Nothing Changes: Cops Still Threatening Citizens, Breaking Laws To Shut Down Recordings
from the low-level-thuggery dept
The NYPD should know better. In August, it handed a $125,000 settlement to a man it arrested for recording officers performing a stop-and-frisk. A month earlier, the ACLU sued the NYPD in federal court to prevent the NYPD from arresting the people recording them. It's even clearly stated in the NYPD policy manual that "bystanders are allowed to film [officers] as long as they're not interfering with the officers' duties and/or police operations."
And yet, the message hasn't gotten through. A man was harassed and had his cellphone battery stolen by an officer who claimed he was interfering with an arrest occurring 30 feet away. NYPD officers have tried other tactics as well, such as laughably claiming a cellphone could be a gun. A man is choked to death by an NYPD officer -- with the whole incident being recorded -- and police officers claim the citizens who record cops are to blame.
But the message hasn't gotten through. And why should it? As some have openly stated, respecting this right has no upside for police officers. So, they continue to harass and threaten members of the public who try to exercise this right. The incident captured here is particularly chilling. As Reason's Ed Krayewski points out, the officer caught on tape here delivers an implicit threat of violence to the person wielding the camera. (The confrontation begins about 2:30 into the video.)
From the photographer:
The European cop tells me that I am making him nervous by simply speaking and not to make him fear for his safety.The phrase "fear for my safety" has been used by cops to justify heinous actions, like the killing of unarmed members of the public, or the vindictive deployment of excessive force. A cop saying, "Don't make me fear for my safety," is a cop telling you he's ready to beat you, shoot you or otherwise do you harm. It's the baring of fangs. The rattle of snake's tail. It's a phrase no cop should deliver, especially to a person who's doing nothing illegal and poses zero threat to anyone.
This next incident, coming our way via Ex-Cop Law Student, shows multiple violations of the law, all of it by the officer in the recording.
The setup is this: an open-carry advocate is standing on a street corner carrying an AR-15 and some signs while handing out pamphlets containing open-carry law information. That's when two cops roll up and shut him down.
Not only does the officer express irritation with the open-carry law (and the person openly carrying a weapon), but he throws his sign to the ground and begins demanding that the person show him some ID. The cop can demand this all he wants, but he actually has to make an arrest before this demand carries any legal weight. Ex-Cop Law Student breaks down every legal violation the law enforcement officer performs during this 4-minute video.
[T]he arrest at 1:43 for Failure to ID because officer 4771 is “tired of you idiots coming out here.” OK. So now we know that 4771 is completely ignorant of § 38.02, Tex. Pen. Code. Not having an ID on one’s person is not an element of the offense. For that matter, refusing to identify at all is not an offense, unless you have arrested him on another charge, which you have not.Fortunately for the cop (I suppose…), he couldn't actually manage to erase the recording. If he had done so, it would be a third-degree felony carrying a prison sentence of 2-10 years. But because the technology outwitted him, he's only on the hook for a second-degree felony (6 months-2 years). Of course, he likely won't be on the hook for any of this once the IA investigation is over. Cops who do this sort of thing rarely find themselves behind bars.
Now we get to the good part, which shows 4771 is a complete idiot. If you are going to commit a felony, don’t do it on camera.
At 1:53, idiot 4771 says that we taking the phone off and “we’re going to erase it.” Guys, there’s your felony by the officer. Texas law states that Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence is:
“(a) A person commits an offense if, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:
(1) alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding; . . .”
Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 37.09 (Vernon).
But, as Ex-Cop Law Student points out, this recording should be enough to damage Badge #4771's credibility in any case he's involved with.
So from now on, at each and every court appearance made by officer 4771, the defense attorney should be informed of this information. That means that the cross-examination would not be very pleasant, if it comes to that. It likely won’t because most District Attorney’s will not touch a case where one of the police witnesses is tarnished like that. So now officer 4771 is useless as a witness.You can argue about where exactly open-carry advocates fall on the thin line between clever and stupid but the bottom line is this: those enforcing laws should know the laws they're enforcing. They should also know that the right to record police officers is guaranteed. There is no state law that preempts the Constitution. The US government itself has handed down guidance on this very issue.
That's bad enough, but in each situation, officers went further, threatening citizens with violence and breaking laws themselves. Citizens aren't given the leeway cops are, nor are they provided with any sort of immunity for their stupid actions. Cops have both their departments and legal protection on their side and that's what leads to -- and encourages -- this sort of behavior.
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: filming police, police
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Future court transcript
Judge: Is this true Officer?
Officer 4771: Well, I seem to recall it different. I'm pretty sure he's the one who tried to delete the evidence, and blame me for it, not the other way around Your Honor.
Prosecution: Need I remind the court that we have video evidence of the accused attempting to delete evidence that, according to his attempt to arrest my client, was evidence of a crime?
Judge: Hmm... well, I know you claim the video shows one thing, but since cops are never wrong, clearly your video is in error. As such, I'm dismissing the charges against the Officer, and will be submitting a request that your client be brought up on felony charges for attempting to delete evidence linked to an ongoing arrest. Officer 4771, you'll receive a notice in the mail shortly, we'll need your testimony of what really happened to put that fiend away for trying to frame you.
Court dismissed.
(Why no as a matter of fact, I don't have any faith in the 'justice' system anymore, why do you ask?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The article says cops are, "Cops who do this sort of thing rarely find themselves behind bars. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The article says cops are, "Cops who do this sort of thing rarely find themselves behind bars. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The article says cops are, "Cops who do this sort of thing rarely find themselves behind bars. "
"Can I see your license please?" Groubert asks.
As Jones turns and reaches back into his car, Groubert shouts, "Get outa the car, get outa the car." He begins firing before he has finished the second sentence. There is a third shot as Jones staggers away, backing up with his hands raised, and then a fourth.
From the first shot to the fourth, the video clicks off three seconds.
Jones' wallet can be seen flying out of his hands as he raises them.'
So the cop pulls up behind someone who had just parked and exited his vehicle, asks to see the drivers license, and then, when the guy reaches into his car to get it, pulls and shoots him four times because the guy was trying to follow his instructions.
And of course, at trial the defense pulled out the ever so popular, 'My client feared for his life', which clearly excuses trying to kill someone for following orders. /s
They really do hire cowardly, trigger happy morons for the police these days don't they?
The one upsides to the story would seem to be the fact that amazingly the victim survived; apparently alongside being a trigger happy coward, the cop was (thankfully) a terrible shot, and the fact that the ex-cops' boss didn't just brush it off and claim it was acceptable, but fired him for his actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The article says cops are, "Cops who do this sort of thing rarely find themselves behind bars. "
While I applaud them for firing him they should have treated him like any non cop that had shot at someone in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article says cops are, "Cops who do this sort of thing rarely find themselves behind bars. "
(Assuming the court actually finds him guilty, could be anywhere between 1-20 years, but I would be surprised it ended up even being 10, and very surprised if it even reached 5, simply because he was a cop who 'feared for his life', a magic phrase that seems to excuse any action as long as it's a cop/ex-cop making it in court)
Now, compare that to the following, from lower down in the same article:
This isn't the first time Groubert fired his service weapon. In August 2012, Groubert and another trooper chased a man who drove away from a traffic stop and fired at the suspect after he shot first, according to the Highway Patrol. The suspect was convicted of attempted murder and is spending 20 years in prison.
So he took four shots at someone, and through sheer dumb luck on the victim's part, only managed to hit him in the hip, and for that he's been charged with 'assault and battery'. Someone takes a shot at him, and they get charged with attempted murder.
'One law for me, another for thee' yet again rears it's ugly head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The article says cops are, "Cops who do this sort of thing rarely find themselves behind bars. "
I realize you tagged that as sarcasm, but it's actually the truth when it comes to cops and the so-called justice system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The article says cops are, "Cops who do this sort of thing rarely find themselves behind bars. "
Even worse when it's completely one-sided, a cop can kill a civilian because he 'feared for his life', and the system will nod it's head and say 'Of course, his number one priority is protecting his own life from any potential threats', but if a civilians did the same thing? Even to another civilian?
"Well your Honor, I asked if he had the time, and he reached into his jacket for something. I feared for my life, so I quickly pulled the concealed pistol I carry and gunned him down. Turns out he was probably just reaching for his cell phone, but how was I to know that at the time, my life was on the line!"
Yeah, no way in hell that would be acceptable in court if a civilian was the one saying it, yet a cop does it and suddenly it's a perfectly reasonable response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someday...
But not today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly true.
You can only instill so much fear before your victim, in this case the public, strikes back out of self-preservation, that's human nature. And when it happens, when the tide finally turns against them, they'll have only themselves to blame.
Treat the public as your enemy for long enough, and it's only a matter of time until they return the favor, and if the rest of the 'justice' system has proven, again and again, that it has no interest in protecting the public from it's 'defenders', then people will end up taking the matter in their own hands out of necessity, having lost their faith in the system.
It will not be a pleasant sight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws gone crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws gone crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laws gone crazy
It's what has become of the doctrine of 'Qualified Immunity' and innocents are being murdered by the police.
Here's a short list of some of them:
• Jonathan Ferrell — Charlotte NC, running to the police after surviving an auto accident….gets gunned down.
• John Winkler — LA, gunned down running towards a sheriff's deputy as he was fleeing the man who had held him hostage with a knife.
• Michael Davidson — USAF, gunned down by a state trooper as he was walking towards him after a traffic accident he was involved in.
• Alfred Redwing — Albuquerque, NM, unarmed and shot on the front porch of his home after he'd been SWAT'd and was dumb enough to come out into the direct line of fire as the police had demanded.
• Eric Scott — Las Vegas, NV, gunned down in the Costco parking lot because he had a concealed carry permit.
• Tamir Rice — 12-year old playing in a Cleveland, OH, park with an airsoft pistol. Police shot him dead within 2 seconds of their arrival on the scene.
• Aiyana Stanley-Jones — 7-year old in Detroit. Shot by police while she slept on a couch.
• John Crawford III, 22, was fatally shot by law enforcement inside a Beavercreek, Ohio Walmart on Aug. 5 within minutes of a 911 call from a fellow Walmart shopper. He was carrying a BB gun he considered buying.
• Dillon Taylor — Unarmed. Killed by the Salt Lake City police because he moved his hands when the officer demanded he show his hands. The DA found no reason to charge the officer.
• Jose Guerena — Tucson, AZ. Shot 60 times in a no-knock drug raid that found no drugs. He had the temerity to think the crashing of his door down was a home invasion and was prepared to defend his wife. So they shot him.
• D’Andre Berghardt — Las Vegas, NV, had been walking down the highway trying to hitch a ride when police approached him. His behavior was erratic, and eventually he tried to climb inside a police vehicle — at which point he was shot dead.
Qualified Immunity = Kill with Impunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's coming right for us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since the system do not actually resolve the issue, the people will begin to challenge the system peacefully and possibility violently when they get tired of seeing the abuse continue.
The is essentially what the Ferguson riots were about. Had it been a citizen shooting a cop in self defense with MILLIONS of witnesses AND video indicating it was self defense they would have been indicted anyways, long before it was on the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No such things as 'self-defense' when it comes to dealing with cops after all, since a cop would never assault someone or point a gun at someone innocent. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See also: Police Shoot 137 Times Into Car After Chase, Killing Unarmed Couple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do I have to be the ONE that adds that talking point? Am I just a pussy that is too afraid to push? Opportunity missing?
Is this post is getting to be more and more just one more piece of evidence at some future trial? Does it matter if it is formed in the form of a question? If cops can lie, can the citizenry, especially when in "just" a blog? Or is a posting "absolute"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/killeen-texas-fatal-raid/
Though last I had heard this went to trial and he was aquitted for the simple fact the prosecutions arguments were insane. There was no way he could have known they were cops before he opened fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem isn't really the advice as such: the same advice is useful when encountering other kinds of criminals as well. Always just give your wallet to the mugger, etc. The problem is the claim that justice can actually be restored later in the process. I think this is obviously impossible (except in certain very rare circumstances).
I think the right way to word the advice is to make it the same as with every encounter with a violent threat: defuse the violence however you can, then you'll be alive later to hopefully be able to engage in some form of healing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It can be put down by rebellion (as in Yugoslavia and Norway) or by invasion (as in France, Italy, Belgium, and Germany).
It can even be put down by election and by law, as in the return to law in the US after the Wilson administration, or by the reining in of petty despots that seem to gravitate to homeowner's associations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm going to get this out of the way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would they stop their criminal behavior when they are encouraged to keep doing it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution
Have we forgotten that was have citizens' arrest powers? We need to stop standing idly by and overcome criminal police with numbers and arrest them on the spot. If more police come to violate the laws and our rights, they too are subject to arrest. Organized, planned defense will win out against the criminals every time, even if they're armed to the teeth.
It is also vital to ensure that every portion of the encounter is captured on video to counter the immediate MSM criminal absolution and justification that is sure to result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution
"Citizen's arrest" laws vary from state to state (in some states, there's simply no such thing.) If you really intend on doing this sort of thing, you should be sure what your state laws are on this point. It's very easy to get it wrong and end up committing a felony yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The solution
If you're trying to arrest police officers, committing a felony should be the least of your worries. Someone is going to get shot in that situation, regardless of the legalities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree completely. There are good people. We must
We need instead to stop the violence and use our minds - not our emotions - to guide our acts. We need to support BETTER government (EVEN IF IT'S NOT THE BEST GOVERNMENT) and work to get rid of lobbyists and power-brokers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree completely. There are good people. We must
Is a cop 'good' if they are aware of lying, cheating, stealing or assaulting or killing an innocent and DO NOTHING ABOUT IT?
There are fewer 'good' cops than you would like to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I disagree completely. There are good people. We must
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I disagree completely. There are good people. We must
Based on my experience—being SWAT'd last January—there are none in my department. Otherwise the lies told against me would have been shouted down.
Instead, all the recordings handed over to my attorney indicated that all the ones I've dealt with in this matter are pathological liars.
Show me a 'good' one and I'll show you someone who is covering for someone else.
Probably out of fear of losing their job….if not their life for 'ratting out' another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I disagree completely. There are good people. We must
If they value their lives or income over the Truth….
….they are 'evil'.
Evil, adj., Knowing the Truth but denying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black and White thinking much? (no pun intended)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Black and White thinking much? (no pun intended)
Try not to be so dense.
Every untruth is a stab at the fabric of human society. Especially when it's by Law 'enforcement' officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purge it and start again
If what you say is true, that people in the institution can't help themselves but continue these behaviors because of human nature, then it's time to change the institution.
And then I'd argue that the same human nature will cause them to not freely relinquish the power they have. They'll fight the change-over down to the last man and last bullet.
The Department of Justice, from SCOTUS down to the last beat cop are corrupted beyond repair. Efforts towards reform are slower than the rate of decay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is bad law that has granted immunity to bad people who are employed by the state.
We need good people elected to change the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Qualified Immunity = Kill with Impunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good people elected to change the law.
The thing is, I think he was sincere as a candidate. And then he got into office and saw the limits of what he could do, and he saw heard the voices of his true masters.
Elect who you want, but don't expect anything to change by choice representatives in office, and certainly don't expect your candidate to be the same person you elected ever again.
This is my objection to the recent promotions of Elizabeth Warren to office: all that will accomblish is the crushing of Warren's spirit, and more disappointment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good people elected to change the law.
The wool was pulled over your eyes.
He's the proverbial wolf-in-sheeps-clothing as a candidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama the perfect unreadable sociopath.
The wool was pulled over your eyes.
Maybe.
But I've seen it happen before. No one's ambitious ideals of changing the world survives candidacy.
My statement still stands: Elect who you want, but you'll find nothing but disappointment at the end your effort.
And if you are correct, then our candidacy is rife with performers and sociopaths who can mask their true intentions. The Joffreys and Hitlers and Lacklands are still finding their way onto the throne. Elections in the US as a means of putting wise civic-minded rulers into office has proven a disastrous failure.
Cheney and Bush present the exemplar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.ibtimes.com/illinois-passes-bill-makes-it-illegal-record-police-1744724
http://www. ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1342&GAID=12&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=71864&Ses sionID=85&GA=98
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...The bottom line is this: those enforcing laws should know the laws they're enforcing."
-- James Madison saying "I saw this one coming miles away."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>We don't record nothing
That second video is chilling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The end of a culture of power never is easy to accept
This is a giant win for personal liberty and for a free and peaceful society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A giant win for liberty freedom and peace...
Historically, insitutions hold onto the power they attain, and fight relenquishing that power with every bit of force they can muster. Rarely, individuals have relenquished power as an act of conscience, such as Carter or Cromwell, but those are exceptions.
You're right that we will see an era of video accountability, but we won't enjoy it within our lifetimes without the shedding of a lot more blood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Than Merely Recording Police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Facts Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree. Facts should be King.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameras??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[OT] HEADS UP! Spyware Installation
Used to be that when an update came around, Apple would ask permission to install it of the owner.
Last night I came into my officer and sat down at my work station to find a notice that a 'Security Update' had been installed on the machine. WITHOUT MY BEING ASKED IF I WANTED IT.
I reported this on a web-site and others reply that it's happened to them as well.
I just go off the phone with Apple Tech Support and they gave me a long song and dance about it being a 'simple' update relating to synchronizing the clocks.
I was born at night….but it wasn't LAST NIGHT!
This 'security update' installation correlates with Congress' recent Bill allowing the NSA to spy on every computer in America.
Pardon my professionally inculcated 'paranoia', but I used to go from state to state with a team of Army officers helping states prepare for national emergencies, e.g., Katrinas and Gulf Wars. And my little internal alert system started showing red flags and star clusters while talking with a senior supervisor at Apple.
If any of you see such installations on your machines (1) have a care and (2) report it here.
Merry Christmas….ho….ho……..hoooooo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [OT] HEADS UP! Spyware Installation
Another, as we say in the Army, 'key indicator' that this is not what they claim it is….a simple correction on the clock synchronization software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [OT] HEADS UP! Spyware Installation
The software seems to have slowed down my web-browser software.
NOW it take about 5-10 times longer to access a new web-site. Must be the NSA checking/recording the visit….. ;-)
This is known as….
….Adding Injury to Insult.
Merry Christmas from Apple and the NSA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
videoing police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: videoing police
Do you have a citation we can read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This totally reminds me of something...
Jack: Information Transit got to wrong man. I got the right man. The 'wrong man' was delivered to me as the 'right man.' I accepted him on good faith as the 'right man.' Was I wrong?
Sam: You killed Buttle?
Jack: Sam, there are very rigid parameters laid down to prevent such things happening. It wasn't my fault that Buttle's heart condition didn't appear on Tuttle's file... We're going to have to bring Mr. Tuttle in, aren't we? And interrogate him at the same voltage as Mr. Buttle - and juggle the books in electrical banking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death by Whatever
….you'll go to prison.
But not these police. It's because they are afforded 'Qualified Immunity' for their actions. This makes them above the law that would apply to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I recall seeing the report that he died on the way to the hospital of a heart attack….brought on by his encounter with the police and their 'affectionate embrace'.
And by the way, according to reports, it is a violation of department policy for the NYPD to put a 'chokehold' on anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(1) Judges, or prosecutors, finally start empanelling grand juries and arresting, convicting, and locking up the criminal cops for their many crimes.
(2) People take matters into their own hands and form civil self-defense forces to fight off the criminal cops. At which point, civil war.
I'd prefer #1, but our current crop of corrupt judges seem to be voting for #2. Can't imagine why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I used to feel that the monitoring by the NSA was evil...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I used to feel that the monitoring by the NSA was evil...
Enjoy your police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]