Man Made Famous Over 2006 Arrest For Videotaping Police... Arrested Again While Videotaping Police

from the falsifying-evidence? dept

Thu, Jul 21st 2011 1:15am — Mike Masnick

We've discussed multiple times how police have been increasingly abusing wiretapping laws to arrest and charge people who film them in public. The arrests are simply an intimidation technique against those who wish to provide public oversight of law enforcement. One of the first high profile cases of such an arrest came back in 2006 when Michael Gannon was arrested under wiretapping charges for filming police with a security camera. In that case, Gannon was arrested after bringing the tape to the police station to use the footage to file a complaint concerning how detectives acted in coming to get his son. It was clearly a vindictive charge against Gannon for daring to report on the police. Of course, eventually it came out that the complaint Gannon wished to file against the detective was completely justified... and the case against Gannon was dropped.

Of course, Gannon likely now has a bit of a reputation with police in Nashua, and Slashdot points us to the news that Gannon's been arrested again, and once again, his videotaping of police has become part of the story.

The details are a bit confusing and involve a lot of disagreements between police and Gannon -- though Gannon has witnesses who appear to back up his claims. As far as I can tell, the events involved: (1) Police drove by Gannon and yelled something about his son. (2) Gannon responded with a definite wisecrack: "There goes corruption at its finest." (3) The police stopped and confronted Gannon. (4) Gannon apparently asked if he was being arrested, and was originally told no, so he turned to walk away. (4) At this point the police tackled him, maced him, handcuffed him, punched him and kicked him. (5) As he was being tackled, he tossed the video camera to someone on the street who was witnessing the whole confrontation, Pamela Reynolds. (6) Reynolds claims she wanted nothing to do with any of this, and immediately tossed the camera that was thrown to her into the bushes right next to her, just as a way of showing she had nothing to with any of it. (7) Police arrested Reynolds (and maced her as well) for (get this) "falsifying evidence," in tossing the camera.

Police, obviously, dispute parts of this chain of events. They claim that Gannon was resisting arrest. They also claim that Reynolds "fled" with the camera and refused to hand over "the evidence" to them when asked. One would hope that the actual video on the camera would confirm which one was right, but it seems pretty bizarre and questionable that the police would immediately seek to seize the camera as "evidence." Why would they do that unless the camera shows them doing something wrong?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: evidence, michael gannon, police, wiretapping

89 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 12:56am

WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
They were obviously furiously masturbating over the dead corpse of the Constitution. Didn't you get the memo, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- grumpy (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 2:43am
  
  Re: WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
  Yeah, calling the United States of America a democracy is causing more and more pain to my vocal cords each time I try. I wonder if there'll ever be an American spring...? Or is John Q. Public simply too overstimulated by teevee and overfed on junk food to bother?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dcee (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:24am
    
    Re: Re: WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
    Just cut the Internet, you'll get your revolution.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greevar (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:35am
    
    Re: Re: WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
    America was never a true democracy, it's a representative republic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - grumpy (profile), 22 Jul 2011 @ 2:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
      I wasn't thinking about the specific way the votes are counted (hardly anywhere counts as a fundamentalist democracy - I can think of one place, a commune not far from here, but no states), more along the lines of rule-of-law, respect for human rights, respect for the people and all the other little things that makes a democracy. Then again, where in the Western world do we find that today...?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MAC, 21 Jul 2011 @ 8:44am
    
    Re: Re: WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
    It's not a democracy, it's a republic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 9:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
      Is there an echo in here?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - HothMonster, 21 Jul 2011 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
        in here in here
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2011 @ 8:04am
    
    Re: Re: WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
    these cops are the true definition of the word PIGS.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2011 @ 11:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: WARNING: may contain added sarcasm
      these cops are the true definition of the word PIGS
      I think these guys would also qualify for that as well..
      
      http://jalopnik.com/5823543/cop-threatens-to-execute-driver-over-concealed-weapon-permit
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMNTD, 21 Jul 2011 @ 1:21am

yikes
Boots are too tight these days for anyone to not crack on a cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 1:42am

Well, these days it's not difficult if you have family members who work for local police. Not that I really know anything. I gave up when someone gave me a legitimate hat from a well placed Government Authority.

So when is Masnick or "The Maz" going to come to Colorado and build a pizza shop? We'll need a few good pizza shops to appease the (limited) Jewish population. Ground floor opportunity, just call John Hickenlooper's Director of Scheduling at 303-866-6230, and make the pizza chain you've always wanted.

As long as companies focus on FINANCE instead of TREASURY, everything is up in the air.

