Arrested for Videotaping

[cannon_fodder]

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).

[Ed W]

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.

[Vashta Nerada]

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.

The 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.

[patric]

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.

[patric]

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.

[heironymouspasparagus]

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....

[Ed W]

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

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.

[patric]

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

[Vashta Nerada]

Police shoot dog owned by man recording arrest

"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

[Callahan]

Police shoot dog owned by man recording arrest

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.

The 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

[CoffeeBean]

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.     

[Vashta Nerada]

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?       

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.

[patric]

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. 

[Callahan]

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.

[RecycleMichael]

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.