I don’t know the backstory to this clip. I’m sure there is one and it’s relevant. At 3:18, the videographer says to the cop “you guys have done enough to my family.” Regardless, and even if the cop was right to draw his firearm when he thought the camera guy had a weapon in his pocket, why does he keep his gun out after the camera guy’s hands are out of his pocket? Why does he keep walking towards his fellow civilian with his gun drawn? As far as I can tell (and I’m no lawyer) that constitutes a lethal threat. I know a law-abiding gun owner – a compos mentis combat vet – who’d feel obliged to engage that threat. Also, since when . . .

does a cop say to a civilian “Are you some kind of Constitutionalist?” – as if cherishing the U.S. Constitution makes one a “crazy guy” or a terrorist? I expect [and regularly encounter] that kind of thinking from the anti-gun agitators at the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence, not a police officer who’s sworn to uphold that very same Constitution. In short, WTF?

189 Responses to CA Cop Draws Gun on YouTuber: “Are You Some Kind of Crazy Constitutionalist?” [NSFW]

  1. Well, he has a really difficult job and he just wants to go home to his family at night..

    On the other hand, I’d like to make sure I make it inside to my family when I am in my own damn front yard as well. Let’s just file this under “How to Provoke a Shooting 101” and wish for a better world where thugs like this went to jail instead of just ending up on YouTube.

      • It’s folks like these who hurt the RTKBA. I have had numerous interactions with the police. Never, ever been drawn down on. I show respect and to a man they have always reciprocated. The guys a nut looking for YouTube views. Betcha the cop wouldn’t have stopped if the guy was work supporting his family and going about his life minding his own business. I would give the cop a medal upon returning to the station. Your support, Robert, gives clowns like this and those 3 yahoos in Charlotte a platform that will only hurt our cause. I sometimes think TTAG is a subsidiary of Everytown.

        • So if he’d just been at work like a good comrade there’d have been no issue, right? Damn those rabble-rousers with their selfish ideas of liberty ruining it for the rest of us who are just trying to get along with as little conflict as possible.

        • And it’s people like you who excuse bad cops that hurt ALL of our rights. “Just do as your told like a good little subject”.

        • It’s “you’re” not “your.” If we would concentrate more on grammar, maybe we could understand the Constitution better? No offense intended.

        • @Grindstone
          What are you going to do, draw on him? Shoot him?

          There’s a place to complain and make a scene about bad police behavior. The street is not that place. There’s simply no guarantee that the particular officer who is harassing you is a stable and well-adjusted member of society, and on top of that, if he does decide to murder you, he probably won’t suffer any significant consequences of it.

          Life is all about risk management, and being an ass to a cop, though it may make you feel better, is not a good choice on the risk management scale.

          Does that suck? Yeah it does. Welcome to the real world.

        • I’ve been drawn and treated like a felony stop on a regular traffic stop once they ran me and saw I’m a CCW holder and had multiple blue cards (NV pistol reg before they got rid of it). The second we stopped both officers got out of their vehicle with firearms drawn yelling for me and my brother to open the doors thru the Windows and get on the ground.
          No prior criminal convictions for either of us.
          This was a simple speeding incident.

        • “It’s folks like these who hurt the RTKBA”
          Um…the guy wasn’t armed. By your logic he could be hurting RTKBA by eating purple pancakes and disliking green eggs and ham.

        • There’s a place to complain and make a scene about bad police behavior. The street is not that place.

          The street is the very place to complain and demonstrate cracks in the system. Public spaces have been the primary locations for complaints and disobedience since the beginning of this nation. Nowhere are constitutional protections more sacrosanct than in the public square.

          If anyone thinks this guy behaved badly, read (or in some cases read again) about the Boston Massacre. The behavior of patriots on that day make this guy look like a saint. If anything, those protesting loss of liberties today aren’t being bold and loud enough.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_massacre#Incident

          When they reached Private White on the custom house stairs, the soldiers loaded their muskets, and arrayed themselves in a semicircular formation. Preston shouted at the crowd, estimated to number between three and four hundred, to disperse.
          The crowd continued to press around the soldiers, taunting them by yelling, “Fire!”, by spitting at and throwing snowballs and other small objects at them. Richard Palmes, a local innkeeper who was carrying a cudgel (i.e., club), came up to Preston and asked if the soldiers’ weapons were loaded. Preston assured him they were, but that they would not fire unless he ordered it, and (according to his own deposition) that he was unlikely to do so, since he was standing in front of them. A thrown object then struck Private Montgomery, knocking him down and causing him to drop his musket. He recovered his weapon, and was thought to angrily shout “Damn you, fire!”, then discharged it into the crowd although no command was given. Palmes swung his cudgel first at Montgomery, hitting his arm, and then at Preston. He narrowly missed Preston’s head, striking him on the arm instead.

        • John,

          I would point out that those brave patriots at the Boston Massacre were shot and killed.
          the British soldiers who shot them were defended by none other than John Adams and were found to have acted lawfully in self-defense.

          If you wish to become a martyr for the revolution than so be it. I’d rather think we’re not to that point yet.

        • It’s folks like these who hurt the RTKBA.

          Folks like who, the cop? The videographer was carrying no gun so how could he hurt RKBA?

        • @Sian: You completely missed my point. What the cameraman was doing was nothing in comparison to how some acted when we began to throw off the yoke of tyranny. That was my only point and I thought that was obvious from my initial post.

          As to your reply… Of course Adams defended them. That’s common knowledge and had nothing to do with my point.

          I don’t intend on becoming a martyr for a revolution. However, it’s my viewpoint that the People ought to have arisen to keep tyranny in check long before you or I were even born. In other words, the People are extremely late to the party. We have been beyond redline for tyranny in this nation for generations. The People haven’t enough courage to fight for their own freedom. The best that could possibly happen is wholehearted secession whereby the seceding state(s) form a free nation using articles of confederation. What is more likely is that America will continue her decline until the light of liberty is snuffed out, waiting perhaps thousands of years to re-emerge as a basic concept to found a nation upon.

        • @ John in Ohio: so what’s your point? Make each and every interaction with law enforcement a headache? Make mountains out of mole hills? The law is against those doing evil–it’s not against love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. Show you’re a good guy and you’ll be treated as such. Imagine the dude was an ISIS recruit and the cop mollycoddled him (because he doesn’t want to offend gun owners or guys with hands in their pants) only to see that later the bad guy blew up your family. Support law and order–they are the good guys. (Don’t troll me with bad cops garbage; there are bad apples everywhere even on TTAG).

        • What are you talking about? How does a guy alone and unarmed in his OWN DRIVEWAY, hooking up his boat to his SUV constitute a threat to this cop? What right does the cop have to pull up and harass him? How does this hurt the RTKA? You are seriously delusional.

