Virginia Police Force BBC Reporters To Delete Camera Footage Of Police Pursuit Of Shooter
from the hello-first-amendment dept
The story of this morning's live "on air" shooting of a local TV news reporter in Virginia is horrifying on many, many levels. Like with many senseless killings, there are all sorts of "big questions" being raised, most of which aren't really appropriate Techdirt fodder, though I'm sure those of you interested in those things can find other outlets for them. However, one tangential story fits right into Techdirt's core areas of focus: apparently two BBC reporters who were covering the police pursuit of the apparent shooter (who then shot himself) were forced by police to delete their own camera footage. This is illegal. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated. Even the DOJ has somewhat forcefully reminded police that they have no right to stop anyone from photographing or videotaping things, so long as they're not interfering with an investigation. And yet...Two BBC reporters covering the police pursuit of Vester Lee Flanagan said that cops threatened to seize their car and camera if they didn't delete footage of site where the Flanagan shot himself. "Was too far away to get any good footage. One officer threatened to tow my car and take my camera," reporter Franz Strasser tweeted. "Watched me delete my one file, and let me go. Other officer apologized and said we have to understand." His colleague, Tara McKelvey, filmed the encounter.It appears that the cops used the same bullshit excuse we've seen them use in the past: that it's "evidence."
Officer Clark says: "that could be evidence and seized." He was telling us about our camera. The suspect is reported dead.
— Tara McKelvey (@Tara_Mckelvey) August 26, 2015
But why they are then okay with deleting 'evidence' makes one question their reasoning.
— Franz Strasser (@franzstrasser) August 26, 2015
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: bryce williams, deleting video, filming police, first amendment, franz strasser, free speech, police, reporting, shooting, tara mckelvey, tv, vester lee flanigan, virginia
Companies: bbc, wbdj
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
BBC is well trained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BBC is well trained
Not true. The BBC are public enemy number one as far the Tory UK government are concerned. The UK Gov had nothing to do with what happened.
Franz has since said "It was either not being able to work for the rest of the day, w/o camera and car, or delete crappy footage from far away. Chose the latter."
The Virginia Police did this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BBC is well trained
Somebody needs to remind them. Sic semper tyrannis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BBC is well trained
Really? Even though the Beeb basically tore up the Charter in broadcasting ConDem propaganda?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BBC is well trained
The BBC has no power over the charter. The government controls that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC is well trained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC is well trained
If you've got a particular point to make about specific reporting done by the BBC, relating to a specific broadcast event, make it, or at least reference it.
If you're just going to make wild accusations and follow them up with "I've made my wild accusation and you should accept it at face value, you pleb", then you're really not contributing positively to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC is well trained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah . . . right (NOT)!
The American media are absolutely nothing but presstitutes. They will do whatever the government wants to maintain their "access."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BBC is well trained
I see what you did there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their car. Threatened to seize their car. Their car that had nothing to do with anything. This is extortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> tow the car because it was illegally parked.
That's one thing these media assholes need to be called to account for. They think just because they have a camera that none of the normal parking and traffic laws apply to them. They pull up on sidewalks, block driveways and alleys, even park on lawns.
They shouldn't tow them for not deleting footage, but they should certainly do it for all of that other crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guilty!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether or not there are no consequences. In practice the police do not act like police, they act like criminals with badges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the law. Intentional destruction of evidence is a crime whether it's the police doing it or anyone else.
I suppose you could argue that there wasn't any useful evidence on the cameras (meaning the entire thing was without justification, but also meaning that no evidence was destroyed.) But I notice there were *two* officers, which makes it a conspiracy, which means this law could be applied...
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both" - Title 18, Section 241, US Code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Officer Apologize indicates the footage on the camera could be evidence
2. Officer Apologize then instructs the camera operator to delete said evidence
Assuming both of these could be true, then Officer Apologize is demanding the camera operator commit a crime.
Now, let's assume that the camera operator grew a set of testicles, and pointed out the abject stupidity of Officer Apologize's directive.
Why should the camera operator even consider turning over the camera to Officer Apologize, or anyone from his agency for that matter?
Isn't this the same as letting evidence fall into the hands of someone who can clearly not be trusted, given the unlawful and potentially criminal context of his order?
I basically have two questions:
Why do people keep falling for this bullshit?
Why do police continue to insult the public's intelligence with this ridiculous horseshit?
Actually, I have 3 questions...
Why isn't the police union saying to these cops "you know, when you say shit like this, it makes us look like the assholes the public thinks we are..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because most people realize that any officer who gives such a contradictory and obviously illegal order to them has a significant chance of throwing them in jail on trumped up charges, or worse, if defied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or worse.
That's still cause to gun you down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget…
The reporters probably know that. ;]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ignorance of the law is no excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Virginia has a three strikes law, these two cops may have just struck out. Of course, there has to be an umpire willing to make the call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live Streaming
(Of course, it shouldn't have to come to that. In the meanwhile, 1st Amendment testers have taken to hiding recorders in multiple locations, on multiple people all recording eachother.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Live Streaming
a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live Streaming back to HQ or to a HD
Law enforcement officers roughing up the press makes for excellent ratings. And makes the police look like jackbooted thugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Live Streaming back to HQ or to a HD
Broadcasting or reporting on that behavior doesn't create the image of that, it just puts that behavior in the light of day.
If you don't want to look bad, then don't do that shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Live Streaming back to HQ or to a HD
Wince we're being pedantic and all, the only way they would really by "jackbooted thugs" is if they were actually wearing jackboots. Since those have been out of fashion with cops for a very, very long time, it's more accurate to just call them "armed thugs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Live Streaming back to HQ or to a HD
Yeah... they would both be and look like jackbooted thugs. Read it again:
"Law enforcement officers roughing up the press... makes the police look like jackbooted thugs."
If they are going to BE jackbooted thugs, it's important that they also LOOK LIKE jackbooted thugs so that we, the citizens, can tell what's going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Live Streaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The 14th Amendment disagrees.
And furthermore, the Constitution doesn't "give" or "grant" rights. It tells the Government what it can do, and what limits it can impose, on the rights given to us by the flying spaghetti monster (insert your deity here, or if you don't believe in one, insert "those rights inherited when you were born from those who came before you.")
That was kind of the whole point of the exercise.
The British have as much right as anyone else since they are born with those rights...they just aren't allowed to tell us what we can or can't do, and certainly aren't allowed to tax us for something we neither want nor need, certainly if we aren't allowed to tell them what we do want or need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the word "citizen" used. The words used are "person" or "persons". The word "citizen" is used specifically in later Amendments to limit their application to actual citizens.
Obviously, many courts do not agree with my contention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
British don't have constitutional rights
Congress shall pass no law... means that they won't pass laws, even ones that apply only to visiting foreigners.
I think when we talk about rights to life, liberty, property, privacy, speech, practice of worship, to bear arms etc. We're talking about rights due to all persons, not just United States citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: British don't have constitutional rights
And therein lies the problem, the constitution limits the power of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The facts remain that most cops are nothing more than idiots with badges and guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too late now, but...
Then take the memory with the deleted video to get it examined, and possibly un-deleted.
And then bill the cops for the cost of the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What were the police doing that they felt the need to force press correspondents to delete video footage?
And then, by trying to cover it up, they did something wrong.
There's a missing piece to this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What were the police doing that they felt the need to force press correspondents to delete video footage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What were the police doing that they felt the need to force press correspondents to delete video footage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What were the police doing that they felt the need to force press correspondents to delete video footage?
It's certainly legal for them to speed if they have their emergency lights on. I doubt there's an exemption for reckless driving but they can do things that would ordinarily be illegal if necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slight Correction here....
Not Unfamiliar.
Just Unhappy.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont make sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]