Pixiq

Does anyone know what Department this Officer is with?

That sure looks like a california highway patrol to me.

keep up the good work carlos <-------

patch appears to be CHP

On the youtube comments for this video, people noted hearing that dispatch said something about Barstow, so maybe it was on the the route from LA to LV.

Yeah it sucks that the cop was mean, but at least he didn't get a ticket(either get a scolding or a ticket, not both as they say). Americans would not like being treated like that while they are visiting Germany. LEOs should consider that when dealing with tourists.

Gotta say it: This cop is awesome. If I'm ever going 28mph over the speed limit, I hope this is the cop that stops me. He may not have a tactful way of getting his point across, but damn...No ticket for speeding that much? 'Germany Boy' was breaking the law, after all. I mean, who drives nearly 100mph in a 70mph zone and gets off scot free?

It's the other cops I don't like. The ones that ticket, beat, and imprison you when you HAVEN'T broken the law.

"Americans would not like being treated like that while they are visiting Germany"

I don't know what the demeanour of German law enforcement is now. I saw some history show that said a lot of former Gestapo people wound up in the post ww2 German police force. I can't picture those guys as being pleasant to deal with!
Personally if I was driving 90mph I'd rather the cop give me a ton of shit and let me go than be super polite and get a ticket. Going that fast it's very unlikely a cop is going to be super nice and NOT ticket you.

First the new format and now this? Carlos, is this just another cop-bashing site? How does this have anything to do with PINAC?

Besides the fact that a camera happened to be involved in this incident, I don't understand the significance of the article. A cop was rude. So what? No body's rights were violated. No laws were broken (by the cop). I'm actually mad at the cop for not writing a ticket. I've gotten a ticket for going 4 mph over the limit. Most likely, the cop didn't site him because of mandatory prosecution for driving that fast, reckless endangerment or something similar. He should be thanking the cop.

Inspector is correct. This site/column is supposed to be about photographer's rights. This almost seems like Carlos had no material to post about. So he phoned this one in. The last article was bad enough about photographer's rights in TV shows.

I have an idea for an article: The NY governor's race and Paladino's claims that photographers are violating his family's right to privacy. What does the law say? Does being a public figure change anything? Can I follow anyone around and snap their picture? When does journalism turn into stalking?

Just a suggestion.

It seems to me that some of you are missing an important point.

I agree that this site is basically about the right to photograph and video in public. But who are the people most likely to infringe on those rights? That would be the police!

And why are the police so insistent on limiting our rights to photograph and video in public? Primarily to prevent the public (that would be us) from recording police and other official misconduct.

This video is a good example of police misconduct. The Constitution protects us from, among other things, "cruel and unusual punishment." Isn't forced sodomy cruel and unusual punishment? It certainly seems like it to me. And here is a police officer, in uniform and with a badge and gun, threatening a visitor with exactly this cruel and unusual punishment! That's police misconduct!

We can't lose sight of the fact that the ability to record official misconduct (any official misconduct, not just that of the police) is the PRIMARY REASON for asserting our rights. This case is a good example of such official misconduct.

BECAUSE it is a good example of the USE of that right and the importance of that right, it seems to me to be a perfect fit for this site.

As for the police officer giving the driver a break, we can't be sure of that. I have talked to many people (I'm a lawyer) who told me that they were pulled over for speeding and the police officer made some statement that the driver was "going 90 in a 55 zone." The driver then protested that he was only going 65. The officer then wrote on the back of the ticket that, "Driver admitted to going 65." The cop then has an ADMISSION of the speed, avoiding a trial appearance. With dashcams and audio recording from a mic on the officers uniform, there may even be a recording of that admission. So, the cop's initial statement that the driver was doing 98 may have been an attempt to get an admission of the driver's actual speed.

Yes, the police are allowed to lie to citizens (and visitors). The commoners are just not allowed to lie to the police.

I think this an excellent and applicable post.

Jim M.

Well said Jim M. +1

What police misconduct are you referring to? Being rude isn't illegal behavior even for a cop. His first amendment rights grant him that.

