That video JLee just posted just lost my support for the police in this situation. Inciting a riot?! Seriously? Yeah, that's reaching for straws.

Agreed.



I don't think they made that decision on their own, you can see them talking to a couple of suits also standing near the guy.

Also he was warned, there's that bit where they ask him to finish and he says NO HE HAD TWO HOURS LET ME HAVE A FEW MINUTES



I'm not so sure about that--it's entirely possible Kerry was just saying that to make himself look good. After all, he didn't say anything after that.

Even if he genuinely wanted them to leave the guy alone, he was acting like a pussy. Not very presidential of him :v

I believe he was formally charged with resisting and disturbing the peace. It is perfectly legal to change the charge after an arrest. No straws need to be reached for, as they easily have those two. Depending on how the Florida law is written, inciting a riot may be perfectly valid as well.

What's wrong with a nice:

"Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to leave the building, if you don't leave freely we will have to remove you by force. Resisting attempts to remove you from the building will constitute a breach of the peace and you will be arrested"

In the videos it looks like the cops had suggested he leave the stand but I didn't hear them explaining that he was being asked to leave. It seems they just straight to the forcefully-removing stage in which case he had every right to resist (maybe not legally, but In my opinion police officers should not have the right to touch civilians unless touched first or after clearly giving the civilian the option to comply peacefully).

From the quick look I had, it appears to have been an ordinary escort hold. 'Officer ***, whatever PD, please come with me" or whatever. I can't imagine that camera picking up every word.



No, he had no right to resist. He had the option to comply peacefully. He obviously wasn't interested.

The narrative I posted earlier indicates that this guy is known for stirring up trouble, and it looks like he found it.

BUT DETTY WHAT IF HE HAD GUNS AND SHOT EVERYONE!

And he was NOT given the chance. I'd be asking the cops why if they told me to go with them too. ****ing christ I think that's one of the least of your rights, knowing what the hell you're in trouble for. If you disagree, yeah maybe it's not procedure, but it's common ****ing decency.

In short: just because you're a cop doesn't mean you have to fellate the idea of other cops taking unnecessary and stupid action.

Resisting, sure, disturbing the peace...I'm not so keen on crying for help being illegal, but inciting a riot is in fact reaching for straws. He didn't try to get people to do anything unlawful, he was asking obnoxious questions at a public forum and then requested help from the crowd.

So when you're grabbed from behind you're supposed to know that it's just an "escort hold"? There wasn't enough time between him still being asking the question and him being grabbed for him to be given the option to leave peacefully.

I don't care what the damn law is, police officers do not have the right to grab people and escort them somewhere without clearly giving the right to go peacefully. If the law doesn't require that police officers give fair warning then police officers have too much power and the law should be changed.

He could've gone nicely immediately, and in all likelyhood, would've been escorted out and that would've been it. But nooo, that's too easy.


I'm pretty sure I'm the only cop here, and I don't believe I am alone in my opinion of this situation. It's not "just because" I'm a cop.



Again, depending on how the Florida law is written, it could be valid.



Then perhaps our discussion is over, as reality has no bearing on your opinion.

Regardless, if he was not resisting, he would have gone peacefully. It's not that difficult to understand. It's quite possible to have a peaceful escort. I could tell you how I was trained, but since you don't care what the law says, that probably wouldn't matter to you either...

I can't believe this moron.... "they're going to kill me! They're giving me to the government! Someone remember me! Tell the people what happened here! I'm afraid to tell you my name!"

That all screams psycho conspiracy nut to me. He was asked to leave by an officer he didn't listen. Oh, also, he wasn't asking questions, because he never paused for even the slightest second to let Kerry answer. He just wanted to use the opportunity to get up on his soapbox. If you'll notice, he is the one who made that situation what it was, in every instance. They gave him fair warning of everything. For all his screaming and resisting, he never stopped to calm the hell down.

JLee, you don't see any problem whatsoever with police just nabbing someone and removing them, without explaining why, and if the person questions the act, police can nail them with resisting. In your head, that's all fair and good? You're telling Detty reality has no bearing on his opinion, and you're saying police can force people where ever just because, and people have to go along like sheep because if they don't, then it's resisting, and even if they weren't doing something illegal, they are now by resisting. Is that what you're saying? I'm trying to be really clear here, because I want to be sure I'm hearing you right.

lulz, it made national news

No JLee, the law should follow the moral zeitgest - not dictate it. If the way the police officers acted (assuming they didn't give clear warning) was legal (I don't know if it was) then the laws should be amended to make it illegal. I don't care for a law that I view as immoral, that doesn't mean i'm not going to follow it. That's what I meant, and I had thought it fairly obvious, but you decided to pick out the phrase in isolation to use it as a way of taking the high ground. Doesn't work.

If I am grabbed without warning the first thing i'm going to do is try to break out of the hold, can you honestly say that you wouldn't?

All I need is for someone to convince me that he was given clear instructions to leave before he was grabbed and I will be of the opinion that the police officers acted justly. But so far i'm struggling to find this evidence.

