Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaydelart
Segment 1: Disagreement over possessions.
Segment 2: Failing to cooperate with officers regarding ID.
Segment 3: Failing to cooperate with officers regarding ID.
Segment 4: Failing to cooperate with officers regarding ID.
Segment 5: Failing to cooperate with officers regarding ID.
Segment 6: (Too vague to judge)
Segment 7: Criminal Incident.
Segment 8: Criminal Incident.
Segment 9: Criminal Incident.
The first segment is iffy. I'm not sure there was an appropriate reason for an arrest, aside from the disruptive behavior (which, even then is questionable). I could be convinced that was an illegal arrest. Though, it's somewhat difficult to know what they're arguing about, exactly...
Segment 2 to 5 show various scenarios in which officers request ID and are not shown one. I would've thought it was common sense to know that refusing to cooperate with officers does not make you look good to them -- or to the law -- regardless of how "uncomfortable" you may feel. I would be more concerned if a suspect could simply walk away when an officer requested identification.
Why withhold ID for any reason other than to hide something or make a political statement? When you refuse to identify yourself you may be obligating them to further investigate your person... In one of the videos, the individual taping sounded like he was in fact hiding something.
The last three segments are obviously criminal. Those cops are disgraceful, and should be punished.
On another note: It's a good strategy to mix questionably legitimate incidents (1-6) with obviously illegal incidents (7-9) to prove a point. I'm not sure whether it was intentional, but nevertheless...
There were 9 clips that included approximately 14 accused "corrupt" officers. What ratio of "corrupt" officers would that represent in comparison to the entire Law Enforcement body.
All of the clips included in the video were only segments of complete cases... Which - correct me if I'm wrong - did not take place in Portland. And, if they did, they were still incidents that unfolded in result of a probable cause (excluding 7-9), which is unrelated to the situation in the café.
[Refer to my first post] Unless someone was hiding something, the officer had no potential of causing a scene. It seems he was simply following the nature of his job: making a presence.
|
The video doesn't have any particular connection with the cafe incident besides the fact the any cop whether he's on duty or not can be a potential trouble. A cop is just another customer, and the owner
has a right to kick him out, just like any other customer if he has his reasons. The 7 & 8 segments of the video made me understand why the owner would want the officer to leave.
Also, I recommend watching all 6 parts. They have even more shocking footages.