying to scare him and ask him if he was a "Constitutionist". That's not a behaviour of a cop who got a complaint.

That cop is not a rookie. Look at his age.

Frankly I didn't watch the whole thing. Once the guy started recording I figured he was out to make himself an internet star or just wanting to stir up some shit. Or both.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 01:25:22 PM
And also. The guy says "Oh now he thinks he's funny, recording me back"

Even that's pretty ballsy and seemingly suspicious.

-Sent from your mom

How is that suspicious? He is recording and describing his actions. He probbaly doesn't thear him.

The most alarming thing is that how a bullying abusive reaction of a cop to a very simple thing is normalised here with 'what if he has done something?'.

The man made an official complaint about this, Pickel. Do you think he could do that if the cop was there for a report about him?  Bullshit.


But it seems like most people have already got used to and accepted this cop behaviour as a normal behaviour of an armed authority.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 01:38:49 PM
The most alarming thing.....

Not to me. The most alarming thing to me is when some cop patrols the neighborhood some jackass throws a camera on him hoping to make himself an internet hero. If that had been anyone OTHER than a cop the guy probably would have got his ass pummeled.

Want to know why that would never happen to me?





Cause I am not a jack-ass moron looking to piss off the police so I can get my 15 minutes of fame.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 01:32:54 PM
How is that suspicious? He is recording and describing his actions. He probbaly doesn't thear him.

It's suspicious because it's confrontational.

-Sent from your mom

Quote from: widdershins on March 24, 2016, 11:36:44 AM
I'm with Pickled on this one.  The cop did not pull a gun "on him", either.  He drew his weapon, but he never aimed it at him and he only drew it after asking the man to take his hand out of his pocket and the man responded, "No!".  If I were a cop, I would draw my weapon too at that point.  And the only reason we "know" that the cop stopped for no reason other than that the man was filming him is that the man makes that claim in this highly edited video.  Further, the man IMMEDIATELY gets confrontational.  Even from just his voice you can tell he's clearly agitated, a warning sign every officer is trained to watch for, I'm sure.  I can tell you from experience it makes a cop very, very nervous if you reach into your pocket while talking to them.  I did it once on instinct looking for my keys when an officer asked if there was anything illegal in my car.  I was immediately cuffed and searched.  I did not find that unreasonable.  He asked if I had anything illegal, I immediately reach for my pocket.

There are definite problems with our police force today.  That is absolutely undeniable.  But that doesn't mean every cop is dirty or every cop is out to shoot first and ask questions later.  This video is obviously edited to make the cop look absolutely as bad as possible and even with all that editing the man behind the camera still looks like the dick to me.  If that's the worst you could dredge up on the cop, never pointing his gun at you, never verbally threatening you, not even taking you down when you verbally and forcibly refuse to take your hand out of your pocket, instead choosing to become combative then probably nothing really happened.  In fact, at one point in the video the cop starts to raise his gun, but he stops before it's pointed at the guy.  What does that tell you?  Why would he raise is gun at all if he wasn't going to point it at the guy, and knowing that he was being recorded?  He saw something he identified as a possible threat and was getting ready to respond just in case he had to, but since he never identified it as a definite threat and had no desire to hurt the guy, the barrel never pointed at the suspect.

This man CLAIMS that the only reason this cop got out of the car was because he saw that he was being recorded.  Well, what happened to "Prove it or STFU"?  Because I see no proof of that here.  I see a belligerent man working very, very hard to escalate the situation and STILL only mildly succeeding.  A hand in your pocket IS threatening to a cop.  You may think, "What is that pocket going to hide compared to his gun?"  How about meth or some other substance which could be absorbed through the skin?  What about a used needle?  What about a bloody finger infected with Hepatitis?  There are PLENTY of things you could hide in a pocket which aren't weapons but are still a real threat.  Personally, I thought this cop acted with restraint and a damned site more respect than he was getting.

Nobody claimed every cop is dirty....strawman. We are talking about one cop here.

I wish you could read what you wrote up there from the perspective of a person who didn't grow up in a crazy gun culture, who wasn't programmed to think 'pulling a gun' is the first instinctive thing to do for a cop -or any person for that matter- because his hand is in his pocket when there is a simple situation of 'recording'  in broad day light, in suburbs. And we are talking about a man holding a cellphone with probably two hands looking to the scene from a camera and he emptied his pockets, but let's say he was with one hand for your sake.

A man followed by a cop with a pulled gun gets agitated. Really? Unfathomable.


Basically, most of the people here can't even think about a situation that a cop SHOULDN'T pull a gun. It's always a MUST 'because pockets are deep', 'they can never know' blah blah... because the average Joe from the suburban US could be the 'reincarnation' of Billy the Kid for all we know. Because most Americans are armed 'monsters' ready to shoot around everything that moves. Esp. cops ffs.

The learned paranoia, the programmed reaction; the fear instilled in most people looks unbelievable. I wish you could see it from outside. I reiterate, I live in a country where people drop dead like flies from two different terrorist groups AND we don't have this bullshit.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 02:14:16 PM
It's suspicious because it's confrontational.

-Sent from your mom

That's not confrontation, Pickel. It's obvious that he is pissed off about being recorded and the man gets agitated -perfectly understandable- when he starts following him with a gun, instead of saying anything that makes sense. There are a tons of things for an offiicial to say in that situation. All the cop bummed about is "Are you a constitutionist?"

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 01:50:06 PM
Not to me. The most alarming thing to me is when some cop patrols the neighborhood some jackass throws a camera on him hoping to make himself an internet hero. If that had been anyone OTHER than a cop the guy probably would have got his ass pummeled.

Want to know why that would never happen to me?

Cause I am not a jack-ass moron looking to piss off the police so I can get my 15 minutes of fame.

Yeah that's the issue here, aitm. A man -who actually made an offical complaint by the way- looking for a 15 mins fame in youtube. That's what is wrong here.


Sometimes you are talking exactly like a Turk. Not Turkish. A TURK.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 02:14:16 PM
It's suspicious because it's confrontational.

-Sent from your mom

Yeah, in a country where it has been repeatedly demonstrated that we can't trust our own police force not to abuse their power just for shits and giggles, you're damn right people who are being closely watched by the cops are gonna get confrontational.  This cop was looking for trouble, and he found it. Real big surprise right there.

I know enough about police procedure to know that this cop was not doing things even close to the correct way. Taking out your gun and just holding it at your side? There is no police academy in America that will tell you to do that; hell, there's no firearm instructor period who will tell you to do that, and in fact most of them would say it's the worst thing you can do to diffuse a situation. Keep a hand on your holster ready to draw, sure, but holding it like some cheap thug is an act of intimidation. If the cop had properly drawn his weapon, pointed it forward, and ordered the guy to remove his hand from his pocket, you could at least say he was following proper protocol. The fact that he didn't tells me he knew he had no legal basis to detain this guy, and was only interested in intimidating him.

The fact that you're still defending this cop in spite of his blatant disregard for police protocol and proper handling of a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening.

It doesn't matter if the cop was dispatched there or patrolling the area.

If the guy started recording him without anything even happening yet, it's suspicious. If he's under suspicion and he approaches the cop car with his hand in his pocket, it's not only suspicious, but also confrontational. (Not to mention that verbally harassing the cop about recording him back is confrontational in it's self.) Once it's confrontational, the cop needs to be ready to respond and be ready for the worst. Keep in mind, for a good part of this video (at least, maybe more and maybe the whole video) the cop was asking the guy to take his hands out of his pocket and at one point the guy even refused to.  That's even more suspicious and reason for caution.

I didn't know you went to police academy, Hijiri. Tell us more about your experience.

You guys seem to be ignoring the fact that he only pulled his gun after the boat guy started getting more confrontational with his words and started shouting at him. That is police protocol. To be ready to defend yourself.

Did I mention the guy had his hands in his pocket and the cop wasn't sure if it was a weapon? Oh. only about 4 or 5 times now? oh right. Ignore that too.

The events in order that they happened:

*guy with boat approaches cop car with hand in pocket*
*cop gets out of car and tells guy to take hand out of pocket*
guy with boat says "I have done absolutely nothing. No."
*cop takes gun out of holster and holds to the side*
*guy with boat tries ordering cop to put gun away*


Yeah. Smooth move, boat-guy...
What kind of IDIOT tells a cop "no" when the cop asks them to take their hand out of their pocket?

If a cop tells you to take your hand out of your pocket, you take your hand out of your pocket.

The guy is lucky he's not black, or he would be dead.

Quote from: Atheon on March 24, 2016, 03:23:17 PM
If a cop tells you to take your hand out of your pocket, you take your hand out of your pocket.

The guy is lucky he's not black, or he would be dead.

Indeed, he is lucky he is white.

He does. He empties his pocket to on a car. And he clearly declares himself unarmed.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 02:52:46 PM
You guys seem to be ignoring the fact that he only pulled his gun after the boat guy started getting more confrontational with his words and started shouting at him. That is police protocol. To be ready to defend yourself.

Did I mention the guy had his hands in his pocket and the cop wasn't sure if it was a weapon? Oh. only about 4 or 5 times now? oh right. Ignore that too.

Since you ignore the whole thing going down there bending backwards building an 'argument' on the word 'confrontation' and nothing more to defend an abusive, bullying cop, it is pretty much useless to discuss.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 24, 2016, 12:48:34 PM
The full uncut video suggests otherwise.

First of all, we can clearly see the boat he's working on as he backs away from the cop. We can clearly see him empty his pockets out onto the car. The cop knows for a fact that he's not armed. Any claim to the contrary after that part of the video is total horse shit.

Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing that the cameraman could have handled it better, he certainly could have. But the fact of the matter is that the cop initiated and escalated an unnecessary confrontation.

Every bit of that is speculation based on what you think you know.

First, we can clearly see "a boat".  We do not see from the video that this was "the boat he was working on".

Next, we can clearly see him put his phone and his keys on the hood, not empty his pockets.  And this is AFTER he's told, not to empty his pockets, but to take his hand out of his pocket.  We do not even see his pockets.  For all we "know" the guy could be in full camouflage complete with face paint and a machete strapped to his back.  We can "assume" that he emptied his pockets.  That's how it appears.  But we do not "see him" empty his pockets.

Since we never see the guy we cannot know that "the cop knows for a fact he's not armed".  WE don't know "for a fact" that he's not armed so we cannot say what the cop knew or did not know.  Judging by the fact that the gun raises only once, right after the phone and keys are thrown onto the hood, we can speculate that he was doing some motions, likely searching his pocket for any items he might have missed, which the cop found at least possibly threatening.

If I'm a cop and I ask you to take your hands out of your pockets and you respond with, "No!", I'm sorry, but I'm pulling my gun just in case.  It was immediately obvious that the guy was combative, which is "threatening".  And if you sit there and stare at an officer, do you think he's not going to stop to see what's up?  So what if he's pointing a camera?  Realistically, what's the difference between that and staring at the cop, which is something which will generally attract a cop's attention.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 01:16:06 PM
Shouts at him? It doesn't flow that way. The only reason that cop gets out of his car in the first place BECAUSE he is being recorded. And he pulls out of his gun to SCARE him afterwards. Also, in a country where cop brutality is a hot issue it is very normal for someone to panic and raise their voice in that situation.

Also speculation.  You don’t “know” why the cop got out of the car.  It was probably because the guy was filming him.  But if you’re walking down the street and you see someone following you with a camera, wouldn’t you also want to know what was up?

You also don’t “know” why he pulled his gun, though realistically we can speculate that it was because the man had his hand in his pocket, something EVERY officer will ask you not to do since forever, and upon being asked politely to remove the hand from the pocket immediately became belligerent, thus, a threat.  I don’t “know”, but I do “believe” that the officer was likely following protocol.

And in a country where police brutality is a real issue one would think it would be normal for someone to be “afraid” of the police, not “combative” with the police.  Did this guy sound like he was “afraid” to you?  He wasn’t afraid.  He was pissed because “you guys have done enough to my family”.

This is some pissed off guy whose family has had unnamed run-ins with the police which may or may not have been some abuse on the part of corrupt police.  I have a cousin who was in trouble constantly with the police in his youth, and I can tell you, his family sounded like this guy.  His mom said they were "picking on him" when they pulled him over.  They only pulled him over because of who he was.  If they weren't "picking on him" they wouldn't ever have even known the car was stolen.  Seriously, he got pulled over driving a stolen car because the police were "picking on him".  So you'll forgive me if I don't take this guy at his word and rely solely on what I can see in the video, which is some jackass poking at a cop who handles it very well and mostly professionally.  Hell, even the picture he took of the guy was very possibly for identification if anything were to have happened or to document what he was looking at it in case he needed it.  A cop generally doesn't get photographic or video evidence that there is nothing suspicious whatsoever before getting out of his car to harass him.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 03:29:02 PM
Indeed, he is lucky he is white.

He does. He empties his pocket to on a car. And he clearly declares himself unarmed.

LOL, well THAT should have put the cop at ease right there.  Because every cop knows that a bad guy CAN'T lie to you about not being armed.  That would be cheating.

Quote from: widdershins on March 24, 2016, 03:46:14 PM
LOL, well THAT should have put the cop at ease right there.  Because every cop knows that a bad guy CAN'T lie to you about not being armed.  That would be cheating.

Pshh. This is 2008 now. No one lies anymore. :lol:

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 03:35:34 PM
Since you ignore the whole thing going down there bending backwards building an 'argument' on the word 'confrontation' and nothing more to defend an abusive, bullying cop, it is pretty much useless to discuss.

Ok. Again...

The events in order that they happened:

*guy with boat approaches cop car with hand in pocket*
*cop gets out of car and tells guy to take hand out of pocket*
guy with boat says "I have done absolutely nothing. No."
*cop takes gun out of holster and holds to the side*
*guy with boat tries ordering cop to put gun away*

What is there to be confused about here that the cop would feel the need to be ready to defend himself?

Quote from: Atheon on March 24, 2016, 03:23:17 PMThe guy is lucky he's not black, or he would be dead.

The cop's lucky he didn't do this in Texas, or he would be dead.

Quote from: Atheon on March 24, 2016, 03:23:17 PM
If a cop tells you to take your hand out of your pocket, you take your hand out of your pocket.

Which he clearly does in the video. After emptying his pocket. Did we watch the same video?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 02:46:36 PMIf the guy started recording him without anything even happening yet, it's suspicious.

If a cop stops in front of your house for 30 seconds and then stops across the street, it's suspicious.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 02:52:46 PM
You guys seem to be ignoring the fact that he only pulled his gun after the boat guy started getting more confrontational with his words and started shouting at him. That is police protocol. To be ready to defend yourself.

The guy got more confrontational when the cop decided to start intimidating him. That is common sense: to be ready to defend yourself.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 02:52:46 PMDid I mention the guy had his hands in his pocket and the cop wasn't sure if it was a weapon? Oh. only about 4 or 5 times now? oh right. Ignore that too.

Unless the guy has three hands, his hands were clearly out of his pocket. But let's just ignore all those times when we clearly see his other hand, it would distract us from defending the asshole cop.

Quote from: widdershins on March 24, 2016, 03:46:14 PM
LOL, well THAT should have put the cop at ease right there.  Because every cop knows that a bad guy CAN'T lie to you about not being armed.  That would be cheating.

Oh yeah because I don't know that people lie, right. I am stupid that way, wohooo. Everything about the context in the post I wrote before about paranoia and the obvious agitation of a scared man followed by a cop pulling a gun doesn't mean anything to you, does it? Because by now you are in a freaking thriller movie anyway. Human reality doesn't mean shit. Just flew above your head. 

HE STARTS TO MOVE BACK AND GET AWAY FROM THE COP -WITH A CAMERA IN HIS HANDS- AS SOON AS THE COP MOVES TOWARDS HIM WITH A GUN. IS THAT A BEHAVIOUR OF SOMEONE THAT IS DANGEROUSLY ARMED AND LIKELY TO SHOOT-ATTACK?

Instead of questioning the flow of the behaviour presented by an official, you are playing SHERLOCK HOLMES. You are writing an imaginary, escalated, hollywood scenario with 'what ifs', 'was that his boat, was he working on it?' from a very simple situation because that's the only thing you can think of. You can't think in another way when a cop pulling gun and a scared man come together. Not what the cop is doing overall. BUT did the man deserve it or not? Actions are OK for a cop to present. THEY ARE NOT. This is the biggest issue here. This is NOT NORMAL. 

The man DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, because he later made a complaint about the cop. So STOP playing Sherlock on what he did when and where.

There is nothing in those videos that indicates that man is a dangerously armed suspect who provoked a police officer or threatened him. The cop is pissed off for being recorded, because he is pissed off by the hot issue of people recording cops.

Quote from: Johan on March 24, 2016, 06:43:41 AM
Because the alternative to that is a police force that is MUCH less able to protect the public effectively.

The job of the cops isn't protecting the public:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

QuoteLaw enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.

The SCOTUS has ruled, though, that citizens can video- or audiotape public officials, including cops:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe


As far as I can tell from the video (which admittedly isn't enough) the cop had no good reason to even be talking to the guy, but there's insufficient info to tell. Merely using a video camera wouldn't be enough, though, I don't think.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 03:55:02 PM
Ok. Again...

The events in order that they happened:

*guy with boat approaches cop car with hand in pocket*
*cop gets out of car and tells guy to take hand out of pocket*
guy with boat says "I have done absolutely nothing. No."
*cop takes gun out of holster and holds to the side*
*guy with boat tries ordering cop to put gun away*

What is there to be confused about here that the cop would feel the need to be ready to defend himself?

You are doing the same thing. You have already accepted the cop's behaviour and just looking for the signs of how did the guy 'deserve' it. I wrote what I think above.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 04:32:21 PMHE STARTS TO MOVE BACK AND GET AWAY FROM THE COP -WITH A CAMERA IN HIS HANDS- AS SOON AS THE COP MOVES TOWARDS HIM WITH A GUN. IS THAT A BEHAVIOUR OF SOMEONE THAT IS DANGEROUSLY ARMED AND LIKELY TO SHOOT-ATTACK?

Make your text as bold as you want. It doesn't change the fact that when the cop told the guy to get his hands out of his pockets, the boat guy yelled "I didn't do anything wrong. No", giving a VERY good reason for him to be ready with his gun.

What part of that do you not understand?

