Hero Cops Pull Gun on Man for Eating M&Ms

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

San Diego Heroes in action:

Share Button


  1. Pig getting upset and pointing a gun at me for a mere curfew violation? People, things are so out of hand in this fucked up country that I’m amazed lynching hasn’t been reintroduced.

  2. Title says Hero Cups btw.

    This video and the lack of response to the problems it demonstrates, is all I need to know about Amoronca. This blanket law prohibits people under the age of 18 from being on the streets from 10 pm to 6 am and that is acceptable to Amoroncons. There’s a 830 am to 130 pm daytime prohibition from being anywhere but in school as well. Unbelievable really.

    Petition to stop Dago curfew sweeps

    – – – – –

    For the first time since he had a gun pointed his way, the man involved in a confrontation with a San Diego police officer over a curfew sweep told his story.

    “He just wanted to use his gun,” said Hyland Stangl.

    Cellphone video shows a San Diego police officer pointing a gun at Stangl on Saturday night.

    Stangl was recording his friend being held down by a San Diego police officer after he refused to show his ID in a curfew sweep in front of the Rite Aid in Carmel Valley.

    “He takes out his gun and pulls it out and points it at my face and keeps telling me to get back,” said Stangl.

    In the video, the officer says, “Get over there.”

    “You do not, you cannot point the gun at me for not doing jackshit. That is bullshit,” a male voice is heard saying in the video.

    The office says, “Get back over there.”

    “Put that gun away,” a male voice says. “You’re going to shoot me for not moving back?”

    Garrett Paddock, 19, is seen in the video on the ground. He said that one minute he was eating candy and the next he was face down on the blacktop.

    “He was like, ‘Drop your M&Ms, drop them, drop them,'” said Paddock. “Then I set them down and the next thing I know is I got slammed against the car. My shoe fell off and then I was on the ground.”

    A retired San Diego police officer said the officer would be justified in drawing a gun if the officer felt threatened.

    “It was 11:20 at night and the officer was investigating curfew violations,” said San Diego police Lt. Andra Brown. “Age is the issue. All they had to do was show their IDs.”

    Paddock not only refused to show his ID and can be heard challenging the officer.

    In the video, the officer says, “Give me your other hand.

    Paddock is heard saying, “You guys have no probable cause to search us for any reason.”

    The officer says, “Shut your mouth.”

    A constitutional law professor at the University of San Diego said since the three men in this case looked like they may have been under the age of 18, the officer was justified in making them show their IDs.

    • The fact that a “constitutional law” professor justifies the cop’s actions by citing a blatantly unconstitutional law is really kind of comical.

      Look at that cop. He’s a fat, skinhead asshole, obviously pleased with himself. He could be used as a dictionary illustration of the term “fat head cop”. Stupid looking asshole.

      • These videos have a common theme:

        Absurdly over-the-top escalation/use of force over a trivial thing – usually some minor petty infraction. The sort of thing that, in the past, most cops would not even bother you about and if they did, you could usually discuss it with them before they began drawing Tazers/Glocks/Cuffs.

        Shit is out of hand.

        • Eric, yes, right on!

          The transition occurred in the 90’s when the Feds muscled in and “foie gras” their police and Sheriff’s Dept’s training and accreditation programs. ABSOLUTELY no accident, and meticulously designed to create frustration and friction with the public. The “book” was created by Saul Alinsky and Cloward -Piven in the 50’s & 60’s, and has been taught to every bureaucracy manager since then. We think short term checkers, they think long term multi-level chess. They MUST HAVE violent public resistance for the takeover to succeed. All in preparation for today’s top-down police state. Then the bear trap will have sprung on the public.

          How do I know? I was one of those for 20 years beginning in 1971 with L.A. County Sheriff. Prior to the current accepted brainwashing ( they are all out to kill you! ), pulling a gun was the LAST ditch move that happened only when the situation was elevated to “deadly force”. All the shades of gray and other Batman tools were to be used first. The current generation of young cops are mind trained robots and (with department management approval) give little thought to other’s personal rights and use of force. The more M&M wielding people that yell at him the more it reinforces his training.

          The “old timers” agree, and fortunately we are seeing the Phoenix Bird of resistance to the takeover from groups like Oathkeepers and CSPOA.org. Join and support them.

          If enough “people” learn how they are mind-fucked daily by the media, then they will apply the correct push-back and put an end to it. Sadly for Mr. & Mrs. America the prognosis is poor.

          • The Feds, and by natural extension that means the Pentagon, have been gifting police and sherriff departments with weapons and other acoutrements for many years and thus have “militarized” the entire nation with kooky cops who want to use these new toys and their BDU’s to instill “compliance” AKA… Fear into the public. It’s a sick end run around Posse Comitatus and proves that it’s also quite useless and as dead as the hands that originally penned it.

            Oathkeepers, while sounding fine and dandy on the surface, hasn’t done a damn thing but flap its lips while its members sit embedded in departments that daily abuse the public. So hows that turning out now? Clearly the paycheck comes before principle.
            That’s why I’m never impressed by anyone yammering about returning to the Constitution as though it’s some sort of magical totem that if we dance about it’s long dead and dessicated corpse it’ll resurrect itself and set things straight.

            • Ditto all that.

              And, I’ll go farther: The Constitution needs to be thrown in the woods, too. It was the work – in secret and without any mandate – of a cabal of authoritarians who sought to replace the Articles, which they reviled precisely because they limited the power of the central government, with a “vigorous” (their word) central government whose power would, in time, become unlimited. And which they knew would become unlimited because they designed the document to achieve that end.

              The authors of the Constitution were brilliant men – lawyers, all – who chose and used words with great precision. There is a reason such turns of phrase as “general welfare” (and so on) were chosen. Precisely because they are ambiguous and subject to “interpretation.”

              The thing barely passed – by the skin of its teeth – and to a great extent only because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights (which that bastard Hamilton derided as “unnecessary”).

              Most of the founders were not in favor of liberty. They merely wished to be the ones in charge of government – and to make it work for their purposes.

              • Eric,

                You know the funny (in the ironic sense) part is this: what became the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was originally intended to TWEAK the Articles of Confederation! That was their mandate. Once in Philadelphia though, the claimed plenipotentiary powers and invoked the Declaration of Independence to scrap the Articles and craft the Constitution.

                Furthermore, the CHANGED the rules of ratification. Under the Articles of Confederation, any change or amendment required UNANIMOUS APPROVAL; all states had to vote yes. The Constitution changed that to 3/4 vote, and even then, they barely got it through. Had the old unanimity rule of the Articles still been in effect, the Constitution would never have passed…

          • RE: eric @ September 16, 2013 at 6:11 am

            I think (hope?) The Venerated Founders ™ expected that Rulers would act in enlightened self-interest, and thus rule justly.

            I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, that while they were short-sighted, even malicious in a few things – they had no idea that the “enlightened” portion would just disappear, that it would become a free-for-all “self-interest” thing….

            Though, re-reading what I just wrote – I’m probably deluding myself.

            Time to go read the Articles…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here