52 thoughts on “CAUGHT ON CAMERA: Man handcuffed after ‘illegally eating sandwich’ on train platform

  1. The Closet case facist cop is obviously a proud Oinking Pigtard indulging on a pathetic "police state" power trip and simply targets on who he just does not like, just look at all the Nazis come out of the closet in Trump's America… SAD!

  2. Oh look, the news once again coming in and trying to stir the shit…. It's against the law to eat or drink on bart and at the stations. There is posted signs everywhere. The officer didn't make this law, but it is his job to enforce it. This guy, instead of complying with the officer, refuses to identify himself. When a person refuses to identify himself when being suspected, or in this case, blatantly committing a crime, the officer has no choice but to detain (until they can identify the person) or arrest the person. This dude who could have walked away with cheap citation made a scene, refused lawful orders, resisted arrest, and probably ended up in jail. The chick at the end trying to pull the "Just cause he's black" card should be ashamed of herself as should ABC for putting this crap on air.

  3. Your going to jail for resisting arrest……your eating a sandwich…. Stop resisting….same ole shit! Then suck ass #2 comes along, then says what happened immediately arrested the guy. Then it's a "matched description"…bull shit cowardness.
    Lying straight up. What piss poor characters. Shitty I individuals.

    Translation: It's easier and safer to unjustly bother you, than detain addicts shooting up.
    Also my feelings are hurt because your not adhering to my false sense of supremacy. So I'll harrass you with my pettyness and self disapointments, as I threaten to waste the tax payers money. I have to it's my lively hood.

  4. Authority trip. The guy in uniform surely has more pressing issues to deal with than a man eating his breakfast on the way to work.

  5. The girl was absolutely CORRECT, he abandoned an intoxicated person to harass a man for eating a sandwich. The Supreme Court would have a field day if this guy brought a case and it went that far….reasonable suspicion, due process, first amendment, the list goes on.

  6. Time to flip Bart police. Old foggies just want to spice their day up with the major arrest of someone eating a sandwich! Lucky it wasn't me.

  7. They need to handcuff those drug addicts, and nasty homeless that bother everybody in the subway station! All that fucken money we pay to walk to a station that’s dirty and smells like shit with crime walking everywhere

  8. if suspect is white = give it a verbal warning, friendly pat on back, & let him leave.

    when suspect is black: grab onto his cloths, call for back up, and arrest him.

  9. What if his blood sugar was low, therefore he HAD to consume something for his well being? Would they harass/arrest a baby if it was eating (breastfeeding) on the platform? This is plain and simple the stereotype of "you had better respect my authority" … or "I'll make sure to ruin your day, inconvenience the hell out of you, and cost you money; as a lesson to show me respect." I guess the civilian is lucky the officer didn't just shoot him (if this had happened at night, the officer would have 'claimed' he mistook the sandwich for a weapon). It is sadly hilarious when you ask "Why am I being arrested?" And you are given the answer: "For resisting arrest." What? Being arrested for resisting arrest? WHAT WAS THE FIRST F—ING ARREST FOR?! You know… the one I supposedly "resisted"!

  10. Alfred E Neuman Negro Snowflake needs his Egg a Muffin. Rules are for others. What was preventing him from putting his sandwich away? Other than he's an ill-mannered dickhead. Girlfriend digs it when he gets her fat clitty between that huge gap in his teeth and tongues it hard. Civilization declines apace.

  11. We believe that the perpetrator here identified as D. McCormick is in face one David McCormick of Santa Ana https://copblaster.com/blast/3288/bart-cop-david-mccormick-arrested-a-man-for-eating-while-black

  12. i can't believe the Bart police let him eat the evidence. now they are going to need to hold him in till it comes out so they can process the evidence for the jury trial.. ask for a jury trial and a real judge.. not a judge pro tem or a court commissioner ..

  13. Have they been on Bart with the junkies, sleeping people, people firing blunt, people eat in bart all the time, loud music, passed out on the floor amongst the many other things?

  14. Officer just standing there holding his backpack just to instigate an excuse to further create problem. Using this innocent victim as a tool for their corruption

  15. He lives in San Francisco and uses homophobic slurs. Screw this guy. The cop was wrong too, but I hope one day we can fight our battles without spewing hate!! They both suck!!!

  16. According to CNN affiliate, the guy used homophobic slurs towards the officer. Why isn't there an outrage from Blacks? Blacks want outrage against racism but remain silent on homophobia. Nearly 20 trans women have died mostly Black… you never see Black people be outraged. And they will call this White supremacy… but using homophobic slurs isn't White supremacy thing? And for him to use homophobic slurs in San Francisco… of all places.🤔🤔🤔

  17. Laughing at all you Jussie Smolletts who have to lie to defend the violator.

    The officer ignored a drunk passenger to target this person:
    LIE

    The officer ignored white violators to target this black violator:
    LIE

    The officer ignored all kinds of serious crimes to target this person:
    LIE

    And the biggest lie of all:
    The officer arrested this person for eating:
    LIE

    The truth is very simple but doesn't make for a sensational headline and apparently is beyond the comprehension of many people. The violator was cited for violating BART rules. No one else was present violating BART rules. The officer has cited other people of all races and has pursued and will continue to pursue people committing serious crimes. There were no serious crimes in view of the officer. Citing the violator in no way caused a more serious lawbreaker to evade the law. The violator was arrested for refusing to obey the lawful commands of the police, specifically not providing identification to be cited. Further, the violator was given not one but two warnings to put away his food which the violator steadfastly refused to do.

  18. The cop was doing his job. If there is a regulation that states that you cannot eat in that area, don't eat. And if you're gonna eat, be ready to accept the consequences.
    If you do some research, the cop actually gave him a verbal warning and walked away the first time. The guy ignored it and hence the situation escalated.
    This has absolutely nothing to do with race. Nothing. The lesson here is don't break the rules and don't behave like a neanderthal.

  19. Pig was irrational. Pig should’ve just given a friendly warning. These pigs are given so much discretion, he should’ve used it for a stupid rule like that.

  20. Clearly this police officer is in the wrong and now letting the spirit of deception influence him by communicating a “script” which is prepared for all law enforcement officers to follow/use when they over reach with authority and violate a citizens rights. This officer is similar to a Nazi. This officer and the department he is employed with violated this citizen’s US Constitutional rights endowed to him by the Creator: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 14th Amendments, just to name a few, that were violated.

    Can you believe this UNUSUAL law! No eating … I bet when scrutinized the courts will find this “no eating” is a safety suggestion posted by the train corporation to prevent possible choking and not an official California law.

    The United States Constitution is the framework of how all states are to be fairly administrated to Justice. The US Constitution since December 15, 1791 specifically speaks about unusual punishments in the Eight Amendment and this law of “no eating” is UNUSUAL. Thus this unusual law of “no eating” and those who enforce it are ready to BE scrutinized.

    Description
    The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights.

  21. So, now the masses want food to be consumed in trains and platforms? That can easily be arranged….but please don't complain when your work clothes get soiled from mustard and ketchup etc. That's the way you want to roll.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *