[PhatHead]

You know, you've referred several times to a "recent rash of break-ins" and to a "high crime area," and I'd be interested to know your source for those claims. The cop never made either claim, and I have not read it any place else. There is additionally a poster here who lived across the street from that parking lot until fairly recently who says it is not a high crime area. Here is the only statement the cop made about break-ins:

"First of all we have people try to commit suicide in here. We have car thieves come in here. We have people break into cars here."

No "recent rash," no "high crime area." And he never once comes back to this. Instead, he repeats several times that he doesn't need any reason at all to pull somebody over, or to demand pat-downs on pedestrians.

According to the articles, this cop either violated procedure by not taping with his own cameras, or he did tape it and destroyed evidence after the fact. He is very lucky that he only got fired and is not facing charges.

The cop's behavior is 100% indefensible.

[robertpaulsen]

The phrase "high crime area" was mine and was used simply as an abbreviated version of, "First of all we have people try to commit suicide in here. We have car thieves come in here. We have people break into cars here." The "recent rash" was assumed by me since the cop was sitting in said parking lot at the time of this incident.

I'm saying the above coupled with numbnuts pulling into this lot at 2am and immediately start giving the cop a hard time when the cop asks "who are you" and "why are you here" -- legitimate questions given the above.

"The cop's behavior is 100% indefensible.

I agree. And since it's on tape, his superiors have little choice but to fire him. It's immaterial that he was set up and goaded into responding the way he did - but it's true. In my opinion.