        • @David B: According to current government trends, I can’t be a good guy no matter how I act because I still believe in individual liberty. You can imagine all kinds of scenarios but it doesn’t change the tyranny before us in this nation today.

          Am I being detained, officer?

        • Ahh…so the proverbial “what are you going to do, shoot him?”

          If you see a law enforcement officer begin to engage a law abiding citizen with lethal force, and you are armed, you see no reason to stop the threat to the lawful citizen?

          With that said, fighting tyranny in your world, could never happen, because the cops, and by extension the government, can do no wrong, no matter how far they infringe your god-given rights. Whether it be under the guise of their safety, public safety, or your safety.

        • It’s YOU’RE or YOU ARE! When you won’t listen to reason, you lash out? Come, come, my friend. You can do better.

        • “If we would concentrate more on grammar, maybe we could understand the Constitution better? No offense intended.”

          If you could concentrate more on reading comprehension, maybe you could understand the story better. Offense intended.

    • I think this is deprivation of rights through color of law. The cop could face criminal and/or civil penalties for threatening lethal force against someone for exercising constitutional rights.

    • This is another great example of CS policework that nearly ended in an atrocity. Circling a neighborhood, running a tag of a car parked in a driveway, photographing a man in his front yard…really? That is classic CS and that officer seems old enough to know better. Is this the stupid crap this officer wanted to do when he decided to become a police officer? Is it the stupid crap he wants to be the reason he loses his career? His freedom? His life? Oh, and shooting an unarmed man because he wouldn’t take his hand out of his pocket during what the courts call a “consensual encounter” would have finished that officer’s career and probably worse. Not to mention that the “consensual encounter” ended when the officer ordered the man to take his hand out of his pocket at gunpoint. He seized the man without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, a violation of his constitutional rights and department policy. So the officer put himself in this position, risking all of the above, for what? What interest did the People of California have in this CS investigation? The only thing I give the officer credit for is eventually coming to his senses and backing down. I’m not calling for the arrest of the officer, but some training is quite obviously needed.

    • This cop would be right at home in Austin. Think this cop wouldn’t happily confiscate your guns or help put people into internment camps? No, no, he’d never do something like that. He was just showing his concern for the publics’ well-being.

    • I have no problem with a cop that wants to go home to his family. I do have a problem with a$$ hats that think that provoking cops helps our cause. But the biggest problem with this clip is that the cop see “constitutionalist” as crazy and a threat. That means they have been trained to think it. The beginnings of a police state.

      • nothing new; cops always and forever fear(ed) armed citizens. they just became more publicly belligerent about it in the last 10yrs, or so.

        “fear the government that does not fear it’s citizens”.

      • I do have a problem with a$$ hats that think that provoking cops helps our cause.

        This has nothing to do with “our cause.” The guy wasn’t carrying a gun. He might not have even been a gun owner. He was at home, in his driveway, hooking up his boat trailer when he saw the cop circle back. That’s when he started recording. The only person provoking another was the cop.

  2. Time to put these dirt bags in their place.

    Time to stop the tyranny.

    This is not Amerika.

    This is not what our founding fathers envisioned.

      • Of course police existed then. The British troops in the colonies at the time functioned as military police and were there to keep the citizens ‘in line’.

        Kind of how like people who hate the Constitution want those of us who cherish it ‘kept in line’ through an increasing amount of police and bureaucratic overreach that will try to turn every law abiding man into a felon.

    • While this isn’t Amerika, it certainly is the people’s republik of kalifornia… Tread lightly my friend, the authority of the constitution left the state years ago.

    • @ RKBA

      This is exactly the abuse of power our founding fathers envisioned when they created the Bill of Rights to our Constitution.

  3. In hindsight I would’ve wished my response to the the constitutionalist question to be: Well you’re the one that swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, so I guess (crazy or not) you’re “the Constitutionalist.”

    • Do cops take an oath? I’ll bet any oath varies by jurisdiction and I’ll bet it usually doesn’t mention the US Constitution.

      • A quick web search found this example:

        “I, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance, to the Constitution of the State Of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties, of the office of Police Officer of the City of ( where I serve) , acting to the best of my ability.”

        No sure if officer friendly took it, but I’m guessing its a decent bet he did.

  4. Hard to tell from the video but it sounds like the guy with the camera never takes his hand out of his pocket. IF so then the Cop may think he has a weapon. Also, the guy with the camera sounds a bit crazy and talks like he is looking for a fight. The Cop was in a vulnerable position a few times as he was leaving. Turned his back on the camera guy at least once. I don’t like the Constitutional Crazy reference but other than that I don’t see that the Cop did anything wrong. Would be nice to know the back story on this. Why does the camera guy think his family is being persecuted ? Does he have a criminal background ? Why is he waiting outside with a camera for the police to come by. Why are the police regularly patrolling his neighborhood. Several things don’t add up in this video that makes me think we are not seeing the whole story. Putting this video on YouTube does more harm to the camera guy than to the cop IMO.

    • There are a few places in the video where we see the videographer hold up one of his hands. Assuming that he is holding the camera with the other and that it’s not on some kind of body mount, then both of his hands are out of his pocket.

    • IF so then the Cop may think he has a weapon.

      Suspicion of unlawful activity must be specific, reasonable, and articulable. A hand in a pocket is not evidence of a weapon.

      I don’t like the Constitutional Crazy reference but other than that I don’t see that the Cop did anything wrong.

      So, the dude is in his own driveway, minding his own business, and Officer Friendly rolls up on him, starts making unlawful demands, and draws is firearm. You’d be okay if Officer Friendly did that to you, in your own driveway? Really?

    • Videographer was pretty calm until jackwagon hopped out of the unit and drew his sidearm. Let’s be honest, the guys that stand out front and video an officer pulling up and running his plate is looking for a verbal sparring match but taking video evidence of yourself attacking a police officer is something even the most slack-jawed criminal would try to avoid. That said, he didn’t do anything wrong and DIDN’T refuse to take his hand out of his pocket, he just bitched about having to do so. I don’t think he should HAVE to, but prudence tells one that when some dildo like this has his weapon at the ready compliance is in your immediate best interest (which is what the thug was going for.)

      As far as not being able to ” see that the Cop did anything wrong,” I’d point out that stalking a citizen in his front yard with a drawn firearm is clear intimidation. He could have just as easily requested that the homeowner stay put in clear view as opposed to following him around with a drawn gun. I’ll also point out that “cop” shouldn’t be capitalized. He’s a public servant, not an omnipotent being…

      Both parties clearly fall into the dumbass (and possibly d*ckhead) category but officer strongarm should count his lucky stars he didn’t march up the wrong person’s driveway with that sort of attitude.

