Police Officer Facing Federal Lawsuit for Pulling Gun on Man in His Driveway

The defendent in the case, officer David Rodriguez. (Photo: screengrab)

The defendant in the case, officer David Rodriguez. (Photo: screengrab)

A California police officer is facing a federal lawsuit after an altercation last summer in which the officer un-holstered his weapon in front of an unarmed man taking a video on his cell phone.

Don McComas—the man who took the video—is seeking relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, claiming the officer, David Rodriguez, violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

“[McComas] has suffered violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and association, including the right to record police activity,” the lawsuit reads. McComas also claims to have suffered “damages including physical, mental, and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment.”

McComas recorded much of the incident on a video, which depicts Rodriguez stopping his duty vehicle in front of McComas’s driveway. Rodriguez takes a picture of McComas, exits his vehicle, and commands McComas to “go ahead and take your hand out of your pocket.”

McComas at first refuses, saying, “No, sir, I have done nothing. I have done absolutely nothing. No.” When McComas does not comply, Rodriguez says, “Ok, seriously,” unholsters his weapon, and points it at the ground. McComas quickly empties his pocket of its contents and places a cell phone and keys on the hood of his car.

The altercation ends after McComas retreats into his driveway. At no point does Rodriguez re-holster his weapon, despite the fact that McComas complies with the officer’s order.

Rodriguez was cleared of wrongdoing after a probe, conducted by a private investigator in consultation with a retired internal affairs detective, found Rodriguez’s actions were justified.

The findings were not made public, but a summary released by the city of Rohnert Park says that Rodriguez initially contacted McComas because McComas had ducked behind a car while the officer cruised the street looking for parking code violators. According to the report, McComas then began to act suspiciously when the officer stopped to investigate.

Rodriguez pulled his gun because McComas refused to remove his hand from his pocket, but it is unclear why he did not re-holster his weapon when McComas complied.

It is also unclear why Rodriguez’s own account of the incident differs so starkly from what happened in the video. In a police report obtained by KTVU, Rodriguez claims to have asked McComas if he needed help and if he had a weapon. He also says he “backed away” and called for back-up after drawing his gun. The video clearly shows that Rodriguez does none of these things.

McComas and his lawyers claim that Rodriguez got out of his vehicle and unholstered his firearm in order to intimidate McComas into putting away his cell phone. This, they say, has a “chilling effect” on the First Amendment protection of the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property.

McComas and his lawyers are seeking compensatory and exemplary damages, injunctive relief, an award of costs, attorney fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

{ 68 comments… add one }
  • Bennet Sarno September 1, 2017, 8:17 am

    The guy with the camera was obviously trying to provoke the police office… Do that to the wrong cop and you may get shot… Right or wrong, dead is dead, no mater who’s in the right… So my suggestion would be, if a cop has his gun out & is telling you to do something, I would listen…

    • Dino September 1, 2017, 11:02 am

      Yeah just listen to the officer like a good little sheep. Never mind about your rights

  • Jimmy September 1, 2017, 5:31 am

    I think this cop was wrong on many levels, end of the story.

  • Julius June 5, 2016, 5:24 pm

    1. We don’t know why the officer was in the area. Could have had a call about a suspicious person. We don’t know.
    2. After 13 years in law enforcement, I’ve learned you never know what someone is going to do when approached. The first thing you do when talking to anyone that has their hands in their pockets is ask them to remove them. Then you ask if they have any weapons.
    3. Why was this guy filming anyway. We don’t know.
    4. When asked to remove his hands, he immediately got belligerent. Instead of cooperating.
    5. Idiots like this get police officers killed.

    • steevo June 6, 2016, 5:26 pm

      The cop coXx sucking comments here is why it’s conservative right-wing leaning types are precisely the people that claim they are for the constitution, pro-constitutional rights and civil rights, rule of law (apparently even when the law is cruel and unjust), against tyranny and authoritarianism will be the ones to walk exactly that in through the front door, give it an new name and new packaging but ultimately impose the same fascism on everyone else. They’ll justify anything a cop does. Anything, on the assertion that the only life that matters no matter what is the cops even tho nobody in the universe is a threat to him. And they’ll do this all the while claiming that it’s the dumbass left, liberal, progressives that are the ones ushering in big government and the overlords oppressive boot. They are just misguided and gullible, the right is culpable. What inside out-upside down universe do you have to live in to not easily see this as an intimidation move and a potential threat to take a life .

