October 9th, 2013

Idaho Cop Assaults Man for Video Recording Traffic Stop From More Than 50 Feet Away 161

By Carlos Miller

A Boise police sergeant stormed up to a man video recording her making a traffic stop from more than 50 feet away, accusing him of interfering with her investigation.

Sgt. Lori Sperry ordered Gavin Seim to take his hands out of his pockets and hand over his identification, which he refused to do on the basis that he was not committing a crime.

Sperry, who made more than $99,000 in 2011, became extremely unsettled by the fact that he asserted his rights, claiming it was an “officer safety issue,” then insisting she was unable to multitask because she couldn’t focus on the driver she was ticketing as well as on Seim.

At one point, she grabbed his arm, but then backed off as if realizing she had crossed the line.

She finally relaxed when another officer named T. Green showed up to the scene, who’s demeanor was the complete opposite of his superior.

Seim explained to him what had happened.

“She said I had to give ID and wanted to pat me down, she also grabbed me too,” Seim told the male officer.

“She assaulted you?” the cop asked, sounding surprised.  (read correction below).

The two have a mundane conversation for several minutes until Sperry is done with her traffic stop and pulls up to Seim at the 10:00 mark.

And once again, she orders him to take his hands out of his pocket, insisting he had been interfering and claiming she had not assaulted him by grabbing him.

Call Boise Police Chief  Mike Masterson at  (208) 570-6190.

CORRECTION: I just received the following email from Gavin Seim, who clarified that it wasn’t officer Green who asked, “she assaulted you?” but a friend that was with him.

Hi Carlos this is Gavin Seim. Thanks for posting my little encounter from last night. Interesting times. Truth told I did not expect the escalation. I was some distance away and was not even interacting until the officer approached me. I just wanted to correct something.

It was not green that asked if she assaulted me and sounded surprised. That was one of my traveling companions that walked over. Green was polite, if a bit smug.

He did answer most of my questions and was non aggressive. I just wanted to be clear about who was speaking in the video. That third voice that spoke once or twice was there to support me but it was not an officer.


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.

To help support the blog, please click below to make a donation or purchase Photography is Not a Crime apparel on PINAC Nation.





  • Difster

    The coproach will never be charged in this case, but at least the other coproach was reasonable.

  • DTM

    So she leaves her “stop” for a photographer? So her “stop” is less important, was it a crime lady? Why leave your stop?

    I hope people truly understand photographers and videographers are helping to save this country and the US Constitution.

    No matter which state or locality, do people understand that for seem reason they have unlimited amount of cops to call for backup? You know a police state has been built. Not to be questioned or held accountable.

    Oh and I LOVE THIS VIDEOGRAPHER.

    Welcome to Obama’s America. The police state.

    • aikimoe

      Not an Obama fan, but cops behaving badly has been a problem for as long as there have been cops. It’s nothing new.

      • DTM

        This is true but under Obama, the feds have been funding massively state and local police with para-military weapons, vehicles and an arrogance that has been ratcheted up hugely, by the videos on this site alone against citizens.

        • JDS

          That started after 9/11, under Bush.

        • dylboz

          Nah, seriously, it has been going on since the 70′s. Really ratcheted up in the 80′s under Reagan. Got even worse under Herbert Walker Bush, too. Remember that TV address where he had a huge rock of crack?

          • BusPass

            The biggest expansion of police occurred under Bill Clinton when he enjoyed a Democrat majority in the House and Senate; when they passed their “assault weapons ban,” they included infrastructure for 100,000 more cops, an increase of the overall number of police by 15%.

            Blaming Reagan and Bush is idiotic, especially since both of them faced a democrat majority in Congress.

            Try again, crack baby.

          • dylboz

            I’m not a “crack baby.” And I’m not even going to argue with you. In fact, I’m actually a registered Republican. I’m even an elected Precinct Committeeman. But I will suggest that maybe you should try being less abrasive.

          • BusPass

            The level of abrasiveness was designed to match your level of rhetoric.

            BTW, I will return to the Republican party (that I left in 2006) when there is more daylight between them and the other party.

        • putaro

          At this point, I would squarely put this police state as a bipartisan effort. Obama’s expansion does not excuse the prior Republican expansions nor vice versa. I voted for Obama partly because I believed he would start dialing this back but I was wrong. I don’t think McCain or Romney would have done anything different, though.

          • Flashing Scotsman

            Republicrats.

        • Don

          Actually all this started with the Patriot Act and the establishment of Homeland Security. While Police forces across the US had been increasing their zero tolerance policies and thus abandoning common sense enforcement at the scene, these 2 actions created a society that was willing to give local law enforcement ridiculous funds and leeway to use them on whatever they wanted in the name of national security. And while the top administrations can work to provide funds to start up or reinforce a local law enforcement agency their is nothing they can do about “dialing them back” since they can just continue to fund what has been already established all on their own.

    • Ron

      Would she have been so concerned if it was just some guy having a cigarette and watching her from a distance? Of course not, otherwise she would be so scared at every traffic stop she wouldn’t be able to function. It was solely the camera that unnerved her. Once she started the confrontation she couldnt back down – bet she wishes she had just waved to the camera now!

      • Difdi

        If you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about?

    • Difdi

      Well obviously she had no choice. The photons falling into his camera lens created a suction that pulled her fifty feet to the camera. She couldn’t have resisted the pull if she tried. Once there, the camera sucked out part of her soul and she had to get it back before finishing her business at the traffic stop.