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 02:24:55 PM
Yeah that's the issue here, aitm. A man -who actually made an offical complaint by the way- looking for a 15 mins fame in youtube. That's what is wrong here.

did he make the complaint before the incident? Of course not, I have no idea why you think that is relevant. So he made a complaint, that is the fucking idea!  You know what though, if the asshole didn't drop everything he was doing and run to the street to start videoing the po-po maybe the jack-ass wouldn't be able to make a compliant and become the latest internet hero. But that wouldn't fit your preconceived notion that every cop is a piece of shit out to kill every person that may be sitting in their yard playing with kids and not doing anything wrong at all….because that is what happened here right?

This ass-hole watched a patrol car circle the neighborhood and decided that he was going to be confrontational, openly mock the officer while videoing him and flipping him the finger and become a fucking HERO OF THE INTERNET.  And hey, he got a few dumb fucks to buy it.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 04:32:21 PM
Oh yeah because I don't know that people lie, right. I am stupid that way, wohooo. Everything about the context in the post I wrote before about paranoia and the obvious agitation of a scared man followed by a cop pulling a gun doesn't mean anything to you, does it? Because by now you are in a freaking thriller movie anyway. Human reality doesn't mean shit. Just flew above your head. 

HE STARTS TO MOVE BACK AND GET AWAY FROM THE COP -WITH A CAMERA IN HIS HANDS- AS SOON AS THE COP MOVES TOWARDS HIM WITH A GUN. IS THAT A BEHAVIOUR OF SOMEONE THAT IS DANGEROUSLY ARMED AND LIKELY TO SHOOT-ATTACK?

Instead of questioning the flow of the behaviour presented by an official, you are playing SHERLOCK HOLMES. You are writing an imaginary, escalated, hollywood scenario with 'what ifs', 'was that his boat, was he working on it?' from a very simple situation because that's the only thing you can think of. You can't think in another way when a cop pulling gun and a scared man come together. Not what the cop is doing overall. BUT did the man deserve it or not? Actions are OK for a cop to present. THEY ARE NOT. This is the biggest issue here. This is NOT NORMAL. 

The man DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, because he later made a complaint about the cop. So STOP playing Sherlock on what he did when and where.

There is nothing in those videos that indicates that man is a dangerously armed suspect who provoked a police officer or threatened him. The cop is pissed off for being recorded, because he is pissed off by the hot issue of people recording cops.

Dude, chill the hell out.  I never said you were stupid or any such shit.  I made a joke about a comment I found amusing.  Go wash the sand out of your pussy so you can relax a little.

There isn't a single "what if" in what I wrote.  I made no assumptions.  I shot down quite a few assumptions, but I made none of my own.  And I imagined no scenario.  I commented on what I saw and heard in the video.  The man had his hand in his pocket.  Nobody disputes this.  The man was asked to remove his hand from his pocket.  Nobody disputes this.  I happen to know for a fact, as it is common knowledge, that all officers will ask you to remove your hand from your pocket.  I've seen this in life, I've seen this on cops, I've seen this countless places.  I think it is safe to assume that this is standard procedure.  The man can be clearly heard verbally refusing to remove his hand from his pocket, and then can be seen tossing things on the hood, presumably from his pocket, thus repeatedly placing his hands in his pocket.  Yes, this IS a "threatening move" to a police officer.  The officer pulled his gun to have it at the ready, but he never pointed it at the man.

You're also drawing a huge assumption that the man was scared, something not supported by the video and the audio suggests the man is more pissed off than scared.  You make a lot of assumptions here.  The man didn't do anything.  Did you SEE the man to know he was doing nothing at all?  The man filed a complaint, which, apparently, automatically means the officer is guilty of wrongdoing.  Then there is "nothing in this video to indicate the man is a dangerously armed suspect"?  Is the man even IN the video?  No.  So there is also nothing in this video to indicate that the man is NOT a dangerously armed suspect.  You don't know WHAT the man was doing, what he looked like, nothing.  You know NOTHING about the man other than his voice and the movement of his camera.  Yet you draw all these conclusions about what went on.  So how to you KNOW the man "didn't do anything"?  You can't even fucking see him!  And the cop is pissed off?  Did the cop look pissed off?  Did he raise his voice?  Did he say, "Get on the fucking ground NOW!"?  Or did he politely ask the man to take his hand out of his pocket and get an angry response from the man?  What indication do you have that the cop is pissed off, much less the exact cause of him being pissed off?  Who the fuck is playing Sherlock Holmes here?  You're the one who claims to know what a man not in the video didn't do and what the cop was thinking and why based on what is NOT in the video.

The cop did nothing "to" the man.  He drew his gun.  He never threatened the man with it, never pointed it at him.  I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong with that.  If that bothers you, fuck yourself.  It doesn't bother me.  I live in a small town of about 6,000 people.  Tiny little town.  But EVEN HERE cops have been involved in shootouts.  One cop was shot in the throat a couple of decades ago.  And there was a shootout half a fucking block from my house about 2 years ago.  If you think a cop has no business drawing his gun when he feels threatened then, yes, I DO think you're a fucking moron.  Being a cop is dangerous, even here in Hicksville.  There is a very real chance of injury or death every single fucking day.  They DO put their lives on the line to keep the streets safe, working under a VERY REAL threat to their lives.  I respect that and I'm willing to give them a little fucking slack.  If I behave in an irrational, combative manor with my hand in my pocket, yes, I expect the officer dealing with me will likely draw his gun.  If he points it at me because I'm being an ass, his finger on the trigger, that's going a bit far.  But this cop didn't do that, Mr. Holmes (may I call you Sherlock?).  As far as I can see his finger never even touched the trigger.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 24, 2016, 02:14:47 PM
A man followed by a cop with a pulled gun gets agitated. Really? Unfathomable.

Are you watching a different video than me, dipshit?  Because what I saw was not "A man followed by a cop with a pulled gun gets agitated".  What I was was "An agitated man prompts a cop to pull a gun."  The order in which things happen is kind of important here, Sherlock.

Quote from: widdershins on March 24, 2016, 05:59:12 PM
Are you watching a different video than me, dipshit?  Because what I saw was not "A man followed by a cop with a pulled gun gets agitated".  What I was was "An agitated man prompts a cop to pull a gun."  The order in which things happen is kind of important here, Sherlock.

hey hey hey... I'm in agreement with you on this topic, but no need to call someone a dipshit.

ITT:

-Intimidation with a gun is acceptable. As good Americans, you should know this... you DO NOT upholster and flash your piece unless you intend to pull the trigger. Period.
- You also only pull a gun out when there is clear and immediate threat, which even if You want to say comes from the hand in the pocket... this is a situation the cop actively engaged in. And what about once he emptied his pockets? What was the justification then?
-A cop is justified in confronting someone because, "it's their job", and they "might" have drugs or something in their pocket because they have their hand in their pocket... all without giving any clear reason as to why they are needlessly leaving their vehicle and escalating the situation.
- If you record a cop, you deserve to have a gun pulled on you because you are "antagonizing" the officer... even though that recording doesn't mean Jackdiddily shit and poses zero threat to him.
- If you don't handle the situation in a way you approve of, then you DESERVE to have a gun pulled on you and the criminal is excused. Just like if you wear that dress tonight you are ASKING to get raped and can you really blame the rapist?

I wonder how many civilized countries have issues like this... Oh, right, in civilized countries beat cops don't walk around with guns, have protections when they abuse their power and shit themselves over people daring to record them.

And then we wonder why the civilized world thinks our police culture is a joke...

Some people just don't get it - there are 300 million guns out there. A cop automatically assumes anyone he will approach most likely will have a gun. Standard procedure: take your fucking hands out your fucking pockets, or else I'll see you at your funeral...

Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 24, 2016, 07:12:11 PM
Some people just don't get it - there are 300 million guns out there. A cop automatically assumes anyone he will approach most likely will have a gun. Standard procedure: take your fucking hands out your fucking pockets, or else I'll see you at your funeral...

Some people just don't get it... there was NO REASON FOR THE COP TO APPROACH THE GUY. Standard procedure: don't start fucking harassing people because you have a badge and can get away with it.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 07:15:29 PM
Some people just don't get it... there was NO REASON FOR THE COP TO APPROACH THE GUY.

...AAAAANNNNNDDDDD ONCE AGAIN!!!! You know that how exactly. Be specific. I'm waiting.

Quote from: Johan on March 24, 2016, 07:27:06 PM
...AAAAANNNNNDDDDD ONCE AGAIN!!!! You know that how exactly. Be specific. I'm waiting.

How do I know a cop shouldn't approach someone for a reason as trivial as, "He was recording me?". Common sense, something that seems to be lacking. If the cop had a reason, he would have stated it... that's kinda, you know, what cops do. Oh, wait... he does state the reason... "You were recording me, so I'm going to record you to." Oops.

Of course, coming from the guy who has defended cops guilty of crimes even worse then this, I am sure that won't be enough.

ITT:

-Ignorant jack ass notices cop patrolling his neighborhood, decides to fuck with him, makes big show of videoing him, flips him the bird, grabs his crotch and pretends to jack-off to the officer… officer stops, gets out of car, and walks toward ignorant jack-ass who starts screaming like a bitch-girl, "you don't touch me, you don't touch me…"

-Pussies lose their mind at the audacity of the cop while making an internet hero out of the ignorant jack-ass, forgetting all the while that if the ignorant jack ass did NOT want a confrontation, he would have just kept washing his boat.

-Internet tough guys point out how civil other cops are in other countries where citizens don't actively hunt and kill officers…wonder why this countries officers can't walk around without guns and hand out lollipops to street thugs…

-people pretend that they could easily do a cops job…do much of a pussy to actually do it.

:roll:

Okay, if you are content with a broken system that is your prerogative, as well as committing victim blaming. It's a shitty one to hold, but your free to hold it and put others down for not sharing it. It's not like actual people suffer because of it. Oh wait...

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 07:01:47 PM
ITT:

-Intimidation with a gun is acceptable. As good Americans, you should know this... you DO NOT upholster and flash your piece unless you intend to pull the trigger. Period.

No, intimidation with a gun isn't acceptable, but in Gunmurrica you don't know who has a gun, so preparation is acceptable.

Quote- You also only pull a gun out when there is clear and immediate threat, which even if You want to say comes from the hand in the pocket... this is a situation the cop actively engaged in. And what about once he emptied his pockets? What was the justification then?

The man approached the car with his hand in his pocket, but yeah, let's totally disregard that. Also emptied his pocket? I'm sorry, but unless you check the pocket in question you have no way of knowing if it is empty. Conceal carry is a thing in Gunmurrica, and it's a thing that's led to the death of a lot of cops. Also did you know you have an awesome superpower here? You can instantly tell, without visual evidence, that a man's pockets are empty. Shit, you don't even have to know what kind of pants the man has.

Quote-A cop is justified in confronting someone because, "it's their job", and they "might" have drugs or something in their pocket because they have their hand in their pocket... all without giving any clear reason as to why they are needlessly leaving their vehicle and escalating the situation.

Being approached by a man = needlessly leaving the vehicle.

Quote- If you record a cop, you deserve to have a gun pulled on you because you are "antagonizing" the officer... even though that recording doesn't mean Jackdiddily shit and poses zero threat to him.

If you record a cop, while approaching his vehicle with your hand in your pocket, you might seem threatening. If, after the cop asks you to take your hand out of your pocket, you initially refuse, you might seem even more threatening.

I've been searched by police before. Shit, I'll even say that the reason I was searched may have been suspect. You know what I never fucking did though? I never kept my hands in my pockets because I realize that in a country where guns are plentiful such a thing might be a red flag.

Quote- If you don't handle the situation in a way you approve of, then you DESERVE to have a gun pulled on you and the criminal is excused. Just like if you wear that dress tonight you are ASKING to get raped and can you really blame the rapist?

Nice comparison, but no, it doesn't work like that. If he were only recording, that would be one thing, but he approached the vehicle with hand in pocket and initially refused to take his hand out of his pocket in a country where guns are plentiful. For your comparison to work the lady would have to throw condoms at a known rapist while screaming that she's horny.

QuoteI wonder how many civilized countries have issues like this... Oh, right, in civilized countries beat cops don't walk around with guns, have protections when they abuse their power and shit themselves over people daring to record them.

In "civilized countries" guns aren't so common that literally anyone can have one.

QuoteAnd then we wonder why the civilized world thinks our police culture is a joke...

Our police culture is a joke, but in this situation you're the one joking. Knowing nothing from the cop's perspective, you instantly condemn him for what appear to be steps to protect himself in case the man had a gun. I don't like defending the police, I have posted several threads about police abuses, but in this case I can't blame the cop for pulling his weapon, especially if he's been out there for a while. Cops have been killed over less, so taking an abundance of precaution when dealing with a man who refuses to take his hand out of his pocket at first isn't some excessive judgement, but rather an attempt to ensure his own personal safety.

Quote
The man approached the car with his hand in his pocket, but yeah, let's totally disregard that.

After the cop stopped and confronted him, which renders anything after what you just said irrelevant. But yeah, let's totally disregard the cop's roll in the situation.

QuoteBeing approached by a man = needlessly leaving the vehicle.

Needlessly stopping the car, pulling out a camera and "counter-recording" the guy, then deciding to get out = needlessly leaving the vehicle. Drive. Along.

QuoteI've been searched by police before. Shit, I'll even say that the reason I was searched may have been suspect. You know what I never fucking did though? I never kept my hands in my pockets because I realize that in a country where guns are plentiful such a thing might be a red flag.

So more victim blaming. Great.

QuoteNice comparison, but no, it doesn't work like that. If he were only recording, that would be one thing, but he approached the vehicle with hand in pocket and initially refused to take his hand out of his pocket in a country where guns are plentiful. For your comparison to work the lady would have to throw condoms at a known rapist while screaming that she's horny.

Again implying the cameraman provoked the cop so what was he to do? You know what he could do? Move. Along.

QuoteOur police culture is a joke, but in this situation you're the one joking. Knowing nothing from the cop's perspective, you instantly condemn him for what appear to be steps to protect himself in case the man had a gun. I don't like defending the police, I have posted several threads about police abuses, but in this case I can't blame the cop for pulling his weapon, especially if he's been out there for a while. Cops have been killed over less, so taking an abundance of precaution when dealing with a man who refuses to take his hand out of his pocket at first isn't some excessive judgement, but rather an attempt to ensure his own personal safety.

You know what else might protect the cop? Not engaging in a needless confrontation.

I am 99.99 percent sure people here have argued that before, that if people didn't want to get shot they shouldn't engage in a pointless confrontation, but suddenly when the guy has a badge HE is the victim. Right. Sure. Okay.



Af logic: You recording me? I can threaten you with a gun cause' I'm scared in this situation I escalated! God damn America, you scary.

Also; Saying that the cop shouldn't engage in a meaningless fight = internet tough guy behaviour.

That logic doe.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 07:15:29 PM
there was NO REASON FOR THE COP TO APPROACH THE GUY

(you assume so)

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 08:13:16 PM
(you assume so)

Considering the cop never stated one, and played along with the guy for a bit, that is a safer assumption then, "OMG THE COP IS INNOCENT PLZ STOP U HURT HIS FEELINGS :*(."


You know what cops do when they stop you for a reason?

They say something along the line's of...


"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"Sorry to bother you, we are looking for..."
"Hi, we received a complaint about..."

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 07:59:15 PM
as well as committing victim blaming.

Tell ya what Shir, tomorrow, go find yourself a cop sitting in his car. Jump out and start to video, go ahead. You have a real good chance that nothing happens. You also have a pretty good chance that something might happen. But do you know why I know you won't fucking have the balls to do it?

Because you're not an ignorant jack-ass, Shir. You don't decide to fuck with the police and video it so you can make a name for yourself. You don't fuck with anybody because why? Why would you? Who the fuck goes around fucking with people? Apparently that jack-ass does. I don't mind your cause, just pick better people to champion.

Yes there are bad cops, we get that, nobody is objecting to that, is this guy one? Maybe. But not based on a jack-ass who sets out to piss him off.

Or maybe the police might have an obligation to investigate suspicious activity. Maybe, you know, a legal mandate? But please, I'm victim blaming here because obviously the cop should have just moved on. Let's disregard that though, and let's say the stop was erroneous: what logical reason did the man have to keep his hand in his pocket at first, and then to refuse when asked to remove his hand from his pocket? Why should the cop assume at that point that the man was unarmed?

QuoteOr maybe the police might have an obligation to investigate suspicious activity.

The suspicious activities of attaching a boat to a trailer, being on your property, having your hand in your pocket and having a camera. Wow, we are fucked if that is the criteria of "suspicious activity".

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 07:37:15 PM
How do I know a cop shouldn't approach someone for a reason as trivial as, "He was recording me?".

Cops have every right to stop and approach anyone anytime they fucking want. The same way that you or I or any other fucking person on the fucking planet has every right to stop and approach anyone anytime they fucking want.

When a cop does stop and approach someone for reasons neither you nor I can possibly know from the video posted, that cop gets to tell the person in question to take their hand out of their pocket exactly once. If the person refuses, then yeah the cop gets to draw his or her weapon which is exactly what happened. Why? Because cops that don't do that can and do end up dead. In a word, duh.

Are all cops good and ethical all the time? Absolutely fucking not. Do they overstep their bounds sometimes? Of course they do. Is that what happened in this case? Can't tell because the video doesn't tell the whole story. But what I do know is this. When a cop tells you do something, wait scratch that, when a cop tells you to do ANYTHING, you fucking do it. If the cop was inappropriate or over the line, you do it anyway and then you sort it out later with a judge. That's how it works. Because being right and refusing and then ending up dead still means you end up dead. Again in a word, duh.

Do you realize how irrational you sound? Jeez...

If a cop feels a reason for caution (eg. guy approaching his vehicle with his hand in his pocket) he has every right to get out of his car, ready to pull his gun. In fact, the cop is obligated to for his own safety. After the boat guy started yelling at him, he pulled his gun from his holster. How is that hard to understand? It's baffling that so many of you are so irrational with this situation. Yeah there has been a lot of cops in the news because of abuse of their power, but this is not an instance that power abuse happened.

Shir. You know, if you want, you could post this on Tumblr. I'm sure there are loads of tumblr-ites that will be easily emotionally swayed to ignore rational thought and analysis of this video.

