Being an asshole is grounds for “this guy needs arresting”?
Do you have any examples of that?
So if it was just some random guy out there filming some activity that he found to be interesting or noteworthy, then he should not have been arrested. But, because he probably annoyed cops in the past, that justifies it?
He was acting within his rights. If that annoys cops, that’s their problem.
They asked him to move back. He did. They continued to harass him after he did what they asked. They chose to “manage this asshole’s behavior”, even though his behavior was not breaking the law.
I wouldn’t say that he is doing it as a public service, but reminding the police that we civilians actually do have rights still is one.
I don’t have a whole lot of concern over this guy. I do have concern about a police force that will arrest someone who is not breaking any laws because they think that he’s being an asshole.
Oh, so we are in agreement then? I am also happy that a police chief who will arrest someone who is not breaking the law gets fired.
Even if we accept that it’s not particularly relevant. Did he violate any law? Did the police overstep their authority? Those appear to be the relevant questions. Even if the cameraman is a complete asshole, the police are expected to follow the law.
Sounds like this guy knows how to push cop’s buttons. That isn’t against the law. And cops should be trained to ignore those buttons and if they cannot, be removed from the force. Just like the police chief.
IDGAF if he violated the law. I’m a practical person. I want the police to do a good job, to treat the public correctly, with decency, while doing their jobs.
Being harassed by trolls who are trying to goad them into a bad reaction payday makes this less possible. This person makes police work harder to do correctly, and that’s the last thing our society needs.
You need to support the claim that he makes a habit of provking the police. Perhaps you are of the opinion that recording the police is provocation in and of itself, in which case it would seem that discussion is pointless. Give us time points or cued links to his videos to show active interference. Short of that, all else is noise.
The real issue with the police having the guy move back from the jumper is analogous to the boy who cried wolf. All the times the cops make up shit about you can’t be here, you can’t film me, etc. this might be the ONE TIME the cops were right in making the guy move but ask why given ALL those other cases of cops making up laws, why should the guy have believed the cops?
Long piece on the subject of no-knock (warrantless, in this case) encounters, covering the general issue of “qualified immunity” and the conflict between 2A, stand-your-ground/castle-doctrine, 4A and the “difficult job” that is modern police work.
How was he “Harassing” the cops trying to get the guy off the tower.
Let’s take this from the other end. Let’s say the cops told him to back up out of the area and he went the stated 477 feet away and continued to film. The cops ignore him and continued to get the guy off the tower safely. What are you saying the outcome would have been in this scenario?
If the guy threatening to jump notices that someone’s filming him, and starts getting agitated about it, do the cops just ignore that, or do they remove the source of the guy’s agitation so he’s less likely to jump? If he moves back 477 feet, but the guy on the tower can still see him, and is still agitated, is it improper for the cops to move him even further back?
If the situation was something like that, maybe arresting the guy was still improper, but not necessarily “fire the police chief” improper. And if the jumper didn’t know/care about being filmed, then the cop was just power tripping on the guy, and deserves to be fired. But this story is a whole lot less “obviously wrong” then most of the other incidents in this thread.
If the guy says that he is agitated by the police, and demand that they all get out of view, do they comply?
To be honest, filming the police is to the benefit of anyone who is interacting with them. They could have just shot him and called it a day, were there no witnesses to say differently. Why waste their afternoon on a poor bastard when they could get an early start at the local diner?
If I ever have an encounter with the police, I actually would prefer that someone like him is around to document it.
this is not actually a thread about “obviously wrong” but actually a thread about “controversial encounters.”
If there’s no one else there who can help, then no. If there’s a crisis councilor or similar professional already working with the suicidal person? Absolutely, at least to the extent that it doesn’t create a wider danger to bystanders.
That’s totally rational. But, of course, we’re not talking about a person in a rational state of mind.
And here we are, discussing this particular encounter, with some people thinking it’s less obviously wrong than other encounters. As much as I dislike the way policing is done in this country, sometimes they just try to do their jobs as best they can. When that job is “prevent this innocent person’s death” I’m giving them slack, not the guy who’s there to prove some “point” about his rights.
I wonder how many people get to the brink of suicide, and then back down, on their own, with no help from anyone. No cops, no crisis counselors, just considering their mortality and deciding to continue fighting rather than giving up.
I know of a couple, personally.
The stress of knowing that, once you have decided to live, that now you have to deal with all the fallout of the legal system and mandatory psych evaluations and holds, along with the expense that that incurs, seems would add to the temptation to just go ahead and end it.
Personally, having been there, I think I would have had a much harder time backing down with a police presence than I did on my own.
Just because someone is not in their best state of mind doesn’t mean that they are irrational and unpredictable. They just don’t have the same priorities as most people who value self preservation over anything else.
Were I contemplating my mortality on the edge of a electrical tower, I’d rather have someone making sure that those who are supposed to be protecting me don’t act in a way that is more convenient for them than safe for myself.
Not that there haven’t been disagreements on how wrong something was even when the encounter ended up with a dead body.
This may be less obviously wrong than George Floyd, but it is still wrong, IMHO.
I don’t think this was the case that they were doing their jobs the best they can. I think this was the case that they chose to instead violate someone’s rights rather than do their jobs.
Not really an innocent, someone facing a very difficult decision. I’m not sure that the cop’s presence contributes anything at all to preventing his death.
I’d say he was there to prove a point about all of our rights.