Virginia Police Force BBC Reporters To Delete Camera Footage Of Police Pursuit Of Shooter
from the hello-first-amendment dept
The story of this morning’s live “on air” shooting of a local TV news reporter in Virginia is horrifying on many, many levels. Like with many senseless killings, there are all sorts of “big questions” being raised, most of which aren’t really appropriate Techdirt fodder, though I’m sure those of you interested in those things can find other outlets for them. However, one tangential story fits right into Techdirt’s core areas of focus: apparently two BBC reporters who were covering the police pursuit of the apparent shooter (who then shot himself) were forced by police to delete their own camera footage. This is illegal. I don’t know how many times it needs to be repeated. Even the DOJ has somewhat forcefully reminded police that they have no right to stop anyone from photographing or videotaping things, so long as they’re not interfering with an investigation. And yet…
Two BBC reporters covering the police pursuit of Vester Lee Flanagan said that cops threatened to seize their car and camera if they didn’t delete footage of site where the Flanagan shot himself. “Was too far away to get any good footage. One officer threatened to tow my car and take my camera,” reporter Franz Strasser tweeted. “Watched me delete my one file, and let me go. Other officer apologized and said we have to understand.” His colleague, Tara McKelvey, filmed the encounter.
It appears that the cops used the same bullshit excuse we’ve seen them use in the past: that it’s “evidence.”
Officer Clark says: "that could be evidence and seized." He was telling us about our camera. The suspect is reported dead.
— Tara McKelvey (@Tara_Mckelvey) August 26, 2015
But why they are then okay with deleting 'evidence' makes one question their reasoning.
— Franz Strasser (@franzstrasser) August 26, 2015
Filed Under: bryce williams, deleting video, filming police, first amendment, franz strasser, free speech, police, reporting, shooting, tara mckelvey, tv, vester lee flanigan, virginia
Companies: bbc, wbdj
Comments on “Virginia Police Force BBC Reporters To Delete Camera Footage Of Police Pursuit Of Shooter”
BBC is well trained
They’re Brits. They do whatever the nanny gov tells them to do. An American reporter would have told them to eff off.
Re: BBC is well trained
“They’re Brits. They do whatever the nanny gov tells them to do.”
Not true. The BBC are public enemy number one as far the Tory UK government are concerned. The UK Gov had nothing to do with what happened.
Franz has since said “It was either not being able to work for the rest of the day, w/o camera and car, or delete crappy footage from far away. Chose the latter.”
The Virginia Police did this.
Re: Re: BBC is well trained
The Virginia Police did this.
Somebody needs to remind them. Sic semper tyrannis.
Re: Re: BBC is well trained
The BBC are public enemy number one as far the Tory UK government are concerned.
Really? Even though the Beeb basically tore up the Charter in broadcasting ConDem propaganda?
Re: Re: Re: BBC is well trained
“Even though the Beeb basically tore up the Charter in broadcasting ConDem propaganda?”
The BBC has no power over the charter. The government controls that.
Re: Re: Re:2 BBC is well trained
They have the power to decide whether or not to follow it though, and they decided not to by broadcasting government propaganda (reiterated for the reading comprehension impaired).
Re: Re: Re:3 BBC is well trained
Any statement made by a government is effectively “propaganda”; if the BBC, or any other organisation, broadcasts a government statement, they’re effectively broadcasting “government propaganda”.
If you’ve got a particular point to make about specific reporting done by the BBC, relating to a specific broadcast event, make it, or at least reference it.
If you’re just going to make wild accusations and follow them up with “I’ve made my wild accusation and you should accept it at face value, you pleb”, then you’re really not contributing positively to the discussion.
Re: Re: Re:4 BBC is well trained
Here you go, one example: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/07/bbc-colluding-governments-attack-benefit-claimants
Re: Yeah . . . right (NOT)!
I respectfully disagree.
The American media are absolutely nothing but presstitutes. They will do whatever the government wants to maintain their “access.”
Re: BBC is well trained
I see what you did there.
Virgins is for Sorebacks.
it’s done because it can be done! it’s done because the Police think they are entitled to do whatever they want, regardless of the situation and be protected from anyone having ‘evidence’ that may (and in numerous situations has) give a completely different account to the one(s) offered by officers. until someone physically goes round to the highest authority of each county and enlightens the head of the Police Force, who them has to pass it on under threat of punishment if not done and done correctly, not as if it’s a fucking’ joke, how those same officers treat it, things wont change! as far as the police is concerned, the only law is what they deem appropriate at the time, regardless of how many rules of the Constitution are broken or lives lost or the manner in which those lives were lost! as with so many other things (seems to be more in the USA than anywhere else), when there is no punishment for those in charge, be it police or company heads, there will always be total abuse if the situation dictates!!
