Freedom Hating Brit Beaten up by US Cops for Crossing Road [Archive]

View Full Version : Freedom Hating Brit Beaten up by US Cops for Crossing Road

Idaho

01-11-2007, 15:55

Samurai Waki

01-11-2007, 16:03

It really depends on where you live. In most Urban Cities in the US there has been a lot of accidents involving Jaywalkers, just out of sheer stupidity. Even if it was the pedestrians responsiblities, it sure puts a wreck on someones day if you run the person over. Most non urban places don't have jaywalking laws, and in fact it's the drivers responsibility to look for Pedestrians. *cough* Montana *cough*

English assassin

01-11-2007, 16:32

The officer asked for identification. The professor asked for his, after which Officer Leonpacher told him he was under arrest and, the professor claims, kicked his legs from under him, pinned him to the ground and confiscated his box of peppermints.

There you go. He was packing peppermints. Obviously a villain.:laugh4:

Sasaki Kojiro

01-11-2007, 16:54

Pedestrian crosses street, car swerves out of his way, hits other car/poodle/small child. Of course it's illegal. He probably actually got in trouble for sassing the police mind you.

Article says nothing about cops beating him up :2thumbsup:

Quid

01-11-2007, 17:01

Pedestrian crosses street, car swerves out of his way, hits poodle.

That should be legal; even a requirement that carries lots of bonus points to advance to the next level...

Ok, I am leaving...

Quid

BDC

01-11-2007, 17:37

On a related note, if anyone ever chases you in Switzerland, just cross the road where there is no crossing. They will stand at the other side looking worried and confused, unable to follow.

Somebody Else

01-11-2007, 17:43

On a related note, if anyone ever chases you in Switzerland, just cross the road where there is no crossing. They will stand at the other side looking worried and confused, unable to follow.

But then they'll shoot you with the gun kept under every Swiss bed.

drone

01-11-2007, 17:53

In many urban/suburban commercial areas, pedestrians are treated with suspicion here in the US. Most of these areas are built with cars in mind, not pedestrians, and trying to cross 4-lane roads, even at traffic lights, is a risky proposition. I've known several Brits visiting that have been stopped when trying to walk from their hotel to the strip mall across the street. It's just, odd-looking, ridiculous as that sounds. Around here, the only people you see on sidewalks have dogs or are jogging.

Besides, nobody over here actually walks anywhere. We drive to the end of the driveway to get our paper in the morning. :rolleyes2: Those 2 long(er) dangly things below our waist are for pushing the pedals in the car. Everybody knows that!

Vladimir

01-11-2007, 17:59

Welcome to ATL. :2thumbsup:

Louis VI the Fat

01-11-2007, 18:02

Felipe Fernandez-Armesto eh? Well how dare that -possibly illegal! - hispanic try and ask a cop in civilian clothes for identification....:no:

Silly police brutality this.

Also, I'd say this is almost as bad as that Freedom Hating Brazilian Shot by UK Cops for Taking the Tube.

Hosakawa Tito

01-11-2007, 18:08

Don Corleone

01-11-2007, 18:14

Oops, duplicate post.

Don Corleone

01-11-2007, 18:14

Brutality?

First, it's a common scam by grifters in America to get hit by a car,then sue. As most American jurisdictions have a rule that the motor vehicle operator is always responsible for avoiding the pedestrian, regardless of the conditions, the only way for drivers to have a chance is to enforce jay-walking rules.

Second, he didn't get beaten. He got arrested for mouthing off to the cops. I'm sorry, maybe we're a little rougher over here, but our police don't simpishly beg for you to comply. You do, or you get cuffed and stuffed.

I do wish to note the following: Many of you hold the BBC up as a highly respectable, objective newspaper (bullocks, I say) . Yet, they didn't even make an effort to contact the Atlanta police department regarding the story. Biased, much? :idea2:

Goofball

01-11-2007, 18:17

Cheeky monkeys would be wise to comply with a police officer's reasonable request. It's generally accepted that to get respect, one must give some respect.
Ignoring/dismissing a person in a police uniform, refusing to show some ID and talking/acting belligerently might impress his colleagues, but is not a very smart way to handle a simple misunderstanding.

The wording in the article leads me to believe that the officer that asked him for ID wasn't in uniform.

If some stranger ever came up to me wearing civilian clothes and demanded to see my ID, my response would be considerably less polite than simply asking to see his first.

And as far as I understand the law (which admittedly is not a great deal), if he refused identify himself then tried to physically restrain me, I would not be held responsible for the bloody nose and sore genital region he would most surely receive.

Big_John

01-11-2007, 18:27

he should have known better than to be british.

Vladimir

01-11-2007, 18:28

So who asked him for his ID? The fat guy or one of the 7 uniformed police?

Goofball

01-11-2007, 18:32

So who asked him for his ID? The fat guy or one of the 7 uniformed police?

The bespectacled professor says he didn't realise the "rather intrusive young man" shouting that he shouldn't cross there was a policeman. "I thanked him for his advice and went on." The officer asked for identification. The professor asked for his, after which Officer Leonpacher told him he was under arrest and, the professor claims, kicked his legs from under him, pinned him to the ground and confiscated his box of peppermints.

Given that the man is a university professor, I would expect him to be able to make the stunning leap of logic that any person dressed all in blue or black with a metal badge on their chest, a gun on their hip, and a nightstick and radio on their belt was probably a police officer. Since he was not able to identify the person asking him for ID as such, I am assuming the person wasn't in uniform.

Don Corleone

01-11-2007, 18:40

Given that the man is a university professor, I would expect him to be able to make the stunning leap of logic that any person dressed all in blue or black with a metal badge on their chest, a gun on their hip, and a nightstick and radio on their belt was probably a police officer. Since he was not able to identify the person asking him for ID as such, I am assuming the person wasn't in uniform.

Except that this professor clearly wasn't at a loss for words. If the man who detained him hadn't been in uniform at the time he was detained, don't you think he would have said so? He said "I didn't know he was a police officer". That covers a lot more ground.

Goofball

01-11-2007, 18:46

Except that this professor clearly wasn't at a loss for words. If the man who detained him hadn't been in uniform at the time he was detained, don't you think he would have said so? He said "I didn't know he was a police officer". That covers a lot more ground.

I can only go by what the article says, Don. It says that he didn't know the guy shouting at him then asking him for ID was a cop. That leads me to believe the cop wasn't in uniform.

The cop asked him for ID, then the prof made the very reasonable (assuming the cop was not in uniform) request to see his first, at which point the cop put him on the ground and handcuffed him.

Slice it any way you want, Don: while I certainly wouldn't call it police brutality, I would definitely say it's a case of a bully with a badge deciding to prove to everybody how big his penis is.

Don Corleone

01-11-2007, 18:52

Well, perhaps you'd explain to me why if if it was a plain clothes policeman, or one off duty, the professor didn't actually say he was in street clothes?

Also, I notice you sidestepped my question on the impartiality of the article. Do you really think the professor is giving us a 100% impartial, unbiased view? Because the BBC appears to...

Xiahou

01-11-2007, 18:53

The wording in the article leads me to believe that the officer that asked him for ID wasn't in uniform.

If some stranger ever came up to me wearing civilian clothes and demanded to see my ID, my response would be considerably less polite than simply asking to see his first.

And as far as I understand the law (which admittedly is not a great deal), if he refused identify himself then tried to physically restrain me, I would not be held responsible for the bloody nose and sore genital region he would most surely receive.
So, Atlanta PD is using plainclothes detectives to enforce jaywalking laws now? I think it's just as likely that the good professor figured he was too important to have to listen to an "intrusive young man" and ignored him after making his "thanks for the advice" smart ass remark.

They overreacted, as police often do, but I don't think it was brutality. :shrug:

Major Robert Dump

01-11-2007, 18:54

He may not of known the guy was a cop because he may have kept walking with his nose stuck up high, never looking back to see the chap. If his legs were kicked from under him it may have been because he wouldn't stop walking. He must've had that elitist-i'm-a-famous-historian attitude.

He's lucky he wasn't shot 57 times and sodomized with a plunger.

