Arrested for not respecting a cop's authority

[Andara Bledin]

What I see in this video is a cop doing his job, and a buddy who's trying to manufacture "evidence" to get his friend out of a jam he got himself into.

What you see is a cop abusing his power and failing to do most of his job in order to harass someone he didn't like the looks of.

You can't just say, "Hey, I'm a cop, do what the hell I say," and refuse to prove that you are a legitimate officer of the law and act like that's ok.

The fact that anyone can fail to recognize his abuse is frightening.

[bara]

I thought this was a set up till I watched the second video. But, I have to agree with mot posters, cop was being a prick.

[mikoyan29]

And while this cop was harassing this person, there was probably a real crime going on somewhere.

[Colchek]

I was curious about this and did a search. Found this:

http://www.infowars.com/man-arrested...zona-iced-tea/

According to this, the site contacted the Fayetteville police and was informed he was a guard hired by the store, not a cop.

http://www.wsav.com/story/22145617/v...n-fayetteville

Here, they say he was an ABC LEO.

http://abc.nc.gov/legal/law_enforcement.aspx

And here, it says that local ABC boards can hire Alcohol Law Enforcement officers.

So from the sound of it, this guy was not an actual cop, or affiliated with local law enforcement agencies. If that's the case it adds a whole new twist to it because that makes it even more important that he identify himself properly, especially if he is plain clothes.

A bit more information on NC's ALE:

https://www.nccrimecontrol.org/Index...=000003,000005

[Gravekeeper]

According to this, the site contacted the Fayetteville police and was informed he was a guard hired by the store, not a cop.

Wow, seriously? That makes this twice as bad, though it explains why he went with trespassing. Trespassing is the only possible thing he could stick to the guy.

[wolfie]

With this being a store guard, rather than a cop, the PROPER thing for the guard to have done would have been to approach the guy, IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS BEING STORE SECURITY, and ask him to leave, since he was not currently in the process of shopping. If he didn't leave at that point, next step of escalation would be to tell him he would be charged with trespassing if he didn't leave. Only if he remained on the premises after that would it be appropriate to take the next step of detaining him until the police arrived to arrest him for trespass.

Can't get YouTube, but for the guard to claim to be a police officer when he's only a private security guard is "impersonating a police officer", which is a felony.

[Amanita]

As somebody who works in private security, I hate this sort of thing, because it makes us all look bad. Seriously, they tell us NOT to escalate confrontations, or misrepresent ourselves.

And people see crap like this and think all security guards are like this- mental midgets who flunked out of working real law enforcement.

[Andara Bledin]

And people see crap like this and think all security guards are like this- mental midgets who flunked out of working real law enforcement failed their psych evals to become full blown cops.

There. Fixed that for accuracy.

Also, I don't consider security "not real" anything, because security guards serve a very real and necessary purpose.

It's just a shame that so many people who are utterly unsuited to holding any kind of position of authority fall into the job so that they can have an excuse to bully people.

[Hyena Dandy]

It's just a shame that so many people who are utterly unsuited to holding any kind of position of authority fall into the job so that they can have an excuse to bully people.

Yeah, that happens with every job. I've mentioned the asshole shuttle bus driver, I think.

Every job which has people in positions of authority, no matter how well you screen them, is gonna have some of those people turn into assholes. It's pretty much impossible to determine if someone is going to get like that.

Also, minor quibble. The 'officer' totally did give ample time to leave. He said leave, they said no, he said leave or I'll arrest you, they still said no, then he grabbed them, then they said they'd leave. So there he was well within his rights. But with the "Let me have your drink" thing, that was a bit ridiculous.

[Panacea]

This is specious logic, a post-hoc justification for a bad judgment call in the first place (and, by the way, when you're making such broad judgments without actually viewing the evidence, it's generally considered good form to say so - "I didn't watch the video, but..." - when you don't, it's generally assumed that you DID watch the video). You're rationalizing backward from your previous decision, trying to justify it by making excuses.

Granted, I should have watched the video, or at least mentioned I didn't. However, I didn't rationalize anything.

What hasn't changed is this: we don't see the first part of the interaction between the man and the cop. The clip cuts between the beginning (which doesn't make sense to me, why would someone video something so pedestrian?) and the interaction with the cop. Something is missing.

These guys try to do a Andrew Breitbart on the cop. Without seeing the entire raw video, I'm skeptical. The inclusion of editorializing introduces bias.

Assumes facts not in evidence - police need probable cause, especially undercover police.

Actually, no. Not in this case. The people in question were on STATE property. The store isn't your typical C store or liquor store. It's an ABC store: Alcohol Beverage Control. North Carolina (where this happened) is one of those quaint little states where liquor has to be sold in state owned stores. The cop had the authority to tell the guy to leave. He's a state employee; if a state employee tells you to leave state property, you must comply. He didn't.

No, it's not. It cannot be obstruction of justice until the police officer adequately identifies himself. I didn't see a badge at any point in the video.

That does bother me as well. However, what we have is an editorialized and biased video, not the entire raw video. So here's the question: when and why did the cop really get involved? I think there's something we're not seeing; an interaction that took place we didn't see. That's why these guys were shooting video in the first place; to "document" their interaction to put on YouTube to slam at the cops.

There's a difference between being at a location longer than the bare minimum needed to perform a transaction, and loitering. Loitering, like everything else in the legal world, has a very specific definition. While this definition does vary slightly from location to location, one of the common elements is that the authorities need to instruct the person to leave, and give them time to do so. That didn't happen here. It's not loitering.

The cop did tell the guy to leave. He refused and continued to argue, and that's why he was arrested.

The whole thing is fishy, and I think there is a LOT more to the story that what we were shown.

