We never got to see the cellphone video the Tulsa school principal shot when she was arrested, but I would imagine it wasnt too different from this, a few weeks ago:
The Rochester Police Department arrested a woman on a charge of obstructing governmental administration after she videotaped several officers' search of a man's car.
The only problem? Videotaping a police officer in public view is perfectly legal in New York state -- and the woman was in her own front yard. The arrest report of the incident also contains an apparent discrepancy from what is seen in the woman's own video.
That video, uploaded to the Internet this week, more than a month after Emily Good's May 12 arrest, begins by showing a black male being questioned by a police officer at about 10 p.m. The red and blue flashes of a police cruiser illuminate the scene on Aldine Street.
Then one of the officers, identified as Mario Masic in the arrest report, turns to the camera and asks, "You guys need something?"
"I'm just -- this is my front yard -- I'm just recording what you're doing. It's my right," Good replies.
"Actually, not from the sidewalk," the officer replies, incorrect about the legality of Good's actions.
"This is my yard," Good says.
"I don't feel safe with you standing behind me so I'm going to ask you go into your house, you understand?" Masic says.
From there, the conversation escalates into a confrontation, with Masic alleging that Good is threatening his safety, and that she expressed other, unspecified anti-police statements before the videotaping began.
"Due to what you said to me, before you started taping, I think, uh, you need to go stay in your house, guys."
Good's public defender, Stephanie Stare, told HuffPost she believes from her conversations with several neighbors who were present that Good made no threatening comments before the tape begins.
Ryan Acuff, a friend of Good's who witnessed the exchange and picked up the video camera after she was arrested, agreed.
"None of us was talking to them until they came to us," Acuff said. "The first contact was definitely on tape."
For more than a minute of the video, the officer and Good argue about whether she is threatening his safety. Finally, it appears, Masic has had enough: "You know what, you're gonna go to jail. That's just not right."
Acuff claimed that he and Good were complying with the policeman's order to return to their porch when she was arrested.
"The real reason they arrested her was because she was videotaping," Acuff said. Both he and Good are activists who have previously protested foreclosures in the area.
Acuff has posted his own account of the arrest on Indymedia. He said he and Good were videotaping the traffic stop out of concern about police misconduct.
The police report of the arrest contains another apparent discrepancy from what appears on the video: Masic writes that the traffic stop targeted three individuals who "were all chalkem south gang members."
"This gang is known for drugs guns and violence," Masic notes, underscoring the danger of the situation.
The video, while dark, appears to only show one man led out of the car. Good's public defender says that as far as she has been able to determine, only one man was pulled over.
The Rochester Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement released to the press, Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard said that while he had "researched" the incident, "With the case still pending and my unfamiliarity with the specific details, any assumptions at this time would be premature."
The police department has launched an internal investigation.
Good is scheduled to appear in court on Monday, where her public defender hopes the case will be dismissed.
If that doesn't happen, Stare said, she was not afraid of bringing Good's case to a jury trial.
"She was well within her rights."
There's a follow up to that story:
"Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon."
"The citizens were attending a meeting to discuss the arrest of Emily Good, the 28-year-old woman who was jailed for videotaping cops from her front yard, when they realized cops were outside issuing tickets for having parked more than 12 inches from the curb."
"The above video shows cops using a little purple ruler to prove their case."
http://www.pixiq.com/article/rochester-cops-resort-to-retalitory-tactics-against-citizens (http://www.pixiq.com/article/rochester-cops-resort-to-retalitory-tactics-against-citizens)
Quote from: patric on June 27, 2011, 12:56:17 AM
We never got to see the cellphone video the Tulsa school principal shot when she was arrested, but I would imagine it wasnt too different from this, a few weeks ago:
I bet it's different
QuoteFrom KTUL
Police say they were forced to arrest the principal of the Hawthorne Elementary and this is not the first time she has been under investigation.
Lynnette Dixon was arrested after police say, she wouldn't calm down on a scene.
"She was very belligerent, yelling loud causing a commotion," said Jason Willingham, of the police department.
Dixon was reportedly at her daughter's home, in Comanche Park Apartments. Police were arresting Charles Boyd, who is the boyfriend, of Dixon's daughter.
Quotefrom TW
Tipler said Dixon showed up at the apartment and was "belligerent" and "upset."
"She accused the officers of going through her daughter's apartment," Tipler said. "She was acting in such a manner that she was loud. When the officers were trying to explain, she would not listen; she kept yelling."
Dixon's daughter was not being accused of any crime, and her grandchildren were safe, Tipler said. No physical altercations or fights occurred when officers were there, she said.
"That's why we're puzzled; she was just so upset," Tipler said. "She gets there and has just lost her cool."
Officers asked Dixon to calm down and to stay back, adding that if she did not comply, she would be arrested, Tipler said.
"She continued to act in that manner," Tipler said. "At that point she was arrested for obstructing."
But none of those press handouts explained why they seized Dixon's cellphone.
Don't shoot photos or video? But it's a public space
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/orl-travel-troubleshooter-2-062111,0,753276.column
"I used to deal with one of these a month," says Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). "Then it was weekly. Now it's almost every day. Citizens are being told that they can't take pictures out in public -- whether it's a building, a bridge or a train."
Why the crackdown on photography? Carlos Miller, a Miami-based multimedia journalist and author of the blog Photography Is Not a Crime, says that law enforcement agencies have felt threatened by photographers since the videotape of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King made the rounds in 1991. It accelerated after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and has spun out of control with the development of social media, location-based technology and cellphones with easy-to-use digital cameras. "Cops feel as if they have to protect themselves," he says.
Osterreicher says that there are only two public areas in the United States where you can't shoot pictures: military bases and nuclear facilities. "The warnings are clearly posted," he says. "Otherwise, if the public is allowed, then so are their rights."
Quote from: Ed W on June 27, 2011, 05:43:46 AM
"Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon."
As with the Dixon case here, the prosecutor couldnt find that a crime had been committed:
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2174896.shtml?cat=565
I normally wouldn't recommend a law review article to my worst enemy, but this is actually a very interesting article on the "War on Photography" and legal remedies.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1857623
I was taking pictures of the national bank of Tulsa building. Had the security guard come over and question me why I was taking pictures. So it isn't just police. He was worried I was taking pictures of people coming in and out of the bank. I assume to determine if they come in at the same time to rob them or something? I have no idea.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 28, 2011, 03:26:24 PM
I was taking pictures of the national bank of Tulsa building. Had the security guard come over and question me why I was taking pictures. So it isn't just police. He was worried I was taking pictures of people coming in and out of the bank. I assume to determine if they come in at the same time to rob them or something? I have no idea.
Well if you were laying on the sidewalk and taking up-skirt photos...
Quote from: Conan71 on June 28, 2011, 04:31:33 PM
Well if you were laying on the sidewalk and taking up-skirt photos...
I think if you announce yourself it's still legal.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 28, 2011, 03:26:24 PM
I was taking pictures of the national bank of Tulsa building. Had the security guard come over and question me why I was taking pictures. So it isn't just police. He was worried I was taking pictures of people coming in and out of the bank. I assume to determine if they come in at the same time to rob them or something? I have no idea.
Now I want to take a camera down there and take photo's. I like bucking authority (or those that think they should be considered authority, or should I say especially?)
Quote from: custosnox on June 28, 2011, 09:19:55 PM
Now I want to take a camera down there and take photo's. I like bucking authority (or those that think they should be considered authority, or should I say especially?)
If you are standing on the public sidewalk or in the public street, you are within your legal rights. If you step upon private property, and they tell you to leave, you must leave or you could be charged with trespassing.
If anyone takes action upon you otherwise, follow the lead:
The Rochester woman whose run in with the law with her iPhone made national headlines, plans to file a lawsuit claiming Rochester police violated her civil rights.
Donald Thompson, attorney for Emily Good, told News 10NBC's Ray Levato Tuesday they may sue the individual police officer involved in her arrest, the Rochester Police Department, "any or all of the above and that's something to be discussed and considered."http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S2176499.shtml?cat=565
"There's no prohibition against video taping police officers in the scope of their employment. In fact, they themselves have dashboard cameras. There are pole cameras all over the city. There's no prohibition to video taping."
"She wasn't impeding anything. He didn't feel unsafe. Watch the video," says Thompson. "The other two officers are seen walking around and addressing the other concern from the traffic stop. These guys are trained in areas where officer safety is an issue. The other officers weren't behaving as if officer safety was an issue. The officer safety exception permits police officers to do things and intrude in ways they otherwise couldn't. So his statements on the video I think are self-serving attempts to justify his behavior. 'I don't feel safe, so I'm going to intrude into your yard. I'm going to take you into custody. I'm going to take you downtown because I don't feel safe.' There's some exception for his conduct. Nonsense."
Quote from: Ed W on June 27, 2011, 05:43:46 AM
There's a follow up to that story:
"Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon."
And yet another follow-up, her home was broken into and the iPhone she used to make the recording was taken.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110628/NEWS01/106280327/Break-in-at-Emily-Good-s-home-an-oddity?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|NEWS
Can anyone point me toward Oklahoma's laws regarding privacy, photography, and taping? I looked through the OSCN search function last night, but didn't find much.
Quote from: Ed W on June 29, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
Can anyone point me toward Oklahoma's laws regarding privacy, photography, and taping? I looked through the OSCN search function last night, but didn't find much.
Here's a statute pertaining to taping/recording of conversations.
QuoteIt is not unlawful pursuant to the Security of Communications Act for:
1. an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire, oral or electronic communication to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication. Said communication common carriers shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks; or
2. an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier or other person authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to a law enforcement officer who is authorized to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication; or
3. an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, [FN1] to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information obtained; or
4. a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; or
5. a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal act; or
6. a communication common carrier or an officer, agent, or employee thereof, or a person under contract with a communication common carrier, in the normal course of the business of the communication common carrier bidding upon contracts with or in the course of doing business with the United States, a state, or a political subdivision thereof, in the normal course of the activities of said entities, to send through the mail, send or carry in interstate or foreign commerce, manufacture, assemble, possess, or sell any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders the device primarily useful for the purpose of the illegal interception of wire, oral or electronic communications; or
7. an officer or employee of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to monitor any wire, oral or electronic communication where an incarcerated inmate is a party to that communication, if the inmate is given prior and conspicuous notice of the surveillance or monitoring.
13 O.S. § 176.4[
Emphasis added]. 13 O.S. § 176.2(9) prescribes: "'Intercept'" means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device"
Quote from: Ed W on June 29, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
Can anyone point me toward Oklahoma's laws regarding privacy, photography, and taping? I looked through the OSCN search function last night, but didn't find much.
When I first started shooting with the DSLR (D40), I was trying to make sure I was remaining within the confines of the law. I started reading
this guys' articles (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm) at USA Today. Very helpful indeed for such questions (as it relates to photography; I'll let the lawyers answer regarding recording of phone conversations and open conversations.
During a brief foray into journalism, I asked an attorney about audio tape, telephones, and public encounters. He said that in Oklahoma, there's no obligation to inform the other party that he may be recorded. That requirement varies by state. Some require consent before taping is legal. Dunno how that works if a phone call crosses a state line.
Note too, that some cops charge videographers with bogus wire tap charges.
Quote from: guido911 on June 29, 2011, 08:23:32 PM
Here's a statute pertaining to taping/recording of conversations.
13 O.S. § 176.4[Emphasis added]. 13 O.S. § 176.2(9) prescribes: "'Intercept'" means the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device"
That's pretty much an eavesdropping or wiretapping statute, and wouldnt dovetail into a situation where you are photographing on your own (or public) property.
Back in Rochester, it's not helping the cop's position that they lied on the police report
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/assets/pdf/A2176229629.PDF
by saying the traffic stop involved three known gang members when there was only one person stopped.
The footage clearly shows one of three police officers turning his back on a handcuffed suspect to walk onto Good's property and accuse her of compromising his safety. The video also reveals only a driver and no passengers in the detained car, but the Rochester police report states that three members of the "Chalkem South" gang, known for "drug sales, guns and violence," were pulled over. http://www.takepart.com/news/2011/06/29/5-things-you-need-to-know-cameras-and-cops
It was interesting that they have a special, pre-printed form just for "Obstructing Governmental Administration" as if they anticipate using that charge a lot.
Quote from: patric on June 30, 2011, 10:27:32 AM
That's pretty much an eavesdropping or wiretapping statute, and wouldnt dovetail into a situation where you are photographing on your own (or public) property.
I was responding to a general request for information. Got it?
Quote from: Hoss on June 29, 2011, 08:36:10 PM
When I first started shooting with the DSLR (D40), I was trying to make sure I was remaining within the confines of the law. I started reading this guys' articles (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm) at USA Today. Very helpful indeed for such questions (as it relates to photography; I'll let the lawyers answer regarding recording of phone conversations and open conversations.
I've found this useful:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Something you should carry in a camera bag, and it's from a real genuine attorney!
Nikon D40, good low-light camera.
If she does not beat that rap she'll have a criminal record that will follow her..
Quote from: patric on June 30, 2011, 02:05:10 PM
I've found this useful:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Something you should carry in a camera bag, and it's from a real genuine attorney!
Nikon D40, good low-light camera.
I heard about that card but the laws change in every state & city. What may be ok in one state is a serious crime in another.
Quote from: sauerkraut on June 30, 2011, 05:14:07 PM
I heard about that card but the laws change in every state & city. What may be ok in one state is a serious crime in another.
OK, Towny...my turn with the facepalm or should you?
Quote from: sauerkraut on June 30, 2011, 05:14:07 PM
I heard about that card but the laws change in every state & city. What may be ok in one state is a serious crime in another.
Your actually one of those people that just post stupid stuff on forums just to get reactions out of people, aren't you?
Quote from: custosnox on June 30, 2011, 06:47:41 PM
Your actually one of those people that just post stupid stuff on forums just to get reactions out of people, aren't you?
What is incorrect or stupid about that? Every state and city has it's own laws when it comes to recording either video or wire tapping. In one state you can record phone calls on the sly in another state you may not, the other person has to be informed. A one size fits all "photo card" won't protect you. In many cases if you film in public you need to the persons permission if you can make that out, but there are exemptions.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 01, 2011, 04:01:45 PM
What is incorrect or stupid about that? Every state and city has it's own laws when it comes to recording either video or wire tapping. In one state you can record phone calls on the sly in another state you may not, the other person has to be informed. A one size fits all "photo card" won't protect you. In many cases if you film in public you need to the persons permission if you can make that out, but there are exemptions.
WINNING! You just proved his point.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 01, 2011, 04:01:45 PM
What is incorrect or stupid about that? Every state and city has it's own laws when it comes to recording either video or wire tapping. In one state you can record phone calls on the sly in another state you may not, the other person has to be informed. A one size fits all "photo card" won't protect you. In many cases if you film in public you need to the persons permission if you can make that out, but there are exemptions.
Try again. First off, the laws on "wire tapping" and so forth comes down to admissability as evidence, or invasion of privacy. remember, what applies to the government is not always the same as what applies to an individual. In public places you have no expectation of privacy, and this info sheet is based on that idea. If you really think that if you have to have permission to photo someone in a public place, than perhaps you should try convincing the paparazzi of that.
If it's not news, you have to have permission to use a person's likeness for financial gain. A person cannot (legally) stop you from taking their picture and decorating your house with it or whatever, though. That's not to say that plenty of folks won't happily sign a model release if you look like a pro, though. ;)
The simpler route:
Your first and fourth amendment rights dont vary from state to state or city to city.
The night the prosecutor determined the charge was bogus, police arrested another man who was videotaping an arrest for jaywalking.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2011/07/16/candiotti.ny.eyewitness.cnn?iref=allsearch
The irony: Police say they caught him jaywalking on video.
Quote from: patric on July 01, 2011, 09:12:59 PM
The simpler route:
Your first and fourth amendment rights dont vary from state to state or city to city.
Yes but recording someone without their permission does change from state to state, as does wire-tapping and recording phone calls. It's not all that simple. our laws are made by lawyers.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 20, 2011, 01:48:09 PM
Yes but recording someone without their permission does change from state to state, as does wire-tapping and recording phone calls. It's not all that simple. our laws are made by lawyers.
??? ???
Quote from: Hoss on July 20, 2011, 01:49:39 PM
??? ???
No no...don't stop to think on it.
I'm pretty sure, with similarity in postings, he and Guido are the same people.
Hoss, walk a way and don't think about it.
Quote from: Townsend on July 20, 2011, 01:58:22 PM
No no...don't stop to think on it.
I'm pretty sure, with similarity in postings, he and Guido are the same people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked, laws were made by legislators. Whether or not they were lawyers by profession is immaterial.
I guess Missouri River water makes you go mad.
Another incident down the road...
http://www.pixiq.com/article/nypd-handcuff-videographer-in-times-square-for-recording-arrest
New York City police officers handcuffed a videographer after he refused to show them identification early Saturday morning.
Felix Maurent, who was wearing a National Press Photographers Association badge around his neck, was videotaping an arrest.
His video shows an NYPD officer ordering him to leave the area, accusing him of obstructing foot traffic, even though it was obvious he wasn't obstructing anything.
The officer then demanded his identification, but Maurent stated he was under no legal obligation to do so. And he was right.
The cop walks away and the video ends.
A minute later – after Maurent had turned off his camera – the officers stormed up and handcuffed him because he had not shown them identification.
Another man with a video camera captured a clip of Maurent with handcuffs. Maurent can be heard complaining of an unlawful arrest with a camera and NPPA press badge around his neck.
It happens all over, but New York seems to be on a tear...
News photographer arrested on Long Island for videotaping police
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/romenesko/141291/news-photographer-arrested-on-long-island-for-videotaping-police/
A freelance news photographer was arrested Friday and charged with obstruction after he was ordered to stop videotaping police. An officer told the photographer, Phil Datz, to "go away," after which he moved down the street and resumed taping. Despite being a credentialed member of the press and standing in a public area around other people, he was arrested and charged with obstruction of governmental administration. The National Press Photographers Association, sent a letter to the Suffolk County Police Department protesting Datz' arrest and asking them to drop the charge:
According to news reports Mr. Datz complied with your officer's unreasonable request to move away from the scene while the general public was allowed access. In the video – uploaded to YouTube — your officer acts in an angry and unprofessional manner and appears to have no concept of the first amendment rights granted to the press under the United States and New York Constitutions. Although Mr. Datz contacted your PIO officer your department was unable to do anything to rectify the situation.
...While in some situations the press may have no greater rights than those of the general public, they certainly have no less right of access on a public street, especially where a crime scene perimeter has not been clearly established.Good Cops Have Nothing To Fear From Cameras
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-pitts-cameras-0807-20110805,0,1649802.story
'Police officers who enforce the law, while respecting the rights of the press and the public, have nothing to be concerned about. Videos of people doing their jobs well aren't in big demand on YouTube.'
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/aug/02/the-right-to-photograph-why-police-cant-call-the/
Quote from: Ed W on June 29, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
Can anyone point me toward Oklahoma's laws regarding privacy, photography, and taping? I looked through the OSCN search function last night, but didn't find much.
Here's Federal law on the subject; since it's guaranteeing rights it would trump more restrictive state or local laws that infringe upon those protected rights:
Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000aa, whereby "it is unlawful for a sworn officer or employee, in connection with an investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize the work product of a media photographer/videographer, unless: there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a human being; or there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate." The policy also puts in place the right to sue department employees who violates the policy, noting that "sworn officers and employees may be held personally liable in an action for civil damages for violation of federal statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000aa-6." and "a search or seizure of the work product is prohibited when the offense is merely the withholding of such material."
Under the federal statute, "notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a).
Accordingly, the law authorizes civil actions by aggrieved persons for violations of the Act and provides for the recovery of "actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000, and such reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred as the court, in its discretion, may award."
Two things in this law. 1 - It was written in 1980 and what people have now technology wise wasn't even thought of when the law was written, and 2 - It is designed to protect media photographers (at the time this would have been still, film and video) but the underlying point is it was to protect credentialed media employees.
Today, I can see, to an extent why the police would not want, or would confiscate any video recordings and detain those shooting the video as, they may be involved in some form with what ever may be happening. This law does not protect the average citizen (non media employee) from shooting video at any police scene.
It does sound like there should be a revision of the law, but it does not give free license to anyone to film anything.
When I was in high school back in the late 70's, I was a yearbook and newspaper photographer, and I was thinking of exploring a photo journalism degree and from time to time came across accident scenes and fires and would take pictures to help hone my skills as a photographer. Usually as long as I stayed out of the way, no one would say anything, but there were a few times I was asked if I was employed by the World or Tribune, and if I said yes I was asked for some ID, and if I said no I was asked to leave the area and that was all. Now, everyone wants to take what ever device and walk into things they shouldn't just for a chance to be some type of on the spot person for who ever will take the footage and put it on the air, and credit them with shooting the video.
Quote from: dbacks fan on August 10, 2011, 11:27:22 PM
Two things in this law. 1 - It was written in 1980 and what people have now technology wise wasn't even thought of when the law was written, and 2 - It is designed to protect media photographers (at the time this would have been still, film and video) but the underlying point is it was to protect credentialed media employees.
Today, I can see, to an extent why the police would not want, or would confiscate any video recordings and detain those shooting the video as, they may be involved in some form with what ever may be happening. This law does not protect the average citizen (non media employee) from shooting video at any police scene.
It does sound like there should be a revision of the law, but it does not give free license to anyone to film anything.
When I was in high school back in the late 70's, I was a yearbook and newspaper photographer, and I was thinking of exploring a photo journalism degree and from time to time came across accident scenes and fires and would take pictures to help hone my skills as a photographer. Usually as long as I stayed out of the way, no one would say anything, but there were a few times I was asked if I was employed by the World or Tribune, and if I said yes I was asked for some ID, and if I said no I was asked to leave the area and that was all. Now, everyone wants to take what ever device and walk into things they shouldn't just for a chance to be some type of on the spot person for who ever will take the footage and put it on the air, and credit them with shooting the video.
I keep a copy of this in my camera bag. The two times I've been harassed, I produced this and was immediately left alone.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
BTW, the person who drafted it? An attorney.
Quote from: Hoss on August 10, 2011, 11:29:09 PM
I keep a copy of this in my camera bag. The two times I've been harassed, I produced this and was immediately left alone.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
BTW, the person who drafted it? An attorney.
I think you and someone else has posted this before, and the thing is, if you read it, it's pretty much common sense (imagine that) and if it's marked, "NO PHOTOGRAPHY PERMITTED" you know that you can't take pictures. The most stringent that I have been exposed to(partial pun) was at Kartchner Caverns in Arizona, and you had to leave any video or recording device outside of the cavern. Period.
But as I said it's common sense, and all of us know that somewhere some LEO will take it to the extreme, and on the flip side some one with a camera will take it where they shouldn't and you have things like this.
Will someone help me get started in teaching a class in common sense?
Just because someone puts up a sign that says "no photography permitted" doesn't mean you can't take a picture of it, unless it's a military installation. As long as you're not trespassing, you can do pretty much whatever you want, so long as it can't be construed as stalking or some other "perv" crime.
Quote from: nathanm on August 11, 2011, 12:24:34 AM
Just because someone puts up a sign that says "no photography permitted" doesn't mean you can't take a picture of it, unless it's a military installation. As long as you're not trespassing, you can do pretty much whatever you want, so long as it can't be construed as stalking or some other "perv" crime.
And most 'commonsensical' people will know the difference.
The reason I say this is that one of the incidents that happened to me happened at the south observation pad at TIA. I was using my new long tele lens to photograph planes landing and taking off. TIA Airport Police came by and told me I couldn't. I asked them to cite me the specific code or ordinance stating I couldn't. They spouted off 'things are different since 9-11'. I called them on it. When I produced that, they asked me for my ID, which I complied with. They left.
Quote from: Hoss on August 11, 2011, 12:27:22 AM
And most 'commonsensical' people will know the difference.
I didn't say you wouldn't be harassed by some person who thought that you were taking a picture of their special little snowflake (whether that special little snowflake is their kid or their federal building or their cop shop or their factory), just that they can't legally stop you. :P
Quote from: nathanm on August 11, 2011, 12:30:08 AM
I didn't say you wouldn't be harassed by some person who thought that you were taking a picture of their special little snowflake (whether that special little snowflake is their kid or their federal building or their cop shop or their factory), just that they can't legally stop you. :P
If you are on their property then anyone is within their rights to ask you to stop photographing. If they put up a sign that plainly states 'no photography', then common sense dictates you should be courteous and comply with that. Not everyone does.
Now, trying to photograph somewhere at Groom Lake in Nevada where this...
(http://www.camprocky.com/images/area51/warningsigns.jpg)
...is posted, is a different story altogether.
The other things that I have noticed in most of these videos, they are shot by freelancers who may not be associated with a network or an affiliate of a network, and while they are performing a job, on first sight an officer is not going to recognize the fact that they are a credentialed freelancer. The other thing is you have people like the guy in LA that rents or owns a helicopter and is always out looking for any police chase or situation to cover, and some of these videographers try to act like they are filming an episode of COPS and try to push teir way into what is going on. I hope that most of the TV stations around the country took a hard lesson from the collision of two news helicopters in Phoenix a few years ago. The stations came two an agreement to use one or at the most two helicopters for police situations and use whichever one as a pool camera, instead of four news copters and two police copters following the same thing. IIRC there were also some rules laid down by the FAA regarding that.
But BOT there are too many people being freelancers trying to make a buck, and I'm not referring to paparazzi chasing celebs.
Quote from: dbacks fan on August 11, 2011, 12:49:42 AM
The other things that I have noticed in most of these videos, they are shot by freelancers who may not be associated with a network or an affiliate of a network, and while they are performing a job, on first sight an officer is not going to recognize the fact that they are a credentialed freelancer. The other thing is you have people like the guy in LA that rents or owns a helicopter and is always out looking for any police chase or situation to cover, and some of these videographers try to act like they are filming an episode of COPS and try to push teir way into what is going on. I hope that most of the TV stations around the country took a hard lesson from the collision of two news helicopters in Phoenix a few years ago. The stations came two an agreement to use one or at the most two helicopters for police situations and use whichever one as a pool camera, instead of four news copters and two police copters following the same thing. IIRC there were also some rules laid down by the FAA regarding that.
But BOT there are too many people being freelancers trying to make a buck, and I'm not referring to paparazzi chasing celebs.
Those kind of people need some restrictions. What I'm specifically referring to is regular Joe Schmoe camera hobbyist (me) out to take a few photos. Then a rent-a-cop (no offense intended to those in the security industry) tries to tell you what you can and can not photograph? Sorry, that ain't gonna fly with me.
Quote from: Hoss on August 11, 2011, 12:52:19 AM
Those kind of people need some restrictions. What I'm specifically referring to is regular Joe Schmoe camera hobbyist (me) out to take a few photos. Then a rent-a-cop (no offense intended to those in the security industry) tries to tell you what you can and can not photograph? Sorry, that ain't gonna fly with me.
I completely agree. The two things I like to shoot are landscape, and what I think is called "still life" looking for shots of day in and day out stuff, street scenes, people moving throughout the day in their lives, looking for that shot that captures a moment in time, but I like to think that I know the boundries, and I don't intrude into a personal situation, but shooting pic's of a guy fishing on the beach, or people in a public market going about their business, I never get confronted about. The only time in the last 15 years that I have been asked not to shoot was at art festivals, and it was usually because I was wanting to take a picture of someones artwork and was politely asked by the artist or people at the festival to not specifically photograph the work. As I said it comes down to common sense by the person taking pictures or video, and god forbid the common sense of a security person (does that exist?) to know where the boundries are.
Quote from: dbacks fan on August 11, 2011, 12:49:42 AM
there are too many people being freelancers trying to make a buck, and I'm not referring to paparazzi chasing celebs.
Most of the cases cited involved situations where the "crime scene" materialized in front of someone who had a camera, and the police over-reacted. The teacher in OKC who was assaulted by OHP and OCPD when a car chase ended in front of him and he unknowingly photographed some brutality, or the NY lady on her lawn in her bathrobe arrested for recording police in front of her house, for instance.
Then there's the guy with his press credentials hanging around his neck, or with a big honkin broadcast video camera wearing station logos being singled out, thrown to the ground and cuffed by police who ignored other bystanders who dont have cameras.
That they might someday encounter some wannabe storm-chaser that doesnt understand crime scene etiquette does not justify painting everyone with a camera with a broad brush.
A police officer fired for beating a suspect wants to charge a woman who videotaped the beating, saying his rights were violated.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/criminally_charging_videograph.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/11/police-officer-seeks-criminal-charges-against-woman-who-videotaped-police-beating/
And a Congressman wants his public Town Hall Meeting comments to be secret orders police to confiscate cameras:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/24/Video-cameras-confiscated-at-town-hall/UPI-46281314241497/#ixzz1W3ygwoJo
NM State Police Officer caught doing a little auto "body work" on a security camera:
http://santafe.kob.com/news/news/91795-property-camera-catches-state-police-officer-sex-act
Quote from: patric on September 01, 2011, 11:23:27 AM
A police officer fired for beating a suspect wants to charge a woman who videotaped the beating, saying his rights were violated.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/criminally_charging_videograph.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/11/police-officer-seeks-criminal-charges-against-woman-who-videotaped-police-beating/
And a Congressman wants his public Town Hall Meeting comments to be secret orders police to confiscate cameras:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/24/Video-cameras-confiscated-at-town-hall/UPI-46281314241497/#ixzz1W3ygwoJo
This was my favorite comment from the first article:
QuoteTalbert Swan said police departments nationwide use video with audio to capture their interactions with the public. "There are television shows based on it," he said, adding that any police department that is properly doing its job should "have no concern whether the public is holding a video camera or not."
Here's an interesting one. Woman buys stolen laptop for fifty bucks, then uses it to send explicit emails to her new boy friend, including sexually explicit images. The laptop was equipped with Lojack software that allowed the company to locate the device and record the communications. She was charged with receiving stolen goods, but the charge was dropped later. She believes her privacy was violated and wants wiretapping charges brought against Absolute (the maker of Lojack software), as well as Absolute's theft recovery officer and the local police.
I guess the argument is that the original owner has a right to recover his property, but he doesn't have the right to invade her privacy and break federal wiretapping laws while doing so. The judge is allowing the case to proceed.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/231600626 (http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/231600626)
Quote from: Ed W on September 01, 2011, 06:05:28 PM
Here's an interesting one. Woman buys stolen laptop for fifty bucks, then uses it to send explicit emails to her new boy friend, including sexually explicit images. The laptop was equipped with Lojack software that allowed the company to locate the device and record the communications. She was charged with receiving stolen goods, but the charge was dropped later. She believes her privacy was violated and wants wiretapping charges brought against Absolute (the maker of Lojack software), as well as Absolute's theft recovery officer and the local police.
I guess the argument is that the original owner has a right to recover his property, but he doesn't have the right to invade her privacy and break federal wiretapping laws while doing so. The judge is allowing the case to proceed.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/231600626 (http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/231600626)
It seems to me that if some nitwit steals something and they have no knowledge of what said stollen item's capabilties or functions are, they can't sue for said object performing it's functions.
a) steal some harmful substance of no value... get sick, cancer, or whatever, sue, profit
b) steal some sort of tracking device, get tracked, profit.
c) steal copper wire from electrical sub station, get electrocuted, profit
d) steal some sort of picture taking device... that takes a picture of the police arresting you... you're screwed
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2011, 11:49:57 AM
NM State Police Officer caught doing a little auto "body work" on a security camera:
http://santafe.kob.com/news/news/91795-property-camera-catches-state-police-officer-sex-act
My God, :o they made the dog watch..... ;)
http://ditcradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/cop-caught-having-sex.jpg
Quote from: Ed W on September 01, 2011, 06:05:28 PM
Here's an interesting one. Woman buys stolen laptop for fifty bucks, then uses it to send explicit emails to her new boy friend, including sexually explicit images. The laptop was equipped with Lojack software that allowed the company to locate the device and record the communications. She was charged with receiving stolen goods, but the charge was dropped later. She believes her privacy was violated and wants wiretapping charges brought against Absolute (the maker of Lojack software), as well as Absolute's theft recovery officer and the local police.
I guess the argument is that the original owner has a right to recover his property, but he doesn't have the right to invade her privacy and break federal wiretapping laws while doing so. The judge is allowing the case to proceed.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/231600626 (http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/231600626)
Good for the judge. Perhaps he wants such crazy logic exposed and ruled upon. Or maybe he is just bored and wants some press.
Oregon's law is a little convoluded on issues like this.
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_ff21e8e5-16a8-5dab-a447-c55fc945daf3.html?mode=story (http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_ff21e8e5-16a8-5dab-a447-c55fc945daf3.html?mode=story)
Quote from: patric on September 07, 2011, 12:23:13 PM
My God, :o they made the dog watch.....
http://ditcradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/cop-caught-having-sex.jpg
Dog or meerkat? Maybe he was waiting his turn?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 07, 2011, 01:39:30 PM
Dog or meerkat? Maybe he was waiting his turn?
Or getting lessons. ;)
Police arrest people who photographed officers beating a homeless man to death:
and one video that slipped past them:
http://www.pixiq.com/article/at-least-one-fullerton-cop-charged-with-murder
http://www.pixiq.com/article/power-of-social-media
Same department one year before:
The embattled Fullerton Police Department acknowledged Wednesday that police arrested the wrong man for allegedly attacking an officer last year. Fullerton's acting chief, Kevin Hamilton, ordered an internal affairs investigation after reviewing video of the incident shot with the cellphone of the arrested man, Veth Mam. The video shows a different version of events than police described in their reports and testimony.
"It contradicted the police reports and testimony of the officers in every way," he said. "The video proved what they said wasn't true."
Mam, 35, of El Monte said he was walking to his car after 2 a.m. when he saw a friend, Sokha Leng, being arrested by Fullerton police. Mam said he believed the police were mistreating Leng, so he pulled out his cellphone and began to record with its video camera.
On the video, a police officer identified as Kenton Hampton is seen knocking the cellphone camera out of Mam's hand. Another man then picked up the cellphone and continued recording. Mam can been seen being wrestled to the ground by officers and arrested.
In police reports about the incident, Officer Frank Nguyen alleged that Mam jumped on another officer's back and choked him. Nguyen wrote that he then pulled Mam off the officer's back and pushed him away. The officer claimed that Mam continued to approach the officers, who arrested him.
NSFW: http://youtu.be/PiNOjG-xlPw
Seems to be a nationwide trend. Is some national police association advising officers if they want their word to be golden then they need to eliminate any other evidence?
Arrested For 'Resisting' Milwaukee Police After Filming At Fire Scene (VIDEO)
A veteran photographer was taken away in handcuffs shortly after filming footage of a Milwaukee house fire behind police tape.
Clint Fillinger, 68, was cited for "resisting and obstructing an officer," according to a report by Milwaukee's Fox 6, the station for which Fillinger was filming.
Fillinger told reporters he was approached by an officer, who told him to move back from the scene for his own safety.
In the video footage, the photographer can be heard defending his rights by saying, "If the public is out here, I'm allowed to be out here," TV Spy points out.
He said he put up his hand to slow down the officer, when he was knocked to the ground.
The event is stirring up some controversy among officials at media organizations, who are highlighting the photographer's right to access under the first amendment.
The National Photographers Press Association wrote a complaint letter to the police department, stating "Sgt. Thomas Heinz pretextually stated he has [sic] moving Mr. Fillinger "for his own safety" yet did not see fit to move any other persons back or to move the previously established police/fire lines.'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/photojournalist-arrested-filming-behind-tape-fire_n_974207.html
'As the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit underscored in the past month, "gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest." Mr. Fillinger was doing nothing more than his job, on a public street, behind police and fire lines, within his rights and within reason.' http://www.rtdna.org/pages/posts/rtdna-calls-for-dropped-charges-immediate-investigation-of-photojournalists-arrest-in-milwaukee1450.php
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=12164
A Milwaukee Fox news station and a number of journalism organizations are demanding today that all charges be dropped against a veteran photojournalist whose First Amendment rights they say were violated when police arrested him while filming a house fire outside of the police perimeter.
Clint Fillinger, a photojournalist with Fox6 Now for 45 years, was arrested for resisting and obstructing police on Sunday. The 68-year-old, who sustained some minor injuries when he fell to the ground during his arrest, is expected to return to work by the end of the week.
Late Sunday, a police sergeant ordered Fillinger to "back up" about 10 minutes into filming a house fire, according to Fox6. Fillinger was the only person -- despite a number bystanders watching -- who police asked to move. In the footage, it's clear that Fillinger is filming several feet outside of the police tape.
"But the public is out here," Fillinger can be heard saying to police in the raw footage taken from his camera. "If the public is out here, I'm allowed to be out here."
The right to film police in the performance of their public duties in a public space is a "basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment," a federal appellate court ruled just last month in the case of three Boston police officers who arrested a man filming them with his cell phone.
Flynn told Fox that he will treat the incident like a citizen's complaint against a police officer and look into it, but in an interview today it was clear that he thought Fillinger was at fault. "If the cameraman had simply complied with the instructions to back off from a working fire, none of this hullabaloo would be taking place," Flynn told Fox6 News today.
In the video, a police sergeant can be seen walking in front of Fillinger and ordering him to back up. The photojournalist does not stop filming and is walking backwards while asking why he must move and also asserting is that he has a right to be there.
Another sergeant tells Fillinger that it's for the privacy of residents of the burning home, but the sergeant in question corrects her and tells Fillinger that it's for his own safety. Fillinger says, "don't tell me that smile."
A few seconds later, Fillinger can be heard saying, "Hey, I'm walking backwards here." The sergeant says, "don't put your hands on me," then Fillinger and the camera fall to the ground. In the footage from the fallen camera, the photojournalist is seen in handcuffs and led to a police vehicle by the sergeant.
Fillinger maintains that he put his hand up to balance himself, according to Jim Lemon, the station's news director.
"How could (Chief Flynn) not see how it escalated? I don't understand," Lemon said. "We were following his directives. We were backing up from the scene. The reason this happened was that there was some incidental touch . . . and that sergeant elected to take a 68-year-old man to the ground and handcuffed him."
Fillinger, who sought medical attention the next day, had some bruising and swelling around his knee, according to Lemon. The station's high-definition camera --- worth $10,000 --- was damaged.
Mickey H. Osterreicher, counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, Inc., has sent two letters to Chief Flynn since the photojournalist's arrest.
"I agree with you that this entire incident should not have happened but assert that the blame lies with your officers' lack of adequate training and their failure to exercise proper discretion," Osterreicher wrote in response to Flynn's statement that Fillinger was at fault. "We would hope that common sense will ultimately prevail and once again respectfully request that the Milwaukee Police Department immediately drop all charges, fully investigate the incident, discipline the officers if necessary and most importantly adopt comprehensive guidelines by which to properly train its officers."
Osterreicher noted that there have been a number of similar cases recently.
In late July, for example, the Suffolk County police on Long Island, New York, arrested freelance photojournalist Phil Datz and charged him with obstruction of governmental administration after he filmed officers on the side of the road arresting suspects who had allegedly led officers on a police chase in Bohemia. The department later dropped the charges.
As recently as a few weeks ago, also in Suffolk County, an emergency medical services official was caught on tape attempting to wrestle a camera away from a freelance videographer. A police officer intervened between the two men and returned the camera to the videographer, but escorted him away.
And on Memorial Day, Miami Beach police allegedly confiscated video-recording equipment from at least one member of the public and a TV photojournalist after both witnessed officers fatally shoot a suspect on a public street.
This MUST stop: people, arrested for videotaping the actions of police officers in public places. With the latest appeals court ruling, the tide may be turning. This is all about "We The People" having the freedom to hold "public servants" accountable. It's a right worth fighting for.
http://www.fox23.com/content/rant/story/FOX-RANT-The-Peoples-Right-To-Know/5Au4XkcRZk23egO6zjYUhQ.cspx
A while back Tulsa police threatened to arrest one of their photographers if they didnt immediately surrender their video, so they too have a dog in this race.
From an ACLU press release:
Appeals Court unanimously affirms right to videotape police
Simon Glik broke no law when he used his cell phone to record police officers' use of force against another man on Boston Common.
...
BOSTON -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously late Friday that Simon Glik had a right to videotape police in action on Boston Common. Mr. Glik sued three police officers and the City of Boston for violating his civil rights after police arrested him and charged him with illegal wiretapping, aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace--all for merely holding up his cell phone and openly recording Boston police officers who were punching another man on Boston Common in October 2007. As a defense, the police argued the law was not clear, but the Court decisively rejected their claim of immunity from being sued.
"This is a resounding victory for the First Amendment right to openly record police officers carrying out their duties in a public place," said Sarah Wunsch, ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney. "It will be influential around the country in other cases where people have been arrested for videotaping the conduct of the police," said Wunsch.
..."This case is significant not only for members of the public who use cell phone cameras to document police conduct. It is equally important for members of the media, since reporters and the public have the same right of access to information," said attorney Milton. The court noted that changes in technology have made it hard to draw a line between a private citizen and a journalist. This ruling applies to recording of all public officials. The Court noted the particular importance of recording police officers because they have "substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties."
(emphasis added)
http://aclum.org/news_release_8.29.11 (http://aclum.org/news_release_8.29.11)
Quote from: Ed W on September 25, 2011, 09:36:38 AM
From an ACLU press release:
Appeals Court unanimously affirms right to videotape police
Simon Glik broke no law when he used his cell phone to record police officers' use of force against another man on Boston Common.
...
BOSTON -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously late Friday that Simon Glik had a right to videotape police in action on Boston Common. Mr. Glik sued three police officers and the City of Boston for violating his civil rights after police arrested him and charged him with illegal wiretapping, aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace--all for merely holding up his cell phone and openly recording Boston police officers who were punching another man on Boston Common in October 2007. As a defense, the police argued the law was not clear, but the Court decisively rejected their claim of immunity from being sued.
"This is a resounding victory for the First Amendment right to openly record police officers carrying out their duties in a public place," said Sarah Wunsch, ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney. "It will be influential around the country in other cases where people have been arrested for videotaping the conduct of the police," said Wunsch.
..."This case is significant not only for members of the public who use cell phone cameras to document police conduct. It is equally important for members of the media, since reporters and the public have the same right of access to information," said attorney Milton. The court noted that changes in technology have made it hard to draw a line between a private citizen and a journalist. This ruling applies to recording of all public officials. The Court noted the particular importance of recording police officers because they have "substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties."
Abuses have continued with regularity since this ruling.
Despite the affirmation of the civil rights we've had all along, it only sounds like "wiretapping" is no longer the default pretext for harassing citizens using their cameras.
In the recent Milwaukee case the charge was resisting arrest and APO after the officer decided to knock the photographer down.
In one Tulsa case the photographer was arrested for "delay officer – distraction" because the officer felt he had to go out of his way and stop what he was doing to take the cellphone camera away from the citizen (much like the Rochester case http://www.pixiq.com/article/rochester-police-arrest-woman-for-videotaping-them ).
In an Oklahoma City case the photographer was assaulted by OHP and OCPD because he did not obey an unlawful order to delete his photographs.
http://www.news9.com/story/8619179/witness-authorities-harassing-confiscated-pictures?
Quote from: patric on September 25, 2011, 11:13:11 AM
In an Oklahoma City case the photographer was assaulted by OHP and OCPD because he did not obey an unlawful order to delete his photographs.
http://www.news9.com/story/8619179/witness-authorities-harassing-confiscated-pictures?
Unless they've been overwritten by subsequent data, deleted photos can be recovered.
http://www.z-a-recovery.com/ (http://www.z-a-recovery.com/)
I've used this to recover photos when I've inadvertently 'erased' the files.
Quote from: Ed W on September 25, 2011, 12:30:56 PM
Unless they've been overwritten by subsequent data, deleted photos can be recovered.
http://www.z-a-recovery.com/ (http://www.z-a-recovery.com/)
I've used this to recover photos when I've inadvertently 'erased' the files.
The OKC photographer did that, and found no incriminating evidence that the OHP and OKCPD felt they had to destroy.
...but this isnt so much a technology problem as it is a mindset right out of the Soviet Union.
Cellphone video leads to murder charges against police
CA, United States (AHN) – Fullerton police officer Manuel Ramos, 37, charged in the fatal beating of an unarmed, mentally ill man, has been freed after posting bond.
Kelly Thomas, a 37-year-old drifter with schizophrenia, died last month after being beaten by several officers in the parking lot of the Fullerton Transportation Center.
Thomas had tried to comply with Ramos' instructions, but he was confused by whether he should stretch his legs or put his hands on his knees.
When Thomas failed to do both, Ramos threatened him by putting on a pair of Latex gloves, making two fists with his gloves on and saying, "Now see my fists? They are getting ready to f*** you up."
The altercation ensued and Wolfe and, later, officer Cincinelli, came to assist, pinning down Thomas to the ground with their weight. Cicinelli kneed Thomas twice in the head, Tased him four times. In addition, he hit Thomas eight times in the head and face with the front end of his Taser.
After the beating, paramedics brought Thomas to a hospital. He suffered brain injuries, facial fractures and broken ribs. He never regained consciousness and died five days later of asphyxiation due to "mechanical chest compression with blunt cranial-facial injuries sustained during physical altercation with law enforcement."
Evidence that led to the charges against officers Ramos and Cincinelli include two cell phone videos from witnesses, footage from a Fullerton Transportation Center camera, and downloaded information from seven Tasers. Prosecutors also relied on DNA results.
http://gantdaily.com/2011/09/30/fullerton-police-officer-accused-of-murder-released-on-bail/
Police Recordings Key Part Of Calif. Beating Case
LOS ANGELES (AP) — As Fullerton police Officer Manuel Ramos approached a homeless man at a bus stop in July, he did what members of his department have been doing for a decade. He clicked on an audio recorder normally used to capture witness statements and exonerate officers accused of misconduct.
But prosecutors say the recorder captured something entirely different: the officer murdering a defenseless man suffering from schizophrenia.
Fullerton uses a device sold by Riverside-based Versatile Information Products Inc., which contracts with electronics-maker Olympus to customize standard digital voice recorders.
At the end of each shift, officers transfer files onto a server that backs them up as long as needed. The devices, used by hundreds of police agencies, do not let officers edit files, and they show if anything has been deleted.
Even before Fullerton police started using audio recorders, the department employed dashboard video cameras and microphones, but these proved unreliable, Sgt. Andrew Goodrich said. Recorders are now standard issue and officers are taught to switch them on every time they interact with a member of the public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=140771606
KOTV's story seems to have been written entirely from a police report, so I have no idea what her side is, whether or not she was just asserting her legal rights to photograph in public, parked stupidly, or what. I do know that reporters are not required to be licensed by the police, however.
OHP arrests professional photographer covering accident
Tulsan Mary Bradshaw says she was stuck in traffic on I-44 when she saw a car dangling from a tree. The arrest report says troopers saw Bradshaw pull over and start taking pictures. When troopers questioned her, she claimed to work for the Associated Press.
She doesn't have credentials, so troopers asked her several times to leave, the report states. Bradshaw refused, and a trooper handcuffed her and took her to jail. She was booked on two misdemeanor complaints: obstruction and resisting arrest.
"In this particular case, when someone comes on our crime scene and actually stops, gets out of their vehicle and then starts taking pictures, we have to address that pretty seriously, and we have to address it quickly," said Officer Craig Murray of the Tulsa Police Department.
"Just coming on the scene alone does it, but screeching to a stop. What if she had bad tires? What if she hit some oil or leakage from the fluids of the vehicle? She could have slid into another car or some person that's trying to do their job," Officer Murray said.
Bradshaw says she used to be a photojournalist -- and when she saw the car in the tree, the instinct to get the best picture kicked in. She says she's embarrassed her attempt to cover the news as a citizen, made the news.
Her studio: http://www.marybradshawphotoart.com
It seems that the bar for being arrested for obstruction and resisting arrest gets lower every single day.
Quote from: nathanm on October 24, 2011, 06:14:33 PM
It seems that the bar for being arrested for obstruction and resisting arrest gets lower every single day.
I'll see if I can get something out of Craig about this on Friday; I talk to him at nearly every Oiler home game and he has worked every one of them I can remember, going back to 1996.
Quote from: nathanm on October 24, 2011, 06:14:33 PM
It seems that the bar for being arrested for obstruction and resisting arrest gets lower every single day.
Sometimes I think that "bar" is now the rubber hose you ran over at the gas station to make the bell go "ding".
Quote from: dbacks fan on October 24, 2011, 06:38:15 PM
Sometimes I think that "bar" is now the rubber hose you ran over at the gas station to make the bell go "ding".
lol
Quote from: Hoss on October 24, 2011, 06:35:25 PM
I'll see if I can get something out of Craig about this on Friday
He's already on record -- it's the people KOTV was too lazy to call that might be able to round out the story.
Meanwhile, the ACLU is suing this genius:
A video shows Deputy Richard Gylfie telling Nee: "Al Qaeda would love to buy your pictures, so I want to know if you are in cahoots with Al Qaeda to sell these pictures to them for terrorist purposes."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/28/local/la-me-aclu-lawsuit-20111028
Twenty years after George Holiday's grainy video of Los Angeles police officers beating motorist Rodney King spawned worldwide outrage and later incited riots across the city, last year's protests in Iran, this year's protests all across the Arab world and now the Occupy movements have all demonstrated just how far personal technology has come to empower citizens to combat government abuse. Political leaders, police and security officials around the world now crack down on protests with the knowledge that their actions could and quite likely will be beamed around the globe. It's not only altering the balance of power and bringing new transparency and accountability to police and public officials, it may even be altering how police and governments react to dissent.
Smartphone apps like "Qik" and "UStream" now not only allow users to stream video in real time, but they also then archive the video. That means a copy of every user's video is preserved off-site. If police or other government officials destroy a phone or confiscate a memory card, there's still a copy of the video elsewhere. Users can also set up accounts to notify email lists or post updates to their Twitter or Facebook accounts the moment they stream a new video. Which means that even if police are later able to get into a protester's phone, access a "Qik" or "UStream" account, and delete an incriminating video, by that time dozens of people may have already downloaded it.
The power-shifting nature of cellphone video may be most prominent in the court proceedings that take place after the protests are over. In the past, courts, prosecutors and juries have mostly accepted police accounts of altercations with protesters as the official narrative. Now, in both criminal proceedings of protesters charged with crimes and in civil suits brought by protesters alleging police abuse, it's likely that any significant protest will have independent video shot from multiple angles to ferret out what actually happened.
"We've had cases in the past where police justified arrests or brutality with these completely false, fantastical stories. It would take months of painstaking litigation to demonstrate just how absurdly false the police account was. We now often have video, which cuts that process down considerably."
If there has been more respect for the right to record, it may be due to awareness. The spate of stories about arrests for recording police have resulted in campaigns by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups to make citizens aware of their rights if they're confronted for recording police in public. Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit threw out the conviction of a man charged with recording police with an opinion that affirmed a First Amendment right to record public servants. In just the last year, state judges in Illinois and Maryland have also overturned similar convictions on First Amendment grounds. Those decisions, and the coverage of them, may have further ingrained the idea that cellphone cameras are now ubiquitous, and that in the overwhelming majority of the country (save for Illinois, and possibly Massachusetts), recording on-duty cops is perfectly legal.
