Aggressive armed cop Scenario, with a video

[Grapeshot]

With respect of the rule, and for further conversation, answer this.

This video is a perfect example of what I am talking about. People who, by all appearances, are doing nothing illegal. And a police officer, who apparently has some mental issues, decides he doesnt like what they are doing, and demands ID. When they dont show it, which is legal, he decides to assault and threaten bodily harm to them. Now, here is the question. In the above described situation, what, I ask you, would be illegal about physical resistance? Do you believe a badge gives an officer to, on a whim, assault someone? Do you believe that when an officer breaks the law that he becomes a criminal?

The LE community has used the court system to their favor when things like this happen. Why do you think there are so many videos of officers violating peoples rights by stealing cameras and making unlawful arrests? Because with cameras around they have lost their best weapon for defense of their illegal actions. Their word v ours.

That is why I support LEGAL physical resistance.

Indeed this is becoming wearisome. The rule is there for a reason - the admonition was in order. The question(s) posed are outside the parameters of this thread.

If you wish to pursue this avenue, I suggest a new thread but tread carefully as you will likely run into the same limitations otherwise.

There are other choices beside physical resistance, whether legal or illegal. ymmv

 

[Tucker6900]

Indeed this is becoming wearisome. The rule is there for a reason - the admonition was in order. The question(s) posed are outside the parameters of this thread.

If you wish to pursue this avenue, I suggest a new thread but tread carefully as you will likely run into the same limitations otherwise.

There are other choices beside physical resistance, whether legal or illegal. ymmv

I don't believe there has been a violation of the rule. I am not advocating for anything illegal. But, your the boss.

P.s. What is ymmv?

 

[Grapeshot]

I don't believe there has been a violation of the rule. I am not advocating for anything illegal. But, your the boss.

P.s. What is ymmv?

Recognize that you did not advocate for anything illegal. Someone else approached that line aggressively.

ymmv = your mileage may vary = your opinion may differ.

 

[Tucker6900]

Recognize that you did not advocate for anything illegal. Someone else approached that line aggressively.

ymmv = your mileage may vary = your opinion may differ.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarity.

Ignore the PM. I sent it before reading this last post. Sorry

 

[WalkingWolf]

The question of disorderly conduct actually starts with the beginning of the video. See chapter 42 of the penal code.
If that was my store, I would have probably done a lot more than what the security officer had done.
I never said those guy's need the officers permission to video, but when your on the property of a public business, "ACT LIKE A GUEST"...

I actually see no reason why they needed to video anything at all. What was their purpose?
My expectations of Law Enforcement is to address what people are "Doing Wrong". Those idiots were not doing anything right!
Im not anti-cop, and I sure as heck wont hesitate to speak when I see LEO's conduct themselves improperly.

The problem I have with this video is the exact same problem I have when I go to public business in my area. "Always some POS creating a problem".. When the problem accure around me, I address it..!
How many of you people would have any desire at all to go shopping at that store when some FOUL MOUTH punks are gathered at the door in a disorderly manner???
I guess im the only one who might assume the officer heard the language and desided to address the conduct so other shoppers wont have to put up with it.
Film what you want at your own will folks, but dont be a foul mouth idiot about it.

I have been to Walmart, several of them, there are no signs posted outside about recording. As far as foul language, it is speech, and free speech. What the officer should have done was get management to ask them to stop or leave. Instead he attacked them, let me repeat, he physically and verbally attacked them. He IS a ticking time bomb, and should not be wearing a uniform, there is no excuse for such behavior from anybody let alone someone who is supposed to protect us and protect our rights. He should be fired and brought up on charges, I have made my call to express my disgust to his behavior, I hope I am not the only one.

 

[Tucker6900]

I have been to Walmart, several of them, there are no signs posted outside about recording. As far as foul language, it is speech, and free speech. What the officer should have done was get management to ask them to stop or leave. Instead he attacked them, let me repeat, he physically and verbally attacked them. He IS a ticking time bomb, and should not be wearing a uniform, there is no excuse for such behavior from anybody let alone someone who is supposed to protect us and protect our rights. He should be fired and brought up on charges, I have made my call to express my disgust to his behavior, I hope I am not the only one.

+1

 

[MR Redenck]

I have been to Walmart, several of them, there are no signs posted outside about recording. As far as foul language, it is speech, and free speech. What the officer should have done was get management to ask them to stop or leave. Instead he attacked them, let me repeat, he physically and verbally attacked them. He IS a ticking time bomb, and should not be wearing a uniform, there is no excuse for such behavior from anybody let alone someone who is supposed to protect us and protect our rights. He should be fired and brought up on charges, I have made my call to express my disgust to his behavior, I hope I am not the only one.

Yea, I have been to Walmarts, HEB's, and Malls all over the place. I really dont care one way or the other what a security officer thinks of me or what im doing. Althow I dont stand around running my mouth like some foul mouth idiot while standing in the front door, I have done other things that get the attention of security. "Take for example what I did about 2 weeks ago at HEB". "Some idiot had the "packed" parking lot impeded so no one could move, just so he could show off how loud his speakers were!" Cars on three sides of him were waiting for him to get out of the way, but he insisted on sitting there while screwing with his radio. As I needed to pull away from the fuel pump for the person behind me, someone attempting to enter the parking lot decided they didnt want to wait anymore and ran over the curb. "All because of his desire to make noise and show everyone how much he could make". As the lady behind the punk decided to go around the idiot to the right, I decided I would follow here so that the people behind me could get gas. As she went to the right and I started to follow her, the idiot lunged foward blocking her. He then got out of his car running his punk mouth " You's in a hurry"..... Since I was already sick of this idiot 10 minutes ago, I got out and forced his idiot self back in his car with the instruction that I will break his BLEEEP in half the next time he bows up to anyone while im around!!!
As the idiot pulled away the HEB security office started walking toward me. When he got to me I was very impressed when he said " I saw what he did", then he thanked me. Huh, I was impressed...
Being a foul mouth punk in the front door of a public business will not get any defense from me. It is not necessary, nor is it acceptable. I see no reason why anyone needs to tollerate such conduct!
AND YES, Foul language in a public place is ILLEGAL in Texas. Its called Disorderly Conduct! I dont tollerate it and I see no reason why a security officer needs to either. What those idiots were doing is also considered as Provoking a situation. Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility is the code the officer was conducting himself under. This code also applies to anyone else who choose to exercise that right.
What those idiots were doing had no benefit to anyone at all. They were simply being provocative and disorderly.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Yea, I have been to Walmarts, HEB's, and Malls all over the place. I really dont care one way or the other what a security officer thinks of me or what im doing. Althow I dont stand around running my mouth like some foul mouth idiot while standing in the front door, I have done other things that get the attention of security. "Take for example what I did about 2 weeks ago at HEB". "Some idiot had the "packed" parking lot impeded so no one could move, just so he could show off how loud his speakers were!" Cars on three sides of him were waiting for him to get out of the way, but he insisted on sitting there while screwing with his radio. As I needed to pull away from the fuel pump for the person behind me, someone attempting to enter the parking lot decided they didnt want to wait anymore and ran over the curb. "All because of his desire to make noise and show everyone how much he could make". As the lady behind the punk decided to go around the idiot to the right, I decided I would follow here so that the people behind me could get gas. As she went to the right and I started to follow her, the idiot lunged foward blocking her. He then got out of his car running his punk mouth " You's in a hurry"..... Since I was already sick of this idiot 10 minutes ago, I got out and forced his idiot self back in his car with the instruction that I will break his BLEEEP in half the next time he bows up to anyone while im around!!!
As the idiot pulled away the HEB security office started walking toward me. When he got to me I was very impressed when he said " I saw what he did", then he thanked me. Huh, I was impressed...
Being a foul mouth punk in the front door of a public business will not get any defense from me. It is not necessary, nor is it acceptable. I see no reason why anyone needs to tollerate such conduct!
AND YES, Foul language in a public place is ILLEGAL in Texas. Its called Disorderly Conduct! I dont tollerate it and I see no reason why a security officer needs to either. What those idiots were doing is also considered as Provoking a situation. Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility is the code the officer was conducting himself under. This code also applies to anyone else who choose to exercise that right.
What those idiots were doing had no benefit to anyone at all. They were simply being provocative and disorderly.

Got a cite for that?

 

[MR Redenck]

Got a cite for that?

