At best he’s brandishing, if he’s being an asshole on his own time. If he claims he was making a stop as a cop, then he has massive 4th Amendment violations on his hands (See Washington v Lambert, “Under ordinary circumstances, when the police have only reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop, drawing weapons and using handcuffs and other restraints will violate the Fourth Amendment. (citing Del Vizo, 918 F.2d at 825; United States v. Delgadillo–Velasquez, 856 F.2d 1292, 1295 (9th Cir.1988)).
Yes, but notice how he immediately CYA’d himself with the “I thought he had a weapon” mantra. It’s like a free pass to ‘protect and serve’ the sh!t out of someone.
It’s amazing how advances in technology have changed police work. It used to be that cops would carry an untraceable (to them) small pistol in an ankle holster to drop by the hand of an unarmed guy they’d just shot. Now, they can say the cellphone looked like a gun, and everybody has a cell phone.
Maybe the question is; what doesn’t look like a gun? A suckling baby? But then who isn’t going to want a gun that looks like a suckling baby?
“I know it appeared to you that the man I shot had empty, raised, bare hands at the time, but how could I have been sure one of those ‘bare hands’ wasn’t actually a prosthetic hand made into a submachine gun?”
So until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that your cell phone is not a 9 mm cell phone gun, or your suckling baby is not a suckling-baby-gun, or your bare arms are not actually submachine guns in disguise, then I guess you’re a legitimate target the moment a cop sees you.
August 6th, 2015 at 1:35 pm
At best he’s brandishing, if he’s being an asshole on his own time. If he claims he was making a stop as a cop, then he has massive 4th Amendment violations on his hands (See Washington v Lambert, “Under ordinary circumstances, when the police have only reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop, drawing weapons and using handcuffs and other restraints will violate the Fourth Amendment. (citing Del Vizo, 918 F.2d at 825; United States v. Delgadillo–Velasquez, 856 F.2d 1292, 1295 (9th Cir.1988)).
August 6th, 2015 at 2:54 pm
Yes, but notice how he immediately CYA’d himself with the “I thought he had a weapon” mantra. It’s like a free pass to ‘protect and serve’ the sh!t out of someone.
August 6th, 2015 at 6:28 pm
@Kang Except for the fact that the entire time, both of the camera man’s hands are visible in the frame.
August 6th, 2015 at 7:25 pm
Divemedic –
He pulls keys and such out of a pocket, his other hand may have been in a pocket both before and after that.
But at multiple times both his hands were in view, and he visibly emptied a pocket.
Don’t read too much into my pedantic need for accuracy, it’s clear the pretense for the stop was “because F you, that’s why.”
August 6th, 2015 at 8:54 pm
It’s amazing how advances in technology have changed police work. It used to be that cops would carry an untraceable (to them) small pistol in an ankle holster to drop by the hand of an unarmed guy they’d just shot. Now, they can say the cellphone looked like a gun, and everybody has a cell phone.
August 7th, 2015 at 12:20 pm
Maybe the question is; what doesn’t look like a gun? A suckling baby? But then who isn’t going to want a gun that looks like a suckling baby?
“I know it appeared to you that the man I shot had empty, raised, bare hands at the time, but how could I have been sure one of those ‘bare hands’ wasn’t actually a prosthetic hand made into a submachine gun?”
So until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that your cell phone is not a 9 mm cell phone gun, or your suckling baby is not a suckling-baby-gun, or your bare arms are not actually submachine guns in disguise, then I guess you’re a legitimate target the moment a cop sees you.
August 7th, 2015 at 8:47 pm
@Lyle:
Lon Horiuchi proved that shooting someone with a suckling baby in the head from hundreds of meters away is a path to promotion.