      So yeah, he’s 100% to blame for the incident.

      • Carlos_Miller

        It would have been great if the driver she had pulled over would have just driven off.

        • Difdi

          Probably would have been charged with escaping custody or some such nonsense.

          But I could totally see it as a defense in court “But your Honor, she was obviously done with me because she left the scene to go hassle a guy for exercising first amendment rights, I thought I was free to go!”

          • inquisitor

            She would have gunned him down by shooting through the windows because as he drove away she would have feared for her safety because he could always decide to do a U-turn and run her down.
            So it is better not to hesitate for that to actually happen and subdue suspect immediately.
            The best self-defense being a pre-emptive first strike as the logic.

          • lock+load

            That’s how they do it in Washington D.C.

          • inquisitor

            Tru ‘dat.

        • Heisenberg

          If I was the driver, I would have asked are we done here?

          • Flashing Scotsman

            I kept hoping that there would be a yell from over by the cruiser. “Am I being detained? Am I free to go?”

  • rick

    Too few realize integrity is not a switch that can be turned on and off at a person’s convenience. It must be exercised constantly and guarded with great vigilance.

  • Pádraig Pearse

    What a bitch.

    • Midol

      PMS

      • Voice-Of-Corcern

        If it’s PMS, how come most of the jerk cops we see on here are guys?

        Misogyny makes you look childish, at best

        • inquisitor

          Actually PMS, female hormone changes and the use of birth control drugs could be relevant factors concerning her demeanor.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Actually, “PMS”, as pertains to mood is mostly myth. Sure, it’s a handy myth for those who are looking for an excuse to distrust or disrespect women.. but science simply does not support the myth. Which completely matches my own anecdotal experience.

          • inquisitor

            Which is why I did not limit the potentials to just PMS, but could just be a hormonal imbalance which could also be a problem concerning a man.

            But I have found my candid discussions with thousands of women concerning the subject of PMS to be different than your own with say, roughly 20%, expressing changes of mood and some with food cravings along a spectrum from extremely mild to extremely wild. Diet, lifestyle and health being factors as well.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            So, your position, is that your anecdotal evidence shows roughly 80% of women do not “changes of mood and some with food cravings along a spectrum from extremely mild to extremely wild”. That’s not a very strong argument for the claim that PMS is legitimate cause of mood issues.

          • inquisitor

            I would not refer to my evidence as anecdotal because it is relayed to me in a formal medical context with actual patients.

            I did not exclusively state that PMS was the only cause of potential mood issues, as I had also stated that hormone imbalance, which could be by any cause, and the use of birth control pills could also be factors.
            So the additional two considerations would raise the potential above twenty percent for exclusively PMS. If one were to take what I stated in its entirety.

            One in five versus your comment of PMS mood issues being a myth was the point of contention I addressed. Not that PMS was exclusively or overwhelmingly the cause of mood issues. The difference between your
            assertion that it is a myth versus my experience of one-in-five, or twenty percent, is now noted.

            Hope that clarifies.
            One in five versus your assertion that is a myth

          • Harold4321

            Actually, “PMS”, as pertains to mood is mostly myth???
            You obviously don’t know my wife.

        • BusPass

          I don’t know, dude. I’m pretty sure they are all sync’d up on their cycles.

          • Flashing Scotsman

            Wouldn’t they do their jobs in a lawful manner most of the month if that were the case?

  • thetruth33

    Un-freaking-real. Something has to be done about these damn worthless “public servants.” Officers like this insane bitch….and there are millions more who act just like her……make me sick.

  • Film The Police Always

    She’s was disgusting! Police Departments around the country are starting to crack down on these rogue cops because of the negativity these videos are causing. Hopefully her department will drag her dumb-ass into the office immediately and straighten her ass out. As for this man doing the recording, NICE JOB! You handled yourself perfectly and professionally. Please tell me you are filing a complaint on this little whore! Here’s some information on her department’s Internal Affairs Office. http://police.cityofboise.org/home/ia-police-training/ Here’s the Chief of Police’s phone number (208) 570-6190 More then likely, the Chief has probably been trying to bang her little ass so he probably wont do anything to her. Hell, all this just may get her to sleep with him since she’s in trouble and she knows it’s now time to honker down on the snotty end of his fuck stick.

    • inquisitor

      “Police Departments around the country are starting to crack down on
      these rogue cops because of the negativity these videos are causing.”

      What does “crack down” actually mean?
      What does “rogue cop” actually mean?
      What does “negativity” actually mean?

      This cop just harassed, by giving unlawful orders, and assaulted a law-abiding citizen.
      She should be arrested and should lose her job…no less than this.

    • butch

      Not bad looking. For a lesbian that is.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      No need to call her a “whore”. Misogyny makes you look childish.. as best.

  • ericbrady

    Certainly one of the most intelligent and well spoken videographers I’ve seen on this site.

    • inquisitor

      So was another guy out in California that was highlighted here a couple months back dealing with park police abuses.

  • patchbag

    Notice the part where T. Green describes his job as a police officer. Write tickets, patrol, and arrest people. That’s disgraceful. Police need to have their mission statement memorized so they can think about what their job is really all about.

