NYPD Arrest Guy for Making an Innocent Joke

[bbennett]

A guy's getting a ticket for riding his bike on the sidewalk. Innocent dude walks by, makes joke about it, both laugh, and then the joker goes to jail.

[JP]

It may have been a joke, but it was escalated by the actions of the "joker" and the bystanders. The "joker's" own actions started the spiral. Egging on others and even the camera guy. So, he was basically inciting it. From what may have turned out to be nothing, he was arrested due to inability to quit while he was ahead. Once he started escalating the situation, he began to seal his fate. You're average person on the street is not versed in state law. Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to enforcement.

[Deathcricket]

Man, thank gawd for mobile recording devices. Otherwise it would be some random black dude's word against 6 police officers. And you know how that would end. You can almost see the predatory look in the police officers, wondering how they can get upstairs and grab the film from the video guy. Just looking for an excuse to over exert their "authority".

@JP - It didn't start to "spiral" until they arrested some random guy for no reason at all. I commend the "community" for not submitting like beaten scared dogs and actually calling BS when they see it. The longer we let stuff like this slide, the worse it's gonna get.

[JP]

Watch again and he's not under arrest until he's told he is and or the handcuffs are slapped on. The "Joker" was asked to remove his I.D. from his wallet. He declined at first, then took it out and then pulled it away from the cop. There are reasons for cops to ask you to remove the ID from the wallet and when asked, you must hand it over. (Which the "Joker" later stated the cop tried taking his wallet. Watch the clip again.) Then he started getting louder with his mouth and continued to incite others. The video will only prove the police action was correct. Again, laypersons not fully understanding laws is what leads to these sorts of things, but again as here, ignorance is no excuse. The officer that initiated the contact with the "Joker" was black, not white. Black on black is just what it is. Unless because he's a black cop you're somehow attempting to label the cop as an Uncle Tom. If it was a white cop, I can see the point you're attempting to make. The race card issue. In any event, whether black, white or whatever the actions were still justified.

Obviously the black cop read how the "Joker" was going to react. (This may have been a game of wits) It something they do everyday, read people. Knowing the end result was to arrest the "Joker", he took the bait. Once the Cop said he was going to issue him an infraction (which would be a fine in which you can plead not guilty and take care of it in court and not out on the street) he refused everything from then on. The bait was taken and he was hooked. Now, the actions and the escalation of his objectiveness grew. Now, you are taking a minor infraction and turning into an arrestable offense. The cops knew they were being videoed and it didn't even phase them. It didn't phase them, because by law, they were justified. The ones videoing the scene made a comment on how many showed up. But, watch towards the end how many more people showed up due to the "Joker's" action and his willingness to incite that situation. I guess this shows that the layperson, once again, has no idea how and why police do what they do.

[Deathcricket]

Ok I did watch it again. I see the Joker walk up, make a comment to the guy getting a ticket and walk off. I see the cops all get out and arrest the guy for no reason.

Watch again and he's not under arrest until he's told he is and or the handcuffs are slapped on. The "Joker" was asked to remove his I.D. from his wallet. He declined at first, then took it out and then pulled it away from the cop. There are reasons for cops to ask you to remove the ID from the wallet and when asked, you must hand it over.

Are you sure about that? I'm sure it varies from state to state but as near as I can tell in NY, you don't have to produce an ID when a cop asks for it unless you are driving.

http://justinholmes.com/2008/11/reme...ew-york-state/

(Which the "Joker" later stated the cop tried taking his wallet. Watch the clip again.) Then he started getting louder with his mouth and continued to incite others. The video will only prove the police action was correct. Again, laypersons not fully understanding laws is what leads to these sorts of things, but again as here, ignorance is no excuse. The officer that initiated the contact with the "Joker" was black, not white. Black on black is just what it is. Unless because he's a black cop you're somehow attempting to label the cop as an Uncle Tom. If it was a white cop, I can see the point you're attempting to make. The race card issue. In any event, whether black, white or whatever the actions were still justified.

Sorry didn't mean to play the race card. Could have just been some low class white dude, same point regardless of color.

Obviously the black cop read how the "Joker" was going to react. (This may have been a game of wits) It something they do everyday, read people. Knowing the end result was to arrest the "Joker", he took the bait. Once the Cop said he was going to issue him an infraction (which would be a fine in which you can plead not guilty and take care of it in court and not out on the street) he refused everything from then on. The bait was taken and he was hooked. Now, the actions and the escalation of his objectiveness grew. Now, you are taking a minor infraction and turning into an arrestable offense. The cops knew they were being videoed and it didn't even phase them. It didn't phase them, because by law, they were justified. The ones videoing the scene made a comment on how many showed up. But, watch towards the end how many more people showed up due to the "Joker's" action and his willingness to incite that situation. I guess this shows that the layperson, once again, has no idea how and why police do what they do.