I'm pretty sure they don't have to offer him a chance to leave peacefully if he's already committed a crime. In this case, that crime was disturbing the peace, and arguably also trespassing (though he wasn't charged with that).

No, that's not what I'm saying.

He wasn't charged with resisting arrest for asking questions. He was charged with resisting arrest for physically resisting. They had a reason to remove this guy. If he would've complied, I'm sure they would've been more than happy to explain.

In NH, a charge of resisting specifically excludes verbal resistance - it's for physical resistance only. Perhaps FL is different, but it's really irrelevant because he was physically resisting anyway.

So basically police officers are allowed to kidnap you and if you resist then you're resisting arrest? How can you be charged with resisting arrest if you're not being arrested?

I understand your point, and I'll highlight the relevant portions of the narrative that was posted earlier. If I was grabbed without warning by someone I knew to be a uniformed police officer, no, I would not try to break out of the hold.



I don't believe that a "you'd better do this, or else" speech was necessary in this situation.

I understand your frustration that he was not apparently given a clear opportunity to leave freely - but his failure to comply throughout the whole ordeal doesn't help his case at all.

When we trained on escort holds, we were taught to take hold and immediately identify ourselves as police. No warning.

If you have an issue with how situations like this are handled, perhaps it needs to be taken up with the lawmakers, not the cops.

Except any cop worth his ****ing salt will realize the difference between a man RESISTING and a man confused and unable to comprehend the situation at hand. If they would've asked him politely, then explained, then grabbed and detained him had he resisted then, yeah, I could see it, but they didn't. My friend got disorderly conduct for fighting a kid outside of another friend's house--he resisted arrest in every way known (he got taken down by bike cops) by struggling, telling them to get the **** off him, even though they announced who they were. But he was in a fight--physically assaulting someone else. You're not going to be able to comprehend everything going on around you at once, and after the fact of him being arrested and after he had calmed down he apologized, and they didn't charge him with resisting.

Why? Because our bike cops are, in general, good cops. Our patrol officers are *******s, dicks, and corrupt mother****ers, but our bike cops are decent officers and they knew that he couldn't grasp the situation immediately.

And yes, you are fellating them--assuming that they're in the right just because they're cops. Detty's right--if the law states that what they did was right then the law needs to be changed. The people should have control over the government, you remember that idea from, you know, our founding fathers? Considering you live in one of the original 13 colonies one would think you'd at least be considerate to this. Cops should not be able to tell people what to do without giving good reasoning at the very least, and then maybe taking it into their own hands. There's no sense to the cops acting the way they did.

I can only answer as far as New Hampshire is concerned, but basically, yes.


I'm not sure how this was handled, as far as paperwork is concerned...but I'll give you an example -- say this guy could've been charged for disorderly conduct/etc, but the police merely wanted to escort him out. He refused to leave upon request (physically escorting one out of a building would lead you to believe you're being told to leave, no?). At this point, (depending on state law), he may be able to be charged with trespassing...but the original disorderly is still there regardless.

Now, since he wouldn't leave peacefully, they decide to arrest him. He resists, and is thereby resisting arrest.

Law varies from state to state, but that's just an example I thought of offhand.

Another one - say I stop you for speeding. I ask for license & registration, which you refuse to provide. That is an arrestable offense, and I do not need to tell you why you were initially stopped. Would I? In all likelyhood, yes. Is it required? Now you're looking at being arrested for failure to provide your license to a peace officer. If you won't comply, you'll get slapped with resisting arrest. Now, if you had immediately complied, chances are that you'd be off on your way with a warning. That's the closest analogy I can come up with offhand.

I don't mean to come across as a hardass...but I guess sometimes, that's just the way it is..

JLee, you're saying that a person should take all actions of a police officer without justification? If a police officer puts his hand on your shoulder and starts pushing you, you're supposed to just go along with it, assuming you must've done something wrong?

Wait, being physically forced and resisting that is "refusing to leave upon request," now? That's absolute bullstat, and there's no way even you would take that if you were on the receiving end of a shove out the door. Stop splitting hairs: A cop that acts without informing a person why they're acting is a gigantic dick.

Apparently, yes. Submit now, sue later.

He calmed down and apologized. Bingo. This kid didn't - after everything was done, he even refused to provide his name (illegal in NH - see RSA 594:2). Two completely different situations, IMHO.



I'm assuming they're in the right based on what I've seen in this video. I don't always agree with what every officer does...e.g. I recently provided a narrative on a traffic stop that resulted in a 3 page complaint by a (wacko) area resident. However, I don't believe the other officer handled the situation as it should've been handled - and I didn't hide it. Although he's an officer -- my partner -- I didn't agree "just because he was a cop". Your statement is borderline insulting. Do you think that we shouldn't make a traffic stop without announcing on the PA why the stop is being made?

They tried PHYSICALLY ESCORTING HIM OUT when he did nothing violent, had no weapons on him of any sort, and should've at least been allowed the chance to leave before they just grabbed him and went "leave".

Jesus **** how do you not see something screwed up in this situation.

