Cop Harasses Photographer, Steals His Cellphone Battery And Attempts To Get YouTube To Pull The Incriminating Video
from the The-War-on-Cameras-continues-unabated dept
Recording a police officer in public isn't a crime. Well, it isn't anything a cop can cite or arrest you for doing. Instead, a bunch of vague infractions are listed in hopes that something will stick and deter future citizen recordings.
Shawn Randall Thomas, a New York photographer, was approached by NYPD officer Efrain Rojas when he noticed Thomas filming another officer's interaction with a turnstile jumper in a subway station. "Approached" is putting it mildly. Rojas confronted Thomas and got physical when the photographer refused to stop filming. (via Techdirt reader Tony Loro)
A New York City cop beat up and arrested a man for video recording him inside a subway station from 30 feet away Saturday night, walking up to him and getting in his face all while claiming the man was invading his personal space…As if the impromptu "use of force" wasn't enough, Thomas was also charged with the following:
Thomas also obtained footage from another man who had recorded Rojas with his knees on Thomas’ back as he lay face down on the sidewalk just outside the sub station, seconds after Rojas had bashed his face into the pavement, busting his lip.
The injury was so bad that they had to transport him to the hospital twice during his 24-hour incarceration where doctors described him as a victim of assault.
[Thomas] is still facing charges of resisting arrest, trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstructing government…Here's the video:
Note that Rojas had to come over to where Thomas was filming (nearly 30 feet away) in order to be "obstructed." Note also that Thomas was filming in a public location, where it's almost impossible to "trespass." And note that the de rigueur "resisting arrest" is included only because Thomas didn't apply his own handcuffs, hoof it to the nearest cruiser and slide into the back seat.
Here's the description of "resisting arrest" from the arrest report itself:
Deponent further states that, at the above time and place, defendant did resist a lawful arrest by crossing defendants' arm across defendant's chest while deponent attempted to place defendant in handcuffs.But it gets worse. Officer Rojas apparently grabbed Thomas' cellphone and either deleted the footage or removed the battery in order to prevent Thomas from filming any further. (PINAC's account of this event mentions "deletion" and Thomas using Recuva to recover the deleted footage, but the description of events only says Rojas took Thomas' phone and pocketed the battery.) Thomas then took out his backup phone (a Blackberry) and tried to continue filming, at which point Rojas "knocked the phone out of [Thomas'] hand" and slammed him to the ground.
Either way, Rojas made an effort to prevent any further filming. The incident report filed by Rojas makes no mention of the fact that he seized a cellphone and either deleted footage or seized the phone's battery. He also undermines the charge of trespassing by noting the area where Thomas was filming was public, which is contrary to Rojas' filmed assertion that Thomas was "violating" his "personal space."
Apparently, Rojas wasn't done with feeling "violated" by Thomas' filming. According to PINAC's Facebook page, Officer Rojas filed a privacy complaint asking YouTube to remove the video. YouTube, fortunately, turned his request down, which means that Rojas will now have to deal with a recording that contradicts (or severely weakens) many of the claims he made in his sworn statements (the arrest report).
As PINAC and Thomas point out, the obstruction charge is especially baseless, given Thomas' distance from the officers (approx. 30 feet compared to the report's "close proximity") and the fact that the entire situation appears to be completely under control by the time Officer Rojas arrives. Rojas seems to be the only cop there who viewed Thomas and his camera as somehow interfering with police business. Rojas then abandons his "partner" -- who is presumably dealing with an actual criminal -- solely to harass someone with a camera. If nothing else, Rojas has problems with prioritizing, giving the non-criminal (and protected) act of filming precedence over an actual law enforcement work.
Officer Rojas had multiple paths to take when he noticed a citizen filming him performing his public duties in a public place. Unfortunately, he decided to take the well-worn path and violate the rights of the photographer. And like many others, this decision has done nothing more than heap more negative publicity on the police department and the officer involved. The correct response -- ignore it and do your job -- still remains largely untested.
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: nypd, police, shawn randall thomas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ahem. He could have removed the video from Youtube by sending a DMCA notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reply to Ninja
Not so. A valid DMCA notice can only be sent by the copyright owner, which in this case is the person who took the video, Shawn Randall Thomas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reply to Ninja
YouTube's process is pretty much automated and if a video receives a DMCA notice, the video is blocked until the uploader challenges the claim (up to three claims at a time). From there it would be up to Thomas to file a civil suit against Rojas.
Challenging a DMCA claim on YouTube can take a number of weeks to process. This leaves the video offline for a long period of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reply to Liz
No, but to send an INVALID DMCA take-down notice, the cop would have had to commit PERJURY. The DMCA requires that ALL take-down notices be filed under penalty of perjury, and in fact the first line of a typical valid DMCA notice begins, "I, the undersigned, certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of [the copyright owner]."
Would YOU commit an obvious, easy-to-prove perjury, just so you could get a troublesome video taken down for a short period? I wouldn't. And I don't expect the cop would, either.
Besides, you're just plain wrong about a DMCA notice being sufficient to keep a video off YouTube for "a number of weeks." It's NOT. A separate DMCA notice has to be sent EACH time a video is uploaded to YouTube. So as long as the photographer has enough separate e-mail addresses -- or enough friends with e-mail addresses -- all he has to do is keep uploading the same video faster than the cop can post new DMCA take-down notices.
That's why record and film companies HATE the DMCA take-down process; it's because they can't possibly post take-down notices faster than the infringers can upload their videos. They even have a name for this process. They derisively call it "whack a mole".
Meanwhile, keep in mind that EACH time the cop posts a new DMCA take-down notice, it's a NEW perjury charge against him. So it wouldn't take long for him to commit enough acts of perjury to be facing decades in prison. Enough to make him think twice about posting perjurious DMCA notices, I would think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Liz
The perjury clause? Completely toothless, I'm not aware of any cases where it was actually enforced, since 'Well I accidentally made a mistake in my claim' seems to be a court approved dodge whenever it comes up, and enforced against a cop? Not a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to That One Guy
Before you answer, please keep in mind that this is NOT the typical DMCA takedown "mistake", where the takedown party can plausibly claim that he mistakenly thought the video was his own, or mistakenly thought that the use hadn't been authorized by an employees, or mistakenly thought the use wasn't allowed as a "fair use." In those cases, the perjury law IS toothless (as you claim), because of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of proving perjury.
But in THIS a case, the perjury charge would be open-and-shut. I.e., he cop would be telling a blatant lie about owning the copyright in the video, when he absolutely KNOWS that that claim is false, and it would be easy to prove that he knew it was false.
So, are you claiming that you WOULD tell such a blatant lie in a DMCA takedown notice, even if you knew it would be easy to prove that you're committing perjury?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to That One Guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to John Fenderson
Namely, he HASN'T sent a DMCA takedown notice.
And since I AGREE with you that "[t]his cop is so ethically challenged that...he'd do anything he could get away with," that means the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON he HASN'T yet sent a DMCA takedown notice is that...are you ready for this?...he thinks he wouldn't get away with it.
And WHY do you suppose he thinks he wouldn't get away with it?
Because he knows that in order for him to send a DMCA takedown notice, he'd have to commit a blatant perjury, which perjury would be incredibly easy to prove, and against which he'd have NO defense whatsoever.
So even assuming that no one else has ever been charged with perjury for sending an erroneous DMCA notice, this cop doesn't want to be the first. And he knows he COULD very well be the first, since unlike all the other people who were never charged because their perjuries were hard to prove, HIS perjury is easy to prove, indeed, an open-and-shut case.
Furthermore, even if he weren't ever charged with perjury, the fact that he committed an obvious perjury could have OTHER adverse consequences for him. For example, even without a perjury conviction, his obvious commission of perjury might subject him to discipline in his job, or might cause New York City judges to automatically discredit his testimony in every criminal case in which he has to testify. (FYI, as a former assistant DA, I can tell you that judges do, in fact, tend to disbelieve cops whose credibility has been hammered in the press.) So even if he's never charged with perjury, it is RATIONAL for him to fear the consequences if he publicly commits a blatant perjury.
