Winston-Salem police dept. Duchbaggery.

[shawn]

You can run the hypotheticals all you want, but one thing I've learned is, I've never had an issue with a cop unless I had it coming.

I take it that you're aware the average US citizen commits three felonies a day, right?

 

[UTfball68]

Had no right to tell him to leave. He was breaking no law.

Had no right to detain him, no matter a few seconds, minutes or hours. He broke no law.

So just playing devil's advocate here (sorta because I don't have an issue with this). If someone is out in the middle of your road on public property...you're not going to question this guy, think he's up to no good, or call the cops? You're not going to confront him in any manner because he's not breaking the law, right? Regardless of how suspicious or what he's doing...he has a God given right to be there. I read your earlier post, I agree with what you said as far as there are better ways to handle this. But c'mon, what job don't people cause a little inconvenience to the ones that give them grief. From waiters spitting in food, to carpenters telling the newbie to go find the board extender, to me giving auditors a complete mess and disorganized box of paperwork. Alright, the dude is a cop, he should be held to a higher standard, but when you're catching shit all day, I find it hard to believe you're not gonna dish some when you can. Hell, I see how hard guys get flamed here when they're a mild annoyance...and this is just the innerwebz.

 

[strange1]

I am ok with asking questions, The cop had no right to detain him.

So, are you trying to say that the cop did the right thing in the most asshole-ish way he possibly could? If so, I agree with you. But you must agree that some guy going out and trying to instigate these reactions is just as asshole-ish. Those videos of guys open-carrying AR's get me just as pissed off as this one. People must not realize that if one person calls 911 and says "I saw someone doing something suspicious", the police will investigate. That's what we pay them to do.

 

[UTfball68]

I take it that you're aware the average US citizen commits three felonies a day, right?

Wouldn't doubt it. Have no clue what they are...but ignorance of the law is still no excuse. I've been given a set of nice shiny bracelets a couple times, I was in the wrong each time. I nut up and admit my mistakes. If someone decides to nail me every time I do something wrong, I guess I need to educate myself a little more.

 

[Jeff B]

So, are you trying to say that the cop did the right thing in the most asshole-ish way he possibly could? If so, I agree with you. But you must agree that some guy going out and trying to instigate these reactions is just as asshole-ish. Those videos of guys open-carrying AR's get me just as pissed off as this one. People must not realize that if one person calls 911 and says "I saw someone doing something suspicious", the police will investigate. That's what we pay them to do.

other than detaining him, yes. The cop did do the right thing. he was just an asshole. If a cop does this to a douche-bag that is provoking him, he has to be disciplined enough to do nothing but nice until a law is broken or he must defend himself or another in which case a law will have been broken.

Investigate yes, break the law we pay them to uphold no.

 

[krehel24]

It's ok I am only human! In the middle of working and watching the video I missed the whole detain. I am really not to worried about your feelings about my credibility, this is a subject that we will never see eye to eye about, so there is really no point in trying to fight it out. I was never that type of LEO and always showed respect, I would have handled the situation in a different way, but that doesn't matter. My only point in this is that if you have not done the job you can't understand everything they do and why they do it. Again if you read the article attached to the video the only real problem anyone had was the personal remarks made to the man, you have turned it in to more.

 

[UTfball68]

other than detaining him, yes. The cop did do the right thing. he was just an asshole. If a cop does this to a douche-bag that is provoking him, he has to be disciplined enough to do nothing but nice until a law is broken or he must defend himself or another in which case a law will have been broken.

So you're ok with what he did...it just hurt your feelers??? Or you're worried about the guy's feelers being hurt??? Couple weeks ago we have a thread about increasing police involvement on registration...and now we're worried about feelers being hurt. I'm glad winter is over...hopefully the stir crazy will start wearing off.

 

[shawn]

I nut up and admit my mistakes...I guess I need to educate myself a little more.

Start with reading the 5th Amendment.

 

[Jeff B]

So you're ok with what he did...it just hurt your feelers??? Or you're worried about the guy's feelers being hurt??? Couple weeks ago we have a thread about increasing police involvement on registration...and now we're worried about feelers being hurt. I'm glad winter is over...hopefully the stir crazy will start wearing off.

Hmm, I don't remember that thread.


Hurt my feelings, na not really. right is right & wrong is wrong.. Bet you voted for Obama too..

 

[Ron]

Wait... what? So how do you expect that any police work would ever get done if they can ONLY question/detain those that they actually witnessed break the law? If a convenience store is robbed by "a white guy in a brown shirt and blue pants" (description given by store clerk), and I happen to be walking near said store in a brown shirt and blue pants, the police have a reason to question/detain me even though I didn't commit the crime. They need to ascertain that I was in fact where I said I was when the crime was committed. That may take some time, and while I am not "under arrest", I can be detained for a reasonable amount of time. During that time, they are free to observe my actions and take note of anything that I say (it is not admissible in court until I am arrested and read Miranda Rights, however). Since I did not commit the crime, it would be stupid of me to invoke 5th Amendment rights to remain silent. This is the difference between being detained and being arrested.

.