Re: Re:
The real answer is that we dont really have any rights, just the illusion of rights that can be taken away at will. Divest from state and federal governments, stop supporting a corporation that works for foreign interests at the expense of the people.
Their car. Threatened to seize their car. Their car that had nothing to do with anything. This is extortion.
Re: Re:
According to the guy’s Twitter, they threatened to tow the car because it was illegally parked. But yeah, that’s pretty much a pretense, since the guy was right there and could move it.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
State of Virginia vs. BBC Reporter’s Car
Guilty!
Re: Re:
In a police state police can do whatever they want because they know their word will be believed over any evidence to the contrary.
Whether or not there are no consequences. In practice the police do not act like police, they act like criminals with badges.
And the law. Intentional destruction of evidence is a crime whether it’s the police doing it or anyone else.
I suppose you could argue that there wasn’t any useful evidence on the cameras (meaning the entire thing was without justification, but also meaning that no evidence was destroyed.) But I notice there were *two* officers, which makes it a conspiracy, which means this law could be applied…
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same… They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both” – Title 18, Section 241, US Code.
Re: Re:
Ah; but the previous government redefined “person” as “legal citizen of the US” — are these reporters American?
Re: Re: Re:
A US person is a US citizen or a lawfully admitted resident (ie ‘green card’ holder but not, I believe visa holder). (I have green card ie a permanent resident, so I care about this type of thing).
I’ve been listening to the BBC World Service all morning. This story of the interaction between the BBC reporters and the police hasn’t been broadcast yet. 1214PDT.
Let’s consider the following:
1. Officer Apologize indicates the footage on the camera could be evidence
2. Officer Apologize then instructs the camera operator to delete said evidence
Assuming both of these could be true, then Officer Apologize is demanding the camera operator commit a crime.
Now, let’s assume that the camera operator grew a set of testicles, and pointed out the abject stupidity of Officer Apologize’s directive.
Why should the camera operator even consider turning over the camera to Officer Apologize, or anyone from his agency for that matter?
Isn’t this the same as letting evidence fall into the hands of someone who can clearly not be trusted, given the unlawful and potentially criminal context of his order?
I basically have two questions:
Why do people keep falling for this bullshit?
Why do police continue to insult the public’s intelligence with this ridiculous horseshit?
Actually, I have 3 questions…
Why isn’t the police union saying to these cops “you know, when you say shit like this, it makes us look like the assholes the public thinks we are…”
Re: Re:
“Why do people keep falling for this bullshit?”
Because most people realize that any officer who gives such a contradictory and obviously illegal order to them has a significant chance of throwing them in jail on trumped up charges, or worse, if defied.
Re: Re: Or worse.
Yeah, at that point they’re already fearing for their safety, at least the safety of their career and reputation.
That’s still cause to gun you down.
These Cops need to be fired. Plain and simple, they broke the law now they should have a criminal record and no longer be allowed to hold their position at the police department.
Re: Re:
that would require the police actually giving a dam about the law. It is no longer about upholding the law but conditioning the citizenry into obeying their orders or risk being beaten up, charges of resisting arrest or just plain old murder by cop.
Don't forget…
…that which was merely deleted can also be undeleted.
The reporters probably know that. ;]
ignorance of the law is no excuse
unless you’re the one enforcing the law then the high court says it’s okay.
Two cops telling the reporters to destroy evidence is Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice. Threatening the reporters with loss of property if they don’t agree to destroy the evidence is Blackmail while in the act of other felonies(the OoJ and CtOJ).
If Virginia has a three strikes law, these two cops may have just struck out. Of course, there has to be an umpire willing to make the call.
You didn’t say which police dept. Are you under the impression that all police departments everywhere work the same way?
Live Streaming
Hopefully when bandwidth and efficient compression make it cheap and easy to stream live video from everywhere, the futility of police demanding to delete video will end.
(Of course, it shouldn’t have to come to that. In the meanwhile, 1st Amendment testers have taken to hiding recorders in multiple locations, on multiple people all recording eachother.)
Re: Live Streaming
You could stream the video to a hidden WI-FI harddisk.
a
Re: Re: Live Streaming back to HQ or to a HD
I suspect this may become standard practice for journalists on the field, if the police are going to stop them from doing their job.
Law enforcement officers roughing up the press makes for excellent ratings. And makes the police look like jackbooted thugs.
Re: Re: Re: Live Streaming back to HQ or to a HD
Law enforcement officers roughing up the press (or anyone else for that matter) doesn’t make the police look like jackbooted thugs. They would in fact be, jackbooted thugs.
Broadcasting or reporting on that behavior doesn’t create the image of that, it just puts that behavior in the light of day.
If you don’t want to look bad, then don’t do that shit.
Re: Re: Re:2 Live Streaming back to HQ or to a HD
“They would in fact be, jackbooted thugs.”
Wince we’re being pedantic and all, the only way they would really by “jackbooted thugs” is if they were actually wearing jackboots. Since those have been out of fashion with cops for a very, very long time, it’s more accurate to just call them “armed thugs”.
Re: Re: Re:2 Live Streaming back to HQ or to a HD
Law enforcement officers roughing up the press (or anyone else for that matter) doesn’t make the police look like jackbooted thugs. They would in fact be, jackbooted thugs.
Yeah… they would both be and look like jackbooted thugs. Read it again:
“Law enforcement officers roughing up the press… makes the police look like jackbooted thugs.”
If they are going to BE jackbooted thugs, it’s important that they also LOOK LIKE jackbooted thugs so that we, the citizens, can tell what’s going on.
Re: Live Streaming
I like to tell people that I am chipped and transmitting. Kind of puts a chill on their bull when they try to pull that crap. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a bionic camera eye that transmits to the cloud 24/7 ? With shut down capability on demand, of course, maybe voice activated.
The British don’t have constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution. That was kind of the whole point of the exercise.
Re: Re:
The Constitution regulates and limits the behavior of government actors, a group that includes police.
Re: Re:
The British don’t have constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment disagrees.
And furthermore, the Constitution doesn’t “give” or “grant” rights. It tells the Government what it can do, and what limits it can impose, on the rights given to us by the flying spaghetti monster (insert your deity here, or if you don’t believe in one, insert “those rights inherited when you were born from those who came before you.”)
That was kind of the whole point of the exercise.
The British have as much right as anyone else since they are born with those rights…they just aren’t allowed to tell us what we can or can’t do, and certainly aren’t allowed to tax us for something we neither want nor need, certainly if we aren’t allowed to tell them what we do want or need.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m of the belief that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone and everyone who has dealings with the US government.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the word “citizen” used. The words used are “person” or “persons”. The word “citizen” is used specifically in later Amendments to limit their application to actual citizens.
Obviously, many courts do not agree with my contention.
Re: British don't have constitutional rights
It depends on the rights.
Congress shall pass no law… means that they won’t pass laws, even ones that apply only to visiting foreigners.
I think when we talk about rights to life, liberty, property, privacy, speech, practice of worship, to bear arms etc. We’re talking about rights due to all persons, not just United States citizens.
Re: Re: British don't have constitutional rights
And therein lies the problem, the constitution limits the power of government.
Re: Re:
“The British don’t have constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution”
Yes, they do.
And these same cops will then wonder why people don’t trust them and why they are targets..
The facts remain that most cops are nothing more than idiots with badges and guns.
Too late now, but...
… the best thing they could have done re the “delete your footage now” is to immediately turn the camera off and swap memory.
Then take the memory with the deleted video to get it examined, and possibly un-deleted.
And then bill the cops for the cost of the service.
What were the police doing that they felt the need to force press correspondents to delete video footage?
This sounds like they thought they were doing something wrong and were caught on camera doing it.
And then, by trying to cover it up, they did something wrong.
There’s a missing piece to this story.
Re: What were the police doing that they felt the need to force press correspondents to delete video footage?
No one deletes or orders the deletion of exonerating evidence, so yes, if they wanted the videos deleted that badly, odds are they feared what they would show.
Re: What were the police doing that they felt the need to force press correspondents to delete video footage?
Speeding ? And endangering the public in doing so ? I do not believe it is lawful for police to speed and drive recklessly, no matter what the circumstances. They can always radio ahead and have other officers set up roadblocks or tire strips to slow the perp down.
Re: Re: What were the police doing that they felt the need to force press correspondents to delete video footage?
I do not believe it is lawful for police to speed and drive recklessly, no matter what the circumstances.
It’s certainly legal for them to speed if they have their emergency lights on. I doubt there’s an exemption for reckless driving but they can do things that would ordinarily be illegal if necessary.
Slight Correction here....
“…the police in Virginia are apparently unfamiliar with the First Amendment of the Constitution.“
Not Unfamiliar.
Just Unhappy.
—
It’s not evidence, it’s a recording of evidence. The evidence is still physically there. The police have cameras too, I presume, to make their own recording. But the point may be they don’t want any evidence of the evidence.
Dont make sense
Why would cops delete evidence unless they committed a crime. Are the cops criminal now. The law was suposed to apply to all. If it dont its not law but a bias guideline. Sad that i beleve in law just not the law.