One more example of knowing that there is a time to fight and stress your innocence and a time to let the police take you in and THEN you profess your innocence.

 

26 ? Seems a bit much.

 

!

One more example of knowing that there is a time to fight and stress your innocence and a time to let the police take you in and THEN you profess your innocence.

 

26 ? Seems a bit much.

 

!

 

 

 

Would have been a great time to get some donuts though.

Well the title is a little misleading from the YouTube video. 2 were attempting to arrest him and then called for assistance and 24 nearby officers responded to the call for officer assistance, but it looks like only 2 or 3 others got involved in actually subduing him. The original 2 officers were actually showing some restraint in not being more aggressive in taking him down or striking him in some way to subdue him.

Anyone that resist arrest deserves whats coming to them. I see no issue in this at all

Hopefully they didn't count the officer who ran up and immediately tied his shoe as one of the arresting officers.

I've got absolutely no issue with how the arresting officers responded to the man. They were doing their best to restrain him without having to hurt him. The first two officers that arrived and tried to help seemed fine as well. I thought they all did a great job getting him in cuffs without having to hurt him--especially given the way he was resisting. It did look a little bit comical to see the other 20 come filing in but I'd much rather see that then have an officer need assistance, not get enough help and have someone get hurt.

 

What I do have an issue with is the other officers making the person that was filming stop filming. The incident obviously occurred in a public place and the officers did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. The bystander was doing nothing to impede the investigation and was not somewhere that they were not supposed to be. The officers had no right to force them to stop and the female officer that kept sarcastically saying "Bye" to the cameraperson should be reprimanded. Actions such as hers and the officers that stopped the filming are why so many people have negative feelings towards the police.

If I'm the supervisor I might "suggest" that once it's obvious there is enough force , say may 4 officers, that the others should be commended for responding but then might think to get back to their beat.

^ I agree with you Joe, but I think in this day and age Police are getting tired of everyone filming everything they do looking for one slip up. Can you imagine if a camera followed everyone around at work. Then your boss could see when we were goofing off, acting busy when we weren't or surfing the net, let alone making a mistake that could cast our employer money or harm the well being of others. I just think that for the most part Police officers are just tired of getting YouTubed every time they turn around.

^ I agree with you Joe, but I think in this day and age Police are getting tired of everyone filming everything they do looking for one slip up. Can you imagine if a camera followed everyone around at work. Then your boss could see when we were goofing off, acting busy when we weren't or surfing the net, let alone making a mistake that could cast our employer money or harm the well being of others. I just think that for the most part Police officers are just tired of getting YouTubed every time they turn around.

 

Actually, in the dispatch centers that I work in pretty much everything is recorded in case someone does mess up. Also, all of our internet activity is tracked and our emails archived. By working there I agree to that. The officers take an oath to uphold the law and protect the public's rights. While I understand they may be tired of all the cameras and being filmed that is simply part of our society now. If they don't want to be filmed they can always go into another field. Being tired of something does not give them permission to trample on other's rights. If the cameraperson were impeding their arrest or was somewhere that they were not supposed to be then I'm fine with them removing and/or arresting them. Otherwise they need to let the bystanders film and do their jobs. If they do them properly, like the officers in this film then all it can be used for is evidence against the suspect.

 

I would be a little bit more understanding about not liking being filmed if it weren't for the way that police are so quick to use dashboard cams or security footage if it supports their actions. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, in the dispatch centers that I work in pretty much everything is recorded in case someone does mess up. Also, all of our internet activity is tracked and our emails archived. By working there I agree to that. The officers take an oath to uphold the law and protect the public's rights. While I understand they may be tired of all the cameras and being filmed that is simply part of our society now. If they don't want to be filmed they can always go into another field. Being tired of something does not give them permission to trample on other's rights. If the cameraperson were impeding their arrest or was somewhere that they were not supposed to be then I'm fine with them removing and/or arresting them. Otherwise they need to let the bystanders film and do their jobs. If they do them properly, like the officers in this film then all it can be used for is evidence against the suspect.

 

I would be a little bit more understanding about not liking being filmed if it weren't for the way that police are so quick to use dashboard cams or security footage if it supports their actions. You can't have it both ways.

Your right, but if you mess up at work the footage of you messing up isn't going to be on YouTube for everyone to dissect every moment of your actions.

 

I think that Dr's and Nurses would react the same way if someone was constantly filming everything they do.

 

FWIW security cameras clear more people of wrong doing than they catch in my experience.

Yes Police do need to have a thicker skin maybe, but no one films their actions hoping to post a video of a text book arrest. The intent is almost always to try to catch the Police being imperfect in a job in which the public expects perfection.

^ I agree with you Joe, but I think in this day and age Police are getting tired of everyone filming everything they do looking for one slip up. Can you imagine if a camera followed everyone around at work. Then your boss could see when we were goofing off, acting busy when we weren't or surfing the net, let alone making a mistake that could cast our employer money or harm the well being of others. I just think that for the most part Police officers are just tired of getting YouTubed every time they turn around.

Supreme Court has agreed that any filming or taping of LEO is legal providing you do nothing to impede, interfere with their job. Standing back taping is neither. Actually it helps both sides, one side could say something that happened that didn't.

 

There is an app called QIK, and I suggest that everyone get it. If you are approached just tap once to open the app, then again to record. The video and audio starts right away and you are going out live on your free QIK channel, when the recording stops, it gets archived to your channel. I have mine set up so as soon as the video stops, it goes directly to my Youtube and Facebook pages. The video stops when you lose wifi or cell singal, or both, or if you turn the app off, or if someone else turns it off, or destroys the phone. I have known of one person who used QIK and all of a sudden his phone was "lost" after the LEO took it, and they lied about the events that night. Little did the LEO know that there was a record of the video in two different locations, and they were caught.

Your right, but if you mess up at work the footage of you messing up isn't going to be on YouTube for everyone to dissect every moment of your actions.

 

I think that Dr's and Nurses would react the same way if someone was constantly filming everything they do.

 

FWIW security cameras clear more people of wrong doing than they catch in my experience.

 

How long has Cops been on the air? Over a decade?

How long has Cops been on the air? Over a decade?

 

True, but I think the Cops get the benefit of the doubt in the editing room if there is something that may be out of line. Otherwise this show would have lasted about one season and then no other department would have allowed it.

I would be a little bit more understanding about not liking being filmed if it weren't for the way that police are so quick to use dashboard cams or security footage if it supports their actions. You can't have it both ways.

I agree! Not to make this go towards a political statement, but as in another thread, people are up in arms about the Whitehouse over reaching, when just a few years ago most of the same people complaining were saying "If you don't have anything to hide then why worry?" Same thought here, if the LEO is not doing anything wrong, illegal, why are they worrying so much?

 

About a month ago we had an incident where I work at times, some bystander was taping everything, later the guy who was arrested tried to lie about the events. If there was no footage he would have continued his story. I would had to use the bystanders footage, If I didn't have a tiny lapel camera taping as well that night.

 

To add on this, the same guy filming was told to leave the area, LEO was wrong to say he had to leave, as he was about 50 feet away in a private lot. The funny thing was he kept telling the officer to tase him, he said it about 15 times, if it was a CPD officer he most likely would have been tased. I know the arresting officer and she knew what the guy was up to later on in his taping, he was looking to get her to do something that would get him a big pay day when the video came out. But, she and her back up kept their cool and let the guy talk his garbage, she later said she shouldn't have said anything as he wasn't within a few feet of the arrest.