Woman Catches Cop Beating Handcuffed Suspect; Police Union First In Line To Shoot The Messenger
from the no-one-to-blame-but-everyone-else dept
The presumed illegality of filming police is a law enforcement mental disorder. Far too many officers believe they have the right to perform their public service unobserved. Officers continue to take cameras from bystanders who happen to catch them behaving badly. Abby Phillip at the Washington Post details another apparent act of police misconduct that resulted in more misconduct as officers attempted to shut the recording down.
Just after 4 p.m. Thursday, a woman stood a few feet away from several Miami Police Department patrol cars with her cellphone camera recording. After a few seconds, an officer entered the frame, escorting a handcuffed young black man to the back of a police car.
Suddenly, the officer put his head inside the car door and appeared to punch the suspect.
“Oh!” a woman exclaimed on the recording, reacting to what was unfolding before her. The woman, who the Associated Press identified as Shenitria Blocker, moved closer, and the officer climbed into the back seat of the car. Moments later, the camera shook and the video ended.
Here’s the video:
The camera shake was due to an officer’s attempt to take Blocker’s phone away from her. Blocker says they then ordered her to delete the footage or face being arrested. While the video does show Blocker moving in very close to the police car to get a better view of the action, any arrestable offense would have been limited to “interference,” and that would only be legit if she refused to move away from the vehicle when ordered to. No such order was given. Instead, the cop went for the camera and threatened her with arrest.
Even if the cops can’t find a sufficiently malleable “violation” to charge photographers with, the law enforcement community (including police departments and, especially, their unions) finds ways to ensure no damning recording goes unpunished.
To its credit, the Miami Police Department has suspended the officer caught punching the handcuffed arrestee and is investigating the incident. On the other hand, it hasn’t said anything about the unidentified officer who attempted to take Blocker’s phone, nor has it issued a statement affirming the public’s right to film police officers.
The Miami Fraternal Order of Police, on the other hand, is going out of its way to deliver its own brand of “justice” for Blocker having the temerity to catch one of its officers behaving badly.
In a statement, the police union said “social media has placed a very negative tone on law enforcement nationwide” and that the officer in question was “protecting our community.”
Ah. So that’s what happened. A now-suspended officer didn’t punch an arrested man who was already in the back of a patrol car. Social media did. In fact, social media should be made to answer for the hundreds of incidents of police misconduct every year. At the very least, people should stop running to social media with their clips of police abuse because being a cop is hard work.
But the union has gone farther than simply making the ridiculous assertion that all of these police officers captured on film doing the things they were actually doing is nothing more than negative spin by Social Media Co. LLC. It’s also attempting to disparage Blocker herself — ironically, by using the same social media that’s apparently destroying the reputation of its suspect-punching police officer.
The union has delivered screenshots of Blocker’s since-removed Facebook page, claiming these show Blocker is a bad person and therefore, all video captured by her phone should be disregarded… or something.
The remainder of the union’s statement focused on criticizing Smith, the woman who at the time they believed recorded the video. It highlighted screenshots of Smith’s Facebook page and accused her of posting photos of herself with men who have handguns.
According to the farcical police officers’ group, the real problem is men with guns on Facebook pages, not an officer punching a handcuffed suspect. If only the “community” had done more to raise Ms. Blocker right, Unidentified-and-Suspended Officer X wouldn’t have had to punch a handcuffed man in the back of his patrol car.
“Our community has accepted behavior that motivates violence in our younger generation. It’s time for the community to take a stand against this reckless behavior and stop the violence,” he continued. “As the saying goes: It takes a village to raise a child. Guns don’t belong in the hands of children.”
So, remember: the next time you see a police officer beating a handcuffed person, remember that somewhere out there, there’s a male with a gun and someone’s daughter might be friends with him. Ask yourself: what’s more important here? The reputation of the misbehaving officer? Or the reputation of the misbehaving officer? And then put the camera away. Because as the union sees it, the only people above reproach are the officers whose abusive actions prompt poorly-thought out and thoroughly ridiculous statements from their unions.
Filed Under: filming, miami, miami police department, photographing police, photography is not a crime, police, shenitria blocker
Comments on “Woman Catches Cop Beating Handcuffed Suspect; Police Union First In Line To Shoot The Messenger”
Refreshing honesty
“Our community has accepted behavior that motivates violence in our younger generation. It’s time for the community to take a stand against this reckless behavior and stop the violence,” he continued. “As the saying goes: It takes a village to raise a child. Guns don’t belong in the hands of children.”
I actually agree wholeheartedly with this, and it’s nice of them to finally admit it. Mind, a little odd that he describes the police as ‘children’ in his statement, but I suppose a group that regularly throws tantrums when they don’t get their way does rather fit the definition.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to replace my irony meter, given it seems to have exploded for some reason.
Re: Refreshing honesty
The part of that statement that jumped out at me was:
It’s time for the community to take a stand against this reckless behavior and stop the violence,
Which appears to be exactly what the community is doing.
Re: Refreshing honesty
“[…] Guns don’t belong in the hands of children.”
[…] Mind, a little odd that he describes the police as ‘children’ in his statement […]
+1 😀
Re: Refreshing honesty
After a nearby police agency intentionally provoked a gunfight in a shopping center parking lot in the middle of the day, the police chief stated to the media that his officers were “programmed to win”. So calling cops children is actually an improvement over robots, I’d think.
Protecting…
Yeah, just try “protecting” an officer like that and see how well it goes down.
Ah, yes. The unassailable police union version of “whoever smelt it, dealt it.” Children with guns indeed.
Re: Re:
“Protecting our community” apparently means assaulting black people. Ah. All makes sense now. Now we know why so many police officers are violent to black people: they’re just protecting the community.
Congratulations to the police union for proving they’re also racists.
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps they’re slow witted and somebody ought to explain to the police that no matter how much they may resent the presence of minorities in their country, beating the crap out of them at every turn isn’t going to make them go away, nor will it look very good for them when it reaches the six o’clock news, even if they’re drug dealers or gangstas!
I’d also suggest upping the ante. Any cop found pulling this is fired AND their watch commander is busted back to beat cop. If they can’t control their subordinates, they’re either unfit for command or they’re part of the problem themselves.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure they’ll defend black officers beating up white patrons just as well, they just get less opportunity to do so. It’s the badge that places the human above the animal.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“black officers beating up white”
… if that were to ever happen
“LEOs have placed a very negative tone on law enforcement nationwide” and that the officer in question was “just one of many who violate the rights of those in our community.”
FTFY, Miami Fraternal Order of Police.
Shoot The Messenger
I guess we need a new saying for this phrase. Some years ago it was obvious that the messenger was only shot hypothetically but nowadays that is acually a thing that could happen.
So my suggestion would be “Messenger was attacked after recording” or “Messenger’s cellphone was attacked”. The 2nd example might sound stupid to most but we live in an age where objects can be prosecuted so why shouldn’t they have the same rights as a person?
Brutal reality
The fact is, the arrested man is still alive.
Further, he didn’t get put in the hospital for weeks, or months. He has not lost a limb, or the use of one. His internal organs do not appear to have ruptured. He still has both ears. Neither of his eyes were gouged out.
While the video does does not really provide evidence on this point, there doesn’t seem to be any claim that the arrested man lost consciousness—let alone had his skull fractured. Actually, there doesn’t seem to be a claim that any major bones were broken.
Certainly, there wasn’t excessive blood loss. The guy wasn’t left on the sidewalk to bleed out, while the cops stopped the paramedics from doing anything.
Re: Brutal reality
“The fact is, the arrested man is still alive.”
No, the fact is that a police officer who is supposed to uphold the values of society was captured on film beating a handcuffed man who presented absolutely NO THREAT.
Police now a days are nothing but a bunch of jack booted thugs that believe they are above the laws that they are obligated to uphold.
I sincerely hope that the officer in question is immediately fired and brought up on charges.
Re: Re: That's part of the brutal reality.
He may be fired, but he’ll be rehired by another precinct in short time.
And if he is brought up on charges it will be a refreshing exception to the typical outcome.
Re: Re: Re: That's part of the brutal reality.
I wonder how do they put that on their resume with a positive spin.
Re: Brutal reality
I don’t really understand your point, here.
Because he got no debilitating injuries, it wasn’t really (alleged) excessive force?
Her recording the incident prevented it from escalating?
Because it didn’t go farther, she didn’t have a right to record the officers?
You listed a bunch of things, then just… quit. I can’t tell what you were trying to say.
Re: Re: Brutal reality
If I had to guess, and this is how I read it, they were showing how incredibly low the expectations for police have gotten, such that not hospitalizing or killing a suspect is actually an improvement over standard police activity, rather than something that’s just assumed as a given.
When not maiming or killing a suspect is seen as an improvement over what they could have done, rather than just ‘doing their job properly’, you know their reputations are bad.
Re: Brutal reality
So what?
If this was a torture case, you’d be the guy saying the victim wasn’t tortured while being water-boarded because he didn’t suffer organ failure so the way he’s been treated is just fine.
In this case, the guy had been arrested, and was then assaulted while in custody.
Police Brutality – “…the wanton use of excessive force, usually physical, but also common in forms of verbal attacks and psychological intimidation, by a police officer.” — wikipedia.
It seems to fit.
Re: Brutal reality
Oh, well, that’s alright then. Move along people. Nothing to see here. I guess the cop just feared for his safety a bit which is why it’s alright that he assaulted a defenseless, already restrained civilian. Oh wait, assault is illegal, isn’t it?
You’re part of the problem, you know? I wonder how much he’s going to get from suing your employers.
Re: Re: Brutal reality
“Oh wait, assault is illegal, isn’t it?”
That depends! If you work for the king (aka Gov) then the king’s guard does not care for such things. For the king is right, the king is law, hail the king!
Re: Re: Re: Brutal reality
HAIL THE KING!
If you do not then you are a rebel (aka terrorist) so raise that right arm of yours and hail the king (Gov)! If you don’t then hellfire shall rain down on you! Just ask thousands of children in the so called mid east… well “ask”… get an oujia board and ask them.
Re: I take by these standards...
You’re stating what you think the bar should be for police brutality, yes?
So so long as you personally are not put in the hospital for at least a week, or are maimed or lose the capacity of using your limbs, so long as you don’t lose consciousness or suffer a skull fracture or lose an excessive amount of blood, the police can do whatever the fuck they want to you, yes?
And the same would apply if the police assaulted your spouse and children, yes?
Just checking.
Re: Re: I take by these standards...
• “Former Des Moines, Iowa, Police Officer Sentenced for Excessive Force”, DoJ OPA, June 23, 2015
• “Huntsville, Alabama, Police Officer Convicted of Excessive Use of Force and Obstruction of Justice”, DoJ OPA, July 31, 2015
Note well that both of these convictions involve false statements by the (former) officers.
Re: Re: Re: When I was a kid in grade school...
I was taught about police professionalism and how the police routinely conducted themselves, according to a speaker from the local precinct that came to talk to grade-school students. He explained the whole idea of proportional response and deliberate action.
This was in a stark-white wonderbread suburb of Los Angeles, well before the Rodney King incident made news in 1991, and also before I got to take pictures of my mother’s extensive black and blue marks after an incident on the wrong side of two officers and their truncheons which ultimately landed her in jail.
I couldn’t imagine violent action my mother could have done to require the police to use their weapons in proportional response. I still cannot to this day.
I’m pretty sure that nice police-officer man outright lied to us children when he explained the care by which all LAPD officers conducted themselves.
I’m pretty sure he was witting that he was telling lies.
Re: Re: Re: I take by these standards...
Another one out of the Civil Rights Division, mentioned mainly because I encountered it while looking for a report on the WDNY case which follows.
• “Police Officer in Fulton, New York, Sentenced for Assaulting a Man in His Custody”, DoJ PAO, Jan 23, 2015
Compare factors mentioned in that case with this case, which is reported from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in the Western District of New York—
• “Buffalo Police Officer Involved In Videotaped Beating Sentenced On Civil Right Charges”, USAO – WDNY, Dec 1, 2014
Perhaps someone who understands the DoJ internal politics can explain.
Re: Re: Re:2 I take by these standards...
Here, though, is an potentially comparable one reported from the Civil Rights Division—
• “Former Alabama Sheriff’s Investigator Sentenced to 36 Months for Assaulting Handcuffed Man at Macon County Jail”, DoJ OPA, September 9, 2014
Re: Re: Re:3 I take by these standards...
But, as it turns out, news reports indicate use of a weapon in the McCray case.
“Macon County Sheriff’s investigator pleads guilty to unlawfully arresting salesman, assaulting him at county jail”, by Erin Edgemon, Al.com, April 4, 2014
Even if McCray only hit him with his hands or fists, I’d say that the use of a firearm in the unlawful arrest amounts to a significant aggravating factor in that case.
So, considering the totality, probably not on the same level after all.
Re: Brutal reality
Man, you’re right. Looks like the officer was suspended for slacking.
Re: Brutal reality
You say all of that as if it makes what the cops did OK. It does not.
“the Officer didn’t punch an arrested man who was already in the back of a patrol car. Social media did”
I would love to hear this argument in a court someday, im sure there will be laughs all around, including the judge.
These kind of recordings will only get more numerous as technology advances more and more, leading to cameras being integrated into everything and hopefully a way to record directly into dropbox.
“sorry officer, it can’t be deleted without a direct court order.”
Re: Re:
Why not just claim it was recorded directly to a cloud storage service anyways. Everyone knows that judges and suchlike tend to have no clue about technology’s capabilities (at least, those overseeing copyright infringement lawsuits don’t). 😉
Re: Re: Re:
No need to just claim it, there are numerous apps that allow that very thing. With so many thugs with badges forcing people to delete incriminating evidence, it was really only a matter of time until people stepped up to deal wit the problem, and now there’s plenty of apps to do the job.
There’s also another problem with claiming that it was recorded to the cloud storage if it wasn’t. The police can lie to you without any issue, but it’s a crime to lie to them, so if you claim something that’s not true, to a thug trying to bury incriminating evidence, you’ll probably be looking at criminal charges piled on top of whatever other bogus charges they hit you with for standing up to them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Isn’t it only a crime to lie to cops if it stuffs up an investigation, though?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“but it’s a crime to lie to them”
Not always. Certain lies are always a crime (such as giving them a false identity or filing a false police report) and it’s a crime to lie to police when they are asking about things you personally witnessed when they are conducting an investigation (that’s obstructing justice). In most other circumstances, though, lying to the cops is not actually illegal.
The specific limits vary from state to state, so if you plan on lying you should probably look up the law where you live.
Re: Re:
No, don’t tell them that it’s automatically backed up online. Let them think the recording is gone so that they can file their bogus report. Then once they’ve lied in their official statement, release the recording and prove that they lied.
Re: Re: Re:
Has that worked, though? Sure, it would look heavily embarrassing and incriminating to reveal a report as bogus, but what’s stopping judges from giving the bogus report preferential bias and ignoring the recording when it’s subsequently presented?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Self-interest. You’d be hard pressed to find a judge that likes looking like a chump(though it does happen occasionally), or likes being lied to, and having a report exposed as fraudulent, yet ruling as though it was factual would make the judge look all kinds of stupid and/or incompetent.
Mind you, it’s not perfect or guaranteed, given there have been judges who have ruled that video evidence isn’t as reliable as officer testimony when the former contradicted the latter, but it should at least tip the odds, even if ever so slightly, in favor of the defendant.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Putting it to the cloud or other service off-device brings up some very nasty Chain of Custody problems if you try to produce it as evidence. The actual phone/camera that did the recording is much easier to introduce without having it excluded for CoC problems. Backing up to an online storage site is another matter.
But if you want it introduced as an Exhibit, you really want the phone itself, with the original recording on it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“But if you want it introduced as an Exhibit, you really want the phone itself, with the original recording on it.”
Yup. That’s why you release it publicly first. Otherwise it gets buried in the legal process.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yeah, that’s what I was referring to. I remembered when Techdirt profiled that case where a judge ruled that all evidence paled in comparison to officer testimony even when it was found to be erroneous.
All we need is more idiots like this running the justice system and we’d all be fucked. And to be blunt, it doesn’t look like there’s a lot of drawbacks with doing so.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has happened before where a video contradicted an officer and the judge chose to believe the cop over the video evidence
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=43891
Re: Re:
You can already record directly to the ACLU.
Re: Re:
Attempting to delete it or ordering someone to delete it is a third degree felony in Florida. Such a crime is punishable by $5,000 fine or up to 5 years in state prison or both.
Florida has citizen’s arrest, and such an arrest can be made for any felony you directly witness. Unlike the typical police arrest, you can make a citizen’s arrest simply by informing someone verbally that they are under citizen’s arrest.
If they resist, you could use force to compel their obedience, but you’re not required to — and unwise given how trigger happy police are, even though resisting arrest is a crime as well.
Discovering that an officer was under arrest, violently resisted the arrest, fled from the arrest and his coworkers aided and abetted him will make a trial judge DEEPLY unhappy.
Reno 911
I’ve seen this video before.
It was one a documentary called Reno 911 and it involved the cops and a mime.
I didn’t like it then either.
The Camera Is Mightier Than The Gun
The police are armed, this woman was not. Guess who gets the moral high ground?
Fraternal Order of Police= A Group of Police nationwide who call old ladies and talk them into giving them donations ( to better serve our community’s ..Telemarketing scam artists.
Can I shoot a cop who is illegally beating to death a handcuffed US citizen?
Re: Re:
yes but you won’t survive to see what happens afterward
Re: Re:
“Can I shoot a cop who is illegally beating to death a handcuffed US citizen?”
In law, probably. In practice, don’t be absurd.
The woman who recorded the police abusing the arrested man needs to get a better phone because the camera on the one she used is rubbish. I wish citizens who record these incidents would also get some practice in filming with phones, come on it’s not so hard, yet so many of these uploaded recordings are out of focus and blurry and the audio is terrible, come on people get it together
Re: Re:
Chances are good that if you’re actually filming something like this, you’re in the middle of a good sized adrenaline dump, and working through an adrenaline dump isn’t something most civilians are used to. Shaking hands is one sign of that.
Top Coppers
Seems like the US police are all auditioning for a role in Top Coppers
“Welcome to Justice City where the bad guys are bad, and the good guys are worse.”
The police state doesn’t like you.
Just a loyal officer of the law doing the job he is paid to do.
Ad hominem
The people who run police unions are not smart people. I doubt they could even understand the meaning of ‘ad hominem attack’. In fact, they would probably think you were calling them gay, and then beat you up with clubs.
“While the video does show Blocker moving in very close to the police car to get a better view of the action, any arrestable offense would have been limited to “interference,”…”
Blocker needs to be disabled…
…to watch the video