      Look at all these excuses for this fekkin’ behavior of this police officer. What the hell country are you all that support this trying to build and leave for your children? Do you think that if this kind of manner becomes the norm (if it isn’t that already), this is what you are going to leave to your posterity? And I bet somehow you’ll still have the gall to bounce your grand child on your knee and tell them the lie that you are free and equal under the law. “Comply or die”, that’s what we are becoming as a nation. Many of you don’t care because it seems to be directed at those with a different political or no-political leaning that your own or other groups that conservative-types in honestly could care less about, but rest assured, one day it’ll visit closer to home than you would wish. You’ll be confronted with how unfair, unjust, cruel, wicked, and maybe even lethal being in the crosshairs of your demigod cop that had decided to make sport of your or someone you knows life just because they can and you dared to reply or behave as if you were an actual human being. Well, they’ll set you right and you’ll find there is nothing you can do about it other than to whimper and let them do it and only pray you survive enough so that you might complain about it after the fact. You won’t defend yourself, you won’t stand up, you’ll fold like a laundered shirt and you know you will because you give undue reverence to wickedness perpetrated by wicked people. It might even happen to your son or your brother who might have dared to believe they had rights they could exercise.

      You folk are here on a gun website, espousing individual rights, the right to keep and bear arms, 2nd amendment, BUT LISTEN TO YOU, you throw it all away and plow all if it under the moment a cop gets aggressive and wants to ensure that you are utterly disarmed and placed in a position such that you are under their power and control and not in any way in charge of your own god given self. You talk as if this fellow has no business at all being having arms and if he were how he should absolutely definitely positively be disarmed because the only thing that counts is the government agent with a badge, and ill tempter and the want to fuxx with you. You supported get on your knees and see the rightness of this.

      You may as well hand in your guns and your tampons now, you flock of mewling geese, talon-less sparrows, spineless worms.

      STAND UP FOR RIGHTS or prepare for your children to live on their bellies! This guy taking the video DID NOTHING WRONG. HE’S ON HIS OWN PROPERTY AND BROKE NO LAW. NONE!! THIS BULLY WANTED TO INTIMIDATE THREATEN AND BULLY.

      Captain obvious left the building so long ago, one wonders if he was ever here. . .

      • Fort Cannon September 1, 2017, 5:19 am

        Goodness, your skivvies are in a knot. Try to calm down and make it back to your safe space. Police officers make contact with the public, it is their job. Any type of surreptitious activity requires attention. We appreciate your whiny
        reply. Save it for the rest home, it will only get your smart ass in trouble now. Have a great day. Just another day to buy ammo, .

    • Joseph Jones June 2, 2017, 2:28 am

      If you or any lay person lies to the police, such person is charged with at least obstruction of justice, and likely other crimes. Pray tell Mr. Police apologist: exactly why did the DA not charge Rodriguez for lying in his police report? Also, the fact Rodriguez lied proves he has knowledge that he violated civil and possibly criminal law. The fact that Rodriguez committed the crime of obstruction of justice, and the DA did not charge him, confirms a conspiracy between the two parties. The DA can not be charged, but still, it proves the conspiracy.

      No way on planet earth could you ever find a DA not charge a non-LEO for the same offense. Which proves this point: don’t ever, ever, ever talk to the police. Don’t ever open your door to the police. Tell those scum bags to meet you at a window to converse. The second you open your door, the police claim you gave them permission to enter. If you deny the permission later to a judge, the judge always calls you a liar and believes the cops’ lie. There’s plenty of video on the net of such criminal behavior on the part of LEOs.

    • DaveGinOly September 3, 2017, 2:17 am

      The officer had no cause to approach the man in the first place. He was trying to prevent the man from recording his activities. (Your point #3 is totally irrelevant. Citizens have a right to record police activities in public venues. Police have no authority to question a citizen’s purpose any time the citizen is exercising a right.) The “get your hand out of your pocket” order is problematic for two reasons. First, if a hand in the pocket represents a threat, it’s only because the officer needlessly approached the citizen. If the officer had not approached him, the officer would not have been “in danger.” (Unless you want to claim that an officer driving by any citizen with a hand in his pocket is in danger, and therefore has the authority to stop and command the citizen to remove his hand from his pocket. No, you won’t claim that. But you will claim the officer had the authority to investigate the citizen’s video recording in order to put himself into a situation in which he could order the man to remove his hand from his pocket. Because the officer had no cause to investigate the citizen’s activities in the first place, this amounts to the same thing as stopping just to give the “get your hand out of your pocket” order.) Second, the command wasn’t given because the officer thought he was in danger, it was given in order to gain compliance and establish dominance. Re: Your point #4 – you expect cooperation: Cops are taught to give citizens simple commands like this for the purpose of establishing dominance over a citizen and control over a situation (by intimidating a citizen to “cooperate” – thus establishing a pattern of order/cooperation that the officer hopes to carry through the entire scenario – police get ticked off when they are not permitted to establish this pattern). Then they often invoke “officer safety” as their concern. BS. Concerns for “officer safety” are often used in situations in which no normal person would consider themselves in danger. Do police face unique dangers? Yes, they do. This does not mean that every invocation of “officer safety” is legitimate, and in this situation it was not. The officer clearly had a chip on his shoulder and was using the command in an attempt to establish dominance – and it failed. That pissed him off even more.

