San Francisco Cop Attacks Man for Recording, Jails him Overnight on No Charges

[rudeguy]

It is arrestable when you not complying with their order to leave by doing so. If he wanted that info, he should have gotten it on the original encounter. Just because he forgot or thought about it later does not give him the right to fail to comply with a lawful order by police.

Are you saying that people should be arrested without being charged with a crime?

 

[xBiffx]

We always here about "obey a lawful order", you seem to be implying that we should be obeying an unlawful order too. Why was this getting kicked out of the airport? Being a cop doesn't give you a right to do anything you want, but cops don't seem to see it that way, bunch of roid freak power tripping assholes.

No I'm not implying anything, especially what you say.

However, when a cop tells you that you must leave, then you must leave. There is nothing unlawful about that order. You can object to it later but failing to comply and get uppity with the cop is only going to wind up in your arrest. Whether or not charges are filed and stick doesn't really matter, its still a lawful order and lawful arrest.

This guy was accused of drinking. My guess is that he was even if he wasn't, he was exhibiting questionable behavior. He was removed because of that behavior. You are acting like he has a right to be there, he doesn't.

This cop didn't do anything he wanted. He was removing someone from airport grounds do to a complaint and likely due to this person's behavior. But again, even if you think that you aren't doing anything wrong, it doesn't matter. If you are told to leave, you must leave and protest it later. Trying to stay (or return) and protest it at the time like this guy did only means you aren't following a lawful order and are subject to arrest.

 

[xBiffx]

Are you saying that people should be arrested without being charged with a crime?

The police can arrest and hold you for 72 hours, generally, without needing to charge you with a crime. If you don't follow a police officer's lawful order to leave the premise, what exactly do you think should happen?

 

[rudeguy]

The police can arrest and hold you for 72 hours, generally, without needing to charge you with a crime. If you don't follow a police officer's lawful order to leave the premise, what exactly do you think should happen?

What should happen if a police officer gives you an unlawful order?

The police had no reason to order this guy to leave the airport, he did nothing wrong.

 

[z1ggy]

The police can arrest and hold you for 72 hours, generally, without needing to charge you with a crime. If you don't follow a police officer's lawful order to leave the premise, what exactly do you think should happen?

So if I fart really REALLY loudly in an airport next to a cop and he tells me to leave, I must immediately drop all my stuff and exit the airport??

So basically a cop's orders must be followed 100% regardless of how wrong/stupid/unjust it may be? My only choice is to get his name & badge #, do whatever he says, then go write a report to his commanding officer, who will 100% of the time side with him?

Man I better start carrying lube around for the apparent ass raping I'm guaranteed to take from any cop who wishes to give one.

 

[iGas]

The man was ordered to leave the airport. The cop didn't need anymore reason to arrest him after he failed to comply. The guy is a moron for coming back and then even stupider for walking up to the cop who ordered him to leave. Why did this guy even walk up to that cop while recording? He expected something to happen and something happened. Pretty silly.

To be sure, the cop was being a dick, however.

The only question I really had about the story, is what police department was 40 miles away? That doesn't seem correct.

The police do not have the right to order the man to leave the airport or arrest him, because the man isn't involve in a criminal activity in a public place. Unless the US of A police are now the Gestapo.

[add]

City of Chicago v. Morales

Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibit[ed] "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places. Under the ordinance, if a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a gang member loitering in a public place with one or more persons, he shall order them to disperse. Anyone who does not promptly obey such an order has violated the ordinance. The police department’s General Order 92—4 ... [had a provision] providing for designated, but publicly undisclosed, enforcement areas. Two trial judges upheld the ordinance’s constitutionality, but eleven others ruled it invalid. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the latter cases and reversed the convictions in the former. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance violates due process in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties.
—Summary of the case, City of Chicago v. Morales, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 97—1121. [1]

 

[xBiffx]

What should happen if a police officer gives you an unlawful order?

The police had no reason to order this guy to leave the airport, he did nothing wrong.

Not gonna answer my question?

If a police officer gives you an unlawful order then I would suggest objecting and noting that it's an unlawful order. If he agrees and reverses his order, great. If he decides to arrest, don't resist, and protest the wrongful arrest later. Otherwise, you can be charged with resisting arrest.

In the end, its best not to put yourself in a situation where you interact with police. But, should something unlawful happen, your best recourse is after the fact. I know it sucks, but that's the legal system we have today. That isn't the fault of police, that is the fault of the people who make the laws.

 

[rudeguy]

The police do not have the right to order the man to leave the airport because the man isn't involve in a criminal activity in a public place. Unless the US of A police are now the Gestapo.

That's my whole point.

We live in America. We are free. The police don't get to order us around if we are not committing a crime. The police don't get to make up laws, detain us illegally, give us order that are not lawful.

However this thread alone proves that people not only willfully give up their rights, they make up lawn in their own heads that say they have to give up their rights.

 

[glenn1]

What should happen if a police officer gives you an unlawful order?

The police had no reason to order this guy to leave the airport, he did nothing wrong.

You're inferring this - he could have been asked to leave by airport officials and thus be guilty of trespass if he remained. Or he could have been intoxicated. Or he could have been harassing other airport customers. Without the complete background it's impossible to make the statement you just did.

 

[rudeguy]

Not gonna answer my question?

If a police officer gives you an unlawful order then I would suggest objecting and noting that it's an unlawful order. If he agrees and reverses his order, great. If he decides to arrest, don't resist, and protest the wrongful arrest later. Otherwise, you can be charged with resisting arrest.

In the end, its best not to put yourself in a situation where you need to interact with police. But, should something unlawful happen, your best recourse is after the fact. I know it sucks, but that's the legal system we have today. That isn't the fault of police, that is the fault of the people who make the laws.

The guy was standing in line at the airport. HE DID NOTHING WRONG. He didn't put himself in any situation.

 

[rudeguy]

You're inferring this - he could have been asked to leave by airport officials and thus be guilty of trespass if he remained. Or he could have been intoxicated. Or he could have been harassing other airport customers. Without the complete background it's impossible to make the statement you just did.

Well if you maybe read the article, all of those issues are addressed.

 

[xBiffx]

The police do not have the right to order the man to leave the airport because the man isn't involve in a criminal activity in a public place. Unless the US of A police are now the Gestapo.

The police have every right to order this man to leave the airport if he was suspected of drinking, or his behavior was in question. Again, they don't have to charge you with a crime to order you to leave.

Edit: To your edit. Your wiki edit does not apply. For one, this isn't a public street. For two, this isn't about an ordinance regarding loitering. That ruling was about the ordinance (the law), not the cops' actions anyways. Like I said, if you don't like it, get the law changed but the police aren't the ones responsible for making the laws.

 

[xBiffx]

Well if you maybe read the article, all of those issues are addressed.

Except they aren't.

 

[z1ggy]

The police have every right to order this man to leave the airport if he was suspected of drinking, or his behavior was in question. Again, they don't have to charge you with a crime to order you to leave.

Suspected, lol, as in no actual proof. AKA cop can tell you to do anything he wants, based in zero actual proof that his "reasonable suspicion" can be proven, and if you question it or resist, you will be promptly beat down and arrested. Cool country we live in.

 

[rudeguy]

Except they aren't.

Sigh....

Youmans, who lives in San Diego, said the incident took place around 9 a.m. on December 3 at San Francisco International Airport as he was trying to board a flight home on Southwest.
A woman in line told a flight attendant that he and the man standing in front of him had been drinking. That led to Southwest officials to tell the men they would not be allowed to board the flight, informing them they were welcome to catch a flight the following morning at 5 a.m.
Youmans, who said he had not been drinking, said he did not know the other guy, who admitted to drinking, which apparently is some type of violation in San Francisco.
When Youmans told them he had not been drinking, six San Francisco cops marched up and ordered both men to leave the airport. Youmans walked away and was about to walk outside when he decided to return and make a complaint at the Southwest ticket booth.
After he did that, he spotted Jackson leaning against a wall, so he decided to ask for his name as part of his complaint.
“I turned on the camera because I had a feeling he wasn’t going to like me asking for his name,” Youmans said.
Youmans was released before noon the following day and returned to the airport and finally made it home.
The incident took place in the encircled area below. We are investigating whether there were any surveillance videos of the incident, which we will be asking for through public records requests.

 

[BoberFett]

No I'm not implying anything, especially what you say.

However, when a cop tells you that you must leave, then you must leave. There is nothing unlawful about that order. You can object to it later but failing to comply and get uppity with the cop is only going to wind up in your arrest. Whether or not charges are filed and stick doesn't really matter, its still a lawful order and lawful arrest.

This guy was accused of drinking. My guess is that he was even if he wasn't, he was exhibiting questionable behavior. He was removed because of that behavior. You are acting like he has a right to be there, he doesn't.

This cop didn't do anything he wanted. He was removing someone from airport grounds do to a complaint and likely due to this person's behavior. But again, even if you think that you aren't doing anything wrong, it doesn't matter. If you are told to leave, you must leave and protest it later. Trying to stay (or return) and protest it at the time like this guy did only means you aren't following a lawful order and are subject to arrest.

So when the cop tells you to get on your knees and open wide, that's a lawful order that you would obey, and complain about later?

 

[xBiffx]

Suspected, lol, as in no actual proof. AKA cop can tell you to do anything he wants, based in zero actual proof that his "reasonable suspicion" can be proven, and if you question it or resist, you will be promptly beat down and arrested. Cool country we live in.

The police have never needed proof of anything to execute an arrest. How is that new?

No, a cop can't tell you do to anything he wants. Well, I guess nothing stops him from actually telling you, but that doesn't mean that you automatically have to comply nor does that make the order he gives you lawful.

 

[rudeguy]

So when the cop tells you to get on your knees and open wide, that's a lawful order that you would obey, and complain about later?

and you better swallow if ordered!

 

[xBiffx]

So when the cop tells you to get on your knees and open wide, that's a lawful order that you would obey, and complain about later?

No, that isn't a lawful order. But, of course, you already knew that.

 

[rudeguy]

the police have never needed proof of anything to execute an arrest. how is that new?

No, a cop can't tell you do to anything he wants. Well, i guess nothing stops him from actually telling you, but that doesn't mean that you automatically have to comply nor does that make the order he gives you lawful.

what???


What?????


Whhhaaaaatt?????

 

[xBiffx]

Sigh....

That's limited information. The story conveniently leaves out the specifics for the reason why he was ordered to leave. Also, just because he said he wasn't drinking doesn't mean crap, nor does it mean that drinking was the reason he was ordered to leave.

I speculated that it was likely his behavior, but we can't know anything for sure based on the story. So, in the end, the story doesn't address all of these issues.

 

[xBiffx]

what???


What?????


Whhhaaaaatt?????

Why am I not surprised that you don't get it. Maybe if you did, understanding this situation wouldn't be such an issue for you.

 

[Blanky]

Sigh....

If that is accurate it's just another thug in uniform. I expect no punishment for him because thugs gonna thug.

 

[z1ggy]

The police have never needed proof of anything to execute an arrest. How is that new?

No, a cop can't tell you do to anything he wants. Well, I guess nothing stops him from actually telling you, but that doesn't mean that you automatically have to comply nor does that make the order he gives you lawful.

They need a reasonable suspicion that you are in the act of, or have recently just committed a crime in order to detain you. Otherwise they have no grounds to stop you whatsoever.

I'm not 100% sure if hearsay is enough to get you arrested, but I do know that it is not evidence in court. So a woman "thinking" some guy is drunk and telling the police might get him arrested if he didn't leave the area, but if he actually got charged with a crime based solely on that evidence, it wouldn't work.

If I were that guy I would probably have reacted the same way. Probably some douche soccer mom with her panties in a wad was pissed at him for whatever reason, said he was drunk. His word vs. hers in that case. If I wasn't drunk, let alone even had a single drink, I'm sure as hell not leaving the airport.

 

[BoberFett]

The police have never needed proof of anything to execute an arrest. How is that new?

No, a cop can't tell you do to anything he wants. Well, I guess nothing stops him from actually telling you, but that doesn't mean that you automatically have to comply nor does that make the order he gives you lawful.

Except that's exactly what you just said. You have to comply, or you'll get a beat down.

Now you're saying that you don't have to comply with a cop's orders.

Which is it? Make up your mind.