Miami Beach Police Tried To Destroy Video From Bystanders, Holding Them At Gunpoint

from the the-right-to-film-police dept

DannyB was the first of a few folks to send in the latest story of police massively (and dangerously) overreacting to people filming them in public. This case involves police in Miami Beach, who filmed a fatal shooting by the police. Apparently, the police didn’t like such things being caught on camera and reacted about as poorly as you can imagine:

First, police pointed their guns at the man who shot the video, according to a Miami Herald interview with the videographer

Then they ordered the man and his girlfriend out the car and threw them down to the ground, yelling ?you want to be fucking paparazzi??

Then they snatched the cell phone from his hand and slammed it to the ground before stomping on it. Then they placed the smashed phone in the videographer’s back pocket as he was laying down on the ground

And finally, they took him to a mobile command center where they snapped his photo and demanded the phone again, then took him to police headquarters where they conducted a recorded interview with him before releasing him.

Turns out the last laugh was on the police. The guy whose phone it was had removed the SD card from the phone, which contained the video, and had it in his mouth the whole time. The video itself is now available on YouTube. It’s pretty intense (and NSFW with the sound on). It shows the initial shooting, and then all the way up to the point where the same police who just opened fire on someone else are pointing their guns at the guy doing the filming, as he sits in his car. I have no idea how he was able to get the SD card out and in his mouth before police seized the phone:

This is all pretty scary no matter how you look at it, and it’s really troubling, yet again, to see such a brazen abuse of the law by law enforcement officials who think that it’s somehow against the law to film their actions in public.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Miami Beach Police Tried To Destroy Video From Bystanders, Holding Them At Gunpoint”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Now is the time to prove that all that hot air about “national security” isn’t all bullshit. This is a clear (and palpable) attack on national security by one of the people responsible for enforcing it (some would call him a traitor, under different circumstances).

The only way to deal with this is by applying extreme force (a flame-thrower would be acceptable). Jail is too good for him.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The couple have yet to file a complaint.
That’s the only way Internal Affairs will investigate.

Now really think about this…
The cops just *KILLED* a man, and there is evidence. They’ve just threatened two innocent people, killing a third, possibly innocent man.


Michael Whitetail says:

Re: Re: Re:

It is state law in Florida that FDLE *has* to investigate every officer involved shooting. The cops being invesitgated are generally put on paid leave.

Now this is not to say that the FDLE investigation wont find their actions reasonablejustified, but there *is* an investigation, and it will be run by FDLE out of Tallahassee.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

That’s cute. The article implied they weren’t investigating the complaint.

“A West Palm Beach couple who filmed Monday morning?s deadly officer-involved shooting on South Beach has accused officers of intimidation, destroying evidence and twisting the facts in the chaos surrounding the Memorial Day shootings ? a charge that police officials say they know nothing about.”

My “outrage” is in the logical conclusion that we have two innocent people having a gun pointed at them by a police officer, and a third dead man. I would think Tallahassee or whoever is doing this, would have investigated on their own accord all of the witnesses to the events there. Some kind of acknowledgement of that was what I was looking for. Michael answered that.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I’m not privy to all laws in regards to IA. As I said, I took the quote to mean they weren’t investigating this complaint.

Seeing how Adam Kokesh has had his run ins with the police and how he has to file a complaint against them, and this isn’t the first time that police abuse their power, I’m a little jaded on the process of filing a complaint on an officer, then three strikes, they’re out.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Is there an app for that?

This is what I do at home when I’m away for vacation. An app for my computer that starts my webcam recording when motion is detected, drops it into a folder that syncs with Dropbox, and plays a pre-recorded message of me letting them know that they’ve already been seen and the evidence is uploaded. Already caught one fool breaking into my apartment and have the video of them leaving once my message played.

Shouldn’t be difficult with the Dropbox app for Android.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Is there an app for that?

> See the new Apple demo for iOS 5? Photos and video are
> automatically whisked away into the cloud the instant they’re
> shot.

Well, this just absolutely will not do. Expect an amended PATRIOT Act bill introduced to prohibit terrorists… I mean, citizens, from being able to take videos that can’t be immediately confiscated at the scene if the authorities deem it necessary.

Anonymous Coward says:

Its sad that when you film a Soldier doing something questionable in the heat of battle when everyone is trying to kill you, there is a huge outcry and everyone wants to prosecute. But when our law enforcement does it then its “it was the heat of the moment and they had to make split second decisions,” so they are given leeway. I think if you are unable to not break the law during “heat of the moment” maybe you shouldn’t be a cop…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Furthermore, cops are trained and supposed to be screened to be the type of person who can stay calm and collected while in situations that demand quick decisions.

Being in the heat of the moment and making the correct split second decision is what cops are trained for. These guys apparently weren’t trained very well.

harbingerofdoom (profile) says:

nice to see all the extremists that these stories bring out.

not that i disagree all that much (maybe its mostly in degree, but not really content) but still… extremists of any sort are bad.

on the one hand you have the gung-ho pro law crowd (seemingly absent from here thus far, they are still out there) who have pretty much enabled this goofyassed idea that cops should not be filmed (and yes, some of them are law enforcement too). the sort of ‘if you got nuthin to hide’ mentality taken to the extreme of its position that even if you have nothing to hide the cops should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want in order to make sure the little childrens are safe

on the other hand you have the group of all cops are bad, its the fact that they are a cop that makes them bad and 100% of all law enforcement is designed to keep the current power structures in their place.

and neither are correct.
you cannot have a free and orderly civilization without enforcement of law and groups designed to carry out that enforcement yet neither can you have a free and orderly civilization with those groups running roughshod over everything and everyone (nor is that even given that they actually currently are doing universally).

the ability to keep both of those opposing forces in check is one of the things which makes a free society able to function. allowing law enforcement to do their expected jobs unhindered by mobs is just as vital as allowing the public to keep tabs on law enforcement in order to ensure they are actually doing their jobs in a manner that is acceptable to society in whole and not oppressing those who would be part of the side that is keeping them in check by monitoring their activities.


Havoc (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Problem is, there’s no one keeping law enforcement in check. If you think Internal Affairs(a police staffed division of the police department) is the answer, then I know you’ve never dealt with IA. Cops guarding/defending cops.
This coupled with the fact that almost every week, a state or federal court is backing the erosive efforts of said law enforcement on our Constitutional rights as ‘free’ citizens.
Any reasonable person will see that this whole mess isn’t going to end well.

harbingerofdoom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

no, the problem is most certainly NOT that no one is keeping them in check. the problem IS that those that are attempting to keep them in check are being run roughshod over by the very agents they attempt to keep in check.
I do not for one moment think that IA is “the” method to keep them in check nor did i even hint at that. its the absolute worst way possible to accomplish that in fact.

the issue with the courts we can agree is a huge problem, but its not really THIS problem so while we do agree on that point, and while in a more generalized way it is associated to this specific problem, its a larger issue that covers many other problems as well.

your last point? preachin to the choir reverend! preach on!

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

My solution is certainly not to get rid of cops. I am not even saying I have a clear solution – but the first step would certainly be more widespread acknowledgement of the HUGE systemic problems that exist in law enforcement and penitentiary systems.

My point is simply that saying “most cops aren’t thugs” is not an excuse, and doesn’t make the problem go away. In fact, by saying that as if it justifies things, you are implicitly condoning the idea that some cops are thugs.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

If I might try for something reasonable:

1) Take away the perverse incentives of law enforcement.

The US drug policy has failed. Marijuana has medicinal uses. And yet, police officers use the law to line their own pockets. (Note: the ending on this one is still being written.

Another example of perverse incentives, the quota system. People know it’s implemented, but we can’t do a damn thing about it. Police are given limits, they aren’t focused on their jobs of keeping the peace. Everyone suffers for it.

2) Less than lethal weapons for police officers – Yes, the abusive ones will still be bullies with a badge. But now, they don’t have lethal force to be used as a weapon against innocent people.

3) Training. If they’re using the RIAA training videos or any industry resource whatsover, you need more training.

4) Reconstitionalization – Yeah, I made this word up. Basically, refresh every LAST officer with a copy of the Constitution of the US so they understand what people’s rights are. I bet this could solve a lot of problems before they occurred.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’m sorry, if you offer “most cops aren’t thugs” and call it a justification or an excuse for an event like this, then by the very nature of that statement you are condoning the fact that other cops are.

The point of PRMan’s original comment was not, as far as I can see, to absolve the police. He was making the exact same point I am making – and yes, number quibbling doesn’t matter, because whether its .1% or 10% or 50%, something’s wrong when you have cops on the street with such poor judgement and flimsy understanding of people’s rights

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I’m sorry, if you offer “most cops aren’t thugs” and call it a justification or an excuse for an event like this, then by the very nature of that statement you are condoning the fact that other cops are.

Yes, but harbinger didn’t do that. He said “most cops aren’t thugs” and you extrapolated that to “most cops aren’t thugs, so it’s OK if some of them are.” It’s not fair nor productive to put words in someone’s mouth and then argue against things he didn’t say.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Harbinger said:

…you cannot have a free and orderly civilization without enforcement of law and groups designed to carry out that enforcement yet neither can you have a free and orderly civilization with those groups running roughshod over everything and everyone (nor is that even given that they actually currently are doing universally).

the ability to keep both of those opposing forces in check is one of the things which makes a free society able to function.

I don’t believe that effective law enforcement is about balance between anarchy and a police state. I don’t believe it is about having groups that WANT to “run roughshod over everything and everyone” but finding ways to keep them in check. I believe we can do a lot better than that – and the first step is giving up the pretense that it’s somehow okay for cops to be oppressive thugs as long as we don’t let it go too far, because (and I still feel this is what Harbinger implies) some thuggery is necessary to keep the rabble in check.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Look, I’m sorry that everyone feels I am twisting your point, so let me clarify: I don’t think you, as an individual, are consciously giving a vote of support to thug cops. I didn’t mean to imply that, so that part was indeed an unfortunate mistake.

But here is what I’m trying to say: the position you have taken in defense of the police is, to me, indicative of a much deeper problem of how society as a whole perceives the police. I have heard a lot of people make similar arguments in their defense, and in fact I was once one of those people, and for a long time I too really hated the way so many people condemned all cops in broad strokes. But then one day (spurred on by the events of the G20 in toronto) I had a realization: that’s bullshit. Why was I running around making excuses for a police force that had failed to win the respect or trust of the public? Why was I going to people who are genuinely afraid of the police, who do not feel secure but in fact feel victimized when the police are around, and saying “I know they can be scary sometimes but you really shouldn’t be afraid.”

After the G20, in which Canadian police behaved atrociously, I was pretty pissed off about the things that had happened in my city. So were a lot of other people. And yet I constantly met people whose stance was “big deal, they aren’t always like that, and they didn’t mean for it to get so out of hand” -and again, I say bullshit. I’m not saying we should line all the cops up and shoot them, but that doesn’t mean we should simply forgive what happened.

It’s a “first they came for…” situation, in a lot of ways. I can’t help but think that if it was you being threatened at gunpoint for doing something completely within your rights, you might not be so quick to excuse the institution that let this happen.

And so that’s why, deep within any speech about how not all cops are bad or about how we need to find “balance” between oppression and anarchy, what I hear is a more disturbing core message: the idea that some oppression is acceptable. When I point that out it is not to accuse you of being a fascist, so again I’m sorry if that’s the impression I gave – but I do believe that if you look closer at what you are saying, you might realize you are rationalizing something that doesn’t deserve to be rationalized.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Right, it’s all about compromise and balance. Are all killings by cops justified? No. Are all killings by cops unjustified? Again, no. What we need is balance. No more than 50% of killings by cops should be cold-blooded murders. And by extension, no more than 50% of police encounters should involve police brutality, etc.

Remember, it’s all about balance!


Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I agree, but the fact that cops see video cameras as threats points to a pretty huge systemic problem here. If the system of recruiting and training police is capable of putting even a HANDFUL of police on the street who are so disconnected from the law and public rights that they think people should be prevented from filming them (prevented with a gun) then I am prepared to say the system is broken. Badly broken. When you then get high up police officials also making statements to the effect that police shouldn’t be filmed, I’m willing to go even further and say yeah, cops suck and need to be completely re-thought as a social institution.

It is not my job to make excuses for law enforcement, or to say “well, i’m sure they aren’t all bad” – whoever is in charge of enforcing laws should be able to win the trust and respect of the public. That’s THEIR job. If they repeatedly fail to do that by violating people’s civil rights and demonstrating judgement so poor makes one question the very fundamentals of their training, then it’s enough to make me join the rabble and say: fuck the police

harbingerofdoom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

oh hell yeah its broken, i dont think anyone other than the extremists on the pro law & order side are dumb enough to say its not. but your ideas are even scarier than that being just as extreme in the opposite direction.

ive read a lot of your comments and you are not dumb marcus, surely you know that the extremist does nothing to fix a problem and everything to further promote the problem that already exists. tossing out the entire means that any society uses to control those who would take advantage of others by means of force, coercion, violence and deceit which that same society has deemed offensive is just as unreasonable as allowing law enforcement to engage in the activities you are condemning them of.

bad training? yes…. it clearly shows not only in this but just about any number of these same types of issues where law enforcement is just completely over the top in their response to whats going on. is it a valid reason to hamstring ALL law enforcement? no…not in any way shape or form.

the last thing about extremists and why i find them such a concern (no matter what their particular viewpoint is).
you can never satisfy an extremist. in their world view its either 100% their way or you are wrong. and that, my friend, is a very dangerous attitude. not just for that person to have, but for everyone around them.
and by my own part, being someone who is in the middle is a very tough tightrope to walk. its easy for those who try to walk the middle to give in to extremists on either side and view it as a compromise… give a little to get a little. but where does it stop being give and take and start being wishywashy with no backbone? thats a pretty tough stance to take and still stick to your beliefs and principles.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not actually advocating disbanding the police. But I am advocating the end of making excuses for them. Guaranteed rights are one place where extremism has merit – that’s basically the whole point. Rights are absolute, or they aren’t really rights at all. So when the police, an institution ostensibly dedicated to protecting our rights, regularly and routinely violates them, then they suck at their job.

I’m not a political scientist. I don’t have the experience or knowledge necessary to redesign the entire law enforcement system, and I don’t have to. But as a citizen, when I see a government organization trampling on my rights as a matter of course, I have all the qualifications necessary to say: fuck that. If the police want to convince me that they can still do a good job, then I hope they try – but to me “police” now means “military formations banging their shields, marching down the streets of my city and dragging thousands of innocent people to jail, many of whom were just leaving a restaurant or walking home from work in the wrong time at the wrong place”

That is police-state-grade stuff. The cops made up false laws and lied about them to the public. They opened up a special prison camp for the weekend. There are officers on video saying “this isn’t Canada right now” and “you have no rights here” to peaceful protesters (those are actual quotes).

So what possible motivation could I have for defending the police?

AW says:

Re: Re:

As a vet I used to agree with you that there are two sides, but this is systemic. Cops aren’t intentionally becoming draconian, they are being told it’s okay and that there are no consequences, so they push the line just a little bit farther, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I know from my military training that you never point a weapon at someone without intent to kill and pointing a weapon at someone who isn’t threatening you is a no-no. Every week we are having reports of police or government eroding our rights or overstepping their bounds and the public is living more in fear. The government and by extension the police are trying to take away the tools to protect ourselves, the supreme court just ruled it’s okay for police to manufacture a reasonable doubt to enter your property. It’s like the old story, you can refuse to have your car searched at which point they say it’s reasonable to search your car based on the refusal to allow them to search your car which makes it suspicious. I’ve literally been pulled over for no reason, the cop lied to my face and said the reason he pulled me over was because I was driving my wife’s car and she didn’t have a license…which is odd because the month before she had a speeding ticket.
Police have earned their reputation as overbearing tyrants through a lot of hard work. Sure there are some good officers, but they like the good workers in America get punished for rocking the boat.

harbingerofdoom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

your comment is a contradiction to itself.

you cannot give law enforcement an out by saying its really not their fault, then hold them to be the ones that are overbearing tyrants and the root cause of the problem… it doesnt work that way.

ill agree with the point that they are being told its okay to do it and its not so much their own doing but thats not the case 100% of the time, and again, we are back to that the problem cannot be fixed by focusing on the law enforcement officials themselves. in order to fix the problem, you have to correct it at the point where law enforcement is being told its okay to act this way.

OldGeek says:

Pay Attention

As I watched this I noticed that a bicycle cop told the guy with the camera to stop! Right there when the guy turned and walked to the car and got in, he gave the cops the reason they needed to draw they’re weapons and take him down!

1. When a cop tells you to stop and you don’t, that’s fleeing.

2. Ignoring the cops orders to stop and entering a vehicle is fleeing to avoid.

I see nothing wrong with what the cops did, if the guy would have stopped when told to do so it would have ended right there. But when you dress like a gangbanger and ignore the cops, bad things are going to happen to you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Pay Attention

First, before he ever “fled,” they targeted him due to the video he was taking. That’s something wrong.

Second, his supposed “fleeing” could not possibly justify the destruction of evidence of a police shooting.

So, maybe you should look/think a little harder if you “see nothing wrong with what the cops did.”

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Pay Attention

1. When a cop tells you to stop and you don’t, that’s fleeing.

Actually, that is simply not obeying a policeman’s order – something that is (I believe) still legal.

2. Ignoring the cops orders to stop and entering a vehicle is fleeing to avoid.

I could see how that may construed as fleeing – but really more like not obeying the cops order again.

I see nothing wrong with what the cops did, if the guy would have stopped when told to do so it would have ended right there.

I doubt it – the cops wanted the video destroyed and that’s pretty obvious.

But when you dress like a gangbanger and ignore the cops, bad things are going to happen to you.

Wow. Everybody needs to dress like you to be safe from persecution from law enforcement? Wow.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Pay Attention

> 1. When a cop tells you to stop and you don’t, that’s fleeing.

> 2. Ignoring the cops orders to stop and entering a vehicle is
> fleeing to avoid.

Huh? When you flee anything, you’re fleeing to avoid. It’s pretty much implicit in the definition of the word. Otherwise, what is it that you’re fleeing in the first place?

The Insider says:

Re: Pay Attention

You must be watching a different video than i did, and if so, give me the link.
1. A cop can tell me to have sex with a goat, that doesn’t make it a valid order.
2. The cop pointing the gun comes out of the circle of action actively pursuing the filming bystander…pointing a gun.
If you point a gun at another human being, the normal reaction is fleeing, no matter if you are a cop, or if you are the reincarnation of Buhda.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Police forget that they are paid employees of the citizenry they serve, and that citizenry includes the suspects till proven guilty.

I would feel safer if one of two things happened:
1)Police were disbanded and citizens were responsible for defending themselves (And no, i don’t even own a gun, but if this happen, i would, and i would be responsible for my actions)
2) Police are held to higher standards and stricter penalties, as well as any public servants (Politicians, judges etc) and have a camera on them EVERY SINGLE MOMENT THEY ARE ON DUTY.
Why? Because they are not a regular citizen. They are a servant of the law. With great power comes greater responsibility.

Thomas (profile) says:

Not a surprise

They arrest people in Massachusetts for filming the police too. Cops all over the country wonder why people don’t trust them and it’s simple: the police are not to be trusted. I do my best to avoid the cops when I am in Boston or Cambridge; I’d rather deal with muggers.

When the police attack people without cause, it shows the entire country that the police are not there to protect us.

Remind me never to visit Miami Beach. Nothing will happen to the cops who criminally assaulted the citizens; they will probably get a commendation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Not a surprise

“I’d rather deal with muggers”

So true. Anyone that has been on the receiving end of cops gone bad (especially multiple times) would agree. I am much more afraid of police than I am of muggers/criminals. Honestly, the real bad guys are much easier to avoid than bad cops.

Thomas (profile) says:

Re: Re: Not a surprise

So true. Anyone that has been on the receiving end of cops gone bad (especially multiple times) would agree. I am much more afraid of police than I am of muggers/criminals. Honestly, the real bad guys are much easier to avoid than bad cops.”

And if you run from a mugger/criminal you have a chance of getting away, but running from corrupt cops is likely to get you shot or tasered, thrown down, beaten, and tossed into jail on charges of fleeing.

Scott@DreamlandVisions (profile) says:

Re: Re: It isn't polite to point!

There is a point, of a sort here. When I’m working without a tripod, especially when I’m ‘in the field’, I have a hold and stance with my slr very similar to the one I have with a hand gun.

Body posture, stance, movement are all very similar when your desire is a steady, calm pull of the finger.

Yeah, if you look close enough, you can see that the big long blocky thing I’m holding up, left arm out at an angle, right arm in tight, next to left cheek is a camera with a moderate zoom lens and not a large semi-auto pistol.

In a firefight, your reaction to subliminal cues such as posture and focus of someone in the dark, at a distance is going to be to target first, identify and examine second.

That explains the taking aim at the guy with the camera, but does not explain or excuse their actions after they determined, by sight, that he was not a perp.

The Insider says:

Re: Re: Re:2 It isn't polite to point!

Mhhh… no. I expect that reaction from me, a citizen who never held a gun and never been in a life/death situation. A Police officer has training i lack, benefits i lack, weapons i lack, and a duty and responsibility that i lack, so i don’t expect them to shoot innocents and use “adequate” force.

If you think that you have a badge, thus you can shot first and ask questions later, you should return that badge ASAP. Wrong job.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 It isn't polite to point!

ya know, weapons get held up near the face when being aimed carefully too…

Yeah, the more I think about it, something shiny being held out could be momentarily mistaken for a weapon pretty easily, especially in the adrenaline rush of the situation at hand.

Still doesn’t justify smashing the phone though.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 It isn't polite to point!

I do understand that holding anything out (empty hand even) could be mistaken for a weapon, especially in dim light.

Handguns are called “handguns” because they are typically held by hands. That’s why it should be okay to shoot anyone with hands. You can never be careful in such a situation, you know.

James Litwn (profile) says:

As a Canadian I can honestly say that I am getting concerned by all of the “security” laws and how the people placed in the position of power are acting in the US. Your government and police forces seem to be more concerned about controlling your population than it is about protecting your freedoms.

You should never be afraid of your government or police force but I can honestly say when in your country I am afraid of your “security” personel.

However your military is the complete opposite and have total respect for, they are some of the nicest people I have ever met.

Martin Halstead says:

Old geek - what 4th amendment?

Although your view that 4th amendment rights only apply when the police allow you to exercise them is becoming popular among the new conservative supreme court justices, it is wrong. Although police can interact in CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTERS with the public without constitutional grounds, they cannot temporarily detain a person (e.g. demand that they stop) without “reasonable suspicion” that an offense has been or is being comitted by that person. It is not an offence to film the police, although they would like it to be. Nor is a refusal to stop an admission of any illegal activity.

Tom Landry (profile) says:

Eventually the overreactions from LE should level out. The issue we have at the moment is that mass video recording is relatively new and we still have a couple of generations of cops who worked their whole careers without this technology peering over their shoulders while they work.

Much like the music industry, LE despises the power that new technology has given public. I might sympathize with their complaints about it had they not pushed so hard for things like wiretapping, warrantless searches and the like.

It looks like they hate the taste of “If you’ve got nothing to hide then……”

Chris in Utah (profile) says:

There’s an story by a comedian, I forget his name, that said Hollywood depictions dangerous precedents for paradigm shifts and by then your totally lost but he explains it in example.

May I direct you to IA being vilified for being rats, spys and being the bad guys in any cop.

IA is a great example of double-think and it applies to so so so many things.

Now the above example with harbinger is IA isn’t “the” end all solution. Agreed but I beg to ask what removes the issue altogether?

Well this one might blow you minds but before there were mobs there was a little known virtue of community. Laws, Courts & Police came way way way after. And ye know, the system worked where [fill in the blank] by your peers actually meant all of them(Wrap your head around that double-think for a while).

You can easily conclude this system will never work in a city where the average person doesn’t know there neighbor’s name. Then I ask you as an individual described by a classification of words able to ever get an unbiased view on you? Double-entrende included.

So given that answer can we police ourselves… oh shit, that’s right, fear of reprisal. The average city cop doesn’t even live in the same county. The only one publicly involved are the ones voted into office. Then we wonder why we have a police state when the only qualifications you need is to go through is passing classes in an academy defined by who? Yeah I think you get it now its not by the people, and there my friends, is the problem.

Oh and to really freak you out same goes for Langley, HAFB, ad nauseam and any branch of the military as well. Yeah, this is why originally we only had militias.

Extremist? Nah call me a traditionalist, it fits better, though today’s classification is Libertarian.

Chargone (profile) says:


actually, in the places where it works, generally speaking the Police don’t have guns either. (body armour, sure, but no guns)

which doesn’t stop plenty of idiots claiming they Should.

(here, it’s only the rough equivilant of SWAT (the Armed Offenders Squad, specifically) who have guns in the normal course of events, and They only deploy in responce to criminals who are, you know, armed. with guns. ‘course, they also can call in military vehicals when that comes up. nothing like a twenty-something millimetre autocannon on an armoured vehicle to persuade someone that continuing their current course of action is a bad idea.)

btr1701 (profile) says:

SD Card

> I have no idea how he was able to get the SD card out and in his
> mouth before police seized the phone

Another news report describes it more fully:

Benoit said a Miami Beach officer grabbed his cell phone, said ?You want to be [expletive] Paparazzi?? and stomped on his phone before placing him in handcuffs and shoving the crunched phone in Benoit?s back pocket. He said the couple joined other witnesses already in cuffs and being watched by officers, who were on the lookout for two passengers who, police believe at the time, had bailed out of Herisse?s car. It is still not known whether any passengers were in the car.

Four bystanders were shot in the gunfire and three officers suffered minor injuries.

Benoit and Davis said officers smashed several other cell phones in the ensuing chaos.

Benoit said the officers eventually uncuffed him after gunshots rang out elsewhere and he discreetly removed the SIM card and placed it in his mouth.

Toxic Reverend (profile) says:

Using Qik To Salvage Videos After Police Confiscate Cameras and "Roid a cops"

Activists Using Qik To Salvage Videos After Police Confiscate Cameras
Excerpt (a link to the software is at the above cited page):
“As police continue to blatantly steal and destroy cameras from citizens without any legal authority whatsoever, it is essential to store our video footage online so it can accessed regardless of what happens to our cameras.

At this time, the most popular method to do this is through the Qik mobile phone application.”

End of excerpt from:
Activists Using Qik To Salvage Videos After Police Confiscate Cameras

I had started investigating issues like this over five years ago and had corresponded with a woman that started an advocay foundation after her son was shot dead with 48 bullets, by 9 San Francisco policeman.

She told me that she believes the majority of police are good men, trying to do a tough job. And that she thought the real problem with law enforcement is the censored but common practice of “steroid abuse”. Since then, I had posted a few blogs about is with “Roid a cops” in the subject title. They do need editing (I have macular degeneration), but the reference material is all solid and vetted. Using the search terms “roid a cops” can yield various results, because of the way Google *and others) have re-constructed their search engines. One example is posted as a blog at my Myspace profile
Blog title;

Taser Deaths and Roid a Cops – Epidemic of Police Brutality & Steroid Abuse

Partial excerpts from the above cited blog follow:

Watch this CBS news video that I call
“Roid a Cops”.
It has a short commercial introduction

“CBS News Documentary: Police Brutality & Steroid Abuse
CBS news video is posted at:

he is a lot of reference material at this blog
“Roid a cops”, with an in depth perspective of the facts.
Including a link to the Harvard PhD in the CBS video
and “Mesha”, a black woman. Her son was shot 48 times
by 9 San Francisco cops. She started a police accountability
organization with the money from the wrongful death suit
changes the police training in SF and says “the majority of
policeman are good people trying to do a dangerous job with
little thanks. A report called “Broken System” is also linked
in at the blog that documents less than 5& of the policeman in
Chicago were responsible for over 50% of the reported cases of
police abuse. They are “un-accountable” by contract, as with
most American cities.Mesha is one of my top friends at this profile.

Bad_Cops_R_Criminals_Too (user link) says:

We, the people have the power to change this crap. Here's how!

Again and again dumbass citizens who see this stuff, do not voice their opinions and make complaints about as many of these wrongdoings by police at all. Instead the dumbass citizens among us simply watch something, speak on how messed up it is and then get back to their lives.

Everyone needs to make a complaint about this, EVERYONE and all cops needs to know that NONE of this shit is acceptable. Who is safe from the criminals on both sides of the badge if cops get away with anything they want unless we have evidence that prevents them from SLITHERING out of any crevices due to solid evidence?

Contact the White House, and use your power to vote out police chief’s, etc. that sit back and slap a “justified” seal of approval on the actions of bad police. If they are able to get away with things how can we protect ourselves knowing they are aware that they can abuse their power and get away with it? That’s a fucking brat with a badge, and its a perfect example of how children act with parents who do not discipline them. If you don’t do what they like, even if its good, they will throw a fit resulting in you being beaten, arrested, killed, raped, etc. and them being able to simply… walk away able to do it again.

We are the citizens of this nation, we vote, we the people are the ones that collectively deciding which ones deserve to be placed in positions of power that affect us, and we need to acknowledge that power and put our full down to the bullshit that has been going on for far too long.

If a bully can’t beat or kill another child in school, why is it alright for an officer of the law to do so to another person?

If a person in the medical field is not able to harm a patient that needs to be restrained, then why can an officer of the law even when they aren’t simply defending themselves?

Defense would be them fighting off an attacker, not beating the piss out of someone they have already restrained, is not resisting, or have enough officers present to easily overpower the individual and cuff them accordingly? Some officers just like to get rough, and citizens cannot trust these officers.

If you are a fellow officer of a cop doing wrong, and you don’t report it, then you support their wrong doing; the same applies to police chiefs, judges, etc.

If someone isn’t following the law, they are breaking the law, and if a cop is doing that, then they are nothing more than the law breakers they arrest (this doesn’t include the innocent people that are arrested after being accosted, etc.).

Don’t be afraid, as many people as possible just need to voice their comments and express the disapproval for cops doing wrong. A cop is paid to do what they are supposed to do, not what they want to do.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...