Oklahoma Cops Under Investigation for Slamming Innocent Dad to the Ground for 'Suspicious' Walk With Son

A father says his 6-year-old autistic son is traumatized after two police officers tackled the father for refusing to give his ID during an early morning walk in Watonga.

Two police officers in Watonga, Oklahoma, are under state investigation after body camera footage showed them slamming a father to the ground while he was taking his son for an early morning walk.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) confirmed to local news outlets that it's investigating whether the two Watonga officers used excessive force when they violently detained John Sexton on the morning of July 4.

The incident has led to hundreds of calls from outraged citizens to the police department, local news outlets, and the county sheriff, who has publicly called on the officers to be placed on leave.

Sexton was walking with his 6-year-old son, who has autism, around 6 a.m. when he was stopped by two Watonga police officers.

Watch the video below:

Father body slammed and arrəsted for taking "suspicious" early morning walk with his 6 year old son

OK officers arrəsted the man while walking with his son because he did not provide ID upon demand.

Do you think this was excessive? pic.twitter.com/BG1HGPGLpZ

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) August 3, 2024

"Found it a little bit suspicious, just the walking around," one of the officers said.

"Walking around is a little bit suspicious?" Sexton replied.

"Technically not really," the officer said, "but, I mean, it is pretty early in the morning. Just wondering what was going on."

The other office then asked Sexton for his ID.

"I don't need to show my ID," he responded.

Sexton is correct. Oklahoma is not a "stop and identify" state, where police can demand the name of pedestrians, and even in those states, officers need a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime.

Nevertheless, police around the country continue to abuse their authority and arrest people for asserting their rights. In 2022 for example, a pair of Florida sheriff's deputies were demoted for arresting a legally blind man who lawfully refused to give his ID.

The Watonga offices appear similarly ignorant. One threatens to arrest and jail Sexton for failing to identify himself, "because I've identified that you've been walking around here at 5:30 in the morning."

"Yeah, we do that," Sexton replied.

"No, you're not. Give me your ID," the officer demanded.

Sexton said he left his ID at his house and repeated, correctly, that Oklahoma doesn't require him to identify himself.

One of the officers then tried to detain Sexton, who pulled away and attempted to record the incident with his cellphone. The officer then grabbed Sexton and swung him to the ground while Sexton's young son started wailing.

Sexton was briefly detained before being released without being charged. He has since filed a complaint with the Watonga Police Department, and the release of body camera footage of the incident has outraged residents.

Blaine County Sheriff Travis Daugherty told local news outlet KOCO News that his office received over 200 calls about the incident. Daugherty also said one of the officers involved was a former deputy in his office but had been demoted and eventually left to join the Watonga Police Department.

"The deputies that were underneath him, they had lost faith in him as their leader. Yeah, and so I demoted him back later," Daugherty said.

Lack of central databases of police disciplinary records and poor background checks lead to problem officers bouncing from department to department, leaving a trail of complaints and lawsuits in their wake.

Daugherty also sent a letter to residents pushing for the officers to be placed on leave until the investigation is complete.

"This is not a matter of me deciding if they are guilty or not; this is for the citizens to know that somebody is listening, and I hope to bring peace of mind and put citizens at ease to know that Watonga is doing everything they can to ensure the safety of the Blaine County Citizens," Daugherty wrote in the letter. "I feel the best course of action now is to remove these officers from the equation until the District Attorney's Office and city leaders decide what the best outcome will be."

In a July 29 press release, the City of Watonga said it was aware of Sexton's complaint and that the chief of police had requested the OSBI to investigate. It declined to comment until the completion of that investigation.

"As part of our commitment to integrity, we take any allegations seriously and are committed to transparency and accountability in our operations," the press release states. "Until the investigation is complete, and while following state law related to personnel matters, we will refrain from providing additional comments to preserve the integrity of the process."

Meanwhile, Sexton told local news outlets that his son was heavily traumatized by the event.

"He's been a cop for Halloween for the last two years," Sexton told KOCO News. "That's what he's been wanting to be when he grows up. That's what he says, and now he's scared of them."

Comments

[Brandybuck]

Guilty of the crime of being Black in Oklahoma.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Did you watch the video? He doesn't look black to me.

[DesigNate]

Yeah, cause they NEVER do this to white people.

Read that with a massive fucking eyeroll.

[Jefferson Paul]

You're guilty of capitalizing "black" in your false statement.

I'm betting you not only didn't watch the body-cam footage that was included in the article, but didn't even bother to read the article.

[Efforidentalistionicker]

LOL, you don't know how this works. If he was black they would have said it ten times in the article. There would be quotes from at least 5 democrats and the investigation would be wreathed in footage and rehetoric of protests and grandstanding laywers.

[Zeb]

Cops who do shit like this should be punished the same way anyone else would be if they did it to another random person on the street. Assault and battery, kidnapping and child endangerment for starters.

[ducksalad]

Kidnapping seems like a stretch, more like false imprisonment. OTOH they could tack on “while carrying a deadly weapon”.

But a reasonable compromise would be fired and deferred prosecution subject to a condition of not working as a law enforcement officer.

[Zeb]

Maybe I don't have the legal terms all perfect. But snatching someone up off the street and taking them away by force sounds like kidnapping to me.

[sarcasmic]

"Arrest" is simply an euphemism for when government kidnaps people.

[Enemy of the State]

This ^^^

[Rossami]

End qualified immunity. Replace it with mandatory malpractice insurance that follows the individual.

Police abuse was not caused by that judge-made policy but it has certainly been made a lot worse by QI.

[DesigNate]

Isn’t QI only supposed to apply to situations where the cops couldn’t know what they were doing was unconstitutional?

[sarcasmic]

QI only applies if there was a previous case with almost the exact same details. So if an officer steals $5000 dollars from someone, and previous court cases involved say $3000 and $10,000, then he couldn’t possibly know that stealing five grand is wrong. Also the victim has to have been wearing the same color shirt.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

They think everything they do is constitutional. Or pretend to.

[sarcasmic]

They don't give a fuck about the constitution. If anything they despise it because it limits their power. Their job isn't to enforce the law. Their job is to force people to comply.

[ducksalad]

I can see the advantage of not sticking taxpayers with the bill. But some details would need to be worked out.

Normal insurance typically doesn’t cover intentional criminal offenses by the insured. That limitation would need to be removed.

When you say it “follows the officer” one assumes you mean the high premiums follow bad officers around, creating a local disincentive to hiring them. There would need to be additional rules to make sure that disincentive is effectively focused, e.g. prohibit the costs of premiums being pooled across departments or paid at the state level.

Finally, there are downsides. You’ll have an additional party richly supplied with lawyers – the insurance companies – arguing in court that various seizings, jailings, tasings, beatings, shootings, and killings were justified. Each time they win it’ll set another precedent.

[sarcasmic]

When you say it “follows the officer” one assumes you mean the high premiums follow bad officers around, creating a local disincentive to hiring them.

I would like to see officers having to buy their own insurance, similar to doctors' malpractice insurance. Too many fuckups and they'd have to find a different line of work because they couldn't afford the premiums.

[ducksalad]

As I understand it, doctors that work for salary typically get their premiums paid by their employers. But I don’t disagree with your point. One could propose a flat rule against departments paying premiums. There are a lot of ways to get around that, e.g. a raise that just happens to be the same as the premium increase, but at least the department would feel some bite.

[sarcasmic]

Problem with that is that the department's "customers" don't have a choice. Hospitals can't raise property taxes to pay insurance for bad doctors. But cities will. That's why premiums should be paid by the individual.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Screw insurance. I can't think of a better way to force insurance for gun owners than starting with the cops.

Claims from misconduct should be paid from the police budget.

[Squirrelloid]

"Finally, there are downsides. You’ll have an additional party richly supplied with lawyers – the insurance companies – arguing in court that various seizings, jailings, tasings, beatings, shootings, and killings were justified. Each time they win it’ll set another precedent."

These things already end up in court. And if it gets to insurance companies arguing the merits, it means it isn't denied on qualified immunity, and a jury will decide. And jury decisions don't set binding precedents.

[ducksalad]

IANAL but my impression is there are multiple stages at which insurance companies can make an argument to a judge and get the case thrown out. “Summary judgment” is what happened in a case I was involved in (as an employee of the defendant). The judge basically said that the facts, even if true, were not enough for a case. And the judge came to that conclusion based on mountains of stuff our lawyers submitted.

Please feel free to correct me….can’t the insurance company do the same thing we did? Submit all kinds of arguments that (say) some warrantless search deserves a new exception that makes it OK? All those exceptions came from some place, and I don't imagine the judges creating them operated without reading anything the lawyers wrote.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

No. It's real simple. Remove their government immunity, period. Treat them exactly as any ordinary citizen would be treated.

They are just ordinary human beings. Government sucks because it has abrogated to itself a pseudo-monopoly on violence, except when it's more convenient to delegate that, unofficially, as with Whitey Bulger and the BLM/Antifa summer of mostly peaceful burning, looting, and murder.

If government had no monopoly and could be held as accountable as any other criminal gang, these abuses would stop.

[Zeb]

Yeah, don't let them hide behind the badge. "Just following orders" is not a valid excuse for any behavior.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I'm trying to turn over a new leaf and not just whine about stupid government tricks, but provide alternatives that would turn out better for everybody.

https://chartertopia.substack.com/p/how-cops-should-interact-with-the

I'm probably full of shit, but it's my shit, and it's all I've got.

[ducksalad]

I totally agree with you on the principles, and on the criminal liability for individual officers.

But we're talking about lawsuits. You want accountability, and under the current system, it's the taxpayers who are ultimately held accountable. Sure, if Officer A shoots someone, Lieutenant B passes it up the chain, Chief C declines to take action, and Councilman D doesn't fire him, you can hold them "accountable" by voting against Councilman D. But: Officer A doesn't care what happened to Councilman D; even Councilman D may or may not be interpret your vote as disapproval of the shooting since dozens of other issues are in play; and voting Councilman D out doesn't get our money back. It's a really weak form of accountability.

I believe Rossami's main point is to shift the financial responsibility to the actual wrongdoers (and their insurers, who will make damn sure they don't lose out in the long run.)

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

You can keep QI, just deny the police the power to arrest. Arrests can be made by bounty hunters, who don't have QI and would be liable for arresting the wrong party, the damage they cause to 3rd parties, are constrained in their use of lethal force, etc. etc. If police can wait for a tow truck, they can wait for a bounty hunter. Bonus, nobody gets outraged when a bounty hunter gets shot at. Getting home safely is their own fucking problem, not the public.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Now that's an interesting alternative I hadn't thought of. I like that; the police don't tow cars personally, so why should they arrest people personally.

I like the way you think.

But the real answer is even simpler: victim prosecution, no government police or prosecutors. Then victims call police to arrest people, just like calling tow trucks, and the criminal act for false arrest is on the guy who called the police, just as me calling a tow truck to get a car out of my driveway.

[Rossami]

Not talking normal insurance - it's malpractice insurance - which does cover intentional acts.

Yes, I mean that high premiums follow bad cops - again, just like high premiums follow bad docs and provide a disincentive for them. Yes, it needs to be a personal policy, not a departmental policy. I'm okay if the department pays a stipend to cover this new insurance mandate but the stipend will be a fixed amount - again, providing an incentive for good cops stay good (to get lower premiums and keep the amount over their premium) and for bad cops to find a different career.

Your downside fear does not occur in the context of medical malpractice. I don't see it occurring here. But I will concede that no system is perfect. It merely has to be less bad than the status quo. And QI-enabled abuses are pretty awful.

[NM Dave]

Actually car insurance does cover intentional acts. Of course they cancel you and IF you can find another carrier you'll pay through the nose. The employer could even pay a low- risk level premium and the excess would be paid by the officer.

