I don’t know the guy dropping f-bombs and flipping birds at the Sioux Falls PD. I don’t know the guy shooting the video.
But I will accept this video of three cops tackling a citizen on the sidewalk yesterday evening in Sioux Falls as evidence of the police state here in Trumpistan. The public expression that apparently triggers the incident begins at 9:45; police intervention begins at 17:45:
Jeremy Fugleberg reports SFPD was responding to a traffic accident at 41st and Carolyn when it decided that Mark Burgess obscenely and loudly expressed opinions of the police were sufficiently disorderly and obstructive of police activity to warrant tackling him and hauling him to jail… or so SFPD Lieutenant Adam Petersen told YouTuber James Freeman at 1 a.m.:
The two discussed the incident, and Petersen told Freeman why police had issues with “people sitting there yelling at police.”
“It makes it very difficult to do our job, especially at one of the busiest areas during the busiest times of the day – they’re trying to deal with an accident,” Petersen told Freeman. “It just adds a lot of stress to it. They’re trying to do their job. And the other gentleman that came up and became very exuberant, unfortunately this all happened” [Jeremy Fugleberg, “Sioux Falls Police Say ‘Videoed Encounter’ with Officers on Friday Under Review,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2019.08.10].
I get yelled at sometimes. Such yelling adds some stress to my job. Do I get to tackle those exuberant shouters… even if they stop shouting and run away?
The police charged Burgess with disorderly conduct, obstructing a police officer, and and resisting arrest.
Disorderly conduct is a Class 2 misdemeanor. It requires intentionally causing “serious public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to any other person, or creat[ing] a risk thereof by (1) Engaging in fighting or in violent or threatening behavior; (2) Making unreasonable noise; (3) Disturbing any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority; or (4) Obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic” [SDCL 22-18-35]. Does the video show Burgess engaging in any of these behaviors?
- Fighting or violent or threatening behavior? Before the cops approached Burgess, he fought with no one and exhibited no violence. The only arguably threatening behavior he exhibited that might have prompted the police to approach him was to flip the bird, which is an expression of distaste but generally not a statement of an intent to come beat someone up. When the cops approached him, Burgess didn’t touch anyone. He waved a hand to urge them away, but the cops continued approaching and reached for him. Burgess retreated.
- Unreasonable noise? Throughout the video, Burgess speaks in teh loud voice one would expect of any person trying to be heard on a public sidewalk next to a busy street.
- Disturbing a lawful assembly or meeting? Nope.
- Obstructing traffic? Nothing in the video shows Burgess impeding anyone’s progress on the sidewalk where he stood being interviewed by Freeman. Neither man appears to step in the way of any vehicles on the roadway.
Obstructing a police officer is a Class 1 misdemeanor. It requires “using or threatening to use violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle” in a way that “intentionally obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the criminal laws or the preservation of the peace by a law enforcement officer” [SDCL 22-11-6]. Burgess showed no sign of trying to get in the way of whatever officers were doing to investigate the accident and clean up the scene.
Resisting arrest is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Resisting arrest requires “Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the law enforcement officer or any other person” or “Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing physical injury to the law enforcement officer or any other person” to prevent an arrest. The cops didn’t appear to have anything for which to arrest Burgess in the first place. Burgess didn’t show any resistance until the cops were pressing him to the concrete.
Those first two charges are going to be hard to prove from the documented evidence. And when the third charge stems from a police assault without good cause on a citizen, that will be just more trouble.
Note: when Freeman went to the police station at 1 a.m. to get some answers, two officers approached him and told him he needs to call and get permission to record in public near the station (see after 23:30).
Remember Patrick Duffy?
https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/duffy-remembered-as-courtroom-warrior-and-eloquent-defender-of-the/article_b13b0074-d2e2-57a7-a9d8-ee3c06b20271.html
I agree it’s obstruction of a police officer! It is not necessary and this guy just took it too far! Fun is fun but obstruction is obstruction!
Man, this stuff just makes me cringe. Just to be the spoiler, this is going to get tossed. Bigly.
From my LEO days, we used to call this “contempt of cop”. When a police officer would take things personal that they would create and escalate a situation where they shouldn’t have. Is he being disrespectful? Sure, you bet. But there is no law against being disrespectful. Sheez. From what I can see from the first interaction with the initial officer (unless I’m missing something), there was no obstruction. There was no disorderly conduct. Or anything else for that matter.
And in 2013, courts ruled that “flipping off officers” is constitutional.