A good example of the exercise of video taping officers is one in which everything goes smoothly. Both sides have to understand that they have nothing to fear about the interaction being recorded. One of the main gripes that police officers have about being video taped is being shown in a poor light when they are just trying to do their job. This video is an example of an officer not breaking the law but still crucified for not being polite, even though the suspect was speeding and the officer didn't write him a ticket. I would say this is the worst use of our right to record police officers in public. It serves no purpose but to embarrass a police officer and further eroded the trust between officers and the public.

Also, there is no law forcing you to incriminate yourself. If you don't like being lied to by cops, don't talk to them.

What police misconduct? Yeah, being rude isn’t against the law, but it is still police misconduct. Police officers are given certain powers that members of the general public don’t have. With that comes the responsibility to use those powers in such a way that doesn’t violate the public trust in granting those powers. Rudeness certainly violates that public trust. That is why any police chief would cringe at seeing a video such as this of a police officer violating the public trust. If a police chief would condone such behavior, that chief should be removed from office.

Again, why do you assume that the suspect was speeding? If he was actually doing 98 is a 70 mph zone, I assume that the police officer would have actually written a ticket for that serious violation. The fact that no ticket was written is evidence that the “suspect” was not speeding, at least not that fast. Quite often, a police officer pulls a driver over for doing 79 in a 70 zone and uses the implied threat of a ticket for doing 98 to get the suspect/victim to blurt out his defense, “But I had my cruise control set for 79.” Maybe, in fact, the German was only doing 70 but since he didn’t know what the speed limit was, he didn’t blurt out to the officer what his speed was (if he knew).

About the actual police conduct – not the rudeness. Subjecting a “suspect” to physical abuse, including ass raping, is cruel and unusual punishment in my view, and hopefully in the view of most readers of this blog. That is only common human decency, not to mention the Constitution. THREATENING to subject the “suspect” to such abuse is also police misconduct WHEN IT IS DONE BY A PERSON WITH A BADGE AND A GUN. That threat is backed up with the police power of the state. Threatening such punishment “chills” the exercise of all other rights of the “suspect.” That is police misconduct for which the officer should, at a very minimum, be fired, so that he cannot violate the rights of other people in the same manner.

In my opinion, the officer should be prosecuted. Felony menacing will do for a start. He threatened the driver with serious bodily harm while armed.

Bob states, “One of the main gripes that police officers have about being video taped is being shown in a poor light when they are just trying to do their job.” Does this video show the officer in a “poor light”? I certainly think it does. But only because it is truthful. Thus, the police officers must have a gripe about the truth being shown.

Our Police Officer member (Bob) then states, “I would say this is the worst use of our right to record police officers in public. It serves no purpose but to embarrass a police officer and further eroded the trust between officers and the public.” I would say this video is one of the best uses of our right to record police officers in public. It shows clear police misconduct and, in my opinion, a felony violation of the rights of the driver to be free from felonious threats of physical abuse made by a person armed with a gun.

If something is eroding the trust between officers and the public (if there is any left to be eroded), IT IS THE POLICE MISCONDUCT. One way to stop that continuing erosion of trust is to publicize those incidents where it occurs. I appreciate the job Carlos Miller is doing in that regard.

Bob, since you are a police officer and have responded on this thread, I have a better question for you: Don’t you think the entire video is a hoax? Look at how the “CHP officer” approached the German’s car. He came forward past the B pillar, and even rested his hands on the side of the driver’s door. Although the first part of the video shows the “police car” in the rear view mirror, the “officer” leaves the “arrest” to the FRONT. Moving forward past the B pillar is a good way to get shot, and moving to the front of a suspect’s vehicle is a good way to get run over. Those two problems, together with the complete lack of courtesy and professionalism of the “officer”, makes me suspect that either this video is a hoax or the “CHP Officer” is in serious need of retraining.

I’m sorry to bring these points up. If the video is genuine, it is a classic case of police misconduct. If it is a hoax, I’m sure we can find other videos that are similar, and genuine.

Jim M.

Bob, thanks for your response. I, too, generally pick my fights carefully. I know that I can’t fight all of the battles. And, I don’t want to!

