Pixiq

It's not clear to me that cops are expected to engage their brains, if this article's any indication.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/too-smart-to-be-a-good-cop/

I am singularly UNimpressed by Bert Krages proclamations, whether that page or his book, "Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images".

Unlike ALL other legal handbooks I own, Krages cites NOT A SINGLE case. For a field as controversial as photography, that is inexcusable.

It is exceedingly easy to MISread cases, such as by relying on the syllabus, or confusing dicta with holdings, or assuming English definitions rather than legal definitions. It happens so much, even by lawyers (as you can see by reading appellate cases), that the only reliable way to understand the law at the edges between black and white is to read the cases yourself. When an author refuses to cite his sources, he guts the reliability of his work.

Sure, he throws in disclaimers, such as "general knowledge of common law principles should suffice to keep most photographers out of trouble, provided they refrain from photographying subjects under questionable circumstances or seek advice from counsel beforehand."

But it is PRECISELY questionable circumstances, such as when photographing an antagonistic subject, that clear, definitive advice is needed. His book is not much more helpful or authoritative than his Photographer's Rights sheet.

"The Law (in plain English) for Photographers" by Leondard Duboff is much more authoritative.

Doing exactly that to a cop would probably be considered assault on a police officer, and anything that officer did to you would be highly likely to be ruled a justified act.

Police have qualified immunity, but they don't have a license to commit crimes without penalty. For example, in Washington state, simple assault is just a misdemeanor, but it breaches the peace. Therefore a resident of WA could place a cop under citizen's arrest for doing so. Note that it's illegal to forcible disarm a uniformed officer except in direct, lawful, justified self-defense or with a court order (which could be as simple as a judge yelling "get him!"). So until the officer resists arrest, he gets to keep his sidearm (absurd, but true). But nothing in the law shields a uniformed officer from being arrested.

So if a cop does that to you in a place that allows a citizen's arrest for such an offense (assault, etc), arrest him. Just imagine the look on his face...