Rohnert Park Policeman pulls gun out - Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cDy3tUy4Io

By now you probably have seen this disturbing video originally posted on Facebook by Don McComas of Rohnert Park.

According to the PD's article:

Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney Paul Lozada said that the officer’s reason for visiting the neighborhood and talking with the man is essential to understanding whether police acted within the law.

Lozada said that any officer can have a “consensual” contact with an individual whether the person is suspected of a crime or not and, for example, ask that person to remove a hand from a pocket.

But the nature of the encounter changes once the officer begins demanding a person follow orders and pulls a gun. California law defines brandishing as drawing or exhibiting a deadly weapon or firearm in the presence of another person.

“It becomes a problem when he draws his gun,” Lozada said.

The officer “needs to have a reasonable suspicion that the person he’s talking to is engaged in some sort of criminal activity,” Lozada said. “If that man is not (suspected of a crime) this officer may have committed a misdemeanor brandishing offense.”

Lozada said that he believed there were enough questions about the officer’s behavior and called for the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office to review the incident.

“The officer has to have a reasonable suspicion when he tries to detain or order someone to do something,” Lozada said.

So I'd say the officer may well be guilty of "brandishing", but what about the citizen's behavior?? He sure seems antagonistic to me. If he had originally complied with the officer's reasonable (and I presume legal) request to remove his hand from his pocket, instead of resisting and then complying, it all would have gone differently.

While I think it is true that there are many cases that the police create a problem or use excessive forces it's also true that citizens can provoke a problem unnecessarily. Police are people, too, and they are doing a very dangerous job. They have good reason to take lots of precautions, like asking someone to take their hand out of their pocket. Apparently drawing his gun when the citizen refuses is going too far, but only by a little, in my opinion. Where the officer really goes off the rails, IMO, is keeping his gun out after the citizen took his hand out of his pocket. But again, it was the citizen, that provoked this.

What do you think?

I hadn't seen this video. It seems that the resident indicated previous problems with the police, so that may be why the officer acted like he did. It seems that there's more to be discovered about this incident that's made to look like an isolated intimidation of an innocent resident. More shall be revealed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cDy3tUy4Io

By now you probably have seen this disturbing video originally posted on Facebook by Don McComas of Rohnert Park.

According to the PD's article:

Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney Paul Lozada said that the officer’s reason for visiting the neighborhood and talking with the man is essential to understanding whether police acted within the law.

Lozada said that any officer can have a “consensual” contact with an individual whether the person is suspected of a crime or not and, for example, ask that person to remove a hand from a pocket.

But the nature of the encounter changes once the officer begins demanding a person follow orders and pulls a gun. California law defines brandishing as drawing or exhibiting a deadly weapon or firearm in the presence of another person.

“It becomes a problem when he draws his gun,” Lozada said.

The officer “needs to have a reasonable suspicion that the person he’s talking to is engaged in some sort of criminal activity,” Lozada said. “If that man is not (suspected of a crime) this officer may have committed a misdemeanor brandishing offense.”

Lozada said that he believed there were enough questions about the officer’s behavior and called for the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office to review the incident.

“The officer has to have a reasonable suspicion when he tries to detain or order someone to do something,” Lozada said.

So I'd say the officer may well be guilty of "brandishing", but what about the citizen's behavior?? He sure seems antagonistic to me. If he had originally complied with the officer's reasonable (and I presume legal) request to remove his hand from his pocket, instead of resisting and then complying, it all would have gone differently.

While I think it is true that there are many cases that the police create a problem or use excessive forces it's also true that citizens can provoke a problem unnecessarily. Police are people, too, and they are doing a very dangerous job. They have good reason to take lots of precautions, like asking someone to take their hand out of their pocket. Apparently drawing his gun when the citizen refuses is going too far, but only by a little, in my opinion. Where the officer really goes off the rails, IMO, is keeping his gun out after the citizen took his hand out of his pocket. But again, it was the citizen, that provoked this.

What do you think?

---

First, I think its always best to be respectful to people. That being said, I didn't see the guy filming getting out of line or being combative till the gun came out. And stayed out. I would be freaked out if a police officer came and parked near me, came out of his car, and took his gun out just because the guy didn't take his hand out of his pocket. There was obviously no reason to do that, especially since apparently no crime was committed.

I get it that police are people too. And we need to treat each other with respect. My expectation is that if a person is a police officer they are doing it to keep the peace. and that their FIRST action is to do what they can to keep the peace. I think that taking out a gun should always be the last resort. Unforunitely there are too many examples of police using their position and their weapons to express their power, not to keep the peace.

I keep thinking that any time we are told to just be polite and nothing will happen, is just like saying to a woman, if you just dress correctly and act correctly you won't temp anyone to rape you. That is obviously false, and it does apply to any kind of situation where power is abused. The abuse of power doesn't care how you act or what you wear. Its only about power.

This was an abuse of power. Last year I had a couple of situations where I needed to call the police. Every single time it scared me to death to do it because I could not be sure that the person I was calling about wasn't going to be killed. No one should be afraid of the police. No one should be afraid to call the police for fear they will hurt someone you love instead of help. I got lucky. That didn't happen. But the fear is still with me.

Jess

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jesswolfe:

...I didn't see the guy filming getting out of line or being combative till the gun came out. ...

---

Around 2:15 minutes in, when the officer gets out of his car, he say "Sir(?) take your hand out of your pocket". The citizen replies "No sir, I've done nothing. I've done absolutely nothing. No." and then the gun comes out.

I would count that as being "combative" and perhaps "out of line". If the office was asking/telling him to get on the ground, or even put both his hands up in the air, his response would have been warranted, if unwise, but taking your hand out of your pocket (that might contain a gun) is a fine request and I would call his response "combative". No?

the officer's behavior was unnecessary and provocative. the guy pulled his hand out because he didn't want to get killed.

i view this in the context of the current debate about police body cams. why are they being resisted fiercely by law enforcement? because the only time police get in trouble is when their actions are recorded. that's why violent enforcement goes down with body cams, our fellow citizens who are licensed to kill are accountable for their actions. the da will do nothing and our county sheriff will continue to delay on the bos request to carry cams.

This seems to me a childish testing of wills that could have turned dangerous and should be avoided by citizens, and especially by police.

I facilitated a misdemeanor diversion class in Sonoma County a few years ago. It was my casual observation that Rohnert Park Police officers and Sebastopol Police officers detained and arrested citizens for the most minor offenses, I think because they didn't have enough to do.

In one example, several college students walking across campus at midnight were stopped for no reason by a Rohnert Police officer. The officer asked to look in their backpacks and found they were carrying beer cans. They were charged with being minors in possession of alcohol, even though they had not been drinking at the time.

I observed no such minor detentions or arrests by Santa Rosa or Petaluma Police, who seem to have more important things to do.

More information is needed ...

Why was the cop approaching this man? ... is there a history that provoked this? ... if not, then why is this scene happening? ...

Though I would have taken my hand out of my pocket immediately, I have to agree with Paul Lozada when he says “It becomes a problem when he draws his gun, ... The officer “needs to have a reasonable suspicion that the person he’s talking to is engaged in some sort of criminal activity,” ...

Once the gun is out it's a different situation ... one wrong movement and it could get ugly ... so, was the man involved in criminal activity? or is this just an innocent person suddenly being threatened with a gun?

My thoughts exactly. It seems there is some history because of the man's own words which infer that.
Would any of us turn our camera on a police car seen in our neighborhood? I would be curious, and maybe watch, but wouldn't think about recording it, unless.....?

Also once a gun is drawn, I wouldn't do anything to provoke that person unless I knew I was in no danger. How would I assume this? Do I have hidden back up? Or do I just like risking my life, unarmed while having a "face off" with the law? Is this ego or stupidity? It could have ended quite differently.....and tragically....for what purpose?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

More information is needed ...

---

this video illustrates the absolute need for Police Oversight. this is what many people are working towards in our county right now.

Police do not have the right to brandish a weapon without a damn good reason. Unfortunately they do so and then all they have to say is "i felt my life was in danger" This is simply Not acceptable. Their jobs by the way, are not by any means the most dangerous jobs...there are many jobs more dangerous...and the police run about # 18 on the list..so let us not exaggerate.

The Chief of RP will diminish this video and the actions of this officer and want this case to be closed. this is exactly why there is so little trust in law efforcement and there needs to be an honest dialog as to the enormous problems communities face all over this country around police brutality. When the Civil Rights Commission came here 15 years ago to report on the uptick of police killings in this county, their report stated that this was one of the most polarized smaller communities they have ever come to and they found it difficult to engage with the different departments and establish some real dialog about problems we have....it has now become worse and since then we have had 0ver 70 more deaths in this county directly at the hands of Law Enforcement or while in custody. this needs to change. The Task Force has been working diligently to bring recommendations to the Board for Oversight,but the bottom line is that this Sheriff does not have to listen.

I think at least Chief Schreeder of the Santa Rosa Police department is trying create an atmosphere of reaching out to the communities they serve and listen to their needs...a good start. Can't say the same for Sheriff Steve Freitas.

Anyway, we need oversight and this most recent video demonstrates this need. It could have gone much worse.
besiva

I have no judgement about this scenario, without more details. Something must have happened before this resident felt it was important to videotape the officer. If not, then I'd say the resident may have wanted to provoke a confrontation, again, for unknown reasons. Would any of you do this kind of thing when you see a police car in your neighborhood? Why? or Why not?

Do you think the resident's confrontive response was good judgement? Would you do the same in similar circumstances? Do you think it was a risky action on his part, considering how it could have come down? Would you advise your children to follow this example when dealing with law enforcement?

Do you believe that this officer targeted an innocent resident? If so, what might have been his reason?
Do you think the officer acted irrationally? What about the resident?

Barry, to answer your question, I probably would have taken my hand out of my pocket. Did he overreact? I guess, given what transpired, I have to question the police officer's motives. He was already taunting the guy before he got out of his car. And they both knew it.

A few have questioned whether there is history. Or there was some reason. That this guy must have been up to something because why record the encounter? But the guy wasn't arrested. There was no reason given for the encounter. The officer only asked about his political views while holding a gun.

Given the question whether he provoked it again I'm going to bring up other violent acts of power. How often have we heard well she must have provoked him and that's why he hit her. Or that person did something to provoke rape. Or that black child was killed within seconds of an encounter with a police officer because they did something wrong, or their past somehow justifies being thrown to the ground with a knee on their back. If we keep allowing and excusing this behavior, either being disrespectful or using guns or violence to enforce power, it's not going to stop. We need to examine our reactions and realize that no one deserves violence. Even though this person wasn't shot, this was a violent encounter. Why is that being allowed and supported in our culture? Why is our first question "what did you do to cause that person to hurt you?"

Jessica

Whenever there is an encounter between two people, both have choices, if only in attitude. If one person "over-reacts" it likely sets up a "reaction" in the other person, unless that other person is highly evolved. We are not seeing two high evolved people in this scenario. Over-reaction is a kind of violence in itself, which can feed hidden feelings of anger, fear, mistrust, or general upset in the person receiving it. Both were over-reacting, and feeding into deeper feelings.

Although no one deserves violence, our country is built on it. We justify it, glorify it, and honor killing that we do to the "enemy". This is the world we live in, and the question really is "what are we doing to shift this?" We need to look inside more than outside, where it's easy to blame and point the finger.