Quote: “If you think the policeman's words constitute a felony, then you have some serious issues.”

Well, I guess I have some serious issues, then. I’m in Colorado, and the statute on “Menacing” is:

18-3-206. Menacing.
A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, if committed by the use of a deadly weapon, it is a class 5 felony.

“Use” of a deadly weapon is fairly broad, and doesn’t require that the weapon actually be pointed at the victim. People v. District Court of Colorado’s Seventeenth Judicial Dist., 926 P.2d 567 (Colo. 1996).

I certainly don’t disagree with your example of police misconduct. I just believe the term could (and does) include a lot of behavior much less egregious than your example.

Jim M.

We've said our opinions. So I can agree to disagree.

Unrelated to what we've just discussed, here are some interesting videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR-LJZh-3f4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKYPfI1pCAg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PmfuAZ815U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBvCUFrvHzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8d3scdsKGA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqCIxwLwpuI

ABUSE OF POWER

Abuse of power or authority may be the prime source and true essence of moral EVIL - Evil is the ABUSE of power. Moral EVIL begins to exist when someone refuses to accept responsibility for the welfare of others, especially those naturally under his or her direct care. It can be said that someone has POWER, if that someone can decisively influence (the) reality (of others).

In this context, AUTHORITY is power that derives from a social accord or convention, such as the laws or customs of a social group such as a state or an organization.

So then, what is "abuse of power"?

ABUSE OF POWER is the illegitimate use of power.

ABUSE OF POWER is that situation that exists whenever someone who has POWER over others, (that is, the capacity to impose his or her will on those others) for example, by virtue of his or her superior mental dexterity, social position, physical strength, knowledge, technology, weapons, wealth, or the trust that others have in him or her, unjustifiably uses that power to EXPLOIT or HARM those others, or through lack of action, ALLOWS exploitation or harm to occur to them.

It follows that someone who does not have (a particular form of) power cannot abuse it.

It also follows that the main (and perhaps the only) principle of human ethics and morality should be to avoid the abuse of power.

(It should be noted that the decision to adopt an ethical principle as one's own is a purely personal one, and cannot be forced on someone. However, one cannot adopt a principle one does not know exists. Also, it is not very likely that someone will adopt a principle that is not congruent with his or her mental structure - and this mental structure is so powerfully influenced by early childhood experiences).

From this it follows that it is extremely unethical to put oneself (or to stay) in a position of conflict of interest, i.e., where one's benefit or profit depends on harming or exploiting others. And of course, it also follows that putting a subordinate in a position of conflict of interest demonstrates a complete ignorance of ethics.

Additionally, it follows that if those who want to stop or impede the abuse of power (or those who are charged with this duty) do not have sufficient power (even if it were only moral power), they and their efforts will only serve as a source of amusement to those who abuse it

Someone wrote: "The fact that no ticket was written is evidence that the “suspect” was not speeding, at least not that fast."
Not true. Being from a foreign country means that the driver would have to be taken into custody and may not make bail should the officer wish to ticket him. The officer probably did not want to do this. So he told the man what could happen to him if he went to jail. He DID NOT threaten the man. He simply said what could happen. Personally, I think the officer was very rude and should not have said what he did the way he did.
But to get back to the point, this post is a poor example of what this site is supposed to be about. If I want to see cop bashing posts there are tons of those all over.

The guy drove to fast and most likely new it. He should have been dinged for it as such is the law.

The cop didn't do his job and said some things he shouldn't have. Looks like both of them deserve a good kicking.

Of course the cop signed up to obey the law and as far I'm concerned he's nothing but a public servant who is to enforce the law with the means legally handed to him. He is to catch if he can, read me my rights if need be, write me a ticket if so supported by the law and other than to not speak to me about anything other than the matter at hand.

The guy filmed it and clearly showed that this officer isn't capable of doing his job right. He got caught and should be reprimanded, more for not doing his job but also for his stupid talk.

I'd rather pay a fine and not listen to this kind of crap. Just because I make a mistake doesn't give the cop a reason to talk to me in such a way.

so this inspector guy thinks its ok to pull random people over and tell them if they speed then they can/might be raped for it. that is the issue and the only issue , showing the importance of being able to record video of such things when they happen.

i see no cop bashing here, i see peoples comments about how the guy got pulled over for speeding, and somehow the conversation from the cop took a strange turn when he started talking about rape for speeding.

ok now picture this, your daughter,wife,mother,sister or any family member , gets pulled over and the cop starts talking about how they can end up being raped for speeding.

i would be willing to bet a years pay that that cop doesnt have a friend in the world, except for his blow up doll that he pretends to rape after writing tickets.

Casper (and others),
Please read and try to understand an entire post before falsely representing what someone else has said. "This inspector guy" clearly stated that the cop should NOT have said what he said. However, the entire issue I raised was whether this site was a cop bashing site for the sake of cop bashing or if it was a photographer's rights site as intended. It seems few want to address that issue. You just want to bash the cop (who was wrong for what he said) and not address the issue at hand.

The 15 gets brutally hot so when you are pulled over, the CHP is in a very bad mood about getting out of the AC and it can show. The plus side is that sometimes they don't want to take the time to ticket you.

This doesn't sound like CHP at all. First, they generally only nail you for speeding if you're past the "reckless" speed, they're not ticketing machines like police or sheriffs. So 98 in a 70 would be a stoppable offense. It's also pretty much mandatory that they give you a ticket - and here is where CHP wins my vote... if you're respectful and courteous to them, they'll almost always knock the ticket DOWN to a speeding infraction, rather than "telling it like they saw it" - IE 98mph in a 70. they'll actually write "76mph" on the ticket, so it's a slap on the wrist and a point on your record. It's one of the best uses of officer's discretion, in my opinion. Empty highways, someone wants to speed, well, they might get pulled over. If they're not a maniac, they'll get a speeding ticket.

The whole scene changes if you're rude to the cop though, he'll write you that reckless ticket, and if you're going over 100MPH there's a chance you might take a ride to the local station house in the back of their car.

California has weird traffic laws anyhow.

Secondly, I can't imagine a CHP officer threatening someone like this officer did, they have no reason to - the idea that to show up to defend yourself in court 200 miles away from your house is generally enough to put the fear of god into most motorists they police.

I *CAN* however see this happening in Texas. Texas State Troopers freak me out - just being in texas makes me a nervous wreck with my california license plate.

As far as the article goes, i don't mind these sorts of articles being on this site.

I read a lot of comments on this video, & there seems to be a lot of bickering going on.

I don't want to take sides, but did all the cop-bashing people ever stop to consider this highway patrolman's point of view? Maybe he didn't do his duty with tact, but these guys spend every day scraping up bodies, blood & brains from crashes on highways caused by idiotic drivers that insist on going way too fast & putting lives in jeapordy, all just to get to their destination a few minutes earlier. A LOT of people have had their lives ruined this way-not just the victims, but their families & friends as well.

Just 8 months ago, my baby brother-a US Marine-was in the passenger seat of a fellow Marine's car. They were driving in Mira Mesa, CA, near their base at Mirimar & were forced off the side of the road. They ended up off the side of a cliff on the roof of the car in a ravine nearly 40 feet down. My brother was killed instantly-the driver lasted a day on life support before succumbing to his injuries. My brother, LCpl Zachary "Tyler" Mariluch, USMC, was just barely 21 years old. The driver was 19. They did everything right-they weren't speeding or intoxicated & both were wearing their seatbelts.

Every day these officers see horrific accidents like this one, & good people are lost. So maybe we should cut this guy some slack; His job is stressful & most accidents he's seen have probably been preventable. If you had the chance to say something to a reckless driver BEFORE he caused a major accident, what do you think YOU'D say? Would you be cordial? Or do you think you might get a little fired up? I know I would.

-Jessica Barnes

*IN LOVING MEMORY OF LCPL ZACHARY "TYLER" MARILUCH, USMC DECEMBER 25, 1988 - MARCH 18, 2010*