Confrontation is the right word. The officer started a confrontation with James. What crime did James commit? Was it merely being a suspicious person, or fitting the description of one? Let’s examine the footage. :30 “Hello sir! What are you doing in the area?” First contact with James. The officer approaches James. Doesnt ask if James lives at the residence. If anything, officer should have instructed James to come to him at the sidewalk to test compliance and behavioral disposition. :47 “Wonder what you’re doing?” :49 “There is snow…” James seems calm and tries to have a reasonable conversation with the officer. :54 “What’s your name?” Yes, there’s Utah Code 77-7-15. 77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds. A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions. At this point, the officer should demonstrate the “public offense” James is suspicious of. The officer should officially declare that James is being “detained” or “arrested”. In most instances, a person has the right to ask the officer about the status of the encounter. “Am I being detained?” If you are not being detained, the officer can not hold your for a “consensual” encounter. 1:05 “I’m not going to talk to you.” At this point, the cop should read James his rights if he’s going to arrest him or terminate the encounter. 1:07 “Okay, well I’ve had neighbors call sayin’ they saw you were looking in cars yesterday.” Yesterday is the operative word here. Was there a report of either a stolen car or burglary? Reasonable people will believe the 77-7-15 statute doesn’t apply to the previous day, only as it pertains to a public offense either committed, being committed or will have been committed. The officer should arrest James in connection to a crime or leave him alone. 1:40 Silence from James as he seems to think over the situation 1:43 “Alright, well, I’ll wait for it to snow again.” Reasonable people can infer that James is attempting to leave the situation. 1:49 “What’s your name?” James comes off as frustrated here. 1:51 “Why aren’t you giving your name, you know you’re required by law to give your name when I’m doing an investigation, or you can be arrested for failure to give your information?” Cop question. Meaning a cop will ask a question, but state it using the inflection of a directive? For example, “Do you want to step out of your car.” It’s a question, but said like a sentence. The cop does not state what he is investigating. The cop merely states a consequences. It would be the same as a traffic stop where a cop says, “You know I can issue you a ticket for speeding?” Instead cop gives a weak threat to James based on no plausible reason for arrest. 1:58 “You were suspicious in the neighborhood, people were calling in on you.” Cop attempts to “explain something” to James 2:03 “I’m doing my business” “I’m trying to make a living.” James’ frustration turns to anger. At this point, the officer should have taken three steps backwards and issued orders for James to put down the shovel and place hands behind head. 2:07 “Okay you need to calm down. Quit yelling at me, right now” This just never works, ever. Especially in a society where authority figures like cops exist. People just don’t like cops and having them tell you to calm down when they’ve already made a weak threat of arrest doesn’t help. This is where professionalism comes into play. Instead of telling James to calm down, the cops should have attempted to diffuse the situation, recognizing that it clearly escalated. 2:17 “Send me another unit” Officer calls for backup. Why doesn’t he distance himself from James and await for that backup? 2:24 James makes an angry finger pointing gesture. James has already shown other gestures and behaviors with his speech. 2:25 “You need to…” The cop attempts to issue a directive, while at the same time begins to lunge towards James. James was already agitated. It would have been reasonable for the cop to take a step back and deescalate the situation. 2:27 James dodges the cop and winds up. At this point, there’s an argument that James was engaging in self-defense. Remember, in certain states, you can legally shoot a police officer in self-defense (Indiana). The officer clearly did not control the situation and let it get to the point where a physical altercation occurred. Instead the cop felt the need to assert authority over James, rather than seek a resolution. 2:31 Recording ends. Cops claim that the bodycam failed. Sgt. Heiden claimed this was instantaneous. It’s clear that in two minutes the situation became physical, however reports were that James outright attacked the cop. This is false by the footage of the body cam alone. Its clear the cop failed to do his job right here.
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 04:10:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015