How do we "over-react", and what are the consequences? In hindsight do we realize there may be been a better way to handle a situation?

We are all part of this equation, not outside of it.

I hope that the details of this case come out soon ... What was the cop doing in this neighborhood? and why did this man feel the need to film him? ... had he been harassed by the police before? ... he seems strangely defensive ...

I have had similar experiences, though I have no history of violence or criminal behavior. The police seemed very interested in me after I reported criminal behavior in our county ... at one point it got so bad that I contacted our supervisor's office for help and I was sent a form to make a formal complaint ... I also attended the police meeting at the grange to question all of this ... I was told that if I was erroneously put on a "watch list" because of retaliation that I would be unable to verify this or question it ...

Once again, if this is a case of harassment, then we need to enforce our laws about due process ...

This is the note that this man put on this video on youtube ....

"NOTE, I am not anti police however the lies and distrust I've encountered from the Rohnert Park & Petaluma Police over the last 15 months is something I wouldn't ever believe if I heard it from someone"

Also, a comment from that video ...

"Are you some kind of constitutionalist. cop forgot HE took an OATH to uphold and defend the Constitution"

From this man's FaceBook page ...

"I was hooking my boat to the truck, doing NOTHING else when he decides to once again (few dozen times over the past year) stop infront of my house and just look while acting like he's calling something in."

Fear can provoke us to do things we wouldn't do if we felt confident.

I think is sometimes must suck to be a cop. But he's at work and getting paid, while the dude he's dealing with presumably isn't there in a professional capacity. So he has nothing compelling him to cooperate in making the workplace pleasant. Whether it's smart to piss off someone with a gun is a different question. Unfortunately for the person on the job, they have to deal with the public in ways approved by their employers and the law, or they don't keep their job in the first case, and are subject to prosecution in the second.

I think the citizen was acting like a provocative jerk! The cop was pretty mellow under the circumstances.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I would count that as being "combative" and perhaps "out of line". If the office was asking/telling him to get on the ground, or even put both his hands up in the air, his response would have been warranted, if unwise, but taking your hand out of your pocket (that might contain a gun) is a fine request and I would call his response "combative". No?

---

along the same lines as my other reply: just because sometimes people have guns, police can't force them to prove they don't. That's why it sometimes sucks to be a cop. I give them full respect for the fact that they're taking on a job where they're more likely to encounter people with guns than I am. (That being said, I actually have been forced to deal with a customer with a gun while I was working. They still wouldn't let me pat down future customers at gunpoint.) But dammit that's a big part of us being a free country and it's where I do have sympathy with those bewailing a nanny state. Total safety is a foolish goal, and the presence of risk doesn't mean giving up our right to be disrespectful to authority. It's a slippery slope to Egypt...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

I hadn't seen this video. It seems that the resident indicated previous problems with the police, so that may be why the officer acted like he did. It seems that there's more to be discovered about this incident that's made to look like an isolated intimidation of an innocent resident. More shall be revealed.

---

we should focus on what happened in "this" video and the behavior of "this" cop. People have rights, police have rights. the public has the right to film law enforcement and clearly this officer did not like that. And THEN the
confrontation began. It was the responsibility of the officer to diffuse the situation. Asking the man to take his hand out of his pocket is reasonable and it's reasonable for a citizen to ask what do you want, am i accused of something, and what are you doing here? The problem arises when the police think just because they are driving up to a house somewhere that from there on in what they say and do is alright, it simply is Not.

They have to have a reason to question you and from what this video tells us there was NO reason to get out of the car and bug this guy, and he did so because it irritated him that the man was filming him. It is his RIGHT to film him and it's his First Amendment right to film the police engaged in his duties.(numerous laws on the books) .

And what IF the man was a "constitutionalist"...what has THAT got to do with anything! Officer was out of line,
inappropriate, intimidating, and lacked insight in how to make things go smoother. I believe it's a lack of training.
beshiva

Many INNOCENT individuals have been imprisoned, or otherwise harmed, merely because they chose to answer questions asked by some Law Enforcement Officer or government official, agent, representative, tribunal, or employee.
It is very important to understand that the 5th Amendment protects the innocent more than the guilty.

Knowing how to assert your rights is not only a good idea to prevent from being unlawfully kidnapped or caged, but it is also a successful catalyst for change when applied on a large enough scale.
In the video below, activist Kenny Suitter, shows how to properly remain silent during police interactions. It is as simple as stating, “I do not answer questions.”

Because of the SCOTUS ruling in Salinas v. Texas, you are now expected to know that you have a right against self-incrimination, and unless you specifically and clearly invoke this right, anything you say or do not say, including your mannerisms at the time you stop talking, can be used against you. You actually have to say, “I do not answer questions.”

Don’t concern yourself with what kind of interrogation you’re in. Don’t worry about whether Salinas applies in your particular situation. Just invoke your 5th Amendment right immediately, verbally, and clearly.

Being stopped by police can be a particularly stressful experience. An innocent individual can easily get tricked into self-incriminating themselves as the police officer badgers and pries for information.

Memorizing laws and and statutes can go a long way, however, having a business card handy, that states your rights for you, is much more convenient, especially when under the stress of a police stop.

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/video-i-answer-questions-witness-power-remaining-silent/#ebWz8Ij1rTAEl5qM.01


Police Specific Questions to ASK they dont want you to know (Revised)

Question's To Always Ask Police Before Answering Their's!
1) Am I legally obligated?
2) Am I being detained?
3) Am I free to go?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QftAHTB5qMg

This is excellent information to know. In the current situation, the resident wasn't initially asked a question, but given an order to remove his hand from his pocket. This seems like a simple request, especially if the officer had some reason to want this. Actually having a hand in a pocket would seem to make us more vulnerable.