  • Dexter Sinister

    I think the cameraman is an obsequious twit, creating an issue where there really was none. You call them out, they will respond. This type of baiting doesn’t help anyone. Sure, she was out of line, but when does the observer affect the observed? Let’s see more journalism and less cop-baiting. No I am not a cop, and I respect him for asserting his rights, but filming cops for the sole purpose of sucking them into a standoff is kind of chickenshit.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Standing 50 feet away from her traffic stop with a camera, not saying anything to her, is not baiting.

      It’s simply exercising one’s rights.

      The cop should have just waved to the camera and carried on.

    • BusPass

      Please point out the moment in the video where he called her “out.”

      You don’t understand the purpose, and there is not a “sole purpose.”

      There is a remarkable lack of accountability; the watchers need to be watched. They don’t like the idea of being held accountable which is why they lose their sht when someone points a camera at them.

      And if you think it’s “chickenshit” to film the cops, I challenge you to give it a try and we’ll point out the instant where your cowardice is displayed.

    • inquisitor

      Your analysis of the situation is askew.

    • Difdi

      By that standard, no one has any rights because exercising them in any way is abusing them to try to ‘create an issue’.

      It’s like a police sting operation. The police give people an opportunity to choose to obey they law or to choose not to. If someone chooses not to, they get arrested and prosecuted. No one forced that police sergeant to choose to break the law, that was entirely her own choice.

      You’ve called out Carlos more here than the photographer called out that police sergeant. You did so by exercising your right to freedom of expression. Is your behavior chickenshit?

  • kyle

    Gosh, I may be grasping here, but Terry V. Ohio says officers can pat someone down, but to do that you have to be suspected of a crime and detained… You can’t just go up to someone, initiate contact and state the need to pat them down. That said, if you pat them down, you cannot go into their pockets. You can just feel for weapons.
    This woman is disgraceful not only for her on-the-job antics, but mostly because she can’t multitask. I’m surprised she didn’t ask the gas station to close and traffic to stop on the street.

    I have to give credit to the guy… he stayed calm in the pocket, and did well when discussing whether he was assaulted. She denied, but you could see how she would have claimed the same if he touched her.
    Good job.

    • inquisitor

      She is obviously one of the ugly girls, feeling lonely lately and thought the photog was kinda’ cute…hence the pat down and wanting to stick her hands in his pockets to feel his gun.

    • Difdi

      Idaho is not a Stop & Identify state.

  • venice

    what is the big deal if he videos if there is nothing to hide .

    • inquisitor

      She has one of those fearful, skittish, rabid rat on speed type of personalities.
      The last type of person you want carrying a gun and a badge trying to harass you.
      Surprised she didn’t pump a couple of rounds in his chest and then make the false claim that his cellphone looked like a gun.

      • legalhit

        She could of. She did say the magic words. “OFFICER SAFETY ISSUE”

        • Difdi

          Nowhere in the law will you find any sort of statute giving police the authority to violate the law in order to feel safe. With only one exception they operate under the same self-defense rules all citizens do (the exception being the ability to go looking for trouble without voiding a self-defense claim).

          I wonder how it would go over if you asked a police officer to take his/her hands off his/her belt or even disarm for citizen safety? Would the officer comply? Or would the officer feel ‘threatened’ and become violent?

          • getaclue

            STOP RESISTING! Get it?

          • Difdi

            Fun fact: Many (though not all) statutes on resisting arrest don’t actually specify arrest by a police officer.

            Equally fun fact: Of the 50 states, 49 allow citizen’s arrest.

            Those two facts come together to make it possible to arrest a uniformed police officer in many places, and use those words on them.

  • woody

    She needs to get laid sooooooooooo bad!

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      I think that could be said of most commenters on the Internet too…

  • Ron

    Can we really afford a cop on $99,000+ a year to write tickets?

    More importantly can we afford a 2nd cop whose sole job appears to be standing guard on a photographer?

  • Amused

    While there are many instances of cops crossing the line on a power trip, I find it incredibly amusing how some of these idiots try to bait the cops into a situation. This fool deserved to have the ____kicked out of him. Yes, I was with him all the way as he stood there and filmed. I continued to stand with him in a manner of speaking as the woman cop made a fool out of herself with him. But when the other cop arrived, the moron with the camera clearly was being an asshole to a guy that didn’t deserve it. If the camera guy had any balls, he would come to NYC and try the same thing.

    • hesacop

      Thank you OFFICER for your insight. Spoken like a true brother in blue.

    • inquisitor

      The woman ordered the second male cop to stand watch over the photog, yet the photog had done nothing wrong or illegal.
      Standing watch over law-abiding citizens as if they are a criminal is insulting.
      The photog was basically asking questions of the officer to make the point that he would be better serving the public by actually doing some real investigating of actual bad guys rather than indulging an officer who just assaulted him.
      I would call that admonishing, not baiting.

      In NYC they rape your anus with a nightstick for spitting your gum out on the sidewalk.
      You can do no right in NYC.

    • Rur Elvin

      yea I agree camera guy was pushing his luck with other officer playing retard to officer about what officer does besides write tickets dumb question camera guy was asking for it there a bit .

    • Voie-Of-Concern

      Right.. because Freedom of Speech clearly does not apply to someone talking to cops. I mean, the only reasonable solution would be to.. what was it you said… “have the ____ kicked out of him”. Yes, I’m sure there is a perfectly good moral & legal foundation for that concept

      (eye roll)

    • Difdi

      How, exactly, is a man standing on a public street, doing absolutely nothing that is illegal, suspicious, immoral or actionable in any way baiting a cop?

