Aggressive armed cop Scenario, with a video

[Tucker6900]

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.



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?



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



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.



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.

Well said.

Being a jaskass is not illegal. Annoying yes. But they didn't break the law. You seem to be more upset with the legal language than the officers assault. Makes one wonder who's side you are really on.

Ones annoyance of anothers exercise of rights is not grounds for criminal activity.

 

[MR Redenck]

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.

Your still not understanding me.
I will say it again, What the Cop did is not most important to me. What the guys with the camera were doing, how they conducted themself, and the motive behind their actions is all that matters for me. "I wished the guys would have been more mannerly and civilized with their conduct". Their "Better" conduct would have gone a long way with me when addressing the conduct of the officer.
Dont think for one minute that im defending that security guy either. Im not anti cop and I sure as heck have never been tollerent to Nazi cop either. " Thats why I think its most important for us to act mannerly when involving issues such as this".
I understand that the security guy could have acted a lot better, but so could those guys.
Your not the only one who has squared off with idiots wearing badges either. "My boot have lots of miles on them"

 

[MR Redenck]

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.

Before the officer approaced the guys, he may have heard their language????? Everything starts somewhere, dont ask me , I wasnt there. All I seen was a bunch of foul language prior to the office approaching them.
If they were in front of my shop cunducting themselves like that, I would not have been nice about it either.

 

[ncwabbit]

really Mr. redneck 64 posts of you're being misunderstood...oh wait, ya...Y A W N!!!

wabbit

 

[Grapeshot]

Facts - not emotionized opinion

Let's compare the conduct of the two sides in this event from what we actually saw on the recording.

The young men - not known to be doing or suspected of doing anything illegal, not advised to leave the property, did display a vulgar mouth (could benefit from a Charm School class)

The officer - Made demands under color of law, threatened (assaulted?) with less deadly force in spite of probable violations of department guidelines on use of force - all w/o apparent PC or RAS - and possibly violated state law.

Conclusions based on observations:

The young men won't be getting any bonus points or poster boy rewards, but their conduct was legal.

The officer stepped well over the line and at the least should be reprimanded and retrained. I would hope that his conduct was reported to both his department and his part-time employer. Anger management classes might prove beneficial for him.

********************************************

To those posting here in a style best described as ranting - you do us no favors,

The manner in which people express themselves is a distinct part of the message delivered. When the impression is given that personal opinion/prejudice is more important than fact and done so in a style that is highly emotional, disproportionate to the claimed problem and often repeated, then I submit that you do more harm to our cause than these young men. Especially in light of the fact they were not even carrying to the best of my knowledge.

You all are enjoined to be good ambassadors for OC and RKBA - that includes not only what you post here but how you post. Do you come across as a reasonable, responsible adult? If not then you should consider revising your approach to the subject.

OCDO does permit all different POV on any given (approved) subject here; however, we have considerably less tolerance for bad attitudes, bad language, trollish behavior, provocateurs, etc. If you wish to get your message across effectively, then select a style that does not turn off the readers. The "that is just me" is the poorest of excuses/justifications. Otherwise expect your posts to be edited, have posts deleted......or worse.

Returning you to the regular scheduled program. Thanks for listening.

 

[Ca Patriot]

Awsome video. I feel safer.

 

[Grapeshot]

This was originally posted in the Wisconsin sub-forum about an incident that happened in Texas and moved here for lack of direct application to OC or RKBA.

The very subject and video were hardly justified by a tenuous reference to "what if" they had been carrying guns.

Do NOT let this thread become a generalized bash - it will be locked or deleted if that occurs.

Thank you for OCing today. You did OC, right?

 

[skidmark]

Your still not understanding me.
I will say it again, What the Cop did is not most important to me. What the guys with the camera were doing, how they conducted themself, and the motive behind their actions is all that matters for me. ....

I understand you perfectly. But for the sake of verification, let me make sure I do in fact understand you --

Regardless of whether or not the cop violates someone's civil rights, the important thing to you is that the person behave in a manner consistent with your notions of "good manners".

I checked my daily paper ad did not see any announcement that you, or Miss Manners, or even Ann Landers were now endowed with the power to dispense justice for behaving "with bad manners" in public. If I missed the announcement would you be so kind as to provide me with a link to it?

While I agree with you that we could all probably get along together a lot better if we behaved more socially appropriately, I remain distressed that you seem totally unconcerned about the illegal behavior of one of the government's minions.

stay safe.

 

[09jisaac]

I understand you perfectly.

We all did. That is just a (sometimes poor) form of an argument. Sometimes people start that when they feel that their point is inadequate to stand but are too stubborn to change.



If your point is completely misunderstood, do us all a favor and explain it in a way to make us understand. The way it comes off (exactly as you explained it multiple times) is that the officers conduct does not matter. You point (exaggerated) is that the officer could have shot those men and that would have been fine with you, because they used foul language.

If he was concerned about their language, he would probably have said something about it. Poor word usage is not a crime and usually foul language is only illegal if minors are present (there was none shown). If the officer was working security and had the authority to ask them to leave, he should have. Without him asking or without authority, they were doing nothing wrong.

Rights are rights. It does not matter if you agree with it. Once rights start getting restricted, they will continue to be restricted until they are no longer recognized as a right. Restrictions is against the very definition of a right. Just because you do not agree with a right, does not make it any less of a right. I am an Atheist, do you seem me trying to restrict peoples right to worship? No.


Lastly, and I am not trying to degrade you in anyway, stop using so many quotation marks in your posts. It does nothing to help us understand you or your posts. Quote other people's words, what you post is already attributed to you. We know they are your words.

 

[MR Redenck]

I understand you perfectly. But for the sake of verification, let me make sure I do in fact understand you --

Regardless of whether or not the cop violates someone's civil rights, the important thing to you is that the person behave in a manner consistent with your notions of "good manners".

I checked my daily paper ad did not see any announcement that you, or Miss Manners, or even Ann Landers were now endowed with the power to dispense justice for behaving "with bad manners" in public. If I missed the announcement would you be so kind as to provide me with a link to it?

While I agree with you that we could all probably get along together a lot better if we behaved more socially appropriately, I remain distressed that you seem totally unconcerned about the illegal behavior of one of the government's minions.

stay safe.

Dont be distressed over my concern at all. If you think I am unconcerned about illegal behavior by government "minions", then your way wrong.
I want the community to conduct themselves in the best way possible , "When Dealing With People Such As That Security Officer".
Been there, done that....
I see more to achieve from people who conduct themselves with self respect. Just because you can legally M'f this and M'f that in public, that doesnt mean you should. I would much rather help someone who conducted themself with respectable manners, "Even if they became offened and angered AFTER some jerk acted like a jerk". Every action creates a reaction.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Just because you can legally ____ this and ____ that in public, that doesnt mean you should.

Huh, funny how similar that argument sounds to the ones the anti's use about us carrying guns in public.

 

[MR Redenck]

Huh, funny how similar that argument sounds to the ones the anti's use about us carrying guns in public.

Never been offended by a woman carrying a gun, so what ya getting at?
I would much rather explain to a child why that woman is carrying a gun than to explain why someone stands in the front door of a Wal Mart Bleepin and Bleepin...
Just me though
Im disappointed that no one seems to accept the fact that we should set a better example. I will never defend anyone who shows the kind of conduct those guy's had.
I heard Skidmarks audio recording of the issue he had. He got upset after they treated him poorly, but I never heard anything negative from him prior to his conflict with a jerk. Getting upset is acceptable to me, its to be expected. In his case, he did nothing wrong and was not conducting himself like an idiot.
Lead by example!!!

 

[Motofixxer]

This was originally posted in the Wisconsin sub-forum about an incident that happened in Texas and moved here for lack of direct application to OC or RKBA.

The very subject and video were hardly justified by a tenuous reference to "what if" they had been carrying guns.

My intent of posting the vid was made very clear in the post and again in a second post. I watched it and immediately seen a what if confronted by an aggressive armed officer...type of scenario that posed an intriguing situation for an OC'er. The 2 guys involved were not carrying, but most of us here do so that would change the situation.