[IceTrey]

Make it loser pays.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Absolutely. It's the only way to prevent frivolous charges, or at least discourage them.

[sarcasmic]

Lack of central databases of police disciplinary records and poor background checks lead to problem officers bouncing from department to department, leaving a trail of complaints and lawsuits in their wake.

The problem is that departments don’t care. They really don’t. They only pretend to when there’s a public outcry. If they cared then they’d fire bad cops instead of allowing them to resign. Resigning just means they’ll make a lateral move to another department and keep working towards that juicy pension. Databases and background checks don't matter if they're never used. Beside that, complaints are a badge of honor. Means the cop is a badass.

[ducksalad]

Well, I agree departments don't care enough.

Having said that, you really can't stop a person from resigning, and firing is a process that takes time and has multiple stages at which the accused officer can see what's coming. I suppose the department could keep investigating after the resignation, but the investigation is more difficult. ("Watcha gonna do if I don't answer your questions? Fire me?" Hangs up phone.)

[sarcasmic]

Oh come on. It’s not like the cops resign before they get fired. They are told to resign so they’ll keep their pension. That’s what it’s all about. Pensions. They retire at 55 and get a paycheck for life. Or they retire, get hired again, and double-dip.

[ducksalad]

“They are told to resign so they’ll keep their pension.” Wouldn’t be surprising of someone said that but it’s in Captain Obvious territory. Everyone, not just police officers, knows how that works.

“It’s not like the cops resign before they get fired.”
Huh? If they don’t get fired or resign, they also get to keep their pensions. Therefore, the reason they resigned is to avoid getting fired and losing the pension.

You’re acting like the only way a resignation can happen is some conspiracy between the chief and the officer. No conspiracy needed, the rules are out there for everyone to see. The officer gets questioned, at some point figures out it’s not going well (and it’s not relevant whether they’re told they’re in trouble or they figure it out on their own) and resigns, which they are strictly entitled to do under the 13th Amendment.

Now, to try to make your point for you, better than you did: sure, there should be a mechanism where the officer loses the pension, and can’t avoid that by resigning. There probably is some such mechanism on the books, I know there is one in Texas, and it requires a criminal conviction. Not just for police officers, but for anyone on a state pension plan.

I mean, even if you screwed up very badly at work, you wouldn’t think your employer could, on their own, seize your 401K. To get that money they’d have to sue and win, or get it as part of restitution in a criminal case. Similarly, once someone is vested in a pension plan, they have a property interest, and property can only be taken via due process of law.

So, it all boils down to the same original problem: unwillingness to criminally prosecute officers or have them liable to be sued in court.

[Rossami]

Most companies won't let you resign once they start an investigation. Yes, an at-will employee can just quit for any reason or none but:
1. most cops are not at-will employees. They work under union-negotiated contracts.
2. you don't automatically get to keep your pension when you just quit. Pension is what you get when you retire - again, something not automatically allowed once you're under investigation.

Now, I will concede that many companies let people under investigation quit rather than be fired, but that's at the company's discretion to reduce their embarassment or exposure, not the soon-to-be-former employee's.

[ducksalad]

I believe the right to quit is absolute regardless of contract: the 13th also prohibits indentured servitude. You can be sued for failure to complete your side of a contract, and owe money, but you can’t be forced to actually go back to work.

Of course the employer can toss your resignation letter in the trash and tell you you're fired. And of course you’re correct that there’s no absolute right to get a pension. However, literally every pension contract I’ve seen in my life has a clause where you are vested after X number of years of work. That means you get to take some cash equivalent of your share if you change jobs, or are layed off. You usually even get it if you're terminated for poor performance.

Don’t know about you but I’d be reluctant to sign a contract where if I didn’t work until 65 they keep all the retirement money. Or one where they can fire me for misplacing a paperclip on the last day of work and keep the pension.

My basic point is that taking away someone’s pension – which they often contributed to over a period of years through payroll deductions – requires due process in the case of a state employee, since it’s the state doing the taking, and requires showing violation of a contract condition in the case of a private pension.

What we agree upon, I hope, is that bad cops aren’t subjected to enough due process.

[Rossami]

Even a vested pension is still conditional. Re-read your contract. Unless yours was highly unusual, it will contain additional clauses that void the vesting if you are fired for cause or (as relevant here) quit while under an investigation that would have led to your firing. I've been involved in litigation for a number of such cases and the company only lost when the grounds for firing was inadequately documented (which, granted, was most of them but that's a different problem).

In the US, ERISA provides the legal protections that prevent the company from revoking your pension at the last minute for an imagined infraction. And ERISA protections are strong, but they are your only protections. ERISA will definitely permit the revocation of your pension when you're fired for cause.

And to close the loop, not showing up for your assigned shift would clearly be cause - so yeah, you can just not show up, breaking your contract and losing money - including your prospective pension.

My point (which I now see that I was not making very clearly) is that police departments are failing to use the tools they already have to hold bad cops accountable. Contrary to the implications above, their hands are not entirely tied about pensions and threatening to kick someone off the pension is one of the tools they are failing to use.

[ducksalad]

I know my contract pretty well (and I’ll admit we have a perhaps overly cushy deal). The pension amount is directly proportional to length of employment, and the portion of the pension that I’ve already earned is mine almost regardless. I would certainly get to keep it if, for example, I was fired for failure to teach class at all, or targeting a student for their politics or race, etc.

The only way they can take it is for a major felony or a sex crime involving a student, and those are best understood as punishments by the state of Texas for being a felon. It isn’t a case of the university deciding to back the pension, they have zero say in it, and any internal disciplinary proceedings are irrelevant for the pension.

More to your point: it could be that PDs aren’t using all the tools they have. But I suspect the union-negotiated contracts have fairly robust protections for whatever part of the pension they’d have kept if they stopped working voluntarily, because there deal's got to be at least as good as what non-union government employees get.

[Mickey Rat]

I guess these two cops distrust the idea of "morning people". No one up to any good would get up this early just to walk around.

[Longtobefree]

It just HAD to be on July 4th, right?

[Liberty_Belle]

You're looking mighty suspicious ... you got a license for that six year old ?

[AT]

Sexton, who pulled away

Oops. There was his mistake. Even if you deny every benefit of every doubt to the cops, that right there is what put this guy on the ground and in cuffs.

But here's what folks are going to pounce on:

We found it a little bit suspicious.
Walking around is suspicious?

A little bit, but I'll get to that. And, you're right - the "suspect" had no obligation to show him his ID. But that doesn't change this part right here:

"All right, turn around."

Which is what he should have immediately done - no matter how right he was, no matter how wrong the cops were. But instead of de-escalating, he escalated.

"Let me take my son home first." No. That'll never fly.
"Here, let me videotape this." No. That'll never fly.
"I'm going to make you pay for this." Yep, there it is. Complete with sobbing child.

Everything the cops did was questionable. Is walking around at 5am suspicious? Mm, YMMV - but I won't say that concerns these days are completely meritless, because let's face it - between the LGBT pedos and the illegal alien presence in this nation, in their constant effort to ruin all things good and decent in society, they have created a world where a grown man walking around with a small child at odd hours IS now a thing we have to be concerned about.

But ultimately the reason this dude ate pavement was because he reacted the wrong way in response. Save your complaints (and Complaints) until after it's all sorted out. And in the interim, turn all your efforts to curbing the social scourge that are these predatory illegals and LGBT pedos, who have made something as harmless as a sunrise walk with your son into something that into something we now have to turn a questioning glance toward.

[sarcasmic]

Someone walking around at 5am has more to fear from the police than from anyone else.

[AT]

Don't be ridiculous.

[sarcasmic]

Ok Balki.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b-FFwVFMME&t=5s

Seriously though, who is out and about at 5am? The dangerous people have passed out by then. Just cops, delivery people, third shifters going home, joggers and such.

[Zeb]

Who's being ridiculous? This is a small town in Oklahoma. These people had zero to worry about until the cops came.

[AT]

Y’know what’s really blown my mind in a lot of ways lately?

How often small towns are being infected by wokeism. It’s very intentional though. How could rural Montana – of all places – for example, be a place where a kid is taken away from their parents because the parents object to them being trans’d?

The answer is because Marxists infiltrate these places and take over the low-level governance positions (school boards, town assemblies, etc.), usually with a largely apathetic population paying it no attention until the damage is already done. Because that’s what these creepers do. They slime their way in, and rot everything from the inside out. The LGBT pedos have proudly announced that they’re coming for the children and that they’re taking over town by town. The Biden Administration has opened the door and rolled out the red carpet to countless murderers, rapists, child molesters, and other sex offenders without any vetting whatsoever.

What are we supposed to think, Zeb? Assume the best? In a society that’s openly welcomed and defended the most degenerate, perverted, and/or criminal worst?

It’s not the 1950s anymore, where Dick and Jane go out for a walk with Junior and Fido, and give a casual wave to the neighbors, also out for a walk. It’s not even the 1980s where a kid could disappear on his Huffy for nine hours. It’s 2024. The Rainbow Cult is the new State Religion. Folks get upset when we call literal rapists “illegal aliens” instead of “undocumented migrants.” We revolving door the worst elements of our society – from domestic abusers to murderers. The slippery slope turned out to be real, Zeb. And now a scene we would have paid no mind to a few decades ago, is now cause for concern.

Don’t blame the cops for that. Blame the rainbow pedos and the illegals and BLM, and anyone and everyone who enabled them. I’d have questioned it too. Is that kid out for a walk, or is that kid being lured by a sicko – one who makes no effort to, and intentionally frustrates any attempt to, resolve said question.

Sucks that’s the world we live in now. But it’s the world we’ve created by our refusal to fight the evils that have made their way mainstream. Even in small town Oklahoma.

[Zeb]

Dick and Jane go out for a walk with Junior and Fido, and give a casual wave to the neighbors, also out for a walk.

That's exactly what happens where I live. Maybe you need to get out more. I do acknowledge that the things you are talking about are, at least to some extent, things we need to be concerned with. But you seem to have adopted a paranoid world view where pedos and other nasties are lurking around every corner waiting for kids to abuse and normal people never venture out to do normal things. I really don't want police to adopt that same attitude because that means everyone is suspicious all the time.

[AT]

That’s exactly what happens where I live.

Where do you live? Are there an influx of illegals and LGBT there?

Maybe you need to get out more.

Perhaps. But even if I do, we can't ignore the datasets in front of us simply because we don't personally see them on a regular basis.

But you seem to have adopted a paranoid world view where pedos and other nasties are lurking around every corner waiting for kids to abuse and normal people never venture out to do normal things.

Honestly, I'd be a lot less paranoid if there were some reassurances at the social/political/cultural level that we had zero tolerance for LGBT pedos, illegal aliens, and revolving door criminals.

But we don't, do we.

Instead we have its encouragement, and by extension its proliferation. I can only imagine the mindset of normal American fathers with normal American daughters, as the Title IX changes went into effect. I think there was a collective racking of shotguns.

I used to understand the shock and awe of the "it'll never happen to me" types. But that's not our society anymore. Now we live in a society where we're actively encouraging - and defending! - the "we're going to make it a LOT more possible for it to happen to you" approach.

I really don’t want police to adopt that same attitude because that means everyone is suspicious all the time.

If that's the case, then maybe folks like you and me should join efforts into curbing the tolerance and acceptance of the... unsavory elements of society, that directly lead to everyone HAVING to be suspicious all the time.

Team up?

[Dr. Ormand von Kleigstadt]

Way to go. Defend police brutality with the spectre of wokism where the case involves a white dude walking with his autistic son on a public road. Pathetic authoritarian government boot lickers masquerading as libertarians are the absolute worst fascists when that time comes.

[AT]

It's not police brutality. I pointed out exactly where this dude screwed up. The actions of the cops preceding that are irrelevant. That would be addressed after the fact.

He escalated. He didn't need to.

Imagine if that Axon had been different. Imagine this dude was a decent human being and said, instead, "OK, OK officer - I'm turning around and I'm putting my hands above my head. Do what you need to do. Son, son - it's OK, don't worry. You're going to come with me to the station, we'll call mommy and she'll be here soon, and we'll work this all out. It's all just one big misunderstanding. Just stay calm and do what they ask. We'll go get ice cream after, ok?"

But no. These stupid morons always have to ratchet it up. Like they're trying to win some ACAB Lottery.

I get it, he's pissed. But this isn't China. It isn't Russia. It isn't Venezuela. It isn't North Korea. He's not about to be shipped of to some gulag or disappeared forever. This is America. An in America, #1 Rule in a crisis situation: keep your head. Don't panic, don't overreact, don't let the lizard put you into fight or flight.

I mean, honestly - I really want to know - am I asking too much of humanity, especially in a first-world overly-affluent society where nobody suffers for anything, in this regard? Do you believe humans to be so stupid and so base and so irredeemable that they can't function in a rational way to perceived injustices of this kind?

Do you really think that little of this man? And if so, why?

[SMP0328]

“All right, turn around.”

Which is what he should have immediately done – no matter how right he was, no matter how wrong the cops were. But instead of de-escalating, he escalated.

The nerve of an innocent citizen to demand that police respect his rights, obey the law, and not arrest him for a non-crime. You’re damn right he escalated and he was right to do so! Now he should escalate further by suing those officers and their department for as much as he can get.

[Rise of the Impedance]

You know how much I hate smacking you around. Why do you make me do these things?

[Zeb]

The cops are the ones who need to be de-escalating. They are supposedly trained to know how to deal with difficult people. Even if the only words out of his mouth were "fuck you pig", the cops were in the wrong. It's not illegal to be a dick (and I wouldn't say this guy was even doing that). I've seen plenty of cops deal with people who were much more obnoxious and deliberately provocative under much more stressful conditions without going immediately to violence.

[AT]

The nerve of an innocent citizen to demand that police respect his rights, obey the law, and not arrest him for a non-crime.

Sort it out later. Definitely out of the heat of the present moment.

Bro, I've been held at literal gunpoint by cops. I've also been handcuffed and put in the back of a cruiser. Wrong place, wrong time. They have no way of knowing that, they're just securing their scene. I'm ON their scene while they think criminal activity is or might be happening. Why escalate that? Because I'm pissed at the affront? Yea, being angry is justified. Losing self-control is not. You know why I walked away from both of those events?

Because I didn't let the lizard brain take over.

"Yes officer, my ID is in my satchel. I have a set of keys in its front pocket, with a penknife on the keychain." I followed their instructions to the letter, and then let them resolve what they needed to resolve. Then they cleared me, returned my things, thanked me for my cooperation, and I left.

"Oh the indignity! The nerve!" you might be thinking.

Get over it.

The alternative ranges from this dude's face full of pavement, to an emptied mag in his chest cavity. Were the police overstepping? EVEN IF THEY WERE, take it up later. You're not going to solve their overreach right then and there on the scene by escalating the situation.

Your Constitutional guarantees aren't a license to pick a fight with a cop that's coloring outside the lines (either willfully or ignorantly). They're a guarantee that if he DOES color outside the lines, that you'll be in the right and he'll be in the wrong for doing so.

[Zeb]

And yet plenty of cops manage to successfully and calmly deal with obnoxious members of the public all the time. In this case there was no crime reported and no reason to suspect that any crime had been committed. Yeah, if you happen to find yourself at a crime scene you should be deferential to the police. This is not remotely a situation like that.

[AT]

Agreed. 100%.

But still, if you're dealing with a bonkers cop that's intent on depriving your rights - you're NOT going to win the immediate fight against him. Why think otherwise?

Redress the rights violation. You're not going to prevent it, not in a situation like this. Nothing you do or say is going to make a difference. So, take a trip down to the station house, clear everything up, and then address it all.

Cop: "I'm going to illegally search your vehicle in defiance of 4A now."
Citizen: "That's unconstitutional. You can't do that."
Cop: "Oh gosh, you're right, my mistake. Carry on."

Such a thing has NEVER happened. The redress comes AFTER the rights deprivation.

[ducksalad]

They’re a guarantee that if he DOES color outside the lines, that you’ll be in the right and he’ll be in the wrong for doing so.

A few questions AT:

1. Were the cops justified in detaining you, given what they knew?
2. If yes, your experience is irrelevant. We’re talking about when cops do stuff that is not justified.
3. If no, how much money did you get in the settlement for being illegally arrested, and how many cops were disciplined?
4. If you got a settlement or a cop fired, congratulations and thank you for your actions that help protect all of us.
5. If there was no settlement and no discipline, was it because you pursued a complaint and the system did nothing? If so, that’s what we’re complaining about.
6. If it was because you don’t think people should follow up, then what you’re really saying is you think illegal arrests are OK. All the constitutional right means is you get to harbor some private feeling that they were in the wrong.
7. To be charitable, I guess you could do nothing because it’s just too much hassle to get a tiny amount of justice, or you’re just a forgiving type person. Fine, but keep in mind that every time they get away with one it emboldens them for the next time.

When a domestic abuser goes down for seriously hurting someone, it very often turns out that victim(s) declined to press charges multiple times in the past.

[AT]

1. Were the cops justified in detaining you, given what they knew?

Yes. Unknown suspect at a place of reported criminal activity. (I was just cutting thru a shortcut.)

2. If yes, your experience is irrelevant. We’re talking about when cops do stuff that is not justified.

No, it's not irrelevant. I'm not a criminal, therefore ANYTHING the cops do against me is not justified. But the cops don't know that. They don't know it about me or anyone else. All they know is that a person is in a weird place at a weird time and that's suspect.

You ever see that Spike Lee movie... heck, I don't remember, it had Denzel and Clive Owen and it was about a bank robbery. Anyway, they detained EVERYONE - hostage and suspect alike - until they could sort everything out. OMG, the deprivation to all those innocent people. They should have just arrested the bad guys and nobody else!

Except, they didn't know who was who. So they did a check. Which is what we're talking about here.

Obtrusive and intrusive? Yea, maybe. But for pete's sake, why escalate it for no reason?

3. If no, how much money did you get in the settlement for being illegally arrested, and how many cops were disciplined?

I wasn't arrested.

4. If you got a settlement or a cop fired, congratulations and thank you for your actions that help protect all of us.

Why would I want either of those things? Those are a net-sum loss by any metric.

5. If there was no settlement and no discipline, was it because you pursued a complaint and the system did nothing? If so, that’s what we’re complaining about.

I kinda think you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. It's an ACAB thing, right?

6. If it was because you don’t think people should follow up, then what you’re really saying is you think illegal arrests are OK. All the constitutional right means is you get to harbor some private feeling that they were in the wrong.

I don't think there was an illegal arrest. Like I said, the moment he escalated, that's when things went sideways. You can fault the cops all you want for everything preceding - but at the end of the day, he could have (and did) easily resolved this with a quick trip down to the police station to sort everything out in a de-escalated environment.

7. To be charitable, I guess you could do nothing because it’s just too much hassle to get a tiny amount of justice, or you’re just a forgiving type person. Fine, but keep in mind that every time they get away with one it emboldens them for the next time.

We're talking about the LGBT and the illegals now, right?

When a domestic abuser goes down for seriously hurting someone, it very often turns out that victim(s) declined to press charges multiple times in the past.

I hold little sympathy for those who don't know or respect their rights. Sorry. Not sorry.

[Zeb]

So basically your position is that cops are dangerous, violent animals and we all have to walk on eggshells around them lest they violently and illegally assault us. Which, sadly, is probably not bad advice.
But the cops were 100% in the wrong here. Your concerns about pedos and illegals doesn’t change what the law actually is, and these police acted in violation of both the law and basic decency.

[AT]

No, my position is that even if you're 100% certain that a cop is wrong - that fighting him at that point in time is futile. You will lose, and you'll probably get hurt doing so.

Pick your battles. He's already decided you're not going to walk away from the scene. He might be 100% wrong - but that's something that can be sorted out later, under cooler (and supervised) circumstances.

But the cops were 100% in the wrong here.

Why?

I honestly wish we had the audio for a few minutes before that clip. I wonder if it would have gone something like this:

*krrt* Dispatch, unit 123 on patrol. Adult black male sighted in alleyway with child, child at a distance. Note time of day. Initiating contact for welfare check.
*krrt* Confirmed 123, proceed with caution.
*krrt* 123 exiting vehicle and approaching suspect.

You'll note that one of the first things he asks about is the identity of the child.

Your concerns about pedos and illegals doesn’t change what the law actually is

They're not just my concerns. There's a reason he asked about the kid before he even started in on the suspect himself. What did you think a world of normalized pederasts and criminal border jumpers was going to look like?

[ducksalad]

When you drive around a 5:00am and see a man and child going for a walk, do you really think OMG they might have crossed the border illegally!

Does that terrify you?

Seriously?

[AT]

Me personally? No. It doesn't "terrify" me.

But I do find it suspect. Less on the border jumper angle (though, if I'm a college coed I'm sure as heck not jogging around in the crisp early morning without a partner anymore - thanks Joe/Kamala), and more on the LGBT pedo one. Again, it's not Dick and Jane in the 1950s anymore. The rainbow cult is here, and they're openly preying on the children. Granted, the LGBT pedos tend to prey more in public schools than in residential alleys (though they do prey there) - but if I'm alone with a child, you can be darn sure I have everything I need with me to show that I'm on the up and up with that kid in case I'm questioned about it.

You wouldn't be?

[ducksalad]

It's not a reasonable assessment of relative risk. The vast majority of rapes are committed by citizens or legal residents and would still occur with a perfect border. Even if non-residents rape at three times the normal rate - and it's nowhere close to that - it would still be something on the order of 85% "legal" rapists vs 15% "illegal" rapists.

So closed versus open border is something like taking a 0.0015% chance of being raped while jogging and turning it into a 0.0017% chance. Unless your personal risk threshold happened to be exactly 0.0016%, the reaction is emotional, or an idea that somehow being raped by an illegal is worse than being raped by a homegrown criminal.

Personally, I know that crime is down, and feel safer than ever, not that I ever did worry much about crime. Live and work about 30 miles from the border.

[AT]

It’s not a reasonable assessment of relative risk.

Only if you're doing a numbers game. The guy at the kids park in the trenchcoat near the panel van statistically isn't likely to snatch and harm a kid.

But he's still super weird.

And that's not even the likely case anymore. These days, it's not snatching - it's grooming impressionable kids into a degree of trust and getting them to follow their abusers willingly.

Maybe this is a problem with the amount of stereotyping that goes into profiling, I don't know. But, as I said, the absurd amount of tolerance we've embraced socially and politically has normal people on edge. The twink teaching the classroom - normal people are like, "WHY IS THAT HAPPENING!?" Reason just posted this same day an article about how people are yanking their kids out of public schools. Though they danced around the point, the reason is the same. Nobody wants to see the next kid become the victim of a Hunter Heckel or Jose Ibarra - or, at least I'd hope they don't (the "libertarians" here have me wondering).

Why should policing be any different at this point? We've normalized so many disturbing and objectionable things at this point, that now something as seemingly benign as this is suspect.

I refuse to blame the cops on this. At least, not in entirety. They are the result of the broken society we've allowed to manifest.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Yes we know, the "broken society" is the one where the gays are NOT thrown in jail for being gay.

[AT]

I mean, I wouldn't stick them in jail. That seems excessive. But a sanitarium would be entirely appropriate.

The entire month of June illustrates - in graphic detail - exactly why. They can't help themselves. Especially around children. In fact, children seem to only encourage them.

[Dr. Ormand von Kleigstadt]

“They are the result of the broken society we’ve allowed to manifest.”

How this involves the border, immigration, “wokism” or anything other than police overreach and thuggish behavior on their part is ridiculous…and your apologia for it is more a result of the broken society we’ve allowed to manifest than the cops’ behavior. Are you a cop, AT?

[AT]

No, it's not ridiculous. Your dismissing a broken culture that leads to heightened paranoia and suspicion of the citizenry - and not just among cops - is an elephant you're trying to ignore.

As I said - nobody ever had a problem with people walking down the streets in a normal society. But in a society of illegals and LGBT pedos and revolving door criminals, now it's a different perspective.

The fact that you refuse to denounce illegals, LGBT pedos, and criminals as part of the problem - part of this complete breakdown of social trust and social cohesion - it just illustrates your myopia. OMG so angry at ACAB cops! But never considering why, in this day and age, that one might give such a thing a suspicious eye.

I would bet my right arm that if we didn't live in the broken society that we do now, this dude wouldn't have been hassled in the first place. Because it would have just been a dad and his son out for a walk.

But we don't live in that society anymore. We live in one that worships and glorifies pederasts, border jumpers, and career criminals. Where one now has to assume the worst, because the worst has been normalized and celebrated.

[Jefferson Paul]

Did you and Mollygodiva (the first commenter) not watch the video? You both say or imply that Sexton is black.

The DailyMail article has a photo of him in the daylight:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13663313/oklahoma-father-arrested-police-autistic-son.html

The media tend to publicize a story about police abuse (even if the cops didn't commit abuse) if it involves a white cop and a black person. I have a huge problem with the violation of rights of any American. I don't want the public to think cops ONLY misbehave if the subject is a black person (or non-white). This distracts from the bigger problem of police abuse and violation of rights, which they do to people of all races.

[AT]

He looked pretty black in the video. My mistake.

But, truth be told - that actually makes him more suspect. Whites and Hispanics, and especially Arabs, tend to be child predators - at least in America - far more than blacks.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

My lord you are an idiot

[Gaear Grimsrud]

All right reading your comments and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but your position here is irreconcilable with any version of libertarianism that I'm aware of. From the video this guy was not sneaking down an alleyway with a terrified child however you imagine the description from dispatch. In fact it looks like these cops were acting on their own initiative without a any complaint or reasonable suspicion. When this thug starts to manhandle him the dad immediately grabs his phone and attempts to record the police abuse. Are these the actions of a child predator? Why would he want to record himself involved in a crime? You claim that dispatch might have identified a black man. Why would that matter and why would you make that assumption? Then you wander off into claiming cops had some basis to believe he was an illegal alien which is completely irrelevant under the circumstances. And why do you find it suspicious that a father and son might want to take a walk and see the dawn? And when the cops assault the father the child who seemed perfectly calm starts crying hysterically. Did these assholes pause and make an attempt to reassess the situation? No they dragged him off to jail. Sorry guy. This man is completely innocent and fully within his rights throughout the entire encounter and the aftermath. You can twist yourself into knots trying to defend these thugs but I'm not buying it.

[AT]

this guy was not sneaking down an alleyway with a terrified child

It's usually not how it is these days. We've conditioned kids to follow them willingly, lest they be accused of being evil bigoted haters.

In fact it looks like these cops were acting on their own initiative without a any complaint or reasonable suspicion.

I'd say they were acting on the suspicion of an adult male in the company of a minor child walking down an alleyway or garageway at an odd hour of the morning.

YMMV whether that's suspect, but they thought it was.

When this thug starts to manhandle him the dad immediately grabs his phone and attempts to record the police abuse.

You mean when the suspect ignored the command to turn around to be handcuffed?

Are these the actions of a child predator? Why would he want to record himself involved in a crime?

Don't know, don't care. Sort that out at the station house.

And why do you find it suspicious that a father and son might want to take a walk and see the dawn?

I already explained that. That's a much larger social/cultural issue in America right now, than what happened in that alleyway. But I truly believe it was a contributing factor.

When the LGBT pedos and crazies and border jumpers and vagrants are allowed to walk the streets, we then have to assume that LGBT pedos and crazies and border jumpers and vagrants are walking our streets.

And since the marxist left and their libertarian useful idiots especially won't hear ANY argument that advocates for putting these people in jail or sanitoriums where they belong, this is where we end up.

And when the cops assault the father the child who seemed perfectly calm starts crying hysterically.

Well, they said he's autistic. They're prone to fits when they can't process what's happening.

Bet you didn't expect the other side of that double-edged pander sword, did you.

Did these assholes pause and make an attempt to reassess the situation?

The reassessment is done at local lockup. Which is precisely what happened here. "Sexton was briefly detained before being released without being charged."

[Jefferson Paul]

So cops should just arrest anyone and everyone that they can, in their wildest imagination, conceive of being a criminal? Don't assert your rights, and just sort it out at the station. No big deal. Quit your crying.

I really hope you're not in a position of authority/power.

[AT]

So cops should just arrest anyone and everyone that they can, in their wildest imagination, conceive of being a criminal?

Of course not. That would lead to ridiculous amounts of lawsuits.

Don’t assert your rights, and just sort it out at the station. No big deal. Quit your crying.

Assert your rights until you're blue in the face, but if you think that a powerful assertion is going to get the cop to back off once he's become a dog with a bone, you're mistaken. You ARE going to be arrested. The question is whether it'll be peacefully, or with you ending up with pavement bruises. Or worse. Why intentionally choose the latter?

Sort it out at the station. It's not rocket science. I don't know what any of you fools think you're going to accomplish by fighting the cop right then and there.

Because at the end of the day, that's what you're arguing here. "Fight the police and resist arrest."

And I'm fine with "fight the police" - but do it smart, not stupid. Fight them on your terms, not theirs. You keep talking like you can prevent a rights violation in a situation like this. You can't. Our system of justice isn't "preventative" in the first place. It's retributive. Meaning the harm has to come before the redress, and the redress has to be done legally - not out on the street with the cop.

[5.56]

Just GET on your damn knees peacefully already! Stop resisting! I said STOP RESISTING! We can do this PEACEFULLY, why are you causing yourself so many PROBLEMS right now!?!?!

[Liberty_Belle]

My Constitutional rights are not superseded by policeman's fears, ego trips, ignorance, nor ineptitude at administering the law.

[AT]

No, they're not. But that doesn't mean they'll ever go without infringement. It means you have recourse for their violation.

[Idaho-Bob]

It means you have recourse for their violation.

Almost never.

This is why so many bikers run from the cops. You can only be violated/beaten if they catch you.

[AT]

Sure you do. File a Complaint.

If they were truly coloring outside the lines, a QI defense won't hold up.

[Dr. Ormand von Kleigstadt]

Which PD is paying you to spam this comment thread relentlessly?

[AT]

You mean reply to the responses that were posted?

[DesigNate]

You have way more faith in the system than most of us.

[AT]

Not "faith" in "the system."

Reliance on the Rule of Law.

If we don't accept that exists, and that it will ultimately serve against those who would persecute us - then we don't have a nation. At least, not one that the Founders envisioned.

[DesigNate]

I meant faith in the system in regards to filing a complaint actually doing anything and bad cops being held to account for their actions. Cops routinely think they’re above the law, which makes a complete mockery of the Rule of Law (let’s not even get into politicians). Then we turn around and politically prosecute 1 or 2 to appease the masses.

This may be my pessimism talking, but i dont think we have a nation that the Founders envisioned.

[AT]

You're probably right, but we also have nobody but ourselves to blame for that.

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

But I do want to dig a little further into this point: to filing a complaint actually doing anything and bad cops being held to account for their actions.

I mean, what exactly are your expectations? Are they realistic or unrealistic? When you say "held to account" - what are you hoping for? An apology? Restitution? Job termination? His head on a pike?

You know how many fools I hear about in life who tell their sob story, and expect ten digit settlements (or twelve figure jury awards) or lifetime prison sentences for whomever they have a gripe with? Or who think that they're going to force a shakeup at their company (or in the government, including at police hq) because they've got the smoking gun that's going to turn everything on its head? You know how many storm off in contempt when they're told that's not realistic?

Because it's not realistic. At least, not without an actual smoking gun.

This is just like the South Carolina thing. If you're so cynical that you don't believe justice can be reached so why even bother trying - that's on you. That's not a cops thing. That's a citizen thing. But the cynicism then metastasizes into this ACAB nonsense, and all folks are doing is compounding and reaffirming their own prejudices. (And don't even get me started on the negative cultural influences where people get lured into this idea that we should John Wick or Equalizer our world into a better society, because anyone and everyone is dirty and "in on it" except them.)

So, held to account. What's your expectation then?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

And in the interim, turn all your efforts to curbing the social scourge that are these predatory illegals and LGBT pedos

yes that's right, the reason why Sexton was abused by the cops was because of the illegals and the gays

lol

[AT]

"When everyone is special, no one will be."

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Jeffy will always be special.

[Rossami]

And you deserve it for wearing that short skirt...

Good lord, I thought we were past victim-blaming. No, the father did nothing wrong. He was entirely within his rights at every step. He did absolutely nothing blameworthy and I reject the idea that we should live in fear of those who break the law while wearing a uniform. Even moreso, I reject the idea that appeasement is an effective answer. Yes, it takes bravery to stand up to bullies. I won't look down on you (much) if that call for bravery is too much for you when you're in a similar situation but you have no place trying to rationalize your cowardice by attempting to shame the victim.

[ducksalad]

Well said.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Yup.

[AT]

It's not victim blaming. Nor is the "short skirt" an apt analogy.

For whatever reason, the cops have decided to arrest you. Rightfully or wrongfully, you can address that after the fact. Trying to fight them off in the immediate is not going to make anyone the sympathetic victim. They're not raping you. They're asking you a question.

For pete's sake, everyone here is so up their own ACAB butts that they pretend like compliance with legal authority means they'll never be seen again. It's not like cops are whisking American citizens off the streets and disappearing them for no known reason. This isn't communism or despotism where dissidents are rounded up and jailed, or worse.

You all want to MMQ the entire stop in the first place. Right or wrong, it happened. The appropriate response was to cooperate and resolve the issue. Becoming belligerent was not.

[Jefferson Paul]

This isn’t communism or despotism where dissidents are rounded up and jailed, or worse.

The people who committed no violence on J6 (some of whom weren't even at the Capitol) but were hunted down by the DOJ/FBI and arrested beg to differ.

[AT]

That’s a Democrat thing. You’ll have to talk to them about that.

Not take it out on Johnny Patrol Cop because he’s a convenient whipping boy and you're pissed about having to explain yourselves to them on a 5am walkabout.

[Zeb]

nm

[Troglodyte Rex]

It's about to be open season on piggies, deservedly so.

[R Mac]

Don’t want to get body slammed like a thug, don’t have an autistic son like a thug.

[5.56]

THIS is the answer.

[JenK]

Nice to have one of these videos actually show the entire encounter. Disgusting behavior on the part of the cops. Poor kid.

[Alanatswbell]

Nothing to see here, and nothing will happen to the power hungry officers involved!

[LIBtranslator]

When the kid is old enough to buy a gun and start hunting down officious bullying cops, you can bet the cops will shriek AMBUSH and demand repeal of the Second Amendment--rather than remember the piggie who wanted to bully someone in front of a child.