Also, what happened to resident troll, Dark Helmet? Maybe he should
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 2:22am
  
  Re:
  Nice one. You're such a moronic troll you hit "Submit" before you had even finished your diatribe. Top drawer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 2:46am
  
  Re:
  Hey Mike, you better fix your tubes. Some of the Internet is spilling in your comment section.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:24am
  
  Re:
  "Well, these days it's not difficult if you have family members who work for local police."
  
  What's not difficult - receiving preferential treatment?
  
  "Not that I really know anything."
  
  Self-deprecation does nothing for your credibility.
  
  "I gave up when someone gave me a legitimate hat from a well placed Government Authority. "
  
  Gave up what - attempting to make sense?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    and what exactly is a "legitimate hat"? Are there illegitimate hats? Somewhere there's the bastard offspring of a baseball cap and a fedora?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 7:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Man, that is one legitimate hat!
      
      I'm going to use that on the next behatted person I run into, see how they respond.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They'll probably blink a couple times, decide it was a compliment and a new bit of slang they hadn't heard before, and you'll have started a new fad.
        
        When I start hearing the word "legitimate" to mean "awesome" I'll know who to blame←←←←←credit. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 21 Jul 2011 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        too legit to quit
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Herp Derp, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:44am
  
  Re:
  Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think some of my brain just spilled out my ear trying to read your comment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 21 Jul 2011 @ 10:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    of course the have Herp Derp, you don't think they are all amateurs do you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 12:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    fark & /b are ------> that way
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:31am
  
  Re:
  "We'll need a few good pizza shops to appease the (limited) Jewish population."
  
  All these years I thought I liked [pizza] because it was delicious. Turns out I'm genetically predisposed to liking [pizza].
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 21 Jul 2011 @ 2:07am

sounds like US finest, yet again, acting their finest! pity they cant spend as much time upholding the law as they seem to spend bending it and being as vindictive a bunch of ass holes as possible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 3:55am
  
  Re:
  These would be Nashua's finest, not the US's finest. Note the several different levels of police presence. Local, state, federal, FBI, DHS, etcetera, etcetera. Just more proof of a true police state, hmm?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 4:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    more like proof that the USA is oversized. think about it. it's bigger than Europe.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dcee (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, things like that don't happen in Europe (I think). And not much in Canada either...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MAC, 21 Jul 2011 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you kidding? Just try and film the bobbies in Britan doing their job. You will wind up in the tower.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        grumpy (profile), 22 Jul 2011 @ 2:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or give lip to a Polish policemen. Fifty-fifty that you survive the incident - not kidding. Being a foreigner will be of no help.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 21 Jul 2011 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And not much in Canada either..."
        
        Only when the G8 Summit is going on it seems.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thats because nothing happens in Canada.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Most of Canada is patrolled by the RCMP (a national force who vaguely resemble your state troopers), and they are still acceptable (though their respectability has fallen a long way over the last 20-30 years), however those areas that use local police instead can be frightening.
        
        I once saw the Vancouver police beat a homeless person just because he was sitting (peacefully - I was across the street when it began) in the wrong place.
        
        On the other hand, I haven't seen or heard of anyone being beaten for using a camera. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, just that I'm not aware of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 11:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > more like proof that the USA is oversized.
      > think about it. it's bigger than Europe
      
      Okay. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Is the size of Europe some sort of objective limitation on how big nations should become?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 2:41am

Watchdogs
Cops have never been, and never will be anything more than watchdogs for the rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 2:54am

I used to love Americas stance on freedom. now I pity its citizens living under a corporate government regime paying the police to defend only those they think worthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:29am
  
  Re:
  Not much has changed other than the propaganda machine being exposed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 3:57am

it took me a while to figure out what country we were talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 4:05am
  
  Re:
  i figure it would have been fairly clearly stated if it wasn't the USA...
  
  this is usually followed by several comments missing the fact that it's not in the USA. fun pattern.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 4:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not in the US? It was in the US. Everyone needs to set up camera to watch every square inch of public property so that we have multiple copies of everything for this very thing. The police are out of line and need oversight by THE PEOPLE! If the police, store owners etc have the right to have security cameras then so do we. THE PEOPLE! If this crime of police BS is proven, big IF, the police involved need to be sent to prison and ass raped by most of its population!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - aikoaiko2, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This idea of everyone carrying a camera and recording their daily events is becoming more common, and even has name - sousveillance. While I believe this idea has some potential drawbacks, it maybe what it takes to restore some balance in our new 2 class system. (For more info check out this months Wired)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 21 Jul 2011 @ 4:13am

This is not true the man while yelling indecencies to the police officers hit a tree full of mace, tasers and boots and when the police officers tried to help him he tossed the camera to a passer by that distracted hit another tree full of mace, tasers and boots.

It happens people are distracted his bruises are the after mark of his own actions not police brutality.

The police would never do such a thing, is not like they were going to arrest little girls selling lemonade or enter a house and terrorize a family because they though anonymous was there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:07am
  
  Re:
  I actually kinda support police brutality.
  
  Not all of it by any means. But I live in a city that has a certain level of violent crime far above the national average. Almost all of this is done within the confines of two particular police wards, out of the many many more wards that cover the city. The court system is over booked, the prisons are overflowing, and it is not uncommon to hear about people with 2 or more armed robbery convictions under their belt and being let off with time served. They didn't hurt anybody. they just threatened to if money or goods did not flow their way, so the crime was stepped down to a lesser charge.
  
  So, I am all in favor of the police beating the absolute **** out of that guy. It's the closest thing to punishment the man will ever get. Is it right, no. But neither is the situation itself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    "The court system is over booked, the prisons are overflowing, and it is not uncommon to hear about people with 2 or more armed robbery convictions under their belt and being let off with time served."
    
    Maybe they should not imprison pot smoking hippies for having a roach in their ashtray - just sayin.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael Lockyear, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:52am
    
    Punishment for what exactly? Felony use of a camera?
    
    When the police are indistinguishable from criminals it becomes a case of he who has the most guns wins. In my country the poorly-paid police have learnt the hard way that the serious criminals have more money, faster cars and bigger guns. As a result crime is pretty rampant.
    
    When the bad guys expect the police to shoot first and ask questions later, they just get more guns and make sure that they shoot first instead.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hans, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    "So, I am all in favor of the police beating the absolute **** out of that guy. It's the closest thing to punishment the man will ever get. Is it right, no."
    
    And thinking like that, you deserve the same. You say it's not right, and you are in favor of what is not right. If you live in the US, you don't deserve to. You're part of the problem.
    
    Gannon may be a loudmouthed ass, but he has the right to say what he thinks about the police. If you don't defend his right to speech, you won't have it either. No wonder you live in a city with elevated violent crime -- you deserve it, and "I'm all favor" of that.
    
    "But neither is the situation itself."
    
    What? It's OK that it's not right because the situation isn't right either? Unassailable logic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Overcast (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 7:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    
    So, I am all in favor of the police beating the absolute **** out of that guy. It's the closest thing to punishment the man will ever get. Is it right, no. But neither is the situation itself.
    
    You seriously think that will solve the problems, or make them worse?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 21 Jul 2011 @ 9:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    "But I live in a city that has a certain level of violent crime far above the national average. Almost all of this is done within the confines of two particular police wards, out of the many many more wards that cover the city."
    
    So to (supposedly) solve the problems you see in two wards of a city, the entire country needs to live in fear of cops?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 21 Jul 2011 @ 10:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    I too support police brutality too and I would love nothing more than to see them beat the crap out of you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 2:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So, I am all in favor of the police beating the absolute **** out of that guy.
    
    I favor citizens shooting those police officers to save his life; It's the closest thing to punishment the cops would ever get.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If you support police brutality then you do not support the ideals of this country. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution clearly prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. If you don't like the Constitution then get the FUCK OUT OF THIS COUNTRY.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 4:31am

Someone enlighten me please. Aren't all cop cars (including detectives) equipped with dashcams? With audio? You can understand and confirm or deny pretty much everything just with said audio...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 21 Jul 2011 @ 4:39am
  
  Re:
  I'm pretty sure the police officers didn't move the camera in the right direction or they failed to activate the camera.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 21 Jul 2011 @ 10:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    just like the tape they confiscated will be accidentally destroyed while being examined, spontaneously combust, disappear from the evidence locker, or for some reason only the parts that make Gannon look bad will work everything else is static
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:20am

Sort of easy to figure the story out, at least in the second part.

If Gannon resisted arrest, what is on the video camera is evidence. The police have every right to seize everything that was on his person at the time as evidence in the crime. This is very much the case with a video camera, as it would be the proof that the events. It would make you wonder if he tossed the camera because he knew what was on it would cause him to be found guilty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 21 Jul 2011 @ 5:45am
  
  Re:
  Looks like a case of their word against his.
  Typically, law enforcement receives benefit of doubt - taking past occurrences into account, who has more credibility here? Point of interest, were these the same two detectives from the prior case?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    More importantly, the video camera, if on, would be a cvlear indication of what happened. Gannon sadly has a history of being a flash point with police, it's doubtful he would get a walk on this one so easily.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Last time the case was dropped because there was no case, so this probably goes in his favor, not the police.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Their word against his... and against the word of two eye-witnesses one of which the police arrested to give her the appearance of having a conflict of interest as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - CommonSense (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 7:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Who has more credibility??
    
    The guy who filed a justified complaint against police officers definitely has more credibility than the police officers who tried to arrest him the first time on unjust claims and had those charges dropped because they were false.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  They have applied for a warrant to see what was on the tape.
  
  As for why he tossed the camera- perhaps it was to keep the cops from destroying the video that proves they were overreacting?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 9:45am
    
    Why toss the camera?
    I got the impression he was hoping a witness would use the camera to record the rest of the beating. Though wanting to protect the camera from damage makes sense too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mikenola, 24 Jul 2011 @ 8:26am
    
    Re: Re: Anonymous Coward, Jul 21st, 2011 @ 9:23am
    "They have applied for a warrant to see what was on the tape."
    
    the police don't need a warrant to view evidence seized in a legal arrest.
    
    I don't know where you got that quoted statement, but it is wrong.
    
    imagine if they needed a warrant to look in a baggie from your pocket after a pat down? the courts would be completely stopped from just having a judge 'hear' the evidence of why the cops wanted to look in every baggie or knapsack or purse or wallet on each and every criminal they arrest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, I have no idea who's telling the truth, but the video could be evidence regardless of which party (the cops or Gannon) was acting improperly.
  
  That Mike can't even conceive of this possibility ("Why would they do that unless the camera shows them doing something wrong?") shows his tunnel vision I think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Cenobyte, 21 Jul 2011 @ 4:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "That Mike can't even conceive of this possibility ("Why would they do that unless the camera shows them doing something wrong?") shows his tunnel vision I think"
    
    I think the problem might be that the cops keep doing this. It's not the first time they have arrest this man for this exact same thing, and last time they where full of it. Also what was he doing for the cops to stop to begin with? They drove by so they could talk crap on his son and then stopped when someone talked back? This does not strike you as unethical behavior right from the start? Add to that the proven unethical behavior from them in the past and you start to assume a little. Not saying the cops where wrong this time, video will let us know (Provided they don't destroy it), but they lost the benefit of trust when they arrested his on trumped up charges the first time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 21 Jul 2011 @ 10:21am
  
  Re:
  dont you think he might have just stopped recording before he did the illegal thing, rather than record the illegal thing than try to throw the camera away right in front of the cops after he did the illegal thing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re:
  > It would make you wonder if he tossed the
  > camera because he knew what was on it would
  > cause him to be found guilty?
  
  Seems like he tossed it to the woman so she could keep recording the incident while he was being arrested.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ts, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:01am

Only in America can you be arrested for resisting arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:07am
  
  Re:
  Only in america can some douchebag with a gun take offense with how you look/act/talk and then arrest you for 'resisting arrest' when you tell him to take a long walk off a short pier.
  
  Ftfy
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alchemyst, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:06am

According to the news report, the witnesses back up Gannon's account of the incident. According to two witnesses they not only attacked Gannon, but also one of the witnesses.

I was wondering why police have to get a search warrant to watch the video since it is in their custody as evidence. Anyone want to bet if the video/audio will be "corrupted" once the police get access to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:40am
  
  Re:
  "Anyone want to bet if the video/audio will be "corrupted" once the police get access to it?"
  
  Or they could just throw it on the ground, smash it and then deny the whole thing.
  
  "Miami Beach Police Deny Smashing Narces Benoit's Cell Phone"
  http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/06/miami_beach_police_deny_smashi.php
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hans, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:31am

Stupid Motto
They should dump that stupid state motto: "Live Free or Die". How ridiculous. No need to remember that with Nashua's finest on the job! /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
known coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:44am

it is not so bizzare
". . . Police, obviously, dispute parts of this chain of events. They claim that Gannon was resisting arrest. They also claim that Reynolds "fled" with the camera and refused to hand over "the evidence" to them when asked. One would hope that the actual video on the camera would confirm which one was right, but it seems pretty bizarre and questionable that the police would immediately seek to seize the camera as "evidence." Why would they do that unless the camera shows them doing something wrong?"

well they would seize it because it was, you know, evidence, and the integrety of that evidence would be preserved, so it is not so bizzare. That said i agree with the basic conetention that they wanted it to destroy and not preserve the evidence.

just a few Bad cops and judges do tremendous damage to the reputation of the police and the notion that this is a free and fair country. It is really about time we take a more chinese attitude towards these evil doers who abuse their authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pat Dant, 22 Jul 2011 @ 7:28pm
  
  Re: it is not so bizzare
  Technically, police do not have the right to require you to hand over a camera without a search warrent. Cameras are personal property and as such cannot be confascated unless a crime has been committed (not resisting arrest to hand over a camear).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PrometheeFeu (profile), 23 Jul 2011 @ 7:17am
  
  Re: it is not so bizzare
  The problem is not just a few bad apples. The problem is that agents of the state are afforded so much power that a few bad apples are enough to fuck things up pretty bad. The solution is to make sure that 1) police officers are held accountable at a higher degree than normal citizens. (Double sentences if it's a police officer) 2) make sure police officers do not have any powers above and beyond what normal citizens do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
P3T3R5ON (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 6:47am

WTB: New Camera for Filming Police
I am looking to buy a new camera, I want to go around and film police, I also want to put one in my car too in case I get pulled over.

Who do they think they are? Really?
You are enforcers of the law... YOU ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 7:11am

What kind of backass redneck town is that anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marius, 21 Jul 2011 @ 7:45am

He still didn't get the video back from 2006
It's worth pointing out that the police refuses to return him the tapes that were in the camera when they arrested him in 2006.
They gave him the camera back but kept the video tapes and refuse to give them back.

The "Photography is not a crime" blog has some additional info and posted in the past about him: http://www.pixiq.com/article/nh-police-once-again-confiscate-mans-camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FuzzyDuck, 21 Jul 2011 @ 8:42am

Godwin
Nazi soldiers used to tell people they could go, only to shoot them in the back for "fleeing". Sounds like these officers of the law used a similar tactic here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 8:58am

One of the policemen should've held the other back and said, "Just let it go, man. He's not worth it." That always works on TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  That's because on TV they get in trouble if they break the law too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HothMonster, 21 Jul 2011 @ 10:24am

Maybe the cops are just pissed for all the shit Gannon keeps putting Link and Zelda through
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 6, 21 Jul 2011 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  That's what I was thinking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2011 @ 12:55pm

Disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, the corrupt police officer's go-to one-two charge combo for slapping down anyone that annoys him. So long as there are no witnesses you can get away with beating the daylights out of anyone you like, and if there are witnesses, well you can just charge them with disorderly conduct/resisting arrest and brutalize them as well! It's like a cheat code for immoral behavior!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 21 Jul 2011 @ 1:24pm

That's what happens...
when you encounter corrupt police. Give me a choice of a corrupt cop and a mugger and I'll take the mugger any time.

While there are probably a few honest police officers, most of them are probably as corrupt as any lawyer.

Claims of witnesses do not hold up against police officers anyway, and if the witnesses had a videotape, they would also be charged with wiretapping.

Disorderly conduct is the easy way for ANY cop to arrest ANYONE for ANY reason whatsoever.

Never realized that Nashua NH was full of corrupt cops. Remind me not to visit any malls in Nashua.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shirl, 21 Jul 2011 @ 2:20pm

Police scare me to death
The more I read of police absurdities, against innocent bystanders, the more afraid I am to ever call them in an emergency. I trust my neighbors to come if I need help - rather than call 911 and have a police officer come in my house to mace and shoot me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legolas2112 (profile), 22 Jul 2011 @ 1:56pm

Cop Cams
Around the DFW area cops are being fitted with cell phone sized cameras that can be mounted on the front of their uniforms. But, I suppose, a cop might delete the file if something he does not like happens.
Anyway, with all the cell phone cameras around, the cops will be under ever increasing scrutiny whether they like it or not.
Just press that upload to Facebook or Youtube button and there it goes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gene (profile), 24 Jul 2011 @ 2:30pm

Videotaping / Photographing Police
America is clearly a growing Police State. Note how frequently Police are now wearing masks during arrests/raids.
Fascist Germany, Communist Russia, Cuba , China, and all brutal Totalitarian regimes shared similar police tactics.
The USA has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners..Eventually the citizen with a video camera may be replaced by a citizen with a gun and this is not where we want to go. It is past time for our erstwhile leaders to gain control of this "anti-freedom / anti-American" police policy and start welcoming & encouraging citizens to videotape arrests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hugh williams, 24 Jul 2011 @ 3:48pm

how stupid are they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]