Straw man. Let me knock it down real quick.
In the bolded scenario you are SUSPECTED of committing a crime. When you are suspected of committing a crime you can be questioned and detained. After failing to find you guilty they must release you.

This gentleman in the video was suspected of no crime, or if he was he was not informed of the crime he was suspected of committing.

Finally it may be stupid to invoke the 5th ammendment, however stupid IS LEGAL.

 

[Reid]

Being from Winston-Salem and having almost daily contact with the police dept.

2 things.

1) try testing your 2nd ammendment rights in the same manner.
2) coming around the 1year anniversary of finding a bomb at the downtown bus station, i bet emotions are running high. The WSPD have been pushed this year. This was apprently not the first time this guy has come in contact with the PD over this challenge. Im not sure what the proper escalation procedure is. probably not this.

There was another video a few months back where a gentleman was trying to get assaulted by resisting arrest. the officers were very patient and i think a little TOO passive.

Does our police force have its share of douchebags? Yes. But i can probably name them all on one hand.

The standards division does a good job of weeding out the d-bags.

 

[ManglerYJ]

There always has to be a threshold. So, it's OK to video a police station, but not the White House? It's OK for someone to walk around NC with a gun open carry because we are an open carry state, but if he's walking around with a fully loaded AR15 on his back with 10,000 rounds of ammunition, it's OK that that's suspicious? What about 5000 rounds? 1000? 50?

The police have to be able to draw the line in the sand somewhere. His personal freedom to video tape infrastructure items at a police station in a manner that appears suspicious should not trump the rights of those police officers to carry on their business day without the fear hanging over them that they will be killed or wounded in the line of duty. I'm sorry, but if that means Mr. Douchbag Von Videographer needs to find something else to video tape, then so be it. A little sensitivity training wouldn't hurt, but how many times did he need to be asked? When dealing with your kids, how many times can you stomach one putting their finger an inch from the other one's face and saying "I'm not touching you". It's the same thing. He's taunting saying, "I'm going to do whatever I want and by you telling me otherwise it's a violation of my Constitutional Rights (which by the way, I haven't even read)"

There is a lot of crime that CAN center around intent. There is a lot that cannot. If you are arrested with 7000 lbs of heroine, it's safe for the police to assume it's for distribution. No sane person would believe that it's all for your own personal consumption. On the other hand, just because someone accelerates up to 70 MPH very quickly, the police cannot pull him over for driving with the intent of speeding.

 

[ManglerYJ]

Straw man. Let me knock it down real quick.
In the bolded scenario you are SUSPECTED of committing a crime. When you are suspected of committing a crime you can be questioned and detained. After failing to find you guilty they must release you.

No, by using your logic, he is suspected of being a white guy wearing a brown shirt and blue pants walking in the vicinity of a crime scene. No law against any of that yet.

 

[Ron]

So, OK... let's say maybe he was making a documentary for school. Wouldn't it have been much easier and waste less of the officer's time to simply say so? I bet if that were really the case, the officer would have happily escorted him around the building to show him other potentially less volatile areas that would not draw safety concern.

Sure it would have been easier. No one is sugesting it wouldn't. What we are saying is he isnt required by law to do what is easiest for the LEO.

Referencing the Wikipedia that you tagged, "To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed." A reasonable person would argue that recording the emergency backup generator, the gas pump and the prisoner loading sections of the Police Department does constitute specific and articulable facts that would indicate that a crime is about to be committed. It isn't a huge logical jump to assume that the purposes of recording the proximity of the gas pump, backup generator and loading dock may be to plan for a car bombing to take out the gas pumps, electrical system and secure the release of prisoners at the same time. It could be that he is doing recon work for a prisoner escape or a potential terrorist act. Who knows. No matter what, it's sketchy and without a halfways decent reason, it shouldn't be a surprise when the officer takes it as a serious threat.

Ok. Fine. Lets play your game. Assume it is a reasonable assumption. Had the LEO have said "At this time I am placing you under arrest for suspicion of conspiring to create an act of terror." I would have no argument. The officer did not and could not reasonably assume this, we know this because he did not arrest him for this.

I dont need a reason to be anywhere. I am innocent until proven guilty.

Now, for those who wave the flag of "I'm on public property, I can record what I want to." Try sitting under the stairs at the mall or wherever and recording up women's skirts and see how long THAT lasts. The old, "I'm hurting nobody with my recording on public property" won't fly when.

Another strawman.
In your example the privacy rights of women are being violated. The videographer is committing a crime and will and should be punished. Last time I checked buildings dont have a right to privacy.

Again, there is a HUGE difference between knowing your rights and alerting people when they have been violated. In this case, he is the one picking the fight in an attempt for his rights to be violated so that he can record it and make an internet sensation of himself and incite even more hatred of the police. I'm all for civil rights, but I'm even more for common sense.

In this case, common sense doesn't seem to be common.

So as long as someone is acting in ways consistent with your line of reasoning you are perfectly ok with them expressing their rights. If their actions are outside of your perception of "common sense" you are fine with them eing harrassed?

I think George Wallace tried this defense in the 60s. Didnt work out so well for him, but who know you might have better luck.

