Las vegas cop sued for false arrest

[btfp]

http://www.lvrj.com/news/exclusive-p...Comments=y&c=y


I normally do not post things like this but this was on Drudge tonight. i watched it. Wow. what a disgrace.

If this cop had just driven away and ignored the videographer that would be it. Now a good career is tarnished. Forget the verbal exchange. The guy had every right to stand on a public street and not interfere while he filmed, live there or not. from the angle i saw on film he was not interfering.

When you attack the cameraman you never look good. In this case he just got his dept sued.

This makes front page on the drudge.....

[FromOhio]

nice post count

[btfp]

Wow, let me get away from that number.

[Carbonfiberfoot]

diffusing > escalating

[mookster]

I'm torn, the officers are dealing with a burglary in which they have several suspects in cuffs, see some dude taping them, go over to see what's up and ask the guy if he lives there.

Instead of being straight and saying "Yeah, I live here, here's my ID" homeowner Crook, his last name, responds "Nope." At that point, I can understand Officer Colling going the route he did. One reason to turn the camera off and have it set down is so it can't be used as a blunt weapon against him, I don't find that unreasonable at all while things got cleared up.

When Crook refused Officer Collings verbal commands, Collings took it the next step to find out what was going on. As was originally reported, he had articulatible suspicion that Crook wasn't supposed to be there. He smart alecked off and said he didn't live there. In the video, the encounter starts off with Crook himself saying he didn't live there. When Colling goes hands on to detain Crook, Crook gets stupid. It's clearly heard Colling giving loud verbal commands to not resist and he's heard screaming "NO!" and calling for help. Only after was he in cuffs on the ground did he realize that maybe it was not a good idea to be a wise guy.

Was it the right call to make, time will tell. I can only share my opinion on watching that video. The article in the LVRJ delves into a little bit of both Collings and Crooks backgrounds. Collings has been in a couple shootings, one that was hotly debated. Crook has a history of instigating problems. And the LVRJ article says the D dismissed the case on battery because it wasn't specific enough for what he, the DA wanted. I've had cases like that dismissed where I had a suspect fight with me but because I wasn't physically hurt the lawyers didn't deem a crime had happened.

I hope the best for Metro and Officer Collings. Vegas is a rough town to live and work in.

[Fëanor]

I will agree that the cameraman was a jerk, a liar, and a smart-***, but honestly the officer never should have caused the situation in the first place. IMO it was relatively obvious that he was a gawking neighbor and I think the officer was just upset about being on camera. If I were the officer I would have asked the guy if he saw or recorded anything relevant. Nope, OK well thanks and have a good night with your camera.

I can say that when I've had to deal with LV Metro this has not really been the norm; they've always been professional and courteous with me even if a little bit short and straight-to-the-point. It's amazing how easy it is to deal with someone, cop or not, if you just keep a smile on your face.

Instead of being straight and saying "Yeah, I live here, here's my ID" homeowner Crook, his last name, responds "Nope." At that point, I can understand Officer Colling going the route he did.

What? Saying "Nope" is a good enough reason to force someone to the ground and wrestle their camera away from them?

One reason to turn the camera off and have it set down is so it can't be used as a blunt weapon against him, I don't find that unreasonable at all while things got cleared up.

I find that unreasonable. A handheld camera is not a dangerous blunt weapon, and it is no more dangerous on than off. There's no reason for the incident to not be recorded. In fact if it were not, this officer could have gotten away with some real BS.

When Crook refused Officer Collings verbal commands, Collings took it the next step to find out what was going on.

The verbal commands were unlawful and Crook had no obligation to comply.

As was originally reported, he had articulatible suspicion that Crook wasn't supposed to be there.

"Wasn't supposed to be there" huh? Where is the law on that? You aren't allowed to stand on a residential sidewalk if you don't live nearby? That's a new one to me.

[mookster]

My understanding was that Crook was in his driveway, not the sidewalk/thoroughfare. In response to the "Nope", that was the answer Crook gave when Colling asked him if he (Crook) lived there. Not the greatest answer to give when asked a direct question such as "Do you live here?" And I feel that the answer of that question in that manner dictated everything else rolling downhill. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not in Collings corner saying he did everything perfect, by no means please don't think that. I'm just calling it as "I" see it.

My final observation/statement is, have you ever been hit in the face with a camera? A fist is bad enough and I'm not gonna find out how bad it is to get hit in the face with a small camera. Any instrument, tool or handheld object can be used as a weapon if the holder of said object intends to use it as such. I've also been in a couple situations where things quickly went from talking to scuffling and things they were holding quickly got tossed aside for my safety.

[CPD or EPD]

Feanor, I believe what mookster was getting at, was that because Crook first said that he didn't live there, Officer Colling went to investigate a suspicious person who was trespassing near the scene of a burglary. Crook was standing in the driveway and not on the sidewalk, making it a trespass.

edit: mookster said it himself before I had a chance to read it

[Fëanor]

Gotcha, the guy's attitude undeniably didn't help the situation.

I don't believe that simply standing on a driveway is trespassing if there are no signs or other instructions to leave.

Not that being hit in the face with a camera would be pleasant but you cannot just have every single person empty their hands when you see them. Do you make everyone turn off and put down their phones? Keys? Loose change? It's a bit excessive even though you could make a fist around all of those things and get a little extra oomph in your punch. The officer never even had a real need to approach the cameraman in the fist place, let alone "disarm" him. I can understand the desire to see why he is there and what he's doing, but the officer didn't seem to handle it like a "let's see what's happening" scenario.

[CPD or EPD]

In LE that is the first thing you do when dealing with a potential threat. You want to see their hands and make sure there is nothing that can cause you harm.

[Fëanor]

But do you do it forcefully to every single person you contact even when there is zero reason to suspect criminal activity? I guess the guy had to make a choice but it just doesn't seem like he picked right this time.

Honestly I am surprised LEO's are not more used to this. To average citizens your job is pretty interesting so I'd think that "Looky-Loos" would be commonplace.

[CPD or EPD]

Feanor, you make a valid point and I do not mean to imply that this officer reacted appropriately or inappropriately. I was just giving my input.

[beachcop05]

Not that being hit in the face with a camera would be pleasant but you cannot just have every single person empty their hands when you see them. Do you make everyone turn off and put down their phones? Keys? Loose change? .

Yes I do. I make them set down whatever they have in their hands, and I justify it too. I've been hit with things you would never consider weapons.

[beachcop05]

And I know what looky-loo's are. I don't mind them, but someone acting like a jack-a^^ is different.

[BullCity_45]

I would have gone a different route as the officer. At this point I would ask the officer what was going through his head when he decided to approach the guy with the camera? Of course, the cameraman also did not help the situation, he should have just turned off the camera as requested and left it at that. But why do what an officer tells you when you can do whatever you want in America??