US Marshal Shuts Down Citizen Recording By Grabbing Phone And Smashing It On The Ground
from the warranty-hopefully-covers-'acts-of-[someone-who-thinks-he's]-God' dept
So… this US Marshal seems to have a ton of unresolved issues to work through. (h/t to Techdirt reader william)
Where to start… First off, this guy doesn't look like he's patrolling an LA suburb. He's dressed for a war zone.
There's a message being sent by this "tactical gear" and it says that these Marshals think they're a military detachment and everyone around them not clearly labeled as law enforcement is the "enemy" -- including anyone with a camera.
Now, it's pretty well established that citizens have the right to film law enforcement officers while in public places. There are exceptions, of course, but none of those appear to be in play here.
What does appear to be in play is the mental exception far too many law enforcement officers feel they can deploy whenever they'd rather not be "watched." According to an interview with Beatriz Paez, whose filming was "interrupted" by the US Marshal (and fortunately filmed by yet another person from across the street), the officers first turned their backs to her (which is fine) and then proceeded to keep moving towards her to block off her view.
When this more subtle intimidation failed to deter Paez, the US Marshal simply stormed up to her, grabbed her phone, smashed it to the ground and finally, kicked the shattered device back to her.
I guess she can be thankful he didn't demand she hand over the phone as evidence. Although, if he had deployed that BS tactic, he'd just look stupid rather than abusive and potentially dangerous -- a person armed to the teeth who can't control his impulses.
As is par for the course when law enforcement officials can no longer ignore the bad behavior of one of their officers, thanks to a citizen's recording, there's now an "investigation" underway.
“The U.S. Marshals Service is aware of video footage of an incident that took place Sunday in Los Angeles County involving a Deputy U.S. Marshal. The agency is currently reviewing the incident,” officials said in a statement.I would hope that review has been concluded already. The video is only 58 seconds long and the marshal's actions are clearly visible. One would think the review would be about 60-65 seconds long and conclude with a supervisor's disgusted, "Seriously, dude. WTF." This should be followed by an appropriate punishment, like perhaps some sort of anger management courses and long relocation to the basement office, but will more likely conclude with a stern talking-to and a short paid vacation.
And make of this what you will:
Paez said she began recording when she saw the law enforcement presence, their military-style weapons and a line of people being detained. She said the officers started letting the people they detained go soon after she pulled out her phone and started recording.Hmm. It would appear the officers were uncomfortable with possibly questionable actions being recorded for posterity. We don't know exactly what was going on, and it could just be a coincidence, but the attempts to intimidate Paez into putting down her phone (which concluded with a US Marshal's
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: la, lapd, los angeles, militarized police, phone, police, recording, us marshals
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now bow down and accept your master!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
Does anyone care about why the government needs plans to deal with large numbers of people? This is why. Instead of leaving the area, which is what logic and clear thinking would suggest, they plant their targeted ass right in the middle of situations they don't understand because all they can see with their conspiracy-theory eyes is a guy in a uniform. Do they look around or duck? No. Why would they? If you believe there's a conspiracy and see a guy in military gear, a terrorist could be standing right next to you with a gun to your head and you WOULD NOT SEE HIM because THAT would contradict what you believe is happening.
Do you have any idea what it's like to know you might die saving some idiot whose bent on standing out in the open, whining and stamping his/her feet like a three-year-old? It pisses you OFF. To stand someplace where your life might be in danger and shake your fist at a guy who may die saving your ass? He's geared up for a boatload of scenarios, any number of which could include the possibility of an explosive device, and some conspiracy nut sees him and the FIRST thing they do is whip out a cell phone?!? Jesus H Christ...
The only consolation is in knowing that if HE dies, PROTECTING your sorry ass, the odds are that you're probably going to die next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do not arrest the King's hand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry but:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't know if you noticed, but, during the entire video, her mouth was going at flank speed. THAT was probably regarded, by the deputies, as verbal assault."
So by that logic, I am allowed to intimidate and break the cell phones of everyone who runs their mouth at me. Cool...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, so she should've been quiet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most people, as they grow up and mature, learn to shrug off insults or unpleasant comments. I would certainly hope that someone authorized to carry and use numerous items with which they can cause grievous bodily harm, if not death, would have grown up enough to be able to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously?
He's intimidated by her?
Give me a fucking break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you cut the word "think" then in my opinion you are on the right track. In my point of view what seems to happen here is that if you are not Government then you might be against us which means YOU ARE! against us. And if not then then... what's the word used in a movie... precrime. We save you from commiting a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
Every time you vote who your sheriff is, your mayor, and City Council.
