**OP UPDATED VIDEO** Resisting arrest in Nashville.

[Omega]

Btq96r you must of seen a different video than I did.  While they most certainly do have a right to video tape, they do not have a right to interfere with the officers.  Anything that takes the officers attention away from the issues at hand can be hazardous to the officers and the arrestee.  And did anyone happen to notice all the comments, many with the cop shooting icon?

[felinesNfreedom]

The comments on the video say it best. I obviously don't understand the hatred for rules and law and why someone would want to act like that. If you don't break the law you don't get in trouble, seems simple. 

[btq96r]

Just in case you run into somebody like TGO David, will your phone transmit the video stream from your ass? :)

 

It may drop from 4G to 3G, but yeah, I'd assume so. 

 

 

Btq96r you must of seen a different video than I did.  While they most certainly do have a right to video tape, they do not have a right to interfere with the officers.  Anything that takes the officers attention away from the issues at hand can be hazardous to the officers and the arrestee.

 

Where did they actually interfere?  Was it enough to stick in court, or would a judge most likely throw it out as a nuisance arrest?  The LEO's were going to keep an eye out anyway, good SA demands no less.  The got close sure, but didn't cross the line as they never physically tried to stop the officers from making the arrest.  The only one who interfered with the arrest was the guy who was arrested with his bit of resistance to being put in the car, so the DA can tack that on if he wants.

 

 

And did anyone happen to notice all the comments, many with the cop shooting icon?

The comments on the video say it best. I obviously don't understand the hatred for rules and law and why someone would want to act like that. If you don't break the law you don't get in trouble, seems simple. 

 

Facebook comments are the apex of how stupid we truly are.  People hiding behind a keyboard or mobile phone who say things with a lot of bravado, and others get drawn down into the argument at that lowest of levels.  If there is life beyond our planet and they survey us while deciding to make first contact, I'd imagine they would monitor the internet and based on Facebook commenting alone, decide we aren't advanced enough for their attention.

[QuietDan]

Once in handcuffs, don't think you can pepper or taze a suspect. 

 

Can't arrest an onlooker for their mouth, nor pepper or taze them for mouth. 

 

The officer several times did say get back, step back, stay away . . . and if they persisted I would expect two more units with two more cops and a few more handcuffed perps.

 

Regarding the bystanders: With their mouths, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on them if they were on fire.

Edited January 12, 2015 by QuietDan

[Omega]

 

Where did they actually interfere?  Was it enough to stick in court, or would a judge most likely throw it out as a nuisance arrest?  The LEO's were going to keep an eye out anyway, good SA demands no less.  The got close sure, but didn't cross the line as they never physically tried to stop the officers from making the arrest.  The only one who interfered with the arrest was the guy who was arrested with his bit of resistance to being put in the car, so the DA can tack that on if he wants.

 

 

 

Facebook comments are the apex of how stupid we truly are.  People hiding behind a keyboard or mobile phone who say things with a lot of bravado, and others get drawn down into the argument at that lowest of levels.  If there is life beyond our planet and they survey us while deciding to make first contact, I'd imagine they would monitor the internet and based on Facebook commenting alone, decide we aren't advanced enough for their attention.

For starters, the female officer is having to deal with the idiots instead of backing up her partner.  And if they did not rile up the perp, he would of just went quietly. Though it did turn out ok, the potential for something to go wrong goes way up when idiots like that one pull these stunks.  I fully support being able to film, on both sides, but the crowding of the scene is definitely not ok, and egging on someone resist is probably close to being, if not outright, a crime.

[btq96r]

For starters, the female officer is having to deal with the idiots instead of backing up her partner.  And if they did not rile up the perp, he would of just went quietly. Though it did turn out ok, the potential for something to go wrong goes way up when idiots like that one pull these stunks.  I fully support being able to film, on both sides, but the crowding of the scene is definitely not ok, and egging on someone resist is probably close to being, if not outright, a crime.

 

The female officer was backing up her partner, by keeping watch on the group.  I think it's reasonable to expect for a crowd to gather when someone gets arrested, and the officer not making the arrest should be keeping some measure of security.  She did a good job, and so did the officer who was handling the suspect.  Like I said, they got close, but never physically interfered.  Is there any standard of how far away an LEO can control a crowd in a situation like that?  I'd imagine it varies by jurisdiction if such law even exists, which is confusing enough.

 

Egging on someone to resist isn't a crime, and shouldn't be.  It's was on him to take their advise, he seemed to, which opens a tack on charge because of it.  It's a free speech issue and I want to keep away from government legislation.

[Monkeyman2500]

I can't even watch the video, but already know how I would feel about it. Have a friend who's a female officer in the inner city Chicago area and have heard the horror stories of dealing with this stuff on a daily basis. On the up side a recent incident involving her, another female officer, five thugs, and a well deserved ASP whooping made me laugh real good.

[Guest S4boost]

The people defending the rights of these lawless thugs and cancers to society makes me lol

[TGO David]

The people defending the rights of these lawless thugs and cancers to society makes me lol

 

Yes, but rights apply to all of us.  Even the most undeserving person.  Even the person who abuses those rights the most.  That's why most (all?) of the people you see defending them are doing so.  Not because they agree with the behavior of the MENSA intellectuals you saw on that video, but because of the fact that those rights apply to each of us as well.

 

The problem with cancers, to borrow your analogy, is that there's no good way to get rid of them without universally applying a poison that affects the healthy members of the body as well.

[hipower]

Respect for the LEO community is down, there's no other way to say it. Both from the average joe to the now almost universally from average street thugs.

 

I really hate it.

 

These men and women are in danger of losing their lives every time they put on the uniform. The willingly put themselves in danger. Put themselves between us and every threat imaginable.

 

Most without comment or hesitation.

 

Sure, there is the occasional lose of control on an officer's part. It is regrettable, and sometimes unforgettable; both to them and the public.

 

Are the infallible? No. But neither are we.

 

Now...referring to the video.

 

These men and women have about the best emotional control I have ever seen. To stand and be verbally abused, insulted, and threatened and retain composure is amazing.

 

They dealt with a potentially explosive situation with a kind of control that I cannot imagine having.

 

These street thugs were agitating the situation, just hoping to get a response that they could use to cause more trouble. In fact I think they went beyond hoping and were actively trying to cause a blowup. The references to Ferguson pretty much showed that.

 

Foul language and behavior from the crowd and the young man already in cuffs. The female officer went above and beyond in controlling herself and trying to maintain a bit of discipline over the crowd that was obviously baiting her.

 

The inclusion of the word "if" did not to me alter the fact that several of the people there were threatening her.  I believe the several loud, foul mouthed ones could have been taken in on threating an officer. Maybe I'm wrong on that.

 

In any event, this video is a testament to those officers of the MPD specifically, and all others in general. 

 

They earn their pay. I could not, and would not do what they do on a daily basis.

 

I can't do much for them except offer my thanks.

Edited January 12, 2015 by hipower

[Sam1]

I didn't see a thing wrong in that video from either the officers or the onlookers.  I wouldn't agree with the demeanor or the language used by the crowd, but they have the right to be there, and say what they want to say.  If their actions stepped over the line, there would be a need for consequences, but they didn't. 

 

 

 

So if you were a cop arresting someone and you were outnumbered by the crowd yelling out "F you" "I don't care about that badge" "I'll F you up" and they were to the point of being within arms reach of you while you were wrestling with someone, that everything is hunkydory?

 

Those people weren't playing youtube freedom fighter, recording the cops from 15 or 20 feet away, they were interfering because the cop had to stop what they were doing and address the thugs multiple times.  I don't care who or where you are, you don't have a right to threaten a cop and then get within reaching distance of them without expecting something in return.

[wmaddox]

I bet if they issued police leaf blowers with the hopper ful of fire ants the crowd would stay the hell back.

[wmaddox]

Now the funny part about this video is every one of those people in the crowd would be quick to call the police if that same thug was trying to hurt them or someone stole something of theres.

[monkeylizard]

I have been in a few of those situations. A K9 Officer shows up and gets a dog out and it’s nothing but azzholes and elbows.
Why? Because criminals know those dogs do not give a damn; they are color blind and can’t be intimidated.

 

Yep. When I was in high school I was in a Civil Air Patrol squadron which was sponsored by the base Security Police, so we got to do some fun ride-alongs with them. I was riding with a K-9 guy one night when he got a call about a domestic in base housing. A huge steroid-looking dude was going crazy on the family mini-van and yelling at his wife/girlfriend/baby momma. He had stuff thrown all over the yard from the van (baby seats, bags, whatever he could find). I remember a few other officers were already on the scene when we rolled up and dude was going just as crazy as could be. As soon as the dog got out of the car and started barking, Mr. Muscles shut up, turned around, got on his knees and put his hands on his head. That one ended peacefully because of Officer TeethNFur.

[DaveTN]

Respect for the LEO community is down, there's no other way to say it. Both from the average joe to the now almost universally from average street thugs.
 
I really hate it.
 
These men and women are in danger of losing their lives every time they put on the uniform. The willingly put themselves in danger. Put themselves between us and every threat imaginable.
 
Most without comment or hesitation.
 
Sure, there is the occasional lose of control on an officer's part. It is regrettable, and sometimes unforgettable; both to them and the public.
 
Are the infallible? No. But neither are we.
 
Now...referring to the video.
 
These men and women have about the best emotional control I have ever seen. To stand and be verbally abused, insulted, and threatened and retain composure is amazing.
 
They dealt with a potentially explosive situation with a kind of control that I cannot imagine having.
 
These street thugs were agitating the situation, just hoping to get a response that they could use to cause more trouble. In fact I think they went beyond hoping and were actively trying to cause a blowup. The references to Ferguson pretty much showed that.
 
Foul language and behavior from the crowd and the young man already in cuffs. The female officer went above and beyond in controlling herself and trying to maintain a bit of discipline over the crowd that was obviously baiting her.
 
The inclusion of the word "if" did not to me alter the fact that several of the people there were threatening her.  I believe the several loud, foul mouthed ones could have been taken in on threating an officer. Maybe I'm wrong on that.
 
In any event, this video is a testament to those officers of the MPD specifically, and all others in general. 
 
They earn their pay. I could not, and would not do what they do on a daily basis.
 
I can't do much for them except offer my thanks.

Well said.

Another big problem I see is that groups are trying to make this a race issue; it is not. Criminals are trying to intimidate cops into not using the level of force required for fear of being arrested or losing their jobs. It won’t work and the politicians that are participating in that will be out of a job.

The color of those thugs in Nashville had nothing to do with it. I have had the same thing happen many times with white people; rich white kids that think they are entitled and don’t know the law are as bad as the thugs. Most poor white kids know they will get cuffed and stuffed and they don’t get to play the race card.

Who would have ever thought 20 years ago that we would be having a controversy over a cop shooting a thug that that just committed a robbery, beat the cop in the face, grabbed his weapon and caused the weapon to discharge? Is this where we are headed?

I hope not, because if any of you think the cops are bad now, what do you think you will get when cops start getting arrested or fired for using force against criminals that are attacking them? The only people that will want the job will be the ones that you don’t want in there.

Many citizens don’t stand for thugs attacking them or pulling guns on them; and neither will cops.

[Murgatroy]

Now the funny part about this video is every one of those people in the crowd would be quick to call the police if that same thug was trying to hurt them or someone stole something of theres.

No they wouldn't. And they wouldn't be a witness against the suspect either if they were asked.

[hipower]

No they wouldn't. And they wouldn't be a witness against the suspect either if they were asked.

 

Probably more likely to have another driveby situation than an MPD call first.

[btq96r]

Yes, but rights apply to all of us.  Even the most undeserving person.  Even the person who abuses those rights the most.  That's why most (all?) of the people you see defending them are doing so.  Not because they agree with the behavior of the MENSA intellectuals you saw on that video, but because of the fact that those rights apply to each of us as well.

 

The problem with cancers, to borrow your analogy, is that there's no good way to get rid of them without universally applying a poison that affects the healthy members of the body as well.

 

My reasons exactly.  I want these rights for everybody, not just those in society I disagree with.  Reminds me of the old quote "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

 

 

They dealt with a potentially explosive situation with a kind of control that I cannot imagine having.

 

These street thugs were agitating the situation, just hoping to get a response that they could use to cause more trouble. In fact I think they went beyond hoping and were actively trying to cause a blowup. The references to Ferguson pretty much showed that.

 

Foul language and behavior from the crowd and the young man already in cuffs. The female officer went above and beyond in controlling herself and trying to maintain a bit of discipline over the crowd that was obviously baiting her.

 

The inclusion of the word "if" did not to me alter the fact that several of the people there were threatening her.  I believe the several loud, foul mouthed ones could have been taken in on threating an officer. Maybe I'm wrong on that.

 

Something to keep in mind with this scenario is "Knowing Your Operational Environment."  It's an overused phrase in the military and an underused one in law enforcement, IMO.  It's in those two cops interest to keep things calm on their side.  If those onlookers are provoked into violence, the two cops are potentially screwed.  They can't be sure they could shoot all the potential attackers (not sure exactly how many there were) before they would be overpowered and possibly worse.  It's in the LEO's interest to keep a situation under control with a minimum of force on their side, and their restraint was as much for that reason as anything else. 

 

The female officer didn't go above an beyond anything, she did her job, and did it well.  The crowd was being watched and handled while her partner dealt with the suspect.  They left the scene with their suspect under cuff in the back of their cruiser without a further incident because they handled it correctly.

 

If the onlookers went from making verbal threats to engaging the LEO's, the situation is completely different, but this situation didn't get to that.

 

 

So if you were a cop arresting someone and you were outnumbered by the crowd yelling out "F you" "I don't care about that badge" "I'll F you up" and they were to the point of being within arms reach of you while you were wrestling with someone, that everything is hunkydory?

 

Those people weren't playing youtube freedom fighter, recording the cops from 15 or 20 feet away, they were interfering because the cop had to stop what they were doing and address the thugs multiple times.  I don't care who or where you are, you don't have a right to threaten a cop and then get within reaching distance of them without expecting something in return.

 

Instigation isn't interference, and threats require action for a physical response, IMO.  Everything isn't hunkydory as you put it, but the onlookers aren't doing anything that necessitates the use force or arresting them.  They never got between the officers and the suspect nor laid a hand on the officers, or even made an overly aggressive move.  The female officer kept them at a distance between them and her partner.  As I said above, job well done by her.

[Sam1]

 

Instigation isn't interference, and threats require action for a physical response, IMO.  Everything isn't hunkydory as you put it, but the onlookers aren't doing anything that necessitates the use force or arresting them.  They never got between the officers and the suspect nor laid a hand on the officers, or even made an overly aggressive move.  The female officer kept them at a distance between them and her partner.  As I said above, job well done by her.

 

 

That's way off base.  So you're telling us that someone should be able to threaten to harm your family, then show up at your place of work and follow you 3 feet away while you're trying to work and you're ok with that?

 

Come on man, no one believes that.

[DaveTN]

Instigation isn't interference,

Certainly it is.

and threats require action for a physical response, IMO.

A physical response would change it from obstructing to assaulting a Police Officer.

but the onlookers aren't doing anything that necessitates the use force or arresting them.

Whether or not force is used is pretty much up to him when he is told he is under arrest.

I’m not going to second guess the Officers as I can’t see what’s going on around them or where they are. But I would have arrested him and then used his own video to convict him. But maybe Tennessee doesn’t have a law against Obstructing Police; I don’t know.

[btq96r]

That's way off base.  So you're telling us that someone should be able to threaten to harm your family, then show up at your place of work and follow you 3 feet away while you're trying to work and you're ok with that?

 

Come on man, no one believes that.

 

In your extreme example, yes, I do.  They shouldn't do it to begin with, but no government agency should restrict free speech.

 

 

Certainly it is.
A physical response would change it from obstructing to assaulting a Police Officer.
Whether or not force is used is pretty much up to him when he is told he is under arrest.

I’m not going to second guess the Officers as I can’t see what’s going on around them or where they are. But I would have arrested him and then used his own video to convict him. But maybe Tennessee doesn’t have a law against Obstructing Police; I don’t know.

 

Here is the law concerning obstructing police, or 'Obstruction of Justice' in formal terms.  Since no force was used against the officers, who still thinks those guys deserved a ride to the station for exercising their 1st Amendment rights?

 

Title 39  Criminal Offenses  
Chapter 16  Offenses Against Administration of Government  
Part 6  Obstruction of Justice

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602  (2014)

39-16-602.  Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search -- Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process.

  (a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.

( b ) Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful.

(c ) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process.

(d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

HISTORY: Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 307, § 1; 1999, ch. 178, § 1.

Edited January 13, 2015 by btq96r

[vontar]

Ah the video from FB is no longer available. now.

[btq96r]

Ah the video from FB is no longer available. now.

 

I used a video downloader that I have as an add on in Firefox to pull a copy for myself if anybody wants it.

[Omega]

In your extreme example, yes, I do.  They shouldn't do it to begin with, but no government agency should restrict free speech.
 
 
 
Here is the law concerning obstructing police, or 'Obstruction of Justice' in formal terms.  Since no force was used against the officers, who still thinks those guys deserved a ride to the station for exercising their 1st Amendment rights?
 
Title 39  Criminal Offenses  
Chapter 16  Offenses Against Administration of Government  
Part 6  Obstruction of Justice
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602  (2014)
39-16-602.  Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search -- Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process.

  (a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.

( b ) Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful.

(c ) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process.

(d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

HISTORY: Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 307, § 1; 1999, ch. 178, § 1.

Sure but as any military guy knows about the UCMJ there is always a catch, and in TNs laws, it is the same case, the laws are there if they so choose to enforce:
 
39-17-305. Disorderly conduct. 
 
(a)  A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm:
     (1)  Engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior;
     (2)  Refuses to obey an official order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or
     (3)  Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose.
( b ) A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities.
( c )  A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
      [Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

 

The fact that this particular instance turned out ok does not make their action ok.  If the perp was armed, and had not been searched yet, it is the female officers job to back her partner up in case he turns violent.  And if more aggressive action was needed by the police to secure the perp, the mob may of acted in his defense.  Again, not saying that we need more laws, we have them, but we definitely need better manners.  But some have no class, no matter what you try and teach them.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Omega

[btq96r]

Sure but as any military guy knows about the UCMJ there is always a catch, and in TNs laws, it is the same case, the laws are there if they so choose to enforce:
 
39-17-305. Disorderly conduct. 
 
(a)  A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm:
     (1)  Engages in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior; (They made verbal threats, not threatening behavior)
     (2)  Refuses to obey an official order to disperse (they were told to get back, not disperse, and I'm not sure the 'other emergency' fits here with the other examples in context) issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, hazard or other emergency; or
     (3)  Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act that serves no legitimate purpose.
( b ) A person also violates this section who makes unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities. (I think this refers to the public at large rather than police officers, where the conduct would be caught under the Obstruction of Justice charges with there  higher misdemeanor class)
( c )  A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
      [Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

 

My comments in manly purple.  I think if this is tacked on, it's just the DA drawing up charges to working the odds for a plea bargain.