Barrington police charge man who tried to videotape officer

barrington-police-cruiser

barrington-police-cruiser

An East Providence man is facing two charges after he allegedly tried to video-record a Barrington police officer during a traffic stop last week.

At about 2:15 a.m. on Thursday, July 3, a Barrington patrolman ordered Justin Machado, 21, of East Providence, to pull his vehicle over to the side of Route 114 near the Osamequin Bird Sanctuary.

Mr. Machado obliged and reportedly reached for something in the center console of his vehicle as the officer approached the driver side window.

According to the report, the officer, not knowing what Mr. Machado had grabbed, slapped the object — it was a cell phone — out of his hand.

Mr. Machado reportedly picked up the phone again and told the officer he was going to videotape the encounter.

The officer ordered Mr. Machado out of the vehicle, but the East Providence man allegedly refused. A few moments later, Barrington police arrested Mr. Machado and charged him with obstructing an officer in the execution of duty and one count of disorderly conduct.

According to the police report, three Barrington police officers responded to the incident.

Authors

57 Comments

  1. Tony Ryman said:

    I wonder if this horrific traffic crime was occurring at the same time as the break-ins off the bike path or behind St. Andrew’s Farm field. Continued great use of resources.

  2. Tony Ryman said:

    I wonder if this horrific traffic crime was occurring at the same time as the break-ins off the bike path or behind St. Andrew’s Farm field. Continued great use of resources.

  3. S.A.M. said:

    First Circuit (with jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island): see Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) (“[A] citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”); Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999) (police lacked authority to prohibit citizen from recording commissioners in town hall “because [the citizen’s] activities were peaceful, not performed in derogation of any law, and done in the exercise of his First Amendment rights[.]”).

  4. Transplant said:

    Mr Machado suffered an assault and battery, which is a crime last I heard. Hope he takes BPD to the cleaners.

    Nothing will happen to the officer either way, of course. The system is rigged.

  5. Ted P said:

    Hey so did any of you actually read the story? Did you miss the part where the guy was reaching for something in his center console as the officer approached? Do you think that is a smart thing to do? Did you read the part where Mr. Machado refused to get out of his car when the officer told him to? Do you think that is a smart thing to do? Do you think Mr. Machado’s actions and refusal to cooperate make him look like an innocent victim or someone of suspicion? Did you read ANYWHERE in that story where the officer told him to stop video taping? Did you Read ANYWHERE in that story where the officer prevented him from picking up the phone after it was knocked out of his hands? If this guy had a trunk full of your stolen crap would you still be ignorantly commenting about a waste of resources? Furthermore, if this person was actually reaching for a gun and shot the approaching officer, would you be rooting for the suspect or would you be formulating some ignorant commentary about the officer’s lack of caution. Unless you’re a cop and you’ve been in a situation where your approaching a vehicle as the occupant is reaching for something, I suggest you refrain from ignorance. The kid’s lucky he didn’t get shot. The fact of the matter is, the officer’s training, judgement, and ability to react and mitigate a potentially hazardous and life threatening situation in a non-lethal manner, kept this story from being a tradgedy. Read the story for what it is, not what you want it to be.

    • Cynthia Fuller said:

      Thank you, Ted P, this was exactly what I was thinking as I read through the comments. Smart people know not to antagonize police. They are there to protect us. The driver got what he deserved.

    • KeithC said:

      Hey Ted. I would respond to the bulk of your post by suggesting the risks officers take in the line of duty are why they’re honored for their service. They risk their life going to work and they choose the profession. Now. The US supreme court has smashed every single attempt at charging a citizen with videotaping officers in the last three years ruling that people have a right to video tape officers in public. Being the subject of an officers attention has not changed those outcomes. Refusing an officers orders, depending on the order, is not against the law. You, as a cop, can not tell me to step out of my car unless you have probable cause and initiate an arrest I’m going to thank you for your suggestion and decline for my own protection. There is no grey area for police between detainment and arrest. You pull someone over for an infraction of some sort, you notice something suspicious, which meets the criteria of probable cause, you effect a detainment of a suspect which is an arrest. If this person was arrested for the suspicious act of video taping, or reaching for his phone to video tape, or refusing to get out of his car(which requires cause such as the type needed to initiate a field sobriety exam), it was a bad arrest. Citizens have no obligation to avoid moving. “Put the camera down!” “Am I under arrest?” “Put the camera down and step out of the car!” “Am I under arrest officer?” I imagine it went something like that. And I sympathize with your fear of doing the job. It’s dangerous. But if an officer dies because of their conduct of respect for the civil rights of American citizens that is a death in absolute service to their country. If you can’t handle that risk and you’re unwilling to put your life on the line find a country that isn’t afforded such freedoms and you’ll be safer at work. I hear Mexican police get to threaten to shoot non compliant citizens and say things like “The kid’s lucky he didn’t get shot.”

    • Bill Tobias said:

      suppose he was reaching for his registration ,license . then it would be ok i guess huh . even after the officer saw that it was a phone he continued to abuse the guy . Ted , i’m guessing your a policeman.

  6. Ted P said:

    And for those of you who like to act intelligent by posting past legal findings in favor of recording police incidents, please post one that reads where non-compliance to the commands of the authority figure in question while video taping said authority figure, is acceptable and non-criminal. I can’t seem to find that one anywhere. Mr. Machado is not a victim of assault, he is a victim of his own stupidity and ignorance. Based on the previous comments above, it looks like you will all be victims of yours someday too.

