They're not getting the memo, it seems

Via Second City Cop, here's one more tale of police officers, in Chicago this time, exceeding their authority and arresting someone who was filming them doing their jobs in public, solely on the order of a departmental media hack, one who obviously hasn't heard of the First and Fourth Amendments. (To their credit, most of the officers commenting on the story at SCC are incredulous that their brethren would do such a thing at the direction of a public relations employee, and are predicting swift and sure punishment for the cops involved in this debacle.)

This latest person busted for "photographing in public" is a man named Mike Anzaldi, a 12-year veteran crime photojournalist who was recording the action at a crime scene from across the street while standing on private property with the owner's permission:

"Anzaldi was charged with obstruction against a peace officer after he refused to stop filming an investigation of an incident involving an off-duty police officer who shot and killed a man trying to rob him Tuesday night."

(As an aside, isn't it just great that the "special people" in Chicago are able to carry firearms while off-duty in order to defend themselves against the avalanche of muggers and robbers in that town, while that same right is denied the common peasant living there?)

As was stated above, the martinet ordering the arrest was a police "spokesman" and not the sworn officer in charge of the crime scene. Anzaldi maintains that she knew who he was and that he possessed police press credentials, even though none are needed outside of a crime scene, which is where he was standing:

"But the initial order for him to stop filming came from a civilian, a police spokesperson named Monique Bond who is not even a police officer. A flack without a badge."

(One of Anzaldi's still photos, showing that he was across the street and well away from the crime scene.)

Anzaldi claims that Ms. Bond then went on to tell him that filming any kind of news event in the city required official permission from the overlords:

"'She insisted that you need to have credentials to shoot any news in Chicago, which is bullshit,' he said."

The cops returned Mr. Anzaldi's still cameras, but not before deleting all of the pictures from them. Mr. Anzaldi was fortunately able to recover the images, which show that he was taking pictures from well beyond the yellow-taped crime scene. They have yet to return his video camera, claiming that it contains evidence justifying the arrest.

Until someone "accidentally" deletes the footage from that piece of equipment as well. "Is that what that button does? Should I not have pushed that?"

All of this will eventually add up to yet another multi-mega dollar settlement of taxpayer dollars, to be paid out by simpletons who don't understand that the recording of "public" safety officers by private citizens is completely legal, so long as they don't interfere with the officers' duties (which Anzaldi insists didn't happen, and he claims his video footage will clearly prove him correct).

If he manages to get his very expensive video camera back intact, that is. Any wagers as to whether that will happen?