      • Yeah the difference is that the dickhead in the uniform is being paid to be a dickhead and can shoot your dog that same day with impunity.

        • Hell, he could have shot the videographer and justified it by saying he didn’t get his hands out of his pockets fast enough which was “threatening.” The way things are going we’ll have fond memories of when the cops strolled onto someone’s property and ONLY shot the dogs.

        • Tinfoil or not, how long before someone commits murder with a gun camouflaged as a camera or cell phone; so that every well indoctrinated progressive realize that it’s OK for cops to feel threatened enough to shoot if they are being filmed…….

        • @Stuki Moi: At that point, since the chances of a cop being shot by someone disguising a gun as a camera would be relatively minuscule compared to the chances of an innocent person being shot by a cop, it would become acceptable to the courts for people to draw on cops when they approach. After all, if the very remote possibility would make a cop shooting someone acceptable then the much more likely possibility would make someone drawing on a cop at first sight acceptable.

        • @John in Ohio

          First rule of Progressivestan: It’s never OK to think logically and intelligently in Progeressivestan.

          You just violated it….

        • @Stuki Moi: lol. Yeah, I always was the slow kid. I don’t think I’ll survive long in this “new” America… And, I’m oddly okay with that. 😀 When the choice becomes death or transform into a progressive, I’ll take the dirt nap.

    • “IF so then the Cop may think he has a weapon…The Cop was in a vulnerable position a few times as he was leaving. Turned his back on the camera guy at least once.”

      Wouldn’t the fact that he turned his back on the guy be pretty good evidence that he didn’t really view the guy as a threat? Unless Officer Douchebag is suicidal, if he really thought the guy was an armed threat, there’s no way he’d turn his back on him at close range like that.

  5. “Are you some kind of Constitutionalist?” – as if cherishing the U.S. Constitution makes one a “crazy guy” or a terrorist?

    Ummm… yes. Leaked reports, the MIAC being the most notable, shows at least some cops are trained to believe this for the past decade or longer. You pay for things with cash, have an NRA sticker on your car, Ron Paul sticker, “Don’t Tread on Me” sticker, mention anything whatsoever about the Constitution or BOR, buy ammo, attend firearms training courses, etc…
    You are a threat. No different than the training they receive in spotting gang members.

    You’re a Crip now. Embrace it because the police state won’t be stepping back from madness anytime soon.

  6. Under the protections of the fourteenth amendment, police officers should be held to exactly the same justification of threat or use of deadly force in order to unholster their firearms as their fellow, non-LEO civilians. Police officers don’t have the authority to threaten the use of deadly force, by brandishing their firearms, just because they are wearing a badge.

    This officer had no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. This officer was not effecting an arrest. He had zero reason or justification to threaten the videographer by drawing his firearm.

    Further, he had no justification to command the videographer to remove his hands from his pockets. Police officers don’t get to walk up to law-abiding people and command them to do whatever they want.

    • The legality of the police officer’s actions rests on this simple question: if a person-of-interest has a hand in their pocket, does that constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person-of-interest has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime?

      The answer, if it isn’t totally obvious, is a resounding NO!!!

      Officer friendly was in the wrong and should face the same legal jeopardy as anyone else who draws a handgun and then approaches/engages someone while commanding them to do something … simply because they had a hand in their pocket.

    • “Police officers don’t get to walk up to law-abiding people and command them to do whatever they want.”

      Yes they can, and if you do not comply they can kill you. This is the true mindset of most of the bad cops that have gotten so much media attention recently.

      In the same vein, but on a lighter note:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HOVW_Y9W_Q

    • We Americans of a certain age grew up with state’s heroes being granted a “license to kill” in entertainment media, and the defense of patriotic acts as being of necessity above and outside of law.

      “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception,” wrote Carl Schmitt, supporter of Germany’s National Socialism.

      The public accepts these myths and they become normalized in practice.

      The Constitution has become a threat to the existing order, both in government and by those who willingly surrender to the extremes of its violation in the name of security.

    • Spot on! We’ve fallen so far from what is right that what is just and proper seems unthinkable to the masses.

      If anything, an agent of government is voluntarily operating under more restriction than an individual engaged in regular enjoyment of life and liberty. Agents of government voluntarily agree to act under government privilege while exercising the authority of the office. Governments cannot grant that which they cannot posses in the first place; rights. Governments only posses privileges apportioned to them. Likewise, agents of government can only operate under those privileges apportioned them by government in the discharge of their duties.

      • Indeed, which is why I always try to be careful to say that an officer has authority to do something, rather than the right to do something, when acting as an agent of the state. (Similarly to how I refer to rights protected, rather than granted by the constitution.)

  7. Well, there seems to be a history here. Maybe not with this particular cop, but with the department and this individual.

    Although, the cop accusing this individual as if it’s an epithet, “are you some kind of crazy constitutionalist?” is painting the gun drawn cop as some type of elitist statist thug that sees the citizens as the peasants and he as the enforcer for the public (masters) servants.

    You just wonder what would have happened if the guy didn’t have a camera running if it might have turned into a “justified shooting”.

    • Wow very genius. 1. Ask and you shall receive a trip to the morgue, labeled justifiable shooting. 2. Here in Houston for better or worse Id bet the house the citizen would be riddled with lead. Not correct but the most likely ending.

    • Police should be deprofessionalized and replaced with rotating posses of deputized civilians. Any specific permit any deputy had to go beyond that which he could do in his usual role as a civilian, would have to be authorized on a case by case basis by a court.

      Professional police roaming the streets looking for trouble, is no different than the “standing armies” of the Founders’ age.

      You’d still have mistakes happen and innocents getting killed, but you always will. A certain background level of violence is inevitable. What you would dramatically reduce by getting rid of the standing armies, would be the systemic nature of the abuses. If there was a complaint about your house, Joe from down the street with a badge for the weekend, would come over, instead of a SWAT team helicoptered in from another county. Dramatically reducing both the risk of mishaps, and the alienation currently experienced by most people from those who are supposed to be “keeping them safe.”

      • The multitudes of agents of government indeed serve as a de facto standing army.

        To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

        He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
        He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
        He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
        He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
        He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
        He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
        He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
        He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
        He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
        He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
        He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
        He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
        He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
        For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
        For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
        For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
        For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
        For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
        For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
        For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
        For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
        For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
        He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
        He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
        He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
        He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
        He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

  8. Does this cop really think the guy is going to pull a gun while recording the cop? LEO was wrong in so many ways for his firearms handing and should be suspended and retrained.

    • The LEO was wrong, but don’t think for a second that holding up a camera would lower your threat level. First of all holding up you hand with a sliver of black object can be construed in a wrong way (not that easy to be mistaken in broad daylight as a weapon, but notice the word mistaken) Second, how can the cop relay know he is recording. Third, cameras have been to distract police officers from criminal activity. And forth, even if he is recording, what good is that going to do the cop if he is lying on the street dead, then what are the chances that it would ever be used as evidence, that camera would end up in incinerator.

      • Smart phones today can have a wireless or bluetooth link to a computer not far away. If I’m standing in front of my house videoing, what I get with my phone can be going straight to the cloud. If for some reason I was recording a cop in front of my house, that’s what I’d be doing — and if he asked, I’d let him know that.

        • If you can stomach living in Cali, move to the Valley and become a startup millionaire…..

      • Third, cameras have been to distract police officers from criminal activity.

        I haven’t read any stories about this. Can you provide some links to incidents, please? I didn’t know that this was an actual problem and would like to read about it.

  9. Not knowing everything that went on before this video, and only going off what the video has to offer, I would have drawn and shot to stop the threat right there at 2:19, as any reasonable, rational person with even the most basic of training would have done.

  10. I don’t think I could ask many more kind compliments than to be called a “crazy constitutionalist”.

  11. Not being able to see all the circumstances, IE: Cops camera, neighbor hood etc! it is hard too make an honest judgement call

  12. Chip by chip, piece by piece the New Amerika is being altered to a more fascist or socialist society each day by people who think like this officer. Individual freedoms be damned, I wear the badge “you Constitutionalist scum?” that’s what I take away from this.

    I remember when the cops were on “our” side, not some perverted police state enforcer. Piece by piece it went to hell, and all we did was watch because we were like the frog in the frying pan….temps rose so slowly we never noticed.

    So let me understand, THESE guys are who we should call in any emergency huh? Take away our guns so only nuts like this can have them?? Amy Schumer would be proud!!

    • Yes, the frog slowly boiled, but many people have noticed, and have been ignored, called conspiracy theorists, and the herd moves on.

    • If its any consolation, the hoplophobes want to get rid of the cops too. Who was protesting, fighting, and shooting at the cops in furguson, baltimore, chicago, etc? Not the TTAG crowd.

      Im sure if an antigunner saw this they would call the cop a trigger happy gun toting fascists and advocate that we need to take everybody’s guns away so the cops wont need guns a-la France and England.

      • “Im sure if an antigunner saw this they would call the cop a trigger happy gun toting fascists and advocate that we need to take everybody’s guns away so the cops wont need guns a-la France and England.”

        No, they would not. They would blame THIS SPECIFIC cop. “He’s a bad apple.” But they would never blame the system itself, hence realize it needs to be dismantled. Like we would. And therein lies the difference.

        Remember, socialism is still really good. It’s just that Stalin was bad. And Mao. And Pol Pot. And any other socialist leader so far. But never socialism. And never professionalized, more-equal police as an institution.

    • In many ways it has gotten much worse, including seizure of assets without due process. The “war on drugs” has done this (or, been used as a tool to do this). We also have judges rubber stamping no-knock warrants, and related issues.

      On the other hand, there have always been dirty and/or thuggish cops around. There haven’t always been cell phone cameras. I’m thinking that’s at least part of this.

    • Good on you, bro.

      Someone will be along shortly to tell you what a dirtbag you are for not sticking it out in the slave state and “fighting the good fight.”

    • Congrats Billy! I am in LA county currently but I will be in Arizona before the end of the month. Sadly only as a student but it is a step in the right direction.

  13. Worthwhile checking if your LEO’s Duty Manual or equivalent is readily available. Ours is downloadable from the city’s website. Can be helpful in filing a complaint Or compliment.

    While not sure of context, the officer’s behavior would seem violate our PD’s Duty Manual and subject him to sanctions (e.g., suspension w/o pay) where I live.

    And if not online, then consider complaining to your alderman / councilman. Transparency is good for building trust and accountability.

    • That’s a great idea. But unfortunately, there’s other factors that become involved when it comes to policy, such as politics, personalities, and opinions. Locally to me, a man died while in police custody, for the crime of refusing to show his ID. Which is not a crime, unless he was accused of a crime, which he was not. Of course, it was all found to be “acting in accordance to department policy”. There’s also the man shot in the Walmart in Beavercreek, Ohio. Committed no crime and shot on sight. The problem is with police behavior and criminal immunity. If I shot a man standing with a BB gun in a Walmart, I’d be in jail, if not shot by police already.

      The scariest part of it all is that this is nothing new, it’s just everyone now carries a video camera in their pocket so it’s all coming to light. Of course, many minorities could’ve told the old white conservatives all of this decades ago, if they were actually listening.

  14. “you’re taking a picture of me, I’m taking a picture of you”. Apparently the cop has to draw his weapon to take a picture. What a jerk.

    • Maybe he just wanted to pose with his gun for the camera, like the photo the other day where the district attorney and the cop were posing with guns?

  15. Cops like this need to be assassinated. Their brothers in blue will not or can not root out the scumbags, traitors, liars, and psychopaths who terrorize, intimidate, rob, and kill citizens. The time has come to cull the herd. Until cops like this fear being taken out, they will continue their antics b/c there are no repercussions to doing so. If you think that’s extreme then you’re part of the problem. Cops should be under a microscope at all times. We should question their intent and actions at all times. They should be held to the highest standards of ethics and morals. The punishment for violating those standards should be public, swift, severe, and lasting. Only then will we be able to weed out the ones who are unfit for the job.

    Oh I forgot. They do get punished. They will be put on paid leave while the police investigate the police and find that the police were justified in their policing policies.

    • While I agree that the “good cops” don’t do a damn thing, or at best enough about the rest I cannot abide some yahoo talking about killing cops because cop…

      Murder is fucking murder. We can debate the bad behavior, tolerance of bad behavior, and sick culture we live in. But when you start talking about murdering people you need to get the fuck out.

      • Is it really murder? What did our founding fathers do with traitors of the constitution? They strung them up from trees and tarred and feathered them. These bad cops are traitors of the constitution and need to be dispatched as such. They are the enemies of freedom and liberty.

      • Thanks for your comment.

        It’s good to see people-not-in-uniform suggesting to other people-not-in-uniform that they not use inflammatory language.

        I would like to see more people-in-uniform suggest the same to other people-in-uniform.

      • ” “Cops like that need to be…” – comments like this hurt TTAG, your standing, and the 2A cause”

        Defending the violations of civil rights under the color of law does the 2A and all others a great disservice. Get over yourself, and stop trying to blame the victim (society) and protecting the criminal (the state).

        • My original comment is still awaiting moderation…

          I will almost ALWAYS err on the side of the citizen but talk of murdering ANYONE is totally unacceptable. We need to hold ourselves and each other to a higher standard than that.

