Cop: "You're Recording Me? I Will Pull My Gun On You."

[Shiranu]

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.

[Johan]

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.

[Nonsensei]

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?

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?

[Shiranu]

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.

[Sargon The Grape]

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.

[Baruch]

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

You are a dirty ape, get with the program.

[widdershins]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[widdershins]

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.

[widdershins]

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.

[PickelledEggs]

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.

[Nonsensei]

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.

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.

[PickelledEggs]

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.

[widdershins]

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.

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.

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.

[Nonsensei]

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.

[Sargon The Grape]

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