T O P
mrmagnum41

It is well established law that flipping the bird to a police officer is an expressive act. Therefore there will be no qualified immunity. All the protection the officer has is the hope that his agency will indemnify him in the upcoming lawsuit. That could happen, or they could let him twist in the wind.


OuchLOLcom

> It is well established law that flipping the bird to a police officer is an expressive act. The cop knows that too. Thats why he kept verbalizing the walking aimlessly narrative even though he slipped up twice and started talking about how disrespectful it is to flip off police.


DefendCharterRights

> All the protection the officer has is the hope that his agency will indemnify him in the upcoming lawsuit. I predict the officer's chances of being indemnified are pretty good. [According to one reputable researcher](https://www.chapman.edu/law/_files/events/SchwartzPaperIndemnification.pdf): "During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement."


[deleted]

There should be a "flip a cop the bird" National holiday. What are they gonna do when EVERY SINGLE PERSON flips them the bird that day wherever they go?


a_grunt_named_Gideon

They will assault every one of us.


jimmyjazz2000

To answer the questions posed at the end of the video: Yes, the stop was obviously retaliatory, yes, the detainee's rights were clearly violated, and yes, the cop absolutely did abuse his official powers for personal reasons. This kid should def. sue the officer who put him in cuffs, the officer's partner who watched him do it and did nothing but run the kid's improperly obtained ID, and the department that investigated the incident but refuses to release the findings or reveal what, if any, consequences the officers on the scene were given. It seems like a slam dunk case to me. But here's the simplest lesson for all cops, and it doesn't require a lawsuit, citizen review board, or anything official. Just common sense: If you don't don't like getting flipped off in public—STOP DOING SHIT LIKE THIS TO THE PUBLIC!!! And while we're at it, you need to also stop seeing shit like this done by fellow officers and doing nothing to stop it. It's just as bad as doing it, and maybe worse—because unlike your out-of-control partner, you're making your choice to protect a cop's feelings over citizens' rights—which you've sworn an oath to protect—with a clearer head and less emotion. This bullshit could probably end tomorrow if bad-actor officers lost the silent complicity of their fellow officers, most of whom probably never do stuff like this and don't condone it. This choice MUST change. We grant police official powers with the badge and gun. But our respect? That's something cops have to go out and earn every day. Guys like this out-of-control cop (voice and hands practically shaking with rage over a legal gesture) make the job of earning the public's respect so much harder, almost impossible. Cops have to start treating these guys like the pariahs they are.


DefendCharterRights

> We grant police official powers with the badge and gun. Or, as I like to put it, society entrusts law enforcement officers with extraordinary powers and expects them to act with care and wisdom commensurate with that authority. > But our respect? That's something cops have to go out and earn every day. And that's something good officers have known for nearly two centuries. In 1829, Sir Robert Peel explained, "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behaviour, and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect." More recently, [this study](https://www.pnas.org/content/116/40/19894) found: ""When police lack legitimacy, residents are less likely to contact police or cooperate with their investigations. Worse, police–public interactions charged by distrust are more likely to escalate into contests for dominance and status that can lead to the injury or death of police and the public alike. Such interactions fuel a cycle of mutual antipathy that further erodes police–public relations and frustrates public safety." It's in a police officer's self interest (and the interests of his colleagues) to behave professionally.


DefendCharterRights

Police detentions like these are abhorrent but occur so often they have lost much of their impact. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it (and it applies equally well in the United States): "[Detainees] are deprived of liberty and in the control of the state, and thus vulnerable to the exercise of its power and in a position of legal jeopardy." What was so objectionable about this particular incident? Let me count the ways. At 1:30, the officer detains the two subjects for suspiciously walking around aimlessly. He later added (at 2:38) that "there's been a lot of stuff that's going around out here." Presumably, he meant to say "criminal stuff." Police officers know the magic words that usually support reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) of criminal activity, and courts have generally been quite lenient in accepting police officers' concerns. Simply being in a high-crime neighbourhood isn't RAS, but toss in "aimlessly walking around" and you might get a sympathetic judge/jury (it's stronger if the officer can claim to have seen some sort of "evasive behaviour"). As LackLuster points out, "aimlessly walking" falls more on the subjective side rather than being an objective reason that is required in court. At 2:07, as he was handcuffing the first subject, the officer says: "Go ahead and resist if you want to." I don't think provoking subjects is a de-escalation technique taught to many law enforcement officers. At 2:18, the officer asks, as he is about to frisk the first subject: "Do you have anything that's going to stick me?" After unlawfully detaining someone and preparing to unlawfully frisk them, the officer expects to receive the courtesy of a reply. [sigh] At 2:18, the officer begins patting down the subject's outer clothing for weapons. If this was a lawful Terry stop AND if the officer had reasons to believe the subject was armed and dangerous, then he could perform this Terry frisk for weapons. I saw no grounds for believing the subject was either armed or dangerous. At 2:25, the officer reaches into the subject's pocket, retrieves a wallet, and (later) obtains identification information. This isn't allowed even if he had reasonable grounds to search for weapons. It was an unlawful search. At 2:29, the officer asks the second subject whether he had any weapons. The subject replied, "No." Apparently, the officer took that to be reasonable grounds to believe the subject was armed and dangerous. /s At 4:02, the officer states: "We have every right to stop you to find out who you are are where you live, period." This would be true in lawful Terry stop situations only where a jurisdiction has a stop-and-identify law/ordinance. The state of Missouri does not. From a quick look at [University City's ordinances of offenses](https://ecode360.com/28289971), neither does the city. At 6:24, the officer states: "For future reference, young man, you don't disrespect the police like that." A fairly incriminating statement, if the subject did carry through with lodging a police complaint or if he files a civil lawsuit. Civilians are allowed to disrespect police officers, even by flipping them the bird. Later, at 7:17, when the subject accuses the officer of retaliation, the officer thinks twice and wisely decides not to respond.


Ade5

Not too bright young men.. If I would flip off a cop i would make sure I dont have any ID on me and ready to be kidnapped..


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ade5

Sorry buddy, Im not a native english speaker