I can't believe this conversation is still going on....
Original post:
"I snapped off a picture (of the officers questioning him) and at the same time he grabbed my camera, and I reached up with my left hand to catch the camera from hitting the floor and he said don't you touch me," he continued."
Nowhere in this does it say the camera fell to the ground and/or broke. Nowhere in the article does he discuss damage to the camera and compensation for that damage. With all the stuff he was complaining about suing the department/mall for he NEVER mentions damage to his camera. Until that is proven otherwise you are assuming incorrectly. PROVE to me otherwise.
Don't be stupider. The cops could have handled the guy a lot better without immediately going to the worst case scenario.
They really should have asked a general question about pictures, if the guy said nothing about the kids or the incident with the parents.... maybe that's when you bring out the accusing question of taking pictures of kids. And you definitely don't grab the guy when he goes to take a picture... that was just ******ed. Even worse? The threat when the guy raised his hand to protect the camera.
Please make sure you get your facts straight. The Police raised his hand to block the camera and push it down out of his face. The suspect then brought his other hand up (assume it was in a fast motion) to "try to catch the camera." The officer told him not to touch him and the suspect continued to argue. At which point, they took him into custody....the entire time he was resisting. Boo Hoo. The guy made all the wrong moves.
The cops didn't even give him a chance. They saw the camera, grabbed him, then the one cop had a ****-fit when he tried to keep the camera from falling.
Bull****. The Police gave him a chance. His response was to shove a camera in their face and be an ass. They gave him a second chance when they told him not to put his hands on them. He continued to push.
Yeah, because when someone tells a cop that a guy is taking pictures of kids, no one assumes he's a perv
The parents were concerned. It's the police officer's job to investigate. He didn't beat around the bush and asked the man a direct question. Regardless of how accusatory it was the man should have responded at least with words first. Instead he chose action and shoved a camera in the officer's face.
And, as I said, the cop had a **** fit when he took the camera out and grabbed him. They could have told him to put the camera away and show them the pictures to see if the accusations were true.
You do realize that Police Officers are regularly shot at, swung at, knifed, ran from, etc. from regular normal looking people? That's fact, not TV. That is why they often don't take chances and just get the person in a controlled situation when they are combative.
You are also assuming that the man slowly pulled the camera out and just held it up. How do you know he didn't bring it out of his pocket and shove it directly in the officer's face? Maybe he snapped off a few pictures with the flash, temporarily blinding the officers (as a flash at close range does to anyone). Would you still say that this guy was justified in such actions? Keep in mind you are hearing only this guys side of the story.
Asking "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" IS accusatory.
Boo Hoo. He's a grown man, not a child. Mistakes are made. Explaining himself is a far better option then throwing a tantrum.
They should have just said to put the camera away and answer the question or see the pictures. They didn't have to escalate it and make it physical.
OR....before it even got to that point he could have simply answered the question. Why is he excused for his behavior but the police are not?
Yeah, he shouldn't answered the question but there was no need for the cops to get physical with him.
So how long should the police have stood there and asked him over and over while this asshat snapped pictures in their face? At what point does it go over the top? How long should they wait for him to calm down? 5 minutes? 10 Minutes? 30 minutes? Since this guy apparently had his widdle feeling hurt what if he tried to just walk away from the cops? Do they have the authority to detain him at that point?
They could have said "People have reported you taking pictures. Can we see them?" or "What are you taking pictures of?" They didn't need to ask "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" and make him out to be a perv.
Again, stop for a minute and think. You are only getting what this guy said happened. Obviously you have a predetermined bias towards cops. I'm asking you to put that aside for a second and entertain the fact that perhaps this guy isn't giving all the facts. He feels wronged, knows he made a bad situation worse, and is now trying to twist it around for his benefit? How do you know that the police didn't actually ask what you suggest above and he was only paraphrasing what the cops asked him? It would be interesting to see what other witnesses might say about the situation.
It is common sense, if the police approach you and ask you a question the best course of action is to cooperate calmly. REGARDLESS of their tone or attitude. Nothing good will ever come from being a d**k back, ever. This is especially true if you are innocent.