Hosakawa Tito

01-11-2007, 18:57

Plainclothes policemen identify themselves as such when effecting an arrest, it's department procedure and the law. This incident occured on a busy street during the day, plenty of witnesses about. It's not like he was challenged on a dark lonely street where one might reasonably be suspicious of foul play. So using that logic doesn't pass muster.
Simply showing his ID, and respectfully explaining he was a vistor from another country and was unaware of his misdemeanor, the cop would have most likely let him go. Plainclothes cops aren't usually in the habit of writing tickets for minor violations of traffic law. The paperwork involved in writing tickets is considered beneath the duties of these undercover investigators , they handle much more serious crimes than that.
My advice, even if the cop is totally wrong, don't resist. Nobody gets hurt and you'll still win. Unless you enjoy the pain that is, hell, I know a few inmates who consider fighting with staff to be their recreation.

He's lucky he wasn't shot 57 times and sodomized with a plunger
That's by special request,only.

English assassin

01-11-2007, 19:05

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/09/british_historian_arrested_for_jaywalking_in_atlanta/

"When I questioned who he was he said something to the effect of 'When I give you an order, you obey it,'" Fernandez-Armesto said. "I asked him what his authority was because I didn't see a badge. Where I'm from, you don't associate young gentlemen in bomber jackets with the police. But he was extremely upset I had questioned his bona fides."

But between you and me I dare say he probably could have been nicer about it. (F F-A I mean)

My advice, even if the cop is totally wrong, don't resist. Nobody gets hurt and you'll still win.

This is good advice even in the UK. Though they may shoot you repeatedly in the head even so.

Major Robert Dump

01-11-2007, 19:05

Jay Walking? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6251431.stm)

I don't understand the need to reign in where people cross the road. Surely one should be at liberty to use one's own initiative on where to cross?

And in response to this:

jaywalking not only causes the obvious injuries becuase people, especially kids and ESPECIALLY teenagers are stupid and will try to cross when they shoudln't, but it also causes multiple car accidents when a person swerves to avoid little jimmy and instead takes out a couple of cars in the other lanes and/or people on the sidewalk.

Some of the speed limits in urban eareas get as high as 55 on streets with population. While I would generally agree that a lower speed limit would do more to stave off the carnage, the pedestrain casualty rate is incredibly high even in low speed, densely populated areas like san fransisco and chicago.

Crosswalks our a staple of our lives since we were little kids. After school we go to the crosswalk where the crossing guard stops traffic and lets all the kids cross at once. Care to guess what would happen if 100 1st graders were allowed just to cross willy nilly whenever they wanted?

I can't speak for places like NYC, but in the midwest crosswalks and jaywalking laws are used more on the defensive/after-the-fact meter than offensively. I know of no one around here ever, ever getting a jaywalking ticket or write up. I do, however, know plenty of cases of pedestrians getting run over and the driver being cleared of all wrongdoing because the pedestrian chose to dart into the road rather than using the crosswalk located 75 feet away.

There are simply too many cars on the road and too many things going on to have to pay attention to the guy walking on the curb and wondering if he's going to sprint in front of you

Goofball

01-11-2007, 19:20

*sigh*

This is a response to:

Plainclothes policemen identify themselves as such when effecting an arrest, it's department procedure and the law. This incident occured on a busy street during the day, plenty of witnesses about. It's not like he was challenged on a dark lonely street where one might reasonably be suspicious of foul play. So using that logic doesn't pass muster.
Simply showing his ID, and respectfully explaining he was a vistor from another country and was unaware of his misdemeanor, the cop would have most likely let him go. Plainclothes cops aren't usually in the habit of writing tickets for minor violations of traffic law. The paperwork involved in writing tickets is considered beneath the duties of these undercover investigators , they handle much more serious crimes than that.
My advice, even if the cop is totally wrong, don't resist. Nobody gets hurt and you'll still win. Unless you enjoy the pain that is, hell, I know a few inmates who consider fighting with staff to be their recreation.

and

So, Atlanta PD is using plainclothes detectives to enforce jaywalking laws now? I think it's just as likely that the good professor figured he was too important to have to listen to an "intrusive young man" and ignored him after making his "thanks for the advice" smart ass remark.

They overreacted, as police often do, but I don't think it was brutality. :shrug:

and

Well, perhaps you'd explain to me why if if it was a plain clothes policeman, or one off duty, the professor didn't actually say he was in street clothes?

Also, I notice you sidestepped my question on the impartiality of the article. Do you really think the professor is giving us a 100% impartial, unbiased view? Because the BBC appears to...

Again boys, I am assuming that the cop in question wasn't in uniform. I make this assumption because:

1) The prof said he didn't know he was a cop, and police uniforms are pretty much universally identifiable by anybody who has lived in a western democracy and reached the age of 3 years old
2) In the photo, there is an individual that appears to be a police officer (because he is standing with the police, inside the police tape, and at this point in time appears to have some sort of badge hanging from the breast pocket of his suit)
3) The judge immediately threw out the case and the prof was released without charges.

But whatever. I can see how my logic is full of gaping holes...

Yes, the prof may be lieing, the BBC may be part of the International Conspiracy to Make American Cops Look Dumb, and the prof's breath mints may in fact have been condensed anthrax tablets.

But it is impossible to determine any of that from the article.

How about this:

I concede that if my assumption is wrong, and the cop was in fact in uniform, then the prof deserved to be arrested for being a smartass and failing to comply with lawful civil authority.

In return, you three concede that if my assumption is correct, and the cop neither identified himself nor was wearing a uniform, then the cop's actions were out of line and the whole incident could have been prevented if he had simply produced his badge.

Oh yeah, and STOP BEING SO WORRIED THAT I AM TRYING TO SHOW WHAT IDIOTS YOU AMERICANS ARE!

I'm not.

Assuming he was not in uniform, the actions taked by the cop were IMO over the top, no matter which flag he happens to pledge allegiance to.

Vladimir

01-11-2007, 19:23

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/09/british_historian_arrested_for_jaywalking_in_atlanta/
"At that point, he says the officer lost patience, kicked his legs from under him and held him down. Two other officers helped hold him down as he was arrested."

Interesting quote; there were two officers immediately at the scene. Coupled with Xiahou's observations it makes me doubt the professor's story. But then, APD do have liberal use of force rules. I've recently heard that in Germany there are virtually no restrictions on the use of force and that people comply because they know just how far the police officers can go.

Hosakawa Tito

01-11-2007, 19:30

yesdachi

01-11-2007, 19:45

He was jaywalking to get into a busy convention? Sounds like he was trying to cut in line, everyone knows there are no cuts in ATL. ~D

Goofball

01-11-2007, 19:50

Assuming he was not in uniform, the actions taked by the cop were IMO over the top, no matter which flag he happens to pledge allegiance to.Which is why I stated:

My advice, even if the cop is totally wrong, don't resist. Nobody gets hurt and you'll still win.

Cops are subject to the same human frailties as the rest of us. They're good ones and bad, the same as any group of people. If one feels they are being unjustly detained, arrested, wronged in some way; the best and safest course of action is not to resist. You'll get your day in court.

Whether one is unjustly arrested or not, resisting arrest IS illegal.

If a cop is not in uniform, how are we to know he is a cop and that we might "get hurt?"

Are you honestly telling me that if some guy in a bomber jacket yells at you, then asks you for ID, you would just hand it over without question? Without so much as asking "Oh, are you a policeman?"

Resisting arrest is only illegal if the person making the rest is identifiable or identifies himself as a lawful authority.

I'm sure you've seen T.J. Hooker. Why do you think he always yelled "Freeze! Police!" before busting a cap in some lowlife drugdealer's a$$?
:yes:

Redleg

01-11-2007, 19:57

I'm sure you've seen T.J. Hooker. Why do you think he always yelled "Freeze! Police!" before busting a cap in some lowlife drugdealer's a$$?
:yes:

You watch to much TV if your quoting T.J. Hooker, that and when one is quoting cop shows one must quote Police Academy above all others.

Don Corleone

01-11-2007, 20:05

Of course I'll admit that if the cop was in plain-clothes and didn't bother to identify himself, he was acting well beyond his authority.

I didn't say the BBC was the founders of an international conspriacy (to which you belong) to make American police look stupid. I'm merely suggesting that the story might be a little more complicated than the Beeb, and you, are portraying it. Why wouldn't the BBC talk to the Atlanta police department about it? Isn't it common practice in journalism to question all parties involved in a dispute?

