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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

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.

[Goofball]

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$$?

[Redleg]

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$$?

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.

[Goofball]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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?

[BigTex]

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.....

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]

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

[GoreBag]

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.....

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.

[lancelot]

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...

[Don Corleone]

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

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]

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]

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

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

[Bartix]

This guy is an elitist idiot.

Elitist idiots are so funny sticking noses up at them selves!

The BBC has already admitted to being biased, anti-American, bible burning, koran loving lefties.

Can you provide link?

[Justiciar]

Googlified.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

[Sir Moody]

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

[Slyspy]

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]

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

[Don Corleone]

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?

[yesdachi]

Isn't it common practice in journalism to question all parties involved in a dispute?

That is so 1901, get with the times.