[Ginger Tea]

What hasn't changed is this: we don't see the first part of the interaction between the man and the cop. The clip cuts between the beginning (which doesn't make sense to me, why would someone video something so pedestrian?) and the interaction with the cop. Something is missing.

The video does cut to black to insert a caption, but I think the frames bookending it are sequential and without watching the video again, it seems that WAS the first interaction.
As to why?
It's the YouTube generation, phones with video camera's and vlogging for vlogging's sake, not sure who his subscribers are demographically, I didn't check his other video's save part two of the incident, to see if maybe he was a musician or music reviewer and it might have been a pre gig vlog.
Then again he just might be some random guy on the internet talking about random shit and just developing an audience, cos apparently there is a market for such pointlessness.
And as for the drink aspect, he might be doing the next 'Brad tries' knock off and was cut off before he could get into the specifics.

Edit: went to the twitter account listed and then the guy arrested's one, list's him as a rapper, also his twitter had no activity from mid jan till 2nd May, a lot of the subscribers on YouTube and twitter might be due to this ...

These guys try to do a Andrew Breitbart on the cop. Without seeing the entire raw video, I'm skeptical. The inclusion of editorializing introduces bias.

Granted this was probably a phone not a camcorder, but it's not as if it was concealed, hell they were filming him and he didn't even acknowledge the thing in his face, again videophones are everywhere, was he that single minded that he just couldn't see the damn thing?

That does bother me as well. However, what we have is an editorialized and biased video, not the entire raw video. So here's the question: when and why did the cop really get involved? I think there's something we're not seeing; an interaction that took place we didn't see. That's why these guys were shooting video in the first place; to "document" their interaction to put on YouTube to slam at the cops.

Again without re watching the video, I think it's uncut, it's just got text insertions instead of those overlay's and again, vlogging for the sake of vlogging.
YouTube isn't just an entertainment website, I'm sure there are a few listed as private (and others not as much) video letters to parents from college kids, for either where Skype isn't an option or keeping it for prosperity seemed warranted.

The 2nd part has someone else talking to the 'camera man' saying he thought it was some setup for YouTube cos the guy wasn't in uniform etc, sort of reality TV and it was only when the cops showed up that he was more inclined to think "nope, this is real, or at least not effing amateur." and if it wasn't amature, they would not be filming an episode of 'cops' on an iPhone.

[siead_lietrathua]

...I think there's something we're not seeing; an interaction that took place we didn't see. That's why these guys were shooting video in the first place; to "document" their interaction to put on YouTube to slam at the cops....

to this part: i've looked at the rest of tony light's videos, and the man arrested is a rapper named "Xstrav" that there is also a rap video for. so i'd assume that it was tony just recording some random footage of Xstrav to blog with when it happened.

to the rest: the original video has amaturish cuts in it, but so do many of the other videos on the vlog. you DO see the ABC guy (NOT a cop, as Colchek posted on page 2) approach and give an initial greeting. around the .30 mark "excuse me sir, what you drinking there" before the black explaining panel.
also while they may have been filming outside the liquor store, you CAN see other shop entrances and signs along the plaza wall. just like how our best buy shares a plaza with the LCBO, the parking lot is the property of the plaza owner and NOT the province (or state)

plus, the guy was an ABC "officer", and the only thing they are supposed to deal with is laws relating to alcohol,cigs, gambling and other age-restricted products. once Xstrav showed he was drinking a tea, not a beer, the ABC should have let him go on his way. instead he made an ass of himself by arresting a man on bogus trespassing charges.
i mean, if you're approaching someone on a trespassing complaint, you tell them to take off sure, but you have to actually give them time to get on their way first! you don't bully them over their drink first and THEN claim it's about trespassing. plus, he never gave the guys a chance to get back into their car.
i timed it. first told to leave at 1:25, at 2:12 "you have 5 seconds to leave" and at 2:14 "put your hands on the car" and that's with 15-ish seconds of pausing for the black panels. all Xstrav was saying in response was variations of "why?"
the panels aren't editing cuts, sometimes they are put in mid-sentence and the voices and video pic up right where they left off.

[Gravekeeper]

What hasn't changed is this: we don't see the first part of the interaction between the man and the cop. The clip cuts between the beginning (which doesn't make sense to me, why would someone video something so pedestrian?) and the interaction with the cop. Something is missing.

Nothing is missing, like I said, if you listen at the first you can hear the cop call out as he approaches. He's not yelling "Hey come back here" or anything to that effect. Also, as mentioned, the frames between text are sequential. The text describing the goings on are biased sure, but nothing seems to have been cut.

I don't think these two are smart enough to come up with a cunning plan on the spot to demand to see the guy's badge. Just so they can cut out a scene of him showing his badge later to make it look like he didn't show his badge. -.-

This is not some elaborate plot to stick it to the man. The security guard was being a douche. If the guy had actually done something noteworthy but cut it to make himself look better, the guard's behaviour would have reflected that and he would have been arrested much faster in the video. Instead, after they won't let him read the ingredients, the guard actually moves back towards the store and tells them to leave.

[Fire_on_High]

As much as I hate to agree with the bleeding heart contingent, they're right on this...the cop's being a power tripping douche.

If you try to command the respect due a cop, the very least you have to do is *prove* you are one. This guy's almost certainly no prize, but the cop managed to make it worse because he was just hellbent on dominating the guy into giving over instead of showing his badge or calling for uniformed backup, either of which would have proved his legitimacy. Wonder if his little ego trip and failed attempt to prove he was the big swangin' dick was worth the ginormous lawsuit this is going to earn him?

[Nekojin]

As much as I hate to agree with the bleeding heart contingent...

Is this kind of dig really necessary?