 

[Reid]

Is't none of their business what I am doing. I am hurting nobody. Maybe I am in school making a documentary. Maybe I am scouting for Hollywood.

So, OK... let's say maybe he was making a documentary for school. Wouldn't it have been much easier and waste less of the officer's time to simply say so?

requires a permit. it is not uncommon to be asked to present your permit when filming in public.

 

[Ron]

No, by using your logic, he is suspected of being a white guy wearing a brown shirt and blue pants walking in the vicinity of a crime scene. No law against any of that yet.

Wrong. In your example a CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND REPORTED AND VERIFIED. That didnt happen in the video.

 

[Jeff B]

requires a permit. it is not uncommon to be asked to present your permit when filming in public.

Then he was breaking the law is that was the case & the officer was in his right to detain him.

However the guy still did not have to answer ANY questions. You do not have to talk to the police.

 

[Ron]

The only reason there is a correlation between this story and the instance we are talking about is that in both instances, the "victim" of the accusation didn't break any laws. There was a perceived threat, however, and it was dealt with accordingly. My approach and the officer's approaches were way different as he was direct in his approach (and a total jerk in the process) where I was passive.

And you were fine to treat him hoever you wish as a private citizen. When an agent of the goverment treast him differently it becomes a legal issue.

 

[Ron]

but unless you put on that belt and kiss your wife good bye for maybe the last time; you just can't understand.

Spare us all.
This is still America, you chose the profession. You get no sympathy for not liking parts of your chosen profession.

Unless you have had to sit through 10 hour long sales training that you designed you wouldn't understand the pain.

Unless you have climbed into a piece of MV switchgear you wouldn't understand the danger.

yadda yadda yadda

 

[Ron]

The ENTIRE video is 22 minutes long and he is never once handcuffed, made to sit in a police car or brought to the police station. Is that your definition of "detained"? The only time he was not free to leave is the short time when the officer had his license. This is hardly a civil rights violation a la Selma that everyone seems to be making it out to be.

I don't think the officer in this case needs to lose his job but I bet he will. The United states of the offended will surely demand it if not his head on a platter.

I'm not equating it to Selma at all.
I agree it pales in comparison.

Still doesn't make it legal.

Let me try your analogy game.

Rape is illegal and horrific. But since it isnt rape, you would be ok with a LEO groping your wife and daughter for fun, right?

 

[ManglerYJ]

Ok. Fine. Lets play your game. Assume it is a reasonable assumption. Had the LEO have said "At this time I am placing you under arrest for suspicion of conspiring to create an act of terror." I would have no argument. The officer did not and could not reasonably assume this, we know this because he did not arrest him for this.

I'm not following you here. You are perfectly OK with him being arrested for suspicion of conspiring to create an act of terror for the same actions that the police officer was out of line rudely asking him to stop and go somewhere else and detaining him for roughly 20 minutes to do so? The officer was trying to diffuse the situation up front to avoid that.

 

[Ron]

So just playing devil's advocate here (sorta because I don't have an issue with this). If someone is out in the middle of your road on public property...you're not going to question this guy, think he's up to no good, or call the cops? You're not going to confront him in any manner because he's not breaking the law, right? .

You damn right I am and so are you.
But guess what, we aren't LEOs. We aren't wardends of the state and aren't held to the same code.

 

[RatLabGuy]

so do we fix this by (a) making it illegal to be an asshole, (b) everybody just being an asshole, so that's whats always expected, or (c) continue not letting LEOs be assholes, but have no rules regarding private citizens, in the hopes that "in teh end, it'll work itself out"... e.g. mob justice, karma for assholes, etc...?

 

[Ron]

I'm not following you here. You are perfectly OK with him being arrested for suspicion of conspiring to create an act of terror for the same actions that the police officer was out of line rudely asking him to stop and go somewhere else and detaining him for roughly 20 minutes to do so? The officer was trying to diffuse the situation up front to avoid that.

If the officer thought he had committed a crime, I am perfectly fine with him arresting him.
If he officer didnt think he had committed a crime I am not ok with him harassing the man because he felt the mans actions were wrong.

I dont like "certain people" driving in my neighborhood. Think the LEO will come and stop and question those folks just for driving through my neighborhood where they dont belong?

I live in the sticks on a road full of potholes. A man driving a Donk is suspicious.

 

[Reid]

Actually, there are 3 laws being broken.
1) trespassing. he was told to leave and didnt. not only on this occasion but on past occasions as well, hence the officer knowing his name.
2) Delaying an officer from his duties. This man knew that we was going to be asked to leave, as that was the result of his previous attempts and provoking an officer. He knew he would draw an officer out from his regular duties. The fact that his goal was to PROVOKE and officer leads into...
3) misuse of the emergency services system.

We could go into the world of grey areas and say that he was hosting a protest without a permit, or filming a documentary without a permit.

if a DA wanted to throw these 5 charges at him, chances are atleast one is going to stick.

The trespassing at the federal building would be a felony.

So i wouldnt go so far as to say he wasnt committing a crime.

the average american goes to bed at night having committed atleast 3 felonies that day.