QuoteCops have every right to stop and approach anyone anytime they fucking want.

As a private citizen, yes. As a representative of their organization, no.

QuoteIf a cop feels a reason for caution (eg. guy approaching his vehicle with his hand in his pocket)...

Even with the cut video, after he sits there for a good while playing along with the guy.

QuoteIt's baffling that so many of you are so irrational with this situation.

I agree. I'm not sure how someone can be so irrational as to say a cop escalated a situation is the fault of the person he escalated it with, but here we are at nearly page 4 of people repeating that mantra that cops can do whatever they want if the person doesn't fit their criteria of how you should behave.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 08:29:15 PM
Shir. You know, if you want, you could post this on Tumblr. I'm sure there are loads of tumblr-ites that will be easily emotionally swayed to ignore rational thought and analysis of this video.

10/10, the passive aggressive is real. Would listen to someone who say's "keep it civil" throw insults again.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 08:19:30 PM
The suspicious activities of attaching a boat to a trailer, being on your property, having your hand in your pocket and having a camera. Wow, we are fucked if that is the criteria of "suspicious activity".

1. How would the cop know it's his boat or his property?
2. For what reason would a citizen film a cop going around a cul de sac?
3. How was he holding his hand in his pocket? Oh wait, we can't fucking tell from the video.

You assume some sort of omniscience on the part of the cop. To you, the cop should have automatically known that the boat was his, and that the cop should have known he didn't have a weapon in his pocket.

As per whether it was suspicious or not, legally that's up for the cop to decide.  Maybe something seemed sketchy, maybe the guy was acting in an unusual manner. Point is, you don't fucking know, and you have only one side of the story.

Okay, let's play rational then.



0:00 - 0:20+: Cop has been circling neighbourhood, slowly pulls infront of the cameraman. So far, the cop is the only one who has engaged in any sort of confrontation between the two parties.

0:20 to 1:25 (so far): Sitting there calling in the guy, reporting his license plate number, for having the audacity to record him. Once again, the only person who is actively escalating the situation is the cop.

1:50 - Cop pulls out camera and proceeds to record the cameraman. Again, the cop is the only one escalating the situation. Cameraman steps to the front of his car, cop comes out and confronts him.

It takes two minutes for the cop to be in the right, but I guess let's ignore the 2 minutes of escalation before hand because that doesn't fit your narrative of, "Omg cops are probably good we cant assume anything bad the guy must have been asking for it!"

The guy then empties his pockets, taking out a phone and key. If he was hiding a gun in there then he had some seriously fucking deep pockets. But please, tell me more about how it was the cameraman who escalated the situation. Tell me how he logically is the one to blame for a cop getting offended by someone recording him. I'll wait.

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on March 24, 2016, 08:37:00 PM
maybe the guy was acting in an unusual manner.

What could possibly be unusual? Hell, everybody I know runs out to the street anytime a cop car comes  and starts to video it, cause…..well…..it could be fun.

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 08:40:50 PM
What could possibly be unusual? Hell, everybody I know runs out to the street anytime a cop car comes  and starts to video it, cause…..well…..it could be fun.

Alot of people do that because you cant trust them any further than you can throw them, or if nothing else are the equivalent of rubbernecking what they think might be a sting or something. A camera =/= justifiable cause to confront someone.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
Alot of people do that

well, you got one so far…..a bit of a stretch to a lot…but hey..if it makes you feel more comfortable with your position.

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 08:44:40 PM
well, you got one so far…..a bit of a stretch to a lot…but hey..if it makes you feel more comfortable with your position.

I guess the videos of cop brutality, funny cop bloopers, cop car zooms by at 150 mph in pursuit wow!, etc. all just magically record themselves.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 08:38:48 PM
Okay, let's play rational then.

0:00 - 0:20+: Cop has been circling neighbourhood, slowly pulls infront of the cameraman. So far, the cop is the only one who has engaged in any sort of confrontation between the two parties.

0:20 to 1:25 (so far): Sitting there calling in the guy, reporting his license plate number, for having the audacity to record him. Once again, the only person who is actively escalating the situation is the cop.

1:50 - Cop pulls out camera and proceeds to record the cameraman. Again, the cop is the only one escalating the situation. Cameraman steps to the front of his car, cop comes out and confronts him.

It takes two minutes for the cop to be in the right, but I guess let's ignore the 2 minutes of escalation before hand because that doesn't fit your narrative of, "Omg cops are probably good we cant assume anything bad the guy must have been asking for it!"

The guy then empties his pockets, taking out a phone and key. If he was hiding a gun in there then he had some seriously fucking deep pockets. But please, tell me more about how it was the cameraman who escalated the situation. Tell me how he logically is the one to blame for a cop getting offended by someone recording him. I'll wait.

While you're waiting maybe you should also watch the video.

2:16 - cop asks man to take his hand out of his pocket, man refuses.

Despite what happened before, whether or not he was justified in his stop, that was a lawful and reasonable order. Not because the cop was automatically in the right, but because the cop has no idea what the man has in his pocket. I'm sorry, but when a cop tells you to take your hand out of your pocket, you fucking take your hand out of your pocket. At that point it's a safety issue for both you and the cop.

Sorry…..I guess I should have clarified that I was responding to your pointed remark to my pointed remark that most people don't run into the street when a cop patrols the neighborhood just so they can video him. And judging by the looks of that neighborhood that jack-ass had no reason other than to be an internet hero. Congrats…..you are making him one.

QuoteWhile you're waiting maybe you should also watch the video.

2:16 - cop asks man to take his hand out of his pocket, man refuses.

Just watched it again; cop repeatedly smart asses back. Cop escalated situation. Cop admits he has no reason. Guy empties his pocket. Cop continues to carry his pistol out in an intimidating manner until he leaves realizing he has nothing on the guy.

Woooow that proved the cop was a good guy. I'm changing my position, you guys are right the cop is a saint and this guy was an asshole!

Btw: The city also agrees the cop could have handled the situation much better. But I guess you know more than the people who did the internal investigation.


I'm not calling for the cop's head, I'm not calling for his job... I'm just calling for people to call a spade a spade; if you pull a gun on someone you escalated conflict with, you are the intimidator. You are the one at fault. And doing it because you have a badge and can get away with it is morally reprehensible and a blight upon American culture that makes us look like a developing country to the rest of the world.

The guy is now in the fire division, where shit like this won't happen again; I am 110% okay with this. The guy wasn't fit for police work and was reassigned, no one got injured, no harm no foul. But it's this attitude of him being some kinda saint because "omg we gotta defend the cops" that is really fucking pathetic to watch.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot I am just irationally appealing to emotion and hate him because "hur dur u h888 cops!"... THIS COP SHOULD FUCKING HAVE HIS HEAD ROLL FUCKING PIGS BRING BACK GUILLOTINE AND HANGS THEM!

To the people continuing to state that filming the officer was "suspicious" behavior:

American courts have consistently upheld the right to record police officers. States with laws against recording do have provisions to the effect that a reasonable expectation of privacy is required in order for recording people to be a crime; and police officers doing field work have no expectation of privacy. Therefore, recording a police officer for any reason is perfectly legal, and officers cannot stop you from doing it. If a police officer does confront you over any legal activity, they are at fault for anything that follows. That is the law.

- - -

Also my Google-fu is failing me right now, but I do remember a court case in... I wanna say it was either Michigan or Illinois, where the judge ruled that you are allowed to retaliate against police if they initiate a false action. If I can manage to find it and any follow-up, I'll post it here. (It may have been overturned, so I'm not 100% sure on this.)

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 09:07:50 PM
Btw: The city also agrees the cop could have handled the situation much better. But I guess you know more than the people who did the internal investigation.

No one here disagrees with that it could have been handled better. You went from bad decision to out right "abusive of authority"..meh

QuoteI'm just calling for people to call a spade a spade;

but ignore the fact that this guys actions screamed he had every intention of fucking with this cop. I know it, you know it, we all know it, but because you gotta hate cops, its pathetic.

Quoteno harm no foul.

yep, opens the window for all kinds of ass-holes to start fucking with the po-po

QuoteBut it's this attitude of

of what? knowing the jack ass wanted a conflict and initiated it and then you made him a hero…yeah pathetic is the correct word

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 09:00:33 PM
Just watched it again; cop repeatedly smart asses back. Cop escalated situation. Cop admits he has no reason. Guy empties his pocket. Cop continues to carry his pistol out in an intimidating manner until he leaves realizing he has nothing on the guy.

Woooow that proved the cop was a good guy. I'm changing my position, you guys are right the cop is a saint and this guy was an asshole!

I like how you left out and refused to address the second part of my post. It's ok, I'll quote and bold it for you:

QuoteDespite what happened before, whether or not he was justified in his stop, that was a lawful and reasonable order. Not because the cop was automatically in the right, but because the cop has no idea what the man has in his pocket. I'm sorry, but when a cop tells you to take your hand out of your pocket, you fucking take your hand out of your pocket. At that point it's a safety issue for both you and the cop.

I'm not saying that the cop is some fucking saint, nor am I saying his reason for stopping was justified. I did point out reasons it may be justified. It may very well have been a bullshit reason.

Disregarding that, though, the cop only pulled out his weapon after the man refused to take his hand out of his pocket. At that point it became a safety issue. Even after the man "emptied" his pockets it remained a safety issue. You lived in Texas, you should know that there are multiple ways to conceal a pistol. Shit, I've seen men in the tightest of clothes somehow conceal a pistol, and to this day I'm not sure if it isn't actual fucking magic.

I'm not saying the cop was justified escalating the encounter. I'm not saying the cop was justified escalating the encounter I bolded it so you wouldn't ignore that, you're welcome. What I am saying is that once the man refused to take his hand out of his pocket the cop was justified in taking his weapon out. Not because he was initially right, but because there was a probable safety issue at the moment. Notice that at no point did the cop actually point the gun at the man, he simply had it ready.

I am going to use aitm's argument here... if you are the one provoking a confrontation like a dumb ass, you don't get to cry foul when things get out of control. That is what the cop did and that is the problem.

QuoteNotice that at no point did the cop actually point the gun at the man, he simply had it ready.

Brandishing a weapon is a threat. The cop didn't pull out the gun to show him the cool features it had, it was a threat that he was willing to put a bullet in him. If the guy initiated the engagement, fine the cop is 100% in the right. But he didn't, and putting any blame on him is giving the officer an excuse for terrible judgment and thinking he could get away with being a smart ass and a bully.

Quote...and to this day I'm not sure if it isn't actual fucking magic.

All arguments aside, I chuckled.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 24, 2016, 09:10:32 PM
To the people continuing to state that filming the officer was "suspicious" behavior:

That's not my argument, but I'll play.

So let's say you're a cop and driving around a neighborhood and suddenly a guy who seems to be hooking his boat to his truck in a yard suddenly stops what he is doing and steps out front and points a camera a you…because……

(yeah,,,sure he has the right..but why?)

Is he trying to steal the boat and gets caught and wants to record his arrest?

Is he a good citizen who suddenly decides that him working on his own boat in his own yard surrounded by his own neighbors seems suspicious to the ordinary cop and he needs to record the event to prove his innocence?

Is recording the driving habits of the officer so he can send it to the local paper?

Wants to record the color of the car so he can buy it himself?

Has raped and murdered a women and has the body in the boat and doesn't want to draw attention to himself so he starts to record the cop?

Hmm, yeah, you're right…as a police officer I would consider it only normal that a guy hooking up his own boat to his own truck would feel the need to record the event of an approaching police car…perfectly sensible.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 08:32:43 PM
10/10, the passive aggressive is real. Would listen to someone who say's "keep it civil" throw insults again.

I just noticed you argue like a person that spends a lot of time on Tumblr. Whether or not you take it as an insult is your prerogative. Still doesn't change the fact that you keep ignoring that the cop got yelled at when he asked the guy to take his hands out of his pocket. If you see this as

Quote"OMG THE COP IS INNOCENT PLZ STOP U HURT HIS FEELINGS :*(."

and not as a means to protect himself. You might need to reevaluate the facts and your position.

How you still are having trouble grasping that the police need to asses situations like this and be ready to defend themselves at all times blows my mind. But go ahead and do your "nannynanny boo boo" talk like in the thing above that I quoted from one of your other posts... because that is real mature and really helps your position... :rolleyes:

Don't really need help to reevaluate it; the city agreed he handled it poorly and was in the wrong, and he was reprimanded and got the transfer where he won't be a risk anymore. What you seem to be incapable of grasping is that how the guy responded is utterly irrelevant; what IS relevant is that it was a situation provoked by the officer and escalated by the officer. The officer was subsequently reprimanded and reassigned, show that the people with more evidence than you or I and who know the law better than you or I agreed with my general premise.

Again, since you seem to know more than the the internal investigation, if you really want to keep arguing that he was justified I'll leave it to you to contact the Rohnert Park PD and inform them they were wrong in saying the cop handled the situation incorrectly and the blame should instead be on the cameraman.

Have fun with that.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 08:38:48 PM0:00 - 0:20+: Cop has been circling neighbourhood, slowly pulls infront of the cameraman. So far, the cop is the only one who has engaged in any sort of confrontation between the two parties.

Question: What happened at -12:00 - -0:01 of the video? Also, what was reported to dispatch at -25:00 of the video? And then how was that transmitted over the radio to all units including our officer in question?

Quote from: Johan on March 24, 2016, 09:40:46 PM
Question: What happened at -12:00 - -0:01 of the video?

The cop sulked around the block a few times, hence the reason the guy pulled out his camera.

As I said, it's all irrelevant since the people in power agree with my argument that the cop was also in the wrong. If yall want to keep on having an argument about that, have at it, but take it up with Ronhert Park PD and not me.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 09:41:39 PM
The cop circled around the block a few times, hence the reason the guy pulled out his camera.

And you know that how?

Quote from: Johan on March 24, 2016, 09:43:56 PM
And you know that how?

Considering the PD likely would of issued a statement in their internal investigation summary saying that was false if it was false, I think it's pretty safe to assume it's true.

If it means that much to you, here is their contact information...

Address: 500 City Center Dr, Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Phone:(707) 584-2600

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 09:29:58 PM
That's not my argument, but I'll play.

So let's say you're a cop and driving around a neighborhood and suddenly a guy who seems to be hooking his boat to his truck in a yard suddenly stops what he is doing and steps out front and points a camera a you…because……

(yeah,,,sure he has the right..but why?)

Is he trying to steal the boat and gets caught and wants to record his arrest?

Is he a good citizen who suddenly decides that him working on his own boat in his own yard surrounded by his own neighbors seems suspicious to the ordinary cop and he needs to record the event to prove his innocence?

Is recording the driving habits of the officer so he can send it to the local paper?

Wants to record the color of the car so he can buy it himself?

Has raped and murdered a women and has the body in the boat and doesn't want to draw attention to himself so he starts to record the cop?

Hmm, yeah, you're right…as a police officer I would consider it only normal that a guy hooking up his own boat to his own truck would feel the need to record the event of an approaching police car…perfectly sensible.

I think its important to keep an eye on the legality of things. Its not unlawful for a person to film you out in public. I believe the standards of probable cause need to be higher than that. I could replace every instance of recording the cop in your post with frowning at the cop. How innocuous and legal of an action do we have to substitute in before it starts sounding ridiculous for the cop to even take a second glance at the guy, let alone approach him? Personally I believe we are already there with recording.

THAT SAID

I think theres a fair argument here about the guy refusing to take his hand out of his pocket. I mean, why would you refuse? WHY WOULD YOU REFUSE? Does he have a horrifying hand deformity he doesnt want anyone to see? Does he have a knife? Is he refusing just to get the cop to react on camera?

Personally I think its the latter and isnt that just exactly what happened.

This video is bullshit. There are plenty of other recordings of police being shitbags. Theres no need to pay any attention to this baited situation that was edited more than a 12 year old's weekly vlog.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 09:26:58 PM
I am going to use aitm's argument here... if you are the one provoking a confrontation like a dumb ass, you don't get to cry foul when things get out of control. That is what the cop did and that is the problem.

The initial problem was that the cop pulled out a gun at all. I'm simply saying he was actually justified in doing so.

QuoteBrandishing a weapon is a threat. The cop didn't pull out the gun to show him the cool features it had, it was a threat that he was willing to put a bullet in him. If the guy initiated the engagement, fine the cop is 100% in the right. But he didn't, and putting any blame on him is giving the officer an excuse for terrible judgment and thinking he could get away with being a smart ass and a bully.

Once again, regardless of who started it, the man refused a lawful order to take his hand out of his pocket. The reason for such an order is to ensure safety for both the officer and the man.

Yes, brandishing a weapon is a threat. But, as one has effectively used a broken bottle and a knife to dissuade certain people from harming me, I understand that sometimes a threat is necessary in order to reduce to probability of harm. In this case, the cop was telling the man (who, from his knowledge, may have been armed), to not try to harm him. He also put himself at a strategic advantage against the possibly armed man: by having his weapon out he had a faster response time should the man attempt to pull a weapon of his own.

QuoteAll arguments aside, I chuckled.

Seriously though, skinny jeans and a 1911? Apparently you can conceal it.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 09:41:39 PM

As I said, it's all irrelevant since the people in power agree

well you sure had a hissy fit when" the power that be" gave their rulings on the Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner cases. Hmm odd that eh? Guess you're now saying that the "powers that be" get it right. Well good for you.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 09:45:47 PM
Considering the PD likely would of issued a statement in their internal investigation summary saying that was false if it was false, I think it's pretty safe to assume it's true.

You think its safe to assume which is the same as saying you don't know.

QuoteIf it means that much to you, here is their contact information...

Address: 500 City Center Dr, Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Phone:(707) 584-2600

You're the one who felt the need to start a thread about it. So I think it means WAY more to you than it ever will to me.

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 09:48:00 PM
well you sure had a hissy fit when" the power that be" gave their rulings on the Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner cases. Hmm odd that eh? Guess you're now saying that the "powers that be" get it right. Well good for you.

Um... yes, when people get stuff right they should be praised for it. Believe it or not, I don't blindly "hate" PD's because they are the police and fuck da police. I hate them when they cover their own asses, especially at the cost of innocent people getting murdered.

Shit, I appreciate Hitler (Yay, Godwin!) for some of the infrastructural improvements, promotion of science and environmentalism he promoted in Germany that were ahead of their time. I don't think that just because he is Hitler he cant be recognized for the (very, very, very few) things he got right.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 24, 2016, 09:46:00 PM
I could replace every instance of recording the cop in your post with frowning at the cop.

Okay, noted, so you think if you're a police officer driving in a perfectly normal neighborhood and some guy hooking up a boat to a truck suddenly stops what he is doing, steps out to confront you and then frowns at you is normal behavior for a person hooking up their own boat to their own truck in their own neighborhood? I don't know…I admit I am not the sharpest pen, but by god that is mighty strange behavior for an innocent person.

QuoteYou think its safe to assume which is the same as saying you don't know.

So... you want to question the police report and the camera evidence. Out of curiosity, how are we suppose to come to any legal conclusion if neither the police report or camera evidence can be trusted? Or does that only apply when they both don't go the way you like.

Are you an idealist by any chance, that we cannot know that anything is actually real?

QuoteYou're the one who felt the need to start a thread about it. So I think it means WAY more to you than it ever will to me.

I accept your admission that you were wrong. It was fun, have a good one!

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
Okay, noted, so you think if you're a police officer driving in a perfectly normal neighborhood and some guy hooking up a boat to a truck suddenly stops what he is doing, steps out to confront you and then frowns at you is normal behavior for a person hooking up their own boat to their own truck in their own neighborhood? I don't know…I admit I am not the sharpest pen, but by god that is mighty strange behavior for an innocent person.

Watch the video, the guy did not step out to confront the officer. The officer parked infront of his house for about 2 minutes, called in his plate, taunted him by recording him back and being a smart ass, and when the guy stepped infront of his own car (about 6+ steps away) the officer got out.


You are wording it like the officer did nothing to provoke the situation, which is simply wrong.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 09:55:07 PM
Um... yes, when people get stuff right

if you were just driving around  a neighborhood and some guys hooking up a boat to his truck suddenly stopped what he was doing , turned around and stepped in front of the boat and started to record you, and just stood there watching you… I hope you call the cops, because, I don't really know what you think is "normal" behavior for normal people hooking up their own boat to their own truck, but trust me please….. that ain't it.

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 10:00:34 PM
if you were just driving around  a neighborhood and some guys hooking up a boat to his truck suddenly stopped what he was doing , turned around and stepped in front of the boat and started to record you, and just stood there watching you… I hope you call the cops, because, I don't really know what you think is "normal" behavior for normal people hooking up their own boat to their own truck, but trust me please….. that ain't it.

No, I wouldn't report it. I really could care less, since he has done absolutely nothing wrong. I'm also not a public official which changes the dynamics significantly.

All posts aside



:bounce8: :bounce8: HITLER!!!!!!! :bounce8: :bounce8:

The guy should get a posthumous award for being butt of every internet joke.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 10:00:10 PM
Watch the video,

I watched enough to know the jack-ass had every intention of fucking with the cop. Play it sideways all you want. Normal people don't behave that way.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 10:01:13 PM
No, I wouldn't report it. I really could care less,

This takes us back to the treyvon martin case..I am pleased you don't live in my neighborhood.

edit: I am sure we can resume this tomorrow. I have fun planned for the rest of the evening-night all.

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
Okay, noted, so you think if you're a police officer driving in a perfectly normal neighborhood and some guy hooking up a boat to a truck suddenly stops what he is doing, steps out to confront you and then frowns at you is normal behavior for a person hooking up their own boat to their own truck in their own neighborhood? I don't know…I admit I am not the sharpest pen, but by god that is mighty strange behavior for an innocent person.

I don't think I would stop. Because hes just fucking frowning. And yes my reaction to being recorded would be the same. Don't like being recorded? Best solution is to drive away. Its absolutely not evidence of wrongdoing and its not good enough to constitute probable cause. I want my cops responding to criminal activity, not sitting there evaluating whether there's some hidden significance behind someones totally legal action.

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 10:05:23 PM
This takes us back to the treyvon martin case..I am pleased you don't live in my neighborhood.

I'm not going to say anything about Travon Martin, but this is a disconnect I see in some antigun people. To some of them, having a gun for protection is unnecessary, but when you live in an area where violent crime is a fact of life and police response time is 30 minutes to 2 hours a gun might be a reasonable thing to have.

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on March 24, 2016, 10:17:35 PM
I'm not going to say anything about Travon Martin, but this is a disconnect I see in some antigun people. To some of them, having a gun for protection is unnecessary, but when you live in an area where violent crime is a fact of life and police response time is 30 minutes to 2 hours a gun might be a reasonable thing to have.

Unfortunately society has pockets like that, and in some regions ... deep pockets.  I would like to move all the White Crackers to Honduras for a decade or so.  Let them survive on the streets there ... the ones with guns could at least buy food by selling their guns.

Back to my main point ... you have no rights, forget about them.  And the cop in practice, doesn't need probable cause to stick his night-stick up your ass.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 24, 2016, 10:11:22 PM
I don't think I would stop. Because hes just fucking frowning. And yes my reaction to being recorded would be the same. Don't like being recorded? Best solution is to drive away. Its absolutely not evidence of wrongdoing and its not good enough to constitute probable cause. I want my cops responding to criminal activity, not sitting there evaluating whether there's some hidden significance behind someones totally legal action.

You're a private citizen. Your reaction to an event and your motivations to an event are totally different to a cop's reaction. Once again, I'm not saying that the cops are justified in all actions, but there is a psychological reason beyond "being bullies" at play here. As a citizen, who knows why you're being filmed? When you're a cop you're being filmed as an extension of the state, and regardless of who you are as an individual you will get pinned to everything horrid that the state does, personal nuances be damned.


I'm not defending the cop here, but rather explaining the mindset at play. When a cop gets accused, justified or not, other cops see it as an attack on all cops. It's tribalism at play .

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 24, 2016, 09:46:00 PMI think theres a fair argument here about the guy refusing to take his hand out of his pocket.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the guy emptied his pockets shortly after the cop ordered him to get his hand out of his pocket, and we can clearly see his other hand several times throughout the video. So unless he has three hands, the guy fully cooperated with the officer on that issue.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 24, 2016, 10:53:02 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the guy emptied his pockets shortly after the cop ordered him to get his hand out of his pocket, and we can clearly see his other hand several times throughout the video. So unless he has three hands, the guy fully cooperated with the officer on that issue.

yeah. After yelling at the cop telling him "I didn't do anything wrong. No." which was one of the main things that brought the situation to where it was in the first place.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 10:57:27 PM
yeah. After yelling at the cop telling him "I didn't do anything wrong. No." which brought the situation to where it was in the first place.

Which you're allowed to do if a cop makes an unwarranted demand of you.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 24, 2016, 11:04:59 PM
Which you're allowed to do if a cop makes an unwarranted demand of you.

You think a cop telling you to take your hand out of your pocket is "unwarranted"? Good luck with that one, buddy.

I really hope you guys are never in a situation where a cop asks you to do something so he can secure his own safety...

*Does that guy have a weapon?*
"Take your hand out of your pocket"

"NO I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG!"

*holy shit. is he about to fight me? better get ready for something*

*why is this guy filming me... I'm just doing my patrol route... maybe he's paranoid about something... better check it out*

*I better check out this license plate, in case there are any records on this guy so I have better info if I need to do something*

*why is this guy coming closer to my vehicle with his hands in his pocket? does he have a weapon? I better get out, so I can better defend myself*

I don't know what are the reasons the cop was there in the first place, but the funny thing is, you don't know why he was there either. All we know is that he came up after being recorded, tried getting info on the car and the guy, the cop heard the boat guy saying "this guy thinks he's funny", which raises more suspicion.
Then the guy approached the car with his hands in his pocket, which is reason to consider him not only suspicious, but also potentially dangerous.

All the cop asked for is for the guy to get his hands out of his pocket. Why the boat guy got so defensive about it, I don't know. But defensiveness out of nowhere like that is reason to be cautious. hence why the cop pulled his gun to be ready to defend himself.
What about that are you not understanding?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 25, 2016, 12:01:35 AM
I don't know what are the reasons the cop was there in the first place, but the funny thing is, you don't know why he was there either. All we know is that he came up after being recorded, tried getting info on the car and the guy, the cop heard the boat guy saying "this guy thinks he's funny", which raises more suspicion.
Then the guy approached the car with his hands in his pocket, which is reason to consider him not only suspicious, but also potentially dangerous.

All the cop asked for is for the guy to get his hands out of his pocket. Why the boat guy got so defensive about it, I don't know. But defensiveness out of nowhere like that is reason to be cautious. hence why the cop pulled his gun to be ready to defend himself.
What about that are you not understanding?

None of which would have happened had the cop done his job rather than deciding to be a smartass, then a thug. What about that are you not understanding?

Again, I do not disagree on the point that boat guy could have handled it better. My position is that blame lies with the cop for starting the confrontation unnecessarily. Considering that the city has apparently sided with boat guy (quoting Shiranu on that one), there is no reason to doubt his story regarding the cop randomly deciding to park in front of his house prior to the recording.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 25, 2016, 12:17:57 AM
None of which would have happened had the cop done his job rather than deciding to be a smartass, then a thug. What about that are you not understanding?

Again, I do not disagree on the point that boat guy could have handled it better. My position is that blame lies with the cop for starting the confrontation unnecessarily. Considering that the city has apparently sided with boat guy (quoting Shiranu on that one), there is no reason to doubt his story regarding the cop randomly deciding to park in front of his house prior to the recording.

Hey. At least we're not in TOTAL disagreement... I guess that's a plus.

I want to address this idea of victim blaming, because i think it conflates two different concepts of responsibility and distinctions need to be made to better understand who is being blamed and what does that entail. I was gonna type a response explaining the difference between causal responsibility and moral responsibility. But found the work done for me in this article. Thanks google.

http://benhourigan.com/2015/10/04/on-victim-blaming-and-moral-responsibility/

This might help stop the talking past each other going on here about who "is to blame" for the scalation of the conflict in this video and what does that actually mean. Imo it is much better to see this first as just neutral factors that contribute to the scalation then contrast them with the expected rules of behavior for cops and civilians in this situations. Then when you have all the more factual shit clear then examine it with your chosen ethical framework.

QuoteConsidering that the city has apparently sided with boat guy...

To clarify (i'll find the article in a bit), the city said that the officer did nothing illegal or outside of his power and so there were no reparations made towards the guy suing him (which again is fine by me), but at the same time he did handle the situation poorly and was transfered on his request to the fire department.

It was more, "Both sides fucked up" rather than one or the other. But my problem is this; the cop is suppose to be trained and responsible. As someone who is suppose to protect and serve, he get's held to a higher standard (as he should be) than an average guy on the street.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 24, 2016, 09:58:43 PM
So... you want to question the police report and the camera evidence. Out of curiosity, how are we suppose to come to any legal conclusion if neither the police report or camera evidence can be trusted? Or does that only apply when they both don't go the way you like.

No. I only wish to point out that neither you nor I can really know what the full story is here. But of the two of us, one of us is choosing to get their dainty undergarments all up in a bunch in about it and the other is going eh' might be how the video makes it out to be, might not, can't tell and won't lose sleep over it either way because there would be no point in doing so.

Quote
I accept your admission that you were wrong. It was fun, have a good one!

I have no trouble being wrong or admitting when it happens because if I'm wrong it means I've learned something. That being said, nice try kiddo but no, there is nothing that I've written in this thread which is wrong. You don't know the full story and neither do I. Did the cop overstep? Perhaps. It would appear that way, but we can't really know. How much did he overstep? Again we can't know because we can't know what took place in the minutes days and years before the video began. That is in a nutshell all that I've said in this thread. If you want to believe I'm wrong and that we can in fact know EVERYTHING that could have taken place outside of the video which could have been a factor in what took place inside the video well.... you keep dreaming and maybe someday your dream will come true. But not today. If you want to believe that what took place in the minutes days or years before the video is automatically completely irrelevant, again, you keep dreamin'. There are lots of possible scenarios which could be very relevant but we.... wait for it.... wait for it... can't know.

Quote from: aitm on March 24, 2016, 05:42:55 PM
did he make the complaint before the incident? Of course not, I have no idea why you think that is relevant. So he made a complaint, that is the fucking idea! 

It's very relevant, because all the Sherlocks we have here started to the thread with 'we don't know what he did and why the cop followed him' and then moved to 'confrontation' in the frame of cops pull guns anyway. Could you please tell me, why anyone who did something to fall in a police intervention and according to your idea shot the vid for 15 mins would make an official complaint about it later? Does that make sense to you? The vids out, if he is shooting for just a 15 mins fame.

QuoteYou know what though, if the asshole didn't drop everything he was doing and run to the street to start videoing the po-po maybe the jack-ass wouldn't be able to make a compliant and become the latest internet hero. But that wouldn't fit your preconceived notion that every cop is a piece of shit  out to kill every person that may be sitting in their yard playing with kids and not doing anything wrong at all….because that is what happened here right?

Strawman. Bullshit. Not me, not one of the posters here wrote or defended anything of the sort. We are talking about one video. One cop. It's your preconcieved idea that a COP can act that way and you fill in the blanks with the general idea of most of your fellow countrymen are either potentially 'mentally ill mass murderers' or whoring for fame at every opportunity.

QuoteThis ass-hole watched a patrol car circle the neighborhood and decided that he was going to be confrontational, openly mock the officer while videoing him and flipping him the finger and become a fucking HERO OF THE INTERNET.  And hey, he got a few dumb fucks to buy it.

LOL Yeah what did he eat for breakfast that day, aitm? Bacon? May be he has a sweet toooth in the mornings what do you think? Tell us what do your medium senses tell?

You want to speculate, here is a rational one for you. He highly likley didn't even put that vid up before making a complaint and getting that dumb ass response with vacation. Can you make the connection with the video.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 25, 2016, 02:39:16 AM
But my problem is this; the cop is suppose to be trained and responsible. As someone who is suppose to protect and serve, he get's held to a higher standard (as he should be) than an average guy on the street.

He is not a rookie. Do you think he is a rookie? It's not just training, it is also experience. When did he start the job? Couple of years ago?

When officers handle very simple situations poorly, peole die there. He has the upper hand and the role. All he needed to do a simple explanation to the man. "I am partoling...or you had it wrong I a her eto check around, no need to panic...etc." What does he do? ... And apparently it is OK for most people. Scary. 

There is a difference, in English (Shoe), between what a person should do, and what a person can do.  Young adults concentrate on the "should" and older adults concentrate on the "can".  Getting out your on-line thru Seri complete list of statutes governing citizen-police interactions and lecturing the cop ... is rather psychotic.

First rule ... don't move unless he tells you to.
Second rule ... do exactly what he says, slowly and immediately.
Third rule ... the first two are so that you survive the encounter.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 24, 2016, 10:11:22 PM
I want my cops responding to criminal activity, not sitting there evaluating whether there's some hidden significance behind someones totally legal action

As far as I am concerned the cop did exactly what I want him to do. He is patrolling and some guy supposedly hooking up his own boat, or is it his, suddenly stops and gets all wiggy and starts to record me. Yeah, that shit ain't right. Innocent people don't stop what they are doing just because a squad car drives down the street. I mean, do you? When you see a squad car do you stop what you are doing and start recording in case...I don't know, why would you? Unless, perhaps you're a fucking thief.

Quote from: Baruch on March 25, 2016, 07:05:12 AM
There is a difference, in English (Shoe), between what a person should do, and what a person can do.  Young adults concentrate on the "should" and older adults concentrate on the "can".  Getting out your on-line thru Seri complete list of statutes governing citizen-police interactions and lecturing the cop ... is rather psychotic.

First rule ... don't move unless he tells you to.
Second rule ... do exactly what he says, slowly and immediately.
Third rule ... the first two are so that you survive the encounter.

Baruch, the problem here is directly related to the fucked up GUN PROBLEM of the US. That's what fucks everything up. Everything you say up there can go without the pulling gun routine if there is a situation for a cop to intervene, without the ultimate conviction that EVERYBODY has a gun and ready to fire to kill.

I swear it is almost like most people here can't even 'imagine' any cop situtaion without a gun EVEN THOUGH they are not the part of that gun culture. How fucked up is that?

Quote from: Shiranu on March 25, 2016, 02:39:16 AM
To clarify (i'll find the article in a bit), the city said that the officer did nothing illegal or outside of his power

Yeah, that's what frightens me. :lol:

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 25, 2016, 07:56:21 AM

I swear it is almost like most people here can't even 'imagine' any cop situtaion without a gun EVEN THOUGH they are not the part of that gun culture. How fucked up is that?

The disconnect is those of us who live here don't see the problem you see. It appears that all you ever hear about is da bad cops fuckin wit the poo folks and gunning them down in the street. Those of us who live here see those and the hundreds of events that are never "recorded", like saving peoples lives in car accidents or running into a burning house, or stopping to play basketball with some kids cause it creates good relationships, the vast majority of cops are good people.

You have the issue, most of us don't.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 24, 2016, 06:19:56 PM
hey hey hey... I'm in agreement with you on this topic, but no need to call someone a dipshit.

We have a long-standing dislike for each other...but for YOU, I was out of line and I apologize.  It will not happen again.

Quote from: aitm on March 25, 2016, 07:15:33 AM
As far as I am concerned the cop did exactly what I want him to do. He is patrolling and some guy supposedly hooking up his own boat, or is it his, suddenly stops and gets all wiggy and starts to record me. Yeah, that shit ain't right. Innocent people don't stop what they are doing just because a squad car drives down the street. I mean, do you? When you see a squad car do you stop what you are doing and start recording in case...I don't know, why would you? Unless, perhaps you're a fucking thief.

Why would a thief record what would surely be evidence against themselves if they were actually stealing something? I'm sorry but your whole thing here with the recording for protection from the police only makes sense if the person recording actually ISNT doing anything wrong, in which case the officer had no reason to confront him in the first place!

I don't want cops deciding, based on nothing more than their own personal feelings, whether or not a legal activity warrants investigation. Why? Because some cops personally feel that people with darker skin are "suspicious" and require investigation. Not every police officer has personal judgment worthy of their position. I don't want to open up the field to FUCKING IDIOTS harassing people with their badges when there is no legal standing or purpose in doing so.

