That’ll show us
So, the kid who is kind of a douchebag and goaded the cop into being a bigger douchebag has been treated to having his place staked out by other cops who are now even bigger douchebags than the two aforementioned douchebags.
Update: Clarification in comments:
Some clarifications are in order:
1. the cop that the guy video taped worked for a completely different department than the st. louis city PD
2. apparently, the officers stalking the video taper are part of the st. louis city PD
3. the st. louis county PD (again, completely different agency) is doing the investigation of the original video taped cop
September 27th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Some clarifications are in order:
1. the cop that the guy video taped worked for a completely different department than the st. louis city PD
2. apparently, the officers stalking the video taper are part of the st. louis city PD
3. the st. louis county PD (again, completely different agency) is doing the investigation of the original video taped cop
Interestingly, the st. louis city PD isn’t run by the mayor of St. Louis, but rather by a board appointed by the governor of Missouri, of which the mayor happens to be one member. This is in response to scandals that happened over 100 years ago.
I’ve also met (briefly) the current chief of the st. louis city PD, back when I was doing some IT consulting there in 1999 (and when he was chief of detectives). He seemed like a good guy to me.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Maybe I missed something in the whole chain of events here, but in what way is the kid that taped all of this “sort of a douchebag”? All he did was start keeping video equipment in his car after his first frightening encounter with police. I’d do the same if I had any clue about how he is able to record to, as he put it in one of the videos, “a secure location”.
The cops are another matter entirely. The fact that they are trying so hard to intimidate him after all of this just proves that the entire department is out of control. If the one that was fired was just a bad apple, the others would all realize that he did this to himself. If he hadn’t operated so far from what is acceptable behavior for a LEO, the video would have been harmless.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am
He apparently had a history of goading the police, to include some history of intentionally swerving in traffic. That makes him a douchebag in my book.
I expect better from police because, well, they have to deal with a lot of douchebags and being a douchebag is not a crime.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Yeah, how is he a “douchebag” exactly? His douchebaggery appears to consist of aggressively asserting his civil rights when confronted by law enforcement officials, and documenting their reactions. The kid is an example of good citizenship, not a “douchebag” in any way, shape or form.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:37 am
The police can hardly complain about entrapment.
This seems like pure harrassment to me.
The police are, once again, making their own reputation.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I second the douchbag nomination.
To me, “agressively asserting my civil rights” equals “whiney little pansy with nothing better to do.”
Just show the elderly Wal-Mart lady your recipt and go on your way….
September 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
This all makes complete sense to me.
St. Louis has the highest per capita serious crime rate for 2006 in the US, so local law enforcement is staking out a young man with a bit of an attitude.
Kind of like the Minneapolis Airport security staking out the bathrooms for gay encounters (with Republican lawmakers who use a “wide stance”) instead of looking for terrorists.
Although the youngster may well be a twerp, I concur that he is defending his rights in the same way people like Larry Flynt, whom I cannot stand, defend our rights to free speech.
There is actually a SCOTUS case, complete with a police video, which addresses the obligation of someone to identify himself to law enforcement upon request.
SCOTUS held that there was such a legal obligation, which bothers me.
And it is people like this youngster who will help the officers in question learn some civility.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Rustmeister… and next time make sure all your “papers” are in order when asked why you are driving around a night. The kid might have been a little bit of a douch, but there is no reason he has to tell the cops his personal business. We have rights for a reason.
A couple of years ago I got pulled over driving down some back roads at 3 in the morning. I always regretted actually explaining to the cop I was driving back after having a fight which ended a relationship I was in. My girlfriend and I breaking up seemed an “acceptable” reason to be out and he “let me go”.
Acting outside the norm is not an interrogatable offense. I’m positive if I told that officer “it was private” I would have been detained.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Chris:
IIRC, The SC found that when a state law explicitly requires you provide identification upon demand under certain circumstances (e.g. such as when operating a motor vehicle) then you must provide identification when the officer asks for it under those circumstances. In the absence of such a state law, or outside the circumstances covered by the state law, LEOs have no legal power to force you to provide identification upon demand.
Of course, my memory could be faulty.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Otter,
I understand all that, and I fully agree with everyone else that the cop was wrong. He should have simply stuck to whatever procedure the department had in place and acted accordingly instead of trying to “teach him a lesson”.