It's weird how we can both watch the same video and draw different conclusions based on our perceptions. I see a person protesting being harassed and detained for no reason, then being arrested when he doesn't "play ball". I then see others citizens who directly witnessed this event calling the police on their BS tactics. I see nothing but a bunch of cops abusing the authority granted them and abusing anyone who isn't intimidated by their "huge guns and pepper spray" mentality. If cops had just continued to do their job and write the guy a ticket, and ignored the conversation the joker and the ticketboy had, everything would be fine. The Joker, joked with the ticketboy, told him he should know better and walked away.

Hopefully though this goes to court and we can see how it turns out. I would love to see all those cops disciplined for their actions and a strong message sent for people who abuse their authority. 4/5 cops I run into are very nice, I'm sure these are just "bad apples" in the "big apple".

[Scott Card]

Why did the officer even get out of the van? What violation of the law caused the officer to confront the smart-alec? I see no reason for the officer to even confront the passerby. None. The officer making a comment and getting out of the van was the first and biggest mistake in this whole incident (at least from the clip. We don't know what happened before.) The officer should have rolled his eyes and continued on with his business with the bicycle dude.

As to the arrest issue, there is a distinction between "arrest" and "detained" or free to leave. There are different standards when an officer can approach someone vs. detain them vs. arrest them. As a general rule officers can talk to any one, to detain they need reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed and to arrest, probable cause. These are legal terms of art with Supreme Court definintions (that I don't want to look up right now). As I see the video, the officers actions place the guy in a detained status almost immediately-- he was not free to leave. Where is the reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or was about to be committed for the detention? Then what happened to give the officer probably cause to arrest (handcuffs)?

Curious as to how this shakes out.

[RedMan]

JP is correct. I suggest cooperation unless you plan to do your protesting in cuffs.

[DiscGo]

What really scares me about this video is that more and more states are making it illegal to record police officers. How can our country see so many videos of officers misbehaving and abusing their authority and then allow laws which prohibit us from proving the officers wrong and defending our freedom?

[JP]

Ok I did watch it again. I see the Joker walk up, make a comment to the guy getting a ticket and walk off. I see the cops all get out and arrest the guy for no reason.

Are you sure about that? I'm sure it varies from state to state but as near as I can tell in NY, you don't have to produce an ID when a cop asks for it unless you are driving.

It's weird how we can both watch the same video and draw different conclusions based on our perceptions. I see a person protesting being harassed and detained for no reason, then being arrested when he doesn't "play ball". I then see others citizens who directly witnessed this event calling the police on their BS tactics. I see nothing but a bunch of cops abusing the authority granted them and abusing anyone who isn't intimidated by their "huge guns and pepper spray" mentality. If cops had just continued to do their job and write the guy a ticket, and ignored the conversation the joker and the ticketboy had, everything would be fine. The Joker, joked with the ticketboy, told him he should know better and walked away.

Hopefully though this goes to court and we can see how it turns out. I would love to see all those cops disciplined for their actions and a strong message sent for people who abuse their authority. 4/5 cops I run into are very nice, I'm sure these are just "bad apples" in the "big apple".

The guy in the vid you saw walk up and walk away, was not the guy who got arrested. Yes, that one made a joke, but came back into frame from the rest of the incident. It was unclear what was being said between the Sergeant and the "Joker". The "Joker" was a guy out of scene. That's the guy the Sergeant approached and eventually arrested. And there was a reason. When the Sergeant approached the "Joker" most of the audio was unclear, one thing he did say was something in regards to "Aggressive". Now, where that would apply with NY law exactly, I don't know. (But, when a cop uses specific words, they are part of the law that is written, therefore justifying what is about to transpire) But, that "Joker's" action was creating a public disturbance. As his actions continued throughout, he escalated that to disorderly conduct. The more people that came out of the woodworking, the more the Police were correct. He clearly incited the big mouth in the sweats.