          Anybody who spouts nonsense like the above dillhole doesn’t belong here. We’re not murderers and we shouldn’t associate with anyone who speaks positively of such.

        • @Matt Richardson, I understand where he is coming from, and implore you to be patient and begin a dialogue. I was (just a couple of years ago) the same way with my wording. All of the violence I watched being dispensed to the public under color of law, but blatantly violating the civil rights of the citizenry had me worked up into a frenzy. It took me quite some time to calm down and form more coherent arguments and separate fantasy actions with realistic ones.

          I made the leaps from liberal (late teens/early twenties), to conservative (late twenties), to libertarian/anarchist (mid thirties) philosophical and political viewpoints slowly. I made an effort to correct my own thinking and reasoning over a decent span and have changed a few minds along the way. Letting go of hate, fear, and revenge takes time and effort. The more help you can give another without insulting and/or shaming will go much further than treating someone in that mindset less than human. I don’t claim to be perfect, nor do I always adhere to my own advice, but I do my best.

          Patience, respect, and honesty to others, but most of all, yourself is the greatest one can strive to achieve.

    • No, they don’t.

      Systems/Institutions which enables/encourages conduct like that, must be abolished. This cop is just being a cop. No better nor worse than any other cop. Just another human being performing the job he was tasked with. If we don’t like it, stop tasking people with performing such jobs, under such circumstances.

  16. Old school cop operating in the modern world vs obnoxious punk. Sounds like the cop had prior knowledge in dealing with this guy/family/residence and had issues with them in the past. That being said, if the cop was in such fear for his life, then why did he park his car in the middle of the “kill zone” for so long and not wait for back up before engaging camera guy? What the cop says and what he does don’t go together.

  17. Would like to hear the context of this. If he is actually being harassed by LEOs/they have motivation to harass him there’s a back story, and very good reason he’s recording. An isolated incident is not a sign of systematic harassment as he is stating.

    On the flip side of that, not going to blame the officer for having his weapon at low ready. He’s trying to get home alive like all of us. Getting into a faux pas isn’t as rare as one would think. He didn’t even ask the guy to present ID or a myriad of things officers do to harass people. If context is presented to this it may be a very different story.

    • On the flip side of that, not going to blame the officer for having his weapon at low ready.

      So, can a non-badge-wearing civilian likewise walk around with a pistol at “low ready” with the same impunity? Why or why not?

      He’s trying to get home alive like all of us.

      Interjecting himself – and lethal force – into a situation that did not involve even a hint of unlawful activity is not conducive to “just getting home alive”.

      • Thanks Chip.

        I already have one comment awaiting moderation, trying to avoid catching a vacation…

    • He’s trying to get home alive like all of us.

      How often do you drive up to people’s houses, draw your gun, and start barking commands at them all the while they’ve done nothing wrong?

  18. Hmm, I work around lawyers every day. I have to bet that this police officer and his department will regret that he said “Are you some kind of Constitutionalist?” I cannot imagine a defense attorney not using that against him in court to discredit him. (BTW, the video throws an error when I try to watch it.)

  19. The cop’s job is only difficult because he makes it so. If I want to stand inmy yard and film my cul de sac, a PUBLIC road, all day, I have a Constitutional right to do so. It’either a news film or an art film.

  20. And where do you get “obnoxious punk”? I see “criminal old cop” here. I still can’t believe the cop pulled his gun on this dude. Like the thug who arrested the gal in Texas. Retrained? How about imprisoned…

    • Okay “criminal cop” then…. The cop being a criminal cop doesn’t make the other guy any less of an obnoxious punk. The cop is stupid; the other guy is obnoxious. The cop is a criminal; the other guy is a punk…….

      Example: you know when a gang banger shoots another gang banger and the news makes the “victim” out to be a father, son, former high school athlete, a man down on his luck whose trying to turn his life around, etc? The shooter is a violent predator….. In reality they are both just gang bangers and their roles could have been easily reversed.

      Well, reverse the roles in the video….

      If the camera guy was a cop he would be an obnoxious punk cop and the cop would be an old stupid criminal.

      • Nope-I stand by my (not) offhand comment. The cop is an idiot-the you-tuber is exercising his rights(at gunpoint). OBEY ME!

  21. Notice the cop never left the street or sidewalk. These are public areas. Whereas the driveway or yard are private property. So the purpose was to invoke an offense while the photographer was in a public space.
    Nice gun, does that make him taller?

    • You must have missed half the exchange where the cop followed him onto his property and around two vehicles to give him a tongue-lashing for not being submissive.

    • The Waco shooting films are being held, in my opinion, until public opinion has been solidified by one-sided, biased reporting.

      “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” — Mark Twain

      Once the people accept that all bikers are bad guys, no amount of evidence to the contrary will suffice.

      • Nicely said. The tactic you describe is so common we accept as normal, and as a society we expect, almost demand to be lied to.

  22. The citizen seems like, I’ll be honest, a bit of a tool, fidgety, risible. But as a citizen, he is constitutionally protected to be all these things, especially on his own property. The officer is categorically in the wrong in this encounter; he is *not* permitted in the line of duty to be an even more risible tool, nor to swagger about with his gun drawn against no reasonably perceived threat or illegal activity. This guy is how it gets made easy for people to be demagogued into distrusting/hating police. He is everything that the professional protestariat anti-establishment set wants cops to be to advance their cause.

  23. I don’t understand why the cop even stopped. Cops have no expectation of privacy when performing public duties.

    Even more important, there was no reason for him to draw his weapon just to ask someone a few questions. That’s easily construed as intimidation.

    The photog seemed a little paranoid and hyper, but that’s not against the law. The cop should have just let him film and go about his day without stopping to hassle the guy.

  24. Another jackwad cop pulling a power trip because he has a tiny dick and an overinflated opinion of his value to the universe. Those are the people that will be the first against the wall when the war comes and their names and their lives will then be forgotten to history. Just as always happens to petty autocrats.

    • yeah, now YOU are the one off the reservation talking about civil war and executing people.

      You’re as bad as the corrupt cops.

    • Wars, coups, revolutions come to every country from time to time, with typical, predictable results. I don’t see him actually advocating insurrection with his post; just stating a reliable outcropping of an inevitable movement.
      The rest of you are just afraid that Bob from the NSA. is listening.

      • They do, and it is coming. Both ends of the spectrum are bracing for it, those in the middle are trying to rationalize it away or just burying their heads in the sand. If the policy doesn’t spark it, the currency decline will.

    • … And another dunce shortsighted enough to think the problem with a police state, is solely limited to the penis size of individual officers…..

  25. Well.. now…

    Camera guy sees cop, starts filming. Cop gets out to see what’s up, and the dude starts behaving very erratically. Draws his gun because, dude with camera is acting like a nutbar and has his hand in his pocket. Sure, the cop could have reholstered, but the camera guy kept up. When the cop realized the guy was a harmless goober, he reholstered and left.