      Had the officer actually felt threatened/in danger, he would have pointed his handgun at the citizen and commanded him again to remove his hand from his pocket. The fact the officer didn’t point his weapon at the citizen is a clear “tell” that the officer didn’t actually fear for his safety, and that the unholstering of the weapon was meant to intimidate the citizen, and not to prepare the officer to defend himself from what he thought was an imminent threat.

  • Slick-Willy June 5, 2016, 12:36 pm

    What I find most intriguing about this story are the comments it generated. We all watched the same video, but the comments I’ve read seem almost equally balanced between “pro-cop” and “pro-camera-guy”. I posted a reply to a comment – you can read it and figure out whose side I’m on. I just find it very interesting that this group would be so equally split. Am I the only one ? Just curious (and somewhat concerned).

  • Rocky June 4, 2016, 11:21 am

    You know, a whole lot of this B_S_ could be avoided if people simply didn’t try and provoke the police. If the officer asks you to take your hand out of your pocket, take your hand out of your pocket. He doesn’t care, what you did, he just wants your hand in plain sight so he knows you aren’t going to pull a knife or a gun and try to kill him with it like the hood rat did last night, and the drunk did a week ago, like the traffic stop did last month, like the both parties did in the civil dispute a few weeks before that.

    It’s also time that media sources stop trying to dramatize this type of B_S_, because try as you may, you cannot make it look like this cop did anything wrong in my book. I’m 58 years old and I’ve never had a cop stop me for no reason, for simply walking down the street minding my own business, for standing in my own driveway not doing anything.

    • Fal Phil June 5, 2016, 7:08 am

      What about police trying to provoke people?
      It is not my job to serve the police. It’s about time that people learn that it is not the job of police to “protect and serve”. Rodriguez was neither protecting or serving.

      • DaveGinOly September 3, 2017, 2:24 am

        “Rodriguez was neither protecting or serving.”

        This is the crux of the problem in this situation. The officer needlessly put himself into a situation in which he was able to give (justified or not) the order to the citizen. Had the officer not provoked the citizen by needlessly “investigating” his activity (videoing an officer on patrol in public – which he had every right to do and the officer had no authority to investigate), the citizen would not have been put in a situation in which he could have “provoked” the officer. The officer started the problem, he owns the situation in its entirety.

  • Revolution June 3, 2016, 11:02 pm

    Meter maid with a gun? Just another shakedown of the public by local government then intimidates the public when they object to what there doing. You see cops behaving like this all over Youtube.

  • Kent Reiswig June 3, 2016, 7:33 pm

    Police State Mexifornia where only the Police need to have guns, Right? FeinStein’s perfect world, she reminds me of a Lip Stick commercial with a pig behind it.

    • Todd Gephart June 4, 2016, 12:47 pm

      This is why cops get killed!

      • Dave Miller September 1, 2017, 3:40 am

        Cops don’t get killed because of people standing in their own driveways videoing what happens in their own neighborhoods. Cop never should have exited the vehicle, why on earth did he? To investigate why someone is recording him? Aren’t we past that issue in this day and age? I support cops in their jobs, I get it. It’s ruff, it’s confusing, it’s dangerous. But why did he even bother with this guy in the first place if he is only there checking for parking violations as he said in his own report? I have been picked out for persecution by cops on multiple occasions. One time a guy with the same name as me had a warrant out for his arrest. 2 tickets in two days by two different cops. Both of them I knew did not pull me over for the reasons they said. Luckily on the third day another cop pulled me over, explained honestly why he pulled me over afterward (ran plate, saw name, pulled me over) and helped get the other tickets dropped. Why couldn’t the first or second cops have been humane and done the same? Cops like the first two are what makes the public distrust and video the police. So if this is what gets cops killed, they are killing themselves. Cops like the third are what make me support them still. That guy was what I consider a “true blue” officer. No macho to him at all, he let his integrity and desire “to protect and serve” the public be his guide, not his need to protect his ego / image to himself or the rest of the boys back at the precinct. Cops are people, there are good and bad ones and even the best have bad days. I get that. That still doesn’t mean when they have a bad day they can threaten people in their own yards with guns. No one else gets away with it, cops shouldn’t either. I don’t think he should lose his job over it but at the least he should have been reprimanded by his department. DA should have seen too that too. Brushing it off just builds more public distrust as you can read in many other comments here.

        • DaveGinOly September 3, 2017, 2:25 am

          Terrific comment.

  • Archangel June 3, 2016, 5:59 pm

    The cop was harassing the neighborhood (I have seen it before where a cop refused to ticket other vehicles in obvious violation but yours was ticketed repeatedly) and took an opportunity to intimidate those targeted.
    I have seen cops pull guns without cause other than to intimidate someone.
    If you were approaching a cop and had a gun in your hand, even in a non threatening manor, he would claim you were brandishing a weapon, and you can be shot for it.
    A cop can do the same thing with “Daggers in his eyes” leaving no doubt you are being threatened and it’s “no-problemo”?

  • Ok then June 3, 2016, 1:32 pm

    This like most videos of this nature only shows what the photographer wants shown.

    • Damon June 3, 2016, 10:39 pm

      I don’t understand your assertation. The video clearly shows the relevant part of the confrontation ( the act of making ready and keeping ready a weapon in a manner apparently designed to intimidate). Once the citizen had complied with the LEOs request, continuing to maintain the weapon in readiness serves no other purpose, and only acts to escalate the situation.
      Had the officer legitimate cincerns, he would have either holstered his weapon and approached and secured the photographer, or maintained weapon ready and sought cover from which to call for backup.
      Continuing to converse with the photographer with the weapon in his hand constitutes an obvious threat. Neither you nor I would tolerate such a situation with a fellow non-uniformed civilian.

    • mocatz June 4, 2016, 12:31 pm

      BS. There was no crime, no report. This cop stopped because someone was filming him & no other reason. Furthermore the individual was at his home, do you have a problem with private property rights? Your assertion that cops are infallible is a dangerous one.

  • BillJ June 3, 2016, 12:45 pm

    This idiot is intentionally trying to provoke an ‘incident’ with this Cop………what a fool….ONLY to get his ’15 min’ of ‘fame’ – and then expects to ‘profit’ from his stupidity.

    This behavior is caused, imho, from the ridiculous demlib teachings in today’s ‘schools’.

    • JUAN RAMIREZ June 3, 2016, 5:11 pm

      I own a couple of guns that fit easily inside my pocket, police officers need to make sure you get your hands out of your pockets. period. The whole incident was created on purpose by this idiot SOB. He’s lucky he finally complied and he is alive.

      • DaveGinOly September 3, 2017, 2:36 am

        I don’t understand how the citizen is responsible for this situation. The officer didn’t have to stop – he had no cause to do so. The citizen was merely doing what he has a right to do – video police activity in public. Cops have no authority to question a citizen’s exercise of a right. If the citizen intended to create a situation, he was only able to do so by the cop’s “cooperation,” which the cop should have known enough to not provide. The cop, after all, is the one with the training on how to behave in public and when, and when not to, interact with citizens. Did the citizen expect the cop to stop for no purpose? To investigate a nothingburger? That seems like a slim chance for someone looking for trouble with the police – unless the citizen knew this particular officer – or local officers in general – regularly behaved like a jerk. In which case the officer was true to the citizen’s expectations, and needlessly walked into a situation because of his own bad attitude. The citizen, if looking for trouble, could only put out the bait. The officer had to bite. (And this presumes this was the case. You have no proof that this was so.)

  • chris June 3, 2016, 12:43 pm

    This whole thing was a set up. The cop was simply doing his job patrolling and dude starts acting suspicious intentionally to try and get the cop to do something wrong. The cop as far as I can see did nothing wrong. Suspicious character has his hand in his pocket refuses to obey orders and immediately became irritated when the cop approaches. Then continues to put his hand back in his pocket. I wouldn’t have holstered my weapon either. The officer never became angry or aggressive or even raised his voice. Why was this dude so mad? He even says “you’ve done enough to my family.” Seems that he just hates cops and is trying to screw this one over.

    • DaveGinOly September 3, 2017, 2:37 am

      Drawing a handgun on someone is not aggressive? Remember that the next time someone draws a handgun on you and claims later he didn’t do anything aggressive.

  • buddy gibbs June 3, 2016, 11:44 am

    What are you? One of those constitutionalist crazies? That pretty much say’s it all.

    • JUAN RAMIREZ June 3, 2016, 5:33 pm

      Yes, it says it all, the officer seems to be familiar with those idiots that use the constitution to justify bad behavior and provocation. One thing is to defend the Constitution including the second amendment and another thing is to try to distort the constitution to justify doing stupid things as you please including disrespecting the police, creating dangerous situations. Those are “constitutional crazies”

  • Larry June 3, 2016, 11:36 am

    If I have my hand in my RF pocket, it’s wrapped around the handle of my 40 caliber Beretta!
    This Don fellow is obviously a leftist Marxist & needs a real good bitch slapping. If done right, he’ll lose control of that cell phone & someone will stomp on it during the altercation!

    • Ray June 3, 2016, 4:18 pm

      Let me get this straight. A citizen takes a video of a public servant (his/our employee) in the theoretical performance of his duty. He is assaulted (yes pulling a weapon for the purpose of intimidation is an assault even if you are a LEO) on his own property and you believe that the public servant should have continued the assault and destroyed private property.

