Wow, cop pulled gun on a guy recording him from his yard.

[Burnsy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cDy3tUy4Io

 

[Gabriel]

I'll have to watch it again, but I must have missed that part were he "pulled gun on guy". He removed the gun from the holster, but never pointed it.

That being said, I'm not sure why that conversation/situation even took place.

 

[Burnsy]

I'll have to watch it again, but I must have missed that part were he "pulled gun on guy". He removed the gun from the holster, but never pointed it.

That being said, I'm not sure why that conversation/situation even took place.

What is your definition of "pulling a gun" if not out of it's holster? The title doesn't say "pointed".

 

[Burnsy]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/calif-pulls-gun-man-recording-video-article-1.2316656

Rohnert Park Mayor Amy Ahanotu and City Manager Darrin Jenkins said they are reviewing the video and the police department’s protocols.


“We’ve been made aware of this matter and we are taking it seriously,” they said in a statement. “We understand the concerns that have been raised by our community and others and we want the public to know that your trust in law enforcement in our city is a top priority.”

 

[Gabriel]

What is your definition of "pulling a gun" if not out of it's holster? The title doesn't say "pointed".

If someone says a gun was pulled on them, it means to me that it was pointed at them. Pulling it out of the holster didn't really endanger anything but the concrete it was pointed at. Again, though, I don't know why there was even an issue there. We get recorded all the time and it's just normal anymore.

 

[Burnsy]

If someone says a gun was pulled on them, it means to me that it was pointed at them. Pulling it out of the holster didn't really endanger anything but the concrete it was pointed at. Again, though, I don't know why there was even an issue there. We get recorded all the time and it's just normal anymore.

Well let me ask you this. If a police officer were recording me and I unholstered my carry gun after getting out of my car and walking toward him, even pointed at the ground. What do you think would happen to me?

Would I be able to walk away and go home? Would I still be breathing? You try it and let me know.

Ability, opportunity, jeopardy. All were present.

 

[BADWOLF]

It was ment to be an intimidation tactic on behalf of the police officer. Pointing at the guy would have probably resulted is a complaint of criminal recklessness being filed against him.

 

[Mgderf]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's not just cops folks. Give anyone, especially someone of weak moral fiber to begin with, absolute power and the temptation arises to abuse it.

 

[Rookie]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/390120-ca-cop-draws-gun-guy-filming-him.html

What I learned from that thread. The guy had no reason to film so it was all his fault. Anyone who doesn't immediately comply with officer's demands is an argumentative idiot.

 

[indyk]

Intimidation tactics for a cop to release his side arm at the site of onlookers and one filming the situation???
What, and why was he trying to intimidate?
In America you can film, photograph just about ANYTHING you want to, yes including police interactions with the public.
Now it's definitely not favored amongst ,, law enforcement we know that now.

Mgderf hit it right on the head, in fact it's one of the best, logical post, response I've read here since 08.

 

[jamil]

That was just weird. The cop just calmly stalked the guy holding his unholstered gun. If anyone thinks his intention wasn't to intimidate then you didn't see the same video I did. ****ing creepy. That ******* needs a different job.

 

[singlemalt]

Well let me ask you this. If a police officer were recording me and I unholstered my carry gun after getting out of my car and walking toward him, even pointed at the ground. What do you think would happen to me?

Would I be able to walk away and go home? Would I still be breathing? You try it and let me know.

Ability, opportunity, jeopardy. All were present.

Everybody is equal in the US. Some are just more equal than others I suppose. Sort of like Muslims' can refuse something(s) on religious grounds but Christians' can not because, discrimination.

 

[chipbennett]

I'll have to watch it again, but I must have missed that part were he "pulled gun on guy". He removed the gun from the holster, but never pointed it.

That being said, I'm not sure why that conversation/situation even took place.

Change the scenario to include two non-badge-wearing civilians, instead of one badge-wearing civilian and one non-badge-wearing civilian. Would the action of removing the gun from the holster, but not pointing it, be construed as anything other than "pull[ing his gun] on the guy"? Would that action be anything less than unlawful intimidation/menacing/threatening/assault/brandishing (depending on the state-specific statute)?

 

[FreeFAL]

If someone says a gun was pulled on them, it means to me that it was pointed at them. Pulling it out of the holster didn't really endanger anything but the concrete it was pointed at. Again, though, I don't know why there was even an issue there. We get recorded all the time and it's just normal anymore.

Precise language notwithstanding, not sure why you ever tried to defend this position. Innocent mistake, but not defensible.

 

[THE BIG SITT]

Change the scenario to include two non-badge-wearing civilians, instead of one badge-wearing civilian and one non-badge-wearing civilian. Would the action of removing the gun from the holster, but not pointing it, be construed as anything other than "pull[ing his gun] on the guy"? Would that action be anything less than unlawful intimidation/menacing/threatening/assault/brandishing (depending on the state-specific statute)?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/365404-brandishing.html

 

[chipbennett]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/365404-brandishing.html

Just FYI, the incident happened in California, so IC is not applicable; that's also why I stated "depending on the state-specific statute".

Unless you were linking that to demonstrate that Indiana's statute regarding "Intimidation" would clearly apply to Officer Friendly's actions?

IC 35-45-2-1
Intimidation
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;

 

[indyjs]

Cop ordered man to take hand out of pocket. Man refused. Cop unholstered gun

 

[chipbennett]

Cop ordered man to take hand out of pocket. Man refused. Cop unholstered gun

Succinct, but I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Said it in the other thread, but I'll say it here too. I don't think the cop should have unholstered, but I can understand why he did. I see the videographer in the same manner that I see guys that go to Starbucks with their AR slung over their shoulder. Just because you "can" doesn't mean you should. By refusing to take his hand out of his pocket, he was (in my opinion) trying to provoke a response, and he did. Was it illegal for him to keep his hand in his pocket? No. Was it smart? Probably not. Then again, I like to avoid confrontation. I can legally call a cop names if he pulls me over for speeding, but it's a pretty good way to make sure he actually writes me a ticket instead of giving me a warning. Just not smart in my opinion. I like to pick my battles. A cop asking me to take my hand out of my pocket isn't something I choose to go to battle over.

 

[Beowulf]

Here's the actual full video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cDy3tUy4Io

Clearly the guy is a bit agitated, but honestly, there was no reason at all for the police officer to interact with him. Certainly no call for his weapon to be drawn. The idea that he needed to do that because the guy had his hand in his pocket is nonsense. The officer escalated that encounter for no real reason that I could see, other than he was annoyed the guy was filming him.

Now, the guy filming seems to indicate that he's had run-ins with the police before and he feels that they have been harassing him, so maybe there is more backstory to this than just one grouchy cop with bad judgement (it could also be that the guy filming is a bit off). Still, I don't really like the idea of this police officer using the term "constitutionalist" as a perjorative label. Shouldn't everyone, especially the police, be a constitutionalist? What kind of messed up country do we have if supporting the US Constitution is considered a cause for suspicion and derision by members of the government (particularly when they are wielding firearms).