I think that what some are failing to understand while accusing our "gun culture" of being a problem with cops is that, yes, it IS a "gun culture", which means ANYONE could be armed.  I saw in the news recently a mom who might be charged because her child had enough access to her gun to shoot her.  A few months ago, a grandma shot by a toddler because auntie didn't remember that she had a gun in pouch on the back of the seat before giving them a ride.  Also this week, a kid arrested for taking a loaded gun to school.  If kids can get guns this easy it's really not that hard for bad guys.  Cops here pull guns, not because the "gun culture" is a problem with the cops, but because the gun culture is a problem FOR the cops.  Anyone could be armed.

And the people here who don't see that are engaging in wild speculation and revisionist versions of the video.  I've read, "The guy was clearly unarmed".  Well, no, that isn't "clear" because you can't see him.  I read, "He emptied his pockets".  Well, probably, but you never see his pockets, you don't know them to be empty.  And I've read, "Of course he'd get agitated if the cop pulls a gun on him", but he was agitated AND THEN the cop pulled the gun.  And I've ready, "How is it suspicious behavior to film a cop?".  It's not when something's happening.  But if you're just following a cop around with your camera, it makes the cop want to know what the hell is up.  You don't get to pretend that human nature does not come into play here.  If YOU would want to know why someone was following YOU around with a camera, you must assume that most other people, regardless whether they wear a uniform or civilian clothes, would also want to know.  And cops are not emotionless cyborgs, much as we all like to pretend they should react perfectly in every situation without emotional investment.  Honestly, it might have irritated the cop that he was being filmed while he was just doing his job the same way it would irritate anyone doing any job to be filmed by someone who didn't like their position.  A logger, for example, being followed around by an environmentalist would likely get irritated.  The difference is the cop has the authority, it is actually part of his job description, to stop and find out what the hell is going on.  And, yes, it is "suspicious" to have someone following you around with a camera by reasonable definition.  The officer has the authority to make the call to check that out.

He never raised his voice.  He never pointed the gun.  He only drew the gun after he asked the man to take his hands out of his pockets and the man verbally (we cannot see what he physically did) refused.  He was clearly irritated with the man in the end there, but what cop wouldn't be?  He didn't do anything about it.  Frankly, he could have arrested the man.  Resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, failure to comply with a lawful order...there is no end to the shit a cop can make up to arrest you for which translates to "I really just don't like you".  And this shit happens all the time with REAL bad police officers.  This officer did nothing but make sure that he was in control of the situation at all times because they are trained that if you are not in control you die, and that is, unfortunately, a reality.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 25, 2016, 11:04:53 AM
Why would a thief record what would surely be evidence against themselves if they were actually stealing something? I'm sorry but your whole thing here with the recording for protection from the police only makes sense if the person recording actually ISNT doing anything wrong, in which case the officer had no reason to confront him in the first place!

I don't want cops deciding, based on nothing more than their own personal feelings, whether or not a legal activity warrants investigation. Why? Because some cops personally feel that people with darker skin are "suspicious" and require investigation. Not every police officer has personal judgment worthy of their position. I don't want to open up the field to FUCKING IDIOTS harassing people with their badges when there is no legal standing or purpose in doing so.

I'm sorry, but that is basically their job description.  Every day every cop out there decides, often based on nothing more than their own personal feelings, whether or not a legal activity warrants investigation.  That is the very nature of the job and it is IMPOSSIBLE to do the job without doing that.  If a man looks at a cop, looks surprised and quickly turns his head away and puts up his hood, those are all legal activities, and all clear signs that the cop should talk to that man.  And that's just an obvious example.  I know for a fact that they get training to spot body language and signs of lying, clues that something may be wrong.  None of those things are 100% accurate, but they're a pretty damned good indication.  Tons of crime is prevented each year because police stop "suspicious" people.  If you take away the ability of the police force to investigate suspicious activity based on their own judgement then you essentially make patrols useless.  You'd be left with nothing but a SWAT team whose job it was to respond to crime, not to prevent it.

Quote from: widdershins on March 25, 2016, 11:21:45 AM
I'm sorry, but that is basically their job description.  Every day every cop out there decides, often based on nothing more than their own personal feelings, whether or not a legal activity warrants investigation.  That is the very nature of the job and it is IMPOSSIBLE to do the job without doing that.  If a man looks at a cop, looks surprised and quickly turns his head away and puts up his hood, those are all legal activities, and all clear signs that the cop should talk to that man.  And that's just an obvious example.  I know for a fact that they get training to spot body language and signs of lying, clues that something may be wrong.  None of those things are 100% accurate, but they're a pretty damned good indication.  Tons of crime is prevented each year because police stop "suspicious" people.  If you take away the ability of the police force to investigate suspicious activity based on their own judgement then you essentially make patrols useless.  You'd be left with nothing but a SWAT team whose job it was to respond to crime, not to prevent it.

For an argument like this I am going to do something I rarely do: demand numbers. You say tons of crimes are prevented this way. Are there any statistics to support your assertion or are you saying this merely because it makes sense in your mind?

How many crimes are prevented by cops defining probable cause as whatever they damn well please?
How often are cops WRONG about this sort of thing?
How often do cops spark a situation that otherwise would not have existed if not for their intervention based on their personal opinion of the way a suspect looks or acts?

I always get super suspicious when people start telling me that anything at all prevents "tons" of crime. Our police officers are not all that fucking wonderful at actually preventing crime. Out criminal justice system is, well, desined to mete out JUSTICE. As in legal retribution for crimes committed. Cops cant be everywhere. In fact cops are almost nowhere in relation to all the places people are. I find it difficult to accept that cops engaging in undefined profiling dont create just as many situations as they prevent, and the situations they do prevent are just a drop in the bucket to how many crimes are committed in aggregate.

Is that worth giving what amounts to (often) thinly trained, poorly screened regular people with guns even more authority to do whatever they please on the street? I say fuck no.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 25, 2016, 11:04:53 AM
Why would a thief record what would surely be evidence against themselves if they were actually stealing something?

Again....does a squad car driving down your street cause you to stop doing whatever the hell you might be doing and start recording the approaching car? Does it? Really, please everyone raise your hand if you have ever stopped what you were doing to record a squad car driving around your street. C'mon, lets see those little piggies. Surely I must be wrong if this is so widespread that this is the first time I have seen it in my lifetime, I must life a sheltered life. I have had hundreds of squad cars though my neighborhoods and never once did it ever occur to me I should stop what I am doing and record him "just in case" he gets out and harasses me.

QuoteI don't want cops deciding, based on nothing more than their own personal feelings, whether or not a legal activity warrants investigation.

It called a "hunch" everybody has "hunches" including you. You trust yours. I trust theirs.

Quote. I don't want to open up the field to FUCKING IDIOTS harassing people with their badges when there is no legal standing or purpose in doing so.

Again, a show of hands for all of you who have stopped what you were doing and started recording an approaching squad car, because I can tell you I sure as hell would find it suspicious and that under law, means he has legal standing to investigate.

Jesus.... This thread shows how much of a joke  and out of hand this anti-cop movement has become.

Quote from: widdershins on March 25, 2016, 10:48:00 AM
We have a long-standing dislike for each other...but for YOU, I was out of line and I apologize.  It will not happen again.

Thanks, dude. I appreciate it. We can have our disagreements, but throwing around insults will just make them even more irrational than they already are being.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 25, 2016, 11:52:10 AM
Jesus.... This thread shows how much of a joke  and out of hand this anti-cop movement has become.

All part of the bidirectional race war ... since perps are seen to be mostly of one color (White folk do nice banking crimes).

Shoe ... yes, would be nice if there were fewer guns, but basically that requires fewer Americans.  If the situation were different, and the cop had his gun, and the guy with the camera ... for argument's sake, had a shiv on him ... and I were the cop ... I would still draw my gun, based on subjective hunch that the guy is suspicious (and yes, with real people, this can involve how someone is dressed or how their skin color looks).  And if he didn't pull his hand out of his pocket when I told him to ... he wouldn't have a gun, just a shiv ... and the second he showed the shiv, but not before, I would take him down, without much concern for his survival ... because some people can still fight with multiple gunshot wounds.

Let's try to keep it as much on topic without bringing race in to this, Baruch. We don't need them more distracted and confused about a white man refusing to show the cop that he isn't hostile by taking his hand out of his pocket the first time the cop asks.

Well yeah, if you want to keep it all White on White.  But Shoe was speaking about the whole USA ... and we have a race problem, even if these two apes didn't.

Yeah. A lot of times, in an attempt to regain control of the argument, the person losing the argument will throw in the kitchen sink and make the argument about a similar, but different topic.

Quote from: aitm on March 25, 2016, 11:41:24 AM
Again....does a squad car driving down your street cause you to stop doing whatever the hell you might be doing and start recording the approaching car? Does it? Really, please everyone raise your hand if you have ever stopped what you were doing to record a squad car driving around your street. C'mon, lets see those little piggies. Surely I must be wrong if this is so widespread that this is the first time I have seen it in my lifetime, I must life a sheltered life. I have had hundreds of squad cars though my neighborhoods and never once did it ever occur to me I should stop what I am doing and record him "just in case" he gets out and harasses me.

It called a "hunch" everybody has "hunches" including you. You trust yours. I trust theirs.

Again, a show of hands for all of you who have stopped what you were doing and started recording an approaching squad car, because I can tell you I sure as hell would find it suspicious and that under law, means he has legal standing to investigate.

You really can't get over that can you? How about a show of hands of criminals in the middle of committing a crime who see a cop and immediately start RECORDING EVIDENCE TO BE USED AGAINST THEMSELVES AT TRIAL.

Are you serious here?

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 25, 2016, 01:59:53 PM
You really can't get over that can you? How about a show of hands of criminals in the middle of committing a crime who see a cop and immediately start RECORDING EVIDENCE TO BE USED AGAINST THEMSELVES AT TRIAL.

Are you serious here?

So why would he start recording if the cop was aallll the way down the street and he hasn't even got out of his patrol vehicle yet? That would seem overly suspicious to me if I was a cop. Why record like something is going to go down if the cop isn't even there yet? Even if the boat guy wasn't doing anything wrong.... (In the video, the cop eventually realizes that and leaves) it gives the impression that you think you're going to be suspected of something.

Nonsensei. You just made our point. There isn't a reason for the guy to start recording if he didn't think he would need it in trial. He seems like he was thinking he would need it in trial for his defense. And from a cop's perspective, if a guy is collecting evidence before anything even happens, there is something to at least check out.

When the cop tells  the guy to remove his hand from his pocket and the boat guy yells "I didn't do anything wrong. NO." That adds to the suspicion and also adds a reason for caution.

To expand:
I think anyone that thinks that a cop is going to be arresting them would start a recording for evidence to use for their defense, if they could. But that begs the question "why did this guy think he was going to be arrested?"

To the cop, it looks like there might be something that needs to be checked out. *"why is this guy recording from all the way over there"*

Also. How did this guy know to have the camera ready by the time he drove on to his street? Did someone call the cops on him and he knew it? He said the cop was patrolling the area, but can we really take his word for it? The boat guy also says that the cops "bother his family all the time". Maybe one of the reasons he was patrolling the area is because they know his family is a constant problem...

There is a family a town away from me that the cops are always over and patrolling the area. It's a nice town and a nice area, but the family is fucked in the head. The daughter even at one point stabbed the mother, so the cops are always being called to their house and constantly patrolling the surrounding block. Not saying the family was involved in a stabbing, it could be something as simple as constant noise complaints. I don't know if that is true or not, that the cops even hate the family or constantly go to his house... but these are things we have to consider.
All we know is that he started recording the cop before he even got around to the house, which is at the end of a dead end. And he started recording at what looks like where the cop turned on to the street. That looks suspicious, or at least like something worth checking out.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 25, 2016, 11:31:04 AM
For an argument like this I am going to do something I rarely do: demand numbers. You say tons of crimes are prevented this way. Are there any statistics to support your assertion or are you saying this merely because it makes sense in your mind?

How many crimes are prevented by cops defining probable cause as whatever they damn well please?
How often are cops WRONG about this sort of thing?
How often do cops spark a situation that otherwise would not have existed if not for their intervention based on their personal opinion of the way a suspect looks or acts?

I always get super suspicious when people start telling me that anything at all prevents "tons" of crime. Our police officers are not all that fucking wonderful at actually preventing crime. Out criminal justice system is, well, desined to mete out JUSTICE. As in legal retribution for crimes committed. Cops cant be everywhere. In fact cops are almost nowhere in relation to all the places people are. I find it difficult to accept that cops engaging in undefined profiling dont create just as many situations as they prevent, and the situations they do prevent are just a drop in the bucket to how many crimes are committed in aggregate.

Is that worth giving what amounts to (often) thinly trained, poorly screened regular people with guns even more authority to do whatever they please on the street? I say fuck no.

While I do admit specific statistics are difficult to find, I can easily point out that Terry v Ohio, the case which made it specifically legal for police to investigate suspicious people, involves two men doing nothing more than walking back and forth on the street, perfectly legal, but "suspicious" behavior since they were walking back and forth in front of a jewelry store.  I can also point to a 2013 FBI report (https://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2014/fbi-releases-2013-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted) giving details of officers killed in the line of duty which specifically lists "investigating suspicious persons" among other things one would more commonly associate with police officers being killed, including arrest situations, traffic stops and tactical situations  Yes, it’s in the same list as “tactical situations”, which suggests it’s pretty common.  I can point you to a police article (http://www.officer.com/article/10248804/safely-handling-suspicious-person-stops) which call checking out suspicious people a "bread and butter part of police work".  I would say that this claim falls under the category of "common sense", but apparently not.  I will continue seeing if I can dredge up actual statistics for you, but I do find your request to be a little ridiculous.  There is obviously behavior which warrants at least a quick check to make sure everything is on the up and up.  If this isn't obvious to you it's because you don't want it to be, which is easily confirmed here in just a little bit.

Now, is this "suspicious activity" thing abused?  Are there officers who use it to harass?  Of course there are.  We're talking about human beings, not robots programmed to serve.  Power corrupts.  I'm not stupid.  But in THIS VIDEO, I don't see that and you can't judge THIS OFFICER by what "some officers MIGHT" do.

And that second to the last sentence there shows that you're actually not interested in any facts yourself.  You say, "I find it difficult to accept that cops engaging in undefined profiling don't create just as many situations as they prevent, and the situations they do prevent are just a drop in the bucket to how many crimes are committed in aggregate."  Forgive me for being obtuse, but doesn't the accuracy of that particular claim hinge on THE VERY STATISTICS you asked ME to provide?  You ask me for statistics to prove what I say in one breath and then simply assume numbers favorable to yourself in the next?  Not only that, you start out that sentence by saying essentially that, until I can prove otherwise, you simply cannot be persuaded to believe that cops engaged in undefined profiling don't "create just as many situations as they prevent".  This is a clear bias on your part.  You accept that it may sometimes work, but if it does it is probably completely canceled out by the harm done.  You have NO REASON to believe this as you admitted you DO NOT HAVE these statistics, the ones you asked me for but feel no need to provide to back up your own claims.

Now, can you give me some statistics showing the average level of police training to prove they are generally "thinly" trained?  Or the average level of screening for a police officer to prove that they are generally poorly screened?  I happen to know for a fact that the officers in my tiny town had to go through quite a bit of screening, including psychological profiling (The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, to be exact).  You ask me for statistics, but then you make multiple claims without backing them up yourself, INCLUDING one claim which would require that you had THE VERY STATISTICS you asked me for.

I’m sorry, but this is just not an honest argument.  You can’t ask me to prove myself with statistics and then make claims which require those self-same statistics, along with a bunch of other assumptions you make about the general state of police training and screening.  If we’re going to go all “prove it” here on my claim, which I see as common sense, then we’re doing the same with your multiple claims, so see if you can find those statistics for me.  I was having trouble coming up with anything other than racial profiling statistics.  Thanks.

You know, I just thought of one more thing here that really is ridiculous.  If I saw a man on the street filming me, I'm likely to stop and ask what is up with that.  It's human nature.  Why should human nature change because the human involved is wearing a uniform?  What did the cop do in the beginning, really, than what any ordinary person would do?  He got out of his car to talk to the guy.  That was it.  Why does this make him an evil, confrontational man when he was doing the EXACT SAME THING I would do in that situation?  Yes, things quickly escalated.  But I'd get out of the car and talk to the man and this is a secret, but I'm going to share it with you anyway, police officers are ordinary human beings.  That blue, it's just a uniform!  True story, I swear!  They get angry and happy and sad and annoyed just like you and me.  Some of you here act like they should stop being human beings, susceptible to human weaknesses and failures, and that their reactions to a given situation should automatically be better than mine or yours when they put on that uniform.  It's unrealistic, to say the least.

Quote from: widdershins on March 25, 2016, 03:37:11 PM
While I do admit specific statistics are difficult to find, I can easily point out that Terry v Ohio, the case which made it specifically legal for police to investigate suspicious people, involves two men doing nothing more than walking back and forth on the street, perfectly legal, but "suspicious" behavior since they were walking back and forth in front of a jewelry store.  I can also point to a 2013 FBI report (https://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2014/fbi-releases-2013-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted) giving details of officers killed in the line of duty which specifically lists "investigating suspicious persons" among other things one would more commonly associate with police officers being killed, including arrest situations, traffic stops and tactical situations  Yes, it’s in the same list as “tactical situations”, which suggests it’s pretty common.  I can point you to a police article (http://www.officer.com/article/10248804/safely-handling-suspicious-person-stops) which call checking out suspicious people a "bread and butter part of police work".  I would say that this claim falls under the category of "common sense", but apparently not.  I will continue seeing if I can dredge up actual statistics for you, but I do find your request to be a little ridiculous.  There is obviously behavior which warrants at least a quick check to make sure everything is on the up and up.  If this isn't obvious to you it's because you don't want it to be, which is easily confirmed here in just a little bit.

Now, is this "suspicious activity" thing abused?  Are there officers who use it to harass?  Of course there are.  We're talking about human beings, not robots programmed to serve.  Power corrupts.  I'm not stupid.  But in THIS VIDEO, I don't see that and you can't judge THIS OFFICER by what "some officers MIGHT" do.