      Just so you know, I served in the Army for 31 years, my oldest has served for 12. My youngest is going to start the Saint Louis County Police Academy later this month. Two of my oldest and closest friends are LEOs (Deputy U.S. Marshal and a Special Agent in the FBI). I grateful for honest cops that perform an honest day’s work. They have an extremely tough job and are for the most part not paid anything close to what they are worth. The problem here is that this cop is bad and bad cops get good cops killed. Nothing will improve for any of us as long as civilian (yes they are all civilians if they are not in the military) law enforcement doesn’t clean itself up and rid themselves of this “us against them” mentality. If you are a LEO and you have that mentality please seek alternative employment because you are a danger to us all. We are all citizens and deserving of the same level of respect from our public servants as they have a right to expect from us. According to the constitution (supreme law of the land) we were all equal under the law.

      • Chris Baker June 4, 2016, 10:05 am

        Thank you for telling it like it is, from the father of a Deputy Sheriff.

      • Rocky June 4, 2016, 11:33 am

        Tell your children to seek a different line of work, your attitude on how to handle such situations is going to get them killed. Cop has every right to ask you to remove your hands from your pockets, so he can be certain you don’t have a weapon. If you provoke him, by refusing to remove your hand from your pocket, he has every right to assume you a danger to his and possibly others’ well being, and every right to assault your dumba$$ by pulling his gun. HELLO!!! Remove your hand from your pocket is NOT a difficult directive to follow. It doesn’t infringe upon anyone’s rights. And, it makes an officer’s job much easier to do when you simply comply with his request.

        • DaveGinOly September 3, 2017, 2:47 am

          “Cop has every right to ask you to remove your hands from your pockets, so he can be certain you don’t have a weapon. ”

          You got that part right. What you’re ignoring is the cop in this situation was “investigating” a citizen doing what he had a right to do – video a public servant at work in public. The officer had no authority to investigate the citizen’s activity and therefore had no subsequent authority to give the citizen “orders.” The cop was wrong from the moment he stopped his vehicle and confronted the citizen. IF the citizen did represent a threat to the officer, he did so only because the officer stopped and put himself into the situation. No needless stop – no dangerous situation. The cop needlessly CREATED a dangerous situation. (And again, this is presuming the citizen actually presented a threat – which the officer himself didn’t believe because if he had, he would have pointed his firearm at the citizen when the citizen refused to remove his hand from his pocket. The fact the officer did not take this action is a clear sign the drawing of the handgun from the holster was merely to intimidate the citizen, and “officer safety” was invoked by the officer to justify his bad behavior.)

      • Donald Conner June 8, 2016, 1:51 pm

        RAY: Most succinct and intelligent comment on here. I’ve seen good cops and bad cops. The bad ones make me distrust all of them, because I can’t tell if they are good or bad, and I don’t plan to be anyplace near the bad ones. And I’ve seen good ones degenerate into bad ones too. So I try to stay away from all of them. I can handle my own legal problems without involving some person who trustworthiness is immediately suspect to me. Extralegal? Damn right. It works too. Once is enough for most bad people.

      • LCDR USN Ret June 8, 2016, 2:17 pm

        Ray–spot on.
        I spent 23 years of enlisted/commissioned Naval service, and my late father retired from Detroit PD after 25 years.
        I am NOT a liberal.
        This guy, however, is a BAD cop, power tripping, and trying to intimidate.
        I have a Blue Lives Matter bumper sticker on my truck, and firmly believe that, but this guy needs to be fired.
        ps-Thank you for your Army service.

      • mtman2 June 10, 2016, 11:36 pm

        Exactly correct-!
        This is almost verbatim what I explained to Mike Gallager(loud mouth) on national radio 10yrs ago.
        I derided the protection of the “thin blue line” – making the rest look bad because they won’t kick the bad apples out by policing their own; not let them continue to inflict themselves on society.
        That a good LEO is great asset for all, but a bad LEO hurts eveyone in the long run. Then there’s crooked judges too.

        The small minded twirp hung up on me to hopefully score brownie points with his local PD’s to get out of his next ticket, said I had a bad attitudel Funny I have LEO’s for friends. What a maroon, and a suck up MG was.

        Takes a special people person with discretionary wisdom for good law-enforcement.
        Maladjusted, powerhungry or anger issues people should not be eligible = mature attitude for starters ~!

  • survivor50 June 3, 2016, 10:37 am

    Untwist your PANTIES boys… The guy filming the officer had his hand in his pocket and was obviously making the officer suspicious of him, and we all know you only have bubble gum in that pocket… but when asked to show his hand, refused and got “CUTE”. No, the officer didn’t shoot him, and no the officer acted as YOU would if confronted the same way…
    That Dude bettered not show up in my driveway…

    • Chris E Cole June 5, 2016, 12:42 pm

      If all the guy was doing was filming the cop then he did nothing worthy of having a gun pulled on him. This cop should at a minimum be fired wit chages brough agains him. You sheeple need to realize that a cop is not some kind of super duper good guy just because they have a badge. They are also not above the law, but then, this is to be expected in the great state of Caloforniastan.