If you mean Law Statute, sure.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm#42.01
You can refer to chapter 9 " Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility" for use of force and provoking a situation. One must understand chapter 9 completely before making assumption, otherwise do not comment on it.
Between these two chapters, we have some very good laws in Texas.
"So, showing your ass in Texas will get you in hot water":lol:

 

[WalkingWolf]

If you mean Law Statute, sure.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm#42.01
You can refer to chapter 9 " Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility" for use of force and provoking a situation. One must understand chapter 9 completely before making assumption, otherwise do not comment on it.
Between these two chapters, we have some very good laws in Texas.
"So, showing your ass in Texas will get you in hot water":lol:

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

Is this what you are talking about? Where in that video were they inciting an immediate breach of the peace? The cop does not count, where were there other people to be offended? The only breach of the peace came from the officer. And mind you he did not tell them to stop cursing, he really did not tell or instruct them to do anything before he began the attack. Besides free speech cannot be interfered with by a representative of the government. Especially while making media(video taping). The cop didn't even ask them to leave, he walked over and assaulted them.

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote in the Court’s 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because it finds it offensive or disagreeable.”

 

[MR Redenck]

I dont disagree that video recording in public is legal. I do not agree that video recording at a public business gives you any ground to free speach after a person representing the business instructs you to stop. No need to choose sides for privately own property either.
I have no problem with anyone throwing foul language idiots out of any establishment that I visit.
You also know good and well that those fools could have conducted themself in a "More" civilized manner.
I work to address civil rights issues due to laws that violate those rights. As the subject of this site goes, "How could I possibly have any desire at all to defend a bunch of idiots like those guys are"? If they were "open carrying" handguns and acting like that, then who would be permissible to open carry?
Those guy's set a bad example for people who wish to video in a civilized manner.

 

[Sig229]

I dont know where any of you live, but according to the law, several counts of Disorderly Conduct were committed prior to the security officers involvement. I see no reason for those guy's to be there either...
The persons also seemed to be under the influence of something.
When the security office first instructed them to leave, they should have left.
I did not see any rights violations in the video. Those idiots did not have to be there at all. The store is for shopping, not loitering or creating negativity in the parking lot. I can only imagine what else that security officer has to deal with.
Honestly, I would love to have security officers at stores in my area to keep idiots out of my way.
"There Is A Good Reason Why That Store Spends The Money To Have Security At The Front Door"
Also, what if it was your store??????:uhoh:

I think you are making assumptions.
How do you know that they weren't leaving Wal-Mart after shopping? Or perhaps they were entering Wal-Mart to shop and wanted to take a quick video of something they aw before they entered.

As far as your statement of "several counts of Disorderly Conduct were committed" - ho exactly were they acting disorderly?
They were not bothering anyone at all.

 

[Sig229]

Does he not realize that he has no expectation of privacy if he is on duty?

I dont think the LEO cared about that.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I dont disagree that video recording in public is legal. I do not agree that video recording at a public business gives you any ground to free speach after a person representing the business instructs you to stop. No need to choose sides for privately own property either.
I have no problem with anyone throwing foul language idiots out of any establishment that I visit.
You also know good and well that those fools could have conducted themself in a "More" civilized manner.
I work to address civil rights issues due to laws that violate those rights. As the subject of this site goes, "How could I possibly have any desire at all to defend a bunch of idiots like those guys are"? If they were "open carrying" handguns and acting like that, then who would be permissible to open carry?
Those guy's set a bad example for people who wish to video in a civilized manner.

What a leap to call them idiots, they were young men having fun. The only other person there was a government agent, he cannot by the constitution hinder speech. The owners of the business can but they were not present, and no Walmart I have ever been in has no profane language signs. In no way were they being uncivilized. You do know that several presidents have been caught using foul language in public? You do know that most movies have foul language? You do know that foul language is even used on TV? And in music? How do you make the amazing leap that they are idiots? I have seen people be idiots and never utter a foul word. Ya know like the police officer in the video. If a person does not like foul language in public probably should never turn on the TV, listen to music, watch movies, or leave the house. And they certainly have no business being police officers.

But most important they did nothing to excuse assaulting them and threatening them with a possible deadly weapon.

 

[MR Redenck]

What a leap to call them idiots, they were young men having fun. The only other person there was a government agent, he cannot by the constitution hinder speech. The owners of the business can but they were not present, and no Walmart I have ever been in has no profane language signs. In no way were they being uncivilized. You do know that several presidents have been caught using foul language in public? You do know that most movies have foul language? You do know that foul language is even used on TV? And in music? How do you make the amazing leap that they are idiots? I have seen people be idiots and never utter a foul word. Ya know like the police officer in the video. If a person does not like foul language in public probably should never turn on the TV, listen to music, watch movies, or leave the house. And they certainly have no business being police officers.

But most important they did nothing to excuse assaulting them and threatening them with a possible deadly weapon.

Really?
Its your choice to listen to the radio, what movies you see, or what TV shows you click on. Its also your decission what you will allow you kids to enjoy or to not enjoy. When you take your kinds to Wal Mart and they have to see such crap as that going on, then its your decission how you will explain such conduct. " Do you want your kids standing in front of Wal Mart MF'n this with my MF'n that"??? Do you want your kids to think this kind of conduct is acceptable?
Anything you post and debate on this website is in relation to your rights that We All Work For To Defend The Second Amendment. Do you really think it would be acceptable for those "Idiots" to act that way with 45's hanging off their hips? I sure as hell dont!!!
None of us like it when people post LEO encounters for no reason at all other than carrying a handgun. With that being said, would anyone rather LEO's encounter people with Disorderly conduct and leave people alone who choose to be respectful of others and SHOW SOME MANNERS IN PUBLIC??
If that video started with the guy sayin" Im at this wal mart with my video camera to film all of the carts scattered out everywhere ect ect....."
Needless to say I would choose to defend those guys if the officer acted in a negative manner, IF THINGS WERE DIFFERENT. I also honestly think the guy may have been addressing some kind of issue with damage he suffered from Carts Being All Over The PLace... So, if your making a video for damage evidence, why use all the stupidity to describe it? Take such crap to court with you and see how well it goes. Haha
The conduct of the guys in that video showed me nothing of value for what they were doing.
I address rights issues. Im all for having our rights to the extent they were written. Im also rational enough to realize that the Lack Of Respect for those rights ,by the way we use them, will keep those rights restricted..
Restrict the foul mouth idiots with a camera, leave me and mine alone!!!!! :lol:

 

[WalkingWolf]

Really?
Its your choice to listen to the radio, what movies you see, or what TV shows you click on. Its also your decission what you will allow you kids to enjoy or to not enjoy. When you take your kinds to Wal Mart and they have to see such crap as that going on, then its your decission how you will explain such conduct. " Do you want your kids standing in front of Wal Mart MF'n this with my MF'n that"??? Do you want your kids to think this kind of conduct is acceptable?
Anything you post and debate on this website is in relation to your rights that We All Work For To Defend The Second Amendment. Do you really think it would be acceptable for those "Idiots" to act that way with 45's hanging off their hips? I sure as hell dont!!!
None of us like it when people post LEO encounters for no reason at all other than carrying a handgun. With that being said, would anyone rather LEO's encounter people with Disorderly conduct and leave people alone who choose to be respectful of others and SHOW SOME MANNERS IN PUBLIC??
If that video started with the guy sayin" Im at this wal mart with my video camera to film all of the carts scattered out everywhere ect ect....."
Needless to say I would choose to defend those guys if the officer acted in a negative manner, IF THINGS WERE DIFFERENT. I also honestly think the guy may have been addressing some kind of issue with damage he suffered from Carts Being All Over The PLace... So, if your making a video for damage evidence, why use all the stupidity to describe it? Take such crap to court with you and see how well it goes. Haha
The conduct of the guys in that video showed me nothing of value for what they were doing.
I address rights issues. Im all for having our rights to the extent they were written. Im also rational enough to realize that the Lack Of Respect for those rights ,by the way we use them, will keep those rights restricted..
Restrict the foul mouth idiots with a camera, leave me and mine alone!!!!! :lol:

Well nice rant...but it still does not change they had a right to be there, they did nothing illegal, there was nobody there to be offended by the language, the officer did not even mention the language. Whewww that was one long sentence. The officers problem appeared to be the recording, which court after court has said police on duty do not have a expectation of privacy. Honestly the only reason I can see him upset over being recorded is if he was double dipping. Officers have lost there job for it here, and it is common.

 

[MR Redenck]

Well nice rant...but it still does not change they had a right to be there, they did nothing illegal, there was nobody there to be offended by the language, the officer did not even mention the language. Whewww that was one long sentence. The officers problem appeared to be the recording, which court after court has said police on duty do not have a expectation of privacy. Honestly the only reason I can see him upset over being recorded is if he was double dipping. Officers have lost there job for it here, and it is common.

You have not realized by now that I dont care what that cop was doing..
My concern is what WE do. When we act civilized and with good manners, that cop would not stand a chance against the charges he could face.
I wont share my opinion about the way the cop acted or the attitude he had, because none of the conduct I saw was within my very Accepting standards. "Note, I dont get mean without very good reason".
If we are going to address how Cops act, lets make sure we can act the same way we expect them to.
You also forgot to respond if you want your kids acting that way in front of wal mart with a camera.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You have not realized by now that I dont care what that cop was doing..
My concern is what WE do. When we act civilized and with good manners, that cop would not stand a chance against the charges he could face.
I wont share my opinion about the way the cop acted or the attitude he had, because none of the conduct I saw was within my very Accepting standards. "Note, I dont get mean without very good reason".
If we are going to address how Cops act, lets make sure we can act the same way we expect them to.
You also forgot to respond if you want your kids acting that way in front of wal mart with a camera.

Well as I said I don't see where they were doing anything wrong, so I would have no problem with my kids acting as those kids did. But then they were not my kids. In fact I like the way those kids stood up for their rights. Cussing is like a right of passage for teenagers, most of them do it, are we going to let cops taze children for cussing?

As far as you not caring what the officer was doing, I kinda got that, but then I do care what he was doing. I care that he pulled a tazer on a young man for no other reason than he was being recorded, which BTW the courts have said is legal. Personally if I was there he would have gone to jail, one way or another. I have arrested several cops in my time, and outright slapped down one before having his friends arrest him, for doing exactly the same thing that officer did, except he pulled a gun on a LAC.

 

[Motofixxer]

I dont know where any of you live, but according to the law, several counts of Disorderly Conduct were committed prior to the security officers involvement. I see no reason for those guy's to be there either...
The persons also seemed to be under the influence of something.
When the security office first instructed them to leave, they should have left.

They may have been on their way in or out of the store when they decided to start recording. I didn't see any Disorderly before the officer walked up and demanded ID and began the assaults. He mumbled something about videoing him, they replied back they weren't recording him, next thing he is walking up to them demanding ID's. Did I miss something? Looks like the officer began the confrontation by being confrontational.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Really?
Its your choice to listen to the radio, what movies you see, or what TV shows you click on. Its also your decission what you will allow you kids to enjoy or to not enjoy. When you take your kinds to Wal Mart and they have to see such crap as that going on, then its your decission how you will explain such conduct. " Do you want your kids standing in front of Wal Mart MF'n this with my MF'n that"??? Do you want your kids to think this kind of conduct is acceptable?

This is why parents have the ability to explain the difference in conduct and human nature to their kids. "Did you notice the way that boy acted, Billy? I don't want you to behave like that." Rather than controlling everyone around us who may do something we do not like, we should use it as a teaching experience of what behavior is acceptable or not to our kids.

Anything you post and debate on this website is in relation to your rights that We All Work For To Defend The Second Amendment. Do you really think it would be acceptable for those "Idiots" to act that way with 45's hanging off their hips? I sure as hell dont!!!

As previously stated; they were not doing anything illegal. Their conduct may not have been ideal, but there are lots of people out there whose conduct I find un-acceptable. Should we start fining or locking up every girl in clothes too small for her, or guys with their pants below their butts? Should we regulate what activities the "undesirables" may indulge in?

None of us like it when people post LEO encounters for no reason at all other than carrying a handgun. With that being said, would anyone rather LEO's encounter people with Disorderly conduct and leave people alone who choose to be respectful of others and SHOW SOME MANNERS IN PUBLIC??

Manners are nice, but not required. Rights, however, are not negotiable.

If that video started with the guy sayin" Im at this wal mart with my video camera to film all of the carts scattered out everywhere ect ect....."
Needless to say I would choose to defend those guys if the officer acted in a negative manner, IF THINGS WERE DIFFERENT.

So the fact that the cop was in the wrong only matters if the kids are angels? And there is no "if" here about the officer's conduct.

I also honestly think the guy may have been addressing some kind of issue with damage he suffered from Carts Being All Over The PLace... So, if your making a video for damage evidence, why use all the stupidity to describe it? Take such crap to court with you and see how well it goes. Haha
The conduct of the guys in that video showed me nothing of value for what they were doing.
I address rights issues. Im all for having our rights to the extent they were written. Im also rational enough to realize that the Lack Of Respect for those rights ,by the way we use them, will keep those rights restricted..
Restrict the foul mouth idiots with a camera, leave me and mine alone!!!!! :lol:

To the parts in bold...I'm actually a bit speechless. 'Rights to the extent they were written'?! How about rights are rights are rights and shall not be infringed! How about natural rights? Ever heard of those? And under what clause, what reason, what justification do you have, to restrict these kids? Because they used some bad language? OMG!!! Lock 'em up!!! If we go with that logic, well, I find some of the things you're saying to be offensive, so I want you restricted!

See what I did there? You can't just throw shackles on someone that does something you don't like. That ain't how liberty works, sugar.