    I’m not seeing the problem with the cop. The camera guy was trying to incite something to get some youtube ad money…

    • Yup, it’s nutjobbery at its finest hiding beneath the cloak of liberty. The funny thing is that lady liberty views the nutjob as a bastard child from the crazy lady up the street; mother liberty always warns her children to not play with people from that side of the tracks.

      • “mother liberty always warns her children to not play with people from that side of the tracks.”

        You must be a police officer, because you don’t understand that Mother Liberty doesn’t allow her children to play with men, who have a desire to take innocence with force.

        The only wrong side of the track that Lady Liberty recognizes needing a gun in defense of, is the bio-hazardous government side.

    • Cop had no reason to get out of his car and approach the guy. The fascist thug was looking for a conflict and was trying to create one. As most cops do.

  26. This statement by the author Farago—”As far as I can tell (and I’m no lawyer) that constitutes a lethal threat. I know a law-abiding gun owner, a compos mentis combat vet, who’d feel obliged to engage that threat.”— is both inaccurate and irresponsible. Just because he knows “a vet” who would engage that “threat” doesn’t mean doing so would be legal. Farago even misquotes the officer, who said “Are you some kind of constitutionalist … crazy guy?” The location of crazy in his question isn’t insignificant. Just because the highly agitated man showed hands doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a pistol or weapon in SOB, which he could easily draw immediately upon the officer re-holstering and kill him. Note how the officer mostly watches the guy as he leaves, clearly concerned by potential aggression by him. Maybe you who criticize this should go on a ride-along with the cops or become a reserve officer (I was) to have a better understanding. Some of these “sovereign citizens” etc are just blowhards, and some are more dangerous. Just last week a cop in CA was assassinated on a traffic stop as he approached the car, which he’d stopped for weaving. He was baited to make the stop. This could easily happen in an incident like this.

    • “Note how the officer mostly watches the guy as he leaves, clearly concerned by potential aggression by him. Maybe you who criticize this should go on a ride-along with the cops or become a reserve officer (I was) to have a better understanding. Some of these “sovereign citizens” etc are just blowhards, and some are more dangerous. Just last week a cop in CA was assassinated on a traffic stop as he approached the car, which he’d stopped for weaving. He was baited to make the stop. This could easily happen in an incident like this.”

      The officer (like most across the nation) is aware of rising levels of hostility to state agents. This is due to increasing violence and theft towards those who are not on the home team (in uniform). I have been on ride alongs with friends in our local SD, and I have corrected them often on their dealings with people. They explain department policy and case law, I remind them of the bill of rights and their intent. 1 of 3 of those officers has changed his technique, and has had far fewer altercations on the job. 1 more has since quit after realizing that the system is a scam, and is now happily running his own business. The third is trudging along, same as always, miserable and mired in paperwork due to his love of authority, and his lack of compassion.

      To label people who understand the concept of liberty as “Sovereign Citizens” is extremely narrow minded, and goes to show your lack of understanding of that particular movement. Citing that incident at the end does nothing to reinforce this story since the man being accosted in his own driveway wasn’t doing anything worthy of “baiting” the officer, other than not groveling.

      You sound like one of those sad types that values authority over the love of his fellow man. Please do everyone a favor, and realize which is more important for the health of society.

    • How many funerals for cops have you attended? Been there, done everything you say you did that makes you such an expert. And yet…

      Most of the people defending the “constitutionalist… crazy guy” aren’t excusing him, but we’re pointing out the completely absurd methods Officer Hardass employs dealing with somebody who wouldn’t have been deemed a threat by any rational standard.

  27. The guy had his hand in his pocket and was clearly agitated. It’s a hard thing to moderate between getting shot and getting people wanting you “assassinated” for being ready for a threat. The reason I was saying I’d like context is it’s possible this is part of a pattern of harassment similar to this:

    http://www.vice.com/read/city-of-silence-117

    Or this:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-14/news/chi-verdict-reached-in-cop-bar-beating-case-20121113_1_code-of-silence-policy-karolina-obrycka-chicago-cop-anthony-abbate

    If it’s a situation like one of these then everything makes a lot more sense besides just “dbag cop.”

    Laws pertaining to filming vary WIDELY state to state. In IL it was actually a felony up until a year or two ago to film an officer due to “single party recording” laws. Thankfully that’s gone for the time being until they get another “great” idea here. More transparency into the affairs of PD officers is invariably a good thing for society. It vindicates good cops and shows the bad ones. And trust me Chicago has enough bad ones.

  28. If the typical person labelled a “crazy constitutionalist” by some smug beat cop actually were anywhere near as volatile and irrational in his ideology as that pejorative suggests, then the police would not call him that in the first place. Statists cast about that and similar taunts with the insouciance os someone who knows he’s not facing the real thing.

    It’s similar to how some people will feel safely superior making snide remarks challenging the sanity and legitimacy of people of various Christian faiths. Yet, they’re strangely silent regarding Muslims. Curious, that.

    • Dude’s Facebook is mostly just him and his boat. I’m very curious as to the backstory as well.

      Video was filmed in Rohnert Park, a nice, upper-middle-class suburban town in the wine country. Home of Sonoma State University. Fun fact: Sonoma State’s athletic teams used to be known as the Cossacks, but the PC police neutered them to thr Seawolves a few years back.

  29. Fortunately, that citizen didn’t have a re-purposed gin bottle in his car, or the cop might have shot him in the head like Samuel Dubose for the crime of possession of air freshener.

    • “or the cop might have shot him in the head like Samuel Dubose for the crime of possession of air freshener.”

      That shooting is not that bad of one, and it just happens to show how important being fast and accurate is in preventing harm in a defensive gun use.

      The cop was being polite and the suspect escalated things by trying to flee.. The black guy put the car in gear to begin a reckless chase, and the cop reached in to try and get the keys or place it in park. Fleeing the police is not a normal person’s protocol, but stopping fleeing felons is police protocol. The state of mind of a man fleeing the police at high speed is more of a concern than the calm cop.

      The cop was fast out of the leather, which saved him from the harm caused by his other reflexive action. If the criminal wouldn’t have tried to flee in a 2000 lb weapon the cop would have been able to continue a traffic stop.

      • Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters is no cop hater. I’ve paid notice of his career since before he became prosecutor. I politely suggest that you view the 20 minutes (give or take) of his initial press conference in which he announced murder charges against the University of Cincinnati officer. This wasn’t a good shoot. It looks like murder and Deters didn’t mince words about it.

        • Murder? No.

          Unjustified? Yes. Manslaughter is more appropriate. He overreacted, and used deadly force to stop a threat that was no longer a threat.

        • Did you watch Deter’s press conference, Chip? He thought that a murder charge was warranted and the grand jury agreed (although, grand juries might agree to anything). He stated that he only included voluntary manslaughter in case he got a whacky judge that wouldn’t later allow them to amend the charge. IMHO, the murder charge is appropriate. As the prosecutor stated, this was a chicken shit stop that resulted in an unjustifiable death. The cop shouldn’t have shot as it wasn’t justified. That’s what makes this murder.

        • As the prosecutor stated, this was a chicken shit stop that resulted in an unjustifiable death.

          So, Deters is asserting that it is not appropriate for police officers in Hamilton County to enforce the Ohio statute requiring both rear and front license plates? Are there other statutes that Deters believes should not be enforced?

          The stop was lawful and justified. The officer’s apprehension regarding DuBose was warranted, given that DuBose had no driver’s license, was driving a car that did not belong to him, and was being evasive and behaving erratically. DuBose escalated the situation by unlawfully attempting to flee a lawful traffic stop.

          The cop shouldn’t have shot as it wasn’t justified. That’s what makes this murder.

          Um, no; that doesn’t meet the standard for murder. The officer was subjected to threat of death or great bodily harm, when DuBose attempted to drive away with the officer still reaching inside the car. Once the officer was free, however, the threat was no longer extant. He did not need to shoot DuBose in order to end the threat that no longer existed. That is reckless, voluntary manslaughter.

          Murder will never fly, nor should it.

        • @Chip: The cop wasn’t being dragged. He lied. That was also covered in the press conference. Two officers present were investigated to see if they also lied about him being dragged. Apparently they didn’t and weren’t charged.

          Again, there was no danger to the officer. He lied about that. The victim was dead in the beginning and his dead body was pushing on the accelerator. He had initially tried to pull away slowly but was shot in the head and his foot mashed the accelerator. This too was covered in the press conference.

        • John, thanks for the clarification. Details such as the ones you’ve provided seem to get scant attention after the initial incident was reported. Happy to read the the University has changed it’s policy re policing beyond school property.

          In my university days, campus police were little more than mall cops. Hope that’s no longer the case.

        • It depends on what you mean by “dragged”. The officer was forced to move from point A to point B by virtue of having part of his body inside the vehicle when the vehicle started moving.

          No matter how you slice it, having that happen represents a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, if unable to extricate oneself safely from the moving vehicle.

          The problem for Tensing is: he did successfully and safely extricate himself from the moving vehicle. He no longer faced a reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm.

          He made a wrong decision in the heat of the moment – a moment escalated by the actions of DuBose.

          It was an unjustified use of deadly force, but it was not murder.

  30. You know, the label “Constitutionalist” has been hijacked by extreme, violent, anti-government types aka “sovereign citizen” folks who claim to believe the constitution is the only valid law. These people believe that car registration, drivers licenses, all taxes etc, don’t apply to them.

    I think many of our laws are unconstitutional and government is too big, but I wouldnt align myself with any of these people. I think this is the type of “contitutionalist” the Officer is referring to, not just one who believes in the Bill of Rights.

    And lighten up; he had his gun out but didn’t point it at anyone. Clearly the cops had been dealing with this person or persons at this residence for something criminal.

    • And lighten up; he had his gun out but didn’t point it at anyone.

      For anyone not wearing a badge (a badge that gives authority to arrest for unlawful activity, but NOT authority to use or threaten unjustified force), that action would be construed as brandishing, threatening, or other similar unlawful acts. Why is it okay for the badge-wearing civilian to do it?

      Clearly the cops had been dealing with this person or persons at this residence for something criminal.

      You should watch the video; it will disabuse you of such false notions. Officer Friendly said 1) he didn’t know the guy, and 2) that the guy wasn’t doing anything unlawful.

  31. If there was ANY chance the officer felt threatened, he’d have called backup. At least here they seldom approach anyone without backup. Putting his hand on his weapon initially,OK. Drawing the gun, not.

    • +1 very good point about calling for back up.

      Drawing a weapon, even just putting your hand on the hilt is often considered assault.

  32. Never mistake a troll’s attempt to steer the thread into “Armed Revolt!” territory for an actual opinion.

  33. Stuff I take away from this:
    1. There is more to this story than we know.
    2. It’s obvious that the policeman was pushing for an altercation. If he really felt the situation was dire enough to draw his weapon, somebody would have been arrested. If there was no reason to draw his weapon, then he should be arrested.
    3. The camera stopped him from doing what he wanted to do.

  34. I read some of the comments before watching the video. I thought I would agree with the majority who condemned the officer’s actions. When the officer initially approached the guy he asked him to take his hand out of his pocket. This is a reasonable request, especially if the guy with the camera has a history with the police. The guy immediately starts acting confrontational at this simple request and the officer draws his weapon. While I’m not a cop, I have recieved similar training as an MP. I don’t think I would have drawn my weapon, but I don’t have any context for this situation, as others have already stated.

    • When the officer initially approached the guy he asked him to take his hand out of his pocket. This is a reasonable request…

      Why is it reasonable? The man was on his own property, doing nothing unlawful.

      …especially if the guy with the camera has a history with the police.

      The officer stated in the video that he didn’t know the guy, and that the guy wasn’t doing anything unlawful.

      The guy immediately starts acting confrontational at this simple request…

      He was under no legal or moral obligation to comply with the officer’s request.

      …and the officer draws his weapon.

      What was the reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm that justified the officer drawing his weapon?

    • While I’m not a cop, I have recieved similar training as an MP. I don’t think I would have drawn my weapon,

      So, what would you have done if the person responded with, “Go fuck yourself”? At that point, what choice is there other than to go physical or retreat?

      IMHO, this officer was using his firearm for intimidation. He wanted any bone of compliance to feel better about himself at the expense of another. There are too many indications that this officer did not really believe that the cameraman was a physical threat.

      • If you’re a cop, and you can’t handle being told to “go fuck yourself” without drawing your sidearm, you need to:

        1. Not be a cop.
        2. Not carry a weapon.
        3. Find a career that involves assembling various permutations of meats and cheeses.

        • I agree.

          Where I was going with that question to the other poster was… If you issue an unlawful order and the person tells you, rightly or wrongly, to stuff it, what then? Obviously, the correct answer is to retreat because the officer wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Surprisingly, that isn’t always the course of action officers choose in the field.

          When we are out and about, we sometimes do tell the officer to stuff an unlawful order. Usually, that same officer is more polite the next time and so are we.

  35. He’s trying to get home alive like all of us.

    Actually “all of us” don’t seem to have the need to draw down on some dude just standing in his driveway in order to get home alive.