  • weber June 3, 2016, 10:09 am

    Looking for trouble you will find it . This dude filming is a total clown . Im so sick of theses i-phone warriors .

  • lilbear68 June 3, 2016, 9:40 am

    while it is true that not all cops are bad when they line up to defend the corrupt one they become dirty by association and for allowing the corruption to exist in their ranks. 1 of the many answers is that the cops be forced to personally carry and pay for professional liability insurance like doctors, lawyers and other professionals. then the taxpayer will no longer have to foot the bill in the long run for these multi million dollar settlement while the city/cop department admits no wrongdoing. the cop departments are always raving about how they are professionals. add that if the cop loses his liability insurance he can no longer wear a badge or carry a gun having shown himself to be unfit.

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude June 3, 2016, 10:59 am

      Liber68! Excellent Proposal! I’m calling my Rep immediately before his office closes early for the weekend and start the push to at least introduce a bill.
      He’ll say “Whalt, YOU AGAIN? Can’t you just fucking leave me alone even for one fucking WEEKEND? I got a big fundraising Golf Game Saturday!”

      I’ll say, Would you rather I brought several open carry biker associates with me and drove our two wheeled ‘golf carts’ up on the course and ‘talked ‘ about it with you on the 9th hole?”

  • Alexei Krykanov June 3, 2016, 9:25 am

    This police officer must be fired from police force. He is acting like a mob, but not like a public servant. Draw a hand gun must be justified by real dander to the officer. This officer’s attitude is wrong and not friendly.
    But most police officers in US are very nice guys. They will not jump on unarm citizens with a loaded gun just to show his “power”

    • Slick-Willy June 5, 2016, 12:14 pm

      “must be fired” ?
      “acting like a mob” ?
      Are you f’n kidding me ??? As a former police officer, I understand EXACTLY what happened in the video and can likely guess why. But first….the officer might be acting like a MOBSTER from your (ignorant) opinion, but not a “mob” – look up the definitions yourself IF you can read jacksss. Anyway, as fir firing this officer for making sure he gets to go home to his wife and kids, I don’t think so. It is his right (legally) to make sure he’s not facing an individual with a weapon. It is obvious that the little putz taking the video has both a history with local law enforcement AND a personal agenda. The following is merely my opinion – officers of this department have had recurring issues/problem/calls at/from this addresss, possibly involving the dufus with the camera phone. Hell, it could be something as simple as constantly blocking his street with that schoolbus Excursion (and boat) or it could be that his house is a suspected local weed stop for area
      residents. All I know is the officer didn’t get shot and killed that day.

      • mtman2 June 10, 2016, 11:49 pm

        No-!
        That then by your own account was harassment of a nobody non criminal in his own driveway with an i-phone.
        Why else would he stop there?
        He left with no clear reason to have stopped except to intimidate the guy who’s maybe a jerk.
        Point is- isn’t there better things to be doing on OUR dime. It was immature and unprofessional on the LEO’s part.

  • rt66paul June 3, 2016, 9:25 am

    One thing the Rodney King decision riots told us is that the police are not there to protect, they are there to enforce the law, unless they are in danger. Daryl Gates called all officers back to thier stations for officer safety reasons. We watched live tv, counting the seconds it would take for the police to show, and they did not. A hate crime was committed live on tv, and no police, this from one of the largest police forces in the country.

  • Skillet June 3, 2016, 8:45 am

    The police are civilians too. They are in no special class above the rest of us just because they have a gun and a badge. What laws must they follow? The same ones we are ALL subject to. They are not the military, the real non-civilians, although you would think so based on how they gear up, raid homes and roll in the MRAP. What the popo needs to realize is they need the support of the community to be able to do their job, and a “cops vs everybody else” attitude just turns them into a government sanctioned gang. You want respect, you have to show it. Both guys in the video could use a lesson on that.

  • John June 3, 2016, 8:45 am

    The guy filming created his own problems. He needs to be taken out back and have his ass kicked. This is our new screwed up generation with cameras and computers wanting to film and document everything to try and make something out of nothing. He is following the new American dream, if I cant make it on my own I am going to find someone to sue in court and go after some free money. That cop will be the first person he call if he has any problems, because that guy has no balls.

    • Anthony Statz June 3, 2016, 10:43 am

      Thank you for responding with the BEST and most correct answer. Finally ! ! !

    • mtman2 June 11, 2016, 12:02 am

      Oh so then this LEO must’he had something to hide by stopping to intimidate a jerk with a I-phone in his driveway.
      Why else then would be have stopped? There’s always been jerks, isn’t it crime LEO’s should be looking for?
      Now you want to kick every jerks “ass” for existing, brilliant Sherlock.?
      Maybe you should get right with Jesus yourself, first examine your own motives for wishing violence on all the jerks of the world.
      Wise folks ignore the jerks of the world, they’re everywhere including in uniforms. Bad enough to work with’em
      See if the cop never stopped, would’ve been no problemmo- right ~?

    • DaveGinOly September 3, 2017, 2:52 am

      It took two to tango in this situation. Because the officer is a public servant, trained in how to behave in public and interact with citizens, he bears the responsibility for avoiding bad situations with citizens. (Giving you, for the moment, the concession that doing what he had a right to do – video an officer in public – amounts to creating a problem. If that’s your attitude, what other rights do you think create problems, and which of them should citizens stop exercising in order to placate the state and its agents?)

  • Chris Mallory June 3, 2016, 8:43 am

    This government employee should be facing charges of assault, brandishing, terroristic threatening, and violating a citizen’s rights while under the color of authority. The last charge should carry the death penalty.

    • D. Hamilton June 3, 2016, 12:50 pm

      Really!? Are you serious or practicing your stand-up act?

      • papalion June 5, 2016, 9:25 am

        Looks like someone doesn’t understand sarcasm.

  • CommonSense June 3, 2016, 7:28 am

    lots of strange behavior on both sides. For one the guy bothering to narrate a video of a police officer patrolling and clearly he states in his video,”Ohh yeah clearly this officer doesnt like me doing this!” Okay, well maybe … maybe not but you are acting suspiciously (especially in today’s age), and he forced the officer to check out the behavior.

    More importantly if the officer doesnt feel safe then he definitely has the right to draw his weapon and have it ready. The guy refused to take his hands from his pockets.

    However, what definitely doesnt look right at all, is once an officer pulls his weapon and issues commands I’ve NEVER seen it stop there. It always ends in at least a temporary arrest and cuffing and making sure all is known about the person, before release.
    In this case it very much seemed the officer had some change of heart and wanted the hell out of there. I think it was at the point the guy said,”You guys have done enough to my family!”
    The officer’s demeanor switched and he started to actually talk and pause and decidely start leaving the scene.

    This whole video looks wrong.

    • Chris Mallory June 3, 2016, 8:37 am

      “More importantly if the officer doesnt feel safe then he definitely has the right to draw his weapon and have it ready. The guy refused to take his hands from his pockets.”

      So, you would support the citizen pulling his weapon if he didn’t feel safe when approached by an armed government thug?
      The rights of citizens are more important than the safety of government employees.

      So what the guy refused to remove his hands from his pockets. He is a free man, the government employee had no right to compel him to remove his hands from his pockets.

      • D. Hamilton June 3, 2016, 12:59 pm

        You must have missed the part where the guy started acting weird by ducking behind a car when he saw the police officer, which in this case sounds like he was baiting the officer into an altercation so he could film it. Then the hand in the pocket becomes an officer safety issue. The guy in the driveway was playing a part intended to get the response he got. Under those circumstances the officer has the right to investigate suspicious behavior. Not sure how astute you are, but daylight burglaries and thefts of residential areas is common, and with all of the complaints about ‘cops not doing their job to protect property’, why would you complain about an officer doing exactly that in this case? He had no idea the ‘hiding dude’ lived there and would not know until he investigates, something police are paid to do. Read the whole article before being so quick to judge.

        • Damon June 3, 2016, 11:01 pm

          The part where “he ducked behind his car acting suspicious ” is not shown in the video. That was the LEO’s statement. And since other aspects of his statement are obviously untrue (“after I drew my weapon, I backed away and called for backup”), what makes you think he was telling truth about the photographer’s behavior?
          All I see here is the State, in the person of an armed officer, infringing on a Citizen’s 1st and 4th Amendment rights. And yes, I too am one of those “Constitutionality crazies”.
          Also, as an aside, in Heller vs. DC, SCOTUS clarified the position if the Federal government re: law enforcement – “The State, in the person of various law enforcement agencies, has no mandate or responsibility to protect private lives or property.”
          So, there goes your “not doing their jobs to protect property” argument, Mr. Hamilton.
          From Redcoats 230 years ago, to Blueshirts today, a government-sanctioned bully with a gun is the natural enemy of American freedom.