When you put yourself in unusual situations like driving the backroads at three in the morning, your best course of action after being pulled over is to be courteous, cooperative and truthful. Doing otherwise will put you in the “suspicious person” category and yes, you will get hauled in.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Brian, I strongly suspect that the “secure location” is the normal tape in the normal camcorder, and he just tells them that to keep them from taking the tape out and “losing” it between the car and the evidence locker, the same way the tape from the patrol car was lost.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
It’s amazing. These LEOs and their chief deserve to be famous!
September 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
John-
You may be right.
I will check with my friend who alerted me to the case.
He will know.
Does Tn have such a statute?
I am courteous to law enforcement, but I wouldn’t hesitate to assert my rights if one of them wants to check around my car (which never, ever has anything illegal in it, I might add) or come inside my house.
Short of that, though, I am very courteous to cops.
It is ironic that the people who push our rights to the limits, frequently resulting in Constitutional litigation, are not people with whom you may want to associate.
Heck, I doubt our old friend, Miranda, was someone with whom I would want to commiserate.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
This is exactly the same as an encounter with the police! Good analogy. I’ll just choose not to do my shopping in areas patrolled by police from now on.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Blackfork Said on September 27th, 2007 at 11:37 am
>The police are, once again, making their own reputation.
In the case of STL area uniformed officers, quite regularly.
For a humorous example go to “On Pirate Days–Sept. 15” at
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/mound.nsf/Front?OpenView&Count=2000
For those not up on STL local news: St Georges is basically an independent subdivision amidst Saint Louis. And the other week 5 Jeff Co deputies got into a bar brawl while out of uniform and tried to cover it up.
For the most part I agree with what SaysUncle writes, and I do visit here regularly. But I disagree with the douchebag characterization of the young adult with the video camera. And for Rustmeister, this had nothing to do with receipts, that was in Ohio, it was a BestBuy and the manager wanted him to “prove” he had not been shoplifting. Which escalated into a case of a police officer illegally (for that jurisdiction) demanding a driver’s license.
All civil liberties must be defended by each of us individually or all of us will lose all of them. If I want to ride around at 3am on public roads, I will. The right to be free of unreasonable searches did not start with the Bill of Rights. It is not subject to a curfew. And one of the worst offenses against our liberty was that moving in a vehicle has been allowed to be considered a privilage. Freedom of movement, be it on foot, on a horse or in a carriage was considered a fundamental right to our forefathers. So much so that between the Articles of Confederation and Bill of Rights it was considered unnecessary to articulate it in writing any longer. (“… the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, …”) Article IV.
Therefore I do not consider him a douchebag, and in fact I’m glad to know that the younger generation have such as him to carry on. I fact, in writing this reponse I’m thinking that perhaps I should send him a Gadsen flag (“Don’t tread on me”)
September 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
This site, despite it’s disclaimers, has some general rule of thumb advice on what rights you have on disclosing information or keeping it confidential.
FlexYourRights.org
Also, since this is primarily a gun blog (funded by the NRA, no doubt) this video may be of interest.
Open Carry in New Hampshire
Videos make a great difference. The cops have been using them for years. It hasn’t been to the benefit of the abusive ones that modern technology allows regualr citzens to turn the tables. Recently in Norflok, VA, a man was arrested for legally carrying a sidearm. When he told his wife to catch it on her camera phone, she was threatened with arrest as well. Hopefully that type of threat will be illegal in the near future.
(Hope I got those links right)
September 27th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
He complied with everything the officer had the legitimate power to ask. He is not obligated to tell the officer where he is going or why.
Just because a cop can usually get away with abusing his authority doesn’t mean it is right. And to those that think it is, all I can say is shame on you. You are part of the problem.
Next time a cop asks you a question he shouldn’t, ask him when the last time he and his wife had sex. I have done so. I was informed it wasn’t my business. I replied “Therein lies your answer to your question.”
September 28th, 2007 at 3:00 am
I have posted on this before. I’ve a friend that is a professor at a community college. There is a waiting list for the law enforcement courses. My friend says that all that he sees applying are the absolute dregs of society wanting authority to abuse and order and push people around. I am afraid this nation is at a terrible crossroads. One road leads to surrender of our rights to the hands of a police state and the other road leads to the path of a bloody revolution. The center path to freedom through the ballot box just isn’t going to happen. Bush was a terrific governor, but he has betrayed us. We will get worse at the hands of the commiekrats. If we go the path of revolution, which of our friends and neghbors will rat us out for a few pieces of silver?