By Lee Williams

James Hodges, who is legally blind and cannot drive, was walking home from jury duty in Lake City, Florida one week ago when he was stopped by Columbia County Sheriff’s Deputy Jayme Gohdy, because she mistook his collapsible white cane for a pistol.

A video of their encounter was captured by Deputy Gohdy’s body camera. Hodges later posted a copy of the video on his YouTube page.

 

“What’s this in your back pocket?” Deputy Gohdy can be heard asking on the video.

“It’s a navigational aid,” Hodges said. “What’s the problem? Are you a tyrant?”

“Yeah, I am actually,” Deputy Gohdy said. “What’s your name and date of birth.”

“I don’t have to give that …” Hodges started to say.

“Do you want me to put you in handcuffs right now?” Deputy Gohdy said. “It looks like you’re carrying a gun in your back pocket. I’m stopping you to make sure you’re carrying it properly.”

“Have you ensured that it’s not a firearm?” Hodges asked.

“No, you keep turning so I can’t see it. You don’t have to be a dick to me,” the deputy said.

“Well, you’re being one to me,” Hodges said. He pulled out a collapsible white cane from his back pocket and showed it to the deputy.

“Am I detained?” Hodges asked.

“Yeah, you are,” Deputy Gohdy said. “What’s your name and date of birth.”

Her sergeant arrived, whom the Sheriff’s Office later identified as Sgt. Randy Harrison. Hodges walked over to talk to the man.

“Her suspicion was that you were armed and she’s asking for your ID,” Sgt. Harrison said.

“I verified that I am not armed so there is no crime,” Hodges said. He refused to produce his ID so the deputies handcuffed him behind his back. Hodges did not resist. The sergeant pulled Hodges’ ID out of his left-front pants pocket.

“You are not allowed to search me,” Hodges said.

Deputy Gohdy ran a records check on Hodges with her radio.

“Sir, are you legally blind?” Sgt. Harrison asked.

“Yes, I am,” Hodges said. “I had to walk up here in the dark for jury duty, which was cancelled.”

“Why ain’t you using your stick,” the sergeant asked, as the warrant check came back clear.

“Alright, Mr. Hodges, was that that hard?” Deputy Gohdy asked.

“It’s gonna be,” Hodges said. “I want your name and badge numbers.”

“Put him in jail for resisting,” Sgt. Harrison said.

“Okay,” Deputy Gohdy said.

Hodges was placed in the back seat of the deputy’s squad car and taken to jail. At no point in Deputy Gohdy’s bodycam video did Hodges ever physically resist arrest. He was charged with resisting arrest without violence, a First-Degree misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a $1,000 fine and 12 months of probation.

False arrest

Hodges’ video has received more than a million views. The Sheriff’s Office’s social media accounts were deluged by posts calling for an investigation, and more.

Columbia County Sheriff Mark A. Hunter did not return calls or emails seeking his comments for this story, but his public information officer, Sgt. Steven Khachigan released the following statement announcing that the department was launching an internal investigation of Hodges’ arrest:

We are aware of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office body camera video involving the arrest of Mr. James Hodges on October 31, 2022. Sheriff Hunter is troubled by what he has seen in the video and the matter is being addressed. An administrative investigation was initiated on November 3, 2022 when the incident was brought to our attention. If policy violations are sustained at the conclusion of that investigation, appropriate action will be taken. While we understand the frustration and concern associated with this event, please know we are working to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

Sgt. Khachigan also provided a copy of Deputy Gohdy’s arrest report.

She indicated in her report she first saw Hodges in a crosswalk and “observed what appeared to be a silver (chrome) pistol with a white grip in his back right pocket.”

She wrote that Hodges “was found to be in violation of FL Statute 843.02, by obstructing the ongoing investigation when he repeatedly refused to allow identification of the object in his pocket as well as by refusing to identify himself. James (Hodges) was placed under arrest for Resisting without Violence and transported to the Columbia County Detention Facility without incident.

Deputy Gohdy never mentioned in her report that Hodges removed his cane and showed it to her and her supervisor. Instead, she wrote that she discovered it was a cane only after Hodges was handcuffed, which is incorrect.

Florida considers police reports to be official documents. False statements or intentionally omitting certain facts can be considered crimes.

In an interview, Sgt. Khachigan said Deputy Gohdy hadn’t been at the department very long, maybe a year at the most. He was not aware of any recent discipline.

Sgt. Khachigan acknowledged that while Hodges was charged by the Sheriff’s Office, the Columbia County State Attorney’s Office ultimately decides whether to file formal charges or drop the matter entirely.

Asked whether this was the type of law enforcement the public could expect in Columbia County, Sgt. Khachigan would speak only in general terms.

“If you look at our social media, do we have instances where our deputies have made mistakes? That is certainly the case. Anywhere is going to have that. I think you’ll find that the majority of the times most of our community members say they appreciate the job we do. Does that mean we’re without fault? No, it doesn’t. In those times we have to follow procedures that are set in place. In general, you can find times when we’ve sent out press releases before where we’ve shared good stories. Sometimes, there were some things not in a positive light. We’ve owned those things as well,” he said.

Open Carry

Florida only allows the open carry of arms while hunting, camping or fishing. Absent those exceptions, open carry is illegal.

In 2015, when the legislature was considering making open carry legal, Sheriff Hunter spoke out against the bill.

In a letter to his constituents, Sheriff Hunter denounced the open carry bill.

“My highest priority is the safety of the citizens of Columbia County,” the Sheriff wrote. “I do not support the bill in its current form because I do not believe it will make us safer.”

Sgt. Khachigan acknowledged that legal open carry could have prevented Hodges’ arrest.

“If we had open carry in Florida and there was believed to be a weapon, I could see your point,” he said. “It’s hard to speculate on hypotheticals. You know as well as I do that when they create laws, we don’t know what kind of language will be in there, but I see your point and where you’re going with that question. It’s hard to say whether it would have completely resolved this, but I do see your point.”

 

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

This story is part of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and is published here with their permission.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

194 COMMENTS

  1. Well, once it has been determined no crime has been committed and no further basis exists for temporary detention, the need to identify oneself to police evaporates, at least in most states.

    • This was just blatant outright stupidity from the (he’she” Sheriff Deputy Gohdy, what a nit-whit dumb bitch. She could have just said I’m sorry my bad and they both could have laughed about the misunderstanding….after this ridiculous scenario with her and her supervisor Sgt. Harrison I hope some handicap attorney from the Americans with Disabilities come forward and represents Mr. Hodges and bust their balls!

        • “Put him in jail for resisting,” Sgt. Harrison said.

          He resisted giving overflowing and abundant heart warming respect to these officers. PUT HIM IN JAIL!

      • The problem is neither the PD nor the individual cops involved will suffer any penalty. It will be the taxpayers of that county or city that cough up the money to pay any judgment. That must change. The individual cop must bear part of the judgment and also the PD must have part of the judgment taken out of their yearly budget. That will get their attention. If there is a $100,000 judgement, one third should be paid by the individual officer; 1/2 paid by the PD for hiring such a jerk officer and the rest paid by the public entity (taxpaying public) for not hiring a police chief who would ride herd on his wannabe officers who believe in rousting peaceable citizens.

        Tale told me by the best patrol cop I ever met. He and his partner are on checking bar duty just to show the uniform. HIs partner, a young cop wants to go down and roust a youngish looking guy sitting peaceably at the end of the bar. The senior cop says, “What for?
        Young Cop: “He doesn’t look 21.”
        Senior Cop: “That’s not our job. That’s the bartender’s job. We are supposed to be checking to make sure everything is quiet. It most certainly is and what you want to do is going to disturb that.”
        YC: “I haven’t had a good bust all month.”
        SCL “I’ve got a clean uniform on without any tears. I want to go home that way. I’ve got the keys. I’m leaving. Have fun.”

        The senior cop wasn’t afraid to exercise his authority when he felt it was needed. He felt his job was mainly to arrive at a peaceful solution to the problem without making arrests if possible. He once talked a suicidal guy out of his gun in a very tense situation. He also drew down on a crime lab tech standing with a pistol in his hand, peering in the crack of the door to criminal calendar with a judge sitting on the bench. He also did 72 hour divorces which saved felony convictions for people who really weren’t felons and kept children out of the clutches of CPS.

    • I understand that no one has to provide ID absent an arrest. In fact, you do not have to identify yourself orally without probable cause for an arrest.

      • Unless I’m mistaken about FL statutes, production of an ID is never a legal requirement; rather, name and address must be provided, when lawfully required (which was not the case here).

        We are not generally required to carry ID merely for walking down the street.

        • 901.151 doesn’t really address the question of whether police can demand an ID (i.e. ID card) vs ascertaining the identification (such as verbally providing one’s name). However, it does demonstrate that the detention and search were unlawful the moment the object in question was known to be a walking cane (i.e. not a firearm):

          “901.151 Stop and Frisk Law.—
          (1) This section may be known and cited as the “Florida Stop and Frisk Law.”
          (2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense.
          (3) No person shall be temporarily detained under the provisions of subsection (2) longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of that subsection. Such temporary detention shall not extend beyond the place where it was first effected or the immediate vicinity thereof.
          (4) If at any time after the onset of the temporary detention authorized by subsection (2), probable cause for arrest of person shall appear, the person shall be arrested. If, after an inquiry into the circumstances which prompted the temporary detention, no probable cause for the arrest of the person shall appear, the person shall be released.
          (5) Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon. If such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense it may be seized.
          (6) No evidence seized by a law enforcement officer in any search under this section shall be admissible against any person in any court of this state or political subdivision thereof unless the search which disclosed its existence was authorized by and conducted in compliance with the provisions of subsections (2)-(5).”

      • Your understanding is incorrect. There is a Supremes ruling on that very question. I have researched it and the U.S. Supremes have ruled that in states where the law of that state requires one to show ID upon demand by a l.e.o. the citizen must comply with the law of that state. In states that have no such requirement, the citizen is not required to show id upon demand. It varies by state. There is no universal rule. I don’t know the law int Florida and unless you are a lawyer in Florida who specialized in criminal law, you admittedly do not know the law in Florida or AZ or NV where the case originated that went to the U.S.Supremes. In Nevada the law requires one to show id to l.e.o.s upon demand and the appellant lost in the major leagues. In fact, he lost all the way along. It was a blow out.

    • I read this earlier today on another site. Was immediately surprised at the fact that the Deputy actually said “yes” to the question asking if she’s a tyrant. That’s no-no #1.

      Continuing to detain even after determining no firearm present, and therefore no longer any reason for the stop. No-no #2.

      Using a vulgar epithet to address the detainee, showing the willingness to cast the detainee in a guilty light before determining the facts. No-no #3

      Cuffing and searching the detainee after no longer having a reason for the stop. No-no #4

      Arresting and charging the detainee under false pretenses. No-no #5

      Falsifying her report and stating incorrect facts. Punishable offense in itself. No-no #6

      ****
      The blind man pretty much has everything laid our for him on a silver platter. Get a good attorney and await a nice retirement sum from the settlement.

      • “Get a good attorney and await a nice retirement sum from the settlement.”

        Considering how someone in Florida got a cool 50 thousand for a far less intrusive rights violation, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they don’t offer him a 100 thousand payout.

        That video is that’s guy’s golden ticket.

        Even better, he played the “Am I being detained?” card masterfully…

    • First the Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith and her bribery for CCW permits, now Columbia County Sheriff Mark A. Hunter’s self-admitted “tyrannical” deputies.

      These Republican sheriffs have let the power go to their heads, someone needs to let these ‘constitutional sheriffs’ know, the word sheriff is not in the United States Constitution.

    • I live close as well. You are correct: the FL GOP is anti-gun. However, I am a voter and I have been encouraging my reps to pass constitutional carry and undo the anti-2nd amendment legislation they shoved through in the wake of the Parkland massacre.

      Rick Scott nearly lost his bid for US Senate in 2018 because he signed that legislation. The establishment GOP in the state is that: establishment. We will really miss Sabatini.

      • “You are correct: the FL GOP is anti-gun“

        And yet, conservative POTG continue to put them in office.

        Some sort of cognitive deficit at work.

        • Gotta remember there are a lot of Neu Yawkers who moved to FL to get away from Neu Yawk and the laws that were passed by the politicians that the fugitives voted into office. They didn’t change their stripes just because they moved south, they are still the d.s. voters in FL that they were in Neu Yawk. In case you can’t figure out d.s. the first letter stands for mental acuity and the second letter is what happens in a latrine.

    • Things seem to be changing here finally. Florida voters have finally been pushing the state right the past few years.

  3. Wow… surprised they didn’t shoot him dead when he pulled the cane out since they already thought it was a gun. Good thing he survived the encounter, and may end up the richer for it.

  4. the officer gave the right response. he is a tyrant. and his attitude sucked from the beginning.

    • Dave:
      “(S)he is a tyrant.” Yeah, and apparently nobody ever told Hodges that mouthing off to a police officer is unwise. So… in my not-so-humble they were both out of line,

      • How was a legally-blind, private citizen, acting 100% lawfully, merely walking down a sidewalk, only to find himself accosted by a police officer on ridiculous RAS, and additionally detained unlawfully once utterly disproving that RAS, out of line? He owes those police officers nothing.

        Only an imbecile could think that a folded-up walking cane sticking out of a back pocket was a firearm. Regardless, the moment Officer Tyrant (self-described) observed that the object was not a firearm, any further detention became unlawful.

        Further detention was unlawful. Handcuffing him was unlawful. Searching his person was unlawful. Seizing his property was unlawful.

        Arresting him for “resisting” in response to him demanding their names and badge numbers, when Officer Tyrant was clearly otherwise in the process of letting him go, is nothing more than arrest for Contempt of Cop.

        This should be a federal charge for deprivation of rights under color of law.

        • AND that’s why cops generally suck. Respect my authoritah serf! What kind of a be-otch would arrest a blind dude?!? At least “she” didn’t accidentally shoot him as he reached for his cane…voted in protest today.

        • Chip’s got it.

          The officers job is to enforce the law. Not harass people and then escalate it when they find out they aren’t respected.

        • Chip’s assessment is correct, as well as hazy’s earlier delineation of specific misdeeds by the deputies.

          It might be interesting to look at the overall record of the sheriffs department regarding excessive force/selective prosecution/overzealous enforcement/discrimination incidents.

  6. Seems like the officer and the Sergeant need to be fired. Bad publicity and violating all the laws of arrest/false imprisonment/perjury/committing felonies under cover of authority. Just fire them and take away any benefits/pensions. We need great law enforcement officers, not stupid, ignorant officers who severely break the law and ruin the reputation of great law enforcement officers.

    And award the blind victim at least $5 million in damages!

    I am sure there are thousands of attorneys wanting to represent the victim here!

    • Seven day suspension plus a demotion for the boar hog, 2 days for the sow. Both have to take a remedial course in civil rights, which is an admission by the sheriff that they did violate the man’s rights. Easy pay day.

  7. That’s funny, my Dad actually arrested a legally blind burglar who was breaking into a school and stealing equipment. Blindness has degrees, just like hearing loss. His fellow deputies had a field day posting cartoons in the sub-station and the guy was found guilty in court.

    The Deputies and the Sgt. have broad discretion in whom they arrest and whom they do not. The correct thing in this case was to apologize for the misunderstanding and let this man go about his business. This is why you have supervisors in the field to provided maturity and exercise professional judgement and not give in to ego and emotion. There was no hurry or emergency that required snap judgements or haste.

    Instead they have embarrassed the elected Sheriff (Big Mistake) and made themselves look foolish in front of the world. A lot of people don’t like the police and evidently, this man was one of them, but you don’t use the system to punish people because your feelings get hurt.

    • “The correct thing in this case was to apologize for the misunderstanding and let this man go about his business”

      sure. and to be respectful to the officer and identify yourself when asked.

      • Even here in Krazy CA, you are not required to identify yourself upon a stop unless you are explicitly informed that you’re being detained for suspicion of a particular crime. Even then, you are only required to disclose your full legal name. No other information needs to be provided, not even a physical ID card.

      • He was under no legal obligation to disclose his ID to the police officer, because at the time she asked him for ID, she was no longer conducting a lawful investigation of criminal activity.

        As for being respectful to Officer Tyrant: she needs to lead by example. Agents of the state who violate civil rights deserve scorn and opprobrium, not respect.

      • “be respectful to the officer and identify yourself when asked“

        Yes, immediately bow down to the tyrants and obey their every whim as if an order from the King himself.

        Fascinating… And you folks say us liberals are the boot-lickers…

        • Yes, we DO say that. And yes, you ARE a bootlicker. You bend over and beg to be governed harder to every Democrat in office.

          That truth doesn’t disappear if a Conservative suggests being polite to LE.

        • Oh come now. You don’t lick the boot, you deep throat that shit to the point where the everyone in the entire room can see the bulge in your throat.

  8. Sure hope the California cops dont get wind of this idea, my wife’s 4 post cane will be considered a Gattling gun. My friends wheelchair might be called an assault vehicle or a Tank.

  9. It sounds to me as if the citizen was being belligerent. LEO has a heavy load on their shoulders and up here in north Florida, they consider everyone to be armed (which is not a negative thing.) Hodges was intentionally uncooperative.

    • Did you watch the video? Sure, Hodges was not very polite, but he did show the officer his cane to verify it wasn’t a weapon. That should have been the end of things. Instead, the officer demanded his ID and arrested him. They arrested him for resisting arrest after he showed them his “illegally carried firearm” was a cane. That’s not justice–just an arrest based on the officer’s petty ego that couldn’t stand someone talking back to her. I hope he sues, wins, and both officers are fired.

      • Raimus: yes, and even worse than you describe. Officer Tyrant was clearly in the process of letting Hodges go, when Hodges demanded their names and badge numbers, and the supervisor suggested arresting Hodges for “resisting”:

        “Alright, Mr. Hodges, was that that hard?” Deputy Gohdy asked.

        “It’s gonna be,” Hodges said. “I want your name and badge numbers.”

        “Put him in jail for resisting,” Sgt. Harrison said.

        “Okay,” Deputy Gohdy said.

        Clearly and obviously a false arrest. If these two still have badges once the “investigation” is complete, there’s something rotten in Columbia County, FL.

        • You beat me to it. The Sergeant instructed the Deputy to arrest. So he’s now going to be the target of litigation as well. The Deputy reportedly had been with the Dept about a year, but the Sergeant was more experienced and definitely should have exercised better judgment. Won’t bode well for him.

      • I did watch the video. Hodges was belligerent and uncooperative from tje beginning.
        No reason for that.

        • “Uncooperative”

          You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • Being belligerent isn’t a crime.

      Hodges cooperated to the extent that he was legally compelled to do so. He told, and showed, Officer Tyrant that the object was a walking stick in response to her asinine suggestion that it was a firearm. He owed them absolutely nothing beyond that.

      After that, the moment she said or did anything other than, “thank you, sir; you’re free to go” she was acting unlawfully.

      • Aren’t there some jjurisdictions where you are legally obligated to show ID if asked? Is this one of those?

        • 901.151 Stop and Frisk Law.—

          Does not state requirement to produce ID (unless you are driving) but does allow a cop to search your person if he/she “suspects” you may have committed a crime, are committing a crime or might be preparing to commit a crime also permits search if the cop suspects you might be concealing a firearm. No items recovered during that search can be used as evidence of a crime. Pretty broad in scope. Still think the cop’s attitude AND the “tyrant” declaration will work in the guy’s favor

        • “if he/she “suspects” you may have committed a crime, are committing a crime or might be preparing to commit a crime also permits search if the cop suspects you might be concealing a firearm”

          And Officer Tyrant had no RAS for any of those conditions, the moment she was told/saw that the object in question was not a firearm.

    • Sounds to me like you’re a ass kisser. That runt has a superiority complex. They aren’t gods, they are public servants. There’s a whole lot of cops that shouldn’t be. Cops like those 2 are a big part of why defund the police got traction. As shitty as a cop’s job is now, we will be seeing more assholes like that.

    • Fuck those cops you idiot. Once he had shown he was not armed everything they did was illegal.

      • “the Sergeant was more experienced and definitely should have exercised better judgment“

        A fish rots from its head first, that sergeant was a product of the departments training and SOP culture, led by the Republican sheriff.

        Of course, if the gentleman had been a minority, everyone would say he deserved what he got for being disrespectful to the police officer.

    • Few citizens give a small rat’s azz about any load on a cop’s shoulders. You don’t, I don’t. My mama cared about the load on her daughter’s shoulders, but that was only because Sis is related to our mom.

      If the cop can’t cope, he needs to find another line of work.

      Find me a cop who really cares about the stress that truck drivers have to deal with, and gives the truck driver a break for some minor infaction. It happens, but it doesn’t happen often. Most cops see out of state truck drivers as a rolling piggy bank.

      • Most cops see out of state truck drivers as a rolling piggy bank.

        Participated in a number of profit-sharing plans in Ohio, PA, NJ, IL, CA, GA, NY…

    • Last time I checked, being a jerk is not a criminal offense.

      Do I think being belligerent to a cop is a good idea? Generally, no. But that doesn’t mean the cops’ actions were justified on that fact alone.

    • “It sounds to me as if the citizen was being belligerent”

      (nod) yep, deliberately so. sure way to get a cop’s sustained attention.

      honestly, if you’re polite and cooperate, they’ll almost always just walk away even if they could write you a ticket or something. but if you’re belligerent and pushy they’ll decide “ok there’s a problem here and I’m going to find it” and push right back.

      • …and when she “push[ed] right back,” she was legally in the wrong. She had no lawful reason to detain him. Her “investigation” was concluded.

  10. The optics of this are so bad: A blind veteran who shows up for jury duty is subsequently arrested on a bogus charge.

    Simple morons who have little understanding of their jobs. This is a failure of leadership and the sheriff better get a handle on it fast.

    Immediately upon learning of his visual status an apology and offer of a ride to his destination should have been made.

      • “Another senseless lawsuit,…”

        If he had no reasonable chance of winning, it might be senseless.

        This guy’s getting a plump payout… 🙂

        • Not what I meant, It’s “senseless” because it never should have escalated to the point where the butt-hurt cop felt the need to cuff his ass and haul him to jail. After that, hell yes get a lawyer, don’t settle, drag their asses through the courts and make that bitch explain her “yeah I’m a tyrant” bullshit before you demand an apology and a pile of cash… Does that clarify my sentiment?

    • “A blind veteran who shows up for jury duty is subsequently arrested on a bogus charge“

      Perhaps this was about keeping this individual out of the jury pool, disabled folks are often more sympathetic to injured plaintiffs.

      “This is a failure of leadership and the sheriff better get a handle on it fast“

      Regretfully, this sort of civil abuse of power is par for the course with the Republican sheriffs, just like Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith’s ‘Pay for permits’ scheme.

  11. If y’all really think gun ownership is a right in this country I got some swampland to sell you. Even in a supposed pro gun state the mere suspicion of being in possession of a firearm will result in the government boot on your neck.

    • That simply is not true. Hodges was uncooperative from the beginning. If he had been respectful to the deputies I am confident there would not have been an issue.

      • When did requesting names and badge numbers become “resisting arrest” at most he was uncooperative by asserting his rights against unlawful search, she should never have affirmed that she WAS a Tyrant, not going to go well in court.

      • “Hodges was uncooperative from the beginning.”

        Did you watch a different video than the rest of us? He cooperated with Officer Tyrant from her very first interaction with him:

        “What’s this in your back pocket?” Deputy Gohdy can be heard asking on the video.

        “It’s a navigational aid,” Hodges said. “What’s the problem? Are you a tyrant?”

        She asked; he answered. How is that being “uncooperative”?

        • Again: he fully cooperated to the extent of their legal authority.

          He stopped when asked. He told Officer Tyrant that the “object” was a cane (“navigational aid”). He showed it to her.

          He owes no cooperation beyond that.

      • If he had been respectful? Excuse me, but the officers have a duty to be respectful to the citizen. The citizen has no duty to the officers. Officer Tyrant was extremely disrespectful of the citizen, so the citizen had zero obligation to “cooperate” with anything she said, or anything she demanded.

        It is most certainly NOT “disrespectful” to assert your rights.

      • crancky like a blind man walkin’ back from a cancelled appointment. don’t treat that level of surly any different than straight nicenice, deedee. throw in belligerance or physical, and pleasant stops. until then, respect.

      • If his non-cooperation was that bad why didn’t they put him under arrest before he ironically enough asked for ID from them?

      • That is very likely true. All too often these kinds of stories are centered around people with chips on their shoulders butting heads. This is a symptom of having so much hatred against cops. Both sides end up with puffed up chests.

  13. I don’t know which sounds more ignorant, the fucking treatment of a citizen doing nothing but walking down the street OR a blind man on JURY duty…

    • Why not a blind man on jury duty? Neither you, nor I, have any idea how he passes his days. It’s quite possible that he welcomed the opportunity to have something useful to do. It’s also possible that the duty is an imposition on him, but he wanted to do his duty all the same.

      If he has/had a problem with serving, he most certainly had an opportunity to ask to be dismissed.

      Now, if you tell me that he did ask to be dismissed, but the judge was an azzhole about it, then we can agree that it’s stupid to have this particular blind man on jury duty.

      • Why not a blind man on jury duty

        Why not? If the case involves video or other visual evidence such as documents a blind person would need to rely on a second hand descriptive, a blind person would miss the nuances of facial expressions and body language during testimony, I for one would object to a sight impaired person on a jury hearing my case.

  15. In the video the female offer can absolutely see it’s not a firearm. She had to be blind not see that it was cane. Yet, she decided to become the Tyrant that she was.

  16. “I’m a dumbfuck E1 in some insignificant municipal bureaucracy, so you WILL respect my authority!”

      • And also when half the commenters on a supposedly pro-freedom site crap all over a free citizen for not showing slavish obedience and homage (as to a feudal magnate) to some entry-level petty tyrant.

        She needs a Ramsey Bolton experience where she cries away any possibility of ever treating a non-criminal citizen like a subordinate again.

  17. She was clearly happy to be a tyrant. The supervisor was the one to suggest the resisting arrest charge so he needs to be fired as much as the arresting officer.

    • She sure was. I swear, she “hem”ed like Dolores Umbridge while putting Hodges’ stolen property in the back of the squad SUV.

      • Yeah, that was the cherry on top. Hope a local attorney can help the old guy with a nice bump to his retirement savings.

  18. “It’s hard to say whether it would have completely resolved this, but I do see your point.”

    Its not hard to say that a little bit of officer common sense would have resolved this.

        • Again, chip is on point and absolutely correct with his assessment.

          “he valued the assertion of his rights against unlawful police action more than the inconvenience”

          That is what some would call ‘patriotism’.

      • yes, a little bit of citizen common sense also.

        No matter what your ideas are for “the old guy was 100% correct” type of sentiment. There is a practical side to this, and that practical side is this…

        The guy should not have argued, that’s true if even for the sake of simply getting along and along his way, because it was obvious the officer approached in an immediate aggressive authority stance and if you argue that’s only going to go one way and that one way is to to firmly entrench the officer in their aggressive authority stance. This leads to them creating a reason justification for, at a minimum, enforcing a law against resisting (or maybe other charges).

        A guy may be ‘correct’ in the aspect of ‘rights’, but that practical can still get them. You can argue your rights all day long to a cop like this, and be 100% correct, but on the practical side if they are already in that aggressive authority stance, especially if they are feeding a confrontation like this one was, you are going to entrench them further in that stance looking for something to justify ‘arrest’ or something else.

        • MADDMAXX November 8, 2022 At 17:17

          Your comment is awaiting moderation: Isn’t that speashull?”

          So, you would capitulate and let that smug authoritative bitch and the clown that backed her play roll off to fuck with someone else? These two have now come under scrutiny because this guy chose to stand up to “overzealous” misuse of authority, these two might have been running their little dog and pony show for a while and people like that have a tendency to escalate behavior as confidence grows through each “successful” encounter. Get on your knees for those assholes if you wish, I am not as easily impressed by those who would abuse their “authority”.

        • @MADDMAXX

          “So, you would capitulate and let that smug authoritative bitch and the clown that backed her play roll off to fuck with someone else?”

          That’s not what I said at all. I’m just pointing out there is a practical side to be considered.

          You would have preferred this older legally blind guy do what?

          He was already confronted by an aggressive authority cop who was feeding the confrontation trying to build it into something more than it really was. Then backup rolls up.

          You would have preferred this guy take them both to the ground and hog tie them so they don’t “roll off to fuck with someone else?” Then it would have been much worse and something that could not be recovered from legally.

          Sure he could have gone into a passive resistance thing, maybe just sit down and not fight back forcing them to physically handle him. But then it definitely would have been physically resisting and they would have treated him more harshly physically. But there is an argument to make that maybe the cops would have realized the optics didn’t look good doing that and maybe they would have backed off, but that’s nothing one can bet on with aggressive authority cops and in fact it rarely works with such cops and the person ends up hurt because such cops want their catch-of-the-day and are gonna get it. Hes already told them of his blindness and shown its a walking cane, and its obvious from the body cam it could be seen to not be a gun from the very beginning and he has already voiced his objections and thoughts and its obvious hes an old guy and the cops still have not backed off and are pushing him further by not trying to diffuse, they want to slap the cuffs on him and are creating the situation to do that – do you think a passive resistance thing would have really worked? Nope, they want their catch-of-the-day and they are gonna get it.

          What else could he have done to stop them so they did not “roll off to fuck with someone else?”

          Physically fight them? Run away? what?

          Look at the situation, look at him vs them and he had already been voicing his objections and arguing with the cop. Its not illegal to do that by the way but when they get to the part about asking for ID or name and date of birth its time to consider whats going to happen if you do not produce ID or give them at least your name and date of birth. Oh, by the way, there is no law that requires you to actually carry ID while out walking down the street. But when it comes to that point the practical comes into play even more if you want to not be arrested and want to not be possibly subjected to physical harm by a aggressive authority cop.

          Ok, so you are 100% correct in your arguments to the cop. That does not mean the cop is going to say “OH, well you do have a point and I am really sorry so have a good day” and then drive off leaving you alone. .. There is a practical side to this, and that practical side is this…

          This guy should not have argued (to clarify, against handing over his ID or give his name and date of birth), that’s true if even for the sake of simply getting along and along his way, because it was obvious the officer approached in an immediate aggressive authority stance (and was not going to back off and was trying to create a situation so they could arrest by feeding the confrontation) and if you argue that’s only going to go one way and that one way is to to firmly entrench the officer in their aggressive authority stance. This leads to them creating a reason justification for, at a minimum, enforcing a law against resisting (or maybe other charges) – and maybe physical harm.

          Consider the situation, is it better to not continue to argue after you have voiced your objections when they start asking for ID? When they start asking for ID and you argue against it and then not comply they only have one place to go then and that’s arrest you (at a minimum for resisting) for an aggressive authority cop.

          He wasn’t arrested for resisting arrest or arguing with them about his rights, he was arrested for refusing to give his ID or name and date of birth which is also resisting and that is the resisting he was arrested for. He gave them just what they wanted by refusing by argument to give his ID or name and date of birth – so is it better to give them what they wanted all along which in this case was a reason to arrest by an aggressive authority cop who created the situation or simply not argue against giving over some ID or your name and date of birth.

          If they arrest you they are going to find out who you are anyway, but in the mean while there you are arrested by actually giving them what they wanted all along which was a reason for a aggressive authority cop to arrest. Yes, he should have not argued refusal to give his ID or name and date of birth – it gave them just what they wanted so he let them win (in that moment) by doing that. Winning successful self-defense is also not letting the other guy win.

        • And through ALL of that you still miss the point that under FLORIDA STATE LAW he had NO obligation to produce an ID to a cop who had UNLAWFULLY accosted him. This is not Cold War East Berlin; you are not compelled by ANY law to get on your knees and pay homage to cops, they are not gods, their job description does not include “harass the public at will”… Yeah, they IDd the guy AFTER conducting an illegal search and seizure of his person and property while HE was illegally being detained. EVERYTHING that occurred after he produced the cane will be used to his advantage in the upcoming legal actions against the Sheriffs dept. And hell yes for a couple hundred thousand dollar payout and the opportunity to bring a couple of bad cops into the light I would gladly take a ride in the back seat of a cop car. So you play THEIR game and I’ll play “I know my rights”, you live like you are in Nazi Germany and I’ll continue to exercise whatever rights and freedoms I have left as a citizen of the United States and the RED state of Florida. After last night the fucking Democrats are going to start talking “MANDATE” bullshit and WILL be coming after everything we have left, I intend to resist them and apparently you intend to sit back and say, “thank you sir, might I have some more”. Good luck with that.

        • I’ve only seen one commenter suggest that he should have escalated to physical response/resistance. Clearly, that would have been an unwise (and probably unlawful) response. To discuss physical resistance is essentially a straw man here.

          As far as I can tell, the guy basically did everything he should have done, and refrained from doing anything that he shouldn’t have done.

          As for this: “This guy should not have argued (to clarify, against handing over his ID or give his name and date of birth), that’s true if even for the sake of simply getting along and along his way…”

          No. Just, no.

          What if Officer Tyrant had instead shown up on his front porch, demanding he consent to a warrantless search of his home? How would that situation be any different? Should he just let her in the door, or as he did here, verbally assert his right not to consent to a warrantless search?

          The lawfulness of his initial detention, based on the RAS that Officer Tyrant believed that a folded cane was a firearm. His continued detention was unlawful from the moment he told and showed Officer Tyrant that the object was not a firearm. Her demand that he provide his ID had no legal authority, because at the time she no longer had RAS of unlawful activity based on the identification of the object. Their search of his person and seizure of his personal effects (ID and cash) were unlawful, because at the time the search and seizure took place, she no longer had RAS of unlawful activity based on the identification of the object.

          In all cases, he verbally asserted his rights and verbally communicated that he did not consent to their search/seizure, but did not physically resist their unlawful actions.

          It seems that he valued the assertion of his rights against unlawful police action more than the inconvenience presented by his unlawful detention, search, seizure, and eventual unlawful (and false) arrest.

          The only real argument many here present is that he was unwise in that calculation and that he could have acquiesced to the violation of his rights merely to “go along to get along.” That argument is highly subjective.

  19. Falsifying a report is illegal. They both aught to get fired for a false report and both also conspired to do so. I’ve seen LE in Florida get fired for less.

  20. I was driving in LA and was in front of the center for the blind. There are signs up, there are musical chimes for crossing the street, it is obviously a center for the blind. This was in the 80s, a cop slammed on his brakes and started yelling at the people on a bus bench. He kept on about a weapon in someone’s pocket. The fellow was blind and had a white fold up cane in his pocket. The policeman started beating him, yelling about the “numchucks” he had.

    I offered to be a witness and we exchanged phone numbers, but the police put so much pressure on his family that he ended up just letting it go.

    BTW, he was white, did not look like a gang banger, and wore sunglasses like many blind people do.
    A little sensitivity training could go a long way.

    • I don’t think “sensitivity training” is required. Hey, I’ve been known as the “perfect asshole” for most of my life. Even assholes don’t feel the need to beat up on blind people for fun. That cop’s problem was, he’s an idiot. What he really needs, is someone to bend him over, put one foot on his buttock, grab hold of his neck, and pull his head out of his ass.

  23. If you are a Law Enforcement Officer and need a break, you can come park outside our house. Message me and I will give you my address. If you are thirsty, we will bring you a drink. If you are hungry, we will fix you something to eat and serve you a good strong cup of coffee. If you are hot, we will invite you inside to cool off. If you need backup, we will stand with you. If you need to cry, we will hug you and let you. If you need to talk, we will listen. If you need to pray, we will kneel with you. If you are wrong, we will tell you. If you are right, we will support you. We only ask that you don’t lose faith in Americans. We are NOT all against you. Please see the good people that are here for you. We are not as loud and obnoxious as these media seekers. We are strong and waiting to follow your lead. Some of you are a husband, father, grandfather, son, brother, nephew, friend, or a wife, mother, grandmother, daughter, sister, or niece, and we personally know how good your heart is. God bless you and your family and Thank You all for all you do to keep me and my family safe! Copy and paste..in support of our good men and women in blue. Thank you for doing so and showing our protectors that we care for them, it probably means more to them than we will ever know. 💙👮‍♀️👮‍♂️🇺🇸 💙

  24. 90%+ of all cops are basically retarded, they wouldn’t pass 80 on an IQ test. They’re assholes and bullies in private life and even bigger ones at their work. They love their job because it gives them authority over everyone else, legal ability to bully and abuse people as well as full immunity and plausible deniability of any wrongdoing in each and every instance that would see anyone else than a cop charged and most likely convicted of a crime.
    If you disagree with the above, you’re either retarded as well, you’re a cop too, your hubby/daddy/buddy or whatever is/was a cop and he’s your ‘hero’, or you’ve never actually dealt with cops on regular basis and all your views on them are based on rare encounters in favorable circumstances or simply only on watching dumb TV shows etc. 🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷

    • These cops, all 3, were/did things because they COULD.
      Right and wrong had nothing to do with it.
      Also, since the reason for stopping the man was debunked when there was no gun and the folding cane was found the cops rush to find other reasons to make something out of NOTHING. All because they can’t stand to admit that they(cops) made a mistake and God forbid anyone try to correct them(cops).

      • No I said I was only erect about once every 2 weeks. Said I was old and stove up, not invalid. 6’ 2” 275, kinda fat but like my chances against her. Also said I don’t care anymore.

  26. G_d Bless…Them there are some dumb Ossifers. I did not see either of them double-lock the cuffs. I hope Mr. Hodges, whilst he was in the back seat, accidentally clicked the cuffs closed by several more “clicks” resulting in deep indentations around his wrists further exacerbating his claim to false and frivolous arrest.

    At no time did Hodges raise his voice nor was he combative…however, he WAS pushing ALL the responding Officer’s buttons…which is not a violation of Statute.

    Both Officers [sic] should be disciplined, to include dismissal, for abusing their authority.

    My Department sent all badge toters through a Verbal Judo course. It was well worth it’s cost in how the training gave Officers more verbal tools with which to respond and, ultimately, control potential altercations.

  27. I went to school in Trenton Fl, about 30 miles from there. I experienced courtesy and professionalism from the old cracker deputies. In fact I have been let go by them when they could have taken me in. Judging by her lack of accent probably from the north.

  28. How in the hell could you mistake the cane in his pocket for a firearm? Even from the first 10 seconds of the video, you can see exactly what it is. And I suspect that she knew damned well what it was. At least she admitted that she’s a tyrant. Hopefully that will bite her hard in court.

    • Seriously. What firearm could even possibly be carried like that in the back pocket? A flintlock, maybe?

    • As soon as either cop realized that there was no gun, but rather a cane, they should have apologized for stopping the man and left the scene. There was no reason to even ask for an I D. Things of this nature is what gives enforcement people a bad name and understandably so. Mistaking a folded cane for a gun is really laughable. So much for doing one’s civic duty.

  29. The real takeaway here is if they act this way WITH body cams, could you imagine how they behaved before they were required?

  30. Now that the police have basically been told hands off certain anointed minorities regardless of what they are doing, this how bad cops get their yukks. Hauling parents out of school board meetings. Shooting your dog. Belittling you and questioning your efforts to secure your own property after a burglary. The list goes on.

    • “Now that the police have basically been told hands off certain anointed minorities regardless of what they are doing, this how bad cops get their yukks”

      So you’re suggesting now that bad cops have been held to account for unlawfully assaulting minorities, they are taking their anger out on other citizens…

      You may be right, body cams certainly have changed the ability of corrupt LEO to assault citizens with impunity.

  31. If you are a Law Enforcement Officer and need a break, you can come park outside our house. Message me and I will give you my address. If you are thirsty, we will bring you a drink. If you are hungry, we will fix you something to eat and serve you a good strong cup of coffee. If you are hot, we will invite you inside to cool off. If you need backup, we will stand with you. If you need to cry, we will hug you and let you. If you need to talk, we will listen. If you need to pray, we will kneel with you. If you are wrong, we will tell you. If you are right, we will support you. We only ask that you don’t lose faith in Americans. We are NOT all against you. Please see the good people that are here for you. We are not as loud and obnoxious as these media seekers. We are strong and waiting to follow your lead. Some of you are a husband, father, grandfather, son, brother, nephew, friend, or a wife, mother, grandmother, daughter, sister, or niece, and we personally know how good your heart is. God bless you and your family and Thank You all for all you do to keep me and my family safe! Copy and paste..in support of our good men and women in blue. Thank you for doing so and showing our protectors that we care for them, it probably means more to them than we will ever know.

  32. The she-cop was shown the cane and the report states she did not see the cane indicating she was stuck on what she wanted to see. Close but no cigar means some cop cash winds up in a legally blind man’s pocket.

    • Exactamundo, but the tax payers will foot the bill. These two road pirates need to be criminally charged and fired.

  33. Number 1 he should be using his blind mans cane. If he’s legally blind and getting the benefits, use it (we’re paying for it).
    Number 2 showing up for jury duty the way he was dressed, I don’t think so! You are told how and what to wear in Florida.
    Number 3 he was being detained and he just walked away from the Deputy, that is resisting!

    • What video did you watch? At no point did he walk away from the officer after the encounter began, and at no point did he resist anything, other than disclosing his ID.

    • #1 you’re apparently a [flame self-redacted] who is ignorant of how legal blindness works. He may be able to see well enough to walk down the sidewalk without it in broad daylight, while needing to use it in other/worse lighting conditions. Regardless, it’s none of your business.

      #2 irrelevant

      #3 at no point did he just “walk away” from the Deputy.

      Thanks for your, uh, contribution to the discussion.

      • Chip, really appreciate your persistence on this. A bit of ‘facts failing against emotions’ going on here. It has been most enlightening to see posters who regularly comment here making the same arguments, or at least in the same non-sensical manner, as the emotional, fact ignoring, imbecilic democrat politicians and voters they so often call out.

        It has always been obvious some were here, but some surprising ones coming up here, and lots of them.

    • Did you come here with the intention of sounding like an idiot? FFS, man, do you think that blind people work for a Human Relations board or something? “We issued you Personal Protection Equipment, we expect you to USE IT!”

    • “Number 1 he should be using his blind mans cane. If he’s legally blind and getting the benefits, use it (we’re paying for it).“

      What? The police did not allege he was a danger to traffic or pedestrians, why should he be required to use the cane if he was able to navigate without it in that particular lighting/weather situation?

      I find it interesting that you have no comment about the unlawful and abusive actions of the police officers, rather you are focusing on some imagined slight infraction by the citizen.

      OK, Commissar

    • Legally blind isn’t necessarily ‘unable to see’ there is usually a standard like vision worse than 20/200. So in the dark he might need the cane (he walked to jury duty early), but in daylight he might feel comfortable walking without it.

      I think it was also in FL that a grown man who was retarded was gunned down for the crime of carrying a chrome toy train. So I guess the blind man is lucky she didn’t shoot him.

    • Where are these yahoos coming from? How is it that I, of all people, am confused by the absurd amount of ‘deference’ that people think needs to be show to cops?

      Is this a result of the way that policing has become politicized by the right as well as the left?

      I don’t get it. Surely these commenters must have zero police experience because every working cop knows a guys like the arrestee here but ALSO knows a guy like the cop. And doesn’t like either one of them, probably, but at least the guy with the cane tends towards being a pain in the ass while you know a cop like that is going to get you into unnecessary uses of force or maybe get you killed\sued so you stay away from him\her as much as possible.

  34. Want to make this BS stop? Change the law so that judgments for civil rights violations come out of the police pension fund.

    • sure, that would stop it. but then a whole lotta other things would stop too, and you’d be screaming for its return.

    • “…come out of the police pension fund.”

      That would still be bureaucrats playing with tax money. Tighten up on qualified immunity–individual civil and/or criminal penalties for offenders would help.

  35. Unfortunately it is incidents like this that make all cops look bad. There was a good deal of wiggle room here for those cops to undo what they were doing but of course when power goes to your head this is the sort of nonsense people have to put up with. The man was correct on all counts and could have simply checked to see if he was carrying a weapon and then let things go when it showed he was not. He did not have to show ID nor did they have cause to search him after he displayed the cane to them.

  36. Police officers are supposed to enforce the law, not create a condition where they can enforce a law. The guy should not have argued, that’s true if even for the sake of simply getting along and along his way, because it was obvious the officer approached in an immediate aggressive authority stance and if you argue that’s only going to go one way to firmly entrench the officer in their aggressive authority stance. This leads to them creating a reason justification for, at a minimum, enforcing a law against resisting.

    Contrary to the perception or implication, it is not against the law to argue with police in stating your thoughts and objections to their incursion. I’ll bet if you ask 100% of police officers if its against the law to argue with them stating your thoughts and objections to their incursion that 90% or greater will tell you its resisting or some other violation and its actually not.

    Asking for ID though, yes a police officer can ask for ID according to various laws in various states under various conditions and one of these is if the officer has probable cause. But when it comes to stating a ‘probable cause’ and asking for ID as a result of being there for that ‘probable cause’ – well that’s a little different matter.

    In ‘Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada’, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. These are commonly known as “stop-and-identify” statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves. But was this guy actually a criminal suspect? The excuse to stop here is stated with a threat to handcuff, this is what the officer said…

    “Do you want me to put you in handcuffs right now?’ Deputy Gohdy said. ‘It looks like you’re carrying a gun in your back pocket. I’m stopping you to make sure you’re carrying it properly.’ ”

    Woah… wait a second. Florida has no legal open carry that would apply in this situation. So if the officer actually saw something that ”looks like’ a gun why does the officer want to make sure its being carried properly when there is not proper open carry for this situation and in fact would have been a violation of law, so why is the officer wanting to make sure a ‘violation of law’ is being properly carried? Then if he doesn’t comply with the demands the officer is going to cuff him. It sure doesn’t seem like probable cause because wanting to make sure a ‘violation of law’ is being properly carried is not reasonable.

    So maybe the officer thought ‘ hmmm… concealed carry and he doesn’t know his shirt isn’t covering the gun so lets stop and make sure its being properly carried by telling him its exposed and needs to be concealed” Yeah, we could think that (or similar) but given the officers aggressive authority stance creating excessive confrontation it sure doesn’t look like a friendly teaching/informing moment.

    But the point is this, even though he argued, the officers stance was nothing but aggressive authority, and then sprinkled with a little lie, and became more about confrontation and trying to justify that confrontation.

    The officer could have begun to diffused this whole thing by simply asking “Is that a gun in your back pocket?” but nope, its ” ‘Do you want me to put you in handcuffs right now?’ Deputy Gohdy said. ‘It looks like you’re carrying a gun in your back pocket. I’m stopping you to make sure you’re carrying it properly.’ ”

    But… nope, its a threat for coerce compliance and aggressive authority stance creating excessive confrontation.

    Remember at the beginning where I posted “Police officers are supposed to enforce the law, not create a condition where they can enforce a law.” ? The officer basically created the condition that led to arrest.

    • Booger,

      I, and others, just can’t go along with the victim blaming of the second sentence. To take it to the extreme, substitute ‘lady’ for ‘guy’ and ‘rapist’ for ‘officer’ in that sentence.

      • @SouthAI

        I’m not victim blaming. Its just a practical thing to not let the cops win.

        Look at the situation, look at him vs them and he had already been voicing his objections and arguing with the cop. Its not illegal to do that by the way but when they get to the part about asking for ID or name and date of birth its time to consider whats going to happen if you do not produce ID or give them at least your name and date of birth. Oh, by the way, there is no law that requires you to actually carry ID while out walking down the street. But when it comes to that point the practical comes into play even more if you want to not be arrested and want to not be possibly subjected to physical harm by a aggressive authority cop.

        Ok, so you are 100% correct in your arguments to the cop. That does not mean the cop is going to say “OH, well you do have a point and I am really sorry so have a good day” and then drive off leaving you alone. .. There is a practical side to this, and that practical side is this…

        This guy should not have argued (to clarify, against handing over his ID or give his name and date of birth), that’s true if even for the sake of simply getting along and along his way, because it was obvious the officer approached in an immediate aggressive authority stance (and was not going to back off and was trying to create a situation so they could arrest by feeding the confrontation) and if you argue that’s only going to go one way and that one way is to to firmly entrench the officer in their aggressive authority stance. This leads to them creating a reason justification for, at a minimum, enforcing a law against resisting (or maybe other charges) – and maybe physical harm.

        Consider the situation, is it better to not continue to argue after you have voiced your objections when they start asking for ID? When they start asking for ID and you argue against it and then not comply they only have one place to go then and that’s arrest you (at a minimum for resisting) for an aggressive authority cop.

        He wasn’t arrested for resisting arrest or arguing with them about his rights, he was arrested for refusing to give his ID or name and date of birth which is also resisting and that is the resisting he was arrested for. He gave them just what they wanted by refusing by argument to give his ID or name and date of birth – so is it better to give them what they wanted all along which in this case was a reason to arrest by an aggressive authority cop who created the situation or simply not argue against giving over some ID or your name and date of birth.

        If they arrest you they are going to find out who you are anyway, but in the mean while there you are arrested by actually giving them what they wanted all along which was a reason for a aggressive authority cop to arrest. Yes, he should have not argued his refusal to give his ID or name and date of birth – it gave them just what they wanted so he let them win (in that moment) by doing that. Winning successful self-defense is also not letting the other guy win.

        • A) at the time she demanded his ID, he had no legal compulsion to comply. Her request held no legal authority, because she was no longer conducting a lawful investigation of unlawful activity.

          B) at the time he was arrested for resisting, she already had (and had already conducted a warrant check on) his ID, and was in the process of handing him back the ID she unlawfully siezed from him in her unlawful search of his person

  37. What IMBECILE would think that thing was a gun? She is more blind than he is.
    She has an ugly arm tattoo as well. They all are.

  39. If she really thought it was a firearm, wouldn’t she have thrown down on him when he just whipped it out of his back pocket with no warning?

    Weird.

  41. We are aware of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office body camera video involving the arrest of Mr. James Hodges on October 31, 2022. Sheriff Hunter is troubled by what he has seen in the video and the matter is being addressed. An administrative investigation was initiated on November 3, 2022 when the incident was brought to our attention. If policy violations are sustained at the conclusion of that investigation, appropriate action will be taken. While we understand the frustration and concern associated with this event, please know we are working to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

    • My first thought about this is that if policy violations are not substantiated, then a policy change is required, or personnel changes much higher up.

  42. That old dude was an epic jerk and deserved a night in jail. You don’t get to be in control when interacting with street cops. For them to do their job safely and effectively, they necessarily have to be in control 100%. He should have been shot when he made that moronic move to pull the cane like he was pulling a gun. He could have been civil and respectful and he would have been on his way. Cops’ job is difficult and dangerous enough without having to deal with a jerk like this.

    • When was he in control, and when was she not in control? He never prevented her from doing what she thought she needed to do. She was an ass.

    • Found the fascist.

      Law-abiding citizens cede zero “control” to agents of the state while in the conduct of lawful activities. The Constitution, and its defined limits and restraints on the authority of the state, applies also – nay, especially – to law enforcement officers.

      As for that “moronic move”: a) the lack of reaction by Officer Tyrant evinces that, at that point, she knew the object wasn’t a firearm, and b) any non-LEO who shoots someone in that same circumstance is getting charged with unlawful use of force, because the fear of that folded cane being a firearm isn’t reasonable.