They all have the power to keep the police in line, if they were so encouraged, by the peeps that voted them in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
Our government is out of control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
Amen. The current US President, for example, is a prime example of say one thing, do another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [taxpayers get to pay]
If the claim is against the officers, then they may bear the cost of the device. Split amongst them, it is probably not a great price.
She might also have a claim for battery if she can make out a clearly established right not to be battered by armed thugs. I presume that they and their agency will argue that such a right is not well established, and many federal judges will agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But spokespeople keep defending them and investigations usually go nowhere.
That said, this lady was clearly jabbering nonstop while filming. Cops have to be able to let that slide off them without escalating the situation. It has to be a part of their training. It doesn't mean she's not being obnoxious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Firing them doesn't really do a lot of good. They just go to work for different departments. They need to get the same punishment "regular" people get. (And no, that does not include easy time in special, cushy, segregated detention programs)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, not condoning the Marshall's action at all, however, if the dumb person had just recorded and not tried to antagonize the LEs, maybe they wouldnt have gotten so fed up.
But, alas, that's what you get when you allow complete freedom of speech, a few bad apples ruin it for everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Objectionable Opinion
Like you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one "allows" a right, we have them because we exist. The "bad apples" are the LEOs who are trying to deny that the rights exist and that the LEOs are bond by law to not restrict them.
The woman may have been a jabberjaw, but as long as she wasn't interfering with the police, she had the RIGHT to exercise her mouth and her camera.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what? Should we really be sending the message that you need to worry that these guys are ticking time bombs and just might go off at the least provocation? How about we expect them to act like civilized adults capable of controlling themselves like every other law abiding citizen? When they fail, either stick 'em on administrative duties and (re?)train them on the finer points of the law, or fire them. If you or I'd done this, we'd be in trouble. Why isn't he, and all the others who pull this, contrary to what their superiors have often explained to them, that it's perfectly legal to do what she was doing?
What kind of threat does one (even mouthy) woman with a cell phone pose to them? They're the ones who're armed to the teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How the hell do you know what she was saying? She could have been describing the situation into the mic for all you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He had that large caliber weapon, about a foot of height on the woman, body armor, and his buddies nearby.
But he's afraid.
What's significant here is that if SHE is the threat, then why smash the phone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How the 'investigation' will likely go
"Dammit Frank, how many times do I have to tell you, check for witnesses first, and make sure you get all the incriminating evidence before leaving the scene. Now we have to waste time and money making it look like we're 'investigating' the matter, and you're going to either have to be put on paid leave until the heat cools down a bit, or transfer to another department."
In public:
"After carefully reviewing the evidence(and gauging the public attention to the matter), we have determined that the officer in question acted accordingly, and was within department procedures in dealing with a member of the public who posed a threat to officer safety due to their proximity."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The police are out of control
I recall a college university president being scolded for stating "All Lives Matter" when the appropriate slogan is merely "Black Lives Matter"
Cops harass, beat and shoot white people too, and those who are truly interested in changing the system should seek allies where they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The police are out of control
However, the rate at which they do so is MUCH lower than the rate at which they do these things to blacks -- per the government's own statistics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The police are out of control
Of persons shot: 4% were Asian or Filipino, 19% African-American, 36% Latino, 1% Pacific Islander, 37% Anglo, and the race or ethnicity of 4% were unknown.
-- http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-shooting-report-20150221-story.html#
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The police are out of control
In a perfect world, you'd assume shooting statistics to be related to demographics.
Take a look at the demographics of LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Los_Angeles
African Americans are about 10% of the population. but somehow, they represent 20% of the shootings.
White people are shot more per capita, because there are more whites per capita.
African Americans are shot way outside the statistical norm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The police are out of control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The police are out of control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The police are out of control
We need to stop allowing the powers that be to divide and conquer us over the amount of melanin in our skins. We're better than that. We're smarter than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The police are out of control
However, if an ally says "All lives matter!" and you interject with "Hey, black lives matter!" (as was the case in the post you are responding to), you're the asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The police are out of control
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d /
Yet that is not what is being spread by the main stream media. It almost seems like someone is trying to escalate matters to mean racial and it's not racial at all in this sense; it's everyone but those rich enough to isolate themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The police are out of control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops like this oughtta just be executed by their decent-cop buddies. There's zero room for complacency and when the system doesn't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good luck find some of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't let law enforcement/politicians/bankers/lawyers/ceos/three-letter agencies get away with this behavior without due punishment because they're above the commoner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outrageous!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yes she is entitled to film, and the officer reacted unprofessionally, but the entire thread is jumping to the PC conclusion that she should be able to stay there.
yes you can film but you endanger yourself and the police in these situations. This isn't a traffic stop, with suspects under control. These guys could get shot protecting this asshole asserting her rights. She is told to continue filming just from a safe spot, and she continually ignores that.