Miller adds that the reluctance to harass citizen recorders may have more to do with the sheer number of cameras around than any newfound respect for the First Amendment among police and political leaders. "There's an amazing difference in attitude you get when everyone has a camera."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/29/occupy-protesters-armed-with-technology_n_1063706.html
Cops Vs. Cameras: The Killing of Kelly Thomas & The Power of New Media
Police Commissioner reads Riot Act to Officers
NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly ordered that a "Finest" message be disseminated reminding officers of their obligations to cooperate with the media. The message will be read at 10 consecutive roll calls citywide.
The Finest message highlights various guidelines that instruct police on how to deal with the media, including that "Members of the service will not interfere with the videotaping or the photographing of incidents in public places. Intentional interference such as blocking or obstructing cameras or harassing the photographer constitutes censorship. Working Press Cards clearly state the bearer 'is entitled to cross police and fire lines.' This right will be honored and access will not be denied."
The message also states: that "Members of the service who unreasonably interfere with media access to incidents or who intentionally prevent or obstruct the photographing or videotaping of news in public places will be subject to disciplinary action."
The meeting on Wednesday came after a letter was sent by media organizations on Monday complaining about the way police mishandled the media during last week's "eviction" of Zuccotti Park, the home of months of Occupy Wall Street protests. Police officers arrested several journalists and also used force against several journalists during the raid.
http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/files/2011/11/NYPD-Finest-message.pdf
You might recognize this AP photographer as the one who shot the famous photo that was made into Obama's 2008 "HOPE" poster:
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2012/01/garcia.html
This is (if you will excuse the pun) a riot...
The Department of Justice website on how to file a complaint:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/polmis.php
On First Amendment grounds, a federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked enforcement of an Illinois law that makes it a felony to take video - with sound -- of police officers on the job.
The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the American Civil Liberties Union in challenging the Illinois eavesdropping law.
Judge Diane Sykes wrote for the 2-1 majority:
The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public's business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious.
Defending the broad sweep of this statute, the State's Attorney relies on the government's interest in protecting conversational privacy, but that interest is not implicated when police officers are performing their duties in public places and engaging in public communications audible to persons who witness the events.
Even under the more lenient intermediate standard of scrutiny applicable to content neutral burdens on speech, this application of the statute very likely flunks. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment's free speech and free-press guarantees.Chicago police claim "First Amendment rights can be terminated"
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/01/11998060-first-amendment-rights-can-be-terminated-when-cops-cameras-dont-mix?lite
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/fbi_gets_go_ahead_to_inspect_grabbed_video/id_47919
The national epidemic of brutality on news photographers continues with this ugly version of "Reno 911":
http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201206191234/NEWS/306190039&nclick_check=1
(http://cmsimg.rgj.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=J7&Date=20120619&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=306190039&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&RGJ-photo-chief-covering-Sun-Valley-fire-taken-ground-cited-by-deputies)
A 60-year-old Reno Gazette-Journal photojournalist was pushed to the ground, handcuffed and suffered minor injuries Monday after sheriff's deputies alleged he obstructed and resisted them while trying to take photographs of a destructive fire in Sun Valley.
About 5:42 p.m. Monday, Washoe County Sheriff's Office deputies cited Tim Dunn for obstruction and resisting.
Dunn, the newspaper's photo director and a 21-year employee there, was taking photos of a fire that broke out near Flora Way and East Fourth Avenue. The fire ultimately destroyed two homes and multiple structures.
Dunn said he was told to leave the area and was directed to another location farther from the scene. He said he was then taken to the ground by two deputies – one who shoved his foot on Dunn's back and the other who pushed his face in the gravel. Dunn's cheek has a large scrape on it.
Dunn said the deputies accused him of trying to impersonate a firefighter because he was wearing yellow protective fire gear, a helmet and goggles. However, annual wildfire training for media conducted by fire officials recommends such fire gear.
"I kept thinking this was not really happening," Dunn said.
Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association, called it "absolutely preposterous" that Dunn could have been mistaken for a firefighter, and said Dunn's gear is called for in the 20-page Sierra Front Media Fire Guide published by an interagency coalition that includes the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada Division of Forestry and others.
"Please keep in mind appropriate attire when you are covering fire operations. ... We cannot guarantee that the supply unit will have sizes of fire clothing that will fit you. It is always best to come to a wildfire fully equipped," according to the guide. It also states, "Remember that the decision to assume risk remains with the journalist."
"The whole idea of 'move or you're going to be arrested' is way outside that policy," Smith said.
Sheriff's office spokesman Deputy Armando Avina said the deputies used their discretion and did not arrest Dunn. Avina said because reports in the case have not been completed, he could not comment on the incident.
Beryl Love, Gazette-Journal executive editor, said there have been several instances during the past year in which reporters and photographers were not given access to scenes where they had a right to be. But Love said Monday's incident goes above and beyond press access.
"The brutal nature in which Tim, a veteran photographer with more than 20 years experience, was treated by sheriff's deputies is beyond comprehension," Love said in a statement. "Their use of excessive force on a fellow professional who also has an important job to do is shocking. His rights were clearly violated."
Love said the newspaper is preparing a formal administrative complaint and is advising Dunn on possible civil actions related to his injuries.
Smith said he doesn't remember any such incident in the past 20 years.
"There are occasionally disagreements over where people should be and how much access there is, but I've never heard of a deputy actually beating up a photographer," he told the Associated Press. "I'm outraged."
Dunn said he was asked by a man wearing a T-shirt, later identified as Capt. John Spencer, who he was with. After Dunn said he responded that he was with the Gazette-Journal, he said Spencer told him to go down the hill where other media had been directed.
Dunn said that after he complained the area was too far away for him to take photos, Spencer escorted him down the hill and said Dunn did not have any identification. After Dunn said he told Spencer he wasn't asked to show identification, their conversation became heated. Soon, Dunn said, the two deputies arrived and handcuffed him after taking him to the ground.
"I was proceeding out of the area and was irritated they wouldn't let me do my job, but I was doing what they told me," Dunn said. "... I don't know why they felt they had to take me down. I'm a 60-year-old guy carrying camera equipment."
Dunn said he always has respected law enforcement and the job they do. He said Monday's incident disappointed him.
"My rights were violated, and the force they used was not necessary," he said.
Smith said he spent much of Tuesday researching relevant state statutes, rules and regulations. He said fire officials and law officers "clearly do not have the authority to order the media around at any kind of an emergency site." He said obvious exceptions include "if somebody is obstructing the firefighters from getting to the scene or doing their job, or there is some imminent danger the reporter or photographer is not aware of — and in that case, they should be advising them."
"Nevada journalists are trained how to respond to wildfires," said Smith, who intends to support the newspaper in its action. "It sounds to me like the fire officials and deputies need to be trained on how to respond to the media."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
HARLEM — The NYPD has created a "wanted" poster for a Harlem couple who film cops conducting stop-and-frisks and post the videos on YouTube.
"Be aware that above subjects are known professional agitators," read the flyer, which bears the NYPD shield and a seal of the NYPD's Intelligence Division. It also gave the home address of the couple.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120702/west-harlem/harlem-couple-branded-professional-agitators-nypd-wanted-poster
Washington DC Police Adopt Sane Photography Guidelines
A new directive from DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier cements the rights of people to record the police
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/07/washington-dc-police-adopt-sane-photography-guidelines
It seems like every day or two we hear a story about a photographer getting hassled for taking photos in a totally legal way. Now, a new directive has been issued to the police force of Washington DC, and it clearly outlines that people have the right to record the police.
The directive is available online here
https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/GO_304_19.pdf
and Chief of Police Cathy Lanier has explained that yes, it's totally legal to record them, and that they can't tell you to erase the footage.
The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) recognizes that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity.
It also clarifies that photography of buildings and events is completely legal; bystanders have the same right to records as media; the police can't order you to stop, detain you, demand an explanation, or threaten you; and "members shall not, under any circumstances, erase or delete, or instruct or require any other person to erase or delete, any recorded images or sounds from any camera or other recording device."
All things told, it's great to see a sane guideline come out of a major police force, though it's a bit sad that something that seems so obvious and common sense need to be enshrined like this.
If an officer thinks a citizen has captured images that could be used as evidence, police can ask the person to e-mail such images to the department. If the person refuses, the officer can call a supervisor and seek a warrant to seize the camera or images.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-officers-are-directed-to-leave-citizen-photographers-alone/2012/07/23/gJQAYKcI5W_story.html
Quote from: patric on July 28, 2012, 02:12:23 PM
Washington DC Police Adopt Sane Photography Guidelines
A new directive from DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier cements the rights of people to record the police
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/07/washington-dc-police-adopt-sane-photography-guidelines
It seems like every day or two we hear a story about a photographer getting hassled for taking photos in a totally legal way. Now, a new directive has been issued to the police force of Washington DC, and it clearly outlines that people have the right to record the police.
...and the very next day...
Well, that didn't take long. Just one day after Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier issued a directive ordering officers to leave photographers alone (PDF here), a police officer reportedly snatched a man's camera at a crime scene and later returned it without the memory card. My Fox DC writes,
Earl Staley says he considers what happened to him Friday, July 20, a robbery.
"I know that I could take these pictures of these guys," Staley tells Fox 5 News. "I know it. Especially when they're doing something wrong."
Staley says his smartphone was snatched by a D.C. Police officer last Friday evening along Raleigh Place in Southeast D.C. Staley says he saw police punching a man they were arresting and another plain-clothes officer harassing the people watching.http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/26/dc-police-snatch-camera-one-day-after-being-commanded-to-stop/ (http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/26/dc-police-snatch-camera-one-day-after-being-commanded-to-stop/)
Quote from: Ed W on July 28, 2012, 05:36:21 PM
...and the very next day...
Well, that didn't take long. Just one day after Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier issued a directive ordering officers to leave photographers alone (PDF here), a police officer reportedly snatched a man's camera at a crime scene and later returned it without the memory card. My Fox DC writes,
Earl Staley says he considers what happened to him Friday, July 20, a robbery.
"I know that I could take these pictures of these guys," Staley tells Fox 5 News. "I know it. Especially when they're doing something wrong."
Staley says his smartphone was snatched by a D.C. Police officer last Friday evening along Raleigh Place in Southeast D.C. Staley says he saw police punching a man they were arresting and another plain-clothes officer harassing the people watching.
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/26/dc-police-snatch-camera-one-day-after-being-commanded-to-stop/ (http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/26/dc-police-snatch-camera-one-day-after-being-commanded-to-stop/)
7 Rules for Recording Police
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7-rules-for-recording-police/singlepage
QuoteA Miami-Dade County jury has found Photography is Not a Crime founder and publisher Carlos Miller, not guilty of resisting arrest stemming from his January 31, 2012 arrest, which was ordered by Miami-Dade Police Major Nancy Perez, as MDPD officers were evicting Occupy protesters in downtown Miami.
Perez is the Public Information Officer (PIO) for the Miami-Dade Police department, which makes the fact that she ordered Miller's arrest even more disturbing, as one would think that as the department's PIO, she would not only have have recognized, but respected Miller's First Amendment right to be there.
Despite several requests made by Miami-Dade County Court Judge Ed Newman ordering that Perez provide Miller's attorney with the MDP Standard Operating Procedures, dictating how the department should interact with the media, Perez refused to comply with those orders, forcing Judge to continue the case.
After Miller's arrest, in referring to blogs, Perez stated "They don't put out information that is relevant to the community."
Major Perez then went on to say "I don't know enough about the– I mean, I know nowadays all the kids blog," when explaining her understanding of blogging.
Perhaps key to Miller's defense was Miami Herald columnist Glenn Garvin, who testified that he never heard Perez direct or guide any journalists covering the scene to clear the area, Miller claims.
Garvin, just as Miller, was also covering the MDPD's eviction of Occupy Miami protesters, but was not arrested.
Garvin testified before the jury that when he saw Miller get arrested, he was worried that he too would be arrested.
However, Garvin testified, after he approached Perez, she told him he was fine.
Miller added, "It also sends out a message to cops around the country that they can no longer make up their own versions of the truth because they just never know when they are being recorded.
After Carlos Miller was arrested and booked, Miami Dade Police deleted some of his camera's footage leading up to the arrest.
Miller was later able to recover the deleted footage.
At about the 3:50 mark of the video, Miami Dade police Major Nancy Perez, who happens to be the Public Information officer (PIO) is seen extending her arm out towards Miller as to block him, before calling out to her fellow officers, "Prisoner", at which point other Miami Dade cops can be heard yelling "Arrestee! Arrestee!"
Perez can also be heard telling a relaxed Carlos Miller, "We don't wanna have to hurt you."
This latest victory marks the third time that Miller has beaten charges after being arrested by Miami-Dade Police as well as Miami Beach Police.
All bogus charges, including a resisting arrest conviction which he had reversed on appeal pro se (meaning Miller represented himself).
Quote from: Hoss on November 23, 2012, 08:53:21 PM
You would think after three times they'd learn.
After three times, I'd be thinking about a civil suit as some compensation for the hassle and expense of repeatedly defending myself against bogus charges.
Quote from: Hoss on November 23, 2012, 08:53:21 PM
You would think after three times they'd learn.
They did learn...that they wont be held accountable.
Quote from: patric on May 09, 2012, 12:11:09 AM
On First Amendment grounds, a federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked enforcement of an Illinois law that makes it a felony to take video - with sound -- of police officers on the job.
The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the American Civil Liberties Union in challenging the Illinois eavesdropping law.
Judge Diane Sykes wrote for the 2-1 majority:
The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public's business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious.
Defending the broad sweep of this statute, the State's Attorney relies on the government's interest in protecting conversational privacy, but that interest is not implicated when police officers are performing their duties in public places and engaging in public communications audible to persons who witness the events.
Even under the more lenient intermediate standard of scrutiny applicable to content neutral burdens on speech, this application of the statute very likely flunks. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment's free speech and free-press guarantees.
Chicago police claim "First Amendment rights can be terminated"
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/01/11998060-first-amendment-rights-can-be-terminated-when-cops-cameras-dont-mix?lite
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/fbi_gets_go_ahead_to_inspect_grabbed_video/id_47919
So you go and antagonize a cop for 5 minutes, disobey his orders to move (which he has the right to tell you do) and you're pissed that you get arrested?
pancakes?
Interestingly enough, when you actually read the account of that video you discover that it was an embarrassment for the Chicago Police Department. The journalists were released within a few minutes after a supervisor intervened. He's talking with them at the finish of the video.
If you're interfering with an officer carrying out his duties, you can be arrested. But if you're standing in a public place you can photograph whatever you like. The officer in this video wanted the journalists to simply go away. When they didn't, he simply became a bully with a badge and a gun. That's a staple of the movies, but it doesn't work so well in real life.
Quote from: Ed W on November 24, 2012, 08:49:30 PM
Interestingly enough, when you actually read the account of that video you discover that it was an embarrassment for the Chicago Police Department. The journalists were released within a few minutes after a supervisor intervened. He's talking with them at the finish of the video.
If you're interfering with an officer carrying out his duties, you can be arrested. But if you're standing in a public place you can photograph whatever you like. The officer in this video wanted the journalists to simply go away. When they didn't, he simply became a bully with a badge and a gun. That's a staple of the movies, but it doesn't work so well in real life.
I wonder how these people would enjoy the same thing happening to them while at work or walking down the street?
I would like to follow them with a camera and ask stupid questions and ignore their plea's for me to stop and see how long it takes them to get physical so I can sue them for medical after having them arrested.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on November 26, 2012, 12:45:32 PM
I wonder how these people would enjoy the same thing happening to them while at work or walking down the street?
I would like to follow them with a camera and ask stupid questions and ignore their plea's for me to stop and see how long it takes them to get physical so I can sue them for medical after having them arrested.
Do you work for the government?
Quote from: nathanm on November 26, 2012, 02:05:53 PM
Do you work for the government?
No.
I just don't like people setting other people up then playing a 'poor me', 'race', 'rights' or any other card just to get attention.
It's like protestors who refuse to leave a park at curfew then saying their rights were violated because they wouldn't leave when asked then had to be forcibly removed and ticketed or jailed. Guess what? You broke a rule that had nothing to do with your cause. ****.
The dude in the video I commented on appeared to be there soley for the purpose of antagonizing the cop and pizzing him off so he would do something stupid. It worked. Yay. You got arrested, made a story, embarrassed a police department and your family, and are a dude.
Feel better?
I have nothing against people video taping crappy things happening and publicizing rights being violated. I don't like when you see 15 seconds of a 5 minute clip where it appears a persons rights are being violated, and the 'rest of the story' is not told or shown and when it finally is you see that no rights were violated and the person that was tazed 'sitting in their car following orders' had just thrown a knife at the cop that came up to his window.
Just like the protestors at Berkley that got pepper sprayed for not moving. No, they shouldn't have been pepper sprayed for their actions. It was caught on a video and policies changed. Doesn't mean I agree with the protestors either but I wasn't seeing a group of people intentionally antagonizing the police just to a video of their rights being violated. I saw a cop being the jackass and crossing the line.
Video taping is "setting someone up?"
Quote from: Ed W on November 24, 2012, 08:49:30 PM
The officer in this video wanted the journalists to simply go away. When they didn't, he simply became a bully with a badge and a gun.
When a public official places themselves above the law to obstruct legal, public photography, it's almost always for one of two reasons.
They are either concealing their own criminal activity
or just being a bully
Quote from: nathanm on November 26, 2012, 05:44:36 PM
Video taping is "setting someone up?"
Yes, that is exactly what I said.
Good job ???
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on November 26, 2012, 07:24:35 PM
When a public official places themselves above the law to obstruct legal, public photography, it's almost always for one of two reasons.
They are either concealing their own criminal activity
or just being a bully
The first one is obviously an attorney using the film in the press with an agenda but it's hard to argue with the fact that the cop reaches in his pocket, looks at the camera, then searches the suspect for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th time and all of a sudden finds a bag of weed. - No issues with the cameraman here. They are staying out of the way filming an arrest.
The 2nd are cops telling the cameraman to stop filming an accident scene with a possible fatality. Standard practice and the press knows that. The issue I have here is that the cops could've been nicer about it but considering the the camerman said he didn't have family indicates he was likely not going to turn the camera off no matter how he was asked. Plus, if he is legit media, he knows the guidelines on filming car accident scenes and shouldn't have questioned the police telling him to turn it off.
His answer of having no family is him essentially setting up a confrontation so he can get his film on the air showing the cops as bad guys.
Again, no issues with people filming what's happening around them and publicizing unjust events. Just issues with people trying to set someone up to 'make them famous'.
Cop taunts teen suspect after wrestling him to groundhttp://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/cop-taunts-camera-wrestling-teen-suspect-video-154717258.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/cop-taunts-camera-wrestling-teen-suspect-video-154717258.html)
Quote
It's the kind of taunt worthy of a flag for excessive celebration.
But the man confronting the camera is no NFL star; he's a suburban Dallas police officer.
After allegedly kneeing, then cursing and cuffing a teenage suspect, Officer Disraeli Arnold boasts to the video being recorded by the arrested teen's friend.
"You got it on tape?" the officer shouts, before giving his name and badge number. "Arnold ... Six fifty-four!"
The Hurst Police Department announced Monday that Arnold has been put on leave pending an ongoing internal affairs investigation.
"Obviously, this is not behavior that the City of Hurst and the Hurst Police Department promotes or condones in any way," the department wrote on its Facebook page. "We strive to build a stronger, safer community through our work around the city and will continue to do so through appropriate action. We appreciate everyone's thoughts and continued civil discourse as the investigation is conducted."
CBS 11 (KTVT-TV) was the first to publish the edited video clips. According to its story, Andrew Rodriguez, 17, and two friends were being questioned as suspicious people last week when officers learned Rodriguez was wanted for a previous trespassing charge.
When Rodriguez walked away to call his mother, an unidentified Hurst officer began wrestling with the teen in an effort to handcuff him. One of Rodriguez's friends had begun recording video with his phone when Officer Arnold rushed in from off camera and allegedly knocked Rodriguez's head to the ground.
"Move and die," Arnold shouts, then repeats the phrase and curses.
In a longer version of the video posted to YouTube (language warning), Arnold continues his verbal assault even after Rodriguez is handcuffed.
"Blink wrong," he challenges the teen as he is being put in a patrol car.
Rodriguez was charged with resisting arrest. His mother tells CBS 11 she may seek legal action against the officer.
..
Maybe some breathing exercises. Don't get video'd tackling a kid (guilty or not) and then taunting him. It seems obvious.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on November 27, 2012, 08:21:20 AM
The 2nd are cops telling the cameraman to stop filming an accident scene with a possible fatality. Standard practice and the press knows that. The issue I have here is that the cops could've been nicer about it but considering the the camerman said he didn't have family indicates he was likely not going to turn the camera off no matter how he was asked. Plus, if he is legit media, he knows the guidelines on filming car accident scenes and shouldn't have questioned the police telling him to turn it off.
His answer of having no family is him essentially setting up a confrontation so he can get his film on the air showing the cops as bad guys.
The set-up was "Do you have a family member?"
To which he already knew the answer.
Weatherdemon's reasoning seems to be that it would have been only OK for reporters to photograph if they had a family member present.
That wasn't some kid with a smartphone, that was a professional with a camera set up on a tripod, doing what they legally do 365 days a year.
Unless you're in the middle east, photojournalists usually make no deliberate effort to photograph bodies, and editors take great care to not publish any that end up being photographed. That's the job of journalists, not police.
And that's standard practice.
Quote from: patric on November 27, 2012, 11:45:26 AM
The set-up was "Do you have a family member?"
To which he already knew the answer.
Weatherdemon's reasoning seems to be that it would have been only OK for reporters to photograph if they had a family member present.
That wasn't some kid with a smartphone, that was a professional with a camera set up on a tripod, doing what they legally do 365 days a year.
Unless you're in the middle east, photojournalists usually make no deliberate effort to photograph bodies, and editors take great care to not publish any that end up being photographed. That's the job of journalists, not police.
And that's standard practice.
Actually, my reasoning is that he filmed broken vehicles and cops on the scene already. What more usable footage was he going to get by sticking around filming them perform first aid or remove the body?
I agree the cop was a d1ck but the cameraman was too.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on November 27, 2012, 08:21:20 AM
The first one is obviously an attorney using the film in the press with an agenda but it's hard to argue with the fact that the cop reaches in his pocket, looks at the camera, then searches the suspect for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th time and all of a sudden finds a bag of weed.
Holy crap, there's actually a police hand signal for "Plant Drugs Here" ?
Things really have changed.
Quote from: patric on November 27, 2012, 02:50:29 PM
Holy crap, there's actually a police hand signal for "Plant Drugs Here" ?
Things really have changed.
LOL, I don't know about the hand signal bit but it certainly looked suspicious.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on November 27, 2012, 12:08:42 PM
Actually, my reasoning is that he filmed broken vehicles and cops on the scene already. What more usable footage was he going to get by sticking around filming them perform first aid or remove the body? I agree the cop was a d1ck but the cameraman was too.
The story......
Quote
A Connecticut state police officer displayed a complete lack of professionalism when he confronted a photojournalist who was videotaping a car fire on Interstate 95 in Fairfield.
The photojournalist, who was shooting for the Connecticut Post, was standing well out the way of the car fire, so he was not interfering with any official business.
But that didn't stop the cop from storming up to him and throwing a temper tantrum beginning at 2:20 in the video.
"Does it look like something that needs to be filmed right now. There's somebody who's dying over there.
"Turn that goddamn thing off and get out of here."
The photojournalist turned the camera off, so it is unclear what happened after that.
The Connecticut Post reports that nobody died in the car fire.
Read more at http://www.pixiq.com/article/connecticut-state-police-officer-throws-tantrum
The U.S. Supreme Court finally chimes in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Here's a cop caught in the act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/nyregion/photo-of-officer-giving-boots-to-barefoot-man-warms-hearts-online.html
Quote from: guido911 on November 30, 2012, 04:33:32 PM
Here's a cop caught in the act.
The boots were poisoned.
Now go tweet something and I'll comment on that.
Anyone can he video taped in public doing good or bad. You can video tape me mowing my lawn, walking to work, or fishing. I can video tape joe blow running a red light or illegally dumping in a ditch.
I hold the police to a higher standard. So why should they be exempt from being photographed or taped? If the videographer crosses the line by interfering then arrest them and use their tape as exhibit A.
I agree that it is annoying. But other peoples freedom annoys me all the time, and I dont see that as a reason to tale away that freedom or to punish them.
The real issue is that the police are afraid that Joe Public will not like the way they conduct business. Sometimes the police are rude, are physical, or say crude things while rightfully doing their jobs. But again, a poor excuse to limit freedom of the press (a citizen blogger has the same rights as Tom Brokaw).
There are some restrictions on the use of photographs taken in public places. I cannot take a photo of a person and use that photo in advertising without the person's consent, usually a model release accompanied by some form of remuneration. That can be copies of the photos or cash.
I can't publish a photo that shows someone in a negative light, say, doing something humiliating or something that leaves them open to harassment. That's not as big a concern if the photo is used for editorial or news purposes. A photo of you with your trousers around your ankles would be humiliating if it were displayed on an internet photo sharing site, but would be acceptable if it accompanied a story about the wild life in the suburbs, for instance.
There are a few states that restrict the public's right to photograph law enforcement officers performing their duties. Oklahoma is not one of them.
Quote from: Ed W on December 06, 2012, 03:20:53 PM
There are a few states that restrict the public's right to photograph law enforcement officers performing their duties. Oklahoma is not one of them.
Those laws are now moot, but it hardly matters anymore because police already moved on to other tactics.
QuoteThe 1st and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. Unfortunately, people are still being arrested for it. Police officers who want to make an arrest to intimidate would-be videographers can always use broadly written laws that prohibit public disorder, interfering with a police officer, or similar ordinances that give law enforcement wide discretion.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on December 06, 2012, 02:45:46 PM
I hold the police to a higher standard. So why should they be exempt from being photographed or taped? If the videographer crosses the line by interfering then arrest them and use their tape as exhibit A.
The real issue is that the police are afraid that Joe Public will not like the way they conduct business. Sometimes the police are rude, are physical, or say crude things while rightfully doing their jobs. But again, a poor excuse to limit freedom of the press (a citizen blogger has the same rights as Tom Brokaw).
Despite a reminder from the NYPD chief to quit harassing the media,
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/09/04/nypd-memo-reminds-police-officers-that-photography-is-not-a-crime
It still happens with impunity, and regularity:
A New York City police officer handcuffed a photojournalist before deleting his footage Wednesday, forcing the photographer to view the
NYPD in a new light.
"I've always been very pro-cop, never been anti-cop," Shimon Gifter said in a telephone interview Thursday night.
"But if they can do this to a guy who is known to the community and to the cops as being very pro-cop, I would love to see what they
would do a guy who is anti-NYPD."
Gifter was going about his day when he heard officers calling for backup to an area not far from him.
He quickly arrived on the scene expecting to find chaos, but everything was under control with several cops standing on the corner
conversing and one suspect handcuffed in a police van.
So he started talking to people in the neighborhood, trying to figure out what had happened, discovering there was some type of
altercation but several suspects had run off.
Meanwhile, four young men came upon the scene and were detained by police, although he didn't believe they were involved in what had
taken place.
But he started shooting video of police talking to them just in case. He was standing about 100 feet away.
"A cop walked up to me and told me not to film them because they are juveniles and I said OK," he said.
"I usually don't put stuff out there of juveniles unless they shot or stabbed somebody."
So Gifter continued recording other parts of the scene, including the man in the police van as well as a police car driving the wrong
way down the street.
Then out of nowhere, a sergeant from the 70th Precinct grabbed him from behind, snatched his camera and handcuffed him, forcing him to
face a wall while he began scrolling through the camera, deleting all the clips he had recorded.
"He said, 'you're under arrest, didn't the officers tell you to stop filming?'
"I said, yeah, but so what, it's not illegal and I wasn't filming the juveniles anyway.'"
Gifter kept trying to look back at what they were doing but the cop kept ordering him to turn away.
However, several witnesses were observing the situation, including when the cop dropped the camera, appearing to have done it on
purpose.
After about ten minutes, they removed the handcuffs, returned him camera and sent him on his way.
It wasn't until later that he realized they probably didn't want him video recording them making a stop-and-frisk stop, a controversial
policy in which a New York judge recently ruled a portion of it unconstitutional.
"I didn't even know about the ruling, I knew there was some debate."
He said the stop didn't appear to be very interesting at the time. It was just some cops jotting down information from the youths.
Gifter, 38, has contacted the precinct's internal affairs division and was assured the incident would be investigated, but he is not
buying it. "They didn't ask for any of the names of the witnesses or anything."
He said he has at least four witnesses but there were at least 75 people in the area when it took place.
A bill pending in Texas:
• SB 897 would enable photographers to sue police officers who arrest them for doing nothing more than taking pictures. The bill clarifies that you have a right to record police officers, and it creates a right to sue a police officer who arrests someone for doing nothing more than taking pictures. It also clarifies that certain laws, such as "failure to obey a lawful order" do not apply if the only order is to stop taking pictures.
Quote from: patric on April 03, 2013, 04:39:54 PM
A bill pending in Texas:
• SB 897 would enable photographers to sue police officers who arrest them for doing nothing more than taking pictures. The bill clarifies that you have a right to record police officers, and it creates a right to sue a police officer who arrests someone for doing nothing more than taking pictures. It also clarifies that certain laws, such as "failure to obey a lawful order" do not apply if the only order is to stop taking pictures.
I find it hard to believe that Texas would let that kind of nonsense stand between their cops and the public....after all, Dallas police love a good old fashion "kick some butt" event from time to time, especially with no reason or justification....
Some of illustrious congresscritters put on their frowny faces and an aura of deep concern over the privacy issues raised by the upcoming Google Glass device. Our lawmakers are troubled by its ability to surreptitiously take photos and record both audio and video.
Gasp! Heaven forfend! There ought to be laws against such things....and as it turns out....there are but our congresscritters will probably want to make more of them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/technology/lawmakers-pose-questions-on-google-glass.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/technology/lawmakers-pose-questions-on-google-glass.html?_r=0)
The group, for which Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, is a co-chairman, asked questions including how Google would collect and store data from the devices, how it would ensure that it did not unintentionally collect private data, how Google would protect the privacy of people not using Glass when they are with people using it and whether the device would have facial recognition technology.
Remember, though, that it's OK for the government to illegally wiretap your cellphone calls and read your email.
Quote from: Ed W on May 18, 2013, 06:47:59 PM
The group, for which Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, is a co-chairman, asked questions including how Google would collect and store data from the devices, how it would ensure that it did not unintentionally collect private data, how Google would protect the privacy of people not using Glass when they are with people using it and whether the device would have facial recognition technology.
Remember, though, that it's OK for the government to illegally wiretap your cellphone calls and read your email.
It's not like they havent thought of issuing National Security Letters (NSL) to seize all those photos without having to show cause.
Perhaps its more about controlling the information in the first place.
Take the Montgomery County TX Sheriff's office, who has been testing a federally funded, armed police drone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwpnjoEre8
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/groups-concerned-over-arming-of-domestic-drones
Now imagine how public opinion might be aroused if pictures of that drone going out of control and crashing into a police vehicle were public -- and how happy the department must be that they control all the photos of that incident.
http://gizmodo.com/5890507/police-drone-crashes-into-police
Police shoot dog owned by man recording arrest
Quote"I know it's the dog's master, and more than likely not going to attack him, (but) we've got a guy handcuffed that's kind of defenseless. We have a duty to defend him, too" police said.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world-news/california-cops-shoot-rottweiler-dead-in-front-of-owner-leon-rosby/story-fndir2ev-1226673433471
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/07/02/1226673/430770-police-shoot-dog-dead.jpg)
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/07/02/1226673/431550-police-shoot-dog-dead.jpg)
(http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/07/02/1226673/431907-police-shoot-dog-dead.jpg)
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on July 02, 2013, 08:19:35 PM
Police shoot dog owned by man recording arrest
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/07/02/1226673/430770-police-shoot-dog-dead.jpg)
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/07/02/1226673/431550-police-shoot-dog-dead.jpg)
(http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/07/02/1226673/431907-police-shoot-dog-dead.jpg)
A tragic result caused by the owner's stupidity of getting out of his car to video tape a police situation. Interesting that he has had previous run ins with the Hawthorne Police Dept. and is in the process of suing them already.
QuoteThe officers fired four shots, said Michael Gulden, an attorney for Rosby. Video footage shot by a witness and posted on YouTube shows the dog writhing on the pavement as onlookers shriek.
Gulden told The Times that police were retaliating against Rosby for a lawsuit filed in March against the department, alleging excessive use of force and false imprisonment in a July 2012 incident.
According to the lawsuit's complaint, officers beat Rosby at his home and in jail after responding to a domestic quarrel call made by Rosby's wife.
All charges against Rosby, 52, stemming from last year's incident were dropped, Gulden said, calling the argument between the couple that prompted the call a "misunderstanding."
Gulden said one of the officers at Sunday's incident in Hawthorne had been on duty during Rosby's alleged beating last year and recognized him as a "troublemaker."
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dog-shot-hawthorne-police-20130702,0,2012165.story (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dog-shot-hawthorne-police-20130702,0,2012165.story)
Not sure why the police felt compelled to engage the man with the dog. Even if he's mocking them, act like a professional and ignore it. By responding, they look insecure and incompetent, and approaching the man clearly did nothing to improve the situation. It got worse. Was the owner acting like an idiot? Sure. Was he interfering with the officers? No. He was videotaping from a public space.
Totally unnecessary, and by firing shots at the dog, the officers placed the lives of innocent bystandards at risk. To what end? What if a bullet ricocheted and hit a child? Was the thrill of discharging a weapon while on duty worth it? Where's your baton? Taser?
Absolutely ridiculous.
Quote from: CoffeeBean on July 02, 2013, 11:24:32 PM
Not sure why the police felt compelled to engage the man with the dog. Even if he's mocking them, act like a professional and ignore it. By responding, they look insecure and incompetent, and approaching the man clearly did nothing to improve the situation. It got worse. Was the owner acting like an idiot? Sure. Was he interfering with the officers? No. He was videotaping from a public space.
Totally unnecessary, and by firing shots at the dog, the officers placed the lives of innocent bystandards at risk. To what end? What if a bullet ricocheted and hit a child? Was the thrill of discharging a weapon while on duty worth it? Where's your baton? Taser?
Quote
Police who shot and killed dog as they arrested owner for FILMING them are pulled off the street for THEIR safety as they are bombarded with death threats.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356453/Police-killed-dog-pulled-street-THEIR-safety-bombarded-death-threats.html
The dog's owner Leon Rosby had been filming a police raid in Hawthrone California, and was arrested for alleged obstruction of justice.
It happened within just a few seconds: As police arrested a man on a neighborhood street, his dog jumped out of his car window and charged at the officers.
The officer reached for the rottweiler's leash, and the animal lunged. Then, gunfire.
Gabriel Martinez, 23, of Hawthorne captured the entire scene on his smartphone video camera: The owner crying out, bystanders screaming, the dog convulsing on the ground, bleeding. He stopped recording seconds later, put his phone in his pocket and stood there a moment, stunned, before trying to comfort his cousin.
"It was just too much," he said. "I put my hand on my cousin's shoulder. I put my head in my elbow."
The resulting video (WARNING: Disturbing, graphic content) has gone viral, with more than 2.1 million views on Tuesday night - just two days after it was posted. And the Hawthorne Police Department has seen a major public backlash, with angry calls, emails and tweets pouring in, along with some threats, authorities said.
Police officials said the shooting remained under investigation.
At the time of the shooting, officers were finishing up a SWAT standoff with possible armed robbers when they allege the dog's owner, Leon Rosby, 52, walked his dog too close to the scene and obstructed officers in their duties. When officers approached, Rosby put his dog into his car, but left the windows rolled down.
The dog first became agitated when officers handcuffed Rosby.
After Martinez stopped filming, the dog eventually stopped moving, he said. Rosby was crying as officers placed him into the back seat of a patrol car.
Soon, officers asked all of the bystanders to leave, and they put up police tape, Martinez said.
Quote from: Callahan on July 02, 2013, 11:02:53 PM
A tragic result caused by the owner's stupidity of getting out of his car to video tape a police situation. Interesting that he has had previous run ins with the Hawthorne Police Dept. and is in the process of suing them already.
Your first sentence is contradicted by your second one, as it appears
"one of the officers at Sunday's incident in Hawthorne had been on duty during Rosby's alleged beating last year and recognized him as a "troublemaker."http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dog-shot-hawthorne-police-20130702,0,2012165.story
...which seems to back up the assertion that the shooting was in retaliation for the lawsuit.
This was an act of a bully, only made worse by those who feel it necessary to drag the whole department down to that level, in defense of something morally indefensible.
Quote from: patric on July 05, 2013, 10:43:19 AM
Your first sentence is contradicted by your second one, as it appears "one of the officers at Sunday's incident in Hawthorne had been on duty during Rosby's alleged beating last year and recognized him as a "troublemaker."
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-dog-shot-hawthorne-police-20130702,0,2012165.story
...which seems to back up the assertion that the shooting was in retaliation for the lawsuit.
This was an act of a bully, only made worse by those who feel it necessary to drag the whole department down to that level, in defense of something morally indefensible.
Okay streetlight boy, let me see if I can speak more plainly. "Rosby had previous run ins with Hawthorn PD. He Was suing the PD over false imprisonment.
HE STOPPED HIS CAR AND GOT OUT WITH HIS DOG TO VIDEO A POLICE SITUATION.His actions caused the end result. But I guess that's not right with you. The police were out of line and targeted him deliberately. Guess in your mind Zimmerman is the bad guy as well. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be your way of thinking.
Tell you what streetlight, if your house catches fire, I'll make sure to park my car in front of the nearest hydrant, and video the fire, then sue the city for towing and damages to my car when they move it to get to the hydrant, and sue PD for false arrest because it's my right to stop anywhere and shoot video.
Quote from: Callahan on July 05, 2013, 12:15:04 PM
Tell you what streetlight, if your house catches fire, I'll make sure to park my car in front of the nearest hydrant, and video the fire, then sue the city for towing and damages to my car when they move it to get to the hydrant, and sue PD for false arrest because it's my right to stop anywhere and shoot video.
Now you are just making stupid arguments. You can't just make up factors that don't exist and then make it an comparison. You might have well said that the citizen was naked, carrying a bazooka and accompanied by an unleashed Bengal tiger.
This guy did not park in front of a hydrant. He committed no act that affected the scenario other than making the cops mad. The citizen was within his right to stand outside the scene of a crime and watch or videotape it. Everybody has a camera phone now and bad cops are threatened by witnesses.
I think cameras everywhere are a given and in the long run will make everyone safer. And that sometimes means safer from unfair treatment from law enforcement.
Quote from: Callahan on July 05, 2013, 12:15:04 PM
Okay streetlight boy, let me see if I can speak more plainly. "Rosby had previous run ins with Hawthorn PD. He Was suing the PD over false imprisonment. HE STOPPED HIS CAR AND GOT OUT WITH HIS DOG TO VIDEO A POLICE SITUATION.
His actions caused the end result. But I guess that's not right with you. The police were out of line and targeted him deliberately. Guess in your mind Zimmerman is the bad guy as well. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be your way of thinking.
Tell you what streetlight, if your house catches fire, I'll make sure to park my car in front of the nearest hydrant, and video the fire, then sue the city for towing and damages to my car when they move it to get to the hydrant, and sue PD for false arrest because it's my right to stop anywhere and shoot video.
Perhaps you are a policeman and see the situation differently. As a non uniformed citizen, there are few who would agree with your remarks. Especially those highlighted above.
Its troublesome that you think folks with cameras documenting arrests from a distance are the real problem and deserve what they get. Would you be happier if they hid their cameras in their shirt collars or lapels?
Quote from: AquaMan on July 05, 2013, 02:57:45 PM
Perhaps you are a policeman and see the situation differently. As a non uniformed citizen, there are few who would agree with your remarks.
Its troublesome that you think folks with cameras documenting arrests from a distance are the real problem and deserve what they get.
AquaMan renders the majority decision:
QuotePetitions at change.org, causes.com and whitehouse.gov have gotten more than 130,000 signatures of people calling for the officer who killed the dog to be fired.
The married father of three and ordained minister on Tuesday said the shooting was an act of retaliation by police for allegations he had made against the department.
Rosby, 52, said he was returning home from the park Sunday afternoon with his 2-year-old Rottweiler, Max. His home is about a block from 137th Street and Jefferson Avenue, where police officers had finished a nearly two-hour standoff with armed robbery suspects.
Rosby, a licensed contractor and former basketball coach, said he recognized one of the two officers at the scene as one of the defendants in his March 2013 complaint filed against the city of Hawthorne. Rosby alleges that the officer, along with several others, assaulted and brutalized him in July 2012.
On Sunday, Rosby said officers accused him of resisting even though he was handcuffed.
"I hollered out to the crowd, 'No, I'm not,'" said Rosby, explaining that more than 75 people were standing nearby, some also shooting video.
Police confiscated his phone, he said, and reviewed his video footage while he was handcuffed in the back of the police car. He said police had yet to return his phone.
Quote
Roughly half of all firearms discharges by police officers involve shooting a canine, according to an ASPCA review of public records. There is an entire Facebook page devoted to sad stories of people whose dogs were killed by police.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/police-are-shooting-dogs-2013-7
https://www.facebook.com/DogsShotbyPolice
An article of faith among our more authoritarian countrymen is that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about when it comes to surveillance or even government snooping. If that's true, police and security guards have nothing to worry about when a citizen records them in a public place.
We have enough problems with enforcement of existing laws. Let's not try to enforce imaginary ones.
Quote from: Callahan on July 05, 2013, 12:15:04 PM
Okay streetlight boy, let me see if I can speak more plainly. "Rosby had previous run ins with Hawthorn PD. He Was suing the PD over false imprisonment. HE STOPPED HIS CAR AND GOT OUT WITH HIS DOG TO VIDEO A POLICE SITUATION.
His actions caused the end result. But I guess that's not right with you. The police were out of line and targeted him deliberately. Guess in your mind Zimmerman is the bad guy as well. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be your way of thinking.
Tell you what streetlight, if your house catches fire, I'll make sure to park my car in front of the nearest hydrant, and video the fire, then sue the city for towing and damages to my car when they move it to get to the hydrant, and sue PD for false arrest because it's my right to stop anywhere and shoot video.
So what??
Really? You gotta be kiddin'... do you understand or have any comprehension of the concept of public street?? And in general, the fact (maybe this is where you get all mixed up) that pretty much anybody can either get out of their car, or stay in their car for that matter to do anything (or NOT do anything) they want, as long as it is not illegal. Or are you from the Soviet School of Lack-of-Thought??
His actions - as are obvious from the video - are the he was standing in a public area watching things happen, as were others that can also be seen around the area. This whole post must be (is) a farce. Even in Oklahoma, with your GED imminent sometime in the next 6 or 7 years, you cannot possibly be that dense in the real world....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 06, 2013, 10:05:41 PM
So what??
Really? You gotta be kiddin'... do you understand or have any comprehension of the concept of public street?? And in general, the fact (maybe this is where you get all mixed up) that pretty much anybody can either get out of their car, or stay in their car for that matter to do anything (or NOT do anything) they want, as long as it is not illegal. Or are you from the Soviet School of Lack-of-Thought??
His actions - as are obvious from the video - are the he was standing in a public area watching things happen, as were others that can also be seen around the area. This whole post must be (is) a farce. Even in Oklahoma, with your GED imminent sometime in the next 6 or 7 years, you cannot possibly be that dense in the real world....
Believe it. I've met more than one person like this in the last 12 months. Makes me sad for my state.
But not surprised.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 05, 2013, 12:59:07 PM
I think cameras everywhere are a given and in the long run will make everyone safer. And that sometimes means safer from unfair treatment from law enforcement.
I trust such reason prevails soon, otherwise there could be a lot of people having their glasses yanked off their faces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4isOSntnpo8
"Being arrested is not a private moment. It's public. In fact, an arrest is made on behalf of the public. No right of privacy outweighs the public's need to know how its police perform an arrest. http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Police_videos_draw_disparate_opinions_in_Oklahoma/20130708_11_A1_CUTLIN973815
Quote from: Hoss on July 06, 2013, 10:26:40 PM
Believe it. I've met more than one person like this in the last 12 months. Makes me sad for my state.
But not surprised.
I'm betting Callahan is our long lost teatownclown....he passed on and was reincarnated...the same.
Detroit NOT doing it's part to avoid civil rights lawsuits;
Police said they are looking into the conduct of Detroit Free Press photographer Mandi Wright and the actions of an officer who ordered her to stop filming on a public street and wrestled her phone away from her. They also are looking into the disappearance of a memory card from her newspaper-issued iPhone and whether she was briefly left alone with the crime suspect whom she had been filming.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130721/OPINION05/307210055/
This one along I-40 in Oklahoma:
Driving down Interstate 40, Julius Crooks was headed home to California, but he ran into trouble in Caddo County.
Crooks says a group pulled him over twice in five minutes and ended up taking the $7,900 he was traveling with.
They confiscated his rifle as well.
"I asked them what was the problem, why were we being searched and stuff like that," said Crooks. "Nobody gave me a reaction or a response."
Crooks says the group, some in uniform, some in plain clothes, did not arrest him because he didn't have drugs.
"When they were leaving and I was pulling out my phone to take pictures of their car and get their car number license plates and stuff, the officer stopped me he told me if I take any pictures or any videos, he was going to taze me."
http://kfor.com/2013/07/29/aclu-drug-task-force-trainers-impersonating-officers/
Quote from: patric on July 29, 2013, 11:50:08 PM
This one along I-40 in Oklahoma:
Driving down Interstate 40, Julius Crooks was headed home to California, but he ran into trouble in Caddo County.
Crooks says a group pulled him over twice in five minutes and ended up taking the $7,900 he was traveling with.
They confiscated his rifle as well.
"I asked them what was the problem, why were we being searched and stuff like that," said Crooks. "Nobody gave me a reaction or a response."
Crooks says the group, some in uniform, some in plain clothes, did not arrest him because he didn't have drugs.
"When they were leaving and I was pulling out my phone to take pictures of their car and get their car number license plates and stuff, the officer stopped me he told me if I take any pictures or any videos, he was going to taze me."
http://kfor.com/2013/07/29/aclu-drug-task-force-trainers-impersonating-officers/
The whole thing stinks, but I do have to ask, why would this guy be traveling with $7,900 in cash?
Lots of workers visit our state for tree trimming, roofing etc. They aren't licensed, employed or residents here. They operate on a cash basis. Not uncommon for them to operate out of their pockets as banks aren't keen on them.
Many years back I heard of a tree trimmer who lost his entire earnings the same way. He was stopped by an officer with a drug sniffing dog and they confiscated his money as the dog detected drugs on the money. Of course money passes through a lot of hands, those of bankers and those of drug dealers. They knew he had no recourse. Turns out this has been going on for a long time.
Regardless as to whether they are operating legally in the state, one expects our law enforcement to follow the law.
Quote from: custosnox on July 30, 2013, 03:10:43 AM
The whole thing stinks, but I do have to ask, why would this guy be traveling with $7,900 in cash?
What kind of wrong headed, warped and twisted crock of carp is that?? This must be one of 'dem dar ree-torical questions....
Whose business is it? Until there is some cause to suspect him of a crime, it is NO ONE's business if he is carrying seventy nine hundred or seventy nine cents. A hand full or a bucket full of cash is not probable cause....oh, wait...yeah, since most people in Oklahoma will never be able to put together that kind of money at one time due to our low wages, maybe it is probable cause..??
Quote from: AquaMan on July 30, 2013, 06:15:00 AM
Regardless as to whether they are operating legally in the state, one expects our law enforcement to follow the law.
Rose colored glasses moment.... what in the history of our state would ever create any kind of expectation in your mind that law enforcement would follow the law?? Especially since the law enforcement officers that presided over the very beginning were committing crimes - against humanity, if not against the letter of law.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 30, 2013, 11:19:58 AM
What kind of wrong headed, warped and twisted crock of carp is that?? This must be one of 'dem dar ree-torical questions....
Whose business is it? Until there is some cause to suspect him of a crime, it is NO ONE's business if he is carrying seventy nine hundred or seventy nine cents. A hand full or a bucket full of cash is not probable cause....oh, wait...yeah, since most people in Oklahoma will never be able to put together that kind of money at one time due to our low wages, maybe it is probable cause..??
I never said anything was right about what was going on with what this group was doing. In no way should it ever have even came out that he had that much money. I'm just saying that with the knowledge of him having that kind of money, why in the world would someone be carrying that much cash with them? In the past I could see reason for it, but now days, it is a rare thing for someone to do so.
Quote from: custosnox on July 30, 2013, 11:41:21 AM
I never said anything was right about what was going on with what this group was doing. In no way should it ever have even came out that he had that much money. I'm just saying that with the knowledge of him having that kind of money, why in the world would someone be carrying that much cash with them? In the past I could see reason for it, but now days, it is a rare thing for someone to do so.
Almost every farmer or rancher I have ever met prefers to do large transactions in cash, such as the purchase of a bull or a piece of machinery.
I think it's a mindset of rural folk not to filter all their finances through a bank, and misconduct by the "too large to fail" institutions seems to have reenforced that in recent years.
It's not a crime to possess or deal in cash, nor are people who do so criminals just for exercising that option.
As far as the "war on drugs" being outsourced to armed robbers, enough people have died from being Tasered that being threatened with one would put you in fear for your life. That District Attorney might as well have a contract with Los Zetas, since they have so much law experience.
But back on topic, it's pretty clear that this man was stopped from documenting something that they knew was illegal.
Quote from: patric on July 30, 2013, 12:17:28 PM
Almost every farmer or rancher I have ever met prefers to do large transactions in cash, such as the purchase of a bull or a piece of machinery.
I think it's a mindset of rural folk not to filter all their finances through a bank, and misconduct by the "too large to fail" institutions seems to have reenforced that in recent years.
It's not a crime to possess or deal in cash, nor are people who do so criminals just for exercising that option.
As far as the "war on drugs" being outsourced to armed robbers, enough people have died from being Tasered that being threatened with one would put you in fear for your life. That District Attorney might as well have a contract with Los Zetas, since they have so much law experience.
But back on topic, it's pretty clear that this man was stopped from documenting something that they knew was illegal.
he should have gone to the DA and pressed charges for grand theft against the officers.
Quote from: swake on July 30, 2013, 03:08:06 PM
he should have gone to the DA and pressed charges for grand theft against the officers.
Apparently the DA is the ringleader.
San Francisco firefighters had been using helmet cameras to evaluate how they handle fire scenes, but the Chief recently banned the use of cameras after they recorded a tragic mishap where a teen was run over by a fire truck.
Apparently keeping people in the dark was more expedient than developing a policy.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-fire-chief-bans-helmet-cameras-in-wake-of-crash-4741338.php
"The department seems more concerned with exposure and liability than training and improving efficiency," Smith said. "Helmet cams are the wave of the future - they can be used to improve communication at incidents between firefighters and commanders.
"The department should develop a progressive policy to use this tool in a way that is beneficial and not simply restrict its use," Smith said. "We are public servants, we serve the public - why be secretive?"
"Why would anybody not want to know the truth?" he said. "What's wrong with knowing what happened? What's wrong with keeping people honest?
He said video recordings increasingly are "critically important" in reconstructing first responders' actions at disaster scenes, "the same way that airplanes have cockpit voice recorders and data recorders. The idea that the Fire Department wants to prevent these cameras from being used, it's really disturbing."
He said as long as patient privacy issues are respected and firefighters are careful not to record grisly accident scenes, helmet-camera footage can help a department.
"It's good to the watch the tape - like any pro football team, they watch the tape of how they did at the last game," Pace said. "It's better than a live fire exercise, because it's a real fire. It's invaluable. More departments are starting to embrace it - the trend is toward it as opposed to departments running away from it."
Pace said he understands fire officials' concerns about liability issues, but "liability doesn't mean you can just keep things quiet and brush them under the rug."
(Reuters) - A New York police officer has been indicted on three felony counts of falsifying records to justify his arrest last year of a New York Times photographer, the Bronx district attorney said.
A Bronx grand jury indicted NYPD officer Michael Ackermann on Monday in a case stemming from his arrest in August 2012 of photographer Robert Stolarik, whom Ackermann said had interfered with the arrest of a teenage girl.
Ackermann, 30, said in a police report at the time that Stolarik had repeatedly set off the flash on his camera in his face - blinding and distracting him - during the arrest.
But Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson said in a statement that an investigation determined that Stolarik's camera did not have a flash attached at the time of the arrest, which took place at 10:30 p.m. on August 4, 2012.
Ackerman was indicted on three felony counts and five misdemeanor counts of falsifying records and making false statements.
He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted of the most serious felony, tampering with public records. Ackermann was released without bail on Monday following an arraignment in state court in the Bronx.
He has been suspended without pay pending the outcome of his criminal case, NYPD Deputy Commissioner John McCarthy said.
Stolarik was photographing the arrest of a teenage girl following a street fight when a police officer told him to stop taking pictures, according to an account of the incident published last year in the New York Times. Stolarik said he identified himself as a Times photographer and continued to shoot pictures.
A second officer grabbed his camera and "slammed" it into his face, he told the newspaper. He said police took his cameras and roughed him up before arresting him on charges of obstructing government administration and resisting arrest.
Following the arrest, police officials said Stolarik and others had been repeatedly ordered to move back, but that Stolarik pressed forward and inadvertently struck an officer in the face with his camera. They said Stolarik "violently" resisted arrest.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-usa-newyork-policemisconduct-idUSBRE97Q0T520130827
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_69/photogsreport.html
(http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/files/2013/08/Stolarik-photo-620x829.jpg)
Smithsonian Guards Grab Photographer Shooting Protest Inside Air and Space Museum
http://dcist.com/2013/12/smithsonian_guards_tackle_photograp.php
http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/files/2013/12/Smithsonian_complaint.pdf
"Tripplaar said the guards slammed him into the ground."
You can see him going down in the pictures. Looks pretty controlled. Ask a black man if it counts as "slamming" without your head bouncing off the pavement at least once.
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x651132658/Debate-erupts-over-cell-phone-video-of-Silva-beating-by-officers-Witness-I-can-still-hear-him
QuoteThe 911 call records witness Sulina Quair saying, "There is a man laying on the floor and your police officers beat the (expletive) out of him and killed him. I have it all on video camera. We videotaped the whole thing."
The 911 operator asks her supervisor to handle the call and Quair continues, saying she is:
"On the corner of Flower and Palm right now and you have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight sheriffs. The guy was laying on the floor and eight sheriffs ran up and started beating him up with sticks. The man is dead laying right here, right now."
She adds, "I got it all on video camera and I'm sending it to the news. These cops have no reason to do this to this man."
The communications supervisor asks for her phone number so a watch commander can call her. She provides it.
On Friday, Quair said Thirty-three-year-old David Sal Silva, the father of four young children's screams and bloody face still haunted her. She was about 20 feet way from Silva as he struggled with deputies.
"I have been crying a lot and his voice just plays over and over in my head," Quair said Friday. "I sit there and I can still hear him choking in his own blood, trying to gasp for air."
"It just so happened that we were at the right place at the right time to be able to videotape the murdering that took place," Melendez said.
One result of the call to 911 was that deputies seized Melendez's phone Wednesday morning while she was at her daughter Melissa's home.
More details emerged Friday of how officers took the witness's cell phones.
Melissa Quair's boyfriend also had taken video of the incident and at 3 a.m. two sheriff's detectives arrived at her home to confiscate the boyfriend's phone.
"At about 3 a.m. two detectives showed up, barged in without my permission and demanded to see my boyfriend for his phone," Melissa said.
In that video, Melissa said Friday, it is very clear that the deputies were beating Silva. At one point, she recalled, the deputies had Silva hogtied and they lifted him and dropped him twice and asked if he was still with them.
She said she and her boyfriend were essentially kept captive inside their own home until they released their phones.
As was reported earlier, the boyfriend eventually gave up his phone without a search warrant being presented because he had to be at work at 8 a.m. and didn't want to be late, she said.
"They lied to us and said that they would personally deliver the phone back to us the next day but when we called they said they were keeping the phone until the investigation was over," she said.
Later in the morning, Melendez showed up at Melissa's house and was immediately confronted by the same two detectives who told her she had to turn over her phone, she said.
Melendez said she wasn't going to give up her phone without a search warrant and was then again told that the search warrant was on its way.
"We all know that a picture is worth a thousand words," lawyer Cohn said during the news conference. "And thank God we have concerned citizens who take video and pictures of incidents like this and who are ultimately policing the police."
Cohn has sent letters to government agencies requesting that any videos that were collected not be altered or tampered with. He sent the letters, he said, to the Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol and Bakersfield Police Department, in addition to city and county attorneys.
The Sheriff's Office has not informed Cohn or the family of the status of an autopsy done Thursday, but Cohn is confident the results will be accurate.
Friday morning, the coroner's office reported that the cause of death is pending toxicology and microscopic studies.
At the vigil for Silva Friday afternoon, his father, Sal Silva, kneeled down and touched the blood stains left on the sidewalk from the incident.
"I can't believe this happened," he said sobbing. "My son was a family man who loved his kids and family and in the back of my mind I still hold on to the possibility that the body we haven't seen, might not be my son."
Said Cohn: "I have two grieving parents and one grieving brother who want to see the body of their son and brother. But we will get to the bottom of this and I ask the sheriff's department, once again, what are you hiding?"
The sheriff said he's unable to release the cell phones that were seized because they were taken through a search warrant.
Youngblood asserted that only a judge could now order the release of the phones. He said the videos will be released but he didn't say when.
"We will share everything with the public, including the videos," Youngblood said.
Melendez said she resented being harassed by detectives.
"I told them that I felt they were making us look like the bad guys, like we were the ones who had killed the man," Melendez said. "The image of that night still turns my stomach.... It's overwhelming.
John Tello, a criminal law attorney, is representing two witnesses who took video footage and five other witnesses to the incident. He said his clients are still shaken by what they saw.
"When I arrived to the home of one of the witnesses that had video footage, she was with her family sitting down on the couch, surrounded by three deputies," Tello said.
Tello said the witness was not allowed to go anywhere with her phone and was being quarantined inside her home.
When Tello tried to talk to the witness in private and with the phone, one of the deputies stopped him and told him he couldn't take the phone anywhere because it was evidence to the investigation, the attorney said.
"This was not a crime scene where the evidence was going to be destroyed," Tello said. "These were concerned citizens who were basically doing a civic duty of preserving the evidence, not destroying it as they (sheriff deputies) tried to make it seem."
A search warrant wasn't presented to either of the witnesses until after Tello arrived, he said, adding that one phone was seized before the warrant was produced.
Tello said the phone of the first witness was taken after the deputies told him he was either going to give up the phone the easy way or the hard way.
"They basically told him they were either going to keep him at this house all night until they could find a judge to sign a search warrant or he could just turn over his phone," he said.
The witness gave up his phone two hours before he had to get to work and was told by deputies that he could collect his phone the next day after they had extracted the evidence they needed, Tello said.
However, the witness never got his phone back, Tello said, and was told it could take years before he does because the investigation could take a long time.
"My main concern is that these witnesses are not harassed by deputies because this case can make others who see crimes happening not want to speak up because of the way law enforcement handles situations," Tello said.
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x568091070/Dad-who-died-during-arrest-begged-for-his-life-cops-take-witness-video
"Sometimes, life is so absurd that your cell phone is the only way to make what occurs believable."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57616215-71/why-more-people-are-training-their-cell-phones-on-police
Quote from: patric on January 01, 2014, 05:57:43 PM
"Sometimes, life is so absurd that your cell phone is the only way to make what occurs believable."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57616215-71/why-more-people-are-training-their-cell-phones-on-police
This one doesn't look that bad. The cop obviously doesn't want to be there either, and (as he says) is only there because the neighbor complained. The audio is a little fuzzy, but I get the impression that the neighbor is accusing these guys of running a detail business in their driveway. The cop, I think, just wishes he didn't have to mess with that kind of BS.
Has no one learned anything from all the Bond movies - you ALWAYS make a backup before saying something to anyone. Preferably with multiple copies. Send one to your lawyer and certified mail to yourself. Keep one in a safe deposit box if you have one.... NEVER give up your information without cover.
Looks like Homeland Security is the new muscle for the ..get this... Motion Picture Association of America:
http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user
About an hour into the movie, a guy comes near my seat, shoves a badge that had some sort of a shield on it, yanks the Google Glass off my face and says "follow me outside immediately". It was quite embarrassing and outside of the theater there were about 5-10 cops and mall cops. Since I didn't catch his name in the dark of the theater, I asked to see his badge again and I asked what was the problem and I asked for my Glass back. The response was "you see all these cops you know we are legit, we are with the 'federal service' and you have been caught illegally taping the movie".
What followed was over an hour of the "feds" telling me I am not under arrest, and that this is a "voluntary interview", but if I choose not to cooperate bad things may happen to me. I kept telling them that Glass has a USB port and not only did I allow them, I actually insist they connect to it and see that there was nothing but personal photos with my wife and my dog on it. I also insisted they look at my phone too and clear things out, but they wanted to talk first. They wanted to know who I am, where I live, where I work, how much I'm making, how many computers I have at home, why am I recording the movie, who am I going to give the recording to, why don't I just give up the guy up the chain, 'cause they are not interested in me.
Happy President's Day to you-know-who...
http://splashurl.com/pwo6b28
And another.
http://www.local10.com/news/woman-who-recorded-traffic-stop-spends-night-in-jail/24532912
I had a rent-a-cop come ask me if I was taking pictures of people coming in and out of the 320 S Boston building. I showed him what I was doing and why I was out there so long. He didn't push it further. Its amazing how dangerous a camera is....
I think that it is all about questioning the Officers decision and manner in which he is enforcing the law as he sees fit. Most Officers have thick enough skin and know how to handle the situation of this type of public scrutiny.
Having said that. There are going to be the ones who got into law enforcement purely for the bully factor. And when their job skill comes into question. They will react as if you knocked off that chip on their shoulder or crossed the unknown line drawn in the sand. To me those type individuals are a danger to the public at large by being armed and protected by a favorable law.
Quote from: DolfanBob on February 18, 2014, 09:33:00 AM
I think that it is all about questioning the Officers decision and manner in which he is enforcing the law as he sees fit. Most Officers have thick enough skin and know how to handle the situation of this type of public scrutiny.
Having said that. There are going to be the ones who got into law enforcement purely for the bully factor. And when their job skill comes into question. They will react as if you knocked off that chip on their shoulder or crossed the unknown line drawn in the sand. To me those type individuals are a danger to the public at large by being armed and protected by a favorable law.
The tragedy is that already having the deck stacked in his favor wasn't enough, he had to make up non-existant law, then use that to justify A&B.
Having said that, the majority of cops are likely just going to curb their language around an open mic. This guy made a choice to complicate things.
And another. And this one is in Moore.
http://www.news9.com/story/24735856/family-says-moore-police-beat-father-to-death
Quote from: DolfanBob on February 18, 2014, 05:17:19 PM
And another. And this one is in Moore.
http://www.news9.com/story/24735856/family-says-moore-police-beat-father-to-death
http://kfor.com/2014/02/17/widow-police-took-her-phone-without-permission-after-husband-died-in-custody
It even made news in Russia:
http://rt.com/usa/father-beaten-death-oklahoma-cops-433/
This story is something special.
http://splashurl.com/kumvk4d
Not so much for videotaping but for Jaywalking. Really?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565097/I-didnt-f-ing-wrong-Moment-jogger-knocked-ground-dragged-away-handcuffs-four-cops-refusing-identify-herself.html
Quote from: DolfanBob on February 21, 2014, 03:31:43 PM
Not so much for videotaping but for Jaywalking. Really?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565097/I-didnt-f-ing-wrong-Moment-jogger-knocked-ground-dragged-away-handcuffs-four-cops-refusing-identify-herself.html
Apparently this is something they call "Vision Zero"
Jaywalking is a gateway crime to terrorism, dont you know.
http://nypost.com/2014/01/19/cops-beat-elderly-man-after-he-jaywalked
Anyone else find it sad that Oklahoma law enforcement consistently fight dash or lapel camera releases - even under freedom of information requests... yet they publicised the dash came video showing the cop doing a good job help I a citizen with that roadside fire?
You will enjoy the dashcam videos we choose to release. Move along now citizen.
And now the video that was recorded by his Wife. She knew they had killed him. This is absolutely awful for this Woman to have to witness her Husband being killed by five Officers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2567867/Video-released-mans-death-Oklahoma-theater.html
Quote from: DolfanBob on February 26, 2014, 12:29:52 PM
And now the video that was recorded by his Wife. She knew they had killed him. This is absolutely awful for this Woman to have to witness her Husband being killed by five Officers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2567867/Video-released-mans-death-Oklahoma-theater.html
Compressional Asphyxia is often what results when you have five or six plus-sized people on top of you.
Most of the struggling occurs after the victim has lost consciousness, which is misinterpreted as resisting.
This was recorded by two people in KC. My question is. How do you feel about what happened? Is the off duty Officer justified in what he does?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571457/Cop-cleared-shooting-dead-firefighter-hours-wedding-shocking-cellphone-footage-moment-emerges.html
Quote from: DolfanBob on March 03, 2014, 10:24:27 AM
This was recorded by two people in KC. My question is. How do you feel about what happened? Is the off duty Officer justified in what he does?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571457/Cop-cleared-shooting-dead-firefighter-hours-wedding-shocking-cellphone-footage-moment-emerges.html
Well, that's just a tragic outcome no matter which side you come down on. But after the drunk guy punches the cab driver and cop engages, he is in the right in trying to make the arrest. Even during the struggle, at about the 45 sec mark or so on the clip, the cop asks for a little help (or something about help, I can't quite make it out). If some of the guy's friends had engaged, instead of standing around and filming, this might have been averted. But as it escalated in the manner it did, you can't fault the cop for his actions in protecting himself.
A Facebook page I can get behind.
https://www.facebook.com/PolicingThePolice
Quote from: rebound on March 03, 2014, 10:53:59 AM
If some of the guy's friends had engaged, instead of standing around and filming, this might have been averted. But as it escalated in the manner it did, you can't fault the cop for his actions in protecting himself.
Yes you can.
He inserted himself into a verbal situation, and promptly escalated it by introducing force and violence.
He quickly rose to his level of incompetence, and found himself physically outmatched,
so he escalated the violence further to the point of deadly force, resulting in an unnecessary and unjustified death.
Thanks, Zimmerman. Good job.
Empowering bullies does not serve nor protect the public.
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on March 03, 2014, 10:43:25 PM
He inserted himself into a verbal situation, and promptly escalated it by introducing force and violence.
He quickly rose to his level of incompetence, and found himself physically outmatched,
so he escalated the violence further to the point of deadly force, resulting in an unnecessary and unjustified death.
We'll, there seems to be a lot of pent-up vitriol there, so I'll may bow out of this subject after this post, because if a person thinks that cops are generally bad then there is no where to go with the discussion.
But a couple of points, just for discussion. First, it was not a verbal situation. The cab driver had already been punched, so blows had already been exchanged. Once a police officer becomes aware of someone obviously very intoxicated in public and that has already come to blows with anther person they are expected to engage. This scenario of a single officer arresting a drunk person happens all the time and is not generally out of the ordinary.
It is a tragedy, and it did get out of hand, but it is also very easy to second-guess an action in hind-sight. Was there an original intent to escalate to deadly force by the officer? In this case, I can't imagine that there was.
I missed this John Stossel special.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dflSXvQME
http://www.copblock.org/
An interesting twist...
This TV photojournalist is suing police for unlawfully detaining him when he photographed a police scene from a remote-controlled helicopter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/207750257/Pedro-Rivera-s-lawsuit-against-Hartford-Conn-Police
Apparently, they went over the top by threatening his station, as well.
Quote from: patric on May 08, 2014, 08:16:43 PM
An interesting twist...
This TV photojournalist is suing police for unlawfully detaining him when he photographed a police scene from a remote-controlled helicopter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/207750257/Pedro-Rivera-s-lawsuit-against-Hartford-Conn-Police
Apparently, they went over the top by threatening his station, as well.
I'm looking at buying one of these; I was a huge RC airplane guy at one time when my dad wasn't so ill. http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-2-vision-plus
There are many regulations regarding these, but not completed as the technology is moving pretty quick with thse. The FAA pretty much caps you at 400 feet AGL. You also cannot use them to film for commercial purposes unless you have a license and obviously are not supposed to use them to invade people's privacy.
Not sure if the police had recourse to do this though.
Quote from: Hoss on May 08, 2014, 09:15:36 PM
Not sure if the police had recourse to do this though.
The first thing police asked was "Are you media?" which seems odd. Did they think they were acting on behalf of the FAA?
Probably not.
Quote from: Hoss on May 08, 2014, 09:15:36 PM
I'm looking at buying one of these; I was a huge RC airplane guy at one time when my dad wasn't so ill. http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-2-vision-plus
There are many regulations regarding these, but not completed as the technology is moving pretty quick with thse. The FAA pretty much caps you at 400 feet AGL. You also cannot use them to film for commercial purposes unless you have a license and obviously are not supposed to use them to invade people's privacy.
Not sure if the police had recourse to do this though.
It just dawned on me, I should get a remote control black helicopter to mess with the crazy neighbor next door.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 09, 2014, 09:11:06 AM
It just dawned on me, I should get a remote control black helicopter to mess with the crazy neighbor next door.
I'll let you know when I finally get that octocopter. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on May 09, 2014, 09:11:06 AM
It just dawned on me, I should get a remote control black helicopter to mess with the crazy neighbor next door.
While you're at it, make some fake Yagi antennas out of wood dowels, paint them black, and point them at his house.
Quote from: Hoss on May 08, 2014, 09:15:36 PM
The FAA pretty much caps you at 400 feet AGL. Not sure if the police had recourse to do this though.
The NTSB called the FAA on the carpet recently for overstepping their authority, but since the FAA is appealing, the decision is stayed.
They are citing a March incident in Florida where a US Airways had a near miss, but you have to drill down to the fine print to see it involved a fixed wing piston engine drone at 2,300 feet (think Homeland Security loaner) and not a hobbyists styrofoam quad copter at 200 feet.
The National Press Photographers Association filed an Amicus Brief today in a federal civil rights lawsuit involving an Austin, Texas man, who says that police violated his constitutional right to photograph and/or film police in a public setting.
Police moved to dismiss the suit, claiming "qualified immunity," which protects government officials from being the subjects of lawsuits unless they have violated a clearly established constitutional right.
The constitutional right to film police officers while on duty has been well established for decades through numerous constitutional decisions that protect the "coextensive" rights of journalists and members of the public to gather information and to hold government officials accountable for their actions, as the First Circuit Court of Appeals held in the 2011 case of Glik v. Cunniffe. In Glik, a citizen was arrested after using his cell phone to photograph Boston police officers he believed were using excessive force in effectuating an arrest. After his charges were dismissed, Glik filed a civil action against the Boston Police Department and won because the First Circuit observed that a citizen's right to film police officers on duty is a "basic, vital, and well-established liberty protected by the First Amendment."
The United States Department of Justice has also affirmed this right in multiple Statements of Interest, explaining that over eighty years of precedent, going back to the 1931 case of Near v. Minnesota, stand for the proposition that "government action intended to prevent the dissemination of information critical of government officials, including police officers, constitutes an invalid prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights."
http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/2014/06/02/nppa-files-amicus-brief-supporting-right-to-photograph-and-record-police-in-public/
Quote from: DolfanBob on February 18, 2014, 09:33:00 AM
I think that it is all about questioning the Officers decision and manner in which he is enforcing the law as he sees fit. Most Officers have thick enough skin and know how to handle the situation of this type of public scrutiny.
Having said that. There are going to be the ones who got into law enforcement purely for the bully factor. And when their job skill comes into question. They will react as if you knocked off that chip on their shoulder or crossed the unknown line drawn in the sand. To me those type individuals are a danger to the public at large by being armed and protected by a favorable law.
This Tulsa Police Sergeant admits he isnt sure about the law he is enforcing, yet insists he doesn't need to be told the law.
....like how he complains about being photographed, saying the people he is confronting are confrontational.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvDx9V2VqPQ
Quote from: Conan71 on May 09, 2014, 09:11:06 AM
It just dawned on me, I should get a remote control black helicopter to mess with the crazy neighbor next door.
I have the 'drone' now...
8)
Quote from: Hoss on June 24, 2014, 10:52:54 PM
I have the 'drone' now...
8)
I could have used it this morning. She was having quite a talk with God in her back yard at 7am whilst swilling Bud Light.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2014, 08:49:26 AM
I could have used it this morning. She was having quite a talk with God in her back yard at 7am whilst swilling Bud Light.
She might have though it was Ezekiel's Wheel for all I know... :o
I have had people come up and say it looks like a UFO. I tend to try not to fly it around the neighborhood. If people saw the quality of camera these things had, they wouldn't be so afraid of the consumer version of them, because a) they're not exactly stealthy with as loud and lit as they are and b) there is no zoom on the camera. To spy on people you'd essentially have to be peering in their window with the device. Not really very secretive.
Quote from: Hoss on June 25, 2014, 09:08:13 AM
She might have though it was Ezekiel's Wheel for all I know... :o
I have had people come up and say it looks like a UFO. I tend to try not to fly it around the neighborhood. If people saw the quality of camera these things had, they wouldn't be so afraid of the consumer version of them, because a) they're not exactly stealthy with as loud and lit as they are and b) there is no zoom on the camera. To spy on people you'd essentially have to be peering in their window with the device. Not really very secretive.
If you Google edited video from Tulsa Tough this year, there are some aerials shot from a drone. The operator set up next to us on the lawn of Channel 6 studios on Saturday evening, really impressive equipment.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2014, 09:13:12 AM
If you Google edited video from Tulsa Tough this year, there are some aerials shot from a drone. The operator set up next to us on the lawn of Channel 6 studios on Saturday evening, really impressive equipment.
Yeah, I saw that. Mine is cheap compared to some of those rigs. They were likely hexacopters or even octocopters (6 or 8 rotors). Mine with battery, barely weighs 2 pounds. I'd be curious to know about how wide one was. Mine is only about 16 inches diagonal from rotor to rotor.
A ray of hope, from a county deputy:
QuoteThe clip shows activists Ashley Jessica and Jason Bermas handing out flyers warning travelers about the dangers of x-ray body scanners at Albany International Airport in New York.
Almost as soon as the activists begin to hand out the flyers, they are confronted by an aggressive airport official later named as Douglas Myers, the airport's Director of Public Affairs.
Myers orders the activists to leave the top floor and later takes the unprecedented step of closing off the entire level and preventing families from meeting their loved ones. He subsequently claims the activists need a permit and a $1 million dollar insurance liability merely to film inside the airport, despite the fact that the TSA's own website clearly states that TSA checkpoints can be filmed at any airport.
Myers' attempts to get the activists in trouble with police are derailed when Sheriff Stan Lenic steps in to handle the situation, pointing out to Myers that they have a right to film under the First Amendment.
"Obviously this is your constitutional right, as far as we're concerned you're not breaking any laws," Sheriff Lenic tells Bermas.
When Myers asks the Sheriff to detain the activists, Lenic responds, "I can't do that."
Myers then asks for Bermas' identification, to which Sheriff Lenic responds, "He doesn't have to show you his identification."
"I need to get it from you," Myers tells the Sheriff as he winks at him, to which Sheriff Lenic responds "I can't give you that."
"Just so you know, he's not doing anything wrong," Deputy Lenic forcefully tells Myers, before quoting the New York penal law code.
"If I was to ask for his identification he does not have to give it to me because he's not doing anything wrong," adds Lenic.
Myers' claim that Jessica is blocking the escalator is also dismissed by Lenic. Myers then claims the filming is illegal because it is "commercial" and could appear on the Drudge Report – which is a news aggregator and not a commercial website.
Meanwhile, the pigheadedness continues elsewhere:
QuoteA Florida woman spent the night in jail this week after attempting to document her own police encounter.
http://www.storyleak.com/woman-thrown-jail-legally-recording-traffic-stop/
Although Florida currently has a two-party consent law, which dictates that both parties must consent to being recorded, the supreme court has upheld that police officers do not have an expectation of privacy while working in public, therefore can be recorded without prior approval.
"You are committing a felony. Hand me the phone," Deputy O'Brien says.
By the end of the altercation, Berning is arrested and dragged to O'Brien's police car, left with scrapes, bruises and a strained wrist.
Despite the deputy continually claiming her actions were illegal, Berning was only charged with resisting arrest and minor traffic violations, leading many to believe O'Brien knowingly violated her First Amendment.
Just this week, a New York man was assaulted and arrested for video recording a police encounter from 30 feet away. Although the offending officer believed he had deleted the man's footage, a police report was soon called into question as the footage was recovered, contradicting the officer's claims.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/02/17/nypd-cop-attacks-man-video-recording-deleting-footage-man-recovers-footage/
Officers from the Newark Police Department attempted to take a man's cellphone last year after claiming it could potentially be a firearm, a strange new tactic officers have used to avoid being filmed.
http://www.infowars.com/cops-being-trained-that-cell-phones-could-be-guns/
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on June 27, 2014, 10:52:12 PM
Meanwhile, the pigheadedness ignorance continues elsewhere:
Let me fix that for you.....
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on June 07, 2014, 10:55:40 PM
This Tulsa Police Sergeant admits he isnt sure about the law he is enforcing, yet insists he doesn't need to be told the law.
....like how he complains about being photographed, saying the people he is confronting are confrontational.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvDx9V2VqPQ
Do we give these guys no training at all before we give them guns and put them on the street???
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 28, 2014, 08:22:09 AM
Do we give these guys no training at all before we give them guns and put them on the street???
Between all the lost lawsuits and federal civil rights decisions being handed down, how can they
not know they are flaunting the law?
Quote from: Hoss on June 24, 2014, 10:52:54 PM
I have the 'drone' now...
8)
http://www.dailybreeze.com/government-and-politics/20140624/south-bay-man-who-records-police-officers-on-video-goes-high-tech-with-drone
QuoteSouth Bay man who records police officers on video goes high-tech with drone
Lennox resident and part-time police watchdog Daniel Saulmon uses his Phantom quadcopter to record police officers in hopes of uncovering wrongdoing. The remote-controlled copters capture wide-angle images primarily for scenic views.
Daniel Saulmon's name evokes groans, sighs and even some chuckles when South Bay police officers hear it.
He's been a thorn in their sides for years, showing up on his bicycle at traffic stops and crime scenes at all hours of the day and night.
Armed with a video camera, the unemployed 42-year-old Lennox man considers himself a crusader for justice, protecting people's rights as they encounter the police. Sometimes, however, he draws the ire of patrol officers, provoking them into angry responses during confrontations when they demand to know why he is recording them.
Declaring his First Amendment rights, Saulmon posts his hostile encounters on YouTube and his own website, mistakenbacon.com, garnering hundreds of thousands of views.
"My relationship with the local police is surprisingly good," Saulmon said Tuesday. "Most all of them treat me with respect. But occasionally there will be unexpected surprises. I just want to be able to record them so I can document what they are doing. There are some things going on that I feel are inappropriate. I intend to catch them if they break the law."
Saulmon's recording devices have evolved over the years. When he first started more than a decade ago, he would use a stationary camera in his car. He then progressed to a small camera attached to his bicycle helmet. (He rides a bike because his driver's license was suspended.)
And now he has moved high-tech. Saulmon purchased a $1,400 DJI Phantom drone about two months ago and has begun flying it over crime scenes, at traffic stops, near oil refineries and the Hermosa Beach Pier. The camera attached to the drone is equipped with a wide-angle lens.
"Mostly it takes pretty pictures," Saulmon said. "I'm going to hopefully use it for things other than recording the police."
NSFW Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF58tnUMveo
I gotta get one of those! That looks like the best toy Ever!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 29, 2014, 08:33:05 PM
I gotta get one of those! That looks like the best toy Ever!!
They are quite fun. This jackass, however, gives the reputable hobbyist a bad name. As did the guy who flew one into PNC Park (where the Pittsburgh Pirates play) becase he 'thought it would be fun'. http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/man-flies-drone-over-pnc-park-during-game/
I fly them as far away from people as possible.
Here are a few of my first flights.
https://vimeo.com/bigtulsa
Quote from: Hoss on June 29, 2014, 09:36:54 PM
They are quite fun. This jackass, however, gives the reputable hobbyist a bad name. As did the guy who flew one into PNC Park (where the Pittsburgh Pirates play) becase he 'thought it would be fun'. http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/man-flies-drone-over-pnc-park-during-game/
I fly them as far away from people as possible.
Here are a few of my first flights.
https://vimeo.com/bigtulsa
Half tempted to buy one. Going to an event in September that has the potential to be a Guinness Record for the largest gathering of Miata's in the US, and potentially a world record. Would be cool to have video or stills from above for my own.
http://miatasatmazdaraceway.com/
http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4336946d2b5438c12e38389a8&id=5cbbdf24f3&e=906da6fc81 (http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4336946d2b5438c12e38389a8&id=5cbbdf24f3&e=906da6fc81)
http://globalgrind.com/2014/07/04/highway-patrol-officer-punch-woman-side-highway-caught-camera-video/
The video showed the woman walking along the freeway when she was approached by an unidentified California Highway Patrol officer.
It was not clear if words were exchanged between the two, but at one point the officer walked up behind the woman and grabbed her, the video showed.
A struggle ensued, during which the officer appeared to knock the woman to the ground, straddled her body and began repeatedly punching her.
"He basically got on top of her ... it's basically a UFC ground-and-pound move ... full force, punching her in the head".
http://fox8.com/2014/07/04/motorist-captures-violent-encounter-between-officer-woman/
CHP has released a statement claiming that the woman ignored the officer's demand that she stop, and when she fled, the officer feared that she would get hurt and tried to arrest her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2680661/Trooper-filmed-beating-woman-head-California-highway.html
Their hubris is mind-boggling.
Quote from: patric on July 04, 2014, 11:11:20 PM
CHP has released a statement claiming that the woman ignored the officer's demand that she stop, and when she fled, the officer feared that she would get hurt and tried to arrest her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2680661/Trooper-filmed-beating-woman-head-California-highway.html
Their hubris is mind-boggling.
That sounds like the story of the cops that shot and killed the guy to stop him from committing suicide....
This seems to be the current cops behaving badly thread:
QuoteOHP trooper arrested after crash
The Oklahoma Highway Patrol arrested a state trooper on Thursday, July 3 in Sequoyah County.
Trooper Joshua Davies was arrested around 4:30 p.m. Thursday after OHP officials received reports of a single vehicle collision involving an OHP patrol vehicle and boat, located approximately 3/4 mile west of U.S. Highway 59 on Applegate Cove Road south of Sallisaw.
Troopers called to the crash found a collision involving a marked OHP SUV towing a Patrol vessel and being driven by Davies. OHP said Davies showed signs of intoxication and was immediately arrested for suspicion of DUI by troopers on the scene. Arresting troopers later administered a routine state breath test where Davies registered over the legal limit.
"It is an emotionally draining situation when an officer finds himself in a position that he must arrest one of his own. Our troopers displayed professionalism in administering their duties during this unfortunate event. This individual was immediately arrested by state troopers on the scene and charged with DUI in compliance with state statute. This type of behavior will not be tolerated under any circumstance," stated Chief of Patrol Colonel Ricky Adams.
Davies was arrested by troopers and booked at the Sallisaw Police Department. He has been with the OHP for eight years and has been placed on routine administrative leave pending the results of an internal investigation.
http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/ohp-trooper-arrested-after-crash/ngZ2H/?__federated=1
QuotePolice union president Patrick Lynch said the man who taped the fatal arrest of Eric Garner was 'demonizing the good work of police officers.'
"I do think that this will be the sickest logic that I ever heard," Rev. Al Sharpton replied Sunday evening.
Earlier Sunday, Lynch, president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, criticized Ramsey Orta, 22, who was busted after police said he allegedly tried to dispose of a gun as he exited a Staten Island hotel late Saturday night.
"It is criminals like Mr. Orta who carry illegal firearms who stand to benefit the most by demonizing the good work of police officers," the union president said in a statement.
Orta has a long criminal history that includes multiple collars for fare evasion and pot possession, but Orta was a bystander July 17 when he used his cell phone to tape cops as they tried to arrest Garner, 43, a father of six. Police said the man was selling untaxed cigarettes and resisted arrest.
The shocking video — first released exclusively on nydailynews.com — shows Officer Daniel Pantaleo putting Garner in a chokehold, a tactic banned by the NYPD in 1993. The city's medical examiner ruled the death a homicide Friday.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/man-falsely-arrested-daniel-pantaleo-shocked-back-duty-article-1.1890030
Do you think that Mr Orta may have been being followed and surveyed by the NYPD before his gun possession arrest? Nawwww. That would be profiling. ::)
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on August 04, 2014, 10:40:05 PM
Police union president Patrick Lynch said the man who taped the fatal arrest of Eric Garner was 'demonizing the good work of police officers.'
So at this point I have to wonder if that's the view of the average policeman, or just what the sick fcuk union president thinks the average view of policemen should be.
It was definitely a slam dunk for Rev. Sharpton, though, not like he could have missed.
ADDED:
Now Cops Arrest Wife Of Man Who Filmed Fatal NYPD Chokehold
http://gothamist.com/2014/08/06/ortas_wife_arrested.php
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 07, 2014, 08:36:05 AM
That sounds like the story of the cops that shot and killed the guy to stop him from committing suicide....
"Without the video my word may have not have meant anything."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/11/los-angeles-woman-beaten-by-highway-patrolman-says-believes-was-trying-to-kill
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 07, 2014, 08:36:05 AM
That sounds like the story of the cops that shot and killed the guy to stop him from committing suicide....
Deja-Vu
QuoteA 45-year-old man was fatally shot during a confrontation with Tulsa police officers in a neighborhood west of downtown early Tuesday.
Emergency responders found Mark Kelley holding a knife and bleeding profusely as he stood in the driveway of a home in the 300 block of North 25th West Avenue about 4:20 a.m.
Kelley had already stabbed himself with a knife and was approaching the officers when he was shot, according to Officer Jill Roberson. He was pronounced dead at a Tulsa hospital.
Homicide Sgt. Dave Walker said Wednesday that Officers Amy Jensen, 25, Mitchell Franklin, 44, and Rashena Smith, 26, combined to fire 18 shots at Kelley, who was struck multiple times.
Walker said which of the three officers struck Kelley might never be determined. (no ballistics evidence) In addition, police said Tuesday that Kelley's self-inflicted injuries were so severe that they had not determined whether he died from the gunshots or from the knife wound.
Kelley was taken by ambulance to St. John Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead, she said. Investigators have not determined whether Kelley died of gunshot wounds or the self-inflicted stab wounds.
"He did have a knife. He did approach the officers, ... I understand that. But he was 50 feet away. You think he's going to stab you from here to there?" Clarence Kelley said pointing from his backyard gate to beyond the driveway where his brother was shot.
Ferguson police broke the law when they stopped civilians from videotaping them
Filming police is the American thing to do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/15/ferguson-police-broke-the-law-when-they-stopped-civilians-from-videotaping-them-and-theyre-just-the-latest/
Quote
For decades, civil rights activists have struggled to hold rogue police officers more accountable. Claims of excessive force, racial profiling, and illegal arrests were hard to prove. In the rare cases when prosecutors brought charges against errant police officers, jurors often did not convict. "The police were just doing their job" has been a common refrain.
But we've discovered we're now holding one of the most powerful tools for social activism in our purses and back pockets. Last year, for the first time, the majority of Americans (56 percent) owned smart phones, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. That was a landmark development with great consequences for criminal justice and citizen oversight of law enforcement. There's been a power shift in favor of everyday citizens and it's being recorded on iPhones and Androids – then Facebooked, tweeted and Instagrammed. Now all the world has seen how a few bad cops do their job.
This summer, ordinary citizens have put those phones to good work. They have allowed us to see a New York City police officer put Eric Garner in an illegal choke-hold. We saw Marlene Pinnock, a 51-year-old grandmother, get held down and punched in the face 10 times by a California Highway Patrol officer.
And then there's Ferguson, Mo. We have seen how the police responded to people who, in the main, peacefully protested the shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man. We saw the police, using assault rifles, rubber bullets, tanks, tear gas, and smoke bombs, wage a "shock and awe" campaign seemingly out of the Operation Desert Storm playbook.
The world witnessed these outrages, in part, because citizens had the courage to videotape what the police were doing. It takes guts because bad cops don't like being caught on tape and, in some recent cases, they've gone after the photographer. Police in Petersburg, Va. stormed the porch of a young man taping an arrest in his front yard, causing a violent confrontation. Nearby months later, a teenager said police assaulted him for filming a police arrest, too. Then this week in Ferguson, police arrested — on drummed up allegations that they were never charged for — Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery and Huffington Post reporter Ryan Reilly when they were videotaping the cops.
The law is simple, and it is entirely on the side of the citizen photographers. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of anyone to record police in a public place. The police can place reasonable restrictions on photographers by, for example, not allowing them to enter a crime scene. But they cannot stop people from standing on the street and filming them while they make arrests, detain suspects, or otherwise enforce the law.
If the police see you filming, they cannot force you to turn over your camera. They cannot make you delete what you have filmed. Of course, they can ask you to do any of these things — and the police are very good at making requests sound like orders. But all you have to do is say something like "Officer, I refuse to consent to you to look at my photos." Then you have the constitutional right to be left alone.
It takes guts to record the police, even if it is perfectly legal. As I often tell my law students, the Bill of Rights is not for wimps. But think of it as an act of patriotism. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, in 2011, the right to video-record the police. The Court stated "Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting 'the free discussion of governmental affairs.'"
Police should support these efforts. Cameras improve working conditions for the majority of police officers who are hard-working and law-abiding. In jurisdictions where police cars are equipped with dashboard cameras, police misconduct complaints have gone down – along with the taxpayer expenditures to settle them. That's partly why Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier has recommend a pilot program in which D.C. officers will wear body cameras. She sees it as a win-win, protecting cops as much as civilians. The police will have evidence for their cases, and citizens will have evidence when they allege mistreatment. It also can address complaints about discourteous treatment by police – rude conduct or abusive language. Officers say some citizens don't treat them very well either. Knowing a camera is running should make everyone nicer.
The next time you see the police doing something that concerns you, don't just get mad. Take out your phone and make a recording. Think of it as the American thing to do.
The latest reason that police are using to confiscate cell phones is that they "were in fear for their lives." A smart phone could easily be converted to a gun, a rifle, or even a bazooka, you know. And to no one's surprise, any photos or video of an incident gets mysteriously erased before the phone is returned.
Quote from: Ed W on September 06, 2014, 08:55:45 PM
The latest reason that police are using to confiscate cell phones is that they "were in fear for their lives." A smart phone could easily be converted to a gun, a rifle, or even a bazooka, you know. And to no one's surprise, any photos or video of an incident gets mysteriously erased before the phone is returned.
Pffft! That's so ten minutes ago.
Cop To Cameraman: 'If You're Invoking Your Rights, You Must Be Doing Something Wrong'https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140905/07011828427/cop-to-cameraman-if-youre-invoking-your-rights-you-must-be-doing-something-wrong.shtml
A federal judge held that the right to record police activity is a clearly established right protected by the First Amendment.
In a civil rights lawsuit, Antonio Buehler alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested by the Austin Police Department multiple times for taking pictures of police activities. Buehler was first arrested when he came upon a police scene at a gas station, where he began recording the arrest because he felt that excessive force was being used.
In an effort to get the lawsuit dismissed, the Austin Police Department claimed "qualified immunity" which protects state officials from suit. However, qualified immunity is not available if officials violate a clearly established constitutional right.
In an order released Thursday, the federal judge in the case held that not only is there a constitutional right to document police officers, but that the right is clearly established. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane held that "the First Amendment protects the right to videotape police officers in the performance of their official duties, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions."
Continuing, the judge wrote:
If a person has the right to assemble in a public place, receive information on a matter of public concern, and make a record of that information for the purpose of disseminating that information, the ability to make photographic or video recording of that information is simply not a new or a revolutionary expansion of a historical right. Instead the photographic or video recording of public information is only a more modern and efficient method of exercising a clearly established right.
See also, http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/crime-law/federal-judge-upholds-activist-antonio-buehlers-ri/ngnbp/
http://peacefulstreets.com/
NYPD police union president Patrick J. Lynch objected to a recording of a police incident, saying:
"Resisting and interfering with an arrest is against the law. It is time to stop the amateur video activists who interfere with police operations from setting the agenda."
...which sounds perfectly reasonable, until you see the video he is objecting to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/nyregion/man-accuses-officer-of-taking-more-than-1000-video-prompts-investigation.html
Quote from: patric on October 09, 2014, 01:13:09 PM
NYPD police union president Patrick J. Lynch objected to a recording of a police incident, saying:
"Resisting and interfering with an arrest is against the law. It is time to stop the amateur video activists who interfere with police operations from setting the agenda."
...which sounds perfectly reasonable, until you see the video he is objecting to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/nyregion/man-accuses-officer-of-taking-more-than-1000-video-prompts-investigation.html
Ill raise you one:
WATCH: NYPD Officers Pistol-Whip Teen Suspected of Marijuana Possession
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/10/08/first-offense-nypd-cop-caught-camera-pistol-whipping-teen-2
Patrick Lynch, the police union president, said the tape does not tell the entire tale.
"As usual, the video fails to capture the offense that resulted in police action or the lengthy foot pursuit that culminated in the arrest," he said.
OK union apologist, what would the video have needed to show to excuse the assault and brutality?
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141007/bed-stuy/video-nypd-officer-hits-teen-face-with-his-gun
Video: http://bcove.me/zsk7w7qp
http://www.cnet.com/news/this-is-why-people-use-phones-to-film-police
[/quote]
"That camera could be a disguised gun" making a comeback after courts uphold citizen's rights to photograph police?
QuotePringle pulled out his Samsung Galaxy smartphone and began recording. It all seemed pretty civil until the cop writing the citation told him to stop recording.
"Phones can be converted into weapons .... look it up online," the cop told him.
When Pringle stood by his civil rights, the cop slapped the phone out of his hand where it fell onto the boardwalk and broke
apart.
The other cop then pounced on him, slamming him down on the boardwalk where he ended up with a laceration on his chin.
"Blood was everywhere," Pringle said. "I was laying on my stomach and he had one knee on my back and the other knee on the side of my face.
His friends picked up his phone, which was damaged but still functional.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/04/09/san-diego-police-attack-and-arrest-man-video-recording-them-claiming-phone-could-be-a-weapon/
Curiously, the cops completely forget about the "weapon" once it's slapped out of the owner's hand,
and in some cases bystanders have even picked phones up off the ground to continue recording.
So now the question is, are these cops actually that stupid, or are they just using a pretext designed to circumvent the courts and civil liberties?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 14, 2014, 09:57:54 AM
Government ... have a set hierarchy of purpose that does not change.
1. Self preservation & insulation from public/political/market forces
Im going to go with "big fat lie disguised as an officer safety issue." And since "Officer Safety" trumps "Citizen Safety" in the current political climate, guess who wins... and who looses?
(http://www.galaxys3monthly.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/galaxy-s3-overview.jpg)
http://www.cnet.com/news/cops-allegedly-get-violent-at-sight-of-samsung-galaxy/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/21222323165/another-ca-cop-thinks-cell-phone-might-be-dangerous-weapon.shtml
http://www.fox4now.com/features/4inyourcorner/Assessing-the-threat-of-cell-phone-guns-to-law-enforcement-253461221.html?lc=Smart#
Yes, It's Legal To Film The Cops -- And What's Been Filmed In Recent Months Is Appalling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/film-the-cops_n_5967008.html
This is one area that the Russians are ahead of us on. We have a full on dash cam war.
QuoteIn a post on Animal, Russian ex-pat and journalist Marina Galperina offers a few reasons, which boil down to dangerous driving conditions and the unreliability of Russian traffic police.
Driving in Russia is hazardous: Last year, 200,000 traffic accidents killed 28,000 people. (More than 32,000 died in car accidents in the United States in 2011, a much lower figure per capita.)
Addressing those high levels in 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev blamed the "undisciplined, criminally careless behavior of our drivers," along with poor road conditions.
Drivers certainly play a role, but Medvedev did not mention Russia's traffic police, which, Galperina writes, "is known throughout their land for brutality, corruption, extortion and making an income on bribes."
That is not hyperbole. Russia ranks 133rd among the world's nations in corruption (where number one is the least corrupt), according to Transparency International. Much of that corruption is on the part of the traffic police, an institution that, along with kindergartens and higher education, was ranked by Russians as the country's most corrupt. In a recent poll, 32 percent of Russians surveyed called traffic police the most corrupt institution.
So going to the police with a legitimate complaint is far from sure to produce a good result.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-russian-drivers-have-dash-cams-2012-12 (http://www.businessinsider.com/why-russian-drivers-have-dash-cams-2012-12)
(http://hollywoodjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/george-c-scott-hollywood-journal.jpg)
Russians use dash cams because few of them have insurance.
Ed W
Quote from: Ed W on October 22, 2014, 06:30:59 AM
Russians use dash cams because few of them have insurance.
Ed W
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19839.msg264527#msg264527
(http://www.jewishworldreview.com/video/jon_stewart_meteor.jpg)
An off-duty police officer who used a controversial neck restraint on a woman after she refused to stop filming an arrest in a Corpus Christi parking lot has resigned.
Gary Witherspoon, an off-duty investigator for the Nueces County Attorney's Office, resigned Wednesday. "The termination is a result of his involvement and actions at an incident that took place on August 16, 2014, as well as other employment issues."
The footage shows Corpus Christi Sgt. J.E. Lockhart repeatedly instruct Lanessa Espionsa, who was not being charged with a crime, to show ID or be arrested.
Espinosa told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times that she was not involved in the incident, but was at the scene because the off-duty officer did not let her leave the parking lot after eating at the restaurant.
While she was in custody in the police car, Ms. Espinosa was asked to delete the video footage she'd recorded. The conversation was recorded on the car's dashcam, and that footage is posted on KERO TV's website.
Espinosa said she pretended to delete the video in order to satisfy the cops.
"I was told I was free to go and to delete the video. I pretended to delete the videos so I would be released."
At issue in the video are two separate problems, according to reports.
First problem: was Ms. Espinosa legally required to produce I.D. when the police officer asked for it?
Former District Attorney Carlos Valdez tells KZTV that in Texas, a person is only required to identify their self if they have been arrested, so Ms. Espinosa's arrest for refusing to identify herself was not legal.
"So under this particular offense that we're talking about, failure to identify, I don't think there's a violation on video."
Second problem: was Officer Lockhart within his legal authority to ask Ms. Espinosa to delete the video?
Chief Floyd Simpson tells KERO that his officer should not have asked Espinosa to delete the video, and for that reason the officer is being disciplined.
"Our officer performed the way I wanted him to perform except 'I'm going to arrest you if you don't give me the ID'... and the piece about deleting the video."
TAMPA — Taxpayers will pay $41,500 to settle a claim for damages from a Tampa woman arrested as she made a cellphone video of her husband's DUI arrest. City attorney Kirby Rainsberger warned Tampa officers, "don't expect the courts to protect you from the annoyance of having your general activities recorded from an appropriate distance.
Even when the people behind the camera make profane comments, "this sort of activity is generally constitutionally protected up until the point where the recording individual substantially interferes with law enforcement duties," he said. "The officer bears a heavy burden to prove that the interference substantially outweighs the protected activity.""http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/tampa-to-pay-41500-to-settle-claim-over-cell-phone-video-arrest-wvideo/2209125
Next in line:
A 36-year-old Baltimore woman claims she was tased by police and arrested while filming the arrest of a man with her mobile phone.
Video of the March 30 melee surfaced online this week. Police erased the 135-second recording from the woman's phone, but it was recovered from her cloud account, according to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lawsuit (PDF), which seeks $7 million.
Kianga Mwamba was driving home from a family gathering in March. Stopped in traffic, she began filming the nearby arrest of a man who she says was kicked by police.
"You telling me I can't record," the woman says on the video as police tell her to move on.
"I'll park. I'll park. I'll park," the woman is heard saying in her own recording.
All of a sudden an officer says, "Out of the car. Out of the car."
Mwamba was arrested on charges of assault for allegedly trying to run over two officers. Charges were dropped, and she suffered cuts and bruises.
At the end of the tape, an officer says, "You a dumb grumble, you know that?"
"What did I do?" she asks.
"You just tried to run over an officer," the officer responds.
While in custody, she gave her phone to an officer to show the video that she didn't try to run over anybody. The video was allegedly erased from the phone in what her attorney, Joshua Insley, described in a telephone interview as a "coverup."http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-use-taser-on-woman-while-she-recorded-arrest-of-another-man/
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/12/watch-nypd-cop-runs-punches-12-year-old-boy-detained-three-cops/
When the mother asked if the officer had to detain the father in front of the children, the officer turned to the father and said, "You're going to jail because your wife keeps running her mouth." The mother then began recording the officer on her cell phone. The officer became irate, declaring, "You don't videotape me!" As the officer drove away with the father in custody for "parental neglect," the mother drove after them, continuing to record. The officer then pulled over and arrested her for traffic violations. When the father asked the officer to show mercy, he responded, "No more mercy, since she wanted to videotape," and declared "Nobody videotapes me." The officer then took the phone, which the couple's daughter was holding. After posting bond, the couple found that the video had been deleted.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/blog/2015/03/usdoj-exposes-ferguson-police-department-to-be-filled-with-racist-cops-suppressing-the-right-to-record/
About 10 times a day, Darren Baptiste gets an email informing him that footage of police brutality may have been posted to YouTube through software he developed. Baptiste is the creator of CopWatch, an iPhone app that helps people record police-citizen interactions, upload them directly to the Internet, then alert Toronto-based activist group the Network for the Elimination of Police Violence to the material's existence.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/users/2015/04/copwatch_mobile_justice_and_other_apps_for_citizens_filming_police_encounters.html
Strengthen the right to record police
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_27881946/strengthen-right-record-police
Without the knowledge that the killing had been videotaped, the department gave an account of the killing that was brazenly false. This tall tale was straightforwardly reported by local media, and probably would have set the narrative that led to Slager's exoneration had the videotape not surfaced.
One upshot of this case is to demonstrate the vital importance of the First Amendment right of citizens to film the behavior of police officers who are on duty. As The Washington Post's Radley Balko explains, despite the hostility of police officers to being filmed, recording their behavior while on duty is protected by the First Amendment in all 50 states. Citizens should be educated about this right and make use of it. At worst, one result of the killing of Walter Scott is that more officers will not expect that they can kill unarmed and unthreatening citizens with impunity.
http://theweek.com/articles/548688/nearly-getting-away-murder-how-walter-scott-video-exposed-corrupt-system
The video of the shooting not only shows the necessity of recording bad police, but the necessity of doing so covertly.
Police Nearly Confiscated Pivotal Video of Murder
(CNN) Feidin Santana, the man who recorded a South Carolina police officer fatally shooting a fleeing, unarmed man, told CNN on Thursday night he was told by another cop to stop using his phone to capture the incident.
One of the officers told me to stop, but it was because I say to them that what they did was an abuse and I witnessed everything," he told CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."
Santana said an officer told him to wait where he was but eventually he left the scene to go to work.
Feidin Santana told NBC Wednesday that he was walking to work and approached the scene because he noticed officer Michael Slager controlling Walter Scott on the ground. He began recording when he heard the sound of a Taser. He says "Mr. Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser."
Santana has reportedly said he waited to release the footage to see how Slager would report his actions.
"He wanted to see what reports were coming from the North Charleston Police Department because of the fact that they may have told the truth," Walter Scott's brother told TIME on Wednesday. "And when they continued with the lies, he said, 'I have to come forward.'"
Scott family lawyer L. Chris Stewart said at a news conference that Santana's actions "should be respected throughout this country," according to the Guardian. "We have to really recognize the strength and fortitude and fearlessness that it took to come forward when you know you just filmed a police officer murder somebody."
Santana said he was so shaken by what he had witnessed that he initially considered erasing the video from his phone and leaving town.
"I felt that my life, with this information, might be in danger," Santana said.
Santana said he changed his mind after reading the version of events as recounted by the police, which didn't match what he had seen. He said he provided the video to the dead man's family because he didn't believe anything would happen to Slager if he didn't come forward.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/walter-scott-shooting/man-who-recorded-walter-scott-being-shot-speaks-out-n338126
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1965876/thumbs/o-VIDEO-POLICE-570.jpg)
http://rt.com/usa/251781-south-gate-marshal-camera/
Smartphone app from ACLU of California aims to preserve videos of police
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-aclu-app-police-video-20150430-story.html
California joins New York, Oregon and Missouri as states having the ability to directly upload citizen videos to the ACLU even when the citizens phone is confiscated.
The downside is it doesn't guarantee police wont shoot that citizen for having something in their hand.
Not a good month to be in South Carolina....
CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — A sheriff's deputy responding to a home invasion shot the homeowner in the neck Thursday because he refused to drop his gun, authorities said.
Two deputies from the Charleston County Sheriff's Office encountered the man at the rear of his mobile home in Hollywood, South Carolina, after two other men fled on bicycles, Sheriff's Maj. Eric Watson said in a news release.
Watson said the identities of the deputy and the shooting victim would be released on Friday, as would copies of a dashboard camera video.
Or maybe not....
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCIV) -- State Law Enforcement Division officials say there are no body cam or dash cam videos of the deputy-involved shooting on Thursday.
According to SLED, this is the 17th officer-involved shooting in South Carolina in 2015. In 2014, there were 42 officer-involved shootings, officials said.
Law enforcement officials planned to meet with community leaders later Friday to discuss the shooting, the second in recent months involving law enforcement in Charleston County.
On April 4, a white North Charleston Police officer shot and killed a black man who he said fought with him over the officer's stun gun.
Officer Michael Slager has been charged with murder in the slaying of Walter Scott. A bystander's cellphone video showed him firing eight shots at Scott's back as he ran away.
So there is dashcam video, but not for you....
Heyward spoke with an investigator in an ambulance Thursday as paramedics patched the wound in his neck and worked to save his life. His words were captured in an audio recording that sheriff's officials released a day later, while dashboard camera video that might have caught the deputy's words were not made public.
No documentation alleges that Heyward pointed the gun at the deputies.
There is no known video footage of the shooting, SLED said in a statement Friday. The deputies' in-car cameras did not capture it, SLED spokesman Thom Berry said. Sheriff's officials explained later, though, that the microphones on the deputies' uniform "likely" captured what they were saying at the time, including how they announced themselves to Heyward. The microphones are linked wirelessly to the video cameras.
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150508/PC16/150509445/1268/hollywood-man-on-getting-shot-by-deputy-x2018-he-thought-i-was-the-crook-x2019&source=RSS
Throwdown: Officer Slager plants a weapon next to the body of his victim:
(http://i.imgur.com/DTYSXXC.gif)
LAKEWOOD, Wash. -- A dark object that officers claimed was a gun being pointed at them when they fatally shot a man in a lumber yard last month turned out to be a cell phone, according to interim Lakewood Police Chief Mark Zaro.
Zaro made the new revelations in the shooting that took the life of 37-year-old Daniel Covarrubias during a press conference Monday afternoon.
An employee at the lumber yard had called 911 to report seeing Covarrubias running through the lumber yard "as if he was running from police". The man then climbed atop a 25-foot tall stack of lumber.
When officers David Butts and Ryan Hamilton arrived, they attempted to talk to the man, who wasn't speaking, according to Zaro.
"Mr. Covarrubias was in an elevated position atop the stack of lumber and was seen reaching into his pockets," Zaro said. "Officers gave numerous (English) commands to show his hands, but Mr. Covarrubias did not respond. Seconds later, Mr. Covarrubias raised up with a dark object in his hands and pointed it at the officers in a manner that was consistent with pointing a firearm."
Zaro said the man crouched down, then raised up a second time and pointed the dark object at the officers. That's when both officers began shooting, firing nine shots in all, of which five struck Covarrubias, Zaro said.
Covarrubias raised up a third time with the dark object, then dropped back onto the lumber. Zaro said six seconds elapsed between the first time Covarrubias raised up and the final shot was fired by the officers.
Covarrubias was taken down via ladder and loaded into an ambulance. That's when officers discovered the dark object in Covarrubias' hand was a cell phone, not a gun, Zaro said.
Zaro said their investigation revealed that Zaro wasn't running from police when the 911 call came in and still aren't sure why he was running. The employee heard sirens in the area and then spotted Covarrubias running when they made the 911 call, but Zaro said they were not seeking him, adding he might have been heading to his home in Parkland. Police also said Covarrubias might have been under the influence of meth and possibly hallucinating, as a possible explanation as to why he would point a cell phone at officers to mimic a gun.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Man-shot-dead-by-Lakewood-officers-was-pointing-cell-phone-303323281.html
Another explanation would be that he was using the cellphone to take pictures.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186904/Shocking-moment-Northern-California-officer-pulls-gun-man-recording-cellphone.html
McComas, who was not arrested or detained, told the officer he would post the video on YouTube to which he replied 'I don't really care'.
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on August 07, 2015, 08:14:29 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186904/Shocking-moment-Northern-California-officer-pulls-gun-man-recording-cellphone.html
McComas, who was not arrested or detained, told the officer he would post the video on YouTube to which he replied 'I don't really care'.
Could have been handled better by the photographer... With the rash of crazy, the cop kept a level head and didn't do anything to be embarrassed about. Everyone went home safe and alive.
Quote from: TeeDub on August 10, 2015, 11:08:25 AM
Could have been handled better by the photographer... With the rash of crazy, the cop kept a level head and didn't do anything to be embarrassed about. Everyone went home safe and alive.
...except the guy with the cellphone camera, who police killed.
Dont photographers lives matter?
Quote from: patric on August 10, 2015, 01:37:29 PM
...except the guy with the cellphone camera, who police killed.
Dont photographers lives matter?
Hey! I bet there is a slogan there....
Something along the line of....
"Photographers Lives Matter!!"
Try to figure this one out:
http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-clinton-drone-teen-arrest-0724-20150723-story.html
License plate recognition camera helps locate murder suspect.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/08/26/tv-camera-crew-caught-in-active-shooter-situation-in-southwest-virginia/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/08/26/tv-camera-crew-caught-in-active-shooter-situation-in-southwest-virginia/)
A police officer repeatedly billy-clubs a teenager in the face; charged with jaywalking. Yes, jaywalking.
The police spokesman spins it like this:
"If people would just comply with lawful orders from law enforcement and not grab our weapons, force would never have to happen," Silva told KPIX-TV.
...knowing the officer's bodycam was "disabled"
but not knowing a bystander had also recorded the assault.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stockton-officers-teen-jaywalking-20150918-story.html
Little bit of a stretch there on the repeatedly billy clubbed. As usual for today's youth. He does not have to listen to or follow instructions given by our police officers. Try and act like a rational citizen and tell your side of the story and maybe this type of video won't surface. And per today's society. The NAACP is called in because of skin color. White Officer's. Black "child" as the woman in the video repeatedly and could not stop saying. Even referring to him as a "baby" Get a clue people. Show respect and use your Law given Rights and stop resisting when questioned about what your doing.
As a side note. He looked pretty good in his non deserved news interview for someone who was repeatedly billy clubbed in the face. Now give that "baby" his well deserved tax paid settlement. ::)
Court says cop who beat up and took New York Times photographer's camera guilty of lying about arrest
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/nyregion/new-york-police-officer-is-convicted-of-lying-about-photographers-arrest.html
QuoteCourt says cop who beat up and took New York Times photographer's camera guilty of lying about arrest
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/nyregion/new-york-police-officer-is-convicted-of-lying-about-photographers-arrest.html
.....All thanks to a bystander's video the police didnt know about.
A video of the episode taken by one of the reporters who was with Mr. Stolarik shows Mr. Stolarik face down on the sidewalk, beneath a huddle of about six officers.
One cop placed her hand in front of his lens to prevent him from shooting. When he showed her his credentials – not that it should matter in public – another cop walked up and shoved the camera into his face.
When he demanded names and badge numbers, several cops pounced on him and began beating and kicking him.http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/10/nypd-cop-convicted-of-falsifying-arrest-report-on-new-york-times-photographer
Always record in secret; here is what happens when you dont:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/teen-flashed-brights-dead-family-lawsuit_5620005ce4b028dd7ea73d53
From the "Cops cant do our jobs if they cant get away with lying and brutality" gallery:
FBI Director Blames Crime On Police Misconduct Videos
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-comey-police-videos_562b7ea9e4b0ec0a3894a8ec
'We feel like we're under siege and we don't feel much like getting out of our cars'
Hmmmm so much for the FBI stepping in and cleaning up the bad cop epidemic.
Meanwhile today,
800 People Shot Dead by police this year.
The Washington Post is doing the job that The FBI director should have been doing, but isnt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/10/florida-cops-murder-pet-dog-3-feet-from-terrified-homeowners/
NYPD officer beating an unarmed black man while another officer stands by and does nothing
(You don't even want to see what happens to the photographer.)
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/12049114_1139686112711446_5535542472119976469_n.jpg?oh=7b74aa827cd7f65e469b268463255cba&oe=56BB80B1)
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on October 24, 2015, 08:45:05 PM
FBI Director Blames Crime On Police Misconduct Videos
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-comey-police-videos_562b7ea9e4b0ec0a3894a8ec
All the cameras did was show the world what it didnt want to know, but we cant put that jeanie back in the bottle.
Quote from: TeeDub on October 26, 2015, 05:39:33 AM
NYPD officer beating an unarmed black man while another officer stands by and does nothing
(You don't even want to see what happens to the photographer.)
The FBI didnt want to be lumped in with this:
http://gawker.com/batshit-nypd-union-wants-new-yorkers-to-boycott-quentin-1738681947
What is so troubling about this line of reasoning is that it suggests officers have no idea about what has brought us to this point. The issue is not officers doing their jobs in an energetic, proactive way. The issue is the use of force when it's not needed, the violation of civil rights and the general dehumanization of people who live in high crime areas. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-comey-police-20151026-story.html
What makes Comey's comments so rattling is that if there is an observable Ferguson effect, it may suggest that many law-enforcement agencies have come to rely on abusive or questionable practices, rather than developing other crime-control strategies that could be successful even under public scrutiny.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/the-fbi-directors-troubling-comments-on-the-ferguson-effect/412351/
"With you recording me, I am going to protect myself, and impound the vehicle."
The officers offered to let the driver and passenger go free if the video was deleted, but the passenger rejected the officer's proposition, claiming extortion.
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/10/chicago-ohare-airport-police-violate-constitutional-rights-two-men-using-lyft-taxi/
It was just about a year ago that a city whistleblower came to journalist Jamie Kalven and attorney Craig Futterman out of concern that Laquan McDonald's shooting a few weeks earlier "wasn't being vigorously investigated," as Kalven recalls. The source told them "that there was a video and that it was horrific," he said.
Without that whistleblower—and without that video—it's highly unlikely that Chicago Police officer Jason Van Dyke would be facing first-degree murder charges today.
http://chicagoreporter.com/how-chicago-tried-to-cover-up-a-police-execution/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix2N6_jLAgA
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on November 24, 2015, 07:19:59 PM
It was just about a year ago that a city whistleblower came to journalist Jamie Kalven and attorney Craig Futterman out of concern that Laquan McDonald's shooting a few weeks earlier "wasn't being vigorously investigated," as Kalven recalls. The source told them "that there was a video and that it was horrific," he said.
Without that whistleblower—and without that video—it's highly unlikely that Chicago Police officer Jason Van Dyke would be facing first-degree murder charges today.
http://chicagoreporter.com/how-chicago-tried-to-cover-up-a-police-execution/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix2N6_jLAgA
This is why "We wont release video that is part of an investigation" needs an expiration date.
Quote
This is why "We wont release video that is part of an investigation" needs an expiration date.
...dash-cam footage was suppressed for more than a year by authorities citing an investigation. "There was no mystery, no dead-end leads to pursue, no ambiguity about who fired the shots," Eric Zorn wrote in The Chicago Tribune. "Who was pursuing justice and the truth? What were they doing? Who were they talking to? With whom were they meeting? What were they trying to figure out for 400 days?"
What does it take to flag a problem cop? The answer is actually clear: It takes video evidence that the public can access.
A Chicago police official said there was no audio because the batteries in the dash-cams had been put in improperly and facing the wrong direction, which disables the audio part of the recorder. CPD says officers responsible for maintaining their dash-cams are being retrained to avoid this.http://abc7chicago.com/news/new-dash-cam-video-shows-laquan-mcdonald-pursuit-before-shooting/1099885/
No, it didnt just become illegal to record police with your iPhone.
Previous court rulings protecting that right still stand, minus a specific first amendment protection.
Apparently, the current ruling doesnt allow the first amendment to apply if you are silently recording from outside police lines and not interfering, yet does provide protection if you shout out "Hey fu@ckyou guys im filming."
Bizarre.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/608397/illegal-film-cops-now
One bizarre case specific ruling in a district Court case that is being appealed. There are Supreme Court and Circuit Court decisions that govern. Unfortunately, many police officers will read a headline and assume they are now an expert.
Photography is Not a Crime has a good write up on it here:
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/02/22/rookie-federal-judge-in-pennsylvania-rules-citizens-do-not-have-first-amendment-right-to-record-police/
TechDirt has similar coverage:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160223/09134633685/federal-judge-says-recording-police-not-protected-first-amendment.shtml
The cases:
1) Woman began video taping an arrest of a anti-fracking protester. A police officer bull rushed her, struck her in the neck, pressed against a wall, surrounded by police, and detained her for video taping. Other officers prevented anyone else from recording.
2) A Northwestern University student saw police gathering outside of a house party and thought it would make an interesting picture. He was told to leave and asserted his First Amendment Right to take pictures in public. He was arrested for blocking a highway (while on a sidewalk) and asked "How do you like taking pictures of grown men now?"
The holding was that there is no first amendment right to record police unless you are protesting against them. Also, Freedom of the Press doesn't apply to citizens. Both holdings are clearly erroneous and fail to address other issues - namely, even if there is no First Amendment protection, the police are still government agents of limited power. They have to have a reason to stop your action and detain you. Things aren't "illegal" unless determined to be otherwise.
Neither criminal case held up. This case through out the retaliation case against the police. The point of the retaliation case is as a remedial measure. Basically, the holding means the police can do as they please and your recourse is to pay an attorney to get out from underneath the BS criminal charges and then go pound sand.
The Philly Log Blog (https://phillylawblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/apparently-you-do-not-have-a-first-amendment-right-to-photograph-the-police-in-pennsylvania-unless-you-do-a-little-jig/) puts it this way:
QuoteHow does this affect the public practically? I guess if you want to film the police, also make sure to maybe yell at them too. Perhaps do a little jig while you're filming, or sing [an NWA song].
Filming the police = arresting and no recourse. Filing the police and screaming "F**K THE POLICE" = you sue the police and win!
Thanks, your honor.
It will be overturned on appeal and forgotten. The Judge is a corporate lawyer turned judge recently and simply doesn't know any better.
Plainclothes NYPD cops nearly hit mailman with car and then they arrest him
https://boingboing.net/2016/03/24/plainclothes-nypd-cops-nearly.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jDDs-CzF5E
The footage was released this week by Brooklyn Borough President Eric L. Adams, who said Grays had been "carrying out his normal duties" as a mail carrier when he got out of his truck and a passing vehicle almost struck him.
"He made comments to the vehicle, as any New Yorker would," Adams said at a news conference last week. "The occupants of the vehicle stopped, backed up when he was crossing the street delivering the package."
According to Adams, those occupants were the four plainclothes officers, who followed Grays to his delivery stop. The video shows the officers telling Gray to "stop resisting." They then take him away in handcuffs, leaving his mail truck unattended.
Yelling at the unmarked car about driving recklessly "is the only action that Glen did that day that caused those plainclothes officers to stop their vehicle and to show who's the biggest and the baddest and place handcuffs on an on-duty postal employee who is delivering the U.S. mail," Adams said. "If they would do that to Glen, in his postal uniform, they would do it to any other person."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/03/26/black-mailman-handcuffed-by-nypd-while-delivering-packages-video-shows/
BROOKLYN — The on-duty postal worker whose controversial arrest in Crown Heights was caught on video said his run in with police two weeks ago could've been uglier had it not been recorded.
"The only thing that I think saved me was that it was on videotape," mailman Glenn Grays, 27, told CBS This Morning on Monday. "I was extremely terrified. I was afraid if I didn't comply, something was going to happen to me."
Grays, whose wife is a police officer, said he was working his postal route March 17 when an unmarked police car nearly sideswiped him as he tried to cross President Street near Franklin Avenue.
When he he told the officers they had nearly hit him, four plainclothes officers surrounded Grays before cuffing him and yelling at him to stop resisting arrest. The entire incident was caught on video by a passerby.
"I believe they wanted him to resist," Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who released the video, told CBS This Morning. "Those officers were extremely aggressive. He was smart enough not to resist. I believe because of that, he's sitting here today telling his story."
Once in the police car, Grays claimed the chaos continued.
"I was told to shut up a numerous amount of times," he said. "They rear ended a car and I wound up from the back seat banging my left shoulder onto the driver's seat and banging my face onto their arm rest."
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160328/crown-heights/mailman-beaten-by-nypd-say-cameras-capturing-crown-heights-arrest-saved-him
Doubtless, the two NYPD undercover cops may be getting a visit from the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) to discuss the arrest which may have violated one of the laundry list of federal crimes enforced by the oldest American police agency, founded by THE Ben Franklin in 1772.
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/23/new-york-city-postal-worker-arrested-duty-delivering-packages/
Offending a police officer is not a crime. But there are at least two really easy crimes to arrest the police for:
1) Assaults (18 USC 111 & 1114)
The protection of Postal Service employees is one of our most important responsibilities. Inspectors promptly investigate assaults and threats that occur while postal employees are performing official duties
An assault, in this context, is an unauthorized touching. Police have obvious exemptions from assault if they are arresting you for a crime or otherwise lawfully intervening. If they have no reason to place you under arrest or intervene, then it is assault.
2) Destruction, Obstruction and Delay of Mail (18 USC 1700, 1701, 1702 & 1703)
The Postal Inspection Service upholds federal statutes aimed at securing customers' mail, including those related to the desertion, obstruction, delay or destruction of mail.
They caused the mail to be delayed and caused the package he was delivering as well as his entire truck to be deserted.
Oh dear. It looks like years in prison for each of the easily offended over bearing police officers. Surely the FOP will applaud the Postal Inspector's efforts to thin the NYPD of misbehaving officers.
A Pennsylvania cop who ripped a phone out of a woman's hand because she was recording, then slammed it on a sidewalk before punching the woman was arrested Wednesday.
All because another camera recorded Reading police officer Jesus Santiago-DeJesus criminal actions.
Otherwise, he would still be free while the woman, Marcelina Cintron-Garcia, and her boyfriend would still be facing charges.
In fact, Berks County District Attorney John T. Adams said they reviewed a total of five videos before deciding to charge Santiago-DeJesus for the April 5 incident.
But the cop's lawyer said his client was only trying to protect himself from a phone that could have been a weapon.
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/05/pennsylvania-cop-charged-for-destroying-phone-of-woman-recording-him/
Adrian Burrell was standing on his porch on 22 January and filming a Vallejo police officer who had stopped his cousin at gunpoint in the driveway. The officer, Ryan McLaughlin, then demanded Burrell stop filming and go inside. According to video taken by Burrell, when he declined to stop filming, McLaughlin handcuffed him and threw him against a wooden post where he hit his head.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/20/vallejo-police-department-racial-profiling-brutality-claims
Quote from: patric on May 19, 2016, 05:57:30 PM
A Pennsylvania cop who ripped a phone out of a woman's hand because she was recording, then slammed it on a sidewalk before punching the woman was arrested Wednesday.
All because another camera recorded Reading police officer Jesus Santiago-DeJesus criminal actions.
Otherwise, he would still be free while the woman, Marcelina Cintron-Garcia, and her boyfriend would still be facing charges.
In fact, Berks County District Attorney John T. Adams said they reviewed a total of five videos before deciding to charge Santiago-DeJesus for the April 5 incident.
But the cop's lawyer said his client was only trying to protect himself from a phone that could have been a weapon.
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/05/pennsylvania-cop-charged-for-destroying-phone-of-woman-recording-him/
Jesus De Jesus???
Self-righteous much, Officer DeJesus?
WAGONER — Former Wagoner County chief deputy and public information officer Shannon Clark denied accusations Friday that he was pressured to leave the agency based on the Board of Commissioners' knowledge of a series of audio recordings that captured a heated exchange between him and a deputy.
Clark announced his resignation from the agency on Wednesday less than five months after being hired by Sheriff Bob Colbert, who agreed to be suspended with pay in April after he and a deputy were indicted on felony bribery and extortion charges.
He denied there was a correlation between the recordings being released and his resignation, adding that he's looking into the possibility of pursuing a criminal case against the deputy who recorded him, saying the employee violated Oklahoma law. The law states consent is not required to record a nonelectronic conversation that involves a person who does not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," but that it is a misdemeanor to loiter in secret to eavesdrop and repeat anything overheard.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/former-wagoner-county-chief-deputy-denies-claims-regarding-reason-he/article_67df3c6a-2259-5d84-95e3-d11685d8a157.html
Police: "We can spin it"
Bodycams catch cops rehearsing story to justify their pepper-spraying an 84-year-old lady in her home.
http://www.fox23.com/web/koki/news/video-muskogee-investigates-controversial-pepper-spray-video_20160913103447/444965419
http://www.fox23.com/web/koki/news/video-muskogee-officials-speak-on-pepper-spray-incident-at-city-council-meeting_20160913032221/444821253
Quote from: Vashta Nerada on September 13, 2016, 07:59:01 PM
Police: "We can spin it"
Bodycams catch cops rehearsing story to justify their pepper-spraying an 84-year-old lady in her home.
http://www.fox23.com/web/koki/news/video-muskogee-investigates-controversial-pepper-spray-video_20160913103447/444965419
http://www.fox23.com/web/koki/news/video-muskogee-officials-speak-on-pepper-spray-incident-at-city-council-meeting_20160913032221/444821253
I saw the video. She was lucky it wasn't me. I woulda tased her. And then arrested her.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 13, 2016, 09:43:48 PM
I saw the video. She was lucky it wasn't me. I woulda tased her. And then arrested her.
84 years old? Much younger people have asphyxiated from pepperspray, and not-always-lethal force isnt an option just because you're impatient.
Quote from: patric on September 14, 2016, 04:57:33 PM
84 years old? Much younger people have asphyxiated from pepperspray, and not-always-lethal force isnt an option just because you're impatient.
I have been known to exaggerate just ever so slightly upon rare occasions... but in this case...
It is a good thing I am not a cop - I don't have the patience some of them show...!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 14, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
I have been known to exaggerate just ever so slightly upon rare occasions... but in this case...
It is a good thing I am not a cop - I don't have the patience some of them show...!!
Hopefully your decision-making skills are better than some of them.
Quote from: Hoss on September 14, 2016, 07:52:09 PM
Hopefully your decision-making skills are better than some of them.
Obviously. Recognizing my limitations, I decided not to pursue law enforcement as a career path.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 14, 2016, 09:43:11 PM
Obviously. Recognizing my limitations, I decided not to pursue law enforcement as a career path.
I figured my profanity-laden Tourette's outbursts would be terribly inappropriate for a court of law or a family medical practice, so I dropped out of !@@# #$%@ *&^%$ college. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on September 14, 2016, 10:19:59 PM
I figured my profanity-laden Tourette's outbursts would be terribly inappropriate for a court of law or a family medical practice, so I dropped out of !@@# #$%@ *&^%$ college. ;D
I enjoy the use of "colorful metaphors" without the affliction of Tourette's!! Best of all worlds....like Florida!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 14, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
I have been known to exaggerate just ever so slightly upon rare occasions... but in this case...
...you wouldn't have been punished.
The "we can spin it" Muskogee cops that pepper-sprayed an 84-year-old woman get to skate with only a couple unpaid days off.
Of the eight cops that kicked in her door over a ran stop sign, one got a reprimand.
http://www.newson6.com/story/33308439/community-wants-stronger-punishment-for-officers-involved-in-pepper-spraying-incident
Attorney for the police
Scott Wood said the force was justified.
http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/news/video-shows-police-use-pepper-spray-on-woman/article_c026df8a-0ddf-5613-b759-d32367615080.html
Quote from: patric on October 04, 2016, 11:28:57 AM
...you wouldn't have been punished.
The "we can spin it" Muskogee cops that pepper-sprayed an 84-year-old woman get to skate with only a couple unpaid days off.
Of the eight cops that kicked in her door over a ran stop sign, one got a reprimand.
http://www.newson6.com/story/33308439/community-wants-stronger-punishment-for-officers-involved-in-pepper-spraying-incident
Attorney for the police Scott Wood said the force was justified.
http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/news/video-shows-police-use-pepper-spray-on-woman/article_c026df8a-0ddf-5613-b759-d32367615080.html
We have the technology - take a picture, send a ticket. This kind of stuff is stupid for police to be involved in. And doesn't help safety or public relations with citizens at all. It does however allow for expressions of aggression and dominance to escalate events beyond any possible rational level.
But then again, one of my favorite sayings....
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.
Or this....
Hearse Con, be there or accept your role as a bitter failure at life.
http://www.hearseclub.com/hearsecon/hearsecon.htm
Journalists, Documentary Filmmakers Call For Encryption in Cameras
https://nppa.org/news/journalists-documentary-filmmakers-call-encryption-cameras
Cameras with a built-in encryption system could help project photographers, filmmakers and their subjects in high-risk situations.
In an open letter to camera manufacturers, the Freedom of the Press Foundation said that while encryption is common in smart phones and many online messaging systems, still and video cameras currently do not come with this security feature.
The letter was signed by more than 150 photojournalists and documentary filmmakers, many of whom work in some of the most dangerous regions in the world. It was also backed by the National Press Photographers Association as well as the International Documentary Association, Field of Vision and Sundance's documentary Films.
Photojournalists and documentarians routinely face threats from corrupt law enforcement or border agents, terrorists and criminals. The Committee to Protect Journalists told the Freedom of the Press Foundation that these incidents are so common that they can't "realistically track them all."
Images taken from photojournalists could be destroyed to cover up stories of corrupt agencies or be used to track the subjects for retribution.
While the letter comes from a group of professionals, the ability to protect footage and photos on your camera would protect anyone.
Some of the alternate camera firmware(s) already offer that.
Seems like a niche request, but I am sure those 150 people would appreciate it... Not so necessary for the remainder of the vast majority of camera owners.
Quote from: TeeDub on December 25, 2016, 10:29:13 AM
Seems like a niche request, but I am sure those 150 people would appreciate it... Not so necessary for the remainder of the vast majority of camera owners.
The 150 who signed the petition probably represent a much greater number. Compiling a list of every photojournalist that supports encryption would not be realistic, and perhaps a bit Trump-ish.
Quote from: patric on December 26, 2016, 10:17:35 AM
The 150 who signed the petition probably represent a much greater number. Compiling a list of every photojournalist that supports encryption would not be realistic, and perhaps a bit Trump-ish.
Wow. I forgot some people can be entirely literal. Let's pretend that there are 5,000 that would appreciate the encryption.
I don't want to pay for it, nor do I want it on my camera. I would imagine that I am in the majority. I guess the silent majority should always make concessions for the vocal minority?
Again, it isn't that it is not available, it just isn't particularly easy to use or available from the factory. They would have to spend more effort than signing a petition to get it to work.
"I just recorded everything!"
"OK," the officer said, moments before the video stopped abruptly, "you're going to jail, too."
It's hard to imagine anyone mishandling a call any worse than this officer, (http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/12/23/fort-worth-officer-turns-feud-neighbors-racially-charged-powder-keg) who arrested a woman, Jacqueline Craig, who'd dialed 911 on Wednesday to complain that a neighbor had allegedly choked her son after accusing the boy of littering.
That one was bad....
So was the one where the cop threatened to put the guy in jail and make up charges....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-cop-caught-threatening-to-create-charges_us_5893a046e4b0c1284f24fdf0
Quote from: TeeDub on February 13, 2017, 10:07:18 PM
That one was bad....
So was the one where the cop threatened to put the guy in jail and make up charges....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-cop-caught-threatening-to-create-charges_us_5893a046e4b0c1284f24fdf0
As America "gets greater again" the attacks on journalists intensify.
Photojournalists Arrested at Protests Work to Have Confiscated Gear Returned
https://nppa.org/news/photojournalists-arrested-protests-work-get-confiscated-gear-returned
Protests across the country are growing more violent and photographers are getting caught up in the ensuing arrests, often having their gear confiscated. Caught without their cameras, they find themselves not only in police custody, but in a position where they can't work after they've been released.
Tracie Williams, who was arrested Feb. 23 at Standing Rock protests in North Dakota, got her gear back on March 1. Cheney Orr was arrested on Jan. 20 in Washington, D.C. and was able to get his cameras back a week later.
On Feb. 23, Williams was at Standing Rock covering the Dakota Access Pipeline protests when the final eviction notice was issued to the protestors. A documentary photographer who focuses on humanitarian issues, she had been to the camp in December and had returned the beginning of February, living at the camp.
The eviction had been scheduled for the day before, but nothing had happened. Some protesters planned to stand in a peaceful act of civil disobedience, while others were evacuating to other protest camps. Structures had been set on fire the day before as a ceremonial gesture, protesters said.
She began to hear talk that law enforcement was coming into the camp from the north gate, riding in Humvees and carrying automatic weapons. They started to advance into the camp, knifing open teepees as they went, Williams said.
She watched as Regina Brave took a treaty stand, a kind of civil disobedience. Brave, who is in her 80s and was at the Wounded Knee protests in 1973, was one of the first to be arrested.
"I was really scared for their safety and I felt a duty to photograph their arrests," Williams said.
She was photographing men praying at a sacred "eternal fire" and had her camera to her face when she was grabbed by law enforcement.
She was handcuffed with zip ties and transported to a couple of locations before being charged with obstruction of a governmental function, a Class A misdemeanor.
Williams got her personal possessions back the next day when she was released, but she noticed that her camera, audio recorder and cell phone were missing. A note was left saying they have been taken as evidence.
On Inauguration Day, independent photographer Orr had traveled to Washington, D.C. to cover the events surrounding the inauguration of President Donald Trump. He'd planned to do a portrait series that day and during the Women's March on Washington the following day.
As the morning progressed, the interactions between law enforcement and protestors grew more aggressive.
"A lot was happening on both sides that I was witnessing and photographing," Orr said.
He was with a group of about 60 protestors when police started to move in.
"All of a sudden, there was a line of riot cops on my left saying 'go that way'," Orr said. "That way" was another line of officers. Flash grenades and pepper spray were deployed and the group was cordoned off and detained.
Eventually, Orr and the others were handcuffed with zip ties and his gear was confiscated. In addition to the Rolleiflex, they took a Canon DLSR, two lenses, a Contax point-and-shoot, memory cards and Orr's cell phone.
Orr was one of more than 200 people arrested and they were all charged with felony rioting.
Law enforcement wanted the images on the cameras for evidence but could not legally search them without either a warrant or permission from Orr.
"It is always a difficult decision to allow the government to view journalist's images but in this case there was an almost certainty that they would get to do so anyway balanced against the fact that had we not consented it might have been weeks or months until the equipment was returned."
More than a half-dozen cops are present and not one says "Hey, this is wrong."
Officer: Hey bud, turn that off, OK?
Driver: No, I'll keep recording. Thank you. It's my right.
Officer: Don't record me. You got me?
Driver: Look, you're a police officer on duty. I can record you.
Officer walks to driver's side of vehicle
Officer: Be careful because there is a new law. Turn it off or I'll take you to jail.
Driver: For recording you? What is the law?
Officer: Step out of the car.
Driver: What are you arresting me for? I'm sitting here in my car. I'm just recording in case anything happens. I'm surrounded by five police officers.
Officer: You're being a jerk.
Driver: I'm scared right now. I'm not being a jerk. I'm recording in case anything happens.
Officer: You better hope we don't find something in your car?
Driver: You're not searching my car?
Officer: I'm going to search your car.
Driver: You're not searching my car.
Officer calls for K-9 unit
Driver: Bring the K-9s. I don't care. I know my rights.
Officer: I hope so. I know what the law is.
Driver: I know the law. I'm an attorney, so I would hope I know what the law is. (shows him his "Bar Card")
Officer: And an Uber driver?
The attorney proceeds to record a phony drug dog search of his car.
http://www.wect.com/story/34695605/video-shows-wpd-sergeant-falsely-telling-citizen-to-stop-recording-him-because-of-state-law
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-recording-debate_us_58c1b6cbe4b054a0ea691bfb
Justice Department reports from places like Ferguson, Chicago, Baltimore, and Cleveland (to name a few) offer evidence that there is certainly a problem within the institution of policing—whether it's individual officers who lie or a culture within some police departments that inadvertently, or worse, actively encourage lying.
Incidents like this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/9/1641905/-North-Carolina-cops-tell-driver-its-illegal-to-record-police-Except-that-s-a-lie) would warrant a Justice Department investigation into the police department. But with Jeff Sessions in charge, who has vowed near unconditional support of the police, we know that's not happening anytime soon. This means recording incidents with police on cell phones will become more and more necessary for police accountability.
Now Wilmington Police (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/cop-who-tried-to-keep-driver-from-filming-reignites-debate-over-police-privacy.html) Sergeant Kenneth Baker is "under investigation" for his actions caught caught on camera that day, showing he not only lied about the law, but lied about having probable cause to search Bright's car.
Cops kept telling Bright that the dog "indicated" on both sides of his car, which gave them probable cause to search the car.
But the video (https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2017/03/10/north-carolina-cops-exposed-as-liars-by-lawyer-moonlighting-as-uber-driver/) shows the dog never gave such a sign.
Wilmington Police Chief: Taking photographs and videos of people that are in plain sight including the police is your legal right. As a matter of fact we invite citizens to do so when they believe it is necessary. We believe that public videos help to protect the police as well as our citizens and provide critical information during police and citizen interaction.
Sheriff: "In keeping with Sheriff McMahon's practice of openness and transparency with the citizens that we serve, he has instructed his staff to ensure that each deputy has been provided with information about the citizen's right to record encounters with law enforcement officers"
Sounds like a Model Policy (hint...hint...)
...The United States is concerned that discretionary charges (http://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/docs/20130307_135451_garcia.pdf) , such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest, are all too easily
used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights.
The United States believes that courts should view such charges skeptically to ensure that individuals' First Amendment rights are protected.
Core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis for such charges.
...The First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the public's and the media's rights to record here. The derogation of these rights erodes public confidence in our police departments,
decreases the accountability of our governmental officers, and conflicts with the liberties that the Constitution was designed to uphold.
Police Chief Butch Ayers said when Sgt. Michael Bongiovanni (a supervisor) was asked about the discrepancies in his account and the newly surfaced video, he replied, "It's different on the streets." (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/us/georgia-gwinnett-county-officers-fired-video-trnd/)
"But without video, it was always the citizen's word versus the officer's word." (http://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-news/fired-gwinnett-officers-had-history-together-and-with-suspect/DYb4O5z3OS8lzEnwniSIZP/)
67 past complaints, none of which the department addressed.
The long history of false police reports (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/14/the_michael_bongiovanni_case_shows_how_bad_cops_cover_for_each_other.html)
Police unions say video makes cops afraid to do their job, but if those cops believe being able to get away with lying and brutality is their job then maybe thats the problem. Unions not only protect bad cops, but encourage their behavior.
http://www.fox23.com/news/fox23-investigates/video-appears-to-show-green-country-police-officer-punch-man-in-the-face/516200623
The Chief approves of sucker-punching a mouthy drunk "to keep everyone safe." Film at eleven.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/tpd-man-filming-mingo-valley-headquarters-could-have-posed-a/article_a2e70b77-41db-58bb-a2dd-8e7beb245c26.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFTF9JVJGSY
In practice that probably isnt much different than cops going into a bar and making sure they arent serving minors or drunks, the result being a police spokesman rambling off some alt-facts.
If it was a "compliance check" then Tulsa failed, and people took notice: http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2017/06/06/in-tulsa-only-the-cops-can-have-cameras
Broke the wrong guys cellphone camera:
'It's still a blast beating people': St. Louis police indicted in assault of undercover officer posing as protester
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/its-still-blast-beating-people-st-louis-police-indicted-assault-undercover-officer-posing-protester/
Undercover St. Louis cop sues city, police over his violent arrest during protests
Detective Luther Hall's lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in St. Louis, also says that colleagues tried to cover up his beating. Hall's suit says one officer who participated in the beating, Joseph Marcantano, has since been promoted to sergeant, showing that "misconduct is not only protected but rewarded by the City and Department."
When Officer Colletta and other officers arrived, Hall had his hands up and was getting on the ground, as ordered, when he was picked up and slammed down twice, the suit says. He was then kicked and beaten with batons and fists. Officers searched his backpack and destroyed his camera and cellphone.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/undercover-st-louis-cop-sues-city-police-over-his-violent/article_c7f160f1-fbf5-5e37-94f9-2be280f61814.html
Quote from: patric on May 17, 2019, 09:02:30 PM
On April 8, (Rick) Hubbard was arrested at Nienhuis Park on complaints of obstruction and felony pointing of a firearm. Police said in a release a witness had told police Hubbard was pointing a weapon, which Hubbard flatly denies, and that he ignored officers' commands.
Hubbard and his attorney, Jay Ramey, are in the midst of a legal battle with both the Tulsa County District Attorney's office and Broken Arrow police about a key piece of evidence from the arrest: Hubbard's phone. It contains video Hubbard recorded of his interaction with Broken Arrow officers that responded and shot at pepper balls at him during his arrest.
However, Ramey said the police department wants a blanket download of all data on Hubbard's phone, something he said is unreasonable given the scope of the case.
"We're at an impasse right now about getting the video out of the phone," Ramey said. "The police are telling me they have to download the entire phone because of some sort of protocols. I'm just saying we're not agreeing to that. ... If you're gonna download the entire phone, including all the emails he's written to his wife about whatever, they don't need that.
"We have no problem with the DA or the police wanting the video. We just don't want them to have the entire contents of the phone."
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/after-arrest-second-amendment-auditor-talks-awaiting-charges-maintains-innocence/article_9d29ae07-efa0-5866-88e8-fd570f2e5702.html
Warrantless seizures are legal only if an officer has probable cause to believe the property holds contraband or evidence of a crime (child pornography and counterfeiting, for example) and exigent circumstances demand it, or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present. United States v. Place (Supreme Court 1983). Otherwise, such seizures violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
https://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/173817006-Filming-cops-Know-when-you-can-seize-a-recording-device/
Well, on the warrantless seizures - only until the Trump Minions on the SC get to change it all again...
Broken Arrow's latest tactic to keep people from posting video of its representatives acting badly is to seize the entire contents of a victim's phone under the pretext of "securing evidence." Surprisingly the Tulsa DA office is going along with this (and the Tulsa World buried the lede).
On April 8, (Rick) Hubbard was arrested at Nienhuis Park on complaints of obstruction and felony pointing of a firearm. Police said in a release a witness had told police Hubbard was pointing a weapon, which Hubbard flatly denies, and that he ignored officers' commands.
Hubbard and his attorney, Jay Ramey, are in the midst of a legal battle with both the Tulsa County District Attorney's office and Broken Arrow police about a key piece of evidence from the arrest: Hubbard's phone. It contains video Hubbard recorded of his interaction with Broken Arrow officers that responded and shot at pepper balls at him during his arrest.
However, Ramey said the police department wants a blanket download of all data on Hubbard's phone, something he said is unreasonable given the scope of the case.
"We're at an impasse right now about getting the video out of the phone," Ramey said. "The police are telling me they have to download the entire phone because of some sort of protocols. I'm just saying we're not agreeing to that. ... If you're gonna download the entire phone, including all the emails he's written to his wife about whatever, they don't need that.
"We have no problem with the DA or the police wanting the video. We just don't want them to have the entire contents of the phone."
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/after-arrest-second-amendment-auditor-talks-awaiting-charges-maintains-innocence/article_9d29ae07-efa0-5866-88e8-fd570f2e5702.html
Warrantless seizures are legal only if an officer has probable cause to believe the property holds contraband or evidence of a crime (child pornography and counterfeiting, for example) and exigent circumstances demand it, or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present. United States v. Place (Supreme Court 1983). Otherwise, such seizures violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
https://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/173817006-Filming-cops-Know-when-you-can-seize-a-recording-device/
Quote from: patric on May 20, 2019, 01:52:02 PM
Broken Arrow's latest tactic to keep people from posting video of its representatives acting badly is to seize the entire contents of a victim's phone under the pretext of "securing evidence." Surprisingly the Tulsa DA office is going along with this (and the Tulsa World buried the lede).
On April 8, (Rick) Hubbard was arrested at Nienhuis Park on complaints of obstruction and felony pointing of a firearm. Police said in a release a witness had told police Hubbard was pointing a weapon, which Hubbard flatly denies, and that he ignored officers' commands.
Hubbard and his attorney, Jay Ramey, are in the midst of a legal battle with both the Tulsa County District Attorney's office and Broken Arrow police about a key piece of evidence from the arrest: Hubbard's phone. It contains video Hubbard recorded of his interaction with Broken Arrow officers that responded and shot at pepper balls at him during his arrest.
However, Ramey said the police department wants a blanket download of all data on Hubbard's phone, something he said is unreasonable given the scope of the case.
"We're at an impasse right now about getting the video out of the phone," Ramey said. "The police are telling me they have to download the entire phone because of some sort of protocols. I'm just saying we're not agreeing to that. ... If you're gonna download the entire phone, including all the emails he's written to his wife about whatever, they don't need that.
"We have no problem with the DA or the police wanting the video. We just don't want them to have the entire contents of the phone."
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/after-arrest-second-amendment-auditor-talks-awaiting-charges-maintains-innocence/article_9d29ae07-efa0-5866-88e8-fd570f2e5702.html
Warrantless seizures are legal only if an officer has probable cause to believe the property holds contraband or evidence of a crime (child pornography and counterfeiting, for example) and exigent circumstances demand it, or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present. United States v. Place (Supreme Court 1983). Otherwise, such seizures violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
https://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/173817006-Filming-cops-Know-when-you-can-seize-a-recording-device/
This would fall under that probable cause thing - they believe the property holds evidence of a crime by the police and exigent circumstances demand it - bury the video so the crime is hidden.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 21, 2019, 02:35:07 PM
This would fall under that probable cause thing - they believe the property holds evidence of a crime by the police and exigent circumstances demand it - bury the video so the crime is hidden.
The DA would know the unlawful seizure doesnt meet exigent circumstances to be justified (uploading to YouTube isnt "destruction" of evidence).
They would also know better than to collaborate with violations of the first, fourth and fourteenth amendments.
Seizing the entire haystack to find the needle? The video must be pretty damning
A Broken Arrow Second Amendment activist has filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Broken Arrow and two of its police officers alleging that his civil rights were violated when he was arrested at a park there in 2019.
Richard Hubbard was jailed two years ago on complaints of feloniously pointing a firearm and obstruction of an officer, but authorities ultimately attempted to pursue only the latter charge, a misdemeanor.
The suit claims that the first responding officer, who is identified only by his last name, drew his service pistol and pointed it at Hubbard without advising him he was under arrest in an alleged violation of his constitutional rights.
"During the entire time after (the officer) pointed his pistol at (Hubbard), (Hubbard) was recording the encounter on his cell phone," the complaint states. "(The officer) instructed (Hubbard) to stop recording and to lie on the ground."
Hubbard's attorney at the time got into a monthslong legal battle with the Tulsa County District Attorney's Office and the Broken Arrow Police Department about Hubbard's phone, Tulsa County court records show.
Hubbard had contested the agencies' intention to conduct what he considered an overly broad "dump" of all the data on his phone, though his defense wanted to preserve any recordings of the altercation.
A Broken Arrow police spokesman told the Tulsa World in 2019 that the "dump" of a phone's full contents is agency policy and entails taking a mirror image of the device, which investigators work with so they do not damage the actual item.
Hubbard alleges in the lawsuit that another officer arrived at the scene, pointed a pepper ball gun at him and fired about 15 rounds after he said he would comply. Afterward, he said, the officers seized his phone before taking his guns and arresting him, and he said those items still haven't been returned two years later.https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/second-amendment-activist-sues-broken-arrow-two-ba-police-officers-over-arrest-at-park/article_da7d9e36-9979-11eb-b521-b3a560b64aa8.html
What should you do if you see police using excessive force? Legal experts say film ithttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/02/derek-chauvin-trial-what-do-when-you-see-police-brutality/7046047002/
Quote from: patric on May 22, 2019, 02:05:37 PM
The DA would know the unlawful seizure doesnt meet exigent circumstances to be justified (uploading to YouTube isnt "destruction" of evidence).
They would also know better than to collaborate with violations of the first, fourth and fourteenth amendments.
Seizing the entire haystack to find the needle? The video must be pretty damning
Circle the wagons. "Fix" the problem before it becomes a big problem.
Standard procedure when in a country with little 'rule of law'.
"If they (police officers) are clearly violating someone's rights and they're violating a policy, they (citizens) have to call and complain about that person. Everybody has a phone and has a camera, right?
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/success-is-when-we-re-all-working-together-tulsa-deputy/article_21cd349c-74ef-5e27-978e-68c275423f39.html
Im guessing this caught the Tulsa Whirled's attention because Oklahoma has something similar taking effect this November.
MIAMI BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Miami Beach police officers are no longer enforcing a new law that critics believe has emboldened officers to arrest bystanders using their phones to film police on duty.
The department announced Thursday that it had suspended the law last month following a series a controversial arrests.
The local ordinance, which the city commission passed unanimously on June 23, makes it a crime to stand within 20 feet (about six meters) of officers with the "intent to impede, provoke or harass" them.
Chief Richard Clements ordered the local law's enforcement to be suspended on July 26, police spokesman Ernesto Rodriguez said. The temporary stoppage will allow for officers to receive additional training, Rodriguez said.
Arrest data provided by the police shows that 13 people have been arrested under the ordinance. At least eight of those arrests were of people who had been video recording officers. All 13 were young Black men or women.
In the early morning hours of the day the ordinance was suspended, two men were arrested as they video recorded police officers at the Royal Palm Hotel in South Beach. One man was filming police as they repeatedly beat a handcuffed man, officials said. The second man was arrested after filming officers as they waited outside the lobby to transport the first man to jail.
Prosecutors later dropped the charges against both men and filed misdemeanor batter charges against five police officers who had been at the scene.
A day before the hotel arrests, police pepper-sprayed and arrested a woman who had been filming a traffic stop in South Beach. The charge against the woman hasn't been dropped.
https://tulsaworld.com/news/national/miami-beach-suspends-law-used-against-people-filming-police/article_638ec3bc-7732-5646-b8d8-42c4ae783887.html
https://tulsaworld.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/man-arrested-for-filming-police-station-sues-officers/article_1d19ea22-2f89-5b5f-977c-38af6cee8739.html
U.S. government lawyers on Wednesday asked the appeals court overseeing four western and two midwestern states to recognize that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech gives people the right to film police as they do their work in public — a decision that would allow officers to be sued if they interfere with bystanders trying to record them.
Six of the nation's 12 appeals courts have recognized that right, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has not — and justices heard arguments in the case of a YouTube journalist and blogger who claimed that a suburban Denver officer blocked him from recording a 2019 traffic stop.
Natasha Babazadeh, an attorney for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, urged a three-judge panel from the court to rule that filming police is a constitutional right and said there has been an increase in the number of lawsuits filed against police by people saying they could not record them in public. The appeals court has jurisdiction over Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah, and the parts of Yellowstone National Park that lie in Idaho and Montana.
The First Amendment issue intersects with the controversial legal doctrine called "qualified immunity," which shields police officers from misconduct lawsuits unless their actions violate clearly established laws. If the appeals court decides people have a right to record police, police departments and officers who work in the court's region would be put on notice that they could be sued for violating that right.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/appeals-court-right-to-film-police-officers/
Quote from: patric on May 27, 2022, 08:49:03 PM
U.S. government lawyers on Wednesday asked the appeals court overseeing four western and two midwestern states to recognize that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech gives people the right to film police as they do their work in public — a decision that would allow officers to be sued if they interfere with bystanders trying to record them.
The first amendment also offers freedom from religion which eliminates almost all of the current Republican candidates from office. >:(
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 28, 2022, 12:12:06 AM
The first amendment also offers freedom from religion which eliminates almost all of the current Republican candidates from office. >:(
Turning the US into a theocracy is, unfortunately, part of the current Republican platform. Where's Barry Goldwater when you need him?