Freedom Hating Brit Beaten up by US Cops for Crossing Road

[Goofball]

*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.

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.