Wrong. The Sergeant stated he was going to issue him a citation or something like that. A citation, infraction or ticket... Whatever you want to call it, is on paper. It's not a full custody, physical arrest accompanied by handcuffs. The ticket or whatever is a dollar amount with a section that the "Joker" could have pleaded not guilty and had his day in court to shoot his mouth off in front of a Judge and or other court appointee that handles such cases like Magistrates. The time to argue your impending action is not on a street corner attempting to stir up onlookers for your support. So, when the Sergeant asked for his ID, it was to fill out the boxes in the ticket. He also runs that "Joker" for possible warrants, etc. Police have every right to ask in these situations and with that, it's the law. Failure to produce or rip away (as "Joker" did) is an offense that requires handcuffs and a trip downtown until they can prove who they have in custody. The escalation to resisting arrest has begun.

What we see. I see you're a Libertarian that hates laws Your hate for big guns and pepper spray donned by badge wearing felons clouds what you see. You fail to see the snowball effect of laws that are being broken. As he continued to walk away, shrug off officers hands after he was told he was under arrest, resisting arrest.

Yea, it will go to court, be plead down or even thrown out. Happens all the time when the docket is filled with higher crimes that need to be tried.

Why did the officer even get out of the van? What violation of the law caused the officer to confront the smart-alec? I see no reason for the officer to even confront the passerby. None. The officer making a comment and getting out of the van was the first and biggest mistake in this whole incident (at least from the clip. We don't know what happened before.) The officer should have rolled his eyes and continued on with his business with the bicycle dude.

As to the arrest issue, there is a distinction between "arrest" and "detained" or free to leave. There are different standards when an officer can approach someone vs. detain them vs. arrest them. As a general rule officers can talk to any one, to detain they need reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed and to arrest, probable cause. These are legal terms of art with Supreme Court definintions (that I don't want to look up right now). As I see the video, the officers actions place the guy in a detained status almost immediately-- he was not free to leave. Where is the reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or was about to be committed for the detention? Then what happened to give the officer probably cause to arrest (handcuffs)?

Curious as to how this shakes out.

I see the first mistake, the "Joker" for even getting involved in an incident that didn't involve him. It all would have been avoided if the "Joker" kept his mouth shut.

Like I mentioned above, the "Joker" never walked by in that vid, he was off screen. What was transpiring between that Sergeant and "Joker" was going on before the vid started rolling and unclear in the audio what was transpiring.

He was detained (only word again I heard was "aggressive") when the Sergeant asked for his ID and told him it was for a ticket, he was arrested when he ripped it away and attempted to walk off as well as other things that he continued to escalate. The Sergeant even told him so. I think I commented to the arrest with MoleCricket's response

What really scares me about this video is that more and more states are making it illegal to record police officers. How can our country see so many videos of officers misbehaving and abusing their authority and then allow laws which prohibit us from proving the officers wrong and defending our freedom?

Illegal to record? Where? I see more agencies recording more of their interactions. Ten years ago there weren't even half the amount of video dash cameras in the police cars as there is today. When there is a dash mounted camera in the car, there is a microphone that is clipped on the cop. He, can at anytime, start a recording of any incident. In a home, on the street anywhere he is conducting his business. I see more YouTube vids such as this everywhere. Don't fool yourself, law enforcement knows when they show up at a scene, there is a high probability that they are being recorded. No big deal. They know the laws, the layperson has no clue. Add raging ignorance to that, you see that street attitude come shinning through. Would you like your son to act that way?

[DiscGo]

Illegal to record? Where? I see more agencies recording more of their interactions. Ten years ago there weren't even half the amount of video dash cameras in the police cars as there is today. When there is a dash mounted camera in the car, there is a microphone that is clipped on the cop. He, can at anytime, start a recording of any incident. In a home, on the street anywhere he is conducting his business. I see more YouTube vids such as this everywhere. Don't fool yourself, law enforcement knows when they show up at a scene, there is a high probability that they are being recorded. No big deal. They know the laws, the layperson has no clue. Add raging ignorance to that, you see that street attitude come shinning through. Would you like your son to act that way?

Do a search online and you will see that there is a big push starting to prevent people from video recording police officers that are on duty. There is too much evidence of wrong doing which leads to lawsuits. So States looking out for their budgets instead of the citizens rights are trying to outlaw the recording of police officers.

Example of law:
http://gizmodo.com/#!5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

Example of it being enforced:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...ne_recordings/

[JP]

Do a search online and you will see that there is a big push starting to prevent people from video recording police officers that are on duty. There is too much evidence of wrong doing which leads to lawsuits. So States looking out for their budgets instead of the citizens rights are trying to outlaw the recording of police officers.

Wow, such a Liberal state banning taping cops, that is a shocker, really

Like I said, there are more PD's recording their interactions with John Q. Public due to frivolous lawsuits. Next time your are stopped, I'll make a bet that you and your actions are being recorded. Ask a cop and you'll probably have mixed results on dash cams. Some will say "Big Brother" and others will say it prevents wrongful actions against cops, both are correct. I know there are many incidents that John Q. Public has made false allegations against the cops and the dash cam proved the cops innocence. The problem is, there are only a few instances that action was taken against the false complaints. In these cases, the person(s) should be prosecuted for their lies and pay the costs to the courts in both cases. Thanks for wasting our time by lying, here is your bill Bottom line, just because something is caught on tape that YOU feel is wrong, doesn't mean it is. The courts must be vigilant in prosecuting the false claims and the numbers will drop. If there is a chance you can win some money by falsely complaining about something and no repercussions for it, why not go for it?

So, in one instance police agencies and towns want video cameras in cars, but they don't want the public to video? I don't understand that. Again, the only way to combat the issue is to punish the persons making the frivolous lawsuits.

[Deathcricket]

What we see. I see you're a Libertarian that hates laws Your hate for big guns and pepper spray donned by badge wearing felons clouds what you see. You fail to see the snowball effect of laws that are being broken. As he continued to walk away, shrug off officers hands after he was told he was under arrest, resisting arrest.

As much as I disagree with your assessment. On this part I quoted we do agree. I only like big guns being carried by citizens. I don't think the officer had any right to engage the "joker" except to intimidate him then trap him in the first place. Even if he walked by and yelled "F the police!", they had no cause to stop and detain him. To me this is clear as day. And you are right this will probably be tossed out of court, bigger fish to fry. Oh well, we will probably never know for sure.

I did enjoy this discussion with you though, as always. Your point was well spoken

[JP]

As much as I disagree with your assessment. On this part I quoted we do agree. I only like big guns being carried by citizens. I don't think the officer had any right to engage the "joker" except to intimidate him then trap him in the first place. Even if he walked by and yelled "F the police!", they had no cause to stop and detain him. To me this is clear as day. And you are right this will probably be tossed out of court, bigger fish to fry. Oh well, we will probably never know for sure.

I did enjoy this discussion with you though, as always. Your point was well spoken

Well, if you fall for the trap, shame on you. If you do fall for the trap, it's something that should have been reevaluated by yourself (not you) before you shot your mouth off Yes, simply by telling the police to "F" themselves is not a crime. You cannot breach an officers peace. But, if there are others around outside the officers, they can make the case. If you inflame others, as was the case with the guy in the sweats, they can make the case and it could start leading down the road to other laws, which this did. There are many laws on the books when it comes to words spoken, in public. Everybody throws free speech, but when it causes an alarm or incite, etc. Speech has no freedom. You cannot yell bomb on an airplane, you cannot yell fire in a movie theater if no such emergency is taking place. You cannot get into a pissing match if it is inciting, alarming or offending others in public.

It's clear as day to you in your world. Your world isn't as big as the real one Again, there are laws against actions of others that you just might not be aware of.

Just for you, here are some of Utah laws you probably don't agree with This has been interesting



76-9-102. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) he refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
(ii) makes unreasonable noises in a public place;
(iii) makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place; or
(iv) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
(2) "Public place," for the purpose of this section, means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes but is not limited to streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.
(3) Disorderly conduct is a class C misdemeanor if the offense continues after a request by a person to desist. Otherwise it is an infraction.
Amended by Chapter 20, 1999 General Session

Here's riot

76-9-101. Riot -- Penalties.
(1) A person is guilty of riot if:
(a) simultaneously with two or more other persons he engages in tumultuous or violent conduct and thereby knowingly or recklessly creates a substantial risk of causing public alarm; or
(b) he assembles with two or more other persons with the purpose of engaging, soon thereafter, in tumultuous or violent conduct, knowing, that two or more other persons in the assembly have the same purpose; or
(c) he assembles with two or more other persons with the purpose of committing an offense against a person or property of another who he supposes to be guilty of a violation of law, believing that two or more other persons in the assembly have the same purpose.
(2) Any person who refuses to comply with a lawful order to withdraw given to him immediately prior to, during, or immediately following a violation of Subsection (1) is guilty of riot. It is no defense to a prosecution under this Subsection (2) that withdrawal must take place over private property; provided, however, that no persons so withdrawing shall incur criminal or civil liability by virtue of acts reasonably necessary to accomplish the withdrawal.
(3) Riot is a felony of the third degree if, in the course of and as a result of the conduct, any person suffers bodily injury, or substantial property damage, arson occurs or the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon, as defined in Section 76-1-601; otherwise it is a class B misdemeanor.
Amended by Chapter 289, 1997 General Session

76-9-104. Failure to disperse.
(1) A person is guilty of failure to disperse when he remains at the scene of a riot, disorderly conduct, or an unlawful assembly after having been ordered to disperse by a peace officer.
(2) This section shall not apply to a person who attempted to but was unable to leave the scene of the riot or unlawful assembly.
(3) Failure to disperse is a class C misdemeanor.
Enacted by Chapter 196, 1973 General Session

76-8-305. Interference with arresting officer.
A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have knowledge, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another and interferes with the arrest or detention by:
(1) use of force or any weapon;
(2) the arrested person's refusal to perform any act required by lawful order:
(a) necessary to effect the arrest or detention; and
(b) made by a peace officer involved in the arrest or detention; or
(3) the arrested person's or another person's refusal to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention.
Amended by Chapter 274, 1990 General Session

76-8-305.5. Failure to stop at the command of a law enforcement officer.
A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor who flees from or otherwise attempts to elude a law enforcement officer:
(1) after the officer has issued a verbal or visual command to stop;
(2) for the purpose of avoiding arrest; and
(3) by any means other than a violation of Section 41-6a-210 regarding failure to stop a vehicle at the command of a law enforcement officer.
Enacted by Chapter 288, 2005 General Session

77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

[trackrunner]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I blatantly see a crime being committed in the first degree that kills people . . .





















why the jaywalker wasn't ticketed or arrested I have no idea.

[Deathcricket]

LOL, I actually agree with ALL those "rules" you posted.

Again we don't know what the dude actually said to piss the officers off right? My point is that even if he said "F the police" which is pretty much the worst thing I can imagine saying near a cop, that still doesn't go far enough to incite the treatment he received. I'm trying to give your argument the benefit of the doubt and assume what he said was nasty/hurtful/out of line. He was not even talking to the cop, I can hear him say that multiple times. Applying these laws that you posted, I see no place he actually broke these rules. And you seem to be harping that because other witnesses responded a certain way proves that he was guilty in the first place. Correlation does not imply causation IMO. In fact the general mood seems jovial and in support of the officers until they get out and start acting like bullies.

Using your own "rules" what did he break to get detained in the first place? I don't see how any apply.

Just for you, here are some of Utah laws you probably don't agree with This has been interesting



76-9-102. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) he refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
(ii) makes unreasonable noises in a public place;
(iii) makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place; or
(iv) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
(2) "Public place," for the purpose of this section, means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes but is not limited to streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.
(3) Disorderly conduct is a class C misdemeanor if the offense continues after a request by a person to desist. Otherwise it is an infraction.
Amended by Chapter 20, 1999 General Session

Here's riot

76-9-101. Riot -- Penalties.
(1) A person is guilty of riot if:
(a) simultaneously with two or more other persons he engages in tumultuous or violent conduct and thereby knowingly or recklessly creates a substantial risk of causing public alarm; or
(b) he assembles with two or more other persons with the purpose of engaging, soon thereafter, in tumultuous or violent conduct, knowing, that two or more other persons in the assembly have the same purpose; or
(c) he assembles with two or more other persons with the purpose of committing an offense against a person or property of another who he supposes to be guilty of a violation of law, believing that two or more other persons in the assembly have the same purpose.
(2) Any person who refuses to comply with a lawful order to withdraw given to him immediately prior to, during, or immediately following a violation of Subsection (1) is guilty of riot. It is no defense to a prosecution under this Subsection (2) that withdrawal must take place over private property; provided, however, that no persons so withdrawing shall incur criminal or civil liability by virtue of acts reasonably necessary to accomplish the withdrawal.
(3) Riot is a felony of the third degree if, in the course of and as a result of the conduct, any person suffers bodily injury, or substantial property damage, arson occurs or the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon, as defined in Section 76-1-601; otherwise it is a class B misdemeanor.
Amended by Chapter 289, 1997 General Session

76-9-104. Failure to disperse.
(1) A person is guilty of failure to disperse when he remains at the scene of a riot, disorderly conduct, or an unlawful assembly after having been ordered to disperse by a peace officer.
(2) This section shall not apply to a person who attempted to but was unable to leave the scene of the riot or unlawful assembly.
(3) Failure to disperse is a class C misdemeanor.
Enacted by Chapter 196, 1973 General Session

76-8-305. Interference with arresting officer.
A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have knowledge, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another and interferes with the arrest or detention by:
(1) use of force or any weapon;
(2) the arrested person's refusal to perform any act required by lawful order:
(a) necessary to effect the arrest or detention; and
(b) made by a peace officer involved in the arrest or detention; or
(3) the arrested person's or another person's refusal to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention.
Amended by Chapter 274, 1990 General Session

76-8-305.5. Failure to stop at the command of a law enforcement officer.
A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor who flees from or otherwise attempts to elude a law enforcement officer:
(1) after the officer has issued a verbal or visual command to stop;
(2) for the purpose of avoiding arrest; and
(3) by any means other than a violation of Section 41-6a-210 regarding failure to stop a vehicle at the command of a law enforcement officer.
Enacted by Chapter 288, 2005 General Session

77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

[JP]

why the jaywalker wasn't ticketed or arrested I have no idea.

Eddie Cane snuck in under the radar.

[JP]

Using your own "rules" what did he break to get detained in the first place? I don't see how any apply.

You don't see the reason why the Sergeant got out of the van in the first place. So, it really wouldn't matter. If the same thing happened in Utah, even with your laws, this would have played out the same way. Jovial is not how I would classify the arrestee's attitude. You are mixing up the guy that walked passed the van in the vid and then turned back to watch the festivities. The guy off camera right was having the back and forth with the Sergeant seated in the passenger side of the van. Most of the audio is unreadable, but when the Sergeant approached and asked for his ID, the camera was now facing both of them and the audio was a bit clearer. Again, the Sergeant used the word "Aggressive". Most people wouldn't use that word in describing a verbal incident. But, a cop knowing how laws are written, will use verbiage from whatever law the violator is violating. He says it out loud and clear for a reason, so people can hear it. If it is being recorded, it can be heard. From the van he may have well told the arrestee to leave, to walk away. (The Sergeant commented later on in the vid, at the point of the arrest, that he "had the chance" while he was talking to someone that asked him a question.) The arrestee also had another mouthpiece, the guy in the red shirt and sweats. Once he kept shooting his mouth off, after being told to leave (again, this had something to do with the cyclist alone) and refused to reply with the request. The Sergeant then knew he now had to deal with the on-goings from the arrestee, he was not complying . The Sergeant clearly stated he wanted his ID, the arrestee then attempted to hand over his wallet, Sergeant told him to take out the license and the arrestee took it out, handed it over and then abruptly pulled it away. The Sergeant had already told him he was going to be cited. The arrestee continued to run his mouth and walk away. Even when the cops attempted to stop him from walking away, he was shrugging off the cops at first until that Sergeant grabbed his arm and wasn't letting go. He was told as well as ones that asked that he was being arrested.

So, in Utah, you would have interfering. Interfering with the action of the police and the cyclist. If he was told to move on so they could deal with the cyclist. The cyclist went from being silent to acting out. And the frenzy began. We don't see what happened before the two got into it, it all wasn't recorded. So, failure to comply got the Sergeant out of the van. Since now he has an infractionable event, when asked to provide the ID to fill out the citation, he refused. Now interfering with the police over his actions and violations, including disorderly. He is acting in such a way that causes inconvenience/alarm and then engaging in a threatening manner. Anytime you resist and resist by pulling away, it is a threat to the police. He and his partner in crime got the videotographers involved into yelling match and as well as the rest that walked up on the incident. The "Snowball Effect" was rolling.

Now, Utah and New York are two different entities. New York State and New York City are even two different entities. Certain laws exist inside the City that do not apply throughout the rest of the State. Due to the fact that police have much more interaction with the public, they have different set of laws. Laws that suit the City more than the rest of the State. As an example, I know in the past, citizens could not carry firearms within the City, you are able to carry concealed outside of that City. Why? Because the City is and has had issues that the rest of the State doesn't see on a daily basis. So, who knows exactly what laws they have. But, I know the cops are well versed when it comes to the public on city streets. They will see more crap than just about any other city in the US. (Outside of LA and a few others) Many places will use laws drawn up there to use in their areas around the US.

[Sombeech]

Dude shoulda just kept a walkin'

[JP]

Dude shoulda just kept a walkin'

Something your parents taught you years ago, mind your own business.

[bigred72]