  • sue June 3, 2016, 7:16 am

    Did you miss the statement from the guy “you’ve done enough to me and my family” so that makes me wonder if his kid or some other relative has had some variety of legal run in and this is his reason for inciting a situation. If the officer tells you to remove your hand from your pocket that is a perfectly reasonable request so why is it such a big deal, the officer has a right to be safe. So you’re creeping around a driveway in a residential area and appear to be hiding from a police vehicle, the officer doesn’t know you own that home and even so why are you hiding from a police officer? There is more to this story, I think the cop was justified in pulling the weapon but it should have been put away when nothing else happened immediately. The cameraman was looking for a confrontation and got what he wanted, I’m sure the neighbors could tell some stories about the guy for sure. In Florida you can be taken to the station if you have no ID on you, it’s not done much except in one particular neighborhood I’ve heard of but the point is they can. So the next time some thug breaks into this guy’s house and threatens his family or worse I hope he remembers that he was trying to aggravate the people that are supposed to be keeping him safe. It is true that many are attracted to law enforcement because they feel it allows them to have power over people and carry a gun but I don’t see much wrong here other than the officer pulling his weapon, perhaps just putting his hand on the holster would have been enough here. As has happened in a number of cases around the country when you refuse a basic request from an officer you could be creating a probably cause situation if you act suspiciously and give the cop crap I think you can expect the situation to escalate. How many other times has this man done something of this nature to an officer, this one or another one from the local jurisdiction?

  • American June 2, 2016, 11:04 am

    It’s called the “Wyatt Earp” syndrome . The police are working for the people to do things we don’t want to do. The law officer is to serve and protect NOT violate our rights.

    • Nick June 3, 2016, 7:59 am

      Proofread your comments please. In addition to that, yes the police are there to protect and serve; they are also there to uphold the law. Police officers are given the near impossible task of balancing the service and protection of both the individual as well as the community as a whole. Serving the community and serving the individual do not always go hand in hand.

      It was already said in a previous comment, it was a simple instruction to take his hand out of his pocket. There was no reason other than to be defiant and petulant. With that being said, did the officer need to take a hard line with him just because he was recording him; which was almost certainly the reason why things escalated the way they did? Personally I would say no.

      What this ultimately boils down to is two men having a pissing contest; rattling sabres under the guise of being “more right” than the other. Private citizen didn’t do anything wrong, and the police officer didn’t do anything wrong either. Nothing in the video should warrant another frivolous lawsuit being filed in court.

      End of sermon

      • brad June 6, 2016, 6:42 am

        while i agree with the deserved ass-kicking dont lose track of the fact that you can stand in your yard with a camera and an AK so as long as your not aiming at someone and no one has any right to say boo
        btw the police unions have sued in the courts up to SCOUTS to solidify the fact that they have no requirement to protect or serve and many years have passed since (probably a generation)they were public servents

  • DRAINO June 2, 2016, 9:44 am

    Yeah…..something still isn’t right about this whole thing. Yeah, the cop was on a power trip and should have acted differently (and any cop who is caught in a lie should be fired immediately). And the civilian could have handled it better as well. But there still has to be something more behind this story that isn’t being told yet. I thought this when this story first came out. Where is that pesky missing puzzle piece?

  • Dilligaf June 1, 2016, 8:07 pm

    Cop on a power trip. Give a man a badge and a gun and he thinks he can do whatever he wants.

    • The Original Brad June 3, 2016, 8:17 am

      Have you ever worked in a civilian profession where people actively try to hunt and kill you? Ah, I thought not. It’s a good thing we have social media warriors to help the police do their job and criticize how they do it in hindsight.

      • Chris Mallory June 3, 2016, 8:40 am

        It is the right of the citizen to tell the police how to do their jobs. They work for us, we do not serve or obey them. If they are being hunted and killed, maybe they need to look at their own behavior.

      • RJ June 3, 2016, 11:05 am

        People are actively hunting the police? Seriously? Yeah, criminals are fighting back more but actively hunting police is a stretch.

        The question I have is, if everything the officer was doing was on the up and up, why lie? I mean, you know the guy is videotaping the encounter so why put yourself, being an officer, in that position. It just makes everything else you say untrustworthy and open to other questions. Like if you lied here, how many other times have you lied and how many people may have been arrested based on those possible lies.

        • Damon June 3, 2016, 11:08 pm

          That’s a valid point, RJ, and any defense attorney worth his salt that had a client arrested by this officer is going to be all over this statement at the next appeals hearing. If a cop can be demonstrably proven to make false statements, this would definitely cause “reasonable doubt” for any case he was involved in.

    • Fort Cannon September 1, 2017, 5:43 am

      I think you summed that up nicely, it is usually correct. I have found that a punk given a voice will exercise it it in the most rudimentary form of criticism. I don’t think the cop is cruising the neighborhood looking for people taking his picture. That is the Lib-tard opinion and observation. I think he is working on some assigned task that involves a problem in the neighborhood that is a complaint by a taxpayer initiated. If this nit-wit had been raking his grass or polishing his car there never would have been a confrontation. Filming a cop going by? Really? Get a life. He is in it to show smugness of idiocy and make a few bucks. I’m not into helping him.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend