I'm curious to know how this plays out when they sue for assault.

Moving this video to deathcow's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

better?

This probably needs a *NSFW - But, Siftbot will tell me very quickly that I'm not cool enough to invoke such a request.

Invocations (nsfw) cannot be called by Unsung_Hero because Unsung_Hero is not privileged - sorry.

Abuse of power. Collect your things, find a new job. Good bye.

*nsfw for swearing

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by gwiz665.

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help!"

Um... I'm confused. It looks like they were intentionally trying to get pulled over by this guy so they could record it. If that is the case, they didn't have a very cunning plan considering the "expired proof of insurance ticket".

So the case they would make against the officer goes as follows:

A) He reached in and tried to grab the phone. I'll agree that this action was wrong and he clearly shouldn't have done it. However, there was no harm done to the phone or the owner, so as mistakes go I can think of much worse things that he could have done. Worth the officer getting a warning over, but that can be the end of it.

B) He told them to turn off the recording. He has no legal right to require them to do so, and when asked to clarify or justify that he didn't back it up and basically gave up on it. I'm sure they feel vindicated in catching him "abusing his power" and "not having a leg to stand on", but I'd say more important is that he did in fact back down from it. Again a mistake, but I find it hard to be extremely critical. Let the officer learn from it and move on.

C) He was on a "power trip", and "wasting tax dollars". ...Right. Perhaps if one believes that "following to close behind a vehicle" or "driving with expired proof of insurance" should not be ticket-worthy offenses.


I fully agree that as people in a position of some power, police should be held to very high standards of conduct. This, however, didn't really trigger my "abuse of power" alarm.

^ So your defence of a police officer illegally trying to snatch someone's private property off a person under the guise and umbrella of law enforcement and legality is "he failed."

So he isn't breaking the law because he's a BAD phone snatcher?

And when he tries to bully someone into blindly following FALSE ordinances/laws, he's not doing anything wrong because he's too stupid to think up a lie to cover it?

Are you really acquitting this guy because he's stupid and clumsy and slow? You know, if police officers tell people to do things that AREN'T enforceable, you reduce the chances that they will do things that ARE enforceable when you tell them to. Then people will get hurt, and it'll be the fault of people like this bald-headed cunt.

Thank god he didn't bring out a fucking taser or bear mace. But if he'd fired either at them and accidentally missed and hit himself, that'd have been alright, yeah?

Ahh yes, because the video showed he was clearly just some klepto-cop making a failed attempt at stealing private property. I wouldn't suggest that he should be given a free pass because "he failed" at snatching the phone, but I think that it is rather significant to note that he didn't ever actually remove the phone from the possession of the owner.

I figure that in the heat of the moment he made a split second decision to take the phone and turn off the camera (likely he would have then given it back, or given it back after he issued the ticket; but that is all fairly pointless speculation). I'll 100% fully agree that was a bad decision, and one that should result in major consequences if he actually followed through on it. However, probably because he himself realized that it was not a kosher thing to do, he backed down. I'm still all for there being consequences to the policeman even though he did back down, but they should be measured and have the goal of improving his reactions in similar situations in the future.

As for him trying to bully them into following a false law, you'll note that I never suggested that he "wasn't doing anything wrong" -- quite to the contrary I said it was a mistake. However the magnitude of that mistake is mitigated by lots of factors. For one, yes he told them to turn off the camera, but he never specifically said that they were legally required to do so, and when they asked (as though to confirm if it was a legal obligation or a personal request) he gave up on it. There is definite slippery slope potential there to attempt to get away with worse instances of this in the future, which is why I said it was a mistake. So again, let there be consequences directed towards future improvement.

If he had thought up a lie to cover for it, or simply lied and suggested that yes they were legally required to turn it off, again it would be something that there should be major consequences for -- but he didn't do that. Presumably not because he was too stupid, but because he realized that would have crossed a much more significant line.

I'm not defending this officer "because he's stupid, clumsy and slow". I don't think that there is really enough evidence in this <3 minute video to make a very compelling argument that he is any of those things. There is enough evidence to show that he made some mistakes, and came pretty close to making much bigger mistakes. However, he is a human being doing a fairly difficult job in stressful situations that will often require him to make important decisions quickly. Again, I believe that police should be held to very high standards, but we have to realize that mistakes are going to be made. Making sure than an individual officer makes fewer mistakes of lesser magnitude as they get more experience should be a priority.
Hopefully this officer can do exactly that. If this is early in his career, I figure he should get a verbal reprimand and be required to explain what he did wrong and how he can improve. If it has happened before, a written warning in combination with further consequences could be warranted. And if he has a history of making mistakes like this and hasn't improved, being suspended or even fired might be necessary. But those calls aren't mine to make, particularly on the basis of 1 brief video. I just figure things need to be kept in perspective.

>> ^dannym3141:

^ So your defence of a police officer illegally trying to snatch someone's private property off a person under the guise and umbrella of law enforcement and legality is "he failed."
So he isn't breaking the law because he's a BAD phone snatcher?
...

Whilst i respect your right to an opinion, i think you're trying to save face.

He clearly tried to snatch the phone - like it or not, that's not legal. It sets a really bad example as well, because if police try to snatch something off you and they're not allowed to, how do you know next time if they're allowed to or not? If you resist, you can get into more trouble or potentially badly hurt - and this guy is promoting resistance by attempting to do things that he's not allowed to do.

Same goes for the order to turn the camera off.

You've spent a lot of time trying to show how you can mitigate what he did, but i refute you on all points, however i won't get into a wall of text. Being unsuccessful at your attempt to snatch a phone illegally or trick someone into doing something they don't have to may mitigate your actions in the view of the law (attempted murder, '..with intent', etc.) but it flat out does not change whether or not this officer is doing his job/harassing people/abusing his power, nor does it mitigate the ripple effect that his actions could have on anyone's future encounters with police.

The guys in the video weren't trying to get pulled over. They were within the allowable speed limit(gray area) when they passed the trooper. They just refused to not pass him because he was a Trooper. His insurance wasn't expired, just his proof of insurance. That has already been dropped, in Alaska that is a 3 or 5 day fix it ticket, if you go to the police department and show proof of insurance that portion of the ticket is dropped. The other ticket he was 'awarded' was following too close. Luckily for him he has this footage, which may or may not help his case.

Regardless of the above mentioned information, that Trooper was completely 100% out of line. Since the video, the driver of the vehicle has set up an appointment with the officer and his supervisor. The meeting was canceled at the beginning of it because they did not want the meeting to be documented(video or audio).

To all the nay-says and otherwise haters who take the time to read these comments, have a friend video tape you try to grab a troopers iPhone, and please post the results as a video response on youtube.