I was stopped a few years ago for a missing rear bumper on a vehicle I'd just purchased. It had been ordered, but not received yet. The officer asked where I was headed, and although I thought it was a strange question, I didn't hesitate to answer. He said "O.K." and didn't give me a ticket, which he could have. If I had said "I don't answer questions", it seems that would have set up a reaction where he may have given me a fix it ticket.

Being in law enforcement is a position of power over others, and many choose to use it for ego gratification, racism, fear, stress, or any personal reason. Fortunately, I haven't had many encounters during my lifetime, except for a few traffic stops.

I appreciate having this information about not answering questions, and would use it if the situation seemed to warrant it.

I know that many innocent people have been terrorized and imprisoned by those in law enforcement. I'm glad to see that cell phones have been useful in recording unlawful actions by both citizens, and police. Body cams are yet another level of proof.

I find the situation that we find ourselves in heart breaking .... all of these reactions and fears are the results of the police state .... we never used to feel like this ....

My uncle was a cop and I have lived with an ex-cop so I've never feared the police ... I always saw it as a tough job and I wondered why anyone would want to do it ... my ex-roommate told me that he became a cop because he wanted to stop the "bad guys" ... a simple statement but something tells me that it's not that simple ...

Many credible sources have reported that our country is now an oligarchy controlled by bankers and corporations ... there are verifiable reports that some of our police are now being trained in Israel ... an oligarchy doesn't care about justice, it's only concerned with profits ... let that sink in for a moment ...

Today I had a sheriff's car riding up and down my street ... I live on a country road and this is unusual ... I was in Lucky's and a man came up to me and said that the same people who had been harassing me killed his wife ... I took it as yet another death threat, the consequences of telling the truth about this story perhaps ...

Either a community rises up against these threats together or we all lose our freedoms ... I'm not seeing this unity and courage anymore in America ... people are scared ...

I hope to leave America soon and 35 percent of the population have expressed the desire to do the same ... it's all very sad ...

The officer is a danger to himself and the public. The officer acknowledged, that his actions were all because the guy filmed him, which he actually has a legal right to do. This officer is a disgrace. The officer didn't like being videotaped, pulling his gun out of the holster is why he's being investigated & why he's on leave.

I hate thuggy cops as much as anybody, but the existence of badge-carrying bullies should not blind us to the fact that the profession of policing itself is an absolutely essential and honorable social necessity. Without this institution it would be a wild-west kind of world where anarchy reigned, and citizen militias would become our only protection against criminality.

Think of what it takes to be a good cop. You have to be courageous and assertive enough to deal with the most violent and dangerous criminals, yet remain a basically kind and reasonable human being. That's a tough combination of qualities to find in a person. I don't know about you, but while I have the latter qualities I sure don't have the former, nor do I know anyone else who does. If you do, maybe you should volunteer for the job. The pay is good.

The guy that shot that video behaved in a very belligerent and provocative manner. If I had been that cop I too would have been uneasy about the hand in the pocket. That cop took a lot of abuse from the guy. A less mellow cop would have busted the guy immediately instead of indulging in lengthy back and forth conversation with an angry, insulting jerk and then backing off and leaving.

Your words that express uncommon wisdom and compassion. :thankyou1:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

I hate thuggy cops as much as anybody, but...

---

I think that the man filming this video was motivated by fear ... and to be fair, perhaps the cop was also motivated by fear ... but come on folks, we have a serious problem in this country .... we should not be afraid of our police and we should not be afraid to call our police .... we should be working together to keep our communities safe ....

this interview touches upon the problem ...

https://www.ora.tv/offthegrid/articl...-they-might-do

This story is now going to the courts as civil rights violations are being challenged by the man who filmed this video ... regardless of where you stand on this issue, the story has received a great deal of national publicity which is probably a good thing as we, the citizens of this country, strive to understand and react to the changes going on in our police force ...

This is an old article but it illustrates some of the realities of our modern world ( which need to be questioned ) ... we should add "non-lethal" weapons to this list, a wonderful array of electronic weapons which can stop any crowd of protesters from a distance ... have we become so unruly that all of this has become necessary? ... actually, crime statistics prove that the opposite is happening so what's going on here?

Only 62 Members of Congress Voted Against Police Militarization Last Night

"During the amendment voting for "defense" appropriations last night, Alan Grayson (FL-09) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997."

https://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/06...ion-Last-Night

i don't think recording police on duty is belligerent or provocative. and i've never heard of a cop killer who videoed the victim before acting. this officer is an idiot, obviously triggered by a careful and fearful citizens action. the whole interaction could be resolved by an apology and follow up question, why do you think the rppd are corrupt? i have heard many stories of corruption in sonoma county law enforcement agencys, and my own experience is that "good" officers will cover for "bad officers", right here in sebtown. and then there is the fact that courts have ruled that being too intelligent is reason to disqualify a law enforcement applicant. i also name white privilege, i can challenge law enforcement action and policy with far less risk because of my blue eyes and pink skin. so could you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

...
The guy that shot that video behaved in a very belligerent and provocative manner. ...

---

I have my own videos of abuse ... and witnesses too ... it's good to see this man getting legal help ... perhaps I should follow his lead ...

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4...g-civil-rights

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

...But again, it was the citizen, that provoked this.
...What do you think?

---

Based on what that video shows, I am not so fast to pass judgment... ...Because:

1- It seems to me that the police officer did not like being videoed; I think it made him feel uncomfortable, maybe even a little intimidated or challenged in some way maybe?:thinking::dunno:.

2- then the police officer for reasons not clear (to us); for one reason that that I am saying it is not clear to us is we have not been privy to what was said on the police radio between the officer and dispatch, another reason is what the history is, (if any) there is between the police (or the individual officer in the video or whatever other like situations that may exist) and the person and / or his “family” which was eluded to in the video by the person doing the video...
...So I think that we can only make assumptions on those unknown to us aspects which may if we did know, would be more informative... ...Whatever on that, I don't know, do you?:hmmm:

...Anyway, what do we reasonably actually know about what was on that video?...

...We, I think, can say:
...We “reasonably” know that:

A- the 'videographer' (as I will call him from this point on) was videoing the police car at some point and the officer became aware of that at some point.

B- the officer stopped the police car in the middle of the street, and was closely watching the 'videographer', and appeared to be calling to someone, somewhere on the police radio,

C- After some moments went by after the (first known of) 'police radio contact' (we are lead to believe; but I could not see inside the officer's patrol car well enough in the video to say I “know for sure” that he was 1- actually communicating on that radio though or, 2- if there had been previous radio contact about the 'situation'),

D- Then, after that the officer appeared to use a camera to photograph the 'videographer'.

D- Next, the police officer got out of the patrol car and confronted the 'videographer'.. ...I don't know exactly why nor do I think anyone here does either.

E- Other than pointing something out that I may have missed, the video 'speaks' for itself well enough and everything else we can say about it (for the most part) is opinions and assumptions, based on bias in one way or the other.

That being said:
I do agree with arthunter that:

Quote:

---

“More information is needed ...

---

and I agree with the reasoning that jesswolfe uses saying:

Quote:

---

How often have we heard well she must have provoked him and that's why he hit her. Or that person did something to provoke rape. Or that black child was killed within seconds of an encounter with a police officer because they did something wrong, or their past somehow justifies being thrown to the ground with a knee on their back. If we keep allowing and excusing this behavior, either being disrespectful or using guns or violence to enforce power, it's not going to stop. We need to examine our reactions and realize that no one deserves violence. Even though this person wasn't shot, this was a violent encounter. Why is that being allowed and supported in our culture? Why is our first question "what did you do to cause that person to hurt you?"

---

Yeah, I agree, that "some kind of constitutionalist" comment made the cop look like an idiot.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

This is the note that this man put on this video on youtube ....

"NOTE, I am not anti police however the lies and distrust I've encountered from the Rohnert Park & Petaluma Police over the last 15 months is something I wouldn't ever believe if I heard it from someone"

Also, a comment from that video ...

"Are you some kind of constitutionalist. cop forgot HE took an OATH to uphold and defend the Constitution"

From this man's FaceBook page ...

"I was hooking my boat to the truck, doing NOTHING else when he decides to once again (few dozen times over the past year) stop infront of my house and just look while acting like he's calling something in."

---

I think if someone were videoing you for several minutes as you went about your work you would find it a bit provocative, and the final interactions revealed that the videoer was indeed being belligerent and provocative. No doubt he had his own inner reasons for being angry, and I don't put him down for it, but let's call a spade a spade. As for the officer, he was no genius (as demonstrated by his"constitutionalist" remark) and I don't know why he confronted the resident, but if the resident were not brimming with pugnacity all he would have needed to do is take is hand out of his pocket to show he was not holding a gun and ask the cop politely why he was stopping to confront him. Interaction over.

I finally plowed through the second video, in which the videoer is confronted by first one and finally three police officials while taking videos on police department grounds. Here again is a clear example of a very provocative guy with a pugnacious attitude hassling officials and wasting their time for many many minutes. If he didn't have such a big chip on his shoulder all he would have needed to do was speak politely to them and show his ID. His self righteous refusal to even produce identification was provocative and probably illegal. The officials' patience, strained politeness, and self control under continual childish provocation was admirable, and in my opinion the videoer came off like a total jerk.

If we are seriously interested in curtailing police abuse and violence, let's save our energy for dealing with the all too plentiful cases of real abuse and violence, instead of going around thumbing our noses at cops and yelling nyah nyah nyah!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

i don't think recording police on duty is belligerent or provocative. ...

---

Re:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

I finally plowed through the second video, in which the videoer is confronted by first one and finally three police officials while taking videos on police department grounds.

---

So there is some sort of history between the 'videoer' and the police department?...
...My next question is if the 'videoer' is the same person who was doing the "taking videos on police department grounds" and if that occurred before or after the video we are talking about.

If he, (the 'videoer') was taking videos of police at the police department station and not being a known member of the 'press' and then was observed taking videos of individual police officer/s alone in their police patrol cars there is reason for concern but if that is the case, the officer took an unnecessary risk to himself and the 'videoer' by getting out of the patrol car, even if that risk is more a technical legality one.

:2cents:Any (unnecessary) action that has a very likely potential to increase the chance for volatility to the situation buy being overly confrontational by either party adds to whatever 'fuel' to the proverbial 'fire' and is precisely why I think that the police everywhere should have much better training in psychological awareness; just for the reason: (ie) to be more aware of how not make a slightly tense situation get very bad when there is no actual crime being 'reasonably' suspected in the first place.

That being said: If I were in a similar situation as the, 'videoer', I would have already had both my hands out of my pockets and clearly visible, and I would have been far more friendly towards the police man even if he was being overly 'assertive'.

It could be that the 'videoer' had reason to believe that the police officer was likely to violate his constitutional rights of being free from unreasonable search of his person and/or effects and his way of dealing with it was to video the scene...
...and, that he was very nervous because what he may have seen (as he stated in the video; but we cannot confirm) before the video we saw started... ...
...and that could be why he was talking tensely and acting the way he was when he was saying: "don't touch me!" etc. after the officer got out of his car.

:2cents:The keeping the hand in pocket thing?... ...Stupidity at best, confrontational? maybe, (I think so), suicidal? maybe.:hmmm:

Anyway the judgement call the police man made was to get back in the patrol car and go do something somewhere else.:waccosun:

what do you think about cops on duty having body cams? i guess that this is why the officer was irritated by being recorded. there are no law enforcement agencies in sonoma county which equip officers with body cams, including the largest agency, the sheriff dept, which has received the funding and refuses to don them, despite evidence that they reduce violence and increase communication and respect. if this officer had one, we could see both sides of the interaction, wouldn't that be fun! the deputies at the jail intake are recorded,
and i hope they will now be kinder with drunks...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

I think if someone were videoing you for several minutes as you went about your work you would find it a bit provocative, ...!

---

When and where was it reported that SoCo Sheriff's have refused to wear body cams?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

what do you think about cops on duty having body cams? i guess that this is why the officer was irritated by being recorded. there are no law enforcement agencies in sonoma county which equip officers with body cams, including the largest agency, the sheriff dept, which has received the funding and refuses to don them, despite evidence that they reduce violence and increase communication and respect. if this officer had one, we could see both sides of the interaction, wouldn't that be fun! the deputies at the jail intake are recorded,
and i hope they will now be kinder with drunks...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

When and where was it reported that SoCo Sheriff's have refused to wear body cams?

---

in the pd, after andy was killed the bos allocated 1mil to equip county deputies. frietas is still studying feasibility and policy issues.

The police are paid to preserve the peace and enforce the law. They are granted privileges the rest of us do not have. To be sure they often see the worst side of people, but that is all the more reason why they should be able to hold their temper and exercise good judgment. Police unable to do this should be in another line of work.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occihoff:

I think if someone were videoing you for several minutes as you went about your work you would find it a bit provocative, ...

---

Sounds to me like he needs to make a serious explanation to the citizens of this area as to why after so much time he has not adopted this policy - or seek a new job. The press has exposed case after case of police excesses elsewhere that the presence of cameras was required to expose their lies. The issue is serious, especially after the disgraceful handling of the Lopez/Gelhaus incident by Ravitch and her friends. It is in the interest of genuine peace officers that they have these cameras if for no other reason than to back them up when they tell the truth at a time when for good reasons many of us no longer trust their unsupported words.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

in the pd, after andy was killed the bos allocated 1mil to equip county deputies. frietas is still studying feasibility and policy issues.

---

i tried to find the pd report (it was very short, just a paragraph in the local news roundup), i guess they don't save these. i did find an earlier close to home from freitas claiming that the department had allocated money for personal video recorders before andy was killed, has tested them and was ready to provide them to staff. my guess is that the staff just hasn't been ready to start using them. several other actions he said the dept was taking also seem to be delayed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

Sounds to me like he needs to make a serious explanation to the citizens of this area as to why after so much time he has not adopted this policy - or seek a new job. ...

---

More trouble in Rohnert Park:

Rohnert Park Cops Raid Home of Man who Criticized Them on FB Over Co-Worker’s Viral Video Incident

Rohnert Park police have managed to find themselves in the spotlight again after yet another resident claims police used excessive force against him.

This time, a man named Greg Del Secco said that police showed up to his home unannounced two weeks ago, so he raised his arms to show that he was not a threat.

But they took that as a sign that he was a threat, grabbing his hands, pulling them behind his back and handcuffing him, forcing him to sit on a curb while they raided his home without a warrant.

Their claim: A 911 caller reported hearing a woman screaming for help from inside his home.
But no screaming woman was even found inside his home.

Del Secco believes the raid was in retaliation for posting critical comments on the department’s Facebook page after the earlier incident involving his co-worker, Don McComas.

Continues here

If the story holds up seems to me it's time for some serious house cleaning of the corruption in Rohnert Park. Maybe it's time for some citizen initiatives that would punish police budgets every time a ruling is made against police action against a citizen.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

More trouble in Rohnert Park:

Rohnert Park Cops Raid Home of Man who Criticized Them on FB Over Co-Worker’s Viral Video Incident

Rohnert Park police have managed to find themselves in the spotlight again after yet another resident claims police used excessive force against him.

This time, a man named Greg Del Secco said that police showed up to his home unannounced two weeks ago, so he raised his arms to show that he was not a threat.

But they took that as a sign that he was a threat, grabbing his hands, pulling them behind his back and handcuffing him, forcing him to sit on a curb while they raided his home without a warrant.

Their claim: A 911 caller reported hearing a woman screaming for help from inside his home.
But no screaming woman was even found inside his home.

Del Secco believes the raid was in retaliation for posting critical comments on the department’s Facebook page after the earlier incident involving his co-worker, Don McComas.

Continues here

---

The Rohnert Park police department is fraught with problems, starting with the fact that it is not an actual police department, it is a combined police and fire "public safety" department. It is one of two such departments in California. In RP, the cops are also firefighters and the firefighters are also cops -- and you can literally be pulled over by a public safety officer driving a firetruck. Seriously.

Because of this dual certification requirement, it is difficult to find qualified officers. And the top-cop there is basically a puppet who plays dress-up for legislative hearings and local events, particularly ones related to that awful casino.

The first step in cleaning RP's crooked, stinky house is splitting up the police and fire functions into separate departments, like (just about) every other city in California. After that, contract out the police function to the county sheriff department, which would loosen and reduce the ties to the venal RP city government. Not that the Sonoma County Sheriff is perfect by any means -- that house needs some cleaning too, starting with getting a new Sheriff ASAP!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

If the story holds up seems to me it's time for some serious house cleaning of the corruption in Rohnert Park. Maybe it's time for some citizen initiatives that would punish police budgets every time a ruling is made against police action against a citizen.

---

Has a complaint about this situation been raised with the chief of police and higher officials?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

If the story holds up seems to me it's time for some serious house cleaning of the corruption in Rohnert Park. Maybe it's time for some citizen initiatives that would punish police budgets every time a ruling is made against police action against a citizen.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

i tried to find the pd report (it was very short, just a paragraph in the local news roundup), i guess they don't save these. i did find an earlier close to home from freitas claiming that the department had allocated money for personal video recorders before andy was killed, has tested them and was ready to provide them to staff. my guess is that the staff just hasn't been ready to start using them. several other actions he said the dept was taking also seem to be delayed.

---

it is seriously too bad that the public just doesn't seem to know what their Law Enforcement Departments do and don't do. Unfortunately, the Press Democrat rarely gives accurate and full accounts of what is happening for our county. Sheriff Freitas has had more than ample time for ALL deputies to be using cams...he was given the $$ by the Board of Supervisors in 2013 to the tune of $1.5 million dollars...and has squandered our time with excuse after excuse to implement them...nothing new with Freitas he is Always moving the goal posts.

And as for people asking the question as to whether complaints are made to officials?...the answer is a resounding YES!! many times over...unfortunately many complaints are in-house investigated and go nowhere. If people would go down to the Courthouse (hall of justice) any given Tuesday morning, the Andy Lopez Free Speech Picket Line has been there for over a year, to give out information about police brutality and will collect stories from anyone willing to share their experiences at the hands of Law Enforcement.

We have a serious credibility problem in this County and this is the reason for Oversight, this is the reason the Task Force recommended oversight for clear abuses of law enforcement. Steve Freitas does not like the name "Oversight" and has become before the Board to object to the name...we all know why...he simply does not want anyone having any oversight of abuse of power and he works really hard at maintaining the status quo.
many people are working to change this up. Join in the struggle.

Just curious: Why don't any positive stories come out about the police and fire departments? Why is the board (in general) so anti-law enforcement? During the Sonoma County Fair, I posted a photo (tongue in cheek humor) of an art installation just inside the front gate of the fairgrounds, with three police officers in the foreground. No guns were drawn on me in the taking of those photos.

Yesterday morning, I attended a four hour Responsible Beverage Service training seminar. Any guesses who was hosting that seminar? That would be a commander in the Rohnert Park Dept. of Public Safety. No guns were drawn, depicted, or discussed in the four hours we were there. The officer was friendly, explained everything in a non-judgmental manner, helped us learn something about fake ID's and how not to over serve our clients.

On my way there, I stopped at my favorite coffee place for a cup. I ran into Officer 'Q' from the California Highway Patrol. He was pleasant, although getting back onto the road was his first priority. No guns were drawn there either. These are just a few anecdotal instances where police interaction was friendly, and not a negative thing. Am I special or something? Maybe to a very very select handful of people in this world. To most of the world, I'm just another brown person driving a dark, and due to the drought, dirty car, working every day (night) to support my wife and pets.

There are people who make bad choices on both sides of the law. I find it sad that in this society, we concern ourselves more by the element who test the very limits of what they can get away with, and don't care about those simply trying to do a thankless job. I think we're up to 20-something officers (so far in 2015) shot and killed in the line of duty. I have yet to see a thread dedicated to outrage for the murder of a single one. Criminals who are actively committing a crime? Yes.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

Just curious: Why don't any positive stories come out about the police and fire departments? ...

---

How wonderful that you've never had a negative experience with law enforcement. It's possible that most people haven't either. But you must be aware of the increased police abuse of innocent people, children, and animals. Should we shrug it off, and not speak up just because we've never had a problem with the police?

If Andy Lopez had been your child, would you be feeling the same way? Could this boy have been dropped with a single well place bullet in the leg, or did it take 11 bullets to kill him?

For you to say that this board is "so anti-law enforcement" is a total assumption. I'm not anti law enforcement at all, but I'm "anti abuse" of innocent people or animals. I'm against bullying in any form, whether in the schools or the streets, by law enforcement or the public. I will continue to speak out about this.

What do you think about the fact that these two Rohnert Park residents worked at the same place? Just a coincidence? I notice the 911 transcript has a lot of "ums", which shows some reflection or thinking. I would be in more of a panic if I was reporting a woman screaming two doors away, because I'd be in fear for my own safety. This call doesn't show any fear or panic.

In public places, like the Fair, or a seminar, it's highly unlikely to see abuse from law enforcement, but if you were gathered at a peaceful protest, you may notice a different scenario. Have you ever engaged in a protest against anything? Have you seen the abuse of armed power against those who are unarmed? How would you react if your own family was threatened by criminals or law enforcement? Be thankful you've never had to experience that. Some of us have, so our perspective is shaped by that.

Our perceptions are shaped by our experiences, both positive and negative. Fear is created when those in authority over us, fearlessly abuse their power. If you've never experienced this, either from a parent, teacher, or armed authority, you may be in the minority. A poll might be very revealing....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

Just curious: Why don't any positive stories come out about the police and fire departments? Why is the board (in general) so anti-law enforcement?....

---

'any' is a strong word. There are plenty of positive stories - this echoes the common complaint that newspapers never print anything nice. They do, actually, but bad news is more likely to be, uh, news. Nice stories have their place, but a big job of the media is to draw our attention to problems.

And equating criminals with peace officers is a false pairing as well. It's not Dodgers/Giants here - as a community we're responsible for our institutions and their employees while by definition the criminals are acting outside that. Not only are you wrong about your direct claim that you 'never see a thread dedicated to outrage' towards criminals - it's a staple form of frothing on many websites and blogs, plus from many news organizations - but the implication is wrong too. No-one sanctions the shooting of cops, the issue here is that many do sanction the shooting of civilians.

Another part of your post has the tinge of "if more people were normal and peaceful like me, we wouldn't have these issues". As Shandi said more nicely than I do, when you only encounter LEOs [Law Enforcement Officers] at fairs and donut shops you have high odds of catching them at their best. There are many people who aren't fairly described as 'testing the limits of what they can get away with', but who still attract the attention of law enforcement and don't deserve mistreatment, sometimes to the point of their death. I've never minimized the difficulty of the task that law officers have signed up to do but that doesn't excuse them from the responsibility to do it correctly - if anything, it heightens their obligation and emphasizes the need for society to keep strong supervision on them.

As a civilized society, we give the government, including the police, a monopoly on violence. I've had people object to that idea, but with few exceptions that's what our laws have done. So to use the cliche, 'with great power comes great responsibility'. (Patrick Stewart??)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

How wonderful that you've never had a negative experience with law enforcement. ...

---

A few fallacies with your statement:

1. I HAVE been abused by the Ventura Schutzstaffel (SS), thrown to the ground, handcuffed, sat on the curb for an hour, profiled, etc. (on more than one occasion), I've been arrested, paraded through the street of downtown, questioned, then released with no charges filed...

2. If Andy Lopez were my kid, he'd still be alive. Why is that, you ask? He would NOT have been allowed to carry ANYTHING that looks REMOTELY like the deadliest weapon the world has ever produced. He would have been taught that you NEVER EVER EVER under ANY circumstances point a gun at anyone unless your intent is to shoot them.

3. Back in the olden days, when I was growing up, we had such a thing as discipline. In fifth grade, I had to design and build my own paddle to be used on me by my teacher when I misbehaved in class. I even had to drill holes in it to improve airflow.

4. I said, if I may quote myself, ..."that the board (in general) " [meaning not everyone, but a lot of very vocal and active members] are anti-law enforcement. They speak when they have no real education about the subject, but they have knee jerk reactions that all cops are bad, corrupt, evil and out to get us.

That's all for now. I'm off to get some sleep.

I come from a law enforcement family with one cop and three soldiers in it ... these were good guys who honestly wanted to keep our world safe and they were putting their own lives on the line to bring that about ...

That being said there is something just not right about our current situation, and I for one, do not blame the police ... they are responding to orders and directives from above ... I do believe that most of them are between a rock and a hard place ... some of our national police force are now trained in Israel ... why? ... why are they being given tanks, and all kinds of weaponry, including dangerous electronic non-lethal weaponry, to use against us? Why are they being instructed to use a communication system, which several credible scientists have warned against, saying that it might endanger their health and cause aggression?

My own history with the police has been mixed. I had an excellent cop come out to my place when I reported that I captured a strange man in my home on a video security device ... he went to the trouble of searching his database and identifying possible problems among the people that I knew ... unfortunately, the next cop that came out cautioned me about continuing to call the police over such matters ...

I met several excellent cops at a function at the Grange ... they were very helpful about my situation but said that their hands were tied and that they would lose their job if they investigated my case ... why?

When I realized that innocent citizens were being put on "watch lists" because of the Patriot Act and the destruction of our constitutional rights ( like due process ) I got a lot of police support, but once again they said that they could not change that ... it was above them ...

I truly believe that, though we must be vigilant about local police behavior, the real problem lies above them and that they are really just pawns in a system that is seriously corrupt and serving the oligarchy ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

Just curious: Why don't any positive stories come out about the police and fire departments? ...

---

A quick answer to one of your comments because I am sick and tired of reading such attempts to attack those who are reporting and discussing abuses.

We do not see many reports of sales clerks doing their jobs well. I have never seen a newspaper report of a bank teller doing their job well. Have you seen newspaper articles describing how a plumber did his job well? What about a tree surgeon or dentist? Me neither. They are doing their jobs and they are expected to do their jobs. That is not newsworthy to most of us. When it is, we have a real problem.

If any of the above people had beaten or even physically threatened a person in their capacity in one of those professions do you think the media would be justified in making it public?

We have cops acting unnecessarily violently as any comparison with statistics of police violence in other civilized countries demonstrates. We have other cops covering for them. We have report after report of police tales rebutted by cameras. And we have a police chief in the county thumbing his nose at the citizens who pay him by not requiring body cameras. That seems like legitimate news to me.

Oh- there was one major display of support for a good cop. "Serpico" was a major movie about Frank Serpico, a genuine good cop in the NYPD and what happened to him. I suggest Googling the name.

When a major film and not just a newspaper article is made about a good cop, that tells you something about most cops, at least in the NYPD, doesn't it?

About gory news stories, the general rule is: "If it bleeds, it leads." Because that's what people will read.....

One way to stop this destructive trend would be to protect whistle blowing cops ... I'm seeing story after story of good cops facing ruin because they are reporting abuse in their precincts ... this story illustrates this reality but there are many more ... just do a search using "whistle blower cop " ...

By the way, I can relate to this harassment ... not only was I put on police watch list when I reported criminals in my neighborhood but rats were released into my living space ...

https://www.citypaper.com/news/mobto...120-story.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:

Just curious: Why don't any positive stories come out about the police and fire departments? Why is the board (in general) so anti-law enforcement? ...

---

Watch what happens shortly after the :50 second mark in the video, below:

Released video of man gunned down by police with ARMS UP in San Antonio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ft_9quXUfU

Published on Sep 1, 2015
Unedited video of fatal deputy-involved shooting
he unedited version of a video obtained by KSAT 12 News showing the fatal shooting of a man by two Bexar County sheriff deputies will now be made available for online viewing.


The video will include the actual moment the 41-year-old suspect, Gilbert Flores, was shot outside a home in the 24400 block of Walnut Pass. The video also shows what deputies Greg Vasquez and Robert Sanchez did moments after the shooting. Vasquez and Sanchez are on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

FWIW, Gilbert Flores gets shot between 57 & 58 seconds into the video.

For those readers who think we critics are piling on cops and ignoring the good cops. here is an article you should spend some time contemplating.

A few good cops are finally suing the NYPD. which in too many ways can be compared to a uniformed gang that dislikes competition. The organizational filth Frank Serpico encountered has apparently risen like raw sewage to infect New York again. https://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ople-of-color/