And that second to the last sentence there shows that you're actually not interested in any facts yourself.  You say, "I find it difficult to accept that cops engaging in undefined profiling don't create just as many situations as they prevent, and the situations they do prevent are just a drop in the bucket to how many crimes are committed in aggregate."  Forgive me for being obtuse, but doesn't the accuracy of that particular claim hinge on THE VERY STATISTICS you asked ME to provide?  You ask me for statistics to prove what I say in one breath and then simply assume numbers favorable to yourself in the next?  Not only that, you start out that sentence by saying essentially that, until I can prove otherwise, you simply cannot be persuaded to believe that cops engaged in undefined profiling don't "create just as many situations as they prevent".  This is a clear bias on your part.  You accept that it may sometimes work, but if it does it is probably completely canceled out by the harm done.  You have NO REASON to believe this as you admitted you DO NOT HAVE these statistics, the ones you asked me for but feel no need to provide to back up your own claims.

Now, can you give me some statistics showing the average level of police training to prove they are generally "thinly" trained?  Or the average level of screening for a police officer to prove that they are generally poorly screened?  I happen to know for a fact that the officers in my tiny town had to go through quite a bit of screening, including psychological profiling (The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, to be exact).  You ask me for statistics, but then you make multiple claims without backing them up yourself, INCLUDING one claim which would require that you had THE VERY STATISTICS you asked me for.

I’m sorry, but this is just not an honest argument.  You can’t ask me to prove myself with statistics and then make claims which require those self-same statistics, along with a bunch of other assumptions you make about the general state of police training and screening.  If we’re going to go all “prove it” here on my claim, which I see as common sense, then we’re doing the same with your multiple claims, so see if you can find those statistics for me.  I was having trouble coming up with anything other than racial profiling statistics.  Thanks.

We both have a bias here. Mine is that I don't want police officers to have even more power over us than they already have. I'm not entirely sure what yours is.

However my argument, while not any better than yours in the area of statistics, is superior in the area of probability. Because "tons" of crime is not prevented at all, its unlikely that unrestricted, person to person profiling prevents "tons" of crime. Once you acknowledge that, the question becomes a cost/benefit equation. Is the unknown, but likely insignificant amount of crime prevented by (what I consider to be) overzealous profiling practices worth the power citizens cede to police in order to enable it? And before you ask me exactly what power they are ceding, how about an example like, say, the freedom to record a police officer on a public street without being investigated for it (and countless other examples of totally legal activities that are now open season for profiling based on nothing more than the whim of a given police officer)

There's no objective answer to the question of whether or not the profiling is worth the social price to enable it simply because there is no objective data to examine. However in the realm of probability, I think I have the advantage. When you compare the pool of crimes prevented by this open ended profiling, which is  a subset of the total number of crimes prevented overall, which is already a subset of the total number of crimes committed it becomes clear in a subjective way that the value of this profiling is likely not worth the price society has to pay to enable it.

But thats not even the real comparison to be made. The REAL comparison is how many crimes are prevented by open ended profiling as compared to profiling which has hard rules about what can and cannot be considered probable cause. Rules that respect a person's right to, say, record a police officer on a public street while still allowing police to step in for truly obvious suspicious situations that actually point directly to crime rather than just being "weird". Again, theres no data to examine, but now we are down to the tiny sliver of crimes prevented by open ended profiling versus hard rules profiling and it seems even less worthwhile than before.

Quote from: widdershins on March 25, 2016, 03:51:01 PM
You know, I just thought of one more thing here that really is ridiculous.  If I saw a man on the street filming me, I'm likely to stop and ask what is up with that.  It's human nature.  Why should human nature change because the human involved is wearing a uniform?  What did the cop do in the beginning, really, than what any ordinary person would do?  He got out of his car to talk to the guy.  That was it.  Why does this make him an evil, confrontational man when he was doing the EXACT SAME THING I would do in that situation?  Yes, things quickly escalated.  But I'd get out of the car and talk to the man and this is a secret, but I'm going to share it with you anyway, police officers are ordinary human beings.  That blue, it's just a uniform!  True story, I swear!  They get angry and happy and sad and annoyed just like you and me.  Some of you here act like they should stop being human beings, susceptible to human weaknesses and failures, and that their reactions to a given situation should automatically be better than mine or yours when they put on that uniform.  It's unrealistic, to say the least.

I guess there's a real difference here between us then. I wouldn't confront the guy, largely because he is free to record whatever the hell he wants, even me. If it bothered me I would leave. Leaving really is the quickest, simplest and most effective solution to ending the entire situation with no harm done to anyone. You walk up to the guy and demand to know what hes doing and you are taking the chance that you start something. Maybe he will explain it to you. Maybe he will tell you to fuck off, and then we're off to the races.

Personally, I think this is a police officer reacting the same way cops all over the nation have been reacting to the new norm of literally everyone walking around with a video recorder in their pockets. It terrifies them. Back in the old days they could choke slam a suspect while arresting him and it would be fine. After all hes a fucking criminal, who would believe him. But now it could be recorded from a dozen angles by anyone who happens to be nearby. For some cops it must be a fucking nightmare not to ever be sure your misconduct isn't being recorded.

I mean fuck, whats the world coming to when you cant even empty your clip into the back of an unarmed fleeing black suspect without it appearing on youtube?

This is cop camera phobia, not probable cause to suspect. This cop was paranoid about being recorded and, being a cop, decided to try to do something about it (he failed, of course).

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 25, 2016, 02:13:23 PM
Nonsensei. You just made our point. There isn't a reason for the guy to start recording if he didn't think he would need it in trial. He seems like he was thinking he would need it in trial for his defense. And from a cop's perspective, if a guy is collecting evidence before anything even happens, there is something to at least check out.

When the cop tells  the guy to remove his hand from his pocket and the boat guy yells "I didn't do anything wrong. NO." That adds to the suspicion and also adds a reason for caution.

Sorry but thats just not how this works. Either the guy is committing a crime, which means he wouldn't be recording anything because it would be used in evidence against him, or he isn't committing a crime which means theres no reason for the police officer to approach him to begin with. You can't have it both ways.

When did it become normal in your minds for criminals to record police officers rather than run from them? So normal that just some random dude on the street recording a police officer is now halfway to being guilty of undefined criminal activity? You guys are reaching hard on this particular aspect of the argument.

No reason for the officer to approach? You must live in some sort of utopia that I don't know about. The officer came to check things out and that is the police's job. Unless that guy's property is the entire street, he has every right to drive down that road. And if he sees something, like a guy recording him, he has his right and obligation to check it out.

And checking it out was all he was doing, until the guy got overly defensive about pulling his hand out of his pocket when he approached the patrol car with his hand in there.

From now on, I'm just going to record and yell at every cop for driving down my street. He has NO RIGHT!!!! *sarcasm*

I guess this is where we say we just disagree.

Here, get outraged over something that deserves it:

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2016/03/25/82269088/ (http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2016/03/25/82269088/)

Okay that was a bit silly of me..so here is a REAL case where you have the right to be a bit pissed:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-mailman-handcuffed-in-brooklyn/ar-BBqUeTx (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-mailman-handcuffed-in-brooklyn/ar-BBqUeTx)

His argument that he was doing nothing wrong is irrelevant:  "I won't take my hands out of my pocket, because I have done nothing wrong."  It looks like baiting a cop to get on Utube.

Quote from: SGOS on March 26, 2016, 08:54:49 AM
His argument that he was doing nothing wrong is irrelevant:  "I won't take my hands out of my pocket, because I have done nothing wrong."  It looks like baiting a cop to get on Utube.

Maybe it was baiting, but he really did do nothing wrong, which is the only thing a police officer should be concerned about.  Or us, for that matter

Quote from: aitm on March 25, 2016, 09:46:15 PM
Okay that was a bit silly of me..so here is a REAL case where you have the right to be a bit pissed:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-mailman-handcuffed-in-brooklyn/ar-BBqUeTx (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-mailman-handcuffed-in-brooklyn/ar-BBqUeTx)

Yeah I heard about this last night. This is an example of why I can't trust cops to make rational judgments on ambiguous issues.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 26, 2016, 09:31:34 AM
Maybe it was baiting, but he really did do nothing wrong, which is the only thing a police officer should be concerned about.  Or us, for that matter

The video doesn't show anything prior to the engagement.  I don't know what he was doing prior to the video.  I can't just assume the cop stopped him for no reason.  All it shows is the video guy claiming he was doing nothing wrong, which is what a thief or vandal would say too.

Yeah. You can't lie to a cop though. That would be cheating. And cheating is wrong... :rolleyes:

All we are going by is the info in the video, which eliminates any assumptions if the cop was called there or on the flip side, if the cop was just patrolling (which patrolling is his job... just a reminder)

When the cop was getting info for the boat guy's car, the boat guy played "tough guy" saying "Oh. Now he thinks he's funny". You don't know what the cop was getting license plate info for. It could be just to check if it was registered. Maybe there was a report for a stolen Ford Excursion. Even that is irrelevant though. The cop can get any info he can. In my area, cops have cameras to get license plate numbers as they slowly pass through parking lots. You know why? That's their job.
But anyway. Why he was getting the license plate doesn't matter. Why he was driving around that street doesn't matter. The boat guy wanted to put on a "tough guy" act and then approach the cop car with his hand in his pocket. The cop got out and told the guy to get his hand out of his pocket and the guy got defensive and the cop saw a need for caution.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 26, 2016, 11:25:21 AM
"he really did  nothing wrong"...

These are a lot of assumptions coming from someone on a forum full of skeptics.

I guess it depends on what you're choosing to be skeptical about. I am skeptical that the guy was doing anything wrong, since the police officer didn't arrest him. In fact, since he wasn't arrested I am about as close to 100% certain he wasn't doing anything wrong as I can possibly get without traveling back in time and standing right there to witness the whole thing happening. A cop who pulls a gun on you for refusing to take your hand out of your pocket is not going to decline to arrest you if they have a real reason to be able to do it.

Seriously. Are you really fucking telling me that the guy was doing something wrong and the police officer just up and decided to walk away?

Really? Does that sound like any cop you have ever heard of? How far divorced from reality can you get?

No. I'm not assuming anything which way or the other. I am simply going by that he acted like a tough guy in front of the officer when all the officer was doing was getting license plate info. I don't know if he was doing anything wrong. I honestly don't care what he was doing before the video started rolling. All I am going by (and you should to) is the info we have, which is the video this guy shot and uploaded.

Was he doing something wrong or not that was specific reason for the cop to come over other than him patrolling? doesn't matter. The guy going "oh. now this guy thinks he's funny" to a COP is confrontational and a reason for the cop to be cautious. Approaching the vehicle with his hand in his pocket after his tough guy act is even more reason for the cop to be cautious. The cop didn't know if there was a weapon and he just wanted to be sure about that. When the guy yelled at the cop, refusing to take his hand out of his pocket, the cop is obligated to be ready to protect himself.

Because even if we go by the assumption that the guy didn't do anything wrong before the video started rolling, all those things that happened IN the video is more than enough reason for the cop to assume he might need to defend himself and to be ready.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 26, 2016, 11:56:34 AM
No. I'm not assuming anything which way or the other. I am simply going by that he acted like a tough guy in front of the officer when all the officer was doing was getting license plate info. I don't know if he was doing anything wrong. I honestly don't care what he was doing before the video started rolling. All I am going by (and you should to) is the info we have, which is the video this guy shot and uploaded.

Was he doing something wrong or not that was specific reason for the cop to come over other than him patrolling? doesn't matter. The guy going "oh. now this guy thinks he's funny" to a COP is confrontational and a reason for the cop to be cautious. Approaching the vehicle with his hand in his pocket after his tough guy act is even more reason for the cop to be cautious. The cop didn't know if there was a weapon and he just wanted to be sure about that. When the guy yelled at the cop, refusing to take his hand out of his pocket, the cop is obligated to be ready to protect himself.

Because even if we go by the assumption that the guy didn't do anything wrong before the video started rolling, all those things that happened IN the video is more than enough reason for the cop to assume he might need to defend himself and to be ready.

Well I'm sorry but the city doesn't agree with you since they reassigned him to the fire department because they didn't think his actions were appropriate. Ive been reading back over some of your earlier posts in this thread and it really strikes me that your primary issue is that you don't like the camera man's attitude, and (apparently) feel he deserved to be threatened with a handgun for daring to not be respectful enough.

I couldn't care less about his attitude. I only care about whether or not he has done anything illegal to warrant the attention of a police officer, let alone warrant having a weapon drawn on him. From what I see in the uncut video, this confrontation should never have even begun, let alone escalated to the point it did and the police officer is the one to blame to allowing it and escalating it.

As a side note, my patience for the measures police officers claim to need to take to ensure their own safety has worn thin over the years. Take that story about the postman Aitm posted earlier. While they were arresting him they kept demanding he stop resisting, even though he was literally standing there letting them handcuff him. Police have learned how to use their legal right to defend themselves as a weapon to justify doing whatever they wish.

When an officer pulls his weapon on a guy, thats one fucking step away from killing a person. All he has to do is lift that gun and fire now. Hes ready to fucking gun the guy down and he has yet to see a weapon. Thats not ok. You don't get to proactively threaten someone with your service piece when they haven't done anything illegal and haven't shown a weapon yet, ESPECIALLY in a situation you, as a police officer, had no business being involved in in the first place.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 26, 2016, 12:31:56 PM
Ive been reading back over some of your earlier posts in this thread and it really strikes me that your primary issue is that you don't like the camera man's attitude, and (apparently) feel he deserved to be threatened with a handgun for daring to not be respectful enough.

Yeah that's pretty much the situation. And they started to evolve and embellish a plot from there. :lol: There is nothing else.

embellish the plot? Give me a break. all I am going by is what was in the video
*guy starts recording cop all the way down the street*
*cop drives up to check out what is going on*
*while the windows are down on the cop's car, guy says "oh this guy thinks he's funny now, recording me back (like a tough guy)*
*guy approaches cop car with hand in pocket after doing his tough-guy act*
*cop gets out of car to tell guy to remove his hands from pocket*
*guy yells "I didn't do anything wrong. NO!", refusing to show that he is harmless to the cop and that he doesn't have a weapon*
*cop sees that he needs to be cautious, so he pulls his gun to be ready to defend himself*

Yes Pickel, embellish the plot. Because that's what you have been doing all along. You have demonstrated that you actually have no idea what is wrong in the video.

Also I find it 'funny' that the cop has been passed to fire dept like a bad cold just because he DIDN'T DO anything wrong. A department that 'allows' its personnel to carry their personal guns only. :lol:

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 26, 2016, 01:40:42 PM
Yes Pickel, embellish the plot. Because that's what you have been doing all along. You have demonstrated that you actually have no idea what is wrong in the video.

Also I find it 'funny' that the cop has been passed to fire dept like a bad cold just because he DIDN'T DO anything wrong. A department that 'allows' its personnel to carry their personal guns only. :lol:

How is going only by what information I have embellishing the plot? Embellishing the plot means to add to the plot and exaggerate the plot. How am I doing that by making my assessment only going from what is in the video which is the only information anyone has about this incident?

No shit, he passed it off as he didn't do anything wrong. Because after the guy FINALLY removed his hands from his pocket and his items, he realized he wasn't going to pull a weapon on him, which was issue #1 anyway. All the cop was doing was checking things out when the guy got all defensive about it and turned "tough guy" on the cop.

What exactly is your problem with this cop? That he was taking this guy's license plate down? That he asked the guy to take his hand out of his pocket when the guy approached his vehicle? That he became cautious when the guy shouted and refused to take his hand out of his pocket?

My problem with the cop is his obvious, meaningless bullshit of pulling a gun, bullying and abusing a man with no reason what so ever.

Your problem is making up a scenario determined to confirm his behaviour, because you think it is very normal for a cop to spring his gun out, because a civillian 'talked back' to him.

You know what, I wish I could just say, anywhere from continent to Scandinavia people laugh to your logic with their ass, but unfortunately it is even laughable over many underdeveloped places too.

Whatever Pickel, it is useless to discuss this. I just hope you'll never exprience anything remotely close to this, because from the general picture I think whatever happens the majority will always read something in a situation that will defend a cop pulling a gun in your culture. Because most people are incapable of thinking in another way.

If you have a problem with a cop pulling a gun out to be ready, without even pointing it at the person, because the person he is talking to refuses to show that he has no weapon...  and that you refuse to even try to see it from the cop's perspective, that he sees that he could be in danger right then and needs to be ready with precaution. I think you're right that it's useless to discuss it.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 26, 2016, 09:31:34 AM
Maybe it was baiting, but he really did do nothing wrong, which is the only thing a police officer should be concerned about.  Or us, for that matter

Ok story time kids. When I was young, my family owned and operated two retail store fronts in a local strip mall. We had silent alarm systems (would call our house and the local PD) installed in both properties. This was before the age of motion sensors so these systems used some sort of laser beam type detectors. Break the beam, trigger the alarm. This of course meant that nothing could ever be stacked or left in the path of the beam because if it was, the alarm would trigger as soon as it was set. That happened. A lot. And since the alarm was silent, the person locking up for the day had no idea the alarm was going off.

And so it was that this scenario played out one Sunday afternoon and the home phone rang at 2:05 which was closing time for that store. I jumped in the car and drove to the store (this was way before cell phones). I unlocked the back door, disabled the alarm and then went in to figure out what was left in front of one of the beams and fix the situation. While I was doing that, a local PD walked in the back door and in a firm manly voice said 'I HOPE YOU WORK HERE' to which I casually replied yeah. The officer then said 'OK no problem' turned around and walked out.

And that sort of scenario seems to be more or less what you're saying you'd like to happen in that situation. The officer did his job, found that nothing illegal was taking place and then kindly left. Except for one thing. The officer didn't do his job. He never even made it into the building far enough to see who I was. When I casually answer yeah as though I was supposed to be there at that time, the officer just took me at my word without ever even having seen my face. Most burglars aren't very bright nor very savvy. But some are. What if I had been one of the few savvy burglars and just casually said yeah to the officers question about whether or not I worked there? We would have ended up robbed blind. As someone with properties to protect, I want the cops to do their jobs right. Which means I want them to be absolutely fucking sure that nothing illegal is taking place when investigating a possible illegal activity. Not just oh, you say you aren't doing anything wrong? Well ok then, carry on then, sorry for the inconvenience.

The guy in video wasn't doing anything wrong. And the cop eventually realized that and therefore no arrest was made. But in the video I watched, the guy was backing away from the officer while taking video of him, not following the officer's lawful order (take your hand out of your pocket) and otherwise being dick. If I were that officer, there is no fucking way I could be sure the guy wasn't up to something at that point and neither could you. Eventually? Yeah it was worked out and no arrests were required. But I strongly suspect it could have been worked out a whole lot sooner and easier if the guy had just done what the officer asked and then politely said, what seems to be the problem officer? What can I help you with sir?

But no, instead the guy decided to be a dick and guess what? Things don't go as well for you with the cops when you decide to be a dick. In a word, duh.

Moral of the story? Being a dick is grounds to be threatened with being shot and killed.

No. Moral of the story is being a dick is grounds to have people take caution around you.

No one was shot. No gun was fired. The only reason he pulled it at all was because he told the guy to remove his hand from his pocket because the cop was unsure if Boatman was going to pull a knife or something on it and Boatman refused, very defensively, I might add... which is lots of grounds for caution.

I would argue that, yet again, that situation should have never reached that point in the first place, but since people have already tried to argue that and it's been ignored for 8 pages now... I won't...

And again, you literally just said, "He was a dick, so it was okay to threaten him with death.". If the guy approached the cop first, okay, have at it you are dead right. He didn't. The cop approached and harassed him. You cannot justify that (regardless of how much you try), and that makes the initial blame on the officer. The PD, the internal investigation, agreed. If you want to say you know more than them, take it up with them.

Where did I say he should be threatened at all? Oh yeah. Nowhere. And don't presume that I did.

I am saying the cop was absolutely right in taking the precautions he did to keep himself safe. He didn't threaten anyone.

Better to be a swordsman in a garden, than a gardener in a sword fight.

I also agree that the situation never should have reached that point. And if the guy didn't approach his vehicle with his hand in his pocket in a way that made the cop think he had a weapon, or if he just removed his hand when the cop wanted to make sure Boatman had no weapon ready to pull on him, it wouldn't have got to that point and the gun wouldn't have been pulled at all.

QuoteWhere did I say he should be threatened at all? Oh yeah. Nowhere. And don't presume that I did.

QuoteThe only reason he pulled it at all ...

What is the point of pulling a gun if you aren't making a threat?

QuoteHe didn't threaten anyone.

We have very different definitions of what someone pulling a gun on you means.

QuoteI also agree that the situation never should have reached that point.

My god, you finally agree with us and the PD that the cop should have never escalated the situation! Praise the fucking lord!

QuoteAnd if the guy didn't approach his vehicle ...

Oh.

Btw, he walks to the front of his car and stops at the hood... which is quite a few steps away yet from the police car. It's not like he started standing hands length from the cop's window. If someone was recording my car, I would step towards the front of it, towards them, too.

Yet post after post after post you find some way to twist this into this guy's fault rather than admit that the cop was in the wrong for escalating the situation which the authorities who have all available evidence agree that he did not handle the situation as well as he could and start making up grand tales about how this guy was the one at fault and deserved to have a gun pulled on him.

Okay dude, we get it, the guy was a possible threat because he had his hand in his pocket, NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING AGAINST THAT, what we are saying is the cop should have never approached him in the first place, the cop should have never stopped for two minutes and harassed him in the first place, and when you are the one instigating a fight you don't get to cry victim when the other guy get's irritated with you. Especially when you do so hiding behind a badge and a gun.

Several times now you have made assumptions about the guy's actions that are either just that, assumptions, or do not match what happens in the video. Yet I am the one being criticized for assumptions and the person calling me on them is oddly quiet about your story writing to make this video fit your agenda. Odd how that works...

I think it might be time to give this discussion a rest. It's getting to the point where even the side I agree with is getting on my nerves.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 04:59:23 PM
Moral of the story? Being a dick is grounds to be threatened with being shot and killed.

When cops are involved? Yep. Pretty much. And that's exactly how I want it to be.

Quote from: Johan on March 26, 2016, 06:04:24 PM
When cops are involved? Yep. Pretty much. And that's exactly how I want it to be.

Thank god the majority still believe the police are there to "protect and serve" then instead of "harass and intimidate if Johan disapproves of you.".

Shir. You're argument is getting flat out ridiculous. I don't know what else there is to say, except maybe "don't be a dick to a cop and if the cop thinks you have a weapon, assure them, in the way they specify, that you don't" .... or you can, if you want and feel so bold to try and experiment with giving the cop an implied reason to take caution.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 26, 2016, 05:53:00 PM
I think it might be time to give this discussion a rest. It's getting to the point where even the side I agree with is getting on my nerves.

Yeah, I agree, 12 pages of "he said-she said". There will be absolutely no agreement because we have differing backgrounds I guess. But it is what it is. If my argument can't convince anyone so be it. They surely made no points with me, so as Dave Mason sings, "we just disagree".

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 26, 2016, 06:29:28 PM
Shir. You're argument is getting flat out ridiculous. I don't know what else there is to say, except maybe "don't be a dick to a cop and if the cop thinks you have a weapon, assure them, in the way they specify, that you don't" .... or you can, if you want and feel so bold to try and experiment with giving the cop an implied reason to take caution.

If you really think "cops should not escalate a situation" is ridiculous, as you have demonstrated for 8 pages now, then I really have to admit I don't understand anything about you or the background you grew up in. To me that is a completely foreign idea that anyone could think cops escalating a situation is somehow justified...

Alright shir. Have fun with that. Go yell at a cop or something and see how it goes and then tell me what happens.

I don't know why people are calling for an end to this discussion just because we aren't convincing each other.

When has that ever happened in anything we argue about?

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 26, 2016, 07:18:56 PM
I don't know why people are calling for an end to this discussion just because we aren't convincing each other.

When has that ever happened in anything we argue about?

page 13 and we all have repeated our arguments at least 4 times and no one seems to give a shit. The next step is who can scream it the loudest…then it goes down hill from there.

What aitm said. We keep saying the same thing over and over. We don't agree about a certain point and none of us are budging on it.


The only thing left is for one of you guys to go yell at a cop to prove us wrong...
or maybe there is validity to what we are saying after all... about how civilians should interact with the police and you know it.

You either truly believe that civilians should be able to be a dick to police like the way this guy was, or you don't. If you do, prove us wrong. If you think it's a bad idea to try to prove us wrong, your outlook on it isn't so on-point, is it?

That's all I have left to say in this thread.

Really? You couldn't just go "quietly into the night"?  Ah well, whats another 12 pages….

Hijiri..I meant to respond to your post but somehow it got waxed, and it doesn't even show up on the mod log as a mod action…so..sorry bout that, I think….not sure how i did it.

Quote
You either truly believe that civilians should be able to be a dick to police like the way this guy was, or you don't. If you do, prove us wrong. If you think it's a bad idea to try to prove us wrong, your outlook on it isn't so on-point, is it?

Well, I appreciate your honesty in admitting you didn't read a thing anyone posted. Adios.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 06:26:18 PM
Thank god the majority still believe the police are there to "protect and serve" then instead of "harass and intimidate if Johan disapproves of you.".

I knew I could count on you not to take my words and distort them. Now that we have the sarcastic portion of the post out of the way... I'll give you this, I've come to expect certain things from you and you never let me down.

I think I'm with Hijiri, time to stick a fork in this one.

QuoteYou either truly believe that civilians should be able to be a dick to police like the way this guy was, or you don't. If you do, prove us wrong. If you think it's a bad idea to try to prove us wrong, your outlook on it isn't so on-point, is it?

I absolutely do believe that civilians should be able to be a dick to police. You don't get to pull a gun on me without legal consequences if I'm being a dick to you. Why should a police officer be allowed to do it? Thats something you've never been able to demonstrate: why police get a free pass on doing things that other people would probably be arrested for doing.

Because hes worried about his safety? If thats true, then it would be true if the situation was between 2 civilians, right? And yet if one of those civilians brandishes a gun he goes to jail and the "i was worried about my safety" defense wouldn't work. It only works for cops. Why is that?

Quote from: Johan on March 26, 2016, 10:56:26 PM
I knew I could count on you not to take my words and distort them. Now that we have the sarcastic portion of the post out of the way... I'll give you this, I've come to expect certain things from you and you never let me down.

I think I'm with Hijiri, time to stick a fork in this one.

"Act like a dick, deserve to be threatened by a gun."

which part did I twist, do tell.

There are certain things I expect from you too... To defend the police no matter how wrong they were, and hold hypocritical standards towards people you disagree with. And by got, the expectations came true.

Quote from: aitm on March 26, 2016, 08:29:52 PM
Really? You couldn't just go "quietly into the night"?  Ah well, whats another 12 pages….

This is still only page 4 for me, so whatever. :lol:

What are my rights?  Do I deserve this crappy situation? ... isn't that proto-SJW?

You are a dirty ape, get with the program.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 25, 2016, 04:03:02 PM
We both have a bias here. Mine is that I don't want police officers to have even more power over us than they already have. I'm not entirely sure what yours is.

For the record, I went into this thread expecting to be pissed off at another blatant example of police abuse of power.  I do KNOW that it is a VERY REAL problem and before I watched the video I assumed that was the case.  It didn't even cross my mind that it might not be.  So I had a DIFFERENT BIAS before I watched the video.  My opinion here is very much NOT the effect of my preexisting bias.  Watching the video actually changed my preexisting bias.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 25, 2016, 04:03:02 PM
However my argument, while not any better than yours in the area of statistics, is superior in the area of probability. Because "tons" of crime is not prevented at all, its unlikely that unrestricted, person to person profiling prevents "tons" of crime. Once you acknowledge that, the question becomes a cost/benefit equation. Is the unknown, but likely insignificant amount of crime prevented by (what I consider to be) overzealous profiling practices worth the power citizens cede to police in order to enable it? And before you ask me exactly what power they are ceding, how about an example like, say, the freedom to record a police officer on a public street without being investigated for it (and countless other examples of totally legal activities that are now open season for profiling based on nothing more than the whim of a given police officer)

Now, again, you're claiming "probability" is on your side and that "tons of crime is NOT prevented" with no statistics to back you up.  Come on.  If you're going to demand statistics of me at least stop making claims without statistics yourself.  And you're swapping out "suspicious person" with "unrestricted, person to person profiling" with the obvious intention of making it look worse than it really is.  Then again, without statistics to back you up, you claim the amount of crime prevented this way is "likely insignificant" and call the practices "overzealous".  Well, yes, overzealous profiling is bad.  But is that really what you see here?

The problem here is that if I were to read what you wrote without having watched the video I would build a picture in my mind of a cop getting out and being aggressive right off, pulling his gun, pointing it at the suspect, keeping him from his daily routine, stopping him on his way to somewhere, perhaps cuffing him while he did a background check.  He ran the plates.  That is undisputably standard procedure and I can say with a great amount of certainty DOES lead to criminals being apprehended on a regular basis.  Then he got out of his car to TALK to the guy.  That's it.  He got out to talk.  He didn't stop him on the street.  He didn't search him.  He didn't ask for ID.  He asked him to take his hand out of his pocket, again, standard procedure.  To hear you tell it, though, even to this point his intentions were malicious.  I just don't see that he did anything wrong to this point.  Since when is it a crime for the police to talk to a person?

And while you're talking about ceding the ability to film the police I would like to point out the officer never once told him to stop doing that.  You're suggesting that he is somehow losing that right when it is never actually restricted by this officer.  He didn't so much as suggest that it was a problem at any point.  If you want to relate a police officer talking to you to being "investigated", again, I think you're overstating the significance.  Since when is it a crime for police to start a conversation with you?

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 25, 2016, 04:03:02 PM
There's no objective answer to the question of whether or not the profiling is worth the social price to enable it simply because there is no objective data to examine. However in the realm of probability, I think I have the advantage. When you compare the pool of crimes prevented by this open ended profiling, which is  a subset of the total number of crimes prevented overall, which is already a subset of the total number of crimes committed it becomes clear in a subjective way that the value of this profiling is likely not worth the price society has to pay to enable it.

Again, you cannot claim advantage of probability without statistics to calculate probability.  Your "advantage" is imagined.  And again, I don't see a significant "price" paid by the possibility of a police officer talking to me.  Perhaps if I were an antisocial hermit with authority issues.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 25, 2016, 04:03:02 PM
But thats not even the real comparison to be made. The REAL comparison is how many crimes are prevented by open ended profiling as compared to profiling which has hard rules about what can and cannot be considered probable cause. Rules that respect a person's right to, say, record a police officer on a public street while still allowing police to step in for truly obvious suspicious situations that actually point directly to crime rather than just being "weird". Again, theres no data to examine, but now we are down to the tiny sliver of crimes prevented by open ended profiling versus hard rules profiling and it seems even less worthwhile than before.

You keep using the word "profiling", but it's not "profiling" we're talking about.  "Profiling" is used to identify a specific subgroup of people.  This is "See a dude, talk to a dude".  You have to use a really loose definition of the word to use the word "profiling" in this particular case.  Once again, I think the reason you are doing this is because the word "profiling" just sounds really evil, thus, supports your position on an emotional rather than logical level.

If you believe that you or anyone on the planet can create a set of iron-clad rules of when an officer should and should not "investigate" (translated this means "talk to", apparently) a person that will NEVER require any officer to ever, EVER make a judgement call then you are being naive.  You cannot possibly envision every possible situation an officer may witness to be able to write an all-inclusive rule which would never require the officer to use his judgement.  And EVEN IF you were able to create such a ludicrously perfect rule, what if the officer is just curious and wants to talk to someone, just to satisfy his curiosity?  "Wow!  That's a nice purse.  My wife would LOVE that.  Let's see here...nope, I am forbidden to approach that woman and ask where she got it because chapter 17, paragraph 132, section 15, subsection j1 of the guidelines says she's not to be 'investigated' because she hasn't displayed one of the 437,315 known behaviors worth 'investigating'".  Such absolute rules for officer conduct would be ludicrously impractical and utterly impossible to create, much less follow.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 25, 2016, 04:12:29 PM
I guess there's a real difference here between us then. I wouldn't confront the guy, largely because he is free to record whatever the hell he wants, even me. If it bothered me I would leave. Leaving really is the quickest, simplest and most effective solution to ending the entire situation with no harm done to anyone. You walk up to the guy and demand to know what hes doing and you are taking the chance that you start something. Maybe he will explain it to you. Maybe he will tell you to fuck off, and then we're off to the races.

Personally, I think this is a police officer reacting the same way cops all over the nation have been reacting to the new norm of literally everyone walking around with a video recorder in their pockets. It terrifies them. Back in the old days they could choke slam a suspect while arresting him and it would be fine. After all hes a fucking criminal, who would believe him. But now it could be recorded from a dozen angles by anyone who happens to be nearby. For some cops it must be a fucking nightmare not to ever be sure your misconduct isn't being recorded.

I mean fuck, whats the world coming to when you cant even empty your clip into the back of an unarmed fleeing black suspect without it appearing on youtube?

This is cop camera phobia, not probable cause to suspect. This cop was paranoid about being recorded and, being a cop, decided to try to do something about it (he failed, of course).

First, that is a conclusion based solely on belief, not evidenced by what happened.  Second, if he were afraid of the camera, why did he stop when it was obviously there?  And why did he never once so much as suggest that the filming was in any way a problem?  In fact, the officer ENCOURAGED the man to put the video on YouTube.  Once again, the facts simply don't back your beliefs.  There is NOTHING in this video to indicate that "the cop was paranoid about being recorded".  That's your belief based on your belief, again not evidenced in the video, that the only reason the officer stopped was because the man was filming.  We don't know this with any certainty.

Quote from: Shiranu on March 26, 2016, 05:42:48 PM
What is the point of pulling a gun if you aren't making a threat?

How about, "to defend yourself"?  All you anti-cop people here seem to forget that the man had JUST refused to remove his hand from his pocket when the gun was drawn, something police consider "threatening" for what should be obvious reasons.

Quote from: widdershins on March 30, 2016, 12:03:26 PM
How about, "to defend yourself"?  All you anti-cop people here seem to forget that the man had JUST refused to remove his hand from his pocket when the gun was drawn, something police consider "threatening" for what should be obvious reasons.

They refuse to believe that is even a possibility... that the cop saw the guy as a possible threat and he needed to defend himself. There is no more reason to discuss this anymore, if they aren't even going to entertain that idea. No use arguing with pigeons.

(http://orig05.deviantart.net/9d2f/f/2007/311/5/3/the_pigeon_and_the_chess_game_by_kebbige.png)

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 30, 2016, 12:08:43 PM
They refuse to believe that is even a possibility... that the cop saw the guy as a possible threat and he needed to defend himself. There is no more reason to discuss this anymore, if they aren't even going to entertain that idea. No use arguing with pigeons.

(http://orig05.deviantart.net/9d2f/f/2007/311/5/3/the_pigeon_and_the_chess_game_by_kebbige.png)

And you steadfastly refuse to even entertain an interpretation of this situation that has the cop as the aggressor. In your mind he can do no wrong because everything he does is justified by the tiniest possibility that he may somehow feel threatened by a guy with his hand in his pocket, no matter how laughable the prospect of that threat may be.

You see a guy defending himself.

I see a guy totally intolerant of disobedience, who shows no hesitation to level a threat against anyone who would defy him. Considering the endless cavalcade of video evidence proving that my view of police behavior has a basis in reality, you still insist on seeing him as innocently defending himself.

You're right about one thing, continuing this conversation is useless. Your laughably obvious willful ignorance has ensured that.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 30, 2016, 02:36:02 PM
And you steadfastly refuse to even entertain an interpretation of this situation that has the cop as the aggressor. In your mind he can do no wrong because everything he does is justified by the tiniest possibility that he may somehow feel threatened by a guy with his hand in his pocket, no matter how laughable the prospect of that threat may be.

You see a guy defending himself.

I see a guy totally intolerant of disobedience, who shows no hesitation to level a threat against anyone who would defy him. Considering the endless cavalcade of video evidence proving that my view of police behavior has a basis in reality, you still insist on seeing him as innocently defending himself.

You're right about one thing, continuing this conversation is useless. Your laughably obvious willful ignorance has ensured that.

Believe me, I tried to see it the way the few of you are interpreting it, that the cop was the aggressor... I guess I just don't let my emotions steer me away from a logical analysis like the few of you do though and no matter how much I look at that video, I see a cop checking out why a guy is videotaping him and then it turns in to Boatman being pre-maturely defensive and the cop becomes cautious in response to how Boatman acted. If you look at the video without your emotions getting in the way, you will see that. At this point, it seems like the few of you are just stubbornly "keeping face" to win the argument. I don't care enough about this argument. If you want to claim it as a "win" for yourselves because you can't convince us of your incorrect point, go ahead.

I promised I was going to get out of this conversation, but I slipped and tried to get widdershins to drop it. I'm out of this thread again. Don't feel like wasting my time debating people that are absolutely irrational and overly emotionally-driven with their take on a subject.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 30, 2016, 12:08:43 PM
They refuse to believe that is even a possibility... that the cop saw the guy as a possible threat and he needed to defend himself. There is no more reason to discuss this anymore, if they aren't even going to entertain that idea. No use arguing with pigeons.

(http://orig05.deviantart.net/9d2f/f/2007/311/5/3/the_pigeon_and_the_chess_game_by_kebbige.png)

Yeah, I know what you mean.  But they are intelligent, normally logical people, so I keep going.  Eventually one of them has to see the pattern of "making shit up" that they're engaging in here, where they tell you what the cop was thinking, know the exact reason he pulled over, know what happened before the video or behind the camera, ignore the audio altogether unless the cop is saying something which they believe supports their position, refer to the individual officer in this incident by talking about "the police" so that they can generalize known problematic police behavior and link that generalization to this specific incident or the myriad of other breakdowns in their logic.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 30, 2016, 02:36:02 PM
And you steadfastly refuse to even entertain an interpretation of this situation that has the cop as the aggressor...

And that's the problem right there.  We refuse to "interpret" what's going on, also known as "speculation".  To be clear, the cop may, indeed, have done something wrong here, though it's obvious he is not "the aggressor" as the man with the camera gets audibly aggressive before the officer gets physically aggressive.  I don't refuse to acknowledge that the officer "may have" done something wrong here.  I simply refuse to convict him by what "may have" happened.  Based on the video and the accompanying audio, I see no "evidence" of abuse by the officer.  Possible evidence?  I haven't considered it, honestly, because, contrary  to your whole "possibility" spiel here, nobody is actually arguing what he "may have" done.  You guys are speaking in absolutes, that he WAS the problem, that this WILL lead to a loss of freedoms, that he WAS the bad guy.  But, you're doing that for obvious reasons.  If you argue what "may be" then you can't get morally outraged by your wild speculations.

So, was the cop "the aggressor" here?  Hell no!  The man gets audibly aggressive first and, like the Highlanders, there can be only one.  Did he handle the situation properly?  I don't know, but I don't see any evidence proving that he didn't.  Did he have a reason to stop?  Again, I don't know.  There's no thought ticker above his head telling me what he was thinking or why he stopped.  Would it be wrong for him to stop just because he was being filmed, with no evidence of wrongdoing?  That depends on your view.  I don't see a problem with him getting out of the car to talk to a guy.  You, obviously, do.  The video does not show any evidence that he had any darker intentions than to speak to the guy before the situation escalated.  Should he have pulled his gun?  Again, I don't know, but I DO know that police see a hand in your pocket as a potential threat.  It must be part of their training because every officer I've ever seen approach a person will ask them to take their hands out of their pockets, including my own personal experience.  I have to assume there's a reason that is part of their training.

In short, I am not saying the cop "definitely" did no wrong.  I am saying that there is no evidence of wrongdoing unless you "interpret" the shit out of the situation and build a monster of a cop up in your head based on generalizations of bad police behavior which are all too common today and assume he fits that general profile.

Are you fucking kidding me? The guy was "verbally aggressive" before the cop was physically aggressive? So fucking what? Are you seriously suggesting that the guy being a meanie to the cop is on the same level as the cop pulling his service piece out? And lets keep in mind here, when that happened the guy recording had yet to commit a crime and the cop had no reason to even approach him.

The cop was the aggressor just for approaching him, but he DEFINITELY became the aggressor when he pulled his weapon.

And god have i ever heard enough about the guy refusing to remove his hand from his pocket. First of all, he is well within his rights to refuse. As he pointed out, he had yet to do anything wrong and the officer didn't even have grounds to approach him let alone make any demands of him. Second, unless the guy was wearing cargo pants what could he have possibly had in there? A pocket knife at worst. I'm sure that cop was in mortal danger from a guy wielding a pocket knife in one hand and a camera in the other. how ridiculous does this image need to get before it penetrates?

My interpretation of this video is based on what the cop did, what the cop was legally entitled to do, and what the camera guy did and was legally entitled to do. theres no law that says you have to be nice to a cop or any law that says you cant record him. A police officer of all people should be well aware of that, and yet he approached anyway. Why? Some people on this thread would have you believe that its because recording a police officer on a public street is criminally suspicious. Total bullshit. Ducking your head under your hoodie and rapidly walking away, or running is suspicious. Adjusting the strap of your gun hidden under your clothes is suspicious. Openly announcing your presence to a police officer by recording him is NOT SUSPICIOUS it is the opposite of suspicious. What sort of mental gymnastics do you have to perform in your head to actually think that criminals now do stuff to be noticed by police?

Its crap. This cop didn't like being recorded and decided to do something about it. When the guy refused to be cowed by the badge he pulled his weapon. And, once again, the city agrees because hes not a cop anymore.

Dear lord, this thread for the past couple pages...

(http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/24039_large_Circling_The_Drain_Wide.png)

The pigeon anology is not on your side here guys.

You are the ones who can't imagine this situation with a cop who wouldn't pull a gun. Exactly like the believer who cannot imagine anything without a magic man on the sky and interpret everything he experiences according to that 'reality'. The problem flies over your head. So that's just embarassing. Seriously.

QuoteWe refuse to "interpret" what's going on, also known as "speculation".

That's exactly what you have done all along.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 30, 2016, 06:26:10 PM
Are you fucking kidding me? The guy was "verbally aggressive" before the cop was physically aggressive? So fucking what? Are you seriously suggesting that the guy being a meanie to the cop is on the same level as the cop pulling his service piece out? And lets keep in mind here, when that happened the guy recording had yet to commit a crime and the cop had no reason to even approach him.

This is just getting stupid and, frankly, I'm getting a little tired of people putting ignorant words in my mouth.  I DO NOT FUCKING KNOW what was happening BEHIND the camera!  I am not saying he hurt the cop's feelings so he deserved to have a gun pulled on him and, frankly, I think you know damned well that's not what I'm saying and you're being a jackass for suggesting my argument is so simplistic and, frankly, utterly fucking retarded.

And YOU DO NOT KNOW what the guy did or did not do, so please quit playing the video in your head from ten steps back where you can plainly see that the guy with the camera is exactly as un-threatening as you would like to believe he was.  You also DO NOT KNOW that "the cop had no reason to approach him".  Were you there?  Did you pick up your mind reading machine, step into your fucking time machine, go back in time and confirm the cop's "reasons" for doing anything.  The only HINT of any "reason" from the video was in the middle of a less-than-civil conversation between two people who obviously didn't like each other and had no intention of cooperating with each other, so you have to take that with a grain of salt.

And the suggestion that the guy has to commit a crime for a cop to pull a gun, that's fucking stupid.  Have you ever heard of a cop pulling a gun because you were J-walking or speeding?  I mean, that being the ACTUAL reason for pulling the gun?  The police do not pull guns on you when you "commit crimes".  "He committed a crime" is not a justification for pulling a gun.  If it were every kid would have a horror story about the time he spit his gum out on the sidewalk.  They pull guns on you when you are a threat.  Again, this is a blatant, transparent attempt to inject ignorance into the conversation to confuse the facts.

I'm not even reading the rest of that blathering shit.  If you are just going to continue to make this shit up as you go along then there really is no point in talking to you.  Frankly, I'd rather have LittleNipper back.  At least I EXPECT him to make claims as if they were facts even though he had no way of actually "knowing" anything he claimed.  If you want to talk about this in a civilized, intelligent way, great.  If you just want to keep making up what happened and pretending my argument is as simplistic as you really, really wish it were, I'm done.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 31, 2016, 07:10:18 AM
The pigeon anology is not on your side here guys.

You are the ones who can't imagine this situation with a cop who wouldn't pull a gun. Exactly like the believer who cannot imagine anything without a magic man on the sky and interpret everything he experiences according to that 'reality'. The problem flies over your head. So that's just embarassing. Seriously.

Quote

We refuse to "interpret" what's going on, also known as "speculation".

That's exactly what you have done all along.

Says the one who uses the word "imagine" when describing how one should view the "evidence".

You know, I just realized something interesting about this conversation.  One side of the argument only ever uses the word "evidence" to describe what they see, while the other side uses words like "imagine" and "interpret".  Obviously, one of these words is not like the others.  Perhaps if you're on the other side of this argument you should look back at what you wrote, really think about it and ask yourself, "Is that word objective or is it subjective?"  I'll give you a hint.  The word "evidence" is the only word here which is "objective".  While I won't spoil it and tell you where the other two words fit in I will say that they are the OPPOSITE of "objective".

Quote from: widdershins on March 31, 2016, 10:24:08 AM
Says the one who uses the word "imagine" when describing how one should view the "evidence".

Oy vey...  Yeah that is exactly what I mean there. Imaginning something and interpretation of that thing which is not there. Are you thick? Actually, I know you are but not sure about the limits. You have been writing scenarios around the videos and around the person who shot the videos of on 'what might have happened and what should be done' according to those scenarios and you are talking about evidence?

I'll tell it like you are 12.

The problem here, you and your side cannot wrap your heads around that pulling a gun on someone is NOT a normal behaviour EVEN FOR A COP IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. The circumstances presented here is one of those. It's very simple. We do not need a Sherlock. Do you have the basic intelligent to get that? This happens in the US where there are serious several gun issues. And this is one of them and that's the reason.

What is that? It's the act of pulling a gun being seen as a very normal ordinary thing to do, nobody sees a red flag, but just write stories around it when done by an official. That's what you have been doing. Your point of departure is that pulling a gun is NORMAL thing to begin with, esp. for a cop, doesn't matter what is happening. And you run with that. NO, IT IS NOT.

Show those videos to anywhere Western outside your culture -actually several Eastern and MEastern places too- you are going to get the same reaction in a dozen different language. Something you cannot 'imagine'. Get the usage of imagine here  or need some linguistic explanation?

Show that video in Switzerland, a place more civilians are armed than in your country, only reaction you'll get is "WTF?!" in German or French. You know why? Because seriously what the fuck is that?

There is NO objectivity in what you present here. You are just writing more on more in to your story and it is now an eleborate scenario in your mind completely rationalised. The problem is that the problem in the behaviour presented in the videos is NOT a problem for you. Do you get where I am going with this? You think it is the right action. "Cop-'insolent' citizen- pull the gun" equation is perfectly normal for you. You can't think beyond that. Think, imagine, interpret, reason, question it in any other way.

So this is not a discussion. This has never been a discussion from the beginning. It's about you, rationalising your belief on how an official should handle some situation. In the most ridiculous escalated way. By pulling a gun.

:arrow: If there is one evidence here, that is the cop being pullled out of his job as the result of the incident and being put in one where a gun is NOT needed. There is nothing more drastic for a Police Force to do for a cop while they can perfectly create a shit storm and avoid it AFTER he is found done nothing wrong. That is the only evidence here. Not the fucking speculation of what was his in his pocket, what was he doing there, was he being a dick or trying to get a 15 mins fame...etc.


So please go on. Happy realising.

I can never find my "beating a dead horse" pic when I need it..

Quote from: aitm on March 31, 2016, 12:40:04 PM
I can never find my "beating a dead horse" pic when I need it..

(https://moesucks.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lets-beat-that-horse.jpg)

I got you, boiiii.

Good lord, this thread is still going...

Quote from: Shiranu on March 31, 2016, 01:44:00 PM
Good lord, this thread is still going...

YOU STARTED IT

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 31, 2016, 03:39:06 PM
YOU STARTED IT

LOLOLOLOLOL

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 31, 2016, 11:50:58 AM
Oy vey...  Yeah that is exactly what I mean there. Imaginning something and interpretation of that thing which is not there. Are you thick? Actually, I know you are but not sure about the limits. You have been writing scenarios around the videos and around the person who shot the videos of on 'what might have happened and what should be done' according to those scenarios and you are talking about evidence?

I'll tell it like you are 12.

The problem here, you and your side cannot wrap your heads around that pulling a gun on someone is NOT a normal behaviour EVEN FOR A COP IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. The circumstances presented here is one of those. It's very simple. We do not need a Sherlock. Do you have the basic intelligent to get that? This happens in the US where there are serious several gun issues. And this is one of them and that's the reason.

What is that? It's the act of pulling a gun being seen as a very normal ordinary thing to do, nobody sees a red flag, but just write stories around it when done by an official. That's what you have been doing. Your point of departure is that pulling a gun is NORMAL thing to begin with, esp. for a cop, doesn't matter what is happening. And you run with that. NO, IT IS NOT.

Show those videos to anywhere Western outside your culture -actually several Eastern and MEastern places too- you are going to get the same reaction in a dozen different language. Something you cannot 'imagine'. Get the usage of imagine here  or need some linguistic explanation?

Show that video in Switzerland, a place more civilians are armed than in your country, only reaction you'll get is "WTF?!" in German or French. You know why? Because seriously what the fuck is that?

There is NO objectivity in what you present here. You are just writing more on more in to your story and it is now an eleborate scenario in your mind completely rationalised. The problem is that the problem in the behaviour presented in the videos is NOT a problem for you. Do you get where I am going with this? You think it is the right action. "Cop-'insolent' citizen- pull the gun" equation is perfectly normal for you. You can't think beyond that. Think, imagine, interpret, reason, question it in any other way.

So this is not a discussion. This has never been a discussion from the beginning. It's about you, rationalising your belief on how an official should handle some situation. In the most ridiculous escalated way. By pulling a gun.

:arrow: If there is one evidence here, that is the cop being pullled out of his job as the result of the incident and being put in one where a gun is NOT needed. There is nothing more drastic for a Police Force to do for a cop while they can perfectly create a shit storm and avoid it AFTER he is found done nothing wrong. That is the only evidence here. Not the fucking speculation of what was his in his pocket, what was he doing there, was he being a dick or trying to get a 15 mins fame...etc.


So please go on. Happy realising.

I'm not going to go through line by line refuting all that stupid shit where you tell me what I think and what I know as if you had a fucking clue who I am, one of which I actually already refuted in the post directly above the one you quoted.  If you can't be bothered to so much as figure out what I'm saying before you start telling me what I'm saying then you're simply too much of a pompous prick to bother talking to.  I'll just say to those on the other side, if you can't bother yourselves to listen to what those who disagree with you are actually saying, preferring instead to make it up for them, then it is simply not worth the thought and time it takes to give you explanations you're just going to twist and ignore anyway.  If winning an argument is so much more important to you than being informed, have fun with that.

And to you, specifically, enjoy your petty little insults.  It really doesn't bother me much knowing it comes from a petty little person.

You didn't refute anything. There is nothing to refute. The cop is NOT a cop anymore. He is taken from his job as a result of the complaint and forced to do something he is not needed to carry a gun.

End of story.

Your post about the word 'imagine' above reminded a long argument you got into about the gun issue, 3 years ago? You don't like being called thick, then stop acting like one. Stop taking words out of context, when it is obvious a different one that you cannot think of is offered to you. Just say that you don't see it that way straight forward, instead of taking petty stabs at it yourself.

Quote from: Nonsensei on March 31, 2016, 03:39:06 PM
YOU STARTED IT

Nevertheless, I didn't expect it to go on this long. I am almost proud..,

Quote from: Shiranu on March 31, 2016, 10:50:12 PM
Nevertheless, I didn't expect it to go on this long. I am almost proud..,

For me this is the 5th page due to my settings, and for this whole past page or two it's just been doing this:

(http://davidsplumbingokc.com/images/plumbing/down-the-drain.jpg)

It's like watching a train wreck in progress: even though I already jumped out of the train, I just can't look away.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 31, 2016, 11:23:36 PM
For me this is the 5th page due to my settings,

oh quit yer bragg.....hey.....I just changed mine too......damn right this only MY 5th page as well......

https://youtu.be/fZLPyXWzejs

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on April 01, 2016, 12:17:31 PM
https://youtu.be/fZLPyXWzejs

YOU HAD ONE RAIL!

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 31, 2016, 07:30:13 PM
You didn't refute anything. There is nothing to refute. The cop is NOT a cop anymore. He is taken from his job as a result of the complaint and forced to do something he is not needed to carry a gun.

End of story.

Your post about the word 'imagine' above reminded a long argument you got into about the gun issue, 3 years ago? You don't like being called thick, then stop acting like one. Stop taking words out of context, when it is obvious a different one that you cannot think of is offered to you. Just say that you don't see it that way straight forward, instead of taking petty stabs at it yourself.

I didn't refute anything, not because the bullshit you wrote couldn't be refuted, but because I'm sick of long posts where I do nothing but defend myself rather than state my case.  I could EASILY refute at least a good portion of what you wrote.  The most obvious example that comes to mind is your comparison of guns in America with those in Switzerland, which is utterly ridiculous.  In America any nujob who can pass a background check, no matter how obviously crazy, can get a gun.  In Switzerland they can apply for a permit to keep the gun they were issued IN THE MILITARY.  They all receive training fora  MINIMUM of a year and a half and spend the rest of their military career handling that weapon on a daily basis in an environment where any missteps with that weapon are scrutinized by all of the people around them, who have ALSO been trained to use it and spot misuse.  And after a year and a half of training and a full military service they STILL have to apply for a permit, which includes taking a test to prove they know all about safety, proper handling and applicable laws!  And all this in a country where military service is MANDATORY for all able-bodied males.  So what do people with guns in Switzerland, where you can get a gun if you can prove you're responsible, have to do with people with guns in America, where you can get a gun if nobody can prove you're NOT responsible?  Not a damned thing.

As for your "end of story" bullshit, can you show me any evidence he was "taken" from his post because of this incident?  Because the story I found (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4676869-181/pd-default-story-headline-xy) says that he was transferred to the fire division, "a transfer he requested earlier in July before the incident".

And this is exactly what I'm sick of doing.  This bullshit back and forth where I have to point out all the stupid shit you're just pulling out of your ass, the false equivalencies and just generally being a prick.  I disagree with you.  Fucking get over it.  At least go fucking cry to someone else about it.