Here’s a follow-up video to the one posted a few weeks back, which showed several Tacticooled armed government workers Hut! Hut! Hutting! a guy working on his own car outside of his own apartment complex.
The AGWs demand ID, the man declines to provide it – pointing out he’s not committed any crime, it’s his car and why don’t they just leave him alone. The AGWs commence Hut! Hut! Hutting!
They even smash the guy’s cell phone in an attempt to hide the Hut! Hut! Hutting! – but it didn’t work and the video went on the ‘Net. As a result the head AGW was fired, though not criminally charged – which means he’ll be free to get more taxpayer-financed Hut! Hut! Hut! gear in the next county or state and do it all again.
. . .
Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button ishere.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: EPautos “Don’t be a Clover!” magnets are free to those who send in $20 or more. My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If you find it useful, consider contributing a couple of bucks! 
So,, not defending the officer’s BAD behavior in anyway but would like to point out a couple of things. I’ll preface my comments by stating that I’ve worked in private security for over 20 years and was once part owner of a company that provided certified training to security companies.
Security services are product that a customer purchases, and you typically get what you pay for! On one end of the spectrum you get a little old man with a flashlight and a bundle of keys. On the other end you get a guy with recent tier one spec ops creds.
Regarding the incident in the video, it could have been titled “Tenant violates his lease multiple time then needlessly escalates with officer!”
Housing is some of the most challenging and dangerous work that’s out there. I’ll make a few observations based on experience and inside knowledge. By the time an apartment complex gets around to hiring security, it’s in trouble and the problems have been ongoing and escalating. (think back to when you may have lived in an apartment. Were there armed officers on the premises keeping a lid on things?) In keeping with that idea, by the time the property owner is reduced to paying the exorbitant cost of hiring licensed peace officers, the problems are at a near breaking point and the complex is near to losing its license! The tenant is a party to a lease which is a legally binding contract. I can assure you that that lease was crafted by savvy lawyers and restricts behavior in the common area such as working on cars as well as requiring tenants to cooperate with staff and not violate any laws. Here in Minnesota courts have held that a security officer can request identification from persons on the property that he’s contracted to. So far all we’ve got is a couple of lease violations. That may be enough to get a guy evicted and the management company may very well be seeking to get rid of the bad actors. Here’s where it gets tricky. The security guard can request identification but if the subject refuses, his only options are to walk away or remove the subject from the property. People not on the lease have ZERO rights on the private property of the apartment complex and the security officers contract (also crafted by savvy lawyers) gives him the right to act on behalf of the property owner. The rights of the lessee typically stop at the door to his apartment. Non compliance on the part of the subject can lead to a citizens arrest and possible lawful use of physical force to effect that arrest. A licensed peace officer can jump right over the citizens arrest part and get right into charges such as resisting arrest and interference with police process etc, etc.
All that having been said, the officers use of force is of required to be necessary, timely and proportionate. Smashing someone’s phone is a bonehead move! If you’re doing it right, video can only help your case, right?
Cheers and thanks to all. K-
Hehehe the video’s only in 240p but I swear that’s a little smirk on the reporter’s face at the end 🙂