Your assertion of a tenuous reference is publicly refused and rejected. If you disagree with my intent...well sorry but only one of us knows what that was, and it isn't you. It doesn't matter that it was moved.

 

[SavageOne]

snip...
"..... 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.

Let me get this straight. During your triad against foul language in public, you recount a situation in which you used a word that you cannot spell out in polite company, as an example of how you were in the right...when you used foul language in public? Calling the Kettle black much there Pot.

 

[SavageOne]

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.

Again a bit confused by your posts. You have referred to the gentleman in uniform both as security and as cop. Which is it? If he was in fact acting as security I have a few questions. 1) Why was he in uniform and standing down from a marked cruiser? 2) If he is security, why was he demanding ID and how could he justify that the gentleman filming were "resisting" and thus in violation of the law? 3)If he was only security, why was he trying to take the gentleman's personal property? Wouldn't that constitute "theft", security or not?

If he is a cop, then I would say his flagrant abuses of authority have already been stated.

Oh, that's right, you don't want to discuss the security guard/cop's actions(other than to say they were justified). My bad.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by MR Redenck

snip...
"..... 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.

Let me get this straight. During your triad against foul language in public, you recount a situation in which you used a word that you cannot spell out in polite company, as an example of how you were in the right...when you used foul language in public? Calling the Kettle black much there Pot.

Indeed - somewhat unusual behavior for someone purporting to be extolling the virtues of good conduct when open carrying. While most would agree that we are judged by the way we act and speak, there is no all encompassing standard. It is up to the individual how they will deal with community standards and how such will impact others, except on OCDO proper. Here conditions are intended to be more controlled.

 

[skidmark]

....

I heard Skidmarks audio recording of the issue he had. He got upset after they treated him poorly, but I never heard anything negative from him prior to his conflict with a jerk. Getting upset is acceptable to me, its to be expected. In his case, he did nothing wrong and was not conducting himself like an idiot.
Lead by example!!!

EXCUSE THE BLEEP OUT OF ME BUT WHAT BLEEPING AUDIO RECORDING MIGHT YOU BE REFERRING TO?*

And we still keep coming back to the issue that you seem intent on imposing your personal opinion regarding behavior on everyone else - even to the point of saying that egregiously illegal behavior by a government minion is of less concern to you that that people all behave according to some arbitrary personal standard you have set up. To that end you (I'm guessing) proudly state that on at least one occassion committed the criminal offense of assault and battery (threat of physical violence plus actual unwanted touching of another)

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

just so some lout would know that you consider yourself to be the biggest mf that drags his knuckles across that particular valley parking lot. By your own standards the security guard should have pounded your backside all over the parking lot, instead of saying "Good boy!"

stay safe.

* Might you be referring to an interview I did regarding the incident? Because if I had gone back home and gotten my recorder I would have possibly avoided a large chunk of the experience, or at least had a better way of convincing the judge that in fact I did not violate the law. Unless you can provide pictures showing that all the king's horses and all the king's men have finally put you together again you are going to be stuck along with the rest of us in having to live with what words actually mean as opposed to what you want them to mean. (Go look up the reference. Read the whole thing. If it's not instructive at least it will be entertaining.)

 

[Tucker6900]

Maybe its time to lock this up.

Its clear redneck is unhappy with foul mouth free speech. Even to the point of being blinded by it. Its also clear that the officer is out of line. I don't see the conversation getting anywhere.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Never been offended by a woman carrying a gun, so what ya getting at?
I would much rather explain to a child why that woman is carrying a gun than to explain why someone stands in the front door of a Wal Mart Bleepin and Bleepin...
Just me though
Im disappointed that no one seems to accept the fact that we should set a better example. I will never defend anyone who shows the kind of conduct those guy's had.
I heard Skidmarks audio recording of the issue he had. He got upset after they treated him poorly, but I never heard anything negative from him prior to his conflict with a jerk. Getting upset is acceptable to me, its to be expected. In his case, he did nothing wrong and was not conducting himself like an idiot.
Lead by example!!!

You have completely missed my point. It's starting to seem intentional.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You have completely missed my point. It's starting to seem intentional.

I gave up sometime yesterday...