P.S. I'm genuinely interested in what JLee has to say in response to Anovis's post in the "Scary Situation" thread.

It's nice to have a perspective from an actual law enforcement officer in the discussion.

A traffic stop and physically grabbing a person are two very, very different things. And I've never been in a traffic stop where the cop didn't tell me what was wrong before asking for the driver's license/registration/insurance.

EDIT: And even after everything was said and done, the cop is going to let you get out of the car on your own (albeit slowly, hands where he can see them etc) before cuffing you kindly if you are indeed being arrested for any reason. Thereafter, you're under arrest, yeah, but you know you ****ed up too. He didn't do a GODDAMN THING WRONG.

That does not seem like it was reasonably obvious.

I'm saying there is a time and a place for things. Fighting an officer because you don't agree with something is not a good choice. How far do you take it? What if you're drunk and don't realize you did something wrong? Should it be legal for you to resist then? Where's the line?



He knew he was supposed to leave. There's no way around that.



It's a helluva lot easier that way - you wind up with less charges against you, and if indeed you were wrongly arrested, you could wind up with a hefty settlement from the city.

Guilty until proven innocent now?

EDIT:

Okay, he knew the cops were escorting him out when they grabbed him. Also, in a similar situation I'd be outraged and be demanding why I was grabbed for no reason. If they had asked him politely first this whole thing might've been avoided. You're failing to see any of this from the civilian's perspective. If they had just simply ASKED him to leave, and told him that he was no longer allowed on the premises and if he didn't leave of his own volition now that he would be escorted out, then he would've had fair warning, and though I can't speak for him, might have acted more rationally. They straight up didn't give him the chance.

Also, as far as he knew and hell as far as the law goes he didn't do anything wrong. You can't prove that he was just trying to stir up trouble and that's only your outlook on it. From an objective point of view, please, tell me what he could've gotten? Disorderly Conduct? For saying "blowjob"? Give me a ****ing break.

As I said, that's the closest analogy I could come up with. You understand what I am trying to say, do you not?



He immediately became violent. We aren't psychic, and can't tell if someone has any weapons on them. Perhaps they could've tried that route - but for whatever reason, they decided not to. I wasn't there. This worked out, I saw nothing illegal on officers' behalf, and nobody was hurt. Looks alright to me.

Ahh, so you want cops to assume everyone is unarmed and compliant? That's a good way for me to get killed. Nice to see somebody cares...go join stat and party when we get shot...

The kid is a jackass - I'm familiar with him online, and I've seen other videos.

The officer was unprofessional and a jackass as well.

Exactly. You stand to gain exactly nothing from resisting arrest, regardless of the circumstances. You should never "just accept" misbehavior from the police, but you owe it to yourself and to others who might be the victims of future abuse by the same officer(s) to fight back in the most effective way -- through the legal system.

Fighting an officer because you disagree with an arrest is stupid, I agree COMPLETELY. The kid crossed the line. What we're discussing is that the kid pulled away from being "escorted" because they VERY OBVIOUSLY used force. Fighting an officer because they manhandled you is also stupid. Pulling away from an officer because they manhandled you is absolutely logical, and the cops reacted with arrogant authority.

And what we're saying is that you're an arrogant blood asphole pig for arguing in their favor because they're cops. You simply don't touch people unless you plan on arresting them, stopping them from harming someone or something, or because they aren't listening to your order. Touching him to even guide him without telling him to leave is unacceptable, and battery.

Now, if he had just submitted after they showed no signs of justification or common courtesy , he would have had an excellent lawsuit. Instead he was a whiney idiot.

No, I want to stop being assumed that I'm guilty until I'm ****ing PROVEN INNOCENT. If someone reaches for something, you tell them to slow the **** down and point your gun at them. You can also point your gun at them and tell them to get the **** out. Physically assaulting them (by definition of the law, lololol. Oh wait, it's a cop so it doesn't count.) before they show any signs of violence or even erratic behavior is STUPID and ASININE.

The law does not ****ing go GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. If you want, you can protect yourself, you have a firearm, a taser, pepper spray, and other assorted items at your disposal. Your physical touch shouldn't be required unless you're arresting someone (and they had no basis upon which to arrest him as free speech is, you know, a very integral part of our nation) or are in a physical struggle with them.

Just so you know, I'm not fighting for the kid--he was an idiot, he was out of line, and I think he presented his case to Kerry in a manner that SHOULD'VE gotten him escorted from the premises.

I'm fighting against the way the police reacted.

Okay enough. Before, this thread was heated but relatively civil with a few exceptions. But JediKirby has just been downright insulting. Banned.

Their hand on his shoulder isn't preventing him from shooting them if he's got a gun. I don't care if you think everyone has guns: You ask someone to leave before you push them against their will. Why don't you get that? Does your badge shine that much?

Did detty just ban me because I called JLee an arrogant asphole?

You know, I've watched this video again, and is anyone certain that the first officer who approached him didn't immediately tell him he was under arrest? We're assuming that they meant to escort him out, but that's not obvious to me at all.