  36. One thing I am certain of is that this video clearly shows two douche bags colliding in life. I need to know the whole story to determine who the bigger douche bag is.

    • Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the law-abiding guy minding his own business on his own property, doing nothing unlawful, is the bigger “douche”.

      How does that change the evaluation of the legality or propriety of the officer’s actions?

  37. Some context would certainly help. But I am having a bit of difficulty with the officer pulling his gun like that.

    • Yeah, there’s a back story here that we are missing. The video guy goes from zero to shaky and deathly afraid instantly (before the LEO eve draws his gun). I think the office picked up on the guy’s fearful tone of voice and followed his instinct that something was not right in the situation.

      Not saying that it excused drawing on the man. I think that either A)there’s a big backstory causing this gentleman to get into fight or flight mode or B)he’s just a nutter trying to get a lot of Youtube views.

    • You do realize that you would spend the rest of your life in prison! Until you committed suicide, that is.

  38. it seems to me we should be proud of cops because they follow jeff cooper’s admonition to be nice to everyone you meet AND HAVE A PLAN TO KILL THEM.

    cops have a plan. do you?

    • “to be nice to everyone you meet”

      Cops fail at this 99% of the time, and that is because of lack of trying.

      “AND HAVE A PLAN TO KILL THEM.”

      Cops fail at this 98% of the time, but that is not for lack of trying.

        • Brother, the Second Amendment is what allows us to to have this discussion, so it can’t suck.
          I have no claim to intellectual property when it hits the public domain, unless it is used in a kangaroo court of law to violate my first amendment, but that is what the 2nd is possessed to prevent.

  39. Well, Robert thought it worthwhile to put up on a FAMOUS blog called The Truth About GUNS. It is guilt by association. Consider that numerous YouTube videos that depict surly, obnoxious am-I-being-detained open carriers get quick, first on here and you can see why it hurts the RTKBA cause.

  40. Unfortunately, cops essentially have a bullseye painted on them, especially with some gang initiations being the killing of a cop. Provoking anyone who is armed is pure stupidity. On the other hand, being assaulted by someone who has a concealed firearm is not cool. I was struck by a fist of a trespasser on my property, after first being cursed roundly, jabbed with his finger, and jerked around. After the punch, I knocked him sprawling. That was when I saw he had a .40 SW under his coat. I talked the situation down, but it was touchy as his poaching son was coming up the slope with a bow. Twice, cops have stopped me when I was armed. First as a 16 year old on the edge of a suburban area as I was going hunting. It was 0630, I was asked a lot of questions which I answered politely, and sent on my way with “have a nice day.” The other time, a reserve cop ran a red light, turned at the last minute at the lane by the middle island, and chased down my four friends and I. We had an arsenal (we were going hunting, camping, shooting). He proceeded to display his ignorance of firearms and his police training. One question, “How does this break?” in reference to a .36 Navy black powder colt is one example of his stupidity. He started to draw on me, but having four witnesses tended to calm him down. The two sheriffs who came to support him were embarassed. The older sheriff told him to lighten up, and the younger sheriff shot the breeze with us while we waited for jerk-off El Cajon cop to get a life and let us enjoy ours. Found out later from other cops that he was a career reserve cop because the dept. wouldn’t hire him full time. Are there dangerous, possibly insane cops out there? Yes, but I am not going around rattling their cages to find out which ones are in that category. This was in CA before it became the “People’s Republic of California.”

  41. Without knowing the criminal background of the videographer and/or any history he has with the police in that locale, one shouldn’t assume the cop is in the wrong. If the guy has a history of violent assault on police, I don’t blame the officer for keeping his weapon out. Most of the people that post on here are just looking to fight with any establishment or authority themselves, and seem to want to egg on some type of “being a victim” syndrome they relish in. It’s all in your head, boys and girls. Get over it!

    • So, it’s okay with you then that the cop is painting people that believe the Constitution means something profound (and should be respected) as crazy…or implicitly bad in some other way?

      Also, I’ve read a lot of these comments (including yours) about the HISTORY being some sort of deciding factor in figuring out who is right or wrong here.

      BZZZZZZZTTTTTT.

      Wrong answer.

      For example, when in court, it is the facts of THIS CASE, and THIS CASE ALONE, that will matter. Past history may even be ruled inadmissible. Been in court many, many a time, and I’ve seen many a judge rule this way.

      The thing is…was it right … IN THIS CASE and THIS SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES for the cop to point the gun at the guy?

      Yes or no?

      With the facts HERE for THIS interaction…what passes the “reasonable objectiveness” standard?

      Hint: That standard is premised on ability, opportunity and jeopardy. If any ONE of those did not exist at the time the officer threatened deadly force, he was WRONG and legally (and morally) culpable.

      Objective reasonableness is a thing, and it must be applied to the facts known to THIS cop at THIS time in regard to ability, opportunity and jeopardy.

  42. Backstory and source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/crazed-cop-stalks-man-pulls-gun-filming-front-yard/ and followup by LA Times http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gun-officer-video-recording-20150805-story.html

    Looks like Rohnert Park, CA PD has received a great deal of adverse publicity. Rohnert Park is ~ 50 miles north of SF, 40,000 -a peaceful pleasant town in agricultural Sonoma county. That makes the encounter all the more surprising.

  43. “As far as I can tell (and I’m no lawyer) that constitutes a lethal threat. I know a law-abiding gun owner – a compos mentis combat vet – who’d feel obliged to engage that threat.”

    What an ignorant statement. The fact that you are not a lawyer, is no excuse for saying something this reckless. Go ahead and “engage” the “threat” of a police officer IN UNIFORM with his weapon drawn and see how that works out for you. You will either be dead or in prison. Observe or record the incident if need be, but God help any idiot who feels it his obligation to “engage that threat”.

  44. Being a cop is a profession he chose and if the pressure is too much for him he needs to find another line of work! There is NO EXCUSE ACCEPTABLE PERIOD for a cop to draw his gun ON ANYONE WHO IS UNARMED! THIS BULLSHIT ABOUT he’s GOT A TOUGH JOB IS OLD AS METHUSALEH!!! PLUMBERS HAVE TOUGH JOBS! SHOULD THEY DRAW GUNS ON PEOPLE?!!? MIGRANT FARMERS HAVE TOUGH JOBS?!!? SHOULD THEY SHOOT PEOPLE TOO? TEACHERS HAVE TOUGH JOBS!!! SHOULD THEY SHOOT THEIR STUDENTS?!!? A cop is trained to go into dangerous situations and the realty of their profession is that it carries certain risks! If they die, so what? Steel workers deal with danger in a factory too? Are they not heroes also?!!? Enough empathy for cops! We all got jobs to do, and if he’s afraid to die LET him FIND ANOTHER LINE OF WORK!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *