Posted on 08/04/2015 12:22:26 PM PDT by KneelBeforeZod
Citizen seems to notice a police officer driving around and around his neighborhood while he is working on his boat in his driveway.
Police officer doesn't like being filmed by someone in his own yard and decides to stop and pull gun on him.
Do not recall any guarantee about my safety when I enlisted, either.
Cops must be special because they get to go home each night? GIs just have to suck it up as their lives are not so special?
A perfectly good chance to murder someone without cause, lost forever....
.... ah well. Perhaps there was a dog he could kill, later on that day.
So not all was lost.
The proper response for this officer would have been to simply rest his hand on the firearm. Drawing was too much. I thought that was the usual procedure; it is not escalatory.
As to the hold-out, that person actually lamented that there was no shooting.
“Can you imagine firefighters all telling each other “the most important thing is that I get home safely tonight.”?”
NO I can’t, but then FF’s don’t have guns either! The LEO’s need to start putting themselves under the same laws they enforce on the rest of us. CA Penal Code Section 417 makes NO DISTINCTION for cops when it comes to “brandishing a gun.” This guy needs to go to jail for what he did, just like you or I would. I shudder to think what might have happened if the citizen had, in fact, pulled his hand out of his pocket too fast.
“Oh that’s why the officer was there because Don filed a claim against a officers with RPPSD and PPD the day prior to this event. Coincidence?”
No, not at all. About 5 years ago I filed a formal written complaint against one of our town’s cops. You have no idea what kind of a $hit storm I got from the County Sheriff’s Department over the complaint ( they contract to run our PD). I was threatened by a Lieutenant who is an adjutant for the sheriff himself with incarceration for filing what he termed “a false report.” When the city council finally forced the police chief to deal with me, my wife and I were “interrogated” ( like in a room with no windows, a cop and a tape recorder). This guy’s “mission” was to try and get me to say something that was at variance with the written statement. We simply told him that everything contained in the report was factual and did he have any questions. Finally the chief met with us and his whole pitch was that my report was going to be part of his “good officer’s” personnel file and that it was DAMAGING to him. This ended up being all about “protecting” the cop from his actions. I can’t print what my wife said to the chief.
“Well, this ought to be good to watch the usual suspects defend the cop’s actions as reasonable.”
Name Names.
I believe it
Our local PD has been pretty good as we had an excellent police chief for many years who recently retired. His philosophy was that he wanted to build a partnership between his officers and residents took keep the town safe. He donated his own personal time to give a quarterly concealed carry class that was free for residents. The vast majority of tickets written by his department were warnings, as he didn't consider his department to be a profit center. I really liked the guy and wish there were a lot more of him out there. I have concerns because of his background, but we'll see how it goes. The police force is an extension of the chief's philosophy. I recall a few officers that came on-board and were initially assholes, and they mellowed out once they understood their jobs as the Chief saw it. Some couldn't make the adjustment and were encouraged to take their attitudes elswehere. I haven't met the new guy yet. We'll see how he rolls and take approprate action as necessary.
“The police force is an extension of the chief’s philosophy.”
Yes, and also unfortunately, the City Manager/City Council as well. We would be better served if Chief’s of Police had to stand for election every couple of years because too often they are protected by the city government.
It’s going to be interesting to see what happens in Rohnert Park. Their PD’s FB page is on fire. This cop is not going to get they normal “protection” from the city because the people won’t allow it.
“Name Names.”
Check out the posts of “Above My Paygrade!” He must be a cop himself.
I looked at most of his posts. He has some valid points about how to behave when approached by a cop.
OTOH, he does not address how the cop acted.
“I looked at most of his posts. He has some valid points about how to behave when approached by a cop.
OTOH, he does not address how the cop acted.”
Sure, and I suppose most of us, particularly when being exposed to a drawn weapon, would have simply capitulated to the cop’s demands. But evidently this guy McComas has “history” with the Rohnert Park cops and wasn’t having any of it. Our daughter and her family live “next door” in Petaluma. She tells me that all the local PD’s are problematic from Petaluma to Santa Rosa. You may recall that a Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputy was the one who shot the kid to death who was carrying a toy AK-47. That was shocking in that the guy put seven rounds into the kid. Also, Santa Rosa has a problem right now because one of their “officers” beat the shit out of a woman in handcuffs who had been arrested for DUI!
I am of the opinion that if this abuse doesn’t stop, the cops are going to have their hands full defending themselves in court. Because the videos will be damning of their illegal actions. It’s past time when cops can view those who pay them as all criminals not being deserving of their respect.
“I honestly never thought I would see the day when believing in the U.S. constitution would be used as a pejorative”
Certainly not by police in the US. It is amazing isn’t it?
From a recent article on this subject:
Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney Paul Lozada said the officer’s reason for visiting the neighborhood and talking with McComas is essential to understanding whether he acted within the law.
Lozada said that any officer can have a “consensual” contact with an individual whether the person is suspected of a crime or not and, for example, ask that person to remove a hand from a pocket.
But the nature of the encounter changes once the officer begins demanding a person follow orders and pulls a gun. California law defines brandishing as drawing or exhibiting a deadly weapon or firearm in the presence of another person.
“It becomes a problem when he draws his gun,” Lozada said.
The officer “needs to have a reasonable suspicion that the person he’s talking to is engaged in some sort of criminal activity,” Lozada said. “If that man is not, this officer may have committed a misdemeanor brandishing offense.”
““boat parked in driveway for weeks””
If so, the cop would’ve come out and mentioned that, e.g. “there have been complaints about your boat blocking the street” or ask him to move it, or give him a ticket or something similar.
Since that did not happen we can conclude there was NO reason.
We still don't know if there is a "backstory" here (prior contact, etc.), but this statement by Mr. McComas would seem to indicate that there is: "McComas briefly complains “you guys have done enough to my family” and calls the police “corrupt.”"
See: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4299394-181/video-captures-rohnert-park-police?page=3
Correct, but whatever that was, it was no reason for the cop to do what he did.
E.g., if you’re a convicted felon of weapons or drug charges on parole, you will get occasional visits by the ATF and/or DEA who, as a condition of parole, are allowed to search your premises for illicit activity and firearms.
Upon such a visit, they will state, who they are and why they are there. During such a search, the parolee is cuffed.
However, what they do not do is simply show up and start issuing orders, which is what this cop did.
My belief is that the cop was pissed he was being filmed (those uppity free people). It could very well be, as you state, that there’s a backstory whereby the cop is pissed over a complaint or what not, and the cop is retaliating for that reason.
EITHER WAY, the cop is in the wrong and way over the line.
Also, note, even after having the opportunity to run the cameraman’s tag, the cop stated that he did not know him.
Also, also note, when the cop exits the vehicle, he says into the mike that he’s at “that address”.
This is likely because he ran the tag and address at the dispatch to see if there were any problems there, such as warrants on residents, or if they are felons, or if there have been incidents there.
So, again for example, if the address was associated with domestic violence calls, or what not, the cop would’ve/could’ve said that he made this location part of his normal patrol due to complaints in the area.
He did not, which is why I conclude - no reason, or at least, no good/legal reason to do what he did.
Maybe you’ve never encountered cops before. I have (nothing serious), nevertheless, they had ALWAYS started off the conversation by stating WHY they are approaching me. Never had there been anything remotely close to cop walking up and saying “take your hand out of your pocket” and drawing a weapon in less than a second after that (unlawful) command.
When there is an IMMINENT threat to life or property they WILL skip that part and proceed immediately to the order while drawing. So if you’re holding a knife to someone’s throat, a cop is not going to say “I notice that you seem to be holding someone against their will. Please release them.” as he unbuttons his holster.
NOT the situation here. The majority of time, in broad daylight, someone hooking up to a vehicle in a driveway is simply the owner hooking up a boat in their driveway.
That act, in and of itself, is not probable cause to be suspicious of theft. Had there been some other factor indicating it (tag of vehicle spotted at prior theft / suspect matches description) AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, the cop would’ve said so.
A good contrast:
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-more-people-are-training-their-cell-phones-on-police/
Even though the article is written as if it’s harassment, it is not.
From the vid, the first thing out of the cops mouth is why he’s there - responding to a complaint, which the cop has already deduced is because “his neighbor doesn’t like him”. As such, it’s his job to investigate. He can check ID, run tags, etc..
Nevertheless, cuffing, drawing gun, would still require some indication of threat.
This is how my own prior cop encounters have gone, except that I don’t get upset when I know why they’re there. I let them do their job and they leave.
The best recourse for the cameraman in this vid is to find out who filed the complaint and sue them for slander. The complaint was that he was washing his car in a public place, against town ordinance (which the cop actually had printed out with him), however, he was in his driveway which is private property, hence, no ticket issued.
I have no problem w/this cop and if folks actually listen when the cop starts speaking, they probably won’t have trouble w/the cop either (unless they get a frustrated burn out like the Rohnert park guy).
Most people (the innocent ones, that is) don’t seem to realize that the cops are showing up because some busy body called on them, they presume the cops are “racist”. Also, if you are in a known trouble spot that they have made part of their patrol, you will encounter them as well. Same goes if you match a description when they’re responding to a call, which is often general such as “male in jeans”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.