      She saw him engaging in behavior she is forbidden by law from interfering with, and decided to interfere. She chose. She was not coerced or baited to do so, she was in fact forbidden to do so. But she did it anyway, leaving the scene of an investigation to do it.

    • Film The Police Always

      You want this man to come to NYC?

      Look what we have here folks. Looks like we have one of NYPD’s finest acting the tough guy roll. What next, you gonna start smashing in the window of a car with a little 2 year old in it? Jesus Christ, all you cops are the same. Film the police always because of assholes like this one and the bitch in Boise!

  • Farid Rushdi

    I live in Idaho — have for 20 years — this is so not representative of our police. This is a lone wolf to be sure.

    I am currently writing a series about “Policing Idaho” for my newspaper in Pocatello. I will contact her PIO and get a statement and let you know what I find out.

    I don’t know her, but her actions are typical for a police bully, not someone worried for their safety. Notice that once he stood his Constitutional ground, she didn’t make him do any of the things she “requested.”

    • gaydar

      She just’s hates men. For obvious reasons.

      • Flashing Scotsman

        Judging by her attitude, I’d say she would treat a woman just as badly.

    • BusPass

      And the other cop? Was he supposed to be “the good cop?”

    • Arthur

      IDK what you’re talking about… Boise Police are ridiculous in their NAZi tactics, and always have more than enough officers arrive on scene… Growing up as a youth there, I was harassed thoroughly for incredibly small things.

      • D M

        Maybe they were bad when you were growing up here, but I currently live in Boise, have my whole life, and have always been respectfully treated by Boise Police, Ada County Sheriff, and Idaho State officers(have had numerous encounters, mainly for modified exhaust or speed, which is a story for another time lol), so this is definitely a lone wolf situation. Now Garden City Police on the other hand…

  • boisethinker

    ya know, a lot of people blame the cops on this, and while im not saying she is right in this case(because in my opinion, she isn’t) you all have to look at this from the other point of view. Imagine you are a cop. You pulled someone over. lets starts there. You know cops are already not respected and if you are an actual criminal, you may be forced to fight your way out of your own wrong-doings. As a cop, you don’t know what is coming upon you. you don’t know what is about to go down, peaceful and mudane or otherwise.
    Now, if you are as neurotic as a lot of cops and see any small black item pointed as you as a threat, what do you do then? Oh…its a camera? can you tell the difference right off the bat that its a camera or a gun…from 50 feet away as this portrayal says? didn’t think so. also, if you are saying otherwise, go take another bong hit you worthless trash of society. don’t bring your retarded arguments into this.
    remember, the cops are there to protect you. no matter who you are. if you are chill and honest with the cops, they will be chill with you…as long as you didn’t do anything against the law. and I must say, this goes for most cops, as there are, as there are in any profession, group, etc, the exceptions.
    Im not defending her actions, but maybe we should think of this as a reaction to our own actions against society…namely, ourselves.

    • hesacop

      It’s still no excuse to be an asshole about it.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Right, and if she walks up to him and determines it’s a camera, then the next natural thought would be that he has a gun in his pocket because that’s what cop killers do.

      They stand there in full sight, distracting the cops with the camera, only to pull out a gun and kill them.

    • Difdi

      Police are required to have at least a little evidence before they are allowed to act. Since cop-killer and violent maniac are not the default conditions of the general public, a police officer cannot assume that any particular bystander is those things without some evidence.

      Exercising a constitutionally-protected right 50 feet away calmly and quietly does not create any sort of evidence of wrongdoing.

      The cops are not there to protect individual citizens, they are there to investigate crimes, enforce laws and protect society as a whole. None of which is achieved by violating the law and bullying citizens.

    • inquisitor

      The distance from the photog to the cop is vast.
      He was no threat to what she was doing.
      A phone held up to film and the actions of one doing this are quite easy to determine even from a distance.

    • RaymondbyEllis

      Skenazy at Free-Range Kids writes about the crippling effects of worst case thinking. It’s wholely fear-driven and a distortion of reality. However, I don’t think she’s covered the fear of not making it to dinner and how it cripples other adults.

      • Difdi

        If everybody did that and reacted to the worst case as if it were fact until proven otherwise, society would die overnight. Even if it’s just cops doing it.

        Every random guy on the street COULD be a cannibalistic serial killer pedophile who is engaging in espionage, planning a terrorist attack and a traitor to his country. He’s probably not, but that’s the worst case (unless you’re religious or a UFO watcher, which adds possibilities like alien conqueror or demonic possession). Police — and everyone else — are supposed to act on facts, not ‘what if’, but more and more these days people ARE reacting to what-if statements.

        Turned around, how do you know the cop that just wandered over to you is really a cop, and not a cannibalistic serial killer pedophile who impersonates police officers as a hobby between his/her day job of spying, planning terrorist operations and committing treason? The proper reaction to that particular worse case is to draw a gun and open fire in defense of your life.

        If worst-case thinking is valid for a police officer determining threats, then sooner or later someone will apply it going the other way. If “I feared for my life” works for cops, it will work for anyone — police and private citizens have almost exactly the same right to self-defense. In some states (Washington, for example) private citizens have a greater ability to lawfully use deadly force in any given situation than police do.

  • Bob

    When you told the other officer that she grabbed you and he referred to that as “assault”, he was showing ignorance of the law as an unwanted touching is actually “battery”. Just by her approaching you in a threating manner is assault. From a legal dictionary:

    “Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.

    The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or nonexistence of a touching or contact. While contact is an essential element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for assault. Sometimes assault is defined loosely to include battery.”

    • RaymondbyEllis

      Not all states use the term battery. Arizona just has levels of assault. There are some other states that do the same. I have no idea how many or few. This was from another post in a thread with ECLS.

      • Difdi

        True, they don’t. But Idaho DOES use the term battery, and under Idaho statutes assault is merely the threat of violence, actual contact (even a light touch, if unwanted) is battery.

        • RaymondbyEllis

          Difdi,

          And that’s fine. I didn’t bother looking up Idaho; it’s just that using a legal dictionary doesn’t capture the language in every state.

          • inquisitor

            And if one is not using a strict legal definition, but a general use of the word assault, I would interpret her whole demeanor of giving commands, asking for ID, threatening to perform a search with no reasonable suspicion or probable cause and physical contact all contained under the general usage of the term assault.

            Is she not also guilty of an assault and battery according to strict legal definitions in this regard?

          • RaymondbyEllis

            inquisitor,
            A lot of states have abrogated the right to self-defense against a cop. I have no idea where Idaho falls. So, no this may not fall under that definition, because that definition only exists in a jurisdicition where it exists. And then only if it applies to a cop.

            ECLS has tried to make the point, over and over, that your personal definition is only that. God help you that fail to heed his warning.

  • kraz

    It’s sick that these cops making this much money. And I know of cops that make even more. For what? They always say that they put their lives on the line every day. That’s not entirely true. And there are other careers that people are at risk at too. And no one ever made them choose their job.

    These cops need to be brought under control quickly. If someone had even touched that cop, they would have been arrested for assault. These are not a few rogue cops either. This is the norm. I’ve been watching it getting worse over the past three decades.

    • Don

      Actually it is entirely true. They do put their lives on the line every day. There are other jobs that do it too but not many and none so blatantly and dangerously. There is no other job out side the military where some one has to put on a bulletproof vest because any call, even a traffic stop, can result in facing a gun. This does not excuse bad behaviour, but can create a bad attitude by the end of the day.

      • VixyTail

        can you post some numbers on that I have read other wise.

  • Spartakos

    While I feel the female cop was definitely ridiculous, I don’t understand why so many here want to resort to name-calling and crude sexual innuendos. Why not simply call her a bully cop, which she is? Her attitude is what makes me have no respect for her; when you make a lot of frat boy comments about lesbians and buttplugs, it makes me have no respect for you either. Carlos has a good site here, why make him look bad?

    • Difdi

      Because there are no refined, polite terms that adequately describe how vile it is to breach public trust and break oaths.

      Epithets are crude and unpleasant for a reason.

      • inquisitor

        Excellent reply Difdi.

        My two cents.

        It is a coping mechanism to use humor and satire to further emphasize
        and draw attention to the absurdity of law enforcement’s violation of
        citizen’s rights.
        The female cop was not just ridiculous, but criminal.
        The analysis of the wrongs of the officer can be summed up in one sentence.
        So
        additional commentary only emphasizes the frustration that citizens
        feel when they see public servants act as bullies and power drunk
        sociopaths that make up the law according to their whim.
        Seeing how
        an actual arrest of this officer and her losing her job is not likely,
        some may need to vent their desire for justice in a form of humorous
        retaliation online.
        You may not like it and may not find it funny or
        in good taste, but a universe apart in comparison to the behavior of
        cops highlighted on this site.

        • ryoke

          As a used car salesman from Argentina I can smell the bull in your smug reply

          • inquisitor

            I couldn’t have been more honest and sincere.
            Pity you can’t appreciate that.

        • Spartakos

          I have no objection to epithets or even cursing. I object to gendered slurs, and how when dealing with a woman, people feel the need to resort to sexual insults that they don’t with a man.

          I was in no way suggesting or insinuating that Carlos should do anything; his blog, he can do what he wants, and I support free speech.

          But free speech does not mean everyone has to like what you say, and I have the right to tell you I think you’re being a jerk. And that YOU might want to not make him look bad. I don’t want him to censor you. I want you to think about what you’re saying and how it makes you look.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        Epithets, per se, don’t bother me at all. But sexist, homophobic misogynistic epithets are unnecessarily offensive to women who don’t happen to be jerk cops.

        • inquisitor

          It is crucial to survive in this world to not be so prone to be offended.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            yeah, but it’s totally non-ironic how only women get the gender based misogynistic comments.

            I understand how it may be uncomfortable to have this pointed out, but that does not make it any less true.

          • Difdi

            It also tends to lose us any support we might otherwise have. If anyone from the LGBT community is a photographer and in favor of having rights goes looking for a blog like this one, and discovers it’s a den of homophobia, odds are he or she will keep going, without stopping off here.

            The same goes for any insult — nigger, kike, haole, honkey, spic, fag, dyke, wetback, redneck, the list is as long as you have the stomach for.

            If someone who is undecided on the issue comes here and discovers we’re nothing but racists and homophobes, odds are they won’t decide in favor of our other opinions, the reasonable gets drowned out and buried under all the crap.

            In the end, you have to decide something — do you want to actually change things for the better, or do you want to complain and complain and complain as things get worse and worse?

            Supposedly Carlos wants positive change, but the way the posts are going here over time, sooner or later he’ll have to shut it all down or disable comments, lest he start doing his cause more harm than good.

          • inquisitor

            Sounds like an exaggerated and overblown interpretation of the alleged prevalence on this blog.

            Last paragraph…highly speculative…fantastical even.

      • Spartakos

        Yes, but there are unisex ones, and ones that don’t use sexual orientation as a pejorative. A cop is a cop, regardless of her gender. So why not insult her the way you would a man? Unless you would suggest that men are “fags” and probably need to get laid and that’s why they’re bullies.

        • inquisitor

          You are surely entitled to have your say, but ultimately you are just going to have to accept its presence here and move on.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Why? Why should Spartakos or I have to “Just accept it”? Should we also accept it if when people use race-based terms?

            I understand that it may be uncomfortable when folks object, but frankly, isn’t that how adults learn better choices?

          • inquisitor

            Yawn.

          • Difdi

            They don’t need to accept anything, but you might.

            This blog HAS gotten fouler and cruder over time, and it really does hurt our ability to agitate for better conditions. To the extent that I often wonder whether our more vulgar members are undercover police trying to discredit us.

            That IS, after all, one of the ways police agencies have always worked, when they find a group that opposes them for any reason, they try to shut it down or discredit it, even if they have to infiltrate it with someone who starts suggesting acts of violence for the group to carry out. If they can make us seem like a bunch of slope-browed, violent, foul-mouthed losers, the general public will react to our opinions and political views accordingly.

            Just look at how the Tea Party got smeared. They went from a pro-human rights group with a constitutionalist platform to neo-nazis and racist thugs, simply because those groups “joined” the party and then got louder than the original message. That seems to be happening here, too.

            If the worst thing you can say about someone is to wonder if they’re gay, perhaps you have less that you need to say than you think you do…and perhaps you should think a bit longer before posting.

          • inquisitor

            Sounds very speculative to me.

          • Difdi

            It’s not speculative at all. Go read.

          • inquisitor

            I have and based my statement upon those very observations.
            The proportion of your alleged objectionable posts to those that are non-objectionable is very slight.
            Get over it.

          • Difdi

            If ignorance is bliss, you’re stoned out of your mind.

          • inquisitor

            I don’t do drugs.
            Your claims are simply inflated regarding the content of posts on this blog in attempt to make your point.

          • inquisitor

            And while not being overly-pervasive as you opine, “buttplug” now has ten likes.

    • Heisenberg

      I agree with you she was out of line, the only vague thing she could have pointed to is that in Idaho you can carry a weapon. Believe it or not he would have gotten dealt with differently in LA, if the LAPD or LASD where there and they would have assaulted the man and deleted the tape. The police all across this country have this misconception that u must surrender your id to them at any time. They could use the id to run u for warrants etc. They have to have a valid reason to detain u.

  • quickflick

    The look Officer Green has at 2:55 is priceless. Absolutely priceless.

  • http://www.parafriv.net/ Para Friv

    While I feel the female cop was definitely ridiculous, I don’t
    understand why so many here want to resort to name-calling and crude
    sexual innuendos. Thank you so much!

    • inquisitor

      It is a coping mechanism to use humor and satire to further emphasize and draw attention to the absurdity of law enforcement’s violation of citizen’s rights.
      The female cop was not just ridiculous, but criminal.
      The analysis of the wrongs of the officer can be summed up in one sentence.
      So additional commentary only emphasizes the frustration that citizens feel when they see public servants act as bullies and power drunk sociopaths that make up the law according to their whim.
      Seeing how an actual arrest of this officer and her losing her job is not likely, some may need to vent their desire for justice in a form of humorous retaliation online.
      You may not like it and may not find it funny or in good taste, but a universe apart in comparison to the behavior of cops highlighted on this site.

  • sid

    I don’t know. This is pretty mild. The guy was told to it was ok to video she didn’t want her back to him. She gave him a reasonable option. The real weird thing is why does she waste so much time. Maybe in Boise City cops don’t want people behind them. We have no idea what she was detaining the driver for. It’s contextual. She didn’t arrest him, she dialogued and she did touch him but this is pretty mild in general.

    • inquisitor

      You left out some pertinent details concerning her actions during the confrontation that she initiated.

    • Josef Roesler

      What if there had been ten people standing in that spot watching? Should she have been ten times more paranoid and aggressive? No, but then she wouldn’t have done anything to a crowd, either. What do you think she does when she has to deal with one person in a crowded area with people all around her? Do you think she cordons off the area to keep people back 100 feet? No, she just does her job if she doesn’t think there’s some bullying to get away with.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      If she didn’t want people behind her, she should have closed the area off. But traffic (ie, the large white truck that drove VERY slowly by) drove much closer than the gent with the camera, so her claim is BS.

  • Carlos_Miller

    I just included a correction in the story, along with the chief’s phone number.

  • Tijuana Joe

    These are some of my favorite encounters. The irony is overwhelming, a big DIsneyland
    light show from the cop car but you’re not allowed to observe it. Then the stuoid “hands out of your pockets” orders. Then “you’re going to be detained in just a second.” For what???
    Don’t become a cop if you can’t stand some Good Samaritans watching you.

  • Belen Sanchez

    This Raper warn you Years ago…

  • florencelightengale

    Why were you videotaping her to begin with? I may be wrong, you would have to be honest with yourself, but I would question if you were looking to antagonize and that is what she was feeling. That is what may have drawn her over to you. Police are hyper-vigilant and they need to be on their jobs. They need to be constantly aware of what is going on around them for the safety of the public. Granted she could have responded to you differently, but she could feel your defensiveness and immediate rebellion. Always good to look at your part in it. Peace :)

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      1) “I want to exercise my First Amendment rights”, is the only reason he needs. He was quietly recording from a safe distance away.

      2) as for your moronic comment about “rebellion”, I believe refusing an illegal order is Patriotic. You seem to feel differently. I pity you.

  • Michael Blitch

    It would be nice, though, if people would learned the differences between assault and battery and what each entail, so if they are going to make an accusation it is at least legally valid.

  • Matt Adams

    The problem starts when they talk to you and you answer back. That creates a dialogue. I’ve filmed cops and they try the same shit, but I don’t answer back and they leave me alone. They trick you into interfering with their investigation or official police business or whatever they are going to claim. Just invoke your right to remain silent by not answering.

    • Difdi

      Unfortunately, simply remaining silent does NOT invoke your rights. There was a recent court ruling to that effect. You have to actually state that you have right and are exercising them in order to have that right.

      According to the court ruling, simply not saying anything CAN be used against you in court.

  • John C Carleton

    This cop needs to find another cop on the force that can read AND comprehend, if one exist, to explain in very simple terms. Supreme court said for you to STFU.

  • Don

    The police have enough threats without someone being belligerent with them, his own words. The videographer keeps saying how he should have respect from her automatically, but he offered none himself. He keeps excusing his shaking from cold but he knows he created a situation by being deliberately resistant to the officers requests. Regardless of the officer being right or wrong he made the situation worse and was obviously trying to antagonize the officer into an action he could capture on video.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      The videographer has NO obligation to accede to her unlawful “requests”. In fact, he was very polite, which he also had NO obligation to be. He would have been well within his right to tell her to “Fuck off! I don’t want to talk to you and I don’t want you to talk to me. Don’t touch me and get the hell away from me!”

      But perhaps you don’t feel the First Amendment should apply to real life.

  • Rob

    “Excuse me officer, but fuck your safety. Your safety is no more important than my own, or my 1st and 4th Amendment rights.” I’m so sick and tired of that “For my safety” bullshit. It doesn’t mean shit.

  • Melt Esquibel

    Idaho is in the top ten for corruption and this CORPORATE CITY , COUNTY AND STATE violate rights daily … http://www.citizensofidaho.com/Our-Corrupt-Court-System.html to see the real truth…

  • Anna

    Typical behavior of the BPD. They shoot people too.

  • Proud GrandPa

    $100,000 is way too much for a police officer.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      No, it’s not.

      • dave

        not too much for the good ones

  • White__Rabbit

    What is wrong with this police officer? Is she stupid or slow? How else would you explain her inability to do her job while a camera is pointed at her. Does she have troubles walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time as well?

  • sheepdog

    this guy doesn’t understand that his position compromises her safety, that’s why she had concern about his presence. She even stated she didn’t mind if he video her. If she doesn’t do what she does she could be killed because of complacency and allowing you to be where you were at. Very smart and safe officer. It was more important for you to video her and make an issue of your proximity than her safety. Yeah well spoken my ass! I hope you never need them for anything! But know this they will still come to help.

    • Film The Police Always

      You’re retarded aren’t you? Your IQ has to be low double digits to come up with the bullshit you just wrote. Sheepdog, yup you are one of the sheep in this country that are allowing cunts like her to thrive with violating peoples rights.

      She tried to intimidate and coerce a citizen and from exercising his 1st amendment rights and he was so much smarter then her. She demanded shit and he told her she was full of it! If she was so worried about her safety with him standing there, then why didn’t she shut the road down, why didn’t she shut the gas station down?

      There’s a movement in this country and the people are tired of the police state were in. The citizens are getting educated on their rights and are all becoming familiar with how brutal they have ALL become. Now log out and tell your dike looking aunt that shes an ASSHOLE!

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Try listening as you watch the tape.

        At 0:40 the sgt. tells him that the videotaping is not a problem.

        At 2:05 she tells the backup officer that he is right behind her, where she can’t watch both.

        She did some things that I’m not comfortable with, but nothing close to what you claim.

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          What do you think would have been a reasonable distance from which he could observe? Her suggestion of going all the way over to the store did not seem reasonable to me.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            The distance he was at was reasonable. It was the position that made her nervous. I would have called for a cover unit also. If he had moved to one side or another (if it were possible), that would have satisfied me. I just don’t want to be directly in between two parties.

  • Objectless

    That actually happens a lot in Boise.. Sometimes you are really lucky and they shoot you for holding a M1 Carbine without a firing pin. I used to live in that shithole..

  • steveo

    Hey, leos, get used to it.

  • Pingback: CopBlock Radio Show – Episode 26

  • Hannah

    This guy is an idiot… When an officer begins to talk to you, you have to show you are not showing any aggressive behavior. She does not know what is in his pockets. He could possibly have a gun, or a knife. She simply does not know, and all she was asking was to see that there isn’t any weapons and it would have been over and she could have finished what she was doing in the first place. When somebody takes an officers attention off of what they are supposed to be doing it puts the officer in harms way. The original person who she was pulling over could have been somebody extremely dangerous and when this idiot took her attention off of the person she pulled over they could have acted in an aggressive way towards the officer. If you are fighting to “protect” the constitution then take it up with the people who actually make the laws. The officers are there to ensure the law is upheld once the law is already placed. This dumb ass was just trying to entice officers for hits on a youtube video. Don’t mistake ignorance for patriotism

    • Hannah

      Also, I for one am very thankful these cops are enforcing the laws. Because if all of these idiots who are posting on here were running the show this world would be chaos.

      • Film The Police Always

        Hannah please no need to suck ExCop-LawStudents dick, you were wrong period. For you too follow up with you being thankful for cops enforcing laws is irrelevant. You were running off with your writing about a man who did absolutely nothing wrong and you want him punished because he’s a free man. You disgust me to think that he was wrong in ANY WAY. I’m so sick and tired of sheep like you that say people are taking cops attention away from their jobs because they are standing there with a camera. It’s a god damn camera,….NOT A GUN! If cops are that skittish then they need another line of work.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Sorry, but you are incorrect. An officer has no more right to safety than the average citizen, and barring some reasonable, articulable suspicion that Seim was armed and dangerous, has absolutely no right to either control his hands or pat him down.

      The fact that Sperry does not know whether Seim is armed or not is neither material nor relevant.

      I know the law and I know the Constitution. While it does not encompass everything that a bunch of the whackjobs think it does, it does cover search and seizure and filming public officials in a public place. Do not mistake the sergeant’s ignorance of the law for good police work–it’s not.

    • FurShow

      From that far away, and as polite as he was, you really think he was trying to entice her? Dude was super well behaved.

    • yeah right

      The only aggressive behavior I saw was coming from the policewoman.

  • Concerned

    He compromised her safety? He’s interfering with her stop? What a bunch of bullsh*t!! And on top of all that she grabbed him!! What a biiioootch!!

  • Concerned

    You know that if he were just standing there, watching it would have been no big deal. It’s when the camera comes out that really bothers officers, especially numb skulls who don’t want to get caught violating rights, because they don’t even know what a citizens rights are. You literally have an officer asking a citizen what the law is in this video, a complete stranger. The cop doesn’t even know the law.

  • Matthew Mara

    Did you see the video of the Bar Owner in Emmett, Idaho (just outside of Boise)? One officer shoves him three times in his own bar while they are doing an illegal “compliance check”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGZAe3q7tI

    They keep doing illegal inspections and harassing both him and his employees because they arrested him for “not listening” earlier in the year and he fought it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTTBQSrwjkU They also charged him with battery because an officer had to “run across the street”!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-1V3om2sXE

  • Matthew Mara

    Did you see the video of the Bar Owner in Emmett, Idaho (just outside of Boise)? One officer shoves him three times in his own bar while they are doing an illegal “compliance check”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGZAe3q7tI

    They keep doing illegal inspections and harassing both him and his employees because they arrested him for “not listening” earlier in the year and he fought it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTTBQSrwjkU They also charged him with battery because an officer had to “run across the street”!!! (Read the comments in the YouTube descriptions of the videos. They explain a lot more!!!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-1V3om2sXE

  • Concerned Citz.

    Well Gavin… you pulled up while the officer was engaged with her job and she had no idea if you might have been there to aide the person she had pulled over or not. So you therefore were in fact causing some distress for the officer she had every right to ask you to show your ID & to take your hands out of your pockets; that’s basic. It’s too bad that the taxpayers had to pay for the second officer to babysit you and your crew while the first officer completed her job. She also told you that you could go over to the service station and film from there, so she wasn’t opposed to your recording… but to you being a possible threat to her job process. You could have easily moved to the service station and that would have solved your interference for her as well as not interrupting your recording. Also I watched the beginning of your piece twice and it didn’t look to me like the officer was, “storming” you nor being offensive in any way. She was simply doing her job. Had I been a person in the vehicle she had pulled over who might have been in some type of duress… and you pulled the officer’s attention away from my situation and I got hurt, I would have absolutely pursued you in a court of law for interfering with my safety, (and hers.) Also it didn’t look to me as though the officer was grabbing you at all. In fact, had you been doing the same thing… in most any other town, you would have mostly likely met with an arrest and more. Maybe you should thank the Boise City Police for being so polite to you and keep moving along. People do like the protection of the police. That is why we pay their wages and extend them the respect they most deserve.

  • Stop the vacuous nation

    more vacuousness from the masses. So the officer can’t be concerned for personal safety? She said you can go over there and stand so that you are not behind us where we can’t see you. He refused. How many times do you have to ask someone to take their hand out of their pocket? How does the officer know he doesn’t have a weapon? All he had to do was move over to a different location and the problem was over. But no! Had to keep it escalating. And just because the videographer says his hand isn’t in his pocket, doesn’t mean much. No one can see that and apparently the officer sees that it is.

Javascript is currently disabled. This website functions better with Javascript. Please enable Javascript in your browser.
Internet Explorer is out-of-date. Please upgrade your browser or install Google Chrome Frame for an improved web browsing experience.
%d bloggers like this: