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 smash-and-grab grab-and-smash) suggest something not quite by-the-book was underway when she first began documenting the scene. We’ll know more if Paez’s footage can be recovered from her destroyed phone.
Filed Under: la, lapd, los angeles, militarized police, phone, police, recording, us marshals
Comments on “US Marshal Shuts Down Citizen Recording By Grabbing Phone And Smashing It On The Ground”
Assult and destruction of property. Think that guy needs to be arrested.
Re: Re:
Did you see the gun he was wearing? Did you see his friends? And did you think about the whole military that is behind him? Do you really want to F with that guy? Thought so!
Now bow down and accept your master!
Re: Re: ?
One must wonder if people even know what a US marshal does. Here’s a piece of advice: If you see a US marshal geared up out in the open, I would leave the area because he’s got bigger things to worry about than your feelings and he has neither the time nor the inclination to stop and kiss the psychological booboos of those who think he’s the devil incarnate and whose whiny asses he might end up dying to protect from whatever he’s there to deal with.
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.
Re: Re: Re: ?
Ohh, so bend over because terrorist could be in your cell phone?
Re: Re:
“Assult and destruction of property. Think that guy needs to be arrested.”
You do not arrest the King’s hand!
Re: Re:
ARMED assault. Why hasn’t this vicious, dangerous psychopath been fired, arrested, charged, and vigorously prosecuted?
Re: Re: Re:
Because she was only recording without interfering… /s
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sorry but:
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Quoted:
“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…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Houston v. Hill ((1987) 482 U.S. 451, 462-463): “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Houston v. Hill ((1987) 482 U.S. 451, 462-463): “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.
Ah, so she should’ve been quiet.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yeah, she made the mistake of thinking she was in a free nation rather than a police state.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Oh noes, she might have said mean things to him, I can’t imagine how he’ll ever be able to recover from such a brutal assault. /s
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
If that big dumb fuck, with his assault weapon close by can’t take some verbal slack from a civilian, then why isn’t someone calling him out for the PUSSY that he is?
Seriously?
He’s intimidated by her?
Give me a fucking break.
Re: Re:
Actually,, not an assault, but a battery. The former is associated with threatened touchings, whereas the latter involves actual touchings of the person or something in intimate contact with the person…such as a hand-held cell phone ripped from one’s grasp.
Re: Re: Re:
…but does it power his gun?
Re: Re:
Don’t forget destruction of evidence.
“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. “
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.
When you see shit like this… grab you camera and go outside… make sure these assholes know they are being watched from multiple locations.
Re: Re:
Apparently these officers have such power that they release a wave of force when they act. That’s the only thing that could explain the violent shake in the image when he grabs the camera and throws it on the ground. Seismic I tell you. The footage helps documenting their behavior though.
At the least, the two Marshalls should be personally paying for Paez’s state of the art, brand new phone, to replace the one they destroyed.
Re: Re:
Cash reimbursement only, I wouldn’t trust any electronics they had access to.
Re: Re:
“At the least, the two Marshalls should be personally paying for Paez’s state of the art, brand new phone, to replace the one they destroyed.”
Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay.
Re: Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
To be fair, we’re the ones who hired ’em.
Re: Re: Re: Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
No, we’re the ones who pay them, actual hiring/firing decisions are pretty much completely out of the public’s hands with few exceptions.
Re: Re: Re:2 Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
no, We do hire them. It may be indirectly but we hired them.
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.
Re: Re: Re:3 Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
I don’t remember voting for a sheriff whose platform was “I’ll hire cops who smash your phone if you dare record them!”
Our government is out of control.
Re: Re: Re:4 Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
Do you vote for people based on their stated platform? There’s your mistake. You should vote for people based on their history instead.
Re: Re: Re:5 Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
Believing that the institution of voting wasn’t the first thing tHEY overthrew and now control is your biggest mistake.
Re: Re: Re:5 Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
Last time I looked, I don’t vote for the Head of the Police Union, and they’re the ones working hardest to keep dickwagons like this on the street.
Re: Re: Re:5 Nah, when these bad boys act up the taxpayers get to pay
“You should vote for people based on their history instead.”
Amen. The current US President, for example, is a prime example of say one thing, do another.
Re: Re: [taxpayers get to pay]
Depends on how she brings it. She can surely have an action for uncompensated taking against the officers directly, and may also have a claim against their agency.
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.
Cops won’t change their attitudes until they start getting fired and put in jail for this kind of thing. Hold them to a higher standard. If you can’t hold them to a higher standard, at least hold them to the same standard as anyone else. Smashing things and intimidating people and assaulting people are all pretty clear illegal behavior. When cops do illegal things, it should be a career-ending move.
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.
Re: Re:
To be honest, right now I accept ANY standard other than, “Let’s just say we won’t be short of Chunky Monkey for the next month!”
Re: Re:
Hell – just hold them to a minimum standard we all adhere to. F’n worthless cops…
Re: Re:
“Cops won’t change their attitudes until they start getting fired and put in jail for this kind of thing”
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)
Watching the video, I know exactly why the marshall did it (beside obvious relishing in his abuse of power), the female taking the video was clearly running her mouth the entire time, attempting to encite a reaction from the marshalls.
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.
Re: Objectionable Opinion
“But, alas, that’s what you get when you allow complete freedom of speech, a few bad apples ruin it for everybody.”
Like you?
Re: Re:
If someone can’t handle stressful situations and confrontational people in a reasonable, mature manner… police work is probably not the best career choice for them.
Re: Re:
Bullshit. You could be calling his mother a whore, his father a junkie, his sister his mother, and his grandmother a madame and it wouldn’t give him a right to do that.
Re: Re:
“when you allow complete freedom of speech”
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.
Re: 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.
Re: Re:
“Watching the video, I know exactly why the marshall did it (beside obvious relishing in his abuse of power), the female taking the video was clearly running her mouth the entire time, attempting to encite a reaction from the marshalls.”
How the hell do you know what she was saying? She could have been describing the situation into the mic for all you know.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh but our selective freedom of speech lover is omnipotent, just like the cops. She was clearly swearing and telling the officer his mom was so big that she sat on an iphone and gave birth to an ipad. It’s clear from that video, of course.
Re: Re:
I know…I know…he was afraid.
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?
Re: Re: Re:
Because he’s afraid of the phone, of course.
How the 'investigation' will likely go
In private:
“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.”
The police are out of control
Attempts by some to paint this as primarily a racial issue are off-base and self-defeating.
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.
Re: The police are out of control
Yes, cops harass, beat and shoot white people too.
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.
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#
Re: Re: Re: The police are out of control
Small problem with those statistics.
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.
Re: The police are out of control
The “Black Lives Matter” slogan was prompted by outrage directed specifically against recent events showing that black lives are uniquely devalued. And splainy white dudes, outraged that it wasn’t about them for even a second, had to jump in with the latest reincarnation of “Why isn’t there a White History Month? Why isn’t there an International Men’s Day?” Can you seriously just let black people have a time of outrage over a structurally and institutionally racist system without stepping in to correct them? “Allies” are a lot more welcome when they don’t keep grabbing the mic.
Re: Re: The police are out of control
So just for clarification: If you’re a white male, sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and we’ll tell you when you can fight for anyone’s rights. Throw some classism in there and you’ve got the trifecta.
Re: Re: Re: The police are out of control
You’re better placed to do all that when you know all the facts of the matter. When you’re fighting for anyone’s rights, consult them first and work alongside them.
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.
Re: Re: The police are out of control
If you say “Black lives matter!” and someone else interjects with “Hey, all lives matter!” they are being an asshole, I agree.
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.
Re: The police are out of control
You bring a good point up Mike A.
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.
Re: Re: The police are out of control
Depends on how you rate it. Often on a per person basis whites are shot more then blacks. but often when you compare shooting rates to demographics, blacks are being shot way out of proportion compared to their proportion of population. See the above commentary on LA shooting statistics vs LA demographics.
I don’t even. Usually there’s some degree of “The videographer was being kind of a jerk, so of course the LEOs are going to get testy,” going on, but seriously? The guy ran her down when she saw him coming at her and started to get out of there.
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…
Re: Re:
“decent-cop buddies”
Good luck find some of those.
Re: Re: Re:
I have some of those. Though one in particular an asian quit. He said he worked with too many racist and assholes. o_0
Equal time for equal crime.
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.
Law Enforcement likes to stack charges so to return the favor: Charges of Assault, Robbery, Destruction of Private Property, Destruction of Evidence, Obstruction of Justice and Improper Disposal of Hazardous Waste would be in order.
Re: Re:
One set of laws for me. Another for thee.
Outrageous!
If this “officer” isn’t summarily dismissed from the service then the head of the service should be fired, immediately! This simply unacceptable behavior by a federal officer. “Investigate” my rear end! It will likely be whitewashed and at worst this dickhead will get a short, paid vacation before sent out into the public to terrorize other citizens. Yes, terrorize is the correct term – this person IS a terrorist!
Sad thing is that violence is part of our culture. That woman beating her kid on the news for throwing a rock a the police. The news said, good job beat your kid expose his face for the police to be the next victim. So when i see a military police doing this ,, well look at our culture. It will take a long time to change the channel on that one.
Depending on the dollar value and the state where it occurred, destruction of private property could wind up being a felony offense, not mentioning the the obvious theft that occurred.
Listen to the recovered video. The woman is an idiot. She is in the line of fire and is being an asshole about being in the middle of a situation with a possible armed suspect.
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-Snatched-Womans-Phone/301027201
Re: Re:
You and a few others in this thread seem to be missing or glossing over critically important details. According to both the reporter and the witness, the lady was “half a football field away” from the scene (500+ feet), so she wasn’t in the “middle” of anything, nor could she in any possible way endanger others or interfere with an investigation from such a distance. She didn’t even begin to speak to the officers until they encroached on her space and attempted to obstruct filming. Saying that she was in the “line of fire” and should just move to the other side of the street is absurd; bullets don’t travel along predefined paths and they certainly can cross streets. If there was a legitimate need to relocate that lady, the cops either would have done so or would’ve arrested her, rather than destroying her property. There really was very little chance of gunfire, considering that you can clearly see the suspects in custody with their hands on their heads, surrounded by cops. She is under no obligation to follow unlawful orders.
Re: Re:
Umm…..hmmm.
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.
Re: Re:
I see…so SHE is the threat, but HE destroyed the PHONE.
Can you explain how to reconcile your assertion of imminent danger where destroying the phone mitigated it?
Re: Re:
Funny the officer didn’t seem to care where she was once he had destroyed her phone.
This had nothing to do with keeping her in a “safe spot”.
This abuse will never end because those in control of the system know that the only tool available to the public is to record video and bitch about it online. If that had been any ordinary jerk attacking a woman on the street then chances are good that members of the public would have come to her aid. However, this particular jerk is a member of “law enforcement” and, as such, has nothing to fear because Joe Public wouldn’t dare to interfere; as we repeatedly see. They know how afraid of them we are–or how conditioned we are–and they know just how little we can do about their abuses via ‘proper channels’.
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?
Isn’t there an Andriod app that streams straight to the ACLU? There’s other things you can do like set DropBox to automatically upload, so if your phone mysteriously gets smashed, whatever video or photos it took are already inside the cloud.
Proportion
You guys are blowing this all out of proportion. I did some super fancy CSI reconstruction of the video and after I yelled “enhance” enough times at my screen it became apparent that there was a huge venomous spider on the back of her phone. Kudos to the US Marshall for protecting her from the hairy-legged menace. The ones we should be mad at are the other officers who turned their backs to her, why didn’t they have the balls to kill the spider? What are we paying them for?
looks more like the police in Cuba than the USA.
“She shouldn’t have been so mouthy, then he wouldn’t have had to smash her phone”
is similar to classic defense and smear lines like
“If she hadn’t dressed so slutty, i wouldn’t have had to rape her”
vocational term limits
Cops need vocational term limits. Their lives are routinely threatened; they’re regularly exposed to gruesome crime scenes, they’re increasingly threatened by those whom they’ve sworn to ‘protect & serve’–all of this stress adds up. Not to excuse their actions, but some of these bad cops are just burnt out, and they probably can’t financially afford to quit their jobs as police officers.
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.
Want some uber free internet Kudos?
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.
Fired
That guy should be arrested, fired, and sued to the ground for his actions.
Lawyers for the Internal Affairs
It should take them about one week to concoct the narrative for justifying this Marshall’s actions.
Under extreme cases, lawyers have been much quicker with narratives. (OJ Simpson) comes to mind.
Police State
The way I see it...
Theft and destruction of property is a felony, add in that the Perp was armed. Twenty years without parole should cover it.
What Happened
Does anyone know whatever happened with this?