I support filming 100% but this person is out of line.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/Video-Shows-Moment-Before-Deputy-Snatch ed-Womans-Phone/301027201
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not sure why this couldn't be a part of the existing discussion of this very topic. One of the troll's favorite tactics is disarming a thread by posting responses outside it, which makes me suspicious. But Posting a new thread works too. Lets take this step by step shall we?
Well, they don't start with the claim she's in the line of fire, they tell her to "keep walking". The "nothing to see here" decleration. Its only after she asserts her rights that they make the Line of Fire claim. And the video is cut so you can't see the suspects that often, but they don't look to be an active threat, what with their hands on their heads and none of the cops with drawn weapons. I mean, if they were a threat, the suspects could probably shoot several officers before the officers could respond. nor would crossing the street help her if something does happen, as she'd still be in the line of fire given the number of cops in the middle of the street. Unless line of fire was refering to the line of fire of the cops extrajudically gunning down these suspects...... She would, on the other hand, have a much harder time recording across the street given the number of vehicles and cops in the way.
As an aside, I would have brought up her ridiculous "You are making me feel unsafe" calls to get them to move out of her way. They were a little out there, and a little less defensible. That said, if a cop can't handle a heckler, how they hell are the gonna deal with a "Gangster" whose "just asking for it".
A) a little strange to specifically reference a thread when you chose to start your own rather then contribute to an existing one, but maybe you have issues distinguishing between a comment thread and the comment section.
B) whereas you just seem to take the officers words at face value and failed to analyze the scene behind the confrontation at all. The only line of fire she is in is the other cops, who shouldn't be shooting with their buddies on the other side of the suspects. The situation is under control, which again you can tell by the lack of shouting, readied weapons, or focus on the suspects by several of the cops.
She ignores it because shes been there for about 6 minutes according to your news broadcast, and can see there is no danger from the suspects. Even from her 50 yards away she can see the lack of readiness of the other cops and determined it was not likely to become a shooting incident. Hell, they were letting suspects go at that point. The safe spot they direct her to is blocked from view by the many police cars (I counted 2 SUVs and 2 Cruisers, but i easily could have miscounted) in the street, plus all the cars parked normally, plus all the officers milling about in the street. She couldn't get a clear recording from there. And without a clear recording the recording is likely useless.
I support filming 100%, unless the cops don't want it. FTFY.
And now on to the implications of your statement. Assault, Battery, and Destruction of property are all apparently justified in this case. And don't tell me thats not what you are saying. Sure you said the officer acted inappropriately. But your tone against this person and pro-cops plus your statement "this person is out of line" suggest that you are Ok with the cops response. In fact the term you use to describe the action of the offending cop (unprofessional) confirms that. because in any other situation his actions would be considered Criminal (again that list is Battery and Destruction of Property for that final cop with arguments to be made for assault by some of the earlier ones). Physical destruction of the camera doesn't solve her interference (if there was any), and could easily make it worse.
TL;DR? If a cop just needs to wave his wand and say 'Line of Fire' irrespective of the evidence at the scene, it completely neuters the ability to film. And no matter how much 'danger' she was in, a man in tac armor with an assault rifle destroying her camera is a complete, criminal overreaction to what amounts to a minor annoyance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you explain how to reconcile your assertion of imminent danger where destroying the phone mitigated it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This had nothing to do with keeping her in a "safe spot".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change will come when the public forms a proper militia that is willing to patrol and engage all wrong-doing; even on the part of government. Until then, the cold reality is that the public will continue to be tormented and killed by the same assholes who were bullies in grade school and, having no other productive skills to offer society, have been attracted to an industry that absolutely loves the thug mentality.
If the police have become such a threat to the public that they are now indistinguishable from ordinary criminals then the question must be asked: When is the right time to protect ourselves from them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proportion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is similar to classic defense and smear lines like
"If she hadn't dressed so slutty, i wouldn't have had to rape her"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vocational term limits
Let them be employed as police officers for 10 yrs., then they need a mandatory 1 or 2 yr. time out from law enforcement. Let the local police unions deal with their benifits/compensation during their time out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Own a data-recovery / repair company?
Offer people like this some state-of-the-art recovery for free (maybe with an ad saying 'the data was recovered for free by X industries - standing up for your rights).
BTW iPhone and Android memory is notoriously hard to destroy without deliberate targetted effort.
If you get the same model (and batch ID) of either phone you can detach and re-solder the memory and it will become accessible again.
OR the alternative, there are data recovery firms who have specially designed breadboards that will take the memory chips, extract byte by byte and then export directly to another similiar device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fired
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers for the Internal Affairs
Under extreme cases, lawyers have been much quicker with narratives. (OJ Simpson) comes to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The way I see it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Happened
[ link to this | view in chronology ]