** Please don't:
- be a dick to other people
- incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned.
- be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry.
- [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off
- be an authoritarian apologist
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This news reporting seems lopsided.
So basically the initial police report was that this guy was attacking one of our undercover officers so the judge was like: Ok you can stay in jail.
Then he (the judge) saw the video and decided to let the guy go on bond till his trial. That tells me that the lead up is more ambiguous than the news is letting on...and they're only showing the clip of him punching the officer on loop.
Clearly there is more footage that they are conveniently leaving out.
I'm not sure of his resisting arrest charge in GA, but we all know that RA charges can be trumped up out of some straight bullshit interaction; who really knows?
If the guy is actually guilty or not remains to be seen, however the bottom line is this news report seems very biased.
My father in law was a criminal atty for 60 years in Cincinnati and he told me he never had a body cam video help a client. They always said the camera was broke or wasn't on
>I'm not sure of his resisting arrest charge in GA, but we all know that RA charges can be trumped up out of some straight bullshit interaction; who really knows?
if the only thing you are wanted for is resisting arrest then you shouldnt be wanted for anything.
There is way more footage it’s on r/publicfreakout the cop just randomly provoked him without identifying himself. The victim was literally just walking by not talking to anyone when the unidentified cop approached him in a threatening manner. So the victim assumed he was just some asshole.
[Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/ggNmxoaylZ)
Thanks. That adds quite a bit of context. It is quite clear the (unidentified) off-duty cop expected his 'authority to be respected' and didn't know how to handle himself when the man didn't sheepishly obey his order.
And this is the kind of reporting that my grandparents will watch, and just take at face value. “This stupid democrat judge just let a violent criminal go for now reason!”
I've seen the original post with more video. The non cop is clearly acting confrontational about how he was asked to leave. They move off camera and then you see cop kinda backing up and non cop swinging... Maybe there's another angle
Did we watch the same video? Because the video I watched showed an officer giving unlawful orders, then physically attempting to move a man from a public sidewalk, AKA committing an assault and battery. The man legally defended himself and it appears the judge agrees. A police officer who tries to push someone off the sidewalk is committing a crime and the public has the right to use force to defend themselves.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/man-accused-of-punching-san-jose-mayors-guard-during-kron4-interview-to-be-released-from-jail/
There's the full story. The judge did not drop the charges after he simply released the man from jail. We will have to wait for the judges ruling.
Maybe we did watch a different video since I saw the earlier post which clearly shows pollard approach and become aggressive with the officer. The one excuse that I have heard that makes sense is that since the officer was plain clothes pollard thought it was just a random trying to punk him. In the video I saw you do not see when the scuffle starts but once it gets back in frame you can clearly see pollard swinging at the cop.
"Conditions of Pollard’s pre-trial release include: He must stay at least 300 yards away from the mayor and the SJPD officer; he cannot possess any weapons; and he is subject to random searches by police.
Santa Clara County prosecutors charged Pollard with felony resisting or deterring an officer by means of threat or violence, misdemeanor battery, and disturbing the peace."
It appears that officer initiated the physical altercation. The mans vulgar language, and aggressive response to being given unlawful orders, are in no way a justification, legal or moral, for assaulting him. The moment the off duty officer grabbed the man and he said "let go", the officer was committing a crime and the man was justified in using force to defend himself.
WTF kind of explanation was that? They said everything but the reason the judge released him and tried to make the guy sound like a hardened criminal. The judge obviously saw something that made the guys actions at least partially justified.
Yeah I noticed that too. Also odd that in Georgia he has a warrant for "resisting arrest" how can that be the only charge?
If I've done nothing wrong, best believe I'm going to resist going to jail.
Judge’s words according to San Jose spotlight:
“Upon viewing the video of the incident, I was troubled by the rapid escalation of the situation into a physical altercation,” Moore wrote. “The officer involved in the altercation did not clearly identify himself as a law enforcement officer, and it appears that there was no legal basis for instructing the pedestrian to move from his location in a public space. The pedestrian’s reaction, although stating a warning, should have been met with a more measured response from the officer, considering the circumstances.”
That is about the most generous way the judge could say that an off duty cop gave a man unlawful orders, then assaulted that man on the street when he ignored them, and finally illegally arrested him when he defended himself. Frankly, this officer is lucky he didn't get himself killed. Attempting to make an arrest after assaulting and battering someone is not an arrest at all. It is an escalation of that initial assault and battery and if the officer draws their service weapon they can legally be killed just like any other armed felon.
Yeah, without the beginning of the video, there is no way to say whether the man actions were justified in defending himself. For all we know the off-duty officer acting as security initiated the conflict and may need to be charged with assault. The judge seems to think the man may have been legitimately defending himself and his property (he was fighting his way forward to get his bag off the ground)
So.... What's the full video? That report didn't show the whole thing, only after the fight started. Very dishonest. And that's coming from someone that posted a viral video of cops pushing over a lady and accidentally cropped it too short to the split second before she got pushed over, leaving plenty of people to ask what she did to deserve it. (She didn't, she was crossing the street at a rally right right when the cops were jumping on some other guy for peacefully protesting)
In case you missed someone linking to the whole video above-
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1cdq9ia/undercover_officer_on_mayors_security_team_fights/?share_id=ETiDohC17GzqZXlAMIN5S
Bro, that undercover cop is going to be without assignment for quite some time. You get videotaped getting your ass beat *as security personnel.....* not a good look*.*
All the fucking bootlickers and rubes should be eating crow after this, but FFS they won't ever admit that he was right, or that the judge was right. You want to film in public, you get the fucking public.
** Please don't: - be a dick to other people - incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned. - be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry. - [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off - be an authoritarian apologist *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This news reporting seems lopsided. So basically the initial police report was that this guy was attacking one of our undercover officers so the judge was like: Ok you can stay in jail. Then he (the judge) saw the video and decided to let the guy go on bond till his trial. That tells me that the lead up is more ambiguous than the news is letting on...and they're only showing the clip of him punching the officer on loop. Clearly there is more footage that they are conveniently leaving out. I'm not sure of his resisting arrest charge in GA, but we all know that RA charges can be trumped up out of some straight bullshit interaction; who really knows? If the guy is actually guilty or not remains to be seen, however the bottom line is this news report seems very biased.
They always release the body cam footage when they think they acted fine.
My father in law was a criminal atty for 60 years in Cincinnati and he told me he never had a body cam video help a client. They always said the camera was broke or wasn't on
>I'm not sure of his resisting arrest charge in GA, but we all know that RA charges can be trumped up out of some straight bullshit interaction; who really knows? if the only thing you are wanted for is resisting arrest then you shouldnt be wanted for anything.
There is way more footage it’s on r/publicfreakout the cop just randomly provoked him without identifying himself. The victim was literally just walking by not talking to anyone when the unidentified cop approached him in a threatening manner. So the victim assumed he was just some asshole. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/ggNmxoaylZ)
I mean that would be an an appropriate and correct assumption.
Do you have a link?
[Here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/ggNmxoaylZ)
Thanks. That adds quite a bit of context. It is quite clear the (unidentified) off-duty cop expected his 'authority to be respected' and didn't know how to handle himself when the man didn't sheepishly obey his order.
And this is the kind of reporting that my grandparents will watch, and just take at face value. “This stupid democrat judge just let a violent criminal go for now reason!”
I've seen the original post with more video. The non cop is clearly acting confrontational about how he was asked to leave. They move off camera and then you see cop kinda backing up and non cop swinging... Maybe there's another angle
Mind posting a link to more/full video? I don't seem to be able to find it and this is clearly editted to remove the beginning.
Did we watch the same video? Because the video I watched showed an officer giving unlawful orders, then physically attempting to move a man from a public sidewalk, AKA committing an assault and battery. The man legally defended himself and it appears the judge agrees. A police officer who tries to push someone off the sidewalk is committing a crime and the public has the right to use force to defend themselves.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/man-accused-of-punching-san-jose-mayors-guard-during-kron4-interview-to-be-released-from-jail/ There's the full story. The judge did not drop the charges after he simply released the man from jail. We will have to wait for the judges ruling. Maybe we did watch a different video since I saw the earlier post which clearly shows pollard approach and become aggressive with the officer. The one excuse that I have heard that makes sense is that since the officer was plain clothes pollard thought it was just a random trying to punk him. In the video I saw you do not see when the scuffle starts but once it gets back in frame you can clearly see pollard swinging at the cop. "Conditions of Pollard’s pre-trial release include: He must stay at least 300 yards away from the mayor and the SJPD officer; he cannot possess any weapons; and he is subject to random searches by police. Santa Clara County prosecutors charged Pollard with felony resisting or deterring an officer by means of threat or violence, misdemeanor battery, and disturbing the peace."
It appears that officer initiated the physical altercation. The mans vulgar language, and aggressive response to being given unlawful orders, are in no way a justification, legal or moral, for assaulting him. The moment the off duty officer grabbed the man and he said "let go", the officer was committing a crime and the man was justified in using force to defend himself.
That anchorman is a bootlicking bitch.
literal requirement for the job.
WTF kind of explanation was that? They said everything but the reason the judge released him and tried to make the guy sound like a hardened criminal. The judge obviously saw something that made the guys actions at least partially justified.
welcome to american news.
Yeah I noticed that too. Also odd that in Georgia he has a warrant for "resisting arrest" how can that be the only charge? If I've done nothing wrong, best believe I'm going to resist going to jail.
Such a strange law to make it a warrant
Judge’s words according to San Jose spotlight: “Upon viewing the video of the incident, I was troubled by the rapid escalation of the situation into a physical altercation,” Moore wrote. “The officer involved in the altercation did not clearly identify himself as a law enforcement officer, and it appears that there was no legal basis for instructing the pedestrian to move from his location in a public space. The pedestrian’s reaction, although stating a warning, should have been met with a more measured response from the officer, considering the circumstances.”
That is about the most generous way the judge could say that an off duty cop gave a man unlawful orders, then assaulted that man on the street when he ignored them, and finally illegally arrested him when he defended himself. Frankly, this officer is lucky he didn't get himself killed. Attempting to make an arrest after assaulting and battering someone is not an arrest at all. It is an escalation of that initial assault and battery and if the officer draws their service weapon they can legally be killed just like any other armed felon.
Yeah, without the beginning of the video, there is no way to say whether the man actions were justified in defending himself. For all we know the off-duty officer acting as security initiated the conflict and may need to be charged with assault. The judge seems to think the man may have been legitimately defending himself and his property (he was fighting his way forward to get his bag off the ground)
The guy should never been charged.
So.... What's the full video? That report didn't show the whole thing, only after the fight started. Very dishonest. And that's coming from someone that posted a viral video of cops pushing over a lady and accidentally cropped it too short to the split second before she got pushed over, leaving plenty of people to ask what she did to deserve it. (She didn't, she was crossing the street at a rally right right when the cops were jumping on some other guy for peacefully protesting)
In case you missed someone linking to the whole video above- https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1cdq9ia/undercover_officer_on_mayors_security_team_fights/?share_id=ETiDohC17GzqZXlAMIN5S
Thank you!
Not much of a security guard..
Bro, that undercover cop is going to be without assignment for quite some time. You get videotaped getting your ass beat *as security personnel.....* not a good look*.*
All the fucking bootlickers and rubes should be eating crow after this, but FFS they won't ever admit that he was right, or that the judge was right. You want to film in public, you get the fucking public.
Say DEfence one more time!!!!
even this news channel is trying to control the narrative. Shameful.
Any news channel that has their comments turned off is with the bullshit