• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Video: Decent OC Police Encounter (CA?)

DoomGoober

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
63
Sorry if this has already been posted:
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vi...18-4a8f-a821-fbe556cde5c4|stupid videos|msn||

Some comments:
1) The video is called "World's Nicest Cop." Nice? Mostly. More accurately, I'd say a professional, calm police interaction between two reasonable individuals.
2) Maybe California? OCer is carrying unloaded and the officer seems to imply it shouldn't be loaded.
3) What's the legality of disarming for officer safety?
4) Points to the officer for not trying too hard to illegally get the OCer's name (though he does try once.) Again, assuming CA which is not stop and identify state.
5) Minus points for the OCer for possibly giving a false name. Don't give false information to police! (Though "Jeremy" might be his real first name and he hesitates because he doesn't want to give his last.)
6) Points to the officer for knowing the video would end up on YouTube and very hilariously stating his name and badge number.
7) Points to the OCer for asking the officer to replace the gun to avoid any chance of brandishing.
8) Points to the OCer for filming and points to all OCers for making this interaction more comfortable through familiarity!
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
That 'cop' assaults the OCer right off the bat. A hand twisting submission hold.

He should be in jail.

He's not the worlds nicest cop. He's not a professional. He's a scared cop who saw the camera and tried to stifle his real, normal behavior.
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
I was told that in California the police can stop and check your ID to see if you have a valid license...true? I never researched it...
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
I was told that in California the police can stop and check your ID to see if you have a valid license...true? I never researched it...

What if you don't have a drivers license, because you don't drive, because you love walking in LA.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Lovenox said:
I was told that in California the police can stop and check your ID to see if you have a valid license...true? I never researched it...
Dave_pro2a said:
What if you don't have a drivers license, because you don't drive, because you love walking in LA.
For the last two years, I have Never carried identification with me unless I knew it was going to be required at my destination. My driver's license stays safely ensconced in the sun visor of my car.

Think for a moment, how many times have you Needed your identification in the last two years?
Now.. how many of those times did you Know you were going to need it beforehand?
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
I saw someone post once that an officer could stop and legally detain you long enough only to verify your identity with out RAS and that if they ask you, for your name, you have to verbally give your name so they can. I dont think that is correct in this state or any for that fact, or am I wrong.
 

DoomGoober

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
63
I saw someone post once that an officer could stop and legally detain you long enough only to verify your identity with out RAS and that if they ask you, for your name, you have to verbally give your name so they can. I dont think that is correct in this state or any for that fact, or am I wrong.

There are two things needed for an officer to require you to identify yourself:
1) A detention caused by reasonable suspicion
2) A state stop and identify statute.

(Aside from some other exceptions such as while driving.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

From Hiibel case:
In sum, Hiibel holds a state may criminalize a refusal to produce identification as long as the detention is predicated on a valid Terry stop (i.e., reasonable suspicion). In other words, police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrest an individual after the individual refuses to provide identification during a lawful detention pursuant to their state's stop-and-identify statute.
 
Last edited:

kenshin

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
285
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
There are two things needed for an officer to require you to identify yourself:
1) A detention caused by reasonable suspicion
2) A state stop and identify statute.

(Aside from some other exceptions such as while driving.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

From Hiibel case:
In sum, Hiibel holds a state may criminalize a refusal to produce identification as long as the detention is predicated on a valid Terry stop (i.e., reasonable suspicion). In other words, police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrest an individual after the individual refuses to provide identification during a lawful detention pursuant to their state's stop-and-identify statute.

Ahhhh....but the rub is, they can lie to you about their 'reasonable suspicion'. Say you're walking down the street minding your own business when a cop stops you and demands your ID because they got a report of someone who 'may' have robbed a bank and 'may' fit your description.

Do you A) call his/her bluff and withold identifying yourself and risk arrest if they really do have RAS? or B) give up your 4A rights and surrender your name because you're not sure if they really have RAS?

I don't have a good answer for the above scenario, but it's just something to think about.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
This is why it is vitally important to establish right up front if you are being detained or not. "Officer, are you detaining me?" If the answer is no, attempt to walk away. Then, in Washington, according to state law, you are only required to identify yourself by giving name, address and date of birth IF the officer is going to issue you a citation for something.

Yup! Cops can lie to you all day, but let them tell you you are being detained as a part of their trick and you may have a law suit.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Yup! Cops can lie to you all day, but let them tell you you are being detained as a part of their trick and you may have a law suit.

Yes you could. And then the Court could also award you the magnificent sum of $1

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015833462_fees06m.html

This guy's attorney made over $93,000 though.

The case arose from a 2007 incident in which rookie police Officer Jonathan Chin, who was off-duty, in plain clothes and driving his personal car, said he was cut off in traffic on Capitol Hill by a black Jeep that ran a red light. Dialing 911, Chin followed the car to a dead-end street in West Seattle, where he confronted three men who were standing outside the vehicle. Rutherford had been a passenger in the car.

Alone and outnumbered, Chin drew a handgun and ordered the men to sit in the darkened street while waiting for backup officers to arrive.

Rutherford claimed he and his two friends were ordered to sit in the street while other officers sped to the scene. Rutherford alleged a cruiser roared toward him, and out of fear he jumped up to move out of the way. When that happened, he claimed, Chin and officers Joshua Rurey and Jason McKissack — the driver of the patrol car — tackled him.

You'd think this guy would have had a far better case than where someone was just "lied to". Wonder what he's going to do with his "buck"?
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Yes you could. And then the Court could also award you the magnificent sum of $1

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015833462_fees06m.html

This guy's attorney made over $93,000 though.

The jury in the civil-rights trial cleared Chin and four other officers of allegations they used excessive force, and found that Chin was within his rights to briefly detain the men at gunpoint for investigative purposes.

Holding a man at gunpoint for investigation of being in a car that cut the officer off? I doubt a mere serf would have fared well under similar circumstances.

This jury makes me greatly fear for the future of our liberties.
 
Last edited:
Top