      • I was on the job for almost 30 years, I retired just in time. I could see that most new recruits had a college degree but no real life experience, this is a recipe for disaster as the work calls for real life interaction and the milleniall crowd have difficulty spelling their name not to mention talking to real people. . With the “Defund the police” mentality of most juristictions, tons of seasoned officers have called it quits, the new wave of recruits have little or no social interactions skills besides playing on thier phone. In my last few years on the job interacting with the new officers you would think common sense was a ‘Super Power”. Just my opinion from being a supervisor and glad to be retired.

    • Mr. Cooper, I understand your point of view sir. I absolutely do. I know some wonderful police officers, and have to work with officers rarely in my line of work. I am a down home redneck, one who always treats everyone with respect and dignity when appropriate. I agree this fellow was very rude unnecessarily. However, look at what they did to him. Who was more out of line? And you are clearly emotional about this. “He should have been shot.” That’s completely absurd. I just want to say that, you’re wrong. But I get where you’re coming from. I never agree with the “fuck the pigs, ACAB,” crowd, because they’re a stain on humanity. But I’ll never agree with the “all cops are saints, they have a hard job” crowd either. Don’t most of us have hard jobs? I bet most of us have worked really hard jobs either before or currently do. Here’s a good rule, treat people how they deserve to be treated. Everyone was out of line here, but this was clearly an abuse of power by the officers.

    • Oh, and also, like ALWAYS, Chip is right. If you’re gonna have a slide on the power scale between The Establishment and The People, I’ll take us little peons every single time, always.

      • The “Establishment” may be unjust, but it also implies some semblance of responsibility and experience. Over the years, many have argued why people should obey The Establishment (philosopher-kings, the chosen of the gods, war heroes, technocrats, etc). Our own Constitution was written to constrain the Establishment, with rare exceptions allowing an extraordinary leader to take extraordinary action in extraordinary circumstances.

        Those arguments provide absolutely zero support for the idea that one should bow down or obey a twentysomething bimbo on the basis of her passing a trade school nobody fails and getting hired as an entry-level employee of Podunkville.

    • ” You don’t get to be in control when interacting with street cops.”

      You’re the perfect candidate to live in a police state.

    • Darrell “He should have been shot”…. for offering the cane to the cop? The cop who was asking to see it?!?

      Do you wear your rainbow wig and red nose around the house, or is it only when you get online that you show the world what a clown you are?

  43. Cop arrests blind man . LMAO. ohh that’s just to funny.
    I bet that cop thought, ” Oh man, I sure blew that one.”
    The blind guy is like “WTF, Are you pointing a gunm at me?”
    Cop arrests blind guy for carrying a gunm, that’s just to funny.
    I heard a noise and just started blasting.
    “Whatd he look like?”
    How the fck should I know, I’m blind.

    • 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂 Oh God 🤣 Possum to the rescue! Thanks for that bro. “Blinken, what are you doing?” “Guessing. I GUESS, nobody is coming.”

  44. Is that a gun in your pocket or are you happy to see me?

    I’m sorry. I’ll go stand in the corner for a while.

  47. A LEO is in the wrong job if they are unable to handle a person who refuses to be subservient or stands up for their rights as a free citizen.

    This is a reason LEOs should have to get personal liability insurance. The insurance industry would weed out the bad apples via high premiums. Have a psych degree, premiums are less, go to conflict resolution training, premiums go down.

  48. Florida Cop Arrests a Blind Man After Mistaking His White Cane for a Gun.
    They arrest him for “resisting arrest” when he never resisted.
    Then cops falsify arrest report by claiming he never showed them his cane when he did. Cops falsely report that they only discovered the cane after handcuffing him.

    At least the cops told the truth once during the incident: When Hodges asked, “What’s the problem? Are you a tyrant?” the cop answered truthfully, “Yeah, I am actually.”

    But if you think Florida cops are bad, good thing it didn’t happen in New Jersey, or the blind man would have also faced felony charges for “illegal possession of an imitation firearm” for possessing a perfectly legal item that wasn’t a firearm (and also wasn’t an imitation firearm) but that someone THOUGHT was a firearm! That happens here in NJ. Every time I carry a closed umbrella in New Jersey I’m afraid someone is going to think it’s a rifle and arrest me.

    • Hey I seen a self defense expert on you tub and that guy was really using it as a deadly weapon. Quite awhile back umbrellas had a long spike on the end of them. It was englands way around stabby things.
      New Jersey. ? Well for the sake of the safety of its residents I believe there should be a ban on assault umbrellas.
      Now at this time I can not tell you what I would consider an assualt umbrella, however I or We shall know one when we see it.
      The blind guy clearly wasn’t blind, I dont know the lawful definition of blindness, I do know that the cataracts I had was getting bad enough that I could not see the streets and was down to the point of actually having to use an “oh fuck a curb” stick.
      The fold out cane I believe was a deadly weapon.
      Now.
      THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
      well unless a government tells its citizens otherwise.
      Ain’t Democracy great.

      • And I apologize to any truly blind people out there reading this because they are probably saying, ” Wow , your posting about being blind when you only had cataracts and could still see shapes, try being black out blind sometime.”

  49. I can not comprehend how ANY state is getting away with banning open carry, its so blatantly unconstitutional that I cant fathom how the courts have not struck them all down. There was regulation of concealed carry at the time that the 2nd amendment was written so its constitutional to allow that to be regulated to a point. But open carry is clearly protected. What the hell do they think and bear means?

    • Perhaps they think bear means “Daniel Boone killed a bar on this tree.”
      You can have all the bear arms you want if you get a hunting license and permit I guess

  50. Oh FFS. This was a dumb enough situation up to the point they determined that there was no firearm and that he had no warrants.

    To then arrest him for “resisting”?

    Contempt of cop is a phenomenon but if you’re gonna have thin skin and play that game you should at least have probable cause for SOMETHING…

  52. Miranda rights not given, among much other mean and stupid harassment crap. Police are hiring truck stop lizards.

  53. we are 100% behind Ron DeSantis but he should investigate these lousy cops who violate people’s rights. These cop’s should be fired immediately and a law suit should be filed.

  54. The sergeant got busted in rank and is going to get an unpaid “vacation” and can’t have any favorable actions for two years. (What ever that means.) The officer is going to get an unpaid vacation as well and will have to attend classes on the constitution. The Sgt. should have to attend the same classes.

  55. Update:

    Sheriff video: https://www.facebook.com/ColumbiaCountySheriffsOffice/videos/1371731073648985/

    “The deputies face suspension without pay and Harrison was demoted after an investigation was launched when Hodges requested body camera video of his arrest, Hunter said.

    “As sheriff, I take full responsibility for this event and want to extend my sincere apologies to Mr. Hodges for the actions of my deputies,” Hunter said. “I do not feel these deputies’ actions were guided by ill intent, but rather by frustration and failure to rely on their training. Nevertheless, this conduct is unacceptable.”

    Hunter said the investigation showed the deputies violated policies. Harrison faces a suspension of seven days without pay. He will not be eligible for any “favorable action” for two years, Hunter said. Gohde faces suspension without pay for two days, Hunter said.

    A representative of the sheriff’s office clarified Wednesday that Harrison won’t be eligible for raises or promotions for two years. The representative said the deputies were unavailable to speak.

    They will be required to take remedial training about civil rights, Hunter said.”

    Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/legally-blind-florida-man-arrested-cane-confused-gun-rcna56396

    • I think one issue is that they’re not teaching civil rights at the academy. I have seen tons of videos where it was very clear that the police officer did not know the law-period. I have also seen videos where the officers did know the law, but didn’t care. I even heard one officer tell someone he arrested that he would probably beat the rap, but not the ride. Not those exact words, but you get the point.

Comments are closed.