Goofball

01-11-2007, 20:06

You watch to much TV if your quoting T.J. Hooker, that and when one is quoting cop shows one must quote Police Academy above all others.

I'm Canadian. We're only allowed to watch shows starring Bill Shatner.

yesdachi

01-11-2007, 20:12

Isn't it common practice in journalism to question all parties involved in a dispute?
That is so 1901, get with the times. :wink:

Louis VI the Fat

01-11-2007, 20:22

Felipe Fernandez-Armesto was stopped by a plainclothes police officer after crossing a street in downtown Atlanta.
English assassin already provided the link.

Why wouldn't the BBC talk to the Atlanta police department about it? Because the APD made a mess and are unsurprisingly not commenting on the case, not even to the American press?

Police confirmed the professor was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, said Officer Steve Coleman of the Atlanta Police Department. But Coleman told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that more details of the arrest were not available Monday night and police would not be able to comment.

BigTex

01-11-2007, 20:26

This guy is an elitist idiot. His nose must have been stuck to high in the air to notice the big POLICE sign on their bomber jackets. If yall will notice the wonderful picture that accompanies the article of the moment of arrest, all but one of the cops is fully uniformed. The one that isnt has a pistol to his side and his badge in full view on his chest. This genius was trying to start something, and he obviously got what he wanted. Next time I would advise him to listen to the uniformed police officer and not continue walking along your way. They generally wont swipe your legs out from under you if you stop walking.....:oops:

I do wish to note the following: Many of you hold the BBC up as a highly respectable, objective newspaper (bullocks, I say) . Yet, they didn't even make an effort to contact the Atlanta police department regarding the story. Biased, much?

The BBC has already admitted to being biased, anti-American, bible burning, koran loving lefties. So it's no suprise at all they didn't even ask the Atlanta PD or even attempt to look at the other side of this arrest. Instead they went for what would sell, sensationalized a simple arrest screaming police brutality.

Hosakawa Tito

01-11-2007, 20:30

The BBC should have used Idaho's thread headliner too....~;)

Don Corleone

01-11-2007, 20:32

Now, Louis, you raise an interesting point. EA's article does indeed include addtional details. But do they know that the officer was plain-clothed? If so, then I'm about to switch sides and favor the professor. If a plain-clothed detective just walked up to somebody and demanded their identification without identifying his own self, he's very much in the wrong.

Or, is the Boston paper making the same assumption that Goofball is?

As for the no-statement, that doesn't look good for the Atlanta PD, granted. But again, why wouldn't the BBC even bother to contact them?

Major Robert Dump

01-11-2007, 20:44

Saying "I'm a cop" as you simeltaneously whack the guy in the nose and pepper spray him is, in police terms, 'identifying yourself." Kind of like yelling "police" from under a ninja mask as you ram a door down

Pannonian

01-11-2007, 20:53

GoreBag

01-11-2007, 21:09

This guy is an elitist idiot. His nose must have been stuck to high in the air to notice the big POLICE sign on their bomber jackets. If yall will notice the wonderful picture that accompanies the article of the moment of arrest, all but one of the cops is fully uniformed. The one that isnt has a pistol to his side and his badge in full view on his chest. This genius was trying to start something, and he obviously got what he wanted. Next time I would advise him to listen to the uniformed police officer and not continue walking along your way. They generally wont swipe your legs out from under you if you stop walking.....:oops:

I find it hard to believe that they had a photographer at the scene.

The point is that jaywalking isn't such a big deal as everyone here would have it. The guy's a fully-grown man, would he have crossed if he had seen cars coming? I jaywalk all the time. All the cool kids do it. The cop who arrested him is a tool, plain and simple.

Slyspy

01-11-2007, 21:11

I'm not sure where the "BBC didn't bother to contact...." comes from. But then this story is of no real importance - just amusing website filler.

"confiscated his box of peppermints."

LOL.

In many European countries I would request the ID and note the number of a uniformed police officer if challenged, let alone a plainclothes man. On the spot fines equal scammers on the prowl.

Idaho

01-11-2007, 21:25

What makes me laugh is that all you yanks love to go on about Socialist Europe and our nanny state - but you aren't even allowed to cross the road without the man clubbing the shed out of you ~:D

lancelot

01-11-2007, 21:43

This guy is an elitist idiot. His nose must have been stuck to high in the air to notice the big POLICE sign on their bomber jackets.

The cop who stopped him was PLAIN CLOTHED according to sources quoted in this thread.

And why exactly is he elitist?

Cops keep a guy in jail for 8 hours for crossing the road...sounds like brutality to me.

Apprently its too difficult to realise the guy was foreign and politely inform him of the local laws regarding crossing the road... :idea2:

Don Corleone

01-11-2007, 21:53

Apprently its too difficult to realise the guy was foreign and politely inform him of the local laws regarding crossing the road... :idea2:

Yank in Britain.... why don't those damn Yanks learn our laws before coming here.

Limey in USA.... why can't those damn Yanks bend the rules for us? We don't have those laws on the books.

Limeys anywhere.... those damn Yanks. They just see things from anybody's viewpoint but their own...

Hmmm, sounds fair to me...

Slyspy

01-11-2007, 22:01

Bend the rules? You mean everytime someone steps onto the road in Atlanta they get wrestled to the ground and surrounded by half a dozen cops? Still, I suppose cops everywhere have targets to meet, and a crime dealt with is one for the Solved list!

Vladimir

01-11-2007, 22:07

Cops keep a guy in jail for 8 hours for crossing the road...sounds like brutality to me.

European definition of brutality. :laugh4: He should have been put in a gibbet!

Xiahou

01-11-2007, 22:17

So, I'm looking at the picture- where's the plainclothes cop wearing a bomber jacket? The only plainclothes officer is see is the portly guy wearing a suit jacket. Everyone else is clearly a uniformed officer. Yes, the photo is obviously taken after the alleged incident- but it can't be long after because the professor is still sitting on the ground.

Did this plainclothes bully just walk up and beat the snot out of the guy and then finish his shift and go home? Something tells me that he'd be obligated to stay on the scene after such an incident. I still don't think we're getting the whole story here- and we may never get it....

Edit: Here's something new I found...
Leonpacher, in his incident report, maintains he was in his police uniform when told Fernandez-Armesto to use a crosswalk to cross from the Marriott Marquis to the Hilton. Leonpacher said Fernandez-Armesto ignored his warning and that he approached Fernandez-Armesto after the professor had crossed.link (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/01/09/0109metwalk.html)

Vladimir

01-11-2007, 22:31

Fernandez-Armesto was taken into custody, where he spent the next eight hours along with "extremely unfortunate members of the underclass."

:laugh4: There are no whores in England, just a great deal of unfortunate women--"From Hell"

"It was the most violence I've ever experienced in my life," said Fernandez-Armesto. "And I was mugged once while at Oxford."

Well, at least it shows that England has some polite criminals. :2thumbsup:

Xiahou

01-11-2007, 22:47

"It was the most violence I've ever experienced in my life," said Fernandez-Armesto. "And I was mugged once while at Oxford."

Well, at least it shows that England has some polite criminals. :2thumbsup:
"Pardon me old chap, may I have your wallet?"
"Oh, are you mugging me?"
"Indeed I am, good sir."
"Ah, very well, here you are."
"Thank you very kindly, have a nice day!"
:clown:

BigTex

01-11-2007, 22:53

Apprently its too difficult to realise the guy was foreign and politely inform him of the local laws regarding crossing the road...

He was politely informed of the law, to which he ignored the cop and went along his way. He also noted that the "plain clothes" officer was wearing a blue bomber jacket. Those are police issued uniforms for cold weather, like you see in the picture there, the jackets also have the word POLICE in bold white lettering on the police blue jacket. If he doesnt even respect the law when he's informed of it then he should recieve the punishment for breaking it.

The Jaywalking law's are there for a good reason. If a car swerves to miss a idiot running across the middle of the road they can hit other people, killing them. Crosswalks are never to far appart.

drone

01-11-2007, 22:53

Fernandez-Armesto was taken into custody, where he spent the next eight hours along with "extremely unfortunate members of the underclass."

