That makes sense. I was probably commingling the functions and responsibilities of, say, a security guard who actually isn’t a licensed, city/state officer and one who is but works part-time as a security guard. As you noted, jurisdiction and policy clearly would impose subtle differences, too, but the main point remains that arrests can be made should the situation arise.

… Somethings up. You’re lying about something — not sure what. But you are.

The Race Card on August 28, 2008 at 4:17 AM
***
I know you’d rather hate and demonize those whose powers you envy so deeply. …

SilverStar830 on August 28, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Found it.

You fail to mention that you think everybody envies you. Im sure your department therapist has told you that your expressed frustrations are often a reflection of your own personal misgivings.

I get it now. You think that people envy your “power.” The flip side of that is that you believe your power is enviable.

You are a man who needs a badge as opposed to one who takes simple pride in wearing one. You summon imagery of the worst kind of ego-bruised, tough guy. Take it easy on your wife and kids too.

But I’ve never heard of the “Shove into Traffic” method before.

Jim Treacher on August 28, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Bingo. Never saw an officer chomp on a cigar while on duty either.

Would the burly, follicle-challenged LEO, if serving as a private security officer for the hotel (ie. not actually on duty for the city), have the legal right to physically arrest a trespasser? Would it be that he is actually constrained by his “off-duty” work to a subset of law enforcement functions, and that explains the threats and the pushing w/o any actual arrest at that initial encounter? Would that explain why there was such a delay in the arrest for the trespass and other charges? Would they only be able to act upon an arrest once on-duty officers respond to a request for assistance?

That would seem to me to make sense of the significant delay, but I don’t know the technicalities of such an off-duty assignment when such a trivial offense is encountered.

What happened in the (obvious) lost minutes of that tape from the time it was merely hotel security to the time the other people (magically) arrived?

There are two scenes involved. The first was on the publicly accessible right-of-way sidewalk in front of the hotel. Burly, follicle-challenged LEO addresses and pushes ABC representative off sidewalk and into street. Cameraman/boom follow behind and then turns off camera once scene two is approximately reached. No arrest made. Reportedly, two hours elapse w/o incident.

ABC representatives remain at scene two, approximately directly across the street from hotel from where they were ordered earlier. Cameraman/boom resumes filming to catch multiple officers arrest producer from earlier incidents. Burly, follicle-challenged LEO is present and makes physical contact with assistance from several other LEO’s. At least two more remain indirectly involved as reinforcement and to create a peripheral barrier. Producer is restrained, handcuffed, and escorted away from scene two.

Why the missing sequences in between the scenes? Probably because nothing, if filmed, related to the actual arrest process. Either it didn’t exist because the ABC personnel were still waiting across the street for footage of the Democrat meeting and only turned on the camera when the LEO’s approached, or some unrelated, cutting room floor footage was excised because it would have been irrelevant.

All the facts are unavailable so far, but the important point was that there were two scenes to this episode, and the actual arrest was made at the second one well away from the initial point of “offense” and considerably after the fact.

Some speculation on my part, but I would suggest that some members of the meeting were about to leave and the LEOs, at the request of their employer (having seen that ABC was still ready to film from afar), were told to get rid of the nuisance across the street on another, different public right-of-way. I guess we’ll have to wait on an ABC follow-up.

FlatFoot on August 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Would you arrest me, if you saw me do to that reporter what the police officer did?

What happened before the tape started? What happened in the (obvious) lost minutes of that tape from the time it was merely hotel security to the time the other people (magically) arrived? Why does your screen cap appear to show the guy getting choked out but the video reveals he wasn’t choked at all? But rather just an unfortunate (momentary) hand placement. (Remember when Bobby Knight was “caught” on tape “choking” a player?)

srhoades on August 28, 2008 at 2:59 PM

I acknowledged and have used the nervehold in question. I am not kneejerk in disdain for LEOs. That said why did the cop in question try to play frogger with the newsie?

IMHO, if he had enough to touch him, he had enough to arrest him. Then, whatever he did to effect that arrest was well within reason…

CapitalistPig on August 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Thank all three of you for your service. Sincerely. Can any of you elaborate on why the officer in question decided to try to play the videogame Frogger with the newsie?

Thanks in advance.

sven

I too am a career LEO and you are absolutely right on the technique that was applied on this individual, in regards to whatever action was taken WHEN the decision to arrest was made. I will respectfully disagree, however, in the actions by this Officer prior to making the decision to arrest.

As an old FTO once told me, first you ask them to do it, then you tell them, then, you hook ‘em up. End of story. Once you lay hands on them, you should have made the decision to arrest them. Pushing the guy into the street, shoving him for no apparent reason, is not only bad people handling skills, but it is also bad tactics.

IMHO, if he had enough to touch him, he had enough to arrest him. Then, whatever he did to effect that arrest was well within reason…

It doesn’t look like the cop went beyond his training.

Is pushing people into traffic part of their training?

I’m all for cops doing their jobs. I thought the “Don’t tase me, bro!” thing was completely twisted around by the press, for example. And that guy in the UCLA library a couple years back, that was a huge overreaction. Those cops were doing their jobs and operating within their own guidelines. But I’ve never heard of the “Shove into Traffic” method before.

Yeah, this guy was being a snotty twerp, yakking into his cellphone and saying “Just a second” to a cop twice his size. But that’s no excuse to push him out into the street.

Video: Cops shove, choke, arrest ABC reporter taping Democratic senators meeting with top donors; Update: Edwards pal Fred Baron at meeting?

WOW, talk a bout a police department screwing up big time. ABC Reporter Eslocker, has good grounds for a civil rights law suit. Plus, which political party now wears the brown shirts.

Just a preview of coming attractions if Oblahblah were to get elected!

Yes, your elaboration on technique is insightful; however, I think it unfair to impugn so widely those who are making a critique here as “cop haters.” I think we all want justice, whether it be from inquisitive media to LEO’s who overstep their boundaries.

Second of all, it is quite true, albeit an uncomfortable fact, that if a LEO gives you direction, you follow said direction and you will avoid any and all unnecessary potential discomforts associated with ignoring said directions, especially when the LEO is tasked to conduct his sworn duties in the atmosphere of riots and mob mentality.

Two points:

1) While it’s true that you can avoid discomfort by following any order given by an LEO, a citizen is not required to do so. One takes a chance that one knows the situational law better than the enforcing officer when refusing an order, but every command from an LEO is not legal or justifiable. It’s dangerous for the public to accept at face value every utterance of LEOs, too, without some consideration.

2) In this particular case, there was no context of rioting or mob mentality in play. To introduce that as a justification here, even though Denver Police had been sensitized to the possibility of such escalation happening somewhere in Denver, is a bridge too far. The police were overreacting. They had 5+ officers two hours after the fact arrest a peaceful, professional citizen who was acting practically alone. This looked to me not like a routine procedure to arrest but a chance to inflict some sort of pain or, at a minimum, an attempt to publicly humiliate. Very unprofessional even if technically precise. Granted, I’ve not seen all the evidence, but were I on a jury and presented only what I’ve seen, the PD would be responsible for a hefty fine.

I believe in respecting the police, but not blindly. Citizens have rights that cannot be trampled and the press has a few special considerations. Overly stimulated LEOs are not entitled to disrespect either.

Sheesh. Thank you for your input, but no matter how this incident is interpreted it was not an issue of someone who was part of a riot or engaged in mob mentality, and surely a police officer knows the difference and can act accordingly.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Har I guess the local Blue Knights were convinced he was “an army of one”.

Tell me officers do you enjoy doing local political hatchetwork?

Second of all, it is quite true, albeit an uncomfortable fact, that if a LEO gives you direction, you follow said direction and you will avoid any and all unnecessary potential discomforts associated with ignoring said directions, especially when the LEO is tasked to conduct his sworn duties in the atmosphere of riots and mob mentality.
FlatFoot on August 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Sheesh. Thank you for your input, but no matter how this incident is interpreted it was not an issue of someone who was part of a riot or engaged in mob mentality, and surely a police officer knows the difference and can act accordingly.

However, I feel compelled to post my very brief thoughts in this case.

First of all, I have to side with SilverStar830 and with what he has been trying to say here. That was not a choke hold. It was merely a control and compliance technique used by accessing mandibular pressure points. It is usually done from the rear of the subject, but the frontal mandibular pinch works too. Given that in anticipation of the DNC coming, the LEO’s, and even private security have been receiving MUCH training and equipment issuing in the last year or so. Long and intensive riot control and defensive tactics training usually results in “muscle memory”. It doesn’t look like the cop went beyond his training.

Second of all, it is quite true, albeit an uncomfortable fact, that if a LEO gives you direction, you follow said direction and you will avoid any and all unnecessary potential discomforts associated with ignoring said directions, especially when the LEO is tasked to conduct his sworn duties in the atmosphere of riots and mob mentality.

That being said, we have no inkling of what the precursor was for this incident. As SilverStar830 and a few others have pointed out, the video is surely not representative of the entire incident, and the LEO didn’t choke anyone. It surely does not show the entire actions of the subject of their interest and was obviously edited to reflect only the physical and “dramatic’ actions of the LEO’s. There’s almost no dialog to fill in the gaps. The reporter guy could have just walked away as he was initially instructed and this would have never happened.

I’m done. Thank you.

*p.s.- SilverStar830, just give up trying to help them “see the light”. There’s no shame in giving up in cases like these. They’ll never grasp it all. Stay safe out there.

SilverStar830 on August 28, 2008 at 10:26 AM

Out of context? According to you, all you have been saying is that it wasn’t a choke hold. So I shouldn’t need to back read, correct? See below:

All I’ve ever said throughout this thread is that there was no choke hold.

Nevertheless, I did backread, and my quotations of your comments were completely in context. Nothing was omitted.

You lose, again.

I could [link] to the White House’s website…

That it is my friend. That it is.

SilverStar830 on August 28, 2008 at 10:28 AM

So do you write for them (writing is not “filling out forms”) or do you just link your name to them? Heck, I could like to the White House’s website if I wanted to.

There may or may not be video of other action preceding the initial assault. And why is it an assault? The initial push had the officer physically move a person off a sidewalk and in to the middle of the street. The producer did not strike back but he did resist by trying to keep balanced – clearly understandable given he was being forced into traffic. He was not arrested at that point for resisting arrest or for interference or for trespassing. It was two hours later when his throat was grabbed/chocked when he was arrested for those charges. It appears he was still on the scene but across the street as originally ordered.

I think ABC and the producer has a decent case against the Denver Police and I think the police will readily drop the charges to avoid further embarrassment and because the hired officers accomplished their goal, namely, hiding from the public the scrutiny the ABC team wanted to provide. It will probably be up to ABC to decide if they want to press the issue.