So this is how things are done around here

[XLFD]

A video taken about two weeks ago of a local deputy in action (with a tagline same as the headline above) deserves some extra analysis, as Mason County Sheriff Kim Cole has refused at least a couple of invitations to comment on a deputy's words and behavior.

A driver currently identifying himself as "Jackben Their" posted the video below on Facebook early on October 21st. He apparently is manually operating a video recording device while following behind a Mason County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) car. At first the video shows the deputy's car cruising down Ludington Avenue approaching Washington Avenue at a good rate; the posted speed limit is 30 mph, and although Jackben's car has no means to record the speed, his speedometer reads 43 mph at a point where he is trying to match speeds. The MCSO car has no lights or sirens activated.

Jackben alleges that he had been recently stopped for speeding (he would clarify that it wasn't the same day or by the same deputy who wound up as the driver here), and thought it was a bit hypocritical for them to go 10-15 mph over the speed limit. It is, of course, but that will not be analyzed here in any great detail, as there were other issues meriting review.

Jackben actually follows the deputy into the parking lot at the MCSO, and interviews the deputy with the camera still rolling about 90 seconds into the video. Some will consider that as being brave, some as being stupid, but his repartee with the deputy proved interesting.

Jackben starts out by asking the deputy for his name and badge number and the deputy refuses to give this to him, and will ignore doing so a couple more times before he leaves. While there is no state law requiring them to do so, most reputable law enforcement agencies have policies that require their employees to give out their name on request with the usual exceptions as in if:

An investigation is jeopardized
A police function is hindered
There is a safety consideration

None seem applicable here nor are any invoked by the deputy, so either MCSO does not have a normal identification policy or this deputy repeatedly violated MCSO rules. The Department of Justice has weighed in that the failure to wear badges or have officers identify themselves (especially when wearing masks), conveys a message to community members that, through anonymity, officers may seek to act with impunity. The conversation continued:

Jackben: I was wondering why you sped through Ludington, and through these streets, and I have it on camera if you don't believe me. Because I'm pretty sure if anybody else was to do so, they would get pulled over and get a ticket, am I correct?
Deputy: "I don't pull over people in Ludington here."

Is the deputy admitting he doesn't pull over those who break the law in the city limits of Ludington? That could make sense as the money generated by any citation would not go to the county but to the City instead. Is this an MCSO policy?  The dialog continued:

J: But you are supposed to follow the speed limit, correct?
D: Yes.
J: So why were you speeding?
D: Well, I'm coming back from a call I got to type and have to meet someone in the lobby?
J: Yeah, but if you do not have an emergency are you allowed to speed?
D: No, we're not

Oops, everything the deputy said that 'justified' his going above the speed limit were not emergencies, and by his own admissions, he was speeding in violation of the law.  His failure to recognize that would fuel most of the rest of the conversation

J: What's the deal?
D: Well, why are you worrying about me, man?
J; Well, because you have to follow the law like everybody else?
D: That's right, I do
J: I've got a speeding ticket for speeding right where you sped.
D: Well I can give you a ticket for tailgating me.

The deputy, perhaps realizing his arguments are failing miserably in making any sense, issues a threat for a charge for which he has no idea about whether it may apply. The video certainly doesn't indicate any basis for the threat.

J: For tailgating? What's considered tailgating? How many car spaces, because I have that on video as well.
D: Well, why don't you look it up, because you're the one that knows all of the laws, don't you?

The deputy's frustrations continue to rise, as his answer shows that he is likely ignorant of the law he just threatened to charge a person with; it's probably because the law is rarely enforced, being quite subjective and hard to prove without an accident taking place. A dialog about what is speeding and when is it okay to speed followed:

J: Well, I know speeding, that's a very easy one. My kid knows not to speed.
D: That's why I adjust my speed when I pull people over for speeding. I don't pull people over for ten over, I pull (over) people for 15 over, because I would be a hypocrite if I pulled over for that, correct?
J: Listen, I just have an issue with like why are you guys speeding when no one else can, like it's illegal? There are speed limits for a reason.
D: Correct, I know that. That's why I adjust it for people going 15 over, that's why I pull them over, I don't pull people over for ten.
J: Is ten over not speeding as well?
D: It is speeding.
J: So there's leeway? A sign can be adjusted on discretion...
D: No, no, you're not listening to me.
J: I know it's illegal to speed, whether it's ten or 15 over, it's still illegal.
D: Correct
J: What makes it acceptable at ten and not 15?
D: If I'm going ten over the speed limit, I am not pulling people over for ten over...
J: Why are you doing ten over the speed limit?
D: I'm getting back to the office, I have stuff to do.
J: But what lawful reason do you have for doing ten miles over the speed limit?
D: Because I have to get to a call, I'm going to a call
J: You're coming into your office, you said you just came from a call.
D: Well no, there's someone waiting in the lobby and I have to talk with them
J: So you didn't use your lights, it's just OK to speed (than) to have someone waiting. It's preferable to speed than have someone wait.
D: I'm on call and I have to take care of the call, and I have to take care of this person in the lobby, so that's where I'm going now.

The deputy is asked a couple more times for a name and badge number, which is refused with a "no' and then by walking away.

I come away confused with what exactly is speeding and whether the deputy's interpretation of it is the same as the MCSO's. I am confused about why the deputy decided not to divulge his identity nor have his identity on his shirt and whether that is company policy. I am confused as to why the deputy tried to throw an offense (tailgating) against this guy asking questions that was not applicable and seemingly designed more for intimidation.

I thought I could get these questions answered and perhaps a little more from the Sheriff, Kim Cole, and yet have got nothing after a polite e-mail request made last week. I have contacted Jackben who has also contacted the sheriff in order to get answers before I did, and has similarly been ignored. It should be disturbing to all that the top elected law enforcement official in the county cannot respond to questions concerning the conduct of his officers, and the policies of his office.

[Willy]

Instead of confronting the police officer he should have sent a copy of the video to the Sheriff  and requested an explanation. What he did was not wise. He had no idea how the officer would react. Depending on how the motorist acted the officer could have interpreted his actions to be threatening. Don't look for trouble by possibly causing it.

[XLFD]

That's one reason why I said some would find what he did either very brave or very stupid (or both), but wanted to minimize that by having the reader consider what followed rather than the cameraman's frame of mind.  I wouldn't have objected to the deputy refusing to give his name if one of the four times the issue came up he would have articulated that he felt threatened by the encounter.   The repartee that followed didn't seem to suggest he was, however, since it included a threat and sarcasm from the deputy and he surely doesn't seem fearful-- maybe uncomfortable when he contradicts himself.

I have sent a follow up to the sheriff around noon today with a link to this article and my own threat of using a FOIA request if answers are not forthcoming by the weekend.  I think most people would like to know whether they can travel 10 mph over the speed limit in the county without fear of being stopped for speeding by the road patrol, and whether the MCSO has a policy not to enforce the law when in the city limits.

[Willy]

The determination as to what the camera mans intention were would have been addressed by the officer at the beginning of the confrontation. After that the camera man became just a pain in the ass and was addressed as such. I think the cop was pleasant enough considering the camera mans attitude. When it comes to treating someone disrespectfully it cuts both ways. The camera man was clearly being an a_shole.

[AQUAMAN]

Dittos on both your posts Willy, I agree on this case, cameraman too overbearing, and lucky he was not arrested for interfering with an officer on duty, and possibly disorderly.

[XLFD]

I respectfully disagree with your assessments, and I do so because I look at the interaction in several ways.  I first look at it normally, then I assess the interaction if the roles were reversed, and then I assess the interaction by presuming these two had the same social status (either as two cops or two civilians).

After going through each prism, it's clear 'Jackben' could have been more civil than he was and maybe he could have used a different approach, but I have a hard time seeing a disrespectful and overbearing attitude expressed in his manner and words.  I do, however, find a serious threat in the deputy's words either way it's looked at that happens to be both disrespectful and overbearing. 

Is there anything more disrespectful and overbearing than using the power of your office in making a threat to charge somebody with a bogus crime and take their money (and possibly freedom) from them just for pointing out the department's apparent hypocrisy?