Which has been my entire point since my first post above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to That One Guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to That One Guy
It only takes one bad cop to get a real and good cop killed. Police enter act with we the people during the enforcement of laws correct i think it would be a good thing if all cops took the time to learn and know the laws they will be trying to enforce and be able to have an adult conversation that includes the complete understanding instead of pretending quoting only part of the law then the rest a bunch of lies spoken under the color of law witch is the same as trying to enforce their lies. GM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Liz
Completely meaningless. Perjury is committed routinely in these filings.
"I don't expect the cop would, either"
Why wouldn't you? There is no risk in committing such perjury, and the cop has already shown that he is pretty comfortable doing clearly illegal things.
"EACH time the cop posts a new DMCA take-down notice, it's a NEW perjury charge against him"
Technically, except that such a charge will never, ever be brought no matter how many times he does it. So it's meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to John Fenderson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Liz
Contrary to what you claim there's never been a case where perjury over the DMCA was punished. Never mind "open and shut" cases. Your rant is completely invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Anonymous coward
If my comments strike you as an "invalid rant", try rebutting them with logic and accurate facts instead of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes you wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes you wonder
Public photography probably doesn�t even register on their radar. Since few police departments actually punish cops for this sort of behavior, they likely feel they can get away with it easier than murder or rape or even petty theft � especially if they can wipe the evidence.
I'd love to know how many police officers working the streets today had problems with bullies in their childhood. The behavior of cops these days makes me think they want the power that comes with the badge in order to make up for not having the power to stand up for themselves in their youth (i.e. the bullied become the bullies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Makes you wonder
Considering the way prosecutors and courts are largely unwilling to punish them, I'd say they effectively are above the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Makes you wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes you wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes you wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes you wonder
If might makes right, it's not immoral to shoot first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes you wonder
What distinguishes authoritarian governments from democratic ones is this: the law in authoritarian societies is whatever those in authority say it is.
We're in great danger in our own nation from this authoritarian trend. It's not just police departments, it's illegal actions taken by government behind the veil of secrecy, too. Assassinations, rendition, hacking and malware attacks, property seizures without due process, torture, refusal to prosecute torturers, refusal to prosecute Wall Street criminals, persecution of minorities, illegal spying which violates the 4th Amendment, on and on and on. The lawlessness not getting better, it's getting worse.
The brave young man who recorded this confrontation represents the only real hope we have, I think. Our democracy is no longer functioning; both parties are advancing the authoritarian security state and answerable only to the wealthy elites. All that's left is to expose as much malfeasance as we can.
NSA is able to compile dossiers based on our commenting at web sites and our e-mails, too, and they share with FBI and other agencies. Watch lists and targeted spying is the least we can expect. Even expressing nonviolent opinions is dangerous in America's security state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put some real penalties in place, more than the pathetic slap on the wrist crap they face now, and then they might actually care about respecting people's rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?
I always watch these types of videos with interest, and try to imagine what I would do if I were in the situation. I can't help but wonder if by simply not cursing at the officer, the photographer could have avoided antagonizing him, and thus avoided arrest.
Doesn't by any means make what the officer did justified in any way. But it seems like in many confrontations, the officer causes the conflict by unlawfully telling a person to stop recording, or trying to take their camera or delete the photos/recordings. But we didn't hear any of that in this video before the arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?
If the Pigs are hurt by words like Fu(*&^( or Sh(*&)^ and such, maybe they shouldn't be Pigs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?
Perhaps so, but doesn't that seem like a rather huge problem to you? It means that cops are using their arrest powers not because they're addressing a crime, but because they're pissed off. To me, that sort of thing should be grounds for immediate firing.
However, in general, your point is correct: in any situation where you're dealing with other people -- not just cops -- if you're swearing and generally acting in a dickish way,you're going to be treated worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?
I just wonder if he could have gotten away with a video of this officer acting unlawfully (by interfering with his lawful recording) AND also not been arrested and thrown in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?
However; I do wish Mr. Thomas had refrained from cursing so no one could use it as an excuse for Rojas behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?
Courts have repeatedly ruled that profanity and rude gestures at cops are protected speech. After all, no one ever needed heavy legal protections for the right to say and do exactly what people want to hear and see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On this one, I agree with the police officer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
You are an idiot who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to people filming officers in public space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
That the photographer was expecting the police to violate his constitutional rights does not justify their doing so.
Being demeaning or impolite is not a crime, nor should it be.
No. Police are given tremendous authority over the public, and because of this they do have a higher burden of responsibility. ("With great power...") It is their job to exercise a sufficient level of self-control not to respond to verbal provocation with violence.
Or, at least, it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
Police officers have higher standards to live up to when working their jobs. An officer who becomes easily provoked into violence by harsh language alone does not live up to those standards � and, in a perfect world, would end up tossed out of their job for such behavior.
Rojas has no one to blame for his bad behavior but himself since Rojas alone chose his reaction to the photographer�s non-violent actions and harsh language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/flip-off-police_n_2403563.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
I'm a former professional photographer. To this day, I carry some fairly elaborate equipment, and probably have someone confront me two of three times a year. I keep laminated copies of local laws regarding photography in public spaces on my person, and helpfully read them to people as necessary. It's much easier to educate than to get out of jail. I've only been arrested once, and it didn't end well for the officer. Probably helps that I'm polite, co-operative, and, well, professional. You get what you give.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
Cop tries to arrest victim.
Victim tries to arrest cop.
Both agree to arrest half of each other.
Since the victim has no power over the cop, this is not possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
The officer:
Initiated contact by walking 30 feet
Shoved his camera into someone's face and blocked their camera
Kept doing that for about 30 seconds without saying anything
Refused to back off of the person when asked
Refused to state his name and badge number when asked
Acted childishly in general
Stole the guy's cell phone batteries
Destroyed evidence
Slammed the person into the ground
Charged the person with trespassing in a public subway station
Lied in the report about the person being in "close proximity"
The filmer:
Filmed peacefully for several minutes
Was 30 feet away
Did not attempt to approach
Did not say anything until contact was initiated by the officer, and even then waited about 30 seconds
Asserted his right to be there
Swore at the officer
This is nowhere near a close call. You can say the filmer shouldn't swear, but that's the ONLY thing he did wrong, and that's nowhere near the same level as what the officer did.
The officer is probably guilty of assault, battery, theft, destruction of evidence, false arrest, perjury and/or filing a false report, and probably other things I can't think of. Not to mention all sorts of conduct violations. The guy is maybe guilty of disorderly conduct for swearing. And maybe resisting arrest if you can take the word of the officer, who already lied in his report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
For kidnapping you'd need that plus an intent to prevent his liberation, for example by hiding him in a place where he's unlikely to be found. The jail doesn't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer
It's *legal* to photograph or take videos of the police in public spaces. The photographer *in no way* interfered with the arrest he was photographing. The photographer was within his rights to ask the officer to move out of his face. And it's not a crime to say 'fuck.'
The photographer baited the officer, sure. That's not illegal either - if he stays within the law. He did. The correct and legal response by the officer was to go about his legal business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least that is what would happen to an officer who did that in our department....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The proper punishment is firing and criminal charges, not a "negative mark on his record" that would keep him from "ever getting promoted".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm with Namel3ss. The penalty for assault & battery is a negative mark on his record? That's essentially the same as no penalty at all.
The penalty should be exactly the same as if you or I engaged in the same behavior: a criminal charge, a court appearance, and jail time. Or, if that's too radical, then just summary firing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I did what this cop did, I'd be in jail for assault. That's what this guy deserves: actual criminal charges, 5-10 years in prison as a violent offender, and a criminal record that makes it hell for him to get *any* job. in other words, the exact same punishment as the "little people" get.
Instead, he gets to stay on the force and rack up meaningless "black marks".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a) the correctly authorised person(s) need to make it perfectly clear to all LEO and others in Law Enforcement or Security Forces that filming officers IS NOT AN OFFENCE, STOPPING THOSE DOING THE FILMING IS and the courts need to show this in it's rulings of this type of case.
b) the correctly authorised person(s) need to get hold of how LEO behave in NY and 'emphasize' how they are employed to protect the public, not to harass or incriminate them. a good place to start would be with the head honcho of the Police Dept and the City.
this behavior is absolutely disgraceful! unfortunately, given how the whole of the USA is deteriorating into one giant Police State, it's not unexpected or surprising!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What should the photographer have used instead of a camera?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another example here in UK
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/03/police-psychopath-caught-on-camera-framing-innocent-frac king-protester-for-dui/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not true, there is a video going around of a Toronto cop who was filmed tackling a woman to the ground in order to arrest her. The officer actually said to the recorders "Go ahead and record me, take it all in." while the gathering crowed told him to lay off, "she's just a girl!"
After she was secured in the police vehicle the officer actually spoke to the filmers and said that she was resisting arrest, and calmly explained the actions he took.
The two officers then got into their vehicle and drove off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23CPcTdY2M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-or-
This poor citizen (Thomas) had to take a trip to the hospital because of this terrorist's (Rojas) actions.
There is the story from the perspectives of each of the characters. Now, if you had not read the above article and had no knowledge of the situation whatsoever, which would you consider to be the right and just perspective?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Terrorist:
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist
noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
From the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
- Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
- Appear intended:
-- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
- Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Or you could just call him a bully.... but that is just a nice word for "local non-political terrorist".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bullying isn't terrorism. Terrorism is a lot more than just terrorizing people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There is no such thing as "non-political terrorist."
Ok, so all we need to do is evolve past the idea of the "state" and do away with politicians to solve terrorism. I'm for that. End terrorism by ending the illusion of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the NYPD especially corrupt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the NYPD especially corrupt
When you've got an already corrupt police force, that believes themselves to be completely above the law(and for all intents and purposes is, since none of those who are supposed to keep them in check will do so), and have a mayor that not only agrees with them but encourages it in office for years... yeah, it's hardly a surprise that you'd end up with a city police force almost completely comprised of the kinds of cops that make the rest of them look bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the officer is just so *childish*. He seems someone recording, so he takes out his own camera to record him?
Filmer: "You're violating my personal space." Officer: "You're violating my personal space too."
Filmer: "What's your name and shield number?" Officer: "What's YOUR name?"
Filmer: "You pick and choose what parts of the patrol guide you read?" Officer: "I'm not picking, you picking."
What is he, six years old?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly Officer Rohas will keep his job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why was this truth censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stare-downs and power games
I suspect that the photographer probably did something to goad the cop to walk over and get in his face like that, and the way he documented the distance ahead of time, it seemed like he was preparing himself for a confrontation (which he promptly got).
Whenever dealing with aggressive cops, it's important to at least try to defuse the situation whenever possible, not escalate it. A little politeness can go a long way. But if the goal is to provoke police overreaction and violent arrest by pushing the line, then at least have a second person unobtrusively filming your "Rodney King Moment."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stare-downs and power games
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stare-downs and power games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: stare-downs and power games
But it's not a crime to be untactful. To legally detain and arrest, the officer must witness a crime or have reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed.
Photographing police in a public space from a respectful distance is not a crime. Swearing is not a crime. Asking an officer who is exceeding this authority illegally to 'get out of my face' is not a crime. At no point did the photographer commit any crime at all.
The officer, on the other hand, far exceeded his authority. He harassed a citizen without any evidence whatsoever of criminal conduct, assaulted him, attempted to destroy evidence, and pressed false charges against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stare-downs and power games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stare-downs and power games
My hat's off to people who record the police in public spaces, knowing full well that some of them are going to act illegally as a consequence. It's a public service. Let's find out which cops are law-abiding and which are not, and let the public know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stare-downs and power games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
World's Fastest Car 270 mph
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/02/video-worlds-fastest-car-27049-mph.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Office Rojas needs to be put in jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not all big bad apples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
San Diego Harbor Police Harass Photographer
http://www.copblock.org/36902/san-diego-harbor-police-profile-harass-detain-and-file-false-rep orts-on-american-jewish-photographer/
http://gangstersinblue.org/tag/photography/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]