(Even prior to 2013, there was established precedent that this sort of thing falls right in line with the First Amendment)
https://www.policemag.com/350736/court-flipping-off-cops-is-constitutional
Now if the guy had been yelling threatening things at the officers or actually “obstructing” traffic or their investigation, then it would have been a different story.
Now, we have someone who was probably injured, unnecessarily during a wrestling match that never should have happened. And increased chance of three of Sioux Falls finest being injured. And at least one officer off of the street, not protecting the streets of Sioux Falls, for the next 2-3 hours.
This is police academy 101 stuff. Unless he is committing a crime, ignore him. Don’t take it so damn personal. Get the accident mess cleaned up and get the heck out of there. And you are right, Cory. Fruits of the poisonous tree, will get a resisting arrest charge thrown out in a heartbeat.
Shaking my head
Freeman is a cop provocateur and has vids all over You Tube doing this stuff. There are a number of others who do similar stuff and make life miserable for the good LEOS out there. Others, are not so good.
Lucky the dude is a white boy. Had he been Native or, heaven forbid, a young black man, the obituary would have already been printed. Police are to serve and protect, not make their own laws. They used to have that stenciled on their cars. Now they want to get the MRAP out to start shooting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI
I am a steelworker, union kind of guy. And a strong believer in the Democratic Party . If anyone need to be bitched slapped it was this individual.
Good point, Dana, on distinguishing disrespectful speech from threatening speech. If Burgess had yelled, “Hey, you cops! I’m going to come over there and mess you up!” then the cops might have had cause to intervene in his expression.
Mike, I take no position on the videographer’s usual content or motives. The incident recorded here appears to present sufficient context to demonstreate SFPD acted inappropriately.
Old Spec 5, by “this individual,” do you mean Burgess, the man who was tackled and arrested? By “bitch-slapped,” do you mean actually arrested and charged with the crimes cited, or do mean simply told to f-off himself by passersby? The latter is defensible, surely as defensible as Burgess’s directing the same commentary toward SFPD. The former is the challenging and important question: what law if any did Burgess break?
Interesting points about paid employees. Sports spectators yell obscenities at players all the time, they don’t get arrested, they just get to order more beer.
Stewart I do believe “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” The film in question was Louis Malle’s The Lovers.
Cory, I agree. He exposes many instances of people’s rights being violated by police who do not know the laws they are supposed to enforce. He could be more subtle in his approach.
ps he gets ticketed and charged with various violations but they usually are dropped and he is free to go about his business.
Kudos to the SF Police who put up with this nonsense without bashing some skulls. The fellow with the camera was not a “reporter” or “investigator” and he is well placed to not have been tackled and hauled off himself.
Let this be a cautionary tale, for those out there with agendas who consider themselves “reporters.”
This is grudznick, reporting from across the state from where these criminals interfered with the police, signing off. Until next time (by me saying this, it makes me a reporter), good evening.
This streaming while alive business seems interesting. If I can get the majority of the Conservatives with Common Sense to agree to a stream of their breakfasting it could be the hit of the internet. Those of you who attend on Sundays and sit in the back with your phones would not have to do that and stay in your jammies in your trailer houses. Perhaps we can discuss in the morning.
Both civilians, the video-er and the video-ee were acting like jerks. We don’t know if past experiences with cops gave them good reason for their feelings or not.
When they sign on to be a cop, they are sworn to follow the law, not their temper, irritation, bad day, etc. While the two civilians were deliberately provocative, a cop’s job is to resist acting on that provocation. The cop who called in backup to make that arrest did not do his job properly. He sullied the names of cops everywhere.
BCB?
Bad judgement by all involved. That guy is a jerk and the cop is unprofessional. Being a jerk isn’t illegal, unfortunately. If it was Trump would be in the slammer.
No one interfered with the police here, Grudz.
Both Debbo and Donald summarize the situation well. If my child behaved in public the way the man who got arrested behaved on camera prior to the police assault, I’d haul her home and ground her. But if the police came and tackled her, I’d lawyer up and sue the cops for violating her civil rights.
Interesting that Porter mentions Patrick Duffy, whose last news-noted case was defending an objectionable lout whose speech no one else cared to defend. Of course, in that case (taken up after Duffy’s untimely death by Mike Butler), the objectionable speech in question was not captured on video and was very much in dispute. In this case, we have video, which makes the trial, if SFPD dares press the matter, far easier for the defense.
Grudzilla, there is an entire cottage industry of “cop watchers” out there videotaping the police to keep them honest and advise the subjects of their constitutional rights.
All police and sheriffs should be required to wear body cameras and record every second of every stop, for their own protection doncha know.
Article Originally Published at PlainsTribune.com by John Dale:
Spearfish, SD – Sioux Falls Police Department illegally accosted a man for using his free speech on the sidewalk.
Mr. Castro was clearly being disrespectful. However, the Sioux Falls Police had no probable cause as three officers brutally took him down and arrested him for “resisting” an investigation.
To pile on to the illegal behavior on their part, the officers refused to get a supervisor when asked before interfering with news media’s ability to acquire audio of the event.
The female officer is being flanked and guarded. The nonverbal of the male officers is as though she is their mate.
The camera man issues very sage and true advice to Sioux Falls Police when he warns them about their fascistic behavior and how that incites violence against police officers.
Our own opinion is that the local police department is not a Constitutional entity like Sheriffs. That said, they can serve an important role in keeping the streets safe of criminality in a city. Unfortunately, since they can’t be everywhere at once, crime still occurs while the presence of local police give local citizens a false sense of security while commanding billions of dollars nationwide for the tools of policing.
Lastly, the camera man asks, “how much time did you spend in the law library last month as opposed to the shooting range”?
Good police develop understanding relationships with the people in the community. The people in the community, in turn, can do most of the policing.
Our own experience with the Sioux Falls Police Department and their propensity for lawlessness was when, as a department, they issued a statement on our Cannabis legalization initiative, usurping support for our signature drive because of the implied-but-unsubstantiated implications of their claim regarding Cannabis and driving. In reality, when it comes to driving, Cannabis is far safer than cough syrup.
The “cameraman” is not a newsman, and the cops don’t take orders from random people on the street. If they had to get a supervisor everytime somebody who didn’t like them or was just insaner than most hollered “get your supervisor!!” the world would become a very dangerous place. This is not Hardees. I still say those cops should have arrested him and if he resisted they’ve have been required to thump him bad.
Cameraman not a “newsman”? Grudz, you appeal to a distinction not made in the First Amendment. Freedom of the press applies to anyone recording and publishing (i.e., making public) information, especially information about actions taken by the government.
Cory – Press credentials are how we got into this mess in the first place. Corruption in the media has centralization, credentialing, and control as precursors.
I was talking with a reporter a few years ago just out of school. He said he was afraid for his safety if he didn’t strictly follow the editorial advisement of his paper.
He literally couldn’t not follow a story on his own or risk his own personal safety. That’s why cameras on every phone is so important, but the back doors on phones should be obviated quickly (“clipper chips”).
We should call this the million dollar tackle. Dude’s going to make some scratch in court if he gets the right lawyer.
Grudzilla, here is a 28 second video that demonstrates why cops need to be recorded.
https://twitter.com/TalbertSwan/status/1119612441049075713
\
They arrested a black kid whose cell phone fell out his pocket. The second kid reached down and picked it up and police tried to bust pavement with his forehead and then punched him and then accused him of resisting arrest and acting in a threatening manner.
Next time you encounter pot holes, spare a tender moment for the cops of the world who bash pavement with people’s heads. No this is not an isolated incident.
There appears to be an additional First Amendment issue here. It is called the duty of the fourth estate. I have noticed that the Argus and KDLT have covered this story so far, but where are KSFY and KELO?
Debbo, in my view the cops will be off the hook because of the young man’s behavior toward the officers. Had the young man allowed the cops to approach him and simply refused to engage in any conversation saying instead something like “I exercise my right to remain silent,” then the cops would have had no lawful reason to arrest or detain him.
But when he decided to challenge their authority to approach him and then attempt to run from them, that opened a whole new can of worms. A court would likely say that the cops had know way of knowing whether he might be armed and planning to hurt someone or commit some crime without seeking to question him. His comments were indeed protected by the 1st Amendment, yet his behavior was odd and arguably a bit suspicious.
Whether we like it or not police are given great latitude in deciding who to approach and when to approach them. It usually will be the reaction of the person approached that can increase the authority of police to engage in violent behavior. Here, I didn’t watch the entire video, but only the intial comments of the young man and his initial encvounter with the police. Based on what I did watch, I suspect his behavior will be the ticket to the cops being exonerated (in contrast to Trump).
bearcreekbat – I don’t think SFPD will get off the hook on this one. They did not issue any verbal orders to the man, had no probable cause to approach and question him, and then violently threw him to the ground. It’s dependent on the guy’s legal team, IMHO.
Furthermore, they did not respond to the request for a supervisor, leading one to believe the police’s behavior was erratic and an indication that they were trying to hide something.
I watched a video of a man who was extremely verbally abusive to cops in a large city. I would say it easily went on 10+ minutes.
The cops never touched him, never returned profanities and remained very calm as they gradually moved him out of the area. He was really disgusting and vile. His goal was to provoke the cops and have a viral video.
The cops were the epitome of professional and under control. They were successful in achieving their goal. The videoer failed. The cops probably gained the admiration of most everyone who saw the incident live or the video.
The SF cops could have achieved the same end, but they failed miserably with much less provocation.
It’s been a few months since I ran across the video. I don’t recall the place. As Mike mentioned, there are people who provoke cops regularly while videoing, trying to get attention and make $. There are enough opportunities without deliberate provocation, no need to try to start trouble.
Actually, police do not need “probable cause” to approach any person. If they plan to make a so-called “Terry stop” to check for weapons, then they must have “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity may be afoot, and “reasonable suspicion” is a lesser standard than probable cause. See e.g.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop
But if they simply wish to ask some questions, they have the same right as any one else to approach an individual and to ask questions, such as requesting directions or the time. They do not have to have “reasonable suspicion” nor any other articulable reason to approach you, me or anyone else in public.
As indicated in my earlier comment, the behavior or reaction of the person approached can create either “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” that a crime is afoot and in turn create a basis for a Terry stop or even an arrest based on the conduct in response to an attempted questioning.
bearcreekbat – the police in this video reached-out and attempted to grab the man. At some point, doesn’t the police officer become the criminal and a citizen’s arrest or vacation of the space warranted?
Again, no verbal identification to cease activity, simply attempted detainment because the officer was obviously too inexperienced to handle the situation properly.
Honestly, why even stay. So, some guy was flipping you the bird. Just drive away and surveil if you want.
I have nothing against police. In fact, I am on record several times praising our local police for a good job (not everybody feels the same way, but hey).
But I hate to see them make mistakes like this. It creates danger for all the men and women in blue. Interestingly, all SD police train at the same academy. They should use this as a case study in what NOT to do.
Clearly this bearded fellow who did the flipping off of the finger reacted in a terribly suspicious way, almost like a rat who has been shocked when he eats or when he does not eat, he just knows he is going to be shocked. I submit these are the fellows who just end up in prison anyway. He is lucky the cops didn’t throw him a few punches but were the gentle, nice cops like we have here in South Dakota. These weren’t your Daddy’s Sioux City Cops, by any means.
Further bad news is we should not pay more for mental health treatments, but this fellow needs them. I hope the town can pay for his straightening out, otherwise he’ll be a Bishop Dudley fellow, no doubt.
Debbo, typically someone’s abusive words would be found as insufficient to justify the physical conduct of the Sioux Falls cops, and perhaps the abusive fellow in the video you saw limited his conduct to mere abusive words. In the Sioux Falls case it looks like the fellow actually raised his hands against the cop tryiung to question him and then tried to run from the cops. That conduct could account for the difference in how the police reacted. Or it could have been that the Sioux Falls cops were just bullies and the cops in your video were not.
Nothing I have written is intended to defend the cops or justify their behavior. Rather, I am expressing what I understand the law to currently allow police to do.
The cameraman and his fan are both worthless jerks. Why harass these officers who are just trying to do their jobs. I have no respect for someone who drives around the country just trying to stir up trouble. And I am a right wingnut.
John Dale, of course a policeman can commit a criminal act. I do not understand the rest of your question. I doubt that the officer will be found to have engaged in criminal conduct based on this video, nor that there was “probable cuase” for a citizen’s arrest, but I could be mistaken.
In this video, a young man viciously attacks a police officer and then laughs about it. What is this world coming to.
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/cp1xrf/get_the_handcuffs/
A world in which the cops would be well placed to stove in a few heads that are asking for it, Mr. Dale. It is coming to Rapid City soon, if you watch the punks along the streets or yelling into the restaurant windows.
I, for one, expect the young Guardian Angels soon to open a chapter down there in the alleys around Tally’s. Those fellows can knock some heads and keep the ingrates in line in ways the cops cannot.
Whatever course of action Mr. Dale decides to take, be sure Mr. grudznick will do the opposite.
Yeah, I don’t know what I was thinking. Police with rules of conduct to prevent abuse of authority? Hossenfeffer!
I’m voting for you, John.
grudznick – that makes one of us. ;)
Have a super week!
Thank you, Mr. Dale. You too.
If I can get up there in your neighborhood I will have them drive me by that big hole they dug and try and make sure those workers are minding to business, too. I might even holler at them a bit, if it seems they deserve it, just for you, sir.
Notinks said, “I have no respect for someone who drives around the country just trying to stir up trouble.”
Me either. 😠
“I have no respect for someone who drives around the country just trying to stir up trouble” — like the French resistance during WWII? ;)
I’m not a Christian, but one of my favorite stories was when Christ was purported to have caused a bunch of trouble in the temple. What a colossal a-hole, eh Debbo?
grudznick – they filled it in. Go dig your own hole. That one’s mine.
For what it’s worth, it takes a lot to get me that riled-up. Furthermore, you’ll noticed in the video that the workers were telling me to f-off in my front yard after telling me my four year old daughter was going to die sometime and I shouldn’t be worried about 5G. No police were flipped-off in the process, although calling them in the first place was a big league snowflake move.
What the videoers I referred to were doing is not at all like resisting the oppression of Nazis, nor like Christ. Neither are applicable to this topic either.
Debbo – You write, “I have no respect for someone who drives around the country just trying to stir up trouble.”
I wrote – “[Doesn’t it matter why they are stirring up trouble, and for whom?”]
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I thought your statement, while probably applicable in many cases, was not absolute.
The guy in Sioux Falls flipping the bird exposed some obvious gaps in SFPD’s law enforcement practices, and with the right attorney their insurance premiums will go-up.
“Until you’ve been beside a man .. you don’t know who he knows.” — Bob Segar
Correction, correction I am a LEFT wingnut!
Notinks, I know many people who are jerks, like Henry T. Nicholas. But jerkiness and other causes for distaste have no bearing on one’s First Amendment rights.
That the police reaction was unconstitutional and uncalled for is without question, but Burgess and Freeman are hardly freedom fighters. They are exactly the same as the Westboro Baptists or Alex Jones, just searching for easy ways to attract attention to themselves for profit or ego. They have no more interest in their respective “causes” than that. The only good thing about these sorts of people is they are one of the few examples of truth in the old adage that “If you ignore them, they will go away.”
Amen JonD
They were attempting to instigate. There was no legitimate need for them to be there. They placed themselves in the middle of an investigation. Police had no way of knowing what they were doing or what kind of danger they presented without them being willing to answer questions.In order to maintain control of the potential danger, determine who he was, etc., they needed for him to not run off. I agree this is far from perfect. In my opinion, they should have approached him far sooner than they did.
Cory, you have got to be kidding me.
I appreciate the discernment JonD and Debbo demonstrate. We can and should distinguish the quality of the speech shown in the video from the speech and action of other more admirable and imitable resisters of Caesar. We can at the same time recognize that the police violated the civil rights of the man on the ground.
That’s why I was careful with how I opened the article. I don’t know either man, and I’m not particularly interested in getting to know them. (I already intersect with enough malcontents online, right, Steve?) Rather than getting into personalities, I prefer to focus on the action of public officials… and in this case, Sioux Falls police messed up.
Just out of curiosity, Cory, JonD and others, if you were the superviser how would you have advised the police to behave in these hypothetical circumstances:
A stranger to them is publicly talking loudly, swearing at police and making obscene gestures. Within in the last week or so individuals in other states have committed acts of murder in public aiming at folks they apparently dislike. SD just enacted a concealed carry law that requires no permit or background check. The cops you are advising do not know whether the individual loudly and publicly cursing police and making obscene gestures is armed nor anything about his history of either violence or mental illness.
Under these facts how would you advise the officers to proceed:
(1) ignore the whole situation and drive away?
(2) seek to obtain further information by questioning the individual?
or
(3) or taking some different action – indicating exactly what you would advise the cop to do?
And if you thought number (2) was the proper approach, then how would you further advise these cops if the subject reacted physically and then attempted to run from the cops?
(1) ignore the man and just drive away?
(2) pursue the man and seek to contain him for questioning?
or
(3) take some different action – indicating exactly what you would advise the cop to do?
Move off, surveil. Work through the department’s public relations people to create perception of policing as a community wide endeavor. Be, become, embody Andy Griffith.
Goofy unthougtht through gun laws exacerbate these situations. The lege is not the cops friend. Neither is the NRA.
Very good questions, bcb, as always, and I have no answers for them. Many years ago, it was suggested to me by two friends on the Sturgis Police Department that I apply to join their number. After thinking about it I declined precisely for the reason that I didn’t feel that I wanted to make, or indeed would be capable of making those kind of decisions in such high stress situations. I have great respect for those willing to take that responsibility. But as the law stands, the individuals in this case violated the idiot’s constitutional rights. Just as he goaded them to do.
One possible police solution for this sort of thing might be to take a tip from the tactical teams and hire a “specialist” who could be called to the site. I have seen standup acts doing the lounge circuit who seem to relish counter-attacking hecklers in the room. Some of them can draw blood with a fast wit and acid tongue. Keep someone like that on a desk job in the station and when mister screw-the-pigs shows up, scramble the ringer and turn her loose on him. Is there anything prohibiting police derision? (I’m sure this is impractical but it could be fun.)
Then, John Dale, what facts do you believe jusifies intrusive and unwanted suveilance of someone who has given police no reason to approach and question?
And what should an officer do if the individual notices the surveilance and makes an effort to escape any further surveilance?
Finally, do you think Andy of Mayberry would have approached the individual and attempted to ask him what all the commotion was about? Along that line, what would Andy have done if the fellow tried to run away from Andy when Andy approached him?
JonD, here are a few more difficult, but important, questions. At what point do you think the officer violated the individual’s constitutional right and which specific constitutional right or rights do you believe were violated?
(1) When the cop first approached the individual?
(2) When the cop raised his hand while trying to question?
(3) When the cop pursues the individual after he attempted to run?
(4) When the cop tackled the man during the pursuit?
(5) When the cops restrained the man after tackling him?
(6) Based upon some other cop conduct?
Andy would have had Barney pull out his bullet from his front shirt pocket, load it into his revolver, fiddle with it a couple times to get the right cylinder lined up, aim for the miscreant’s head and then shot the fellow’s belt clean off causing his trousers to drop around his ankles and he’d splat plum right on his belly.
Cops need to maintain focus on the subject(s) at hand and not allow videographers to distract them. Their lives may depend on maintaining focus. So might innocent pedestrians.
Cops could have walked over to the guys and claim he smelled marijuana which would apparently allow him to detain and search his person, maybe.
When police are unprofessional and poorly trained, they should not be allowed to “serve and protect”, they should be security officers hassling drunks.
When they are like this sorry excuse for law enforcement, you can see what happens. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/us/arlington-officer-kills-woman-while-shooting-at-dog/index.html
SFPD=Severely Fascist Police Department. Only fascists would gang attack a citizen on a public street. Read some history and you will see exactly how fascist regime’s utilize their police.
bearcreekbat – “Andy of Mayberry would have approached the individual”
I envision Andy noticing that the guy likes being on camera. Rather than reaching-out and trying to grab (restrain, take into custody, arrest), he could have just stayed by the camera man and started talking with him to ask what the video is about. The Headline: Guy doesn’t like police, gives finger, SFPD claims “the finger” is an aggressive, even hostile gesture. The video evidence could be subpoenaed. :)
Does Sioux Falls have a for-profit video publisher license application?
Thanks John Dale. How about my other question:
My guess is that these questions and the additional questions I posited to JonD are simply too difficult to answer. Indeed, it is much easier to assert a violation of “constitutional rights” if there is no need to describe what specific right or rights was violated and exactly what action or actions violated such right or rights. Considering my questions might just undermine a quickly formed, but perhaps ill-considered, opinion.
bearcreekbat – “what facts do you believe jusifies intrusive and unwanted suveilance of someone who has given police no reason to approach and question?”
I’m not sure I can justify preventing police from watching the public square. Outside in public, police are allowed to observe individuals. Police have free speech individually (as long as they aren’t speaking on behalf of the department). They also have the right to look and observe what is happening in public.
“And what should an officer do if the individual notices the surveilance and makes an effort to escape any further surveilance?”
I think both parties should be allowed to move about in the community. However, without appropriate probable cause, I am inclined to say that police would be subject to stalking laws. This brings up a question of police having sensors and cameras throughout the community. It’s an interesting philosophical question, the answer to which must factor in the fact that if police don’t do it, private citizens will do it and sell it to police.
SFPD=Severely Fascist Police Department. Only fascists would gang attack a citizen on a public street. Read some history and you will see exactly how fascist regime’s utilize their police.
Jerry wins the award for unhinged idiot today. That is a moronic comment.
Steve Pearson – Impractical yes. Courageous absolutely. Idiotic? Not really .. the behavior of the police was fascistic unless we never ended WWII and are in a perpetual state of Marshall Law .. wait, what?
The military is operating with relative impunity inside our borders? Hossenpfeffer, I say!
I revere our military, but when will the never ending wars .. end?
The military interests that took over the country politically on the wake of WWII will not let go willingly. It’s about continuity of the republic, government, and making sure the boot stays firmly planted on Freedom’s neck.
BCB, good practical question. Let me imagine myself a police chief. Advice to officers in training based on this incident:
1. We cannot take permitless concealed carry as license to now stop and frisk every person on the street… or can we?
2. The suspect appears to only be targeting police, and only targeting them with foul language. Observe, but if he presents no clear physical threat, ignore.
3. The individual appears to want to provoke a fight, or attention. He is with a cameraman who appears to have the same goal. Ignore.
4. Do not look for an excuse to detain the individual. If he poses an imminent risk to the safety of himself, other pedestrians, or motorists, intervene. If he physically interferes with accident clean-up/investigation, advise him to stop and state clearly where he should move so as to not impede the investigation. If he continues to actively obstruct police operations or pose a genuine physical safety risk, ticket/detain/arrest.
Steve, your quick drive-bys are unenlightening. John Dale at least explains and defends his position.
I’ve explained why SFPD lack grounds for the charges given, not to mention for tackling the citizen. Steve has simply grunted his impulses.
For the record, sometimes I slip into a sardonic mode to satirize and criticize a ridiculous position. In looking back over my writing, this shift is subtle.
“boot on the neck” comment is a great example .. this comment superimposes an attribute on the militaristic fascist types who think about nothing more than control, despite what it does to civilian life.
Interesting ideas to avoid a confrontation Cory. It seems a bit difficult to both “observe” and “ignore” someone – it seems a cop could do one or the other but not both.
But it is worth noting that here the SF cops actually tried to follow your advice. The video shows a police car and officers in the immediate presence of the fellow cursing them at about 10:00 and they do absolutely nothing (ignore) the guy for the next 8 minutes. Perhaps they were just “observing” him during this period.
When an officer finally approached him, we have to ask why. Perhaps due to the length of time the fellow continued his tirade the cops became concerned that the fellow might actually be a clear or imminent threat to himself, other pedestrians, or motorists (and presumably the cops), and decided to approach him to confirm or dispel this concern?
What would your advice be to the cops about how to determine whether an individual was becoming a clear or imminent threat to himself, other pedestrians, or motorists? Would you exclude consideration of the length of time he continued his hostile comments and gestures?
Mark and his wife should have psychological evals done, if not already done. Here is another instance of Mark getting in the way:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180522b74
I see no evidence from the video of any need for a psychological evaluation. The court case raises separate questions about a separate incident. The court case does help inform us more about Mr. Burgess’s antipathy toward police, but it does not provide “another” example of Burgess getting in the way, because, in the 41st and Carolyn incident this month, Burgess literally did not get in the way.
Nonetheless, the incident in the video, on face, does not warrant physically assaulting or apprehending the loud and annoying person. Even if any of the officers involved in the 2018 incident were on the scene last week, recognized Burgess, and were concerned that he would start another fracas, my guidance would remain the same: ignore him, don’t give approach unless he’s clearly violating the law or endangering himself and/or the public, don’t give him an excuse to provoke an incident.
Liz, Mark should have epilepsy evaluations done as well as hypoglycemia tests for blood sugar elevations or loss. The mental and physical health of America is terrible. The key word in the affidavit is “seizure”.
At a meeting, I personally witnessed a man that had not taken his insulin in a timely manner. In the middle of the meeting, he stood up and started calling the speaker every name in the book. The police came and called a paramedic because the officer recognized the aggressive symptoms. Guy got his sugar balanced and all was good.
He’s BAAAAACK. James Freeman delivers CARE package to SF Police including training pants, pacifiers, treats for good officers and it is all on video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mswdr61LzNk
Jerry, and others:
The case I posted was only one example of Mark’s behavior around those in uniform. Mark needs a pysch evaluation and his WIFE needs medical treatment since she was the one who had the seizure. When uniforms showed up after MARK called 911, Mark starts acting as if they were there to search and seize. Mark has a long history with SFPD. SFPD officer approached Mark to detain him, Mark ran away= Resisting. Very simple. It is not on the streets that one argues a lawful arrest but, in the courts. Mark resisted arrest.
Yeah, but Liz, the cops didn’t have cause to arrest him in this incident, did they? If cops are acting illegally, am I really required to stand there and let them act illegally, without defending myself in the least confrontational way possible, running the opposite direction?
Bear, good point on the incompatibility of “observe” and “ignore.” Perhaps the technically accurate verbs would be “observe but do not respond or engage.”
You’re right: the cops did follow my hypothetical advice for several minutes. They had bigger fish to fry. Whether they needed to fry Burgess’s fish at all remains debatable.
How do police on the scene determine that an individual poses “a clear or imminent threat to himself, other pedestrians, or motorists? Would you exclude consideration of the length of time he continued his hostile comments and gestures?” I don’t see evidence of threat in the video. The citizen was saying objectionable things, but he was not blocking traffic, interfering with the investigation, damaging private or public property, harming any person, or making any indication that he intended to do any of those things.
Time is an interesting question. I’m initially tempted to say that time is irrelevant: if Burgess and Freeman had stood there for ten minutes or ten hours livestreaming on YouTube, well, heck, it’s Freeman’s data charges, and there’s no law against shooting a video on a public sidewalk. They can stand there and YouTube all day and all night as surely as I could stand in the same spot and petition for an indeterminate length of time (though what a rotten place for circulating; I’ll be downtown instead, where humans actually walk).
But I can see the argument that standing on a sidewalk and shouting obscenities at agents of the state is unusual behavior and could reasonably make a peace officer wonder if the individual had issues that could require… assistance? intervention? at least some fact-finding. I’m not sure there’s a time threshold, but given the general scenario of individual in a public space appearing agitated, I might take a community policing perspective and suggest that the cop on the beat approach, as nonconfrontationally as may be possible for an individual with a badge and a gun, and ask the individual what’s up. If the individual has a problem with which the cop can help, then help. If the individual just needs to vent his hatred of cops, let him vent, leave a card or badge number and a number for the PD complaint office, and move on. If the individual starts making threats, call for backup and take him down.
Cory – this is the “Andy Griffith” doctrine. Think twice, act once.
Cory,
The person in question has already established being a “threat” to officers in the past; that is why I posted just one example of Mark’s past, for those who do not know the history of Mark. James, and others like him, may mean well BUT, without knowing history and providing the FULL story of the relationship between the suspect and police, they are considered outside agitators.
Besides, IF you run from the police when they approach you, that gives the police CAUSE to apprehend. I wonder how much police training James went through?
As a general rule, Liz is correct that
Thus, to answer Cory’s question:
In most circumstances, yes.
An exception might be in a factual circumstance where a rogue officer is committing an obvious crime or unreasonably threatening your life or safety. In such rare cases, you would arguably have the right to resist to prevent the crime or in self defense.
In a typical arrest situation, however, you have no legal right to judge on the scene whether a cop has probable cause or followed correct procedures. Instead, that is, as Liz pointed out, a question that current law only allows you to raise in court or other post-arrest legal proceedings. The main reason is to protect the safety of cops who are simply trying to do their job even when they are mistaken about the facts or the law. A second reason may be that someone being arrested has an obvious interest and bias against the validity of the arrest and typically cannot objectively judge whether the arrest is lawful.
Thus, resisting an arrest is normally a crime, even if that resisted arrest is later found to be unlawful by the court.
Moar reasons to videotape cops…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZwMKxFmYKM
Black guy gets pulled over for grand theft auto of his own vehicle, about a half dozen cops jump him and beat him and accuse him of resisting arrest. Check out the cop at around 1:53 after they let the owner of the car go.
And no cops were disciplined. Amazing look at Drumpf Amerika.
Mike, as I was reading comments about how the SF man acted, the cops reacted and then how a person ought to respond, I was thinking, “Yeah, but you’re talking about white people, not Black or American Indian or Latinx, etc. They have to think differently.”
There are piles of studies and video documentation showing that cops treat POC differently than white males.
Thank you, Liz and BCB, for those explanations. That’s all the more reason to screen and train cops rigorously to ensure that only the most reliable, law-abiding, and self-restrained individuals are given that almost carte-blanche power to tackle, cuff, and jail anyone who watches the news, gets spooked by big officers with guns, and runs away from that perceived danger.
Say, here’s a twist I haven’t considered: could the owner of the gas station have called? Could citizens in the parking lot have called? What if the adjoining property owner or a citizen pumping gas felt threatened by Burgess’s language? The video offers no evidence that such a call was made… but the video does show some man in the street coming up to Freeman and trying to chew him out (which Freeman vehemently rebuffs).
https://www.google.com/search?q=pearl+pea4rson&oq=pearl+pea4rson&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5292j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
See what happens to Pearl Pearson, a deaf Black man in Oklahoma, who was pulled over for leaving the scene of a minor fender bender. Here, again, the responding police and their captain were rather callous in their discussions of the incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua6Mj46Ctbw
Freeman vs Soo Foo Police Dept. round two. Check out police procedure around the 6 minute mark.
Policy/ Departmernt rules actually starts around the 4:15 mark. My bad.
smh
The cops handled that very badly. The narrator didn’t help himself just at the end.