  7. Birchwood said:

    I don’t know about you Ted but I keep my registration in my console. Cop should have been happy the kid was filming. Since he was committing such heinous crimes, he would have incriminated himself. I prefer my liberties to unprofessional cops who think they are above the law. Slapping cell phones out of kids hands and then charging the kid with a crime is pathetic and BPD should be embarrassed of this story.

  8. Tony Ryman said:

    Ted makes a legitimate point that it’s not wise to make sudden moves or reach for something in a dark car when an officer approaches. It is a dangerous situation for an officer that in a lot of places can result in much worse than what happened here. My issue, which I stand by, is that Barrington could use less focus on catching speeders on the trail to make its quotas, and more on catching people walking into town along the bike patch and burglarizing cars/houses.

  9. Ted P said:

    I don’t know about you Birchwood but regardless of where you keep your registration, the intelligent and proper thing to do when pulled over, is to turn your vehicle off, put your hazards on, put your interior light on, and KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE WHEEL until the officer asks for your license and registration. It is also smart to comply w/an officer’s orders regardless of how you feel about your rights and liberties. He was arrested for appropriate reasons as stated in the story. He was NOT arrested for video taping. Thanks for yet another ignorant comment. And for the record, late night traffic stops have resulted in the apprehension of many people operating under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol as well as criminals. Maybe these people get home in one piece, maybe they kill someone while under the influence instead. And if that happened you’d all complain about the cops not watching the roads.

  10. Ted P said:

    And in case you all aren’t aware (which clearly you are not), the bulk of these break-ins happen in the wee hours of the night. It’s not easy, I’d imagine, to carry some of these stolen items far distances on foot, especially if we’re talking large electronics. So it’s safe to assume that they put these stolen items in a vehicle which does in fact need to travel away from the crime scene on a ROAD, not a bike path. According to past police reports, this typically (although not always) the case. A good number of vehicle stops that are made result in the recovery of stolen items from local residents.

  11. Tony Ruben said:

    Sorry, Ted, that’s a pretty big assumption about the break-ins. The fact that he was charged with obstruction and disorderly conduct is also another red flag. Those are two charges over-used in my opinion, and usually because the cops know they can’t charge the “suspect” with anything else, but it might save their asses. The cop threw all of his training out the window by over-reacting to the cellphone. I don’t know the whole story, and I don’t think you do either. My comments are based on the article. I may be wrong, but I’m approaching it from the innocent until proven guilty side.

  12. Ted P said:

    It’s not an assumption. It is a statement based on fact.
    Please tell me how reaching for your center console while pulled over with a cop approaching your vehicle is a good idea? Please tell me how surprising a cop that has approached your vehicle is a good idea. Please tell me that the intelligent thing to do WAS NOT to put your hands on the wheel until the officer asked you to get your information. Please tell me how no officer of the law has ever been killed or wounded in that exact same scenario. – If the cop shot him in that very instant, it would not have been an over reaction.
    Please tell me how you know all the facts as to why he was pulled over and that because of said possible reasons, he was in fact not obstructing an officer in the line of duty. Please also tell me how failure to comply w/an officer of the law is NOT disorderly conduct.

    • Transplant said:

      Since you spammed the thread with comments, I’m going to use this one to reply to some of your points instead of perpetuating the spam:

      Did you read ANYWHERE in that story where the officer told him to stop video taping?

      The message was pretty clear when Officer Friendly slapped the phone out of his hand. If he thought it was a weapon, the officer would have backed away and drawn his firearm. What he wrote in his report is just an attempt to explain away his illegal behavior. You don’t think they embellish the truth to make a case, EVER?

      If this guy had a trunk full of your stolen crap would you still be ignorantly commenting about a waste of resources?

      Could have had a trunk full of bodies; doesn’t change his civil liberties. This isn’t a police state, yet.

      Based on the previous comments above, it looks like you will all be victims of yours someday too.

      Based on your comments, you think we ought to just accept whatever excuse to victimize us that the armed agents of government can come up with this week. Bend over and take it, America! Ted P says the cops are 100% trustworthy and honest. It must be true.

      He was arrested for appropriate reasons as stated in the story.

      He was arrested because the officer knew he had to make Mr. Machado the bad guy in order to get out of the situation with his career intact.

      And in case you all aren’t aware (which clearly you are not), the bulk of these break-ins happen in the wee hours of the night.

      When people are most likely to be home? Laughable. No criminal wants to take that chance. It’s not like on TV Ted, sorry to burst your bubble.

      Please also tell me how failure to comply w/an officer of the law is NOT disorderly conduct.

      Failure to comply is its own charge. If hadn’t complied, he’d have been charged with that. Disorderly conduct is what they charge you with when they want to lock you up but can’t think of any laws you actually broke. It’s so vague that it can use it cover anything they want it to.

      If the cop shot him in that very instant, it would not have been an over reaction.

      You’re completely hopeless.

      • Ted P said:

        “Spammed the comment thread” – Interesting choice of words.
        So lets respond to your comments;
        1. Mr. Machado subsequently picked up his phone and informed the officer that he was continuing to record him. Where does it say that the officer told him to stop after he notified him that second time? And where does it mention that he was stopped from recording the incident from that point on? It does not. Go and re-read the article. And where is it written that you are allowed to disobey the police while you are recording them? Also you’d be a fool to accuse cops of being the sole perpitraitors of embellishing the truth.
        2. ” If this guy had a trunk full of your stolen crap…” was in response to the suggestion that resources are being wasted on “traffic” stops. The same traffic stops that have resulted in apprehending suspects and recovering stolen goods. How exactly are his civil liberties being violated? After the phone was slapped from his hand, it was not stopped or removed again. I’m glad you think you’re smart enough to know how the cop should have reacted to that particular incident when he reached the door, but unless you are or were a cop and have been in that exact situation, you really have no clue. All you have is your speculation of the truth – You choose to believe the kid in the car. I choose to believe the cop.
        3. I never claimed that all cops are 100% trustworthy and honest. I just choose not to lump the actions of those untrustworthy cops and authority figures into the collective actions of every good cop and authority figure in the country that is doing their job honestly. If you choose to think the opposite, and harbor a “F*&k the police” attitude then that is your problem not mine. You definitely will be a victim of your own stupidity and ignorance some day.
        4. Based on your negative attitude towards cops, your speculation on his reason for arrest is not surprising, even though it is absurd.
        5. You’re not bursting my bubble buddy. It is a fact that has been written about recently, that this town has suffered break-ins while the occupants were home and asleep (wee hours of the night). This is actually very recent news. Go do some homework before you reply next time. I don’t know what shows you watch but clearly you have no clue. You are a transplant indeed.
        6. How convenient that you missed the part where he was also charged w/obstructing an officer in the execution of duty.
        7. Cops have been shot under the exact same circumstances that lead up to the initial confrontation. Routine traffic stops. If you are unaware of that blatant fact then you are in fact the one who is hopeless. In other parts of this country, he would have been shot and it would have been justified. And you’d complain about it…
        8. How about you try answering all of the questions I have posed in prior comments, as opposed to just picking and choosing random excerpts from my previous comments in some vain attempt to validate your pointless argument? I’ll tell you why – Because if you did actually honestly answer them, you’d see just how absurd your argument really is. But that’s fine. Open minded people w/any intelligence already know this. Do you not have an intelligent answer for the rest of the questions I posed on the previous comment?

        I’m wagering based on the fact that you call yourself “Transplant”, and the fact that you are so anti-cop, that you have maybe had a few unfavorable run ins w/the law. I wouldn’t expect you to admit this on a public comment thread but it would certainly explain your attitude towards them and your willingness to stand up for a guy who clearly illustrated poor judgement in his actions as the cop approached his vehicle as well as in his refusal to cooperate. If the guy wasn’t guilty of anything, makes all the more sense to video himself fully complying w/the police, being found completely innocent of any wrong doing, and then let go. That’s a video he could take up a complaint with. But he didn’t do that did he? No – He didn’t cooperate. He gave them a hard time. He’s one of those idiots who thinks he doesn’t have to cooperate w/law enforcement because he’s recording them. He was probably trying to get his 15 minutes of fame as the next Youtube sensation that video recorded a cop who was actually in the wrong. How’d that turn out for him? Perhaps you are the one who is completely hopeless.

    • KeithC said:

      Ted you’re really hung up with the idea that citizens are required to remain in a prostrated position during a stoppage. If the man was arrested you have ever right to expect he obey your commands. Before an arrest he could hand you his papers, look you in the eye and not speak a word till you go away. You can not threaten to shoot someone for moving around in their car. If you’re a cop you need to find a new line of work man because you’re scary. Failure to comply? What did the officer order him to do? Step out of his car? No thanks. I’ll stay in my car unless I’m under arrest. I think, Ted, you mistake the conduct of fearful citizenry as compliance with law.

  13. James Clarkin said:

    What was the probable cause for the initial stop? It’s characterized as a “traffic stop” but there is no indication that the driver was ever charged with a traffic offense.

    • Ted P said:

      James – Traffic stop is sometimes used as a generic term for when a cop pulls over another vehicle. It doesn’t neccessarily mean there was an actual issue w/the vehicle. There is no reason mentioned for the stop so it could be anything – suspicious vehicle, vehicle defect, etc. It’s open to speculation so far.

  14. Tony Ruben said:

    Ted P, you’re comments are hilarious. You pick apart everyone else’s comments but when someone does it to yours, you just can’t handle it. And, saying someone is hiding behind a name when you are doing the same is even more laughable.

  15. Rob Fin said:

    Ted P. Is a drone….regarding the case, it is for both parties safety that someone records the situations this man was minding his own business and got attacked for a what has been deemed a civil right protected by law. If the officer actually thought he was in any danger this man would have been shot and killed.

  16. Ted P said:

    Looks to me like I’m handling things just fine Tony. I’m not picking apart commentary, I’m picking apart ignorance and stupidity. And you clearly have reading comprehension issues, as I never called anyone out on “hiding behind a name”. I simply shared what I believe his name implies. And based on the multitude of people following this comment thread that have relayed their feedback to me, you guys seem to be the ones getting laughed at. It amazes me how such simple minds can read written words and distort a them into something far beyond what is actually written (the original article as well as my commentary). Take for example this latest simpleton who would rather call me a “drone” than actually read everything posted (including the article), or answer my questions. He’d rather avoid all that and instead claim that this guy in the article was “attacked” and “minding his own business”. How do you know he was minding his own business? Were you there? Do you know what he was pulled over for? How do you know he was attacked? Are you referring to the phone being slapped out of his hand? Was he then “attacked” a second time when he picked up his phone and notified the officer he was going to continue to record him? No he wasn’t. Funny how you guys keep missing that part. The fact that NONE have you have elected to answer the simple common sense questions that I have posted in previous comments proves that you have zero clue about anything beyond what you think you’re learning from YouTube videos and Googling civil and constitutional rights – Otherwise known as Google scholars (aka idiots). If you actually answered those questions with common sense and logic, you would know that you are wrong, which is why none have you have chosen to answer them. SO if it is beyond your single brain cell’s capacity to apply logic and common sense, as you all have clearly demonstrated, then feel free to stick to your generic “drone” name calling and claims of crooked cops and the destruction of civil liberties. We’re all getting a good laugh. If I chose to misinterpret things the way you guys do, I’d be claiming you’re all cop killing wannabes and anarchists. I mean, you are all clearly anti-cop so that must mean you want them all dead right? See what I did there? I applied the same idiot logic you guys have been using. Sounds pretty stupid huh? Good thing I don’t suffer from such an impediment.
    I’m done beating this dead horse. I’ll rest my case w/a quote from a guy named Mark Twain (maybe you’ve heard of him, probably not) that sums up my interactions w/all of you in this comment thread: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
    Have fun pissing all over the police, boys. I’m sure your positive attitudes will serve you well in the future (I feel compelled to inform you that was a sarcastic remark).
    I’m out. Peace.

  17. Laura Lass said:

    Seeing as how the recent break ins here in Barrington have happened while the victims were home and asleep, I think it’s safe to say they have been happening in the middle of the night. Wait…. Let me check my TV. I mean my NEWS PAPER… Oh yes. The crimes are happening in the middle of the night. JUST LIKE ON TV!!! Imagine that.

    So! I’m reading the article and I see a whole lot of people only read the headline and filled in the blanks on their own. The guy hasn’t been charged for recording anything.
    And since we are filling spaces here, I’ll give you my own assumption: The driver acted like a typical jerk who has a grudge against the police. He antagonized (see “the east providence man allegedly refused”) the officer until he got himself arrested.

    Anywho… Since we weren’t standing there watching, we don’t really know if the guy stuck his weapon (haha cell phone) in the air… Waved it at him… Swung it toward him… Or twirled it in his fingers. Whatever the reason the officer reacted by swatting it. We also don’t know anything about the drivers demeanor during the stop. All we know is he wanted to put a camera in the officers face (disclaimer: not literally) and then refused to cooperate because of that “I know my rights!” attitude. Honestly I imagine the driver went all batspit over the officer having the audacity to react to his ..uh.. Weapon. Officers don’t usually react to a traffic stop this way unless they have a reason. I realize we see plenty of Facebook videos highlighting the ones who suck. But they hardly represent the majority of men and women in uniform.

    Seriously people. Just let the cops do their jobs. You won’t end up freaking out a person who is usually on the receiving end of the wrath of panty bunched criminals who would do anything to get away.
    A simple “I’m gonna record this encounter, mkay!” Would have sufficed. Then he could have pulled out the phone along with his license and registration.

    And as far as patrolling the neighborhoods for the break ins… Since this isn’t a police state, I’m not exactly sure how anyone expects to do that. People are leaving their homes open, criminals are walking right in, and taking some valuables. I don’t expect the police to stake out all of the homes in Barrington. But they could be caught with stolen goods in their car during a routine traffic stop.
    AND! Holy crap… We have more than one officer on duty at a time! Seriously… As a victim of a drunk driver (more than once) I’m appreciative that the police are doing routine traffic stops around town and on the trail. Lives depend on that.

  18. ignoranceisbliss said:

    The fact that it was a camera that was smacked out of the hand is completely besides of the point of what at happen at this scene. The officer let the motorist continue filming after realizing it was his camera. Approaching a car at 2am for a traffic stop is not an easy situation for the officer. The officer always has to assume that the worse can happen and the officer followed his training. It does not matter if it was camera that got smacked. If he reached in his center console and grabbed literally anything and moved his arms in a rapid motion it would of got smacked out immediately. There are plenty of videos that can be found where an officer walks up to the window and is shot before he even says a word, or when the officer is distracted looking at the license. Had Justin pulled a firearm out and the officer did not react the way he did, we would all be reading about a shootout on the trail. An officer does not smack stuff out of peoples hands for fun. He thought his life was at risk and fight or flight kicked in.

  19. Karen said:

    I’m not saying all cops are bad but there are some that run your plates see who you are and based on what shows up on your information they get cocky and want to bust your balls. I’ve been pulled over before and I’ve dealt with some police officers and always been treated with respect but I’ve also been invovled in situations where I’m with someone not favored or with a past record and the cop becomes very shitty for no reason. I think if you knew who this person was then you’d see his reasoning behind wanting to record his run in. The police officer lost his cool and got pissed off because he wanted to record him the information in the article didn’t show any reason as to why he would need to get out of the vehicle, nor why he got pulled over to begin with. If he felt safer recording the incident then that is his right and the police officer should have maintained his composure and professionalism and continued on with the process just like a lot of police officers that are being filmed all over the place. Some react negatively and some react professional in my eyes if the cop isn’t doing anything wrong then he shouldn’t be worried about being recorded.

  20. Laura Machado said:

    I think Ted P is the police office who stopped my son, who was on his way home from working all night and the last thing he wanted was to get stopped by a cop late at night!! Just because a person works late at night doesn’t mean they are doing something illegal,I called the Cop who arrested my son you know what he said -After he told me he was arrested for obstruction and disorderly, (Its a Real Charge) Yeah sure it is to cover your a$$!! Why don’t you worry about the Kid who smashed into my sons car and totaled it with no insurance and no way of paying for it and is walking around free causing more trouble!!!

    • Ted P said:

      So Mrs. Machado help me to understand this a little better – You’re saying that you spoke w/the actual arresting officer who apparently told you something completely contrary to what I’ve been saying this entire comment thread (which I think anyone would find hard to believe that he told you that), yet you’re accusing me of being that same cop? That makes no sense. Does that mean everyone on this comment thread who actually agreed w/me are the same cop as well?
      And sorry to say but the fact that your son didn’t care to be pulled over after a long night of work doesn’t give him the right to be uncooperative. You name me anyone who cares to be pulled over at ANY time of day or night regardless of where they were coming from. Yeah driving home from work isn’t illegal and I’m pretty certain he wasn’t pulled over because he worked all night so yeah at least you’re correct in that regard. You’ve given the reasons he shouldn’t be pulled over – Feel free to enlighten us as to why he was pulled over. The actual reason, not your perception of the reason.
      And as a side note, I have a kid who’s been pulled over before late at night after “a long night at work”. He complied fully and w/out attitutde because he had nothing to hide, did nothing wrong, and wanted to cooperate. By the way, that tends to be the quickest and easiest way to get back to going home, unless you’re guilty of something. He was subsequently released w/out incident. Now every time they see his vehicle they know there’s a decent respectful kid behind the wheel of his car, and not some uncooperative punk who wants to disrespect them and make their job difficult. Maybe you should worry about your kid’s lack of cooperation w/police instead of making excuses for his actions.

      • Local Bargain Jerk said:

        – Now every time they see his vehicle they know there’s a decent respectful kid behind the wheel of
        — his car, and not some uncooperative punk who wants to disrespect them and make their job difficult.

        So, Officer Ted, are you telling us that the police keep one list (formal or informal) of citizens who are “respectful” and another list of citizens are “uncooperative punk[s]”? If so, how exactly are these lists used?

        For example, are the officers more lenient if they know, from past experience that “there’s a decent respectful kid behind the wheel”, even if the decent, respectful kid was, say, speeding? Conversely, for those citizens who find themselves in the “uncooperative punk” category, what happens to them? Are they pre-judged by an officer car based on past interactions with the police?

        Now that you’ve established that the police keep track of vehicles they’ve dealt with in the past, and that they therefore “know” what kind of driver is behind the wheel, please do enlighten us concerning how this knowledge is used.

  21. Tony Ruben said:

    Thanks again Ted P. for the laughs. You lash out at anyone with a differing opinion from yours. Unless you were there, you’ve got the same information we have. Go back and read some of the other comments. You’re just piling assumption on top of assumption. You’re a troll. (And probably a police officer)

  22. Rob Fin said:

    I don’t bother with lengthy responses because people that are delusion cannot be reasoned with . You cast insult and hatred and expect logical responses your are an attention seeker that feeds off confrontation.

  23. Tony Ruben said:

    Ted, I don’t think you understand, when I say I’m laughing, it’s not with you, it’s at you. Rob’s correct, you do nothing but cast insult and hatred in your long winded diatribes. I can only hope that you are not a police officer, because with anger issues like yours, I fear for the lives of anyone you would interact with. Hell, I fear for them even if you’re not an officer. You’re a very angry man Ted. Get help please, all that anger will just burn you up eventually.

  24. Ted P said:

    Boy you guys are good. Yet again avoiding EVERY logical question I have thrown out there regarding the actual story and solely resorting to my alleged character traits and occupation. At least when I call you guys a name or poke holes in your consistently unintelligable responses, I back it up with fact and logic as to illustrate just how absurd your comments really are.
    You see Rob, odds are you don’t bother with lengthy responses because you don’t have anything intelligent to actually contribute. If ANY of you actually had a logical response, I wouldn’t feel the need to “cast insult and hatred” – Great attack by the way. Oh and the whole “drone” accusation – Awesome. Did you learn that word in one of your first person shooter video games? I wonder if my alleged hatred rivals the hatred you all harbor for the police. Fair curiosity. Does it? How bad do you hate them? Your claim that Mr. Machado was “minding his own business” and “attacked” for exercising his civil rights that are protected by law is a fine example of the pure stupidity you guys have put on display for us. Can you back that claim up? Are you choosing to ignore the fact that Mr. Machado picked up the phone, resumed recording, and even notified the officer of such? Did you read anywhere that his phone was subsequently confiscated or that he was prohibited from recording? No you didn’t because he wasn’t. Kind of pisses all over your absurd claim there doesn’t it? Being asked to step out of a vehicle is NOT being stopped from recording the incident. A for effort though buddy.
    And although I am a fan of attention, it gives me no pleasure to pick on people of lesser intelligence. My growing following on this thread are highly entertained by you guys though so I’d like to keep them that way. I actually feed off of healthy intelligent debate and you guys have been everything but. But I’ll manage.
    And then we come back to good old Tony here – Someone who’s been very reliable in consistently posting nonsense. My long winded diatribes have been a vain attempt to illustrate reason, logic, and common sense behind the statements I make. Very vain attempt by the way. You see, all you guys have been doing the whole time is making broad stroked statements based on a headline, without ever backing those statements up with reason, logic, or common sense. I know now that it’s because you all clearly lack those things and have no valid argument. I love the whole anger angle you’re trying to work now too btw. Illustrate for me your point. Illustrate it for all the viewers at home too. And again Tony, I’m well aware that you are laughing at me. As I mentioned before, it is the typical last resort response of the simple minded. I’m glad such an “angry” guy like me can make you so happy. I’d imagine bright shiney objects illicit the same response with you.
    And lastly, our latest contestant – The bargain jerk. To answer your question Jerk, I’d like to think that part of a cop’s job would be to get to know the people of the community they protect and serve. You know Jerk, The trouble makers, the trash, the idiots, the drug users, the drunks, the punks, etc. Basically Jerk, all the people who they may need to deal with on a professional basis. I’d like to imagine, Jerk, that if my kid was to ever be pulled over again, they might hopefully recognize the car and recall his respectful and cooperative manner, Jerk. I’d imagine, Jerk, that may help the whole proccess go smoother if it ever happened again. I’d also imagine, Jerk, they definitely remember the ones that gave them a hard time – You know Jerk – The ones they have to arrest. So God forbid, Jerk, the possible next time they may have to interact w/that person they can be prepared for some indignant punk who feels he doesn’t have to cooperate with them. Yeah, Jerk, I think they might remember that. As to whether or not there is such a system that actually exists Jerk, maybe you should inquire w/the police department. And for the record Jerk, when my kid was pulled over for speeding, I told him to slow down and not to drive like a jerk (hey that’s your name). I did NOT get pissed off at the cops for doing their job. It’s this thing called ACCOUNTABILITY, Jerk, and you all clearly lack it.
    The fact that you all have consistently disregarded and dodged ALL of my actual questions regarding the actual incident and have consistently simply tried to attack me instead, accompanied by the fact that you guys have been so clearly anti-cop and so very pro Mr. Machado, illustrates that none of you have any common sense of right and wrong, no accountability, no sense of responsibility, or any respect for the law or police. People like that are highly suspect beings. I can’t wait to read about all of your arrests one day. It will be fun to imagine you guys trying to snake your way out of it.
    Hey by the way, did you all notice how Mr. Machado’s mother never actually clarified anything for us, despite talking to the arresting officer and learning the whole situation? Seems to me that if he was innocent of all wrong doing, she had a fine opportunity to clear it all up on here for us. Hmmmm.

  25. RIpolitics said:

    Too funny! Whether the cop was right or wrong the driver did not cooperate. The comments saying otherwise are just nonsensical. I have been pulled over for headlight out and turned my interior light and placed both hands on the wheel. When the officer approached I was cooperative and didn’t even know I had a light out. I thanked him for letting me know and assured him I would take care of it. No ticket and no five day tag. He thanked me and I went on my way. Real simple folks.

    • KeithC said:

      Lucky cop but if there is no law requiring a driver to prostrate himself in the face of Law enforcement the failure to act like you did isn’t cause to see a trouble maker. Do you put your hands up when a stranger walks to your window? Your conduct doesn’t need to be tailored to fit the officer’s wish list but doing so is a favor to the officer for sure. If I’m annoyed and disrespectful to a cop while being pulled over there is no reason I should receive a different treatment from that officer than you received. They don’t get to determine privilege(private law) based on your level sub-servitude towards authority. That’s dangerous stuff.

  26. Local Bargain Jerk said:

    In the middle of yet another long diatribe, Officer Ted blathered:

    – As to whether or not there is such a system that actually exists Jerk, maybe you should
    — inquire w/the police department.

    I’d like to contrast Officer Ted’s clarification with his original statement on the same subject:

    – Now every time they see his vehicle they know there’s a decent respectful kid behind the
    — wheel of his car, and not some uncooperative punk who wants to disrespect them

    Well, Officer Ted, thanks for at least acknowledging that your original statement — which you presented as fact — was instead simply speculation on your part. It’s not “every time” and it may not be “any time”, but at least we now know that your “statements based on fact” really aren’t more than your private speculations … and are thus worth precisely $0.02. More to the point, they aren’t worth anyone’s time of day.

    Have fun patrolling this section of eastbayri.com, Officer Ted. You’re doing a fine job of keeping all us wayward ne’er-do-wells in line.

  27. Ted P said:

    Thanks for yet again not acknowledging any of the questions I’ve repeatedly challenged you to answer. Wow you guys showed me. Latin? Whoa. Did you learn that by reading the actual literary works it came from or did you learn it from a comic book movie? Probably the movie. How do you say “Who guards the idiots?” in latin? Oh that’s right, you guys don’t answer questions. So hey HAVE FUN hating cops, calling them the criminals, keeping any eye on them, sticking up for the “innocent” victims that get arrested for no reason while they’re minding their own business, ignorantly commenting on headlines, and whining about the violations of your civil liberties. You should prove me wrong by trying those arguments out in the real world the next time you’re pulled over by a cop. BUT FIRST and most importantly, be sure to reach around in your center consoles as he approaches your vehicle and then make sure you surprise him when he gets to your door by putting a cell phone in his face. Shine that bright light right in his eyes. And whatever you do, DO NOT cooperate w/them in any fashion whatsoever. Resist everything they tell you to do. It confirms to the police that you are in fact an innocent victim. Be sure to record your lack of cooperation during the entire ordeal – It’s the best way to maintain your innocence and not look like an idiot. I’m sure a judge will totally see it your way in the end. Solid work boys. I look forward to reading about your arrests one day in the near future.

  28. Tony Ruben said:

    So much anger from a man who’s afraid to log in with a real account. Unlike you “Ted P.”, I don’t feel the need to post anonymously. Your words and attitude mean nothing to me, but I do enjoy your rants. It gives me more insight into the frailties of the human psyche. Keep posting please, I’m sure someone will one day be awarded a doctorate based on their diagnosis of your mental state.

  29. Laura Lass said:

    Honest to goodness, Ted… These people just pooped their pants because they really just jumped to conclusions (common among internet warriors who want validation and feigned victimization) and have nothing to back up their accusations. Now that you’ve highlighted it, they’ve resorted to attacking you personally. It’s a defense mechanism for people who don’t want to feel embarrassed when they are proven wrong. A way to take the spotlight off themselves when they have no logical response.

    None of these people can actually say:
    What he was pulled over for.
    Why he was asked to get out of the car.
    Admit that the officer let him continue recording.
    Recognize the danger an officer encounters when people pull objects out of hidden areas.
    Realize that refusing to comply with an officer results in charges.

    And seriously… We were pulled over last night for touching the white line as we were on a ramp. The officer had the personality of a vegetable. A weird angry vegetable. But hey… We just complied. Accepted our “warning” and went on our way. But seriously: we didn’t *want* to be pulled over last night after a long day. HOW DARE THEY DO THE JOB WE EXPECT THEM TO DO!!??

  30. Laura said:

    First of all Ted P I have a real life that does not entail me writing long nonsense, Second of All Im accusing you of being the cop that pulled my son over, because it sounds very personal the accusations that you are making, or you just need a life.. Third of All Its really none of your dam business why he was pulled over but long story short it was for a break light in his back window that he didn’t even know was out!! And BTW he did exactly what the officer wanted until he asked to video this stop after the officer who already saw his reg & license wanted my son to get out of the car for the officers safety!! Give me a break My son does not have an arrest record and it was all over a light he didn’t even give him a ticket for-But Im sure you already know this!! And you really should keep your mouth shut unless again your the cop!! I did call the station the moment I heard my kid was arrested-and I did indeed speak to the officer in charge and its not my fault the office had a guilty conscious and made up the charge because he realized he was wrong!! So next time Ted get your facts straight and don’t write back because I don’t care what you have to say I just hope none of this crap happens to your kid!! Oh and BTW I didn’t read all this jargon on here because I have better things to do with my time, like finding out how many other people were arrested because the Barrington police do not know to handle anyone but rich kids Drinking and Driving, I mean come on people are getting robbed in there homes while they are sleeping and the cops cant catch them Oh please give me a break!!! Ted P you should make the effort responding to more important issues that are actually your concern, Not my Kid!!

  31. Carleen Quattrucci said:

    ted p is a cop loving ********* with no life and that cop was over dramatic, youre in barrington, not the bronx. the cop had nothing better to do besides profile the crap out of him and cause a big scene. not everyone knows how to perform during a routine traffic stop & who are we as the majority to conform to their rule? this country is turning into a police state & its disgusting. just driving home from work… justin avoid barrington at all costs and just use rt 136 lol

  32. Ted P said:

    The copious amount of ignorance and stupidity from these people is quite staggering Laura Lass. You hit the nail on the head w/these clowns. Much easier for a bunch of them to jump all over me than it is to logically dispute my argument w/anything actually intelligible – Always the last resort of stupid people. You guys were all displaying your lack of intelligence long before I got involved in this. If you all despise the Barrington Police so much, I suggest you find another town to live and whine in. If you don’t live here than just follow this latest simpleton’s advice and drive around Barrington instead of through it.

    • KeithC said:

      I’ve been writing, Nationally, about bad cops for 10 years. I’ve frequently used BPD as an example of the way a police force should be. This incident doesn’t change my opinion of BPD, which is high, but it is what it is. True story. I was walking to work around 4:30am and a BPD cruiser pulled up behind me and hit me with the spot light. I had my hands in my coat pockets because it was winter and cold and the officer questioned me from 20 ft away. The officer was visibly nervous because of my appearance and when he told me I match the description of a burglary suspect in the area I slowly extended my hands, turned to face him, and spouted off the names of some officers that he could call to confirm that I was who I said I was. He relaxed. That was a great cop. You, Ted, might have shot me.

  33. RIPat92 said:

    Oh Ted, in response to this comment you made, I’d like to read some case law to you :

    “And for those of you who like to act intelligent by posting past legal findings in favor of recording police incidents, please post one that reads where non-compliance to the commands of the authority figure in question while video taping said authority figure, is acceptable and non-criminal.”

    City of Houston v. Hill 482 U.S. 451 (1987) United States Supreme Court

    “The right of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state… ”

    The First Amendment recognizes, wisely we think, that a certain amount of expressive disorder not only is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom, but must itself be protected if that freedom would survive.”
    – Justice William J Brennan, Jr.

    A tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny Ted!

  34. RIPat92 said:

    Plenty of unanswered questions from this article surrounding the circumstances of the arrest. He should have stepped out of his vehicle, and remained silent after that. However seeing as he got arrested while recording the officer, this sounds like a clear cut “Contempt of Cop” case. He should contact the local Rhode Island ACLU or speak with an attorney to see if his First Amendment rights were violated in any way, which seems extremely plausible.

  35. CM said:

    The police had no business knocking anything out of Mr. Machado’s hand without knowing what it was first. Once the cop was told that the encounter was going to be recorded, he should have acquiesced, but he didn’t. This was heavy-handed police conduct. I’ve been living in the area for seven years, and I have read several stories about misconduct by the Barrington police. They are very unprofessional.

  36. Local Bargain Jerk said:

    Officer Ted:

    Let me start by saying that I have a pretty good idea of who you are. I believe you are not a police officer, but I do believe that you are a public servant.

    That said, I think a few comments are in order here. First, I will not be addressing your “logical questions”, at least not in this response. I can’t speak for anyone else, but my opinion is that your behavior here does not warrant respectful discourse. If you want me or others to respond to your questions, please do not refer to me as a “contestant” or “stupid” or “ignorant” or anything else.

    I joined this conversation late, so please let me offer you and others several facts and several opinions. To avoid confusion, I will label them clearly.

    FACT: None of us were in Mr. Machado’s car. This includes Ted P., Mrs. Machado, anyone who has commented on this thread, and the author(s) of this article.

    OPINION: It is generally a good idea to comply with a police officer’s requests, assuming they are legitimate. If you disagree with what the officer is directing you to do, you will have the opportunity to sort it out in front of a judge at a later time. If you truly believe the officer is being unprofessional and/or abusive, you would be wise to note his badge number.

    OPINION: It is generally a good idea to avoid sudden moves when a police officer is approaching your car during a traffic stop. The officer has no idea if you are armed and dangerous or anything else.

    FACT: In this country, you have the right to make a video of an officer conducting his business.

    FACT: There are as many sides to a story as there are participants.

    SPECULATION, BORDERING ON FACT: The author of this article did not interview Mr. Machado, or there would have been some sentences with quotation marks around them attributed to Mr. Machado. There are none, so we can assume that only the police officer’s side of the story is reported in the article.

    FACT: At the present time, our only source here on EastBayRI.com for Mr. Machado’s side of the story is what his mother said above.

    OPINION: If what Ms. Machado said is true, then the officer involved should be concerned.

    FACT: It is only Ms. Machado’s opinion that the “the officer had a guilty conscious and made up the charge”. It will not be possible, unless the officer admits it directly, to prove that the officer “had a guilty conscience.”

    OPINION: Even if what Ms. Machado is saying is true, this will still boil down to a classic case of “he said/she said”. Unless it was captured on the video, it will be difficult for Mr. Machado and/or his attorney to prove any of this in court.

    FACT: ALL OF US will need to wait for the matter to be cleared up in court.

    REQUEST: It would be very interesting if the author(s) of this article interviewed Mr. Machado. Then, at least, the stories of all the principals would be represented, not just the story told by the police.

    Now, let’s address your bedside manner, Officer Ted:

    FACT: In your initial responses to other’s comments, you suggested that the post-ers suffered from both “ignorance” and “stupidity”.

    OPINION: Whether it’s at a cocktail part or on an online forum, statements like these are not a good way to start a conversation.

    OPINION: The people at whom you directed these statements likely got riled.

    FACT: I don’t blame them.

    OPINION: Many people don’t like being called names.

    OPINION: People are “jumping all over” you not because they are unable “to logically dispute [your] argument w/anything actually intelligible”. They are jumping all over you because your unkind behavior invited them to do so. Calling people “stupid”, “ignorant”, and various related names — AS YOUR FIRST RESPONSE TO THEIR PRIOR POSTS NOT DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY AT YOU — is not a good way to start a conversation. In fact, as misguided moves go, behaving as you did is about the same as making a sudden move when an officer is approaching your vehicle. I.e., you really shouldn’t be surprised at the result.

    FACT: I can be dense, stupid, and ignorant at times.

    OPINION: This is not one of those times.

    REQUEST: Please, Ted P., acknowledge that you didn’t exactly make the best start on this thread, that perhaps you were a little heavy-handed in your initial comments, and that, in hindsight, you should have expected that by calling others “stupid” and “ignorant”, that they would be displeased and might respond to you in kind.

    OFFER: You can ask me any questions you’d like and I’ll answer them.

    Okey dokey?

    • Local Bargain Jerk said:

      I was just thinking about the first paragraph that I wrote. I did not write this to threaten or “out” Ted P. I was saying it mostly for the benefit of the others, some of whom believe that Ted P. was the arresting officer. I strongly believe he’s not. FWIW, I also believe he’s not (presently) a cop.

      I am sorry for not mentioning this above.

Top