53 votes

"I'm being detained?" sets officer on a tirade

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is what you get when you

This is what you get when you give weak-minded people a gun and some authority. She has no business interacting with the public.

If they're free to go, why is she still nagging them?

But I do think they should have the balls to go try to punk a real cop, get their asses tasered or shot.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

"Where are you guys headed?"

Since when does anyone have to answer that question?
She's an idiot and clearly wrong! Power trip!
Get over yourself Biotch!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Another mall-cop not getting the respect they feel they are

due. Yes his question in response to her question was ill timed especially after she said he was free to go. A more accurate question would be, "Am I being detained any longer"? She was clearly ready and primed to show her appreciation for violent behavior as evidenced by her response.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

am i the only one...

You're a mall cop, you have people parked in a disruptive way, you watch a few tear out when you approach them, and then you get attitude.

Your job is to make sure people like this go away and not interfere with customers. I think she did her job. So what if she hits back about tatoos.

IMHO he didn't show much intelligence knowing the "am I being detained" line and using it with a mall employee. What mall cop has the power to "detain." That's what you ask police. His tone is also not passive but extremely aggressive, and he brought the argumentative nature to the encourter.

This is misguided and was a waste of time. I'm so sorry you felt the need to disrespect the map property and consumers, and were hostile to their employees, but you got what you deserved.

Are you sure she's a Mall cop?

She threatened to take him out of the car and search the vehicle.

Last I checked a mall cop cannot do that.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

who initiated?

Libertarianism is against initiation of violence.

You own property. You have guards. Your guards see:

-People disrespecting your law-mandated parking lines
-People breaking the law when you approach by speeding off

You who disagree with her seem to suggest 2 things:
1) She had no right to approach them... which is absolutely wrong.
2) That she had no right to do EVERYTHING lawful and in her power to protect the value of the property against these people. She can tell him he can't be there, and she can tell him whatever she wants, it doesn't have to be true to legal Se can also respond to the initiation of aggressive language and questioning with aggressive responses...

State exactly why you would not have your security people protect your property in a similar way. She was kind until this jerk aggressively asked her nonsense questions. He illegally parked, he impacted the image of the mall negatively by his actions, and he chose to associate with other aggressive people who drive illegally. Great job defending the right person.

deacon's picture

say what??

aggressively asked her nonsense question???
how is asking a question aggressive?
He was not illegally parked, per the cop,he was parked crooked
that is not illegal
she was kind until she asked 'where are you heading?" does anyone have to answer that question?
if she was a mall cop,then she had no right to ask that in the first place
if she is a cop,then she had no right to say she can haul them out of the car
and search it
you have interjected your own opinion into this topic
I say the cop stepped over the line,tried using her position to scare them into submission,when they didn't get scared and didn't bow down,it irritated
her,and this was the reason for her tirade,her rant and all the profanity
if she is a cop,she is a public servant,they work for the people,we don't work for them,and therein lies the rub

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Quite a bit of assuming

going on, on your part. First assumption, is that they did something illegal. Obviously they didn't, because she said they didn't. After she said they were free to go, she attempted to get more info out of him, information that he had no obligation to give her unless he was in some sort of trouble requiring a detainment. So before answering her question, he did the right thing by seeing if he was in a position where he needed to provide her with any answers...hence the "am I being detained?". And, another assumption is that people can "disrespect" painted lines on the floor, as if that's why she approached them. She said she approached them because they were leaving when she came,(which some how is suspicious), then she claimed they had a rash of stolen rental cars recently on the property. Ok, that's cool. I would have showed her my paper work too, just to refute the claim. But the idea that she can talk to them, after her assumptions were proven wrong, in the manner that she did, if she was my employee she would be suspended and then forced to take a CUSTOMER SERVICE course before she could return. Because obviously they weren't the tattooed thugs she thought they were, and in my book if your not causing any harm in my place of business your a potential customer. She was flat out wrong, through and through.

What say you my fellow countrymen?! Onward!!! TO LIBERTY!!!

obviously there is assuming

Trayvon vs. Zimmerman. Your opinion is based on your assumptions.

You can watch this and see what I said. You can see an aggressive guy. You can see a calm woman tell exactly why she did what she did.

Guess what? You don't have to give CUSTOMER SERVICE to everyone when you own something. I don't have to offer you brownies for parking on my lawn and being rude to me when I ask you to leave my property. You're stretching. You would get the full story from her, you wouldn't ASSume she was wrong first like you are.

Interesting perspective , however:

I'm not sure what video you watched with an aggressive guy and a calm female guard.

I hope he forwarded the video to the owners of the property as a good neighbor. As a business owner,If one of my employee or sub contractors treated the public in this type fashion, I would certainly want to know.

Clearly if this is a companies brand of Customer Service or security, I would choose choose not to support their business.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

i had to watch it again

since i wondered did taz42 see the same clip? what business is it of hers where he is going? how dare he answer that with some well deserved sarcasm: am i being detained? and then her true colors came out: aggro bitch, and she in my opinion was the one talking shit, and got all 'respect my authoritah' aggressive over a simple question. his tone was not passive? seriously one must be passive when talking to a mall cop? he wasn't being aggressive at all. watch it again. she was out of line, and she finally realized it with her oh so polite: now get the fuck outta here!

you didn't listen

She saw a group parked illegally. Her business. She saw his colleagues drive off at illegal speeds. Pay attention.

parked illegally?

Was that illegal according to the law? or your assumption.? Just curious because it wasn't mentioned in the video. It's amazing what the mind will conjure up from the depths the sub-conscience. It could be a great learning experience.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

his colleagues?

that's rich. we don't know for sure they were parked "illegally" or driving at a "illegal" speed. you take her word for it. after listening to her ugly little fit i wouldn't believe a word she said.


you don't get the right to make believe you know what happened. -1 for your dude for being the verbal aggressor. -1 for them stopping when the "did nothing wrong".

common sense will help us relate to the rest of the world

good luck with that

relating to the rest of the world when you don't seem capable of having a discussion without insults and name calling.

when someone puts together a mashup of rental cops losing their cool i'm sure they will include your little miss sunshine.


She is mall security. This is a woman with probably two days of training, dressed like a law enforcement officer and stepping way past the bounds of her employment.

Sworn law enforcement officers have an image problem, they don't need mall security dressed up as sworn law enforcement officers adding to the problem.

If she had pulled these people out of their car and searched it, she would be subject to arrest.

yes, mall security

You're right there. But, stepping beyond bounds? Not at all. Her job is to protect mall property. She approached people parked illegally, driving at high speeds impacting customers, and she did so with a smile and pleasant demenor.

Stop looking for supposed violations of rights. So what if she claimed to have more power than she does? That's not illegal. Their parking, disrespect of private property was more than enough to call actual police. Depending on the state, these individuals also may have broken the law by their recording.

These are not heroes. This is not someone to praise. You respect private property, you don't become the aggressor towards private individuals looking to preserve the value of their property from those that abuse it. Give me a break. This wasn't a cop on public property.

What does that mean?

Her job is to protect mall property?

Her job is to look out for mall property. If she notices something going on that arouses her suspicion, she calls on SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. She has no authority to ask for identification, papers for a rental car, and she certainly cannot threaten to haul people out of their car and search their vehicle. In this video, mall security illegally detained these people, they could sue in civil court.

It amazes me that those who object to sworn officers of the law violating a civilian's civil liberties, are quick to give this power to people who have no authority what so ever to violate a civilian's civil liberties.


Nonsense. You see someone pulling up plants in your garden and you sit inside the house and call the police? Please. You may be that type, but you have the right to address it.

By her own words tehy were free to go, and therefore not detained, so you are making up facts. You are also making up facts about her being a "sworn officer of law." She's a defender of private property.

I suppose you have to make up facts in order to be right, but sorry, facts are facts. She can ask for whatever she wants, she can say whatever she wants. If someone responds, you absolutely know that is on them. You're stretching and your response is very telling that you know it.

Are you employed

as mall security?

pulling up plants?

now you have them destroying property. had they been doing so she would have called the cops. a simple case of a wanna be cop. i'll bet this isn't the first time she has harassed people she didn't like the looks of. and then she approaches someone who refuses to be passive but who dares to ask a question. his question only followed her absurd question of -where are you going from here? what if he'd said: to a whorehouse. again my bet would be she'd be all up in his face.

learn to read

analogy. learn the word

learn to make an analogy

that makes sense

lol.. how shallow can you be...

oooh.... ooohh... wow, what a comeback... and great intellectual argument... try this one on for size - no, you make an analogy that makes sense...

kind of concerned i'm spending time trying to explain an analogy about private property to private property... can't get more simplistic than 1+1, but if I can help you understand 1+1, why don't you let me know how I can .

tell you what commie, make up your own analogy that supports your abuse of private property rights

name calling

is a sure sign you've lost confidence in your argument.

I agree

name calling is a sign of frustration, but you have not won this argument, as tsa (not that I agree with them) clearly made you a challange you have neglected to answer.

it's not a matter

of winning or losing, but when a person resorts to being abusive, insulting and name calling i find it hard to take anything else they say seriously.

pretty funny you called them TSA. freudian slip much?