:laugh4: There are no whores in England, just a great deal of unfortunate women--"From Hell"
I wonder if he had a chance to meet some of the male hookers Atlanta is infamous for. :thinking:

Del Arroyo

01-12-2007, 00:26

First of all-- YAY JAYWALKERS!! The only way to cross the street. Anyone who disagrees is most clearly a freedom-hating nanny-stater. This means you, Don Corleone. ~;)

Second of all-- Atlanta sucks. Period. They also have the worst Greyhound station in the country (followed closely by Dallas).

Tribesman

01-12-2007, 00:33

From Xiahous link...

Leonpacher was working an extra job at the Hilton Hotel on Courtland Street at the time of the incident.

So what are the rules on police officers moonlighting , and what are the rules concerning wearing a police uniform (if in the unlikely event he was wearing one ) to do a job that isn't policework ?

So, I'm looking at the picture- where's the plainclothes cop wearing a bomber jacket?
He probably had to rush off back to work , the hotel would take a dim view of one of its staff harrasing tourists instead of opening doors for them and carrying their bags .
He should have stuck to the "have a nice day" routine instead of the "show me your ID" line . :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Xiahou

01-12-2007, 00:48

I think "extra job" means something different from what you're taking it me mean. I usually see it referred to as an extra duty/shift that's outside of their normal hours. Like a cop who takes an "extra job" directing traffic outside a concert venue. The best way to find an answer would be to ask an American cop... if there's any here.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-12-2007, 00:59

From Xiahous link...

So what are the rules on police officers moonlighting , and what are the rules concerning wearing a police uniform (if in the unlikely event he was wearing one ) to do a job that isn't policework ?

They get hired to do security on their off time and wear their uniforms while doing it.

Tribesman

01-12-2007, 01:15

They get hired to do security on their off time and wear their uniforms while doing it.
So if he was working as a security guard at a hotel then does he have any right to demand someones ID in the street ?

Sasaki Kojiro

01-12-2007, 01:18

So if he was working as a security guard at a hotel then does he have any right to demand someones ID in the street ?

He would be expected to.

Goofball

01-12-2007, 01:24

They get hired to do security on their off time and wear their uniforms while doing it.

My mind is boggling here. Are you saying that any American business or individual with enough $$ can hire a cop to do his bidding while the cop is still acting in his capacity and exercising his authority as a police officer?

That does not sound right.

I can understand hiring a cop to work security for you while he is off duty, but it seems, well, corrupt, for lack of a better word, to have a police officer trading on the authority granted to him by virtue of his uniform.

Dave1984

01-12-2007, 01:24

He would be expected to.

How come? I could see it if they were acting suspiciously on trying to enter the premises, but not actually with regard to an offence they commited not directly connected to the hotel.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-12-2007, 01:34

How come? I could see it if they were acting suspiciously on trying to enter the premises, but not actually with regard to an offence they commited not directly connected to the hotel.

They are supposed to stop crime if they see it even if off duty. Makes sense to me.

My mind is boggling here. Are you saying that any American business or individual with enough $$ can hire a cop to do his bidding while the cop is still acting in his capacity and exercising his authority as a police officer?

That does not sound right.

I can understand hiring a cop to work security for you while he is off duty, but it seems, well, corrupt, for lack of a better word, to have a police officer trading on the authority granted to him by virtue of his uniform.

A cop on another forum was taking questions and he said this. Businesses like to hire police because they are trained and reliable, and cops like to make extra money. If you see standing around walmart that's what they are doing.

Dave1984

01-12-2007, 01:36

[QUOTE=Sasaki Kojiro]They are supposed to stop crime if they see it even if off duty. Makes sense to me.
/QUOTE]

Hmm yes, but then how does that expectation extend to an average citixen's civic duty?

Sasaki Kojiro

01-12-2007, 01:39

They are supposed to stop crime if they see it even if off duty. Makes sense to me.

Hmm yes, but then how does that expectation extend to an average citixen's civic duty?

Average citizens aren't cops? If someone tells you "hey, you can't walk across the street like that" and you are over the age of 15, then they are a cop. Not a "rude young man" or whatever :laugh4:

Goofball

01-12-2007, 01:47

Average citizens aren't cops? If someone tells you "hey, you can't walk across the street like that" and you are over the age of 15, then they are a cop. Not a "rude young man" or whatever :laugh4:

Really?

I was waiting at the mouth of my driveway yesterday to pull out into traffic, when a pedestrian walked up to my window (my driveway, as many do, crosses the sidewalk, so my vehicle was blocking the sidewalk as I waited for an opening in traffic). She was quite angry with me and told me in a voice that had quite an air of command to it that I had to back up off of the sidewalk to let pedestrians pass.

By your criteria, I should have assumed that she was a police officer and done exactly what she told me to do.

As it happens, I played the odds that she wasn't a police officer, and told her exactly what I thought she should do...

:laugh4:

Goofball

01-12-2007, 01:50

A cop on another forum was taking questions and he said this. Businesses like to hire police because they are trained and reliable, and cops like to make extra money. If you see standing around walmart that's what they are doing.

But they should not be able to do this in uniform, pretending to still be acting in their official capacity as police officers, when, in the case you describe, they are nothing more than Wal Mart employees.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-12-2007, 01:50

Really?

I was waiting at the mouth of my driveway yesterday to pull out into traffic, when a pedestrian walked up to my window (my driveway, as many do, crosses the sidewalk, so my vehicle was blocking the sidewalk as I waited for an opening in traffic). She was quite angry with me and told me in a voice that had quite an air of command to it that I had to back up off of the sidewalk to let pedestrians pass.

By your criteria, I should have assumed that she was a police officer and done exactly what she told me to do.

As it happens, I played the odds that she wasn't a police officer, and told her exactly what I thought she should do...

:laugh4:

I thought you lived in Canada.

But they should not be able to do this in uniform, pretending to still be acting in their official capacity as police officers, when, in the case you describe, they are nothing more than Wal Mart employees.

Why not? They can still arrest people. They would be there to catch shoplifters not restock shelves or something.

Dave1984

01-12-2007, 01:58

Why not? They can still arrest people. They would be there to catch shoplifters not restock shelves or something.

Oh yeah, I agree with this point. Every security guard in every store (in the UK, I don't know about how things are done elsewhere) should have powers of arrest. I remember working security in stores in Edinburgh and knowing that I only had whatever pretend authority I could muster to detain a shoplifter, knowing that if I laid a finger on him I could end up in the cells (for even lomger if he was a she and claimed sexual assault). But the best we could do was ask them to accompany us to the back of the store to wait for police, which was very difficult when they tended to dive into the shelves and claimed I'd thumped them!

Mooks

01-12-2007, 02:51

naut

01-12-2007, 02:57

Trust Yanks to be overly gung-ho. :no:

Here you can jaywalk as long as it is not within 20m of a sactioned crossing.

Banquo's Ghost

01-12-2007, 11:59

You know what police force doesnt mess around? The russians. Watching a video where the russians set up a raid on a couple of red mafia drug dealers, they went STRAIGHT down to the ground when they saw the cops coming

Not a good example, given the subject of the thread. Many Russian police will randomly fine perfectly law-abiding people - for say, possessing a loud tie after the hours of darkness. Especially if you look rich or foreign. Unless you look very rich, in which case they'll suspect you're one of the Mafia that pays the rest of their top-ups and start staring into the middle distance and whistling.

I happen to know Professor Fernandez-Armesto in real life, and he is a wonderfully cultured and gentle person of impeccable manners. However, he is quite other-worldly and would no doubt seem like a pompous jerk to a policeman who I suspect is more used to dealing with vulgarity and the anticipation of a violent reaction. The professor may well have appeared as if he was on drugs rather than utterly bewildered.

It seems to me to be a particularly unfortunate clash of cultures from opposite ends of the US/European divide. This appears to be borne out by the wise judgement from the more reflective bench. I think the police over-reacted, but one imagines that on the streets of Atlanta, one wants to be sure a suspect is powerless before unleashes a gun or somesuch.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-12-2007, 12:53

Just for variety, the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/11/nhistorian11.xml

Seems to me a gross over-reaction by the Police but more unfortunate than milicious.

As to Policemen doing any other job to top up their pay, in Britain they get into serious trouble for doing that.

BDC

01-12-2007, 13:01

Oh yeah, I agree with this point. Every security guard in every store (in the UK, I don't know about how things are done elsewhere) should have powers of arrest. I remember working security in stores in Edinburgh and knowing that I only had whatever pretend authority I could muster to detain a shoplifter, knowing that if I laid a finger on him I could end up in the cells (for even lomger if he was a she and claimed sexual assault). But the best we could do was ask them to accompany us to the back of the store to wait for police, which was very difficult when they tended to dive into the shelves and claimed I'd thumped them!

To be honest I'd rather not have big untrained guys being allowed to jump me if they thought I'd stolen something. I like not being crippled by over-enthusiastic and bored guys whenever I walk into a chain store.

Major Robert Dump

01-12-2007, 13:10

A peace officer is sworn to uphold the law. This means they can be fired for indescretions "off the clock" and on the flip side it means if they are acting as second job security at Wal-Mart in uniform people are expected to do as they say. I don't know where the plainclothes fits in here, as I have personally told many a security guard to kiss my butt because they have no legal authority outside of private property protection.

Seems like a cop-become-guard not in cop uniform could be a tricky situation

Dave1984

01-12-2007, 13:14

To be honest I'd rather not have big untrained guys being allowed to jump me if they thought I'd stolen something. I like not being crippled by over-enthusiastic and bored guys whenever I walk into a chain store.

Of course there should be limits, but I mean in situations when the guy has seen someone commit the offence, has pulled them up on it and they've refused to stop.
When the guy only suspects something, or has got a description of someone acting suspiciously over the radio, the powers should remain the same, IE none past watching them like a hawk and wandering round the store after them in that "I'm pretending not to be watching you, and you're pretending not to have seen me, but we all know what's happening here" kind of way.
I don't advocate being able to jump anyone unless you've seen with your own eyes them do something, but you're always going to get less reputable guys pushing guidelines like that to their limits.

Bartix

01-12-2007, 13:48

This guy is an elitist idiot.
:laugh4: Elitist idiots are so funny sticking noses up at them selves!:laugh4:
The BBC has already admitted to being biased, anti-American, bible burning, koran loving lefties.
Can you provide link?

Red Peasant

01-12-2007, 13:51

Justiciar

01-12-2007, 13:52

Googlified.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Sir Moody

01-12-2007, 14:02

... never use the daily mail to try and prove something....

Justiciar

01-12-2007, 14:03

Fair point, as far as I'm aware that's the only source though. :sweatdrop:

Banquo's Ghost

01-12-2007, 14:14

Fair point, as far as I'm aware that's the only source though. :sweatdrop:

Really? I wonder why? I simply can't believe that the Daily Mail would have an agenda on the matter.

:laugh4:

KukriKhan

01-12-2007, 14:36

Opening this thread, the first thing I was struck by was the very idea of a policeman on-foot. I haven't seen one of those since childhood in Detroit; nowadays they're all mounted everywhere I've been in the US (and I've been to Atlanta).

Reading through however, it seems maybe that wasn't the case.

Obviously the arrest in this case was dicey enough that the judge threw it out. The officer is actually lucky his 'perp' was a Brit - had he been a local, we could expect to read about lawsuits for "unlawful assault under color of authority", "false arrest", kidnap, & false imprisonment against the officer, Atlanta PD & the Hotel - all settled out-of-court for an undisclosed (but tidy) sum.

In these parts (southern California) jay-walking is usually a tacked-on charge (e.g. "You're under arrest for public drunkeness, jay-walking, and littering.") used to quell rowdy tavern patrons.

Vladimir

01-12-2007, 16:05

You know what police force doesnt mess around? The russians. Watching a video where the russians set up a raid on a couple of red mafia drug dealers, they went STRAIGHT down to the ground when they saw the cops coming

Trust Yanks to be overly gung-ho. :no:

Here you can jaywalk as long as it is not within 20m of a sactioned crossing.

*sigh* You didn't read the post right above yours did you? :juggle2:

Sasaki Kojiro

01-12-2007, 17:47

So, let me get this straight, if there is a perfectly empty road with ne'er a tin cage in sight, just begging to be crossed, then your average 'freedom-loving' American would still rather walk to the crossing half a mile away in order to cross said road instead? They allow you to own and carry firearms, but don't trust you to cross the road? Crazy.

The enforcement of these rules seems like a waste of police time and resources to me, speaking purely as a 'freedom-hating' Brit of course. With the fines involved (I assume), it also seems like another revenue scam for the local authorities, which means that it will be coming to Britain soon! :no:

Gotta laugh at the touchy responses from our US friends on here though. :laugh4:

lol, yes, the copse beat up everyone who tries to cross the street in https://img186.imageshack.us/img186/9788/emotamerikkkaqa5.gif

https://img60.imageshack.us/img60/6489/emoteng101gi6.gif We jaywalk all the time, even in the presence of policemen. The absent minded professor probably tried it when it was too dangerous.

Goofball

01-12-2007, 18:29

I thought you lived in Canada.

I do, what does that have to do with it? We also have police officers here, believe it or not.

But they should not be able to do this in uniform, pretending to still be acting in their official capacity as police officers, when, in the case you describe, they are nothing more than Wal Mart employees.Why not? They can still arrest people. They would be there to catch shoplifters not restock shelves or something.

You're missing the point. When they are being paid by Wal Mart, they are acting in Wal Mart's interests, not the interests of the citizens of the community, as they are when they are on the clock as cops.

If they are wearing their police uniforms and using their police authority while acting in Wal Mart's interests, it's basically a case of influence peddling.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with cops working second jobs as security guards, but at that point they should be wearing the uniform of their other employer, and not renting themselves out as police for hire.

And as far as I know, many private security firms have the power to arrest people, you don't need to be a cop to do that.

Redleg

01-12-2007, 18:36

And as far as I know, many private security firms have the power to arrest people, you don't need to be a cop to do that.

Every Citizen has the power to arrest those committing a criminal act. The part that gets hazy is how much force is a citizen allowed to do to arrest an individual.

Now many citizens will not attempt to arrest someone committing a crime because of the inherient danger in doing so.

Private Security Guards work under this particlur ability in the United States.

Goofball

01-12-2007, 19:35

Every Citizen has the power to arrest those committing a criminal act. The part that gets hazy is how much force is a citizen allowed to do to arrest an individual.

Now many citizens will not attempt to arrest someone committing a crime because of the inherient danger in doing so.

Private Security Guards work under this particlur ability in the United States.

I believe it's the same here. But I think private security firms have their people undergo specific training with respect to their powers of arrest, and the specific application of those powers. I work in a busy downtown core, and right accross the street from my office is a large, national retailer. I see their private security guards arresting people and holding them until police arrive all the time.

Redleg

01-12-2007, 20:02

I believe it's the same here. But I think private security firms have their people undergo specific training with respect to their powers of arrest, and the specific application of those powers.

Some might - I know that many don't. Ie for extra money I often do a little side private security work. The basic security guard is basically informed of their powers as being the same as any citizens.

I work in a busy downtown core, and right accross the street from my office is a large, national retailer. I see their private security guards arresting people and holding them until police arrive all the time.

Yep, and if they run, the security guard has to be very careful on how far he goes in restraining the individual prior to the police actually arriving.

Hosakawa Tito

01-12-2007, 20:59

In New York State, police officers are considered on duty 24/7 and are required by department policy and State Penal Law to uphold the law at all times. Their powers of authority do not end when they end their shift, which is probably why they are seen as desirable employees for other unofficial security jobs. However, one cannot simply take on a second job without officially requesting in writing to their department supervisor working that off duty job.
Peace officers have more limited authority, arrest powers equal only to that of the average citizen, and only within the scope of their special duties, such as corrections, park police, hospital security etc... When off duty the department doesn't require, nor desire, Peace officers to act as police officers because they don't have the extended training in Penal Law, arrest procedures and all the mountains of paperwork that must be filed correctly, that is required of police officers. One better be very familiar with the Penal Code on the use of force, especially deadly physical force, or one just might end up in jail.

Duke of Gloucester

01-12-2007, 21:27

n New York State, police officers are considered on duty 24/7 and are required by department policy and State Penal Law to uphold the law at all times. Their powers of authority do not end when they end their shift,

I would imagine that is true for the police in most countries. It certainly applies here...

which is probably why they are seen as desirable employees for other unofficial security jobs. However, one cannot simply take on a second job without officially requesting in writing to their department supervisor working that off duty job.

but I find this incredible. The scope for conflicts of interest between the new employer and the public is immense and it is no good saying that it is checked by the department supervisor. Who is he working for in his spare time?

As regards Professor Fernandez-Armesto, it does seem that the police over-reacted, but I am not that sympathetic. When you visit a foreign country you have to fit in with their rules and part of fitting in is to make sure you know what the rules are.

Louis VI the Fat

01-12-2007, 21:46

Fairness bids me to link to the police report (http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/ajc/metro/MetJayWalk.pdf), which contrary to a link I previously quoted from, states that it was a uniformed police officer.

The police overreacted. But this professor does strike me as a belligerant arse. He may hold whatever opinion he wants on jaywalking, but if the law in some foreign country says you can't, than for bleeding's sake just abide by that.

Xiahou

01-12-2007, 21:50

Really? I wonder why? I simply can't believe that the Daily Mail would have an agenda on the matter.

:laugh4:
OT, but is this one any better?
The BBC's commitment to bias is no laughing matter (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/27/do2701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/27/ixopinion.html)
or
this? (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582,00.html)

yesdachi

01-12-2007, 21:53

I don’t think the department approves of “moonlighting” and I think it is illegal for police to have some off duty jobs, like as a bouncer. I could be wrong. :bow:

Vladimir

01-12-2007, 22:17

Hosakawa Tito

01-12-2007, 23:46

which is probably why they are seen as desirable employees for other unofficial security jobs. However, one cannot simply take on a second job without officially requesting in writing to their department supervisor working that off duty job.

but I find this incredible. The scope for conflicts of interest between the new employer and the public is immense and it is no good saying that it is checked by the department supervisor. Who is he working for in his spare time?

I don’t think the department approves of “moonlighting” and I think it is illegal for police to have some off duty jobs, like as a bouncer. I could be wrong.

Hence the written request requirement, and don't think it stops at a lower management position, you think some Facility Captain will risk his career by okaying an employment request that goes against strict Department guidelines? There are Department guidelines that apply, bar room bouncer, liquor store employee are a few of the definite no nos. Many off duty cops and some of my fellow corrections officers work the sports stadium security jobs, most just have self-employed businesses in the building trades, lawn care, car dealers, etc... The off duty jobs can't interfere, timewise, with ones primary job, any such problems that do arise you will be required to quit the off duty job or get fired. To me, the money gained from such a secondary job involving a security position is not worth the risk.

Duke of Gloucester

01-13-2007, 10:55

Many off duty cops and some of my fellow corrections officers work the sports stadium security jobs

What do they do if their employers are flouting safety laws. Do they go and arrest the bosses or do they turn a blind eye? When working for a sports stadium, who decides what are the priorities for enforcement, the stadium bosses or the police officer? Do they concentrate on crowd control or stop this work to arrest people for breaking the law? As I said, the opportunity for conflicts of interest are huge.

Facility Captain will risk his career by okaying an employment request that goes against strict Department guidelines?

Unfortunately reduces, but does not remove the possibility of conflicts of interest or out and out corruption.

most just have self-employed businesses in the building trades, lawn care, car dealers

This is less problematic, especially if the work is done for friends and acquaintances and not people who turn out to be nephews of the local crime boss. This sort of thing does happen in the UK In the 70's when police pay was poor, it would have been very common amongst police constables with families who needed to make ends meet and the shift pattern made it easy to do a few days work on friends cars and gardens. Now pay is better, it happens less. Whilst open to abuse, this is not nearly as worrying as working for businessmen who may (even if most don't) take advantage.

Banquo's Ghost

01-13-2007, 17:49

Here's Professor Fernandez-Armesto's considered viewpoint (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2149733.ece) on his experience. Try to read it all without frothing at the mouth. :wink:

Felipe Fernandez-Armesto: The accidental criminal

Arrested, beaten and jailed by police in Atlanta for crossing a road in an illegal manner, the British historian and writer reflects on his shocking ordeal - and what it reveals about the US

Published: 13 January 2007

"No one truly knows a nation," said Nelson Mandela, "until one has been inside its gaols." Last week, after living in the USA for more than a year without understanding the country, I acquired - briefly - a gaolbird's authority. I can now share insights you can only get from being assaulted by the police and locked up for hours in the company of some of the most deprived and depraved dregs of the American underclass.

For someone like me - a mild-mannered, middle-aged professor of scholarly proclivities, blameless habits, and frail physique - it was shocking, traumatising and deeply educational. It all started on my first morning in Atlanta, Georgia, where I was attending the annual conference of the American Historical Association. Unwittingly, I crossed a street at what I later learnt was an unauthorised crossing. I had seen plenty of pedestrians precede me. There was no traffic in sight and no danger to me or anyone else.

Apparently, however, as I was later told, "jaywalking" is a criminal offence in the State of Georgia. But I had no idea I had done anything wrong.

A young man in a bomber jacket accosted me, claiming to be a policeman, but with no visible evidence of his status. We got locked in mutual misunderstanding, demanding each other's ID. I mistook the normal attitude of an Atlanta cop for arrogance, aggression and menace. He, I suppose, mistook the normal demeanour of an ageing and old-fashioned European intellectual for prevarication or provocation.

His behaviour baffled me even before he lost patience with me, kicked my legs from under me, knocked my glasses from my nose, wrestled me to the ground, and with the help of four or five other burly policemen who suddenly appeared on the scene, ripped my coat, scattered my books in the gutter, handcuffed me, and pinioned me painfully to the concrete.

I was bundled into a filthy paddy-wagon with some rather unsavoury-looking fellow-prisoners and spent eight hours in the degrading, frightening environment of the downtown detention centre, with no humiliation spared: mugshot, fingerprinting, intrusive search, medical examination, and the frustration of understanding nothing: neither why I was there, nor how I might get out.

Had I made it to my historical conference, I might have learnt about medieval pumpernickel-production or 17th-century star-gazing. Instead, I discovered a lot about contemporary America.

First, I learnt that the Atlanta police are barbaric, brutal, and out of control. The violence I experienced was the worst of my sheltered life. Muggers who attacked me once near my home in Oxford were considerably more gentle with me than the Atlanta cops. Many fellow historians at the conference, who met me after my release, had witnessed the incident and told me how horrific they found it. Even had I really been a criminal, it would not have been necessary to treat me with such ferocity, as I am very obviously a slight and feeble person. But Atlanta's streets are some of the meanest in the world, and policing them must be a brutalising way of life.

Once in gaol I discovered another, better side of Atlanta. The detention centre is weird - a kind of orderly pandemonium, a bedlam where madness is normal, so that nothing seems mad. It's windowless, filthy, and fetid, but strangely safe, insulated and unworldly: like Diogenes's barrel, a place of darkness conducive to thought - for there is nothing else to do in the longueurs between interrogations, examinations, and lectures from the sergeant in charge about the necessity of good behaviour.

Some raffish underworld characters befriended me, but so did the detention centre personnel.

In gaol, I saw none of the violence that typifies the streets. On the contrary, the staff treat everyone - including some of the most difficult, desperate, drunk, or drugged-out denizens of Atlanta's demi-monde - with impressive courtesy and professionalism. I began to suspect that some of the down-and-outs I shared space with had deliberately contrived to get arrested in order to escape from the streets into this peaceable world - swapping the arbitrary, dangerous jurisdiction of the cops for the humane and helpful supervision of the centre. Nelson Mandela, I think, was right to say that gaol is the best place to make judgements from because, "a nation should be judged not by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest." If Atlanta is representative, America, by that standard, comes out commendably well.

I then met the best of America when I appeared in court. Everyone, including the judge himself and the wonderful vice-president of the American Historical Association, who accompanied me to lend moral support, told me to get counsel to represent me. A lawyer I had consulted hurriedly that morning had advised me to sue the city. But I had no stomach for such a hostile and elaborate strategy. Instead, I watched Judge Jackson at work. He had 117 cases to try that day. He handled them with unfailing compassion, common sense and good humour.

I noticed that my charge as the judge read it - "failing to obey a police officer and obstructing the police" - did not match the semi-literate scrawl the accusing officer had scribbled on my citation: so I reckoned that, if necessary, I could get the charges dismissed on those grounds alone. Meanwhile, I simply appealed to the wisdom and mercy of the judge.

It only took him a few minutes to realise that I was the victim, not the culprit. The prosecutors withdrew the charges. The judge then proclaimed my freedom with kindly enthusiasm and detained me for nothing more grievous than a few minutes' chat about his reminiscences of the Old Bailey.

The first lesson is obvious. The city authorities of Atlanta need to re-educate their police. I can understand why some officers behave irrationally and unpredictably. Much of the downtown environment in their city is hideous - inoffensive to the eye only when shrouded by the often-prevailing fog. The sidewalks are thronged with beggars who can turn nasty at night. The crime rate is fearful.

The result is that the police are nervy, jumpy, short-fused, and lacking in restraint, patience or forbearance. But witnesses tell me that up to 10 officers took part in the assault on me. This is evidence not only of excessive zeal, but of seriously warped priorities. In a city notorious for rape, murder and mayhem the police should have better things to do than persecute jaywalkers or harry an impeccable, feeble foreigner.

Moreover, Atlanta depends on its convention trade. The way the conventions centre is designed is extremely practical. There is plenty of good, reasonably priced accommodation. But if Atlanta continues to accumulate a reputation for police frenzy and hostility to visitors, the economy will crumble.

At least, the police need to be told to exercise forbearance with outsiders - especially foreigners - who may not understand the peculiarities of local custom and law.

But, at the risk of projecting my own limited experience on to a screen so vast that the effect seems blurred, I see bigger issues at stake: issues for America; issues for the world. I found that in Atlanta the civilisation of the gaol and the courts contrasted with the savagery of the police and the streets. This is a typical American contrast. The executive arm of government tends to be dumb, insensitive, violent and dangerous. The judiciary is the citizen's vital guarantee of peace and liberty.

I became a sort of exemplar in miniature of a classic American dilemma: the "balance of the constitution", as Americans call it, between executive power and judicial oversight.

I have long known, as any reasonable person must, that the courts are the citizen's only protection against a rogue executive and rationally uncontrolled security forces.

Though my own misadventure was trivial and - in perspective - laughable, it resembles what is happening to the world in the era of George W Bush. The planet is policed by a violent, arbitrary, stupid, and dangerous force.

Within the USA, the courts struggle to maintain individual rights under the bludgeons of the "war on terror", defending Guantanamo victims and striving to curb the excesses of the system. We need global institutions of justice, and judges of Judge Jackson's level of humanity and wisdom, to help protect the world.

I feel happy and privileged to be able to live and work in the United States. On the whole, in my work as an historian, I have argued consistently that America has had a benign influence on the world. The growth of anti-Americanism fills me with despair, as I see ordinary, decent, generous Americans getting the blame abroad for the follies of the American government and the crudities of the American image.

I hope that if some good ensues from my horrific misfortune, it will include more future security from police misconduct for visitors in Atlanta, and more awareness in the world of some of the virtues - as well as some of the vices - of US life.

KukriKhan

01-13-2007, 18:22

So google-imaging the guy, is this he?
https://jimcee.homestead.com/Felipe_Fernandez-Armesto.jpg

or this:
https://jimcee.homestead.com/Filip2.jpg

Banquo's Ghost

01-13-2007, 18:31

or this:
https://jimcee.homestead.com/Filip2.jpg

This is Felipe.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-13-2007, 18:40

Well I can see how he might rub people up the wrong way but I have to agree with him that the Police grossly overreacted, five officers and having his legs kicked out from under him is too much.

therother

01-14-2007, 10:07

Here's Professor Fernandez-Armesto's considered viewpoint (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2149733.ece) on his experience. Try to read it all without frothing at the mouth. :wink: Videos of him talking about the incident are on YouTube (www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Fernandez-Armesto+&search=Search).

Husar

01-14-2007, 17:47

Who would be afraid of that guy?
That officer should grow some cojones if he was afraid that this guy could be a danger to him.:sweatdrop:
Of course I understand that anyone who walks across a street towards a building is obviously a terrorist and should either be shot or sent to Guantanamo so the officer really went the subtle way and his neverending courage and mercy should be applauded.

Apart from that, when an officer tells you something you better do it, you are not supposed to think, you are a robot, discussion is for terrorists.:dizzy2:

I know german drivers like to discuss when they are about to receive a speeding ticket, but I have never heard about a police officer beating them up for it, not even after a series of police murders which happened under such circumstances. Maybe Atlanta has so much crime because it's police officers only police the convention centers and people in suits instead of the ghettos.

doc_bean

01-14-2007, 18:34

For someone like me - a mild-mannered, middle-aged professor of scholarly proclivities, blameless habits, and frail physique - it was shocking, traumatising and deeply educational.

Heh, he turned it into a learning experience.

Respect !

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-14-2007, 18:44

It doesn't speak well for the Policeman's ability to solve crime, consider what he did with what he should have seen.

Slight middle-aged man.

Well dressed and turned out.

Old-fashioned glasses.

Carry papers and books.

Foriegn accent.

The Policeman should be able to put all that together and realise he's A. a low threat and B. probably a visiting proffessional.

Sir Moody

01-15-2007, 11:37

you know ive read this entire thread and not one person made the "Why did the Enlgish proffessor cross the road?" joke!

shame on you all

:laugh4:

Talbot

01-15-2007, 14:52

I've read the entire thread and am trying to work out why he hates freedom? Surely crossing the road where he saw fit means he loves freedom.

Idaho

01-15-2007, 15:25

More importantly - why do you hate freedom so much Talbot?

:laugh4:

Quid

01-15-2007, 16:37

Videos of him talking about the incident are on YouTube (www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Fernandez-Armesto+&search=Search).

Seeing him talking just reminded me of Rowley Birkin QC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAB-Gmru_mU&mode=related&search=).

Quid

Louis VI the Fat

01-15-2007, 18:50

InsaneApache

01-15-2007, 18:53

Seeing him talking just reminded me of Rowley Birkin QC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAB-Gmru_mU&mode=related&search=).

Quid

I wonder if he was very, very drunk as well? :laugh4:

Redleg

01-15-2007, 19:33

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-15-2007, 19:58

Loius has a point, unfortunately English intellectuals are like that, he still presented no threat and his indignation did not warrant the treatment he recieved. If Atlanta's Police have tollerance that low then they need to seriously re-think their recruitment policy.

BigTex

01-15-2007, 23:20

Hang on there. I say our esteemed mister Fernandez-Armesto plays the role of a 'mild-mannered, middle-aged professor of scholarly proclivities and blameless habits' a bit too much for my liking.
Yes, there was excessive use of force. But he forgets that he himself could at any moment have de-escalated the situation. Indeed, prevented it by simply abiding by the local law.

It was his indignation over a US police officer - a young man in a bomber jacket no less! - being so 'barbaric and brutal' to treat a stiff upper-lipped English gentleman the same as a commoner that got him into this mess.

Between all his outrage he doesn't seem to realise that his indignancy over the APD roughing up an 'ageing and old-fashioned European intellectual' implies that they apparantly should reserve this kind of treatment to young, uneducated Afro-Americans.

Small wonder he still doesn't understand America after having lived there for a over a year, if he doesn't even realise that the place had a revolution centuries ago just to end this kind of typically British upper-class demand for special treatment.

Bravo, Mr. Louis VI the gravitationally privledged. Fernandez coaxed it out of the cop. He refused to listen, looked down upon him and he got his just deserts. What do you expect when a criminal fails to halt and obey an officer of the peace. Obviously his knee's are just fine so the cop knew what he was doing when he halted Fernandez. Next time he should not run/walk from police when told to stop. He would also be wise to listen to the cop who tell's him about the law. Breaking it after that is ubsurd.

He also seem's to think he deserves better treatment then other's. That is just plain wrong, and I'm quite happy he was sent to jail for a bit.

Again bravo Louis VI the gravitationally priviledged.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-16-2007, 00:17

So he deserved to be beaten?

He crossed the road, then was told, he was walking away, didn't realise it was a policeman.

Get off your high horse. Okay, so he's definately old fashioned and he may even be a prigg, but I doubt it. You on the other hand seem to be attacking him because he is English and Upper-Middle Class, seems like a bit of post-colonial prejudice is left over.

In Britain a Policeman would say, "Sir, you cannot cross there." He would not shout it from the other side of the street. Make fun of saying "sir" but it's there for a reason. In Britain if someone calls you "Sir" and you're not in uniform or a resturant/hotel he/she is a Policeman, you can tell even without seeing them.

BigTex

01-16-2007, 00:24

So he deserved to be beaten?

Beaten? When was he beaten? He was put to the ground when he failed to listen to the officer. He's been here for a year, he knows what cops dress like. There's no excuse for turning and walking away when an officer tell's you to stop.

Slyspy

01-16-2007, 00:25

Yep, it is quite clear that the individual deserved a beating (for want of a better term), hours in detention and time in court for crossing the road. What a terrible waste of everyone's time.

Husar

01-16-2007, 01:53

Pannonian

01-16-2007, 02:44

About abiding local law, who of you reads each and every book of law before going somewhere else?
I don't even know all german laws, some countries have laws you could never imagine(like jaywalking being forbidden, before this thread I have never even come across the word jaywalking) so do you really think that every person being in a country should know each and every law? And those who have ever copied a copyrighted CD in an illegal way should keep out of this anyway.~;)

There was this...erm...those of you without fault shall throw the first stone.
I'm not saying the police officer was wrong in stopping the man, but beating him up or kicking him to the ground was just too much.
The police officer was right to stop him for breaking the law. He was also right to beat him up for being a stuck-up English ****. It ws out of order to combine the two though. What he should have done was show his badge, arrest the professor, taken him to the station, and issued a fine. Then he should have discarded his badge, followed the professor out of the station, and beaten him up on the street. That would have been in order, almost a civic cuty.

Slyspy

01-16-2007, 05:57

An unusually foolish thing to say, even in jest.

Banquo's Ghost

01-16-2007, 10:55

Bravo, Mr. Louis VI the gravitationally privledged. Fernandez coaxed it out of the cop. He refused to listen, looked down upon him and he got his just deserts. What do you expect when a criminal fails to halt and obey an officer of the peace. Obviously his knee's are just fine so the cop knew what he was doing when he halted Fernandez. Next time he should not run/walk from police when told to stop. He would also be wise to listen to the cop who tell's him about the law. Breaking it after that is ubsurd.

He also seem's to think he deserves better treatment then other's. That is just plain wrong, and I'm quite happy he was sent to jail for a bit.

Again bravo Louis VI the gravitationally priviledged.

It's quite difficult to know whether this is meant to be wry, but let me take it on face value and then you can chuckle at yet another upper class twit. :wink3:

In the country that Professor Fernandez-Armesto comes from, criminals are convicted of a crime in a court of law, not by random policemen. Since the judge dimissed the case, I think we can be safely assured that in your country, like his own, the professor is also considered innocent.

We have had endless threads about gun-control and how it is the cherished right of American citizens to defend themselves against over-enthusiastic government power. I recall a recent one where the police were excoriated for kicking in a door and shooting a person with no notice and no identification of who they were. But when a person simply requests a policeman to demonstrate his identity, he is villified.

It appears that many of you would consider my manner and accent a deliberate slight and desire to look down on people. (I am visiting Paris later this month and it appears that I shall have to watch out for the cockades and guillotine once again :stunned: ).

Yet I have always been treated with unfailing kindness and respect when visiting the United States. I have transgressed minor laws by accident as the professor did, and in both instances, the policemen - one in urban Pittsburgh and one in deepest Iowa - were helpful, sympathethic and courteous. At no time did they offer me physical violence for the crime of wielding a plummy accent in public. Indeed, in Iowa I was invited to dine with the good sheriff's family and friends.

I suspect some are actually ashamed of what has happened to a visitor to their usually wonderful country, and are trying to cover it up by blaming it on class. If Felipe was less of a gentleman, having been found innocent, he would be suing for a great deal of money, and you know it.

Duke John

01-16-2007, 11:29

A comment from the BBC News article:

I was in Honolulu recently and a cop called to me "Hey you, no jaywalkin' in future". I said OK and hurried off. I asked my hotel desk clerk what it was all about and he said that because of the anti-gay, repressive local authorities, walking in an effeminate manner had been outlawed. I spent the rest of my holiday walking like John Wayne and escaped police harassment. Now I know the truth! Bet the clerk had a right old hoot at my expense.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-16-2007, 16:50

Even though Banquo has a bit of a personnal stake in this I agree with him completely, though I am also fluent in "Upper Class Twit" admittedly a debased form, but I'm sure that also qualifies me for ridicule.

"Daddy went to Public School but I had to go to the local Comp because mother thought it would be good for me to mix with the lower orders."

Vladimir

01-16-2007, 22:47

I know german drivers like to discuss when they are about to receive a speeding ticket, but I have never heard about a police officer beating them up for it, not even after a series of police murders which happened under such circumstances. Maybe Atlanta has so much crime because it's police officers only police the convention centers and people in suits instead of the ghettos.

German citizens know full well that German police have virtually NO rules governing the use of force. The reason why you don't hear (and constantly remark) about the lack of excessive use of force in that country is because it doesn't exist. While not as bad as a country like Russia, German police will break your nose to extract blood for a blood alcohol test if you don't voluntarily submit it. I thought you lived in Germany and knew this.

With due respect to our moderator, I'll refrain from making any additional harsh comments about the professor's statements.

Ser Clegane

01-16-2007, 22:51

German police will break your nose to extract blood for a blood alcohol test if you don't voluntarily submit it.

Uhm ... where did you get this nonsense from? :inquisitive:

We are not living in 1938 anymore...

Husar

01-16-2007, 23:39

I thought you lived in Germany and knew this.
Exactly, and this is why I believe my experience more than your horror stories, read what Ser Clegane said on the matter...

Samurai Waki

01-16-2007, 23:44

Heard it from the Horse's Mouth, Germans are not in-fact Blood Thirsty Barbarians... God, sometimes I wonder what century we're all really living in...

Tribesman

01-17-2007, 02:26

German citizens know full well that German police have virtually NO rules governing the use of force.
Really ?

Heard it from the Horse's Mouth, Germans are not in-fact Blood Thirsty Barbarians... God, sometimes I wonder what century we're all really living in...
Would this be part of the horses mouth , as opposed to the horses rear end where Vlad got his information ?
. Article 1 (1) of the German Constitution states: The dignity of man shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. According to Article 2 (2), Everyone shall have the right to life and to inviolability of their person. For persons in official custody the protection afforded by Article 1 is clarified even further in section 104 (1) of the German Constitution which states that: Detained persons may not be subjected to mental or physical ill-treatment. Acts of torture and ill-treatment are also made criminal offences under section 340 of the German Criminal Code, entitled Bodily harm by public officials, which states: (1) Public officials who commit, or permit to be committed, bodily harm during the exercise of their duties or in connection with these, shall be punished by a period of imprisonment of between three months and five years. In less serious cases up to five years imprisonment or a fine shall be imposed."

Haudegen

01-17-2007, 09:30

Someone asked for rules governing the police´s use of force?

http://bundesrecht.juris.de/uzwg/index.html

If you want I can deliver a dozen other examples for such rules in Germany. :yes:

Louis VI the Fat

01-17-2007, 20:16

Someone asked for rules governing the police´s use of force?

http://bundesrecht.juris.de/uzwg/index.html

If you want I can deliver a dozen other examples for such rules in Germany. :yes:That is very interesting, Haudegen.

I loved this bit:

§ 10 Schußwaffengeblaffen gegen Personen, wohnen und lohnen:

(1) Schußwaffen dürfen schützen und schnegen einzelne Personen nur,

1.um die unmittelbar mit bare mittel zum unbevorstehende Ausverkauf die Fortsetzung einer rechtswidrigen Schatz zu Schwatchen, die sich den Umständen nach

a)als ein Verbrechen des Weitverbrechungsnahrungsmitteleinkauf

oder und neise

b)als ein Vergehen, des Abendlandes nietzsche und schnitzel as unter Mit nach oder für unter oben und so weiter von Schußwaffen begangen werden soll oder ausgeführt wird mit Gah oder GötterdämmerungTake that, Professor Fernandez-Armesto !!!1!!11!!!!

Haudegen

01-18-2007, 08:39

Hey Luigi,

that reminds me a bit of Ernst Jandl´s poetry :laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

01-18-2007, 13:11

that reminds me a bit of Ernst Jandl´s poetry :laugh4:Ich Weiß, du Schwarz. :sweatdrop: