Scroll down to watch the full video

He Said the Officers Were the Real Threat — Then a Disturbance Call About a Knife Ended With Him in Handcuffs

On November 10th, 2025, I was dispatched with other officers to what sounded like the kind of call that could change in seconds. The information coming over the radio was that a man had called for help because his roommate had allegedly pulled a knife on him and was refusing to let him leave. That was the information we had when we arrived. We weren't walking into an argument over a parking space or a disagreement between neighbors. We were responding to a report involving a knife and a person who was allegedly being prevented from leaving. Before I ever stepped into that hallway, I had to assume the possibility that someone inside could be armed and that the person who called for help might be in immediate danger. That's why our approach was deliberate. We were checking the building, trying to determine exactly where the people involved were, and preparing to make contact with the person connected to the call. Then, almost immediately, someone began challenging our presence. A resident came into the hallway and started telling us that the person we were looking for was in an office downstairs and was not a danger to anybody. He seemed completely convinced that he understood the situation better than we did. He told us, in effect, that we didn't need to be there. We tried to explain that he didn't know what was happening because we were responding to a call involving a possible knife and someone allegedly being held inside. He disagreed. He kept insisting that he knew exactly what was going on. He wanted us to go somewhere else. He wanted us to leave the hallway. He was angry that we were there with our weapons while he believed the situation was harmless. From his perspective, we were overreacting. From ours, we had an obligation to investigate the report before deciding there was no danger. That difference in perception became the center of everything that followed. I remember thinking that the original call was still the only thing that mattered. We had not yet determined whether the report was accurate. We had not yet spoken to everyone involved. We had not yet established whether there was a knife, whether someone had been threatened, or whether someone was actually being prevented from leaving. But this man wanted us to accept his version before we had even completed the first part of the investigation. He told us the person was not dangerous. We told him he didn't know what we had been dispatched to. He continued arguing. And that's when a simple request—go back inside—became the first line in a confrontation that would eventually end with him under arrest.

At first, I wasn't trying to arrest him. I wanted him out of the hallway so we could do the job we had been called to do. I explained that we had received a call that someone had allegedly been threatened with a knife and was being prevented from leaving. The man kept telling us that wasn't what was happening. He said the person was downstairs in an office. He said we should go check there. He said the person wasn't a danger to anybody else. But the problem was that we couldn't simply take his word for it. If someone calls police and says a roommate pulled a knife and won't let them leave, the first responsibility is to find out whether that person is safe. We can't assume the report is false because another person standing in the hallway says it is. We also can't assume that the person giving us information is wrong. We have to investigate. That's what we were trying to do. I told him to go back inside. He refused. I told him again. He argued that the situation concerned him a great deal. I explained that his continued interference was becoming an obstruction. He didn't accept that either. He told us not to warn him. He wanted to talk. He wanted to explain why he believed we were wrong. He kept saying there was no need for us to be there. At one point he became angry because he believed we had knocked on a door or attempted to contact someone in a way he thought was unnecessary. He insisted that everything was being recorded and that we could look at the camera footage ourselves. I told him that everything was recorded, but that didn't change the fact that we needed him to move out of the way. He refused again. He essentially told us that he wasn't going anywhere until one of us went downstairs. That was the moment when his position became unmistakable. He wasn't simply confused about why we were there. He was deliberately refusing to move because he believed he had the right to stop us from proceeding. He kept insisting that the person downstairs wasn't dangerous. We kept telling him that we had a report involving a knife and possible confinement. He said we were out of control. We told him that he was obstructing us. He said he wasn't obstructing anything. The conversation went in circles, and every time we tried to return to the original purpose of the call, he brought it back to why he believed we shouldn't be there. He wanted us to debate the entire situation in the hallway before we investigated it. We needed to investigate it before we could debate what had actually happened. Those two priorities could not coexist. So I gave him another choice: go inside his apartment or be taken into custody. It wasn't a complicated choice. He still had an opportunity to walk away from the confrontation. He didn't take it.

The hallway became increasingly tense because he kept moving between arguing with us and physically remaining where we needed him not to be. He told us to get our guns out of his hallway. He said there was no reason for us to be there. We explained that he didn't know where we were going or what we were responding to. He kept telling us that we didn't understand. Then, during the exchange, he appeared to make contact with one of the officers and immediately apologized, saying he hadn't meant to do it. That moment mattered because it showed how close the situation was getting to becoming physical. We told him again to get inside his apartment. He argued that there was no reason he couldn't remain in the hallway. We told him that remaining there while refusing our instructions was obstructing the investigation. He still didn't accept it. He warned us that if we used force, there would be a lawsuit. We told him that we didn't want to use force. That distinction was important to me. Nobody benefits when a situation that began as an investigation turns into a physical arrest. But at some point, an officer has to make the decision to stop negotiating if the person refuses every reasonable instruction. He asked where our boss was. He wanted to know who was in charge. He continued telling us we didn't need to be there. We continued telling him to turn around and go inside. He kept saying we were the ones creating the danger because of the weapons we were carrying. Then a sergeant identified himself as Sergeant Chris Ke and tried to take control of the conversation. He told the man that he didn't need him to keep talking. He explained that we were there because of the call and that responding this way was standard procedure for a report like this. The man disagreed. He said the whole thing was stupid. He said he had every right to speak. The sergeant warned him that if he continued, he could be placed in handcuffs for obstruction and potentially face an additional charge if he spit on an officer. The man argued about the language being used, insisting that these were apartments and not rooms and that we needed to treat people differently. The sergeant told him they weren't going to argue about semantics. That was another attempt to bring the situation back to something simple: go inside your apartment while we go downstairs and handle the call. The sergeant even offered to provide his card and whatever information the man wanted afterward. The message was clear: this didn't have to end with an arrest. He could let us do our job, and he could ask questions once the immediate situation was under control. But the man refused. He said he would only go inside when there were no longer five, six, or seven officers in the hallway. He wanted us gone before he would comply. That meant the disagreement had reached a point where neither side was moving. We were there because of a potentially dangerous call. He was standing in our way because he believed our response was unnecessary. And every second he remained there, the possibility of physical confrontation grew.

Then the argument turned physical. The man continued talking about the number of officers in the hallway and the weapons they were carrying. He called us idiots. We told him again that we weren't there to hurt him. We were there because of the call. He said we didn't know the history. We told him that we knew what the call had been and that we had a responsibility to investigate it. He insisted that he knew because he had been inside the office when the call came through. We explained that knowing what happened in one moment didn't necessarily mean he knew the entire history between the people involved. He told us he had lived there. He said that meant he knew what was happening. Then he accused an officer of being responsible for physical contact. At another point, he said he had spit on an officer, but insisted it wasn't intentional. He claimed he had been chewing food and that when he heard the officers knocking, the spit came out. The officers did not accept that explanation as a reason to ignore what had happened. He continued resisting efforts to secure him. He repeatedly said he had surgery on his left arm and warned officers not to stretch his shoulder. He was concerned that the arrest would damage the surgical area. Officers told him to relax and attempted to control his movements without unnecessarily causing injury. He responded that he was not going to relax because he was afraid his surgery would be damaged. At that point, the officers told him that his continued resistance was only adding charges. He insisted that he wasn't resisting. They told him that he was. He kept saying that everything was recorded. They agreed that it was. That became another point of argument. He seemed to believe that because the cameras were recording, the footage would prove his version of events. The officers were equally aware that the same footage would show the repeated warnings, the instructions to go inside, the refusal to comply, and the physical struggle. In a strange way, both sides were relying on the same evidence while expecting it to tell two different stories. He kept demanding that the handcuffs come off. The officers refused. They explained that he had been given plenty of time to comply. He argued that he wasn't obstructing anything. They said he was. He argued that there was nobody else in the hallway. The officers told him that wasn't the point. The point was that police were conducting an investigation connected to a potentially dangerous call, and he had repeatedly refused to get out of the way. Eventually, the struggle was brought under control. He was in handcuffs. The immediate physical confrontation was over, but the argument wasn't. If anything, the arrest gave him a new set of questions. He wanted to know exactly what he was being arrested for. He wanted his identification. He wanted to know why the officers believed he had obstructed them. And most importantly, he wanted someone to accept his explanation that he had only been trying to protect the person downstairs.

Once he was restrained, his explanation became more specific. He said he had not spit on the officer intentionally. He said he had been eating and that he spit when he heard the knocking. He wanted his ID. He wanted to know what charges he was facing. He kept insisting that he had not stopped the officers from doing anything. One officer explained that he had spit on him and that he had simply wiped it off. The officers reminded him that they had given him multiple opportunities to go back into his apartment. He had refused each time. Then came a blunt statement from one of the officers: the thing that could have solved all of this was simply minding his own business. The man immediately responded that his business was making sure the people inside weren't going to become “ashes,” or words to that effect. His argument was that he wasn't interfering for no reason. He believed he was protecting someone from armed officers. That was the central contradiction of the entire encounter. We believed we were responding to a possible violent crime. He believed we were creating the danger ourselves. We believed the person inside might be at risk. He believed the police might hurt that person. We believed he was obstructing a legitimate investigation. He believed he was preventing something terrible from happening. And because each side believed its own interpretation so strongly, every instruction from one side sounded unreasonable to the other. He then asked for a lawyer. We acknowledged that he had that right, but the arrest and transport process continued. He kept asking why. He said he wanted to know what had happened. Eventually he explained more about what he believed had led to the call. He said Cody had been involved in an altercation with someone, apparently referring to an earlier incident involving another person. He talked about a friend. He talked about the property manager. He repeatedly demanded that someone contact the property manager because he believed the officers were not understanding what was happening. But by then, the situation had moved far beyond the original question of whether he knew the people involved. He was already under arrest. The officers had determined that his behavior during the response constituted obstruction, and the alleged spitting and physical resistance were now part of the encounter. He still believed the officers were missing the bigger picture. He wanted them to understand that he had been trying to stop armed officers from entering the building. The officers wanted him to understand that a report involving a knife and possible hostage situation required them to enter and investigate. Neither side was willing to surrender its interpretation. And the longer he argued, the more the officers focused on completing the arrest rather than continuing the debate.

Then the original call came back into the conversation, and for me, that was the most important part of the entire night. The man kept saying there had been no kidnapping. He kept saying the situation was happening downstairs or in another part of the building. He believed that the officers had misunderstood what they were being sent to. But the officers reminded him of what the dispatch information had said: a possible kidnapping or hostage situation involving a knife. That is not the kind of call officers can casually dismiss because someone in the hallway says everything is fine. The entire point of the response is to determine whether the report is accurate. Maybe the original information turns out to be incomplete. Maybe the people involved explain something different. Maybe the person who called was mistaken. But officers don't know that until they investigate. That's why his repeated statement that there was “no kidnapping” didn't solve the problem. He knew what he believed was happening. We had to establish what was actually happening. He wanted his handcuffs removed because he believed he had been protecting someone. The officer refused, explaining that the alleged spitting was one reason he wasn't being released. The man complained about his wrist and said the cuffs were hurting him. He said he had surgery. The officers told him they had already given him plenty of time to comply. He asked for a lawyer again. He said he wanted his rights. He said he didn't understand why he was being arrested. Then the argument became personal. An officer told him he needed to act his age. The man reacted emotionally. He said he wanted a lawyer and didn't want to be thrown away. The officer clarified that he wasn't being thrown away; he was being transported to MDC. That distinction might sound small, but to someone sitting in handcuffs, the difference between “I'm being arrested” and “I'm being thrown away” can feel enormous. He was angry, scared, and convinced that the officers were making a mistake. But the officers had reached the point where the decision had already been made. He was going to jail, and the remaining task was to transport him safely and complete the paperwork. The man continued to criticize the officers for having guns in the hallway. He said there were people in the building who were elderly or vulnerable and that he believed armed officers could hurt them. The officers insisted they had not acted recklessly and had simply knocked on the door as part of their response. Again, the argument returned to the same question: what did the officers' presence mean? To him, danger. To them, necessary procedure. That difference had driven the entire encounter from the moment they arrived.

The trip toward the transport vehicle brought another layer of conflict. The man continued asking for a lawyer. He complained about the handcuffs. He said the officers were hurting his wrist. He wanted his belongings. He was concerned about his identification and insisted that officers could simply ask anyone in the building for his name. The officers explained that they needed his information for the arrest process. He refused to provide his name. That refusal became another issue. He continued saying that the police were treating him unfairly. He accused them of being fascists and said he didn't like cops. Then he claimed that he had once been a police officer himself in Colorado. Whether that claim was accurate or not is not established in the footage, but he used it to explain why he believed he understood police behavior. He said officers were supposed to act differently. The officers didn't engage deeply with that argument. They continued telling him to put his foot inside the transport vehicle. He resisted doing so, saying he needed more air and that he felt confined. Officers repeatedly asked him to put his foot inside and warned that they would use force if necessary. He responded that force had already been used inappropriately. The same pattern repeated: instruction, objection, explanation, refusal, warning. At one point he said he wanted to go to jail so he could speak to a lawyer. But even then, he continued refusing some of the basic instructions necessary to complete the transport. The officers told him they needed his information and identification. He said his ID was in his apartment. They told him that if he wouldn't provide his name, they would have to deal with the identification issue another way. He complained that the officers were making everything more difficult than it needed to be. The officer asked why he was making the process difficult. The man answered with his broader accusation: he believed police were ruining the country by being fascist. He repeated that he didn't like cops. At that point, the discussion wasn't really about the original disturbance call anymore. It was about everything he believed police represented. The knife report, the hallway, the weapons, the handcuffs, his alleged spitting, his surgery, his identification, his request for a lawyer—all of it had merged into one larger confrontation. He wanted the officers to see himself as someone who had intervened to protect another person. The officers were dealing with someone who, in their view, had repeatedly obstructed an active investigation, resisted their efforts to detain him, and allegedly spit on an officer.

Eventually, the transport process continued, but even then he kept trying to explain himself. He said he had been protecting someone across the hall. He said he didn't want the officers to shoot them because, in his view, that was what police did. The officer asked for his name. He refused again, asking why he had to give it. The answer was simple: because he was under arrest and the officers needed to establish his identity. He continued refusing. He also warned officers not to touch his belongings. They instructed him to put his foot inside. He continued requesting a lawyer. The officers repeated their instructions. The entire sequence had become a demonstration of how quickly a person can lose control of a situation while believing he is the only one trying to control it. He had entered the hallway convinced that he knew exactly what was happening. He had told us that the person downstairs wasn't dangerous. He had told us there was no reason for armed officers to be there. He had refused to step aside because he believed doing so would allow something dangerous to happen. In his mind, standing there was an act of protection. But from our perspective, the same actions were preventing us from reaching the people we had been called to check on. Every warning gave him another opportunity to step away. Every warning was another chance for the encounter to end without handcuffs. He didn't take those opportunities. And by the time he was being loaded into the vehicle, he was still arguing about the first decision he had made: refusing to get out of the hallway. The final listed charges were obstruction of an investigation, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and battery on an officer. Those charges reflect the conduct described at the end of the source. The footage itself doesn't provide a later court outcome, so that's where the documented story ends. What happened afterward isn't something I can honestly fill in. But the lesson of the encounter was already visible long before the transport vehicle left. He wasn't arrested simply because he disagreed with the police. He was arrested after a situation involving a potentially dangerous call escalated through repeated refusals to move, continued confrontation, alleged physical contact, alleged spitting, and resistance during the detention. At the same time, his own explanation remained consistent: he believed he was protecting someone. Both parts of that story matter.

Looking back, the detail I remember most isn't the handcuffs, the shouting, or even the accusations about the weapons in the hallway. It's the first instruction. Go back inside. That was the moment when the entire story could still have gone in another direction. We didn't need him to agree with us. We didn't need him to believe the call was legitimate. We didn't need him to trust us. We needed him to step away long enough for us to investigate. He could have gone into his apartment, watched from a distance, asked for our names afterward, requested a supervisor, or raised his concerns once the immediate danger was addressed. Instead, he stayed. He kept arguing. He kept telling us that we didn't understand. And perhaps the strangest part is that he genuinely believed he was doing the responsible thing. He thought he was preventing us from making a mistake. He thought he was protecting someone across the hall. He thought our presence was the danger. That doesn't make the arrest disappear, but it explains why the confrontation felt so emotionally charged. Sometimes the people standing opposite you aren't trying to be villains. Sometimes they are convinced they are the hero of their own version of the story. The problem is that good intentions don't automatically make every action safe or lawful. We had a report involving a knife and a person allegedly being prevented from leaving. He had information that made him believe the report was wrong. We had a responsibility to investigate. He had a choice about whether to interfere with that investigation. The cameras captured the warnings. They captured the arguments. They captured the physical struggle. They captured his explanation about the spit. They captured his concern about his surgically repaired arm. They captured his repeated requests for a lawyer. And they captured the fact that he was given multiple opportunities to simply go inside. In the end, the hallway became the place where two completely different ideas of responsibility collided. He believed responsibility meant standing there and preventing what he feared might happen. We believed responsibility meant entering, investigating the call, and determining whether someone was actually in danger. The arrest happened when his version of responsibility became obstruction of ours. And that's what stayed with me after the scene was over: sometimes the most dangerous moment in a police call isn't when someone pulls a weapon. Sometimes it's the moment when two people become so certain that they are right that neither one is willing to take one step back.