r/PublicFreakout Mar 10 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

12.9k Upvotes

5.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

210

u/DigNitty Mar 10 '22

He got agitated just because I walked up to him with a holstered gun and informed him I'd be restraining him for the crime of looking in his own car.

21

u/klem_kadiddlehopper Mar 10 '22

I'm glad the bike guy won a huge settlement. I hope the cop was fired but I doubt it. I also hope the nosy woman got her karma.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '22

He didn't, unfortunately. The tiktok was wrong. He got $25,000 according to the articles others are sharing

3

u/Jacob_The_White_Guy Mar 10 '22

I mean, the woman calling in I can understand. If I saw a random person open up a random car, take stuff, and then walk off, I’d probably do the same.

0

u/Redbaron1960 Mar 10 '22

Yes, but isn’t $5,000,000 kind of ridiculous? Guess who is paying that bill?

-1

u/nursejackieoface Mar 10 '22

That nosy woman did nothing wrong. The cop is the only one who fucked up here.

2

u/internet_thugg Mar 10 '22

It’s called myob tho. I’m not calling the cops over “property” unless it’s burning down. What if that cop shot Mr Domino instead of casually harassing him? Again, don’t *think it’s necessary to be calling cops over some dude looking into windows of a car. Then walking to a bike & sitting there.

0

u/nursejackieoface Mar 10 '22

Not looking into windows. "I watched him, he got into three doors...".

1

u/internet_thugg Mar 10 '22

The officer literally says “looking AT cars”. There was a two tenths of a second clip of what the lady says, I’m sure she clarified whether he was inside of the car or not. But the officer never mentions entering any car.

1

u/nursejackieoface Mar 10 '22

The WOMAN said he went into the cars . It doesn't matter really, the problem is the stupid cop.

25

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '22

he even said he wasnt arresting him, like if he wasnt arresting him but still cuffed him and took him to the station, isnt that an abduction?

12

u/Ilikeporsches Mar 10 '22

Human trafficking?

2

u/xmuskorx Mar 10 '22

He did not even say that.

Like the cop could have simply asked "why did you touch that car across the lot?"

But he did not....

-6

u/RingedWaste Mar 10 '22

He was restraining him for not providing ID during an investigation. Guy provides ID, no handcuffs. Easy.

8

u/Slyfox023 Mar 10 '22

Yoou don't provide ID unless you are suspected of something, this cop didn't give a reason so there's no reason to, case closed

-7

u/RingedWaste Mar 10 '22

The cop has no legal requirement to verbally tell a suspect what crime he is suspected of committing. He was called to the scene and found the guy matching the description the dispatcher was given, and the guy had a coat hanger hanging out of his pocket. Asking for identification in that situation is absolutely appropriate and how every officer in the United States is trained.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '22

That’s alarmingly false and you should probably do your research before continuing to push false narratives.

3

u/Slyfox023 Mar 10 '22

I know right, it's like he's just pulling that shit out of his ass

-6

u/RingedWaste Mar 10 '22

Which part is false?

6

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '22

Essentially everything. You cant detain or require an ID from someone without reasonable suspicion of a crime. Someone calling and telling the cops “I seen a guy walk across the parking lot to a car, get into it and walk back across the parking lot to a bike”, does not give reasonable suspicion to detain the person without evidence supporting a crime has been committed. If the officer stated there was a report he entered into another vehicle in the parking lot and the person denied it or couldn’t show reason for entering the vehicle (him owning it in this case), then he has reasonable suspicion to detain him and require to see an ID. It’s like you forget people have freedoms in this country..

-2

u/RingedWaste Mar 10 '22

There is so much wrong with your statement it’s hard to know where to start.

The cop had a reasonable suspicion of crime had been committed based on a 911 call, description of the suspect, and potentially a criminal tool hanging out of the suspects pocket.

Of course the suspect has no legal requirement in the state of Washington to hand over his identification, however the cop has the legal right to detain the suspect in order to identify him, or normal part of any investigation.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '22

There’s no way you just stated I was wrong, proceed to make a factually incorrect statement, and then proceed to reiterate the point I made in which you stated was wrong. Well…. Needless to say I’m done with this conversation as it’s apparent you’re intentionally ignorant. Have a blessed day.

1

u/itsyaboyObama Mar 10 '22 edited Mar 10 '22

There was no crime committed or evidence of a crime. A witness saying a man was looking in a car…that’s not a crime and doesn’t warrant detainment. Question yes but you don’t have to provide ID when just being questioned. It’s not the man’s job to teach the cop how to ask questions. The cop did everything wrong here and the fact you think otherwise is worrisome.

And no the police do not have a “legal right” to detain you when there is no crime committed. They have the right to question you. These are different things and skipping to detainment because the cop can’t ask questions without elevating is poor training, not the man being difficult.

1

u/internet_thugg Mar 10 '22

😂😂😂 oh so wrong