... is NYPD Officer Flynn, badge 3034, who is seen here threatening to jail a local activist for videotaping a checkpoint outside 1 Police Plaza from approximately 300 feet away while standing on a public street:
Needless to say, the actions engaged in by the photographer were entirely legal and no such arrest took place. Another example of the kinds of empty and impotent threats regularly made by those in "authority".
"They're filming you filming this location".
So what? You have your cameras and so does the citizen. Sounds quite fair to us. And failing to obey your illegal order is not a crime, ma'am.
(link via Carlos Miller)
Showing posts with label Photography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Photography. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Friday, August 03, 2012
Magic
It's quite interesting to note the near-instantaneous transformative effect the presence of a running video camera has on the surly and bullying attitude of Sergeant Scott Eberle of the San Rafael, California Police Department:
(Carlos Miller via Reason)
(Carlos Miller via Reason)
Friday, July 06, 2012
Coparazzi
Did you hear the one about Beverly Hills police officer Roy Garrett, who spent his entire career shaking down celebrities at traffic stops for autographed photos in return for letting them out of their tickets?
"Margaret Barrett, director of entertainment and music at Heritage Auctions in Beverley Hills, said: 'Officer Garrett was a traffic officer in Beverly Hills during the 50s and 60s.
'He had a good gig going and had the same Modus Operandi for years.
'He would have some reason to stop these stars of Hollywood's golden era on places like Sunset Boulevard, like for speeding or running a red light.
'But he made no secret of offering to let them off a ticket in return for a signed photo of them.
'It was all quite innocent and in any case he died about 15 years ago so he isn't going to get busted for it now.'"
It wasn't a "good gig", ma'am, it was a textbook abuse of his authority. What happens when one of those stars runs over an innocent person because their reckless driving was never officially addressed? We also can't imagine any tourists getting a similar break from Officer Garrett. No doubt those hapless gawkers served as the chumps who filled out his monthly ticket quota.
Garrett's family, feeling no sense of shame over his actions, is preparing to auction off the trove to finance a trip to Disney World. Hopefully they'll drive to their Florida destination and in so doing rack up a bunch of moving violations.
"Margaret Barrett, director of entertainment and music at Heritage Auctions in Beverley Hills, said: 'Officer Garrett was a traffic officer in Beverly Hills during the 50s and 60s.
'He had a good gig going and had the same Modus Operandi for years.
'He would have some reason to stop these stars of Hollywood's golden era on places like Sunset Boulevard, like for speeding or running a red light.
'But he made no secret of offering to let them off a ticket in return for a signed photo of them.
'It was all quite innocent and in any case he died about 15 years ago so he isn't going to get busted for it now.'"
It wasn't a "good gig", ma'am, it was a textbook abuse of his authority. What happens when one of those stars runs over an innocent person because their reckless driving was never officially addressed? We also can't imagine any tourists getting a similar break from Officer Garrett. No doubt those hapless gawkers served as the chumps who filled out his monthly ticket quota.
Garrett's family, feeling no sense of shame over his actions, is preparing to auction off the trove to finance a trip to Disney World. Hopefully they'll drive to their Florida destination and in so doing rack up a bunch of moving violations.
Thursday, July 05, 2012
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are the Long Beach, California police officers who not only smashed multiple surveillance cameras while serving a warrant on a local medical marijuana dispensary (for the last time, are these businesses legal or not?), one of the public "servants" present at the raid apparently thought it would be a good idea to go ahead and walk on an unresisting and compliant suspect's neck and back with both of his jack-booted feet:
The main charge? Operating without a city permit. Well that certainly justifies the level of force seen here, doesn't it?
Unfortunately for the shock troops the footage was also being recorded offsite, which allows their antics to be viewed by everyone.
The store owners must have had prior knowledge of these unlawful tactics, as that's a crystal clear case of destruction of evidence (not to mention trashing the private property of someone yet to even be charged with a crime), which violates all known precepts of good police work.
Not that those guidelines apparently matter anymore, especially in California.
The main charge? Operating without a city permit. Well that certainly justifies the level of force seen here, doesn't it?
Unfortunately for the shock troops the footage was also being recorded offsite, which allows their antics to be viewed by everyone.
The store owners must have had prior knowledge of these unlawful tactics, as that's a crystal clear case of destruction of evidence (not to mention trashing the private property of someone yet to even be charged with a crime), which violates all known precepts of good police work.
Not that those guidelines apparently matter anymore, especially in California.
Monday, July 02, 2012
What's good for the goose...
DARPA, the Defense Department's research arm, has apparently been hanging out in San Francisco to film the local police department's daily interactions with the public there as part of something creepily called "Good Stranger":
"The SFPD insists all this only sounds a little Big Brother-y. 'The point is to observe the officers’ behavior,' says Sgt. Michael Andraychak, who assures us that the research doesn’t encroach on civilians’ privacy. He also says, less comfortingly: 'You have no expectation of privacy in a public space.'"
The good officer is absolutely correct. Let's hope he and his colleagues remember that fact when the good people in Frisco decide to publicly photograph and record the cops right back.
"The SFPD insists all this only sounds a little Big Brother-y. 'The point is to observe the officers’ behavior,' says Sgt. Michael Andraychak, who assures us that the research doesn’t encroach on civilians’ privacy. He also says, less comfortingly: 'You have no expectation of privacy in a public space.'"
The good officer is absolutely correct. Let's hope he and his colleagues remember that fact when the good people in Frisco decide to publicly photograph and record the cops right back.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...
... is Rochester, New York police officer Mario Masic, for arresting local resident Emily Good on May 12 for filming Masic with her cellphone from her own front lawn while he and other officers performed an allegedly questionable traffic stop on a young black male motorist on the street in front of her home:
Masic is seen on the tape unlawfully ordering Good to go into her home, telling her that "I don't feel safe with you standing behind me", even though she is clearly doing nothing but standing in her own yard holding a phone while not interfering with the officers in any way. Masic then trespassed onto Good's property and placed her into custody on an obvious retaliatory charge of "obstructing governmental administration".
The motorist seen handcuffed in the traffic stop? He was apparently released without charge after the officers' reported allegation that he possessed drugs wasn't borne out after a search of his car uncovered no illegal substances. Go figure.
Here's a firsthand account from a friend of Good's who was an eyewitness to the incident. We note with more than a little incredulity the following portion of that statement:
"According to the arrested woman, after the arrest the four police met in the parking lot of Wilson High School around the corner and had a conference for about an hour about how to deal with the case. A Sargent came over and gave them advice about how to write up the report that would minimize their wrong doing."
If you have to have a hour-long meeting to figure out how to respond to something you did, fellows, you most likely didn't do the correct thing.
Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard has reportedly opened an official investigation into this incident. Time will tell if "Officer" Masic will be disciplined for this blatant and unlawful misuse of his authority.
(h/t to Carlos Miller)
Masic is seen on the tape unlawfully ordering Good to go into her home, telling her that "I don't feel safe with you standing behind me", even though she is clearly doing nothing but standing in her own yard holding a phone while not interfering with the officers in any way. Masic then trespassed onto Good's property and placed her into custody on an obvious retaliatory charge of "obstructing governmental administration".
The motorist seen handcuffed in the traffic stop? He was apparently released without charge after the officers' reported allegation that he possessed drugs wasn't borne out after a search of his car uncovered no illegal substances. Go figure.
Here's a firsthand account from a friend of Good's who was an eyewitness to the incident. We note with more than a little incredulity the following portion of that statement:
"According to the arrested woman, after the arrest the four police met in the parking lot of Wilson High School around the corner and had a conference for about an hour about how to deal with the case. A Sargent came over and gave them advice about how to write up the report that would minimize their wrong doing."
If you have to have a hour-long meeting to figure out how to respond to something you did, fellows, you most likely didn't do the correct thing.
Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard has reportedly opened an official investigation into this incident. Time will tell if "Officer" Masic will be disciplined for this blatant and unlawful misuse of his authority.
(h/t to Carlos Miller)
Saturday, June 18, 2011
A snapshot of life
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Los Angeles, California
7:15 p.m.
Seen posted on the door of an art gallery in Little Tokyo:
The careless flicking of leftover food bits by casual browsers is apparently quite the issue at this particular establishment.
On a related note, the food at the nearby Shabu-Shabu House is well worth however long the wait might be for you to get a seat.
Los Angeles, California
7:15 p.m.
Seen posted on the door of an art gallery in Little Tokyo:
The careless flicking of leftover food bits by casual browsers is apparently quite the issue at this particular establishment.
On a related note, the food at the nearby Shabu-Shabu House is well worth however long the wait might be for you to get a seat.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are the three Maryland Transit Administration "officers" who detained a man for over 40 minutes and threatened him with arrest (under some nebulous and super-secret provision of the Patriot Act that only cops apparently know about. We are personally very familiar with that particular dead-wrong argument) for taking some pictures at the Baltimore Cultural Light Rail Station (we're assuming that the word "cultural" is in there implies there's some sort of painting or display worth photographing in the first place):
"The MTA acknowledges that additional training is in order.
'We’ll look at our training processes, we’ll look at whether any administrative situations need to occur with those officers,' [MTA Administrator Ralign] Wells said."
We figured something along the lines of "We were completely wrong, the officers involved will be appropriately sanctioned and we will immediately take the proper steps to make sure no innocent citizen engaged in legal activities will ever again be unlawfully detained" would have been too much to hope for, but that particular mealy-mouthed statement is just pathetic.
Based on Mr. Wells's response (and the fact that this is not the first time the MTA has been guilty of this practice), we sadly predict that it's going to take yet another ACLU lawsuit, with the concomitant paying out of thousands of dollars of peasant-funded money in damages, to force that agency into halting the abusive behavior of its employees.
"The MTA acknowledges that additional training is in order.
'We’ll look at our training processes, we’ll look at whether any administrative situations need to occur with those officers,' [MTA Administrator Ralign] Wells said."
We figured something along the lines of "We were completely wrong, the officers involved will be appropriately sanctioned and we will immediately take the proper steps to make sure no innocent citizen engaged in legal activities will ever again be unlawfully detained" would have been too much to hope for, but that particular mealy-mouthed statement is just pathetic.
Based on Mr. Wells's response (and the fact that this is not the first time the MTA has been guilty of this practice), we sadly predict that it's going to take yet another ACLU lawsuit, with the concomitant paying out of thousands of dollars of peasant-funded money in damages, to force that agency into halting the abusive behavior of its employees.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Jack-Booted followups
1. In response to national criticism over their abusive treatment of a law-abiding resident who dared to exercise his rights by walking to a local auto parts store while legally openly carrying his holstered pistol the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police have now announced that they will prone out at gunpoint "inconvenience" any other person who dares to do the same thing:
For posting a legally-made recording on the Internet.
Ah, nothing like a little malicious prosecution to intimidate the peasants into giving up their freedoms. Perhaps it's time for some of those residents to "inconvenience" the department with a civil-rights lawsuit seeking to immediately halt this outrageously thuggish and abusive behavior.
We have been enthusiastic (and lucrative) visitors to that city in the past. We will not go there again until that rogue agency is reminded that their job description does not include making up laws as they go along.
2. Steven Taubenkibel, a public information officer with the Washington, D.C. Metro Transit Police, laughably insists that our eyes deceive us and that the disabled man two of his agency's officers were recorded body-slamming to the pavement while arresting the suspect for drinking in public in fact "fell"" out of his mobility scooter because he was resisting.
Sure he did. How clumsy of him. It's a good thing those cops were right there to catch him and assist him gently to the ground.
Taubenkibel is also refusing to release the names of the officers involved in the incident, even though that information is usually immediately publicly available. Maybe he will argue that once again we're seeing things and that the two fully-uniformed cops were in fact undercover and thus cannot be named.
The infuriating fallout from these two incidents firmly underscores the vital role citizens play in police accountability when they are able to freely practice their right to photograph and audio/video record government workers in public. The age of departments getting away with "it didn't happen if we say it didn't" is over, and that is a very good thing.
"The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention.
After Fiorino released the audiotape, he was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He now faces up to two years in prison."
For posting a legally-made recording on the Internet.
Ah, nothing like a little malicious prosecution to intimidate the peasants into giving up their freedoms. Perhaps it's time for some of those residents to "inconvenience" the department with a civil-rights lawsuit seeking to immediately halt this outrageously thuggish and abusive behavior.
We have been enthusiastic (and lucrative) visitors to that city in the past. We will not go there again until that rogue agency is reminded that their job description does not include making up laws as they go along.
2. Steven Taubenkibel, a public information officer with the Washington, D.C. Metro Transit Police, laughably insists that our eyes deceive us and that the disabled man two of his agency's officers were recorded body-slamming to the pavement while arresting the suspect for drinking in public in fact "fell"" out of his mobility scooter because he was resisting.
Sure he did. How clumsy of him. It's a good thing those cops were right there to catch him and assist him gently to the ground.
Taubenkibel is also refusing to release the names of the officers involved in the incident, even though that information is usually immediately publicly available. Maybe he will argue that once again we're seeing things and that the two fully-uniformed cops were in fact undercover and thus cannot be named.
The infuriating fallout from these two incidents firmly underscores the vital role citizens play in police accountability when they are able to freely practice their right to photograph and audio/video record government workers in public. The age of departments getting away with "it didn't happen if we say it didn't" is over, and that is a very good thing.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Well said
Liberal author and radio-show host David Sirota explains in Salon magazine the importance of not allowing the police to bully, intimidate, threaten with arrest or otherwise prevent people from recording officers going about their public duties (from a respectful and non-interfering distance, of course).
"That's what the practice of cellphone recording is supposed to do -- not mimic the national security state's Big Brother culture, but prevent that security state from trampling our freedoms.
Law enforcement officials, of course, don't like the cellphone cameras because they don't want any check on police power. So they've resorted to fear-mongering allegations about lost lives. But the only police officers who are threatened by cellphone cameras are those who want to break civil liberties laws with impunity. The rest have nothing to worry about and everything to gain from a practice that simply asks them to remember the all-too-forgotten part of their "protect and serve" motto -- the part about protecting the public's civil rights."
We vehemently disagree with Mr. Sirota on just about every political issue, but on this particular topic he's spot-on.
"That's what the practice of cellphone recording is supposed to do -- not mimic the national security state's Big Brother culture, but prevent that security state from trampling our freedoms.
Law enforcement officials, of course, don't like the cellphone cameras because they don't want any check on police power. So they've resorted to fear-mongering allegations about lost lives. But the only police officers who are threatened by cellphone cameras are those who want to break civil liberties laws with impunity. The rest have nothing to worry about and everything to gain from a practice that simply asks them to remember the all-too-forgotten part of their "protect and serve" motto -- the part about protecting the public's civil rights."
We vehemently disagree with Mr. Sirota on just about every political issue, but on this particular topic he's spot-on.
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are the two Washington, D.C. Metro Transit Police "officers" who body-slammed a scooter-bound man to the concrete sidewalk while arresting him last Thursday at the U Street Metro stop, causing a large bloody gash over the suspect's eye:
The alleged crime that precipitated this abuse? Drinking alcohol in public, which hardly seems to justify such harsh treatment on the part of the goons. Would one cop simply grabbing an arm apiece, picking the man out of the chair, walking a step or two and then setting him on the ground and subduing him have been too much to ask for? That slam was completely unjustified brutality.
"Get on the ground"
He can't, you buffoons, he's obviously handicapped. Why is it necessary for two big tough guys like yourselves to harshly toss someone in that condition to the ground simply to put a pair of handcuffs on?
"Move on, sir"
The witnesses did no such thing, to their credit. The days of ignoring or hiding the sadistic behavior of bullies like these are thankfully quite over now that we're in the age of the cell-phone camera and the instant Internet upload.
Now we see why the "authorities" are so concerned about being filmed going about their duties in public, since they now actually have to act like the professionals they're supposed to be.
The alleged crime that precipitated this abuse? Drinking alcohol in public, which hardly seems to justify such harsh treatment on the part of the goons. Would one cop simply grabbing an arm apiece, picking the man out of the chair, walking a step or two and then setting him on the ground and subduing him have been too much to ask for? That slam was completely unjustified brutality.
"Get on the ground"
He can't, you buffoons, he's obviously handicapped. Why is it necessary for two big tough guys like yourselves to harshly toss someone in that condition to the ground simply to put a pair of handcuffs on?
"Move on, sir"
The witnesses did no such thing, to their credit. The days of ignoring or hiding the sadistic behavior of bullies like these are thankfully quite over now that we're in the age of the cell-phone camera and the instant Internet upload.
Now we see why the "authorities" are so concerned about being filmed going about their duties in public, since they now actually have to act like the professionals they're supposed to be.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Atrocious cowardice all around
King County, Washington Sheriff's Deputy Matt Paul is still being allowed by his boss, Sheriff Sue Rahr, to prey on the public despite years of documented excessive force complaints as well as warnings by his supervisors to "avoid arresting people simply because they challenged his authority or were disrespectful", and after Paul recently cost local taxpayers a 10 million dollar settlement after slamming an innocent man into a wall, causing massive brain damage and crippling him for life.
KONG-TV has the details:
"I can't turn around and fire a deputy because I have concerns."
A 2000 page record of abusive and out-of-control behavior and a multimillion-dollar payout are now simply dismissed as "concerns". Way to protect and serve your public, Sheriff.
KONG-TV has the details:
"I can't turn around and fire a deputy because I have concerns."
A 2000 page record of abusive and out-of-control behavior and a multimillion-dollar payout are now simply dismissed as "concerns". Way to protect and serve your public, Sheriff.
Monday, May 09, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are unfortunately too numerous this time around to name just one winner.
1. A person was arrested at Denver International Airport on Saturday morning after "authorities" noticed he was videotaping the security lines. He was taken into custody "on suspicion of interfering with a transportation facility" along with three people in the security line.
We're not sure how openly photographing a security checkpoint counts as "interfering", especially when the TSA itself admits that doing so is perfectly legal and acceptable behavior. Those cops had better have another, much better reason for arresting this person or they could find themselves in serious legal trouble.
Apparently the folks in line the person was filming didn't possess IDs or boarding passes. That's certainly anomalous (but also not illegal) behavior but again, the cops wouldn't have found this out unless they wrongly detained the photographer in the first place, which will probably result in the suppression of any evidence of wrongdoing gained from their arrest (of which there have been no reports to date).
We certainly don't wish to be the victims of terrorist acts, but government officials have to follow the rules they themselves put into place or else we're no better than any other tin-pot Third World dictatorship.
2. 17-year-old high-school student and anti-police corruption activist Robert Wanek was unlawfully arrested last Friday by "Officer" Dustin Hill of the Wahpeton, North Dakota Police Department for daring to film the cop on a public street as part of Wanek's independent investigation into alleged unwarranted raids taking place in the town. Hill is ironically one of the officers accused of abusing his police powers, and in this incident he pretty much proves Wanek's allegations for him:
According to Wanek he was held in handcuffs and questioned by another officer for approximately one hour without being read his rights or his parents being notified (he is a minor after all), and upon his release was informed that he had been unlawfully detained solely because he "had pissed Dustin Hill off". Apparently that's some sort of crime in that podunk burg.
Wanek is asking all concerned individuals to call the Wahpeton Police Chief at 701-642-7722 to politely inquire whether an investigation into "Officer" Hill's clearly unlawful and bullying behavior has been opened, and if not why not.
(via CopBlock)
3. Chattanooga (Tennessee) Times Free Press reporter Kate Harrison last Thursday was interviewing volunteers cleaning up the damage from massive flooding in the area while also taking pictures when she was ordered by Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Hammond, Chattanooga Police Chief Bobby Dodd and Hamilton County Director of Emergency Services Don Allen (way too many chiefs there, it seems) to stop taking photographs, a clear violation of her Constitutional rights as both a private citizen and a working journalist covering a legitimate news story in public.
"Harrison also was commanded by emergency services spokeswoman Amy Maxwell not to publish any of the photographs she had taken, and later was threatened with arrest. (We published one of Harrison’s photos.)"
This wasn't the only run-in the paper's reporters had with overreaching officials that day, by the way:
"In a similar incident on the same day, another member of our news staff — photographer Allison Carter — was threatened with arrest by a Catoosa County deputy sheriff if she did not cease photographing tornado damage at a Food Lion shopping center, and if she did not delete the pictures she had taken from her camera."
These incidents are completely unacceptable behavior on the part of those public "servants", and we hope the paper pursues all legal remedies available to it to have those bullies severely punished for their attempt at official intimidation.
(Jack Lail via Unc)
1. A person was arrested at Denver International Airport on Saturday morning after "authorities" noticed he was videotaping the security lines. He was taken into custody "on suspicion of interfering with a transportation facility" along with three people in the security line.
We're not sure how openly photographing a security checkpoint counts as "interfering", especially when the TSA itself admits that doing so is perfectly legal and acceptable behavior. Those cops had better have another, much better reason for arresting this person or they could find themselves in serious legal trouble.
Apparently the folks in line the person was filming didn't possess IDs or boarding passes. That's certainly anomalous (but also not illegal) behavior but again, the cops wouldn't have found this out unless they wrongly detained the photographer in the first place, which will probably result in the suppression of any evidence of wrongdoing gained from their arrest (of which there have been no reports to date).
We certainly don't wish to be the victims of terrorist acts, but government officials have to follow the rules they themselves put into place or else we're no better than any other tin-pot Third World dictatorship.
2. 17-year-old high-school student and anti-police corruption activist Robert Wanek was unlawfully arrested last Friday by "Officer" Dustin Hill of the Wahpeton, North Dakota Police Department for daring to film the cop on a public street as part of Wanek's independent investigation into alleged unwarranted raids taking place in the town. Hill is ironically one of the officers accused of abusing his police powers, and in this incident he pretty much proves Wanek's allegations for him:
According to Wanek he was held in handcuffs and questioned by another officer for approximately one hour without being read his rights or his parents being notified (he is a minor after all), and upon his release was informed that he had been unlawfully detained solely because he "had pissed Dustin Hill off". Apparently that's some sort of crime in that podunk burg.
Wanek is asking all concerned individuals to call the Wahpeton Police Chief at 701-642-7722 to politely inquire whether an investigation into "Officer" Hill's clearly unlawful and bullying behavior has been opened, and if not why not.
(via CopBlock)
3. Chattanooga (Tennessee) Times Free Press reporter Kate Harrison last Thursday was interviewing volunteers cleaning up the damage from massive flooding in the area while also taking pictures when she was ordered by Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Hammond, Chattanooga Police Chief Bobby Dodd and Hamilton County Director of Emergency Services Don Allen (way too many chiefs there, it seems) to stop taking photographs, a clear violation of her Constitutional rights as both a private citizen and a working journalist covering a legitimate news story in public.
"Harrison also was commanded by emergency services spokeswoman Amy Maxwell not to publish any of the photographs she had taken, and later was threatened with arrest. (We published one of Harrison’s photos.)"
This wasn't the only run-in the paper's reporters had with overreaching officials that day, by the way:
"In a similar incident on the same day, another member of our news staff — photographer Allison Carter — was threatened with arrest by a Catoosa County deputy sheriff if she did not cease photographing tornado damage at a Food Lion shopping center, and if she did not delete the pictures she had taken from her camera."
These incidents are completely unacceptable behavior on the part of those public "servants", and we hope the paper pursues all legal remedies available to it to have those bullies severely punished for their attempt at official intimidation.
(Jack Lail via Unc)
Monday, May 02, 2011
Pre-crime
Two of admittedly the politest and most deferential cops we've ever seen nonetheless show up at the London home of free-speech activist Charlie Veitch the day before last week's royal wedding and arrest him for allegations (not even formal charges) of "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" and "suspicion of aggravated trespass", despite Veitch himself confirming the day before at Scotland Yard that he had no outstanding warrants.
Translation: You rabble-rousers aren't going to put a damper on our worldwide PR event, and we're willing to violate your rights in order to ensure a trouble-free day for our inbred masters.
Great Britain - where you can be dragged downtown and locked up for something you might do.
Translation: You rabble-rousers aren't going to put a damper on our worldwide PR event, and we're willing to violate your rights in order to ensure a trouble-free day for our inbred masters.
Great Britain - where you can be dragged downtown and locked up for something you might do.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...
... is Las Vegas, Nevada police officer Derek Colling, who assaulted local resident Mitchell Crooks (breaking his nose in the process) for Crooks's terrible offense of filming Colling's public arrest of some juvenile burglary suspects, all while standing in his own driveway:
Crooks was arrested and charged with battery on a police officer and obstruction of justice, allegations that were quickly dropped by prosecutors once the video footage from the camera made it plainly obvious that "Officer" Colling had lied through his teeth about the circumstances of the incident, and that it was in fact Crooks who had been battered and obstructed, along with having his civil rights violated.
Crooks has filed a $500,000 notice of claim against the department. Colling, of course, remains on duty and is presumably free to keep violating with impunity the rights of law-abiding citizens, at least until the LVMPD internal investigation into his abusive behavior is completed.
Incidents such as these are exactly why photographers such as Crooks and Carlos Miller routinely risk personal injury and jail time defending the right of a law-abiding and non-interfering citizenry to photograph whatever they wish in public.
Public officials going about their duties on public property have no expectation of privacy (in the very same way we peasants are told we don't either as we go about our business), and it's about time some of the denser ones learned that fact.
Crooks was arrested and charged with battery on a police officer and obstruction of justice, allegations that were quickly dropped by prosecutors once the video footage from the camera made it plainly obvious that "Officer" Colling had lied through his teeth about the circumstances of the incident, and that it was in fact Crooks who had been battered and obstructed, along with having his civil rights violated.
Crooks has filed a $500,000 notice of claim against the department. Colling, of course, remains on duty and is presumably free to keep violating with impunity the rights of law-abiding citizens, at least until the LVMPD internal investigation into his abusive behavior is completed.
Incidents such as these are exactly why photographers such as Crooks and Carlos Miller routinely risk personal injury and jail time defending the right of a law-abiding and non-interfering citizenry to photograph whatever they wish in public.
Public officials going about their duties on public property have no expectation of privacy (in the very same way we peasants are told we don't either as we go about our business), and it's about time some of the denser ones learned that fact.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Detained by the TSA
Yesterday's adventure through the looking glass:
We arrived at Concourse E of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport to catch our return flight to Phoenix. We placed our items in a bin on the belt as directed (phone video camera and voice recorder both turned on) and waited patiently to pass through the metal detector. At the last second before passing through we were stopped by a screener and told to proceed to the backscatter machine instead. We politely informed the screener that we chose to opt out and would prefer the pat-down instead. The screener called for assistance and directed us to a separate area.
Once at the secondary screening area, we informed the new screener that our phone camera was on and running, and would he be so kind as to reach into the bin and turn it slightly so it would record our interaction. He visibly recoiled and told us that filming in the security area was strictly prohibited. We politely told him that he was mistaken, and that the TSA explicitly does not prohibit photography in the screening areas:
"TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations; however, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances may. We recommend contacting your local airport authority in advance to ensure you are familiar with their local procedures. While TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations, TSA may ask a photographer to stop if they are interfering with the screening process or taking photos of X-ray monitor screens in a checkpoint."
We, despite being infrequent flyers, know this, so why don't the TSA employees?
Several screeners had arrived at this point and proceeded to berate us en masse for having the audacity to have a running camera in the security area. We kept calm and requested they dial the 1-800 number prominently posted on signs throughout the area so that TSA Customer Service could inform them that our activities were perfectly legal. They declined to do so.
By this time TSA Terminal Coordinator Tom Kinderknecht had arrived and again incorrectly told us that all filming by passengers is prohibited, telling us (all quotes paraphrased) that "There are already cameras all over the place recording this". We responded by saying "That's exactly our point. You have your cameras, and we have ours. Sounds fair enough to us". He apparently didn't see it our way because he then said "I'm going to ask you to please turn your camera off". We answered with "Sorry, we're not able to do that". He then said that Texas DPS was on their way, which of course was completely fine with us. At this point several suit-clad goons were hovering close by our chair, apparently as some sort of show of intimidation. This failed comically, of course.
The standoff ended after 10 or so minutes when we offered to shut the camera down so that we could be screened and not miss our flight, having felt that our point had been made. This was acceptable to Mr. Kinderknecht, and so we turned off the devices. The subsequent pat-down by Officer Burd was rapidly and competently accomplished with great professionalism on his part.
Mr. Kinderknecht then asked us if we were traveling alone, and we answered in the affirmative. He then stated that we were indeed correct about filming (so why were we detained in the first place?), but that someone else besides us (such as a companion) would have to do the recording since we wouldn't be allowed to touch our belongings during the process. We replied that of course we didn't expect to be able to hold the camera, we merely wished the screener to move it slightly to capture our pat-down. That certainly seemed a reasonable request - at least to us, a solo traveler unable to ask our companion for assistance.
We finished being screened and gathered our items together. Mr. Kinderknecht and us wished each other good day and we concluded our interaction. He even had the good nature to ask "What time is this going to be on YouTube?"
We're in the process of reviewing the footage now. Nothing is visible on the tape except the airport ceiling, and we're trying to ascertain whether or not the audio is clear enough to post. We'll have more on this when our analysis is complete.
We arrived at Concourse E of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport to catch our return flight to Phoenix. We placed our items in a bin on the belt as directed (phone video camera and voice recorder both turned on) and waited patiently to pass through the metal detector. At the last second before passing through we were stopped by a screener and told to proceed to the backscatter machine instead. We politely informed the screener that we chose to opt out and would prefer the pat-down instead. The screener called for assistance and directed us to a separate area.
Once at the secondary screening area, we informed the new screener that our phone camera was on and running, and would he be so kind as to reach into the bin and turn it slightly so it would record our interaction. He visibly recoiled and told us that filming in the security area was strictly prohibited. We politely told him that he was mistaken, and that the TSA explicitly does not prohibit photography in the screening areas:
"TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations; however, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances may. We recommend contacting your local airport authority in advance to ensure you are familiar with their local procedures. While TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations, TSA may ask a photographer to stop if they are interfering with the screening process or taking photos of X-ray monitor screens in a checkpoint."
We, despite being infrequent flyers, know this, so why don't the TSA employees?
Several screeners had arrived at this point and proceeded to berate us en masse for having the audacity to have a running camera in the security area. We kept calm and requested they dial the 1-800 number prominently posted on signs throughout the area so that TSA Customer Service could inform them that our activities were perfectly legal. They declined to do so.
By this time TSA Terminal Coordinator Tom Kinderknecht had arrived and again incorrectly told us that all filming by passengers is prohibited, telling us (all quotes paraphrased) that "There are already cameras all over the place recording this". We responded by saying "That's exactly our point. You have your cameras, and we have ours. Sounds fair enough to us". He apparently didn't see it our way because he then said "I'm going to ask you to please turn your camera off". We answered with "Sorry, we're not able to do that". He then said that Texas DPS was on their way, which of course was completely fine with us. At this point several suit-clad goons were hovering close by our chair, apparently as some sort of show of intimidation. This failed comically, of course.
The standoff ended after 10 or so minutes when we offered to shut the camera down so that we could be screened and not miss our flight, having felt that our point had been made. This was acceptable to Mr. Kinderknecht, and so we turned off the devices. The subsequent pat-down by Officer Burd was rapidly and competently accomplished with great professionalism on his part.
Mr. Kinderknecht then asked us if we were traveling alone, and we answered in the affirmative. He then stated that we were indeed correct about filming (so why were we detained in the first place?), but that someone else besides us (such as a companion) would have to do the recording since we wouldn't be allowed to touch our belongings during the process. We replied that of course we didn't expect to be able to hold the camera, we merely wished the screener to move it slightly to capture our pat-down. That certainly seemed a reasonable request - at least to us, a solo traveler unable to ask our companion for assistance.
We finished being screened and gathered our items together. Mr. Kinderknecht and us wished each other good day and we concluded our interaction. He even had the good nature to ask "What time is this going to be on YouTube?"
We're in the process of reviewing the footage now. Nothing is visible on the tape except the airport ceiling, and we're trying to ascertain whether or not the audio is clear enough to post. We'll have more on this when our analysis is complete.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...
... is Miami, Florida police officer J. Mayorga, for assaulting local photojournalist Stretch Ledford for taping the investigation of a crime scene while standing on a public sidewalk outside the yellow taped police boundaries:
"You need to stop taping me, I'm undercover"
In full uniform and driving a marked police cruiser. Right.
You'd think being repeatedly exposed and embarrassed by journalists and photography-rights activists such as Ledford and Carlos Miller for their illegal behavior would be enough for that department to change its abusive departmental practices towards citizens engaged in lawful activities.
You'd think.
"You need to stop taping me, I'm undercover"
In full uniform and driving a marked police cruiser. Right.
You'd think being repeatedly exposed and embarrassed by journalists and photography-rights activists such as Ledford and Carlos Miller for their illegal behavior would be enough for that department to change its abusive departmental practices towards citizens engaged in lawful activities.
You'd think.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Successfully dealing with a nest of snakes
At least one stand-up Federal law-enforcement administrator has finally had enough of the unconstitutional shenanigans being perpetrated in the name of our "security", as reported by TRAINS magazine:
"WASHINGTON — In late February, the Transportation Security Administration took over the Amtrak station in Savannah, Ga., and thoroughly searched every person who entered. None of the passengers got into trouble, but the TSA certainly did — big time."
The story actually has it slightly wrong - the facts are much worse than that. The goons not only searched everyone who entered the station, but also passengers who had already arrived on trains and were merely trying to exit and go about their business:
A complete farce. What were those screeners going to do if someone quite reasonably (and legally) refused to be searched, stick them back on a train?
"Amtrak Police Chief John O’Connor said he first thought a blog posting about the incident was a joke. When he discovered that the TSA’s VIPR team did at least some of what the blog said, he was livid. He ordered the VIPR teams off Amtrak property, at least until a firm agreement can be drawn up to prevent the TSA from taking actions that the chief said were illegal and clearly contrary to Amtrak policy."
"A posting in late February to the Transportation Security Administration’s blog, which serves as a public relations tool of the TSA, tried to explain why TSA agents took over the Amtrak station in Savannah. But O’Connor said the “facts” as posted on the TSA blog were incorrect. He said the blog indicated that Amtrak had approved of the operation, but it had not. He called the TSA’s posting on blog.tsa.gov 'inaccurate and insensitive.'"
In other words, the martinets who run the TSA are liars. Do tell.
Many thanks must go to Chief O'Connor for standing up for what's left of the rule of law in this country.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
The Florida Department of Transportation is run by liars and lawbreakers
Via WTSP in Tampa, Florida comes a disturbing story by citizen journalist Joel Chandler about highway toll takers in that state regularly unlawfully detaining as well as demanding personal information from "certain" drivers (mostly horses of a different color, if you catch our drift) who have the audacity to pay with a $10 or larger bill. The workers then threaten to call the Highway Patrol when the motorists refuse to roll over and obey.
"Chandler says to the toll taker, 'So I'm being detained?' She says yes sir."
And, of course, the highway department compounds the abuse of their taxpayers by going right ahead and swearing up and down that they aren't doing any such thing, all the while frantically sending out the word to halt the scheme because they've been found out:
"When Chandler called and e-mailed the Florida Department of Transportation to complain about the policy, he was told there is no policy to detain people who give large bills... Chandler continued to complain and on July 21st at 7:19 p.m., he received an email from the assistant General Counsel of FDOT saying essentially the department didn't know what he was talking about and they don't have sufficient information to investigate. However, earlier that same day, there were a flurry of e-mails going back and forth in the department saying shut the program down, temporarily suspend it and who should call Chandler and what should they say."
We don't know what's worse - minor government functionaries ordering employees to exceed their legal authority or their blatantly lying to a complaining taxpayer's face about it. Either way, the coming class-action lawsuit should be quite enlightening. Too bad there's not a provision for the martinets who dreamed up this program to pay the damages out of their own pockets.
If nothing else, this story provides another clear example of why the American peasant should be free to record without fear of reprisal the public actions of the government workers whose salaries they pay.
UPDATE: Trigger bill denomination changed per the documents shown in the video.
"Chandler says to the toll taker, 'So I'm being detained?' She says yes sir."
And, of course, the highway department compounds the abuse of their taxpayers by going right ahead and swearing up and down that they aren't doing any such thing, all the while frantically sending out the word to halt the scheme because they've been found out:
"When Chandler called and e-mailed the Florida Department of Transportation to complain about the policy, he was told there is no policy to detain people who give large bills... Chandler continued to complain and on July 21st at 7:19 p.m., he received an email from the assistant General Counsel of FDOT saying essentially the department didn't know what he was talking about and they don't have sufficient information to investigate. However, earlier that same day, there were a flurry of e-mails going back and forth in the department saying shut the program down, temporarily suspend it and who should call Chandler and what should they say."
We don't know what's worse - minor government functionaries ordering employees to exceed their legal authority or their blatantly lying to a complaining taxpayer's face about it. Either way, the coming class-action lawsuit should be quite enlightening. Too bad there's not a provision for the martinets who dreamed up this program to pay the damages out of their own pockets.
If nothing else, this story provides another clear example of why the American peasant should be free to record without fear of reprisal the public actions of the government workers whose salaries they pay.
UPDATE: Trigger bill denomination changed per the documents shown in the video.
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...
... are the uniformed Secret Service officers who detained and harassed a person who happened to be taking pictures in front of the White House, just like hundreds of thousands of tourists do every year.
The supposed actions that made him so "suspicious"? Including in his shots a few of the uniformed officers standing by marked cruisers who were hanging out in the public plaza in front of the White House fence while gossiping away with one another:
We suppose they were a little embarrassed at being caught lounging around and had to somehow justify their presence with a little show of "authoritah".
Q: "How long have you been here, sir?"
A. "I don't know, 5 minutes?... is there like a time length that you give to people?... I know that woman all the way down there has been there for like, 40 years, so, no one's kicking her out of here."
Now that's an appropriate answer to some truly inane questions.
The photographer did pretty well for himself despite unfortunately answering quite a few of the bullies' questions after he clearly stated he wouldn't (cops are kind of good at ignoring any assertion of one's rights). As the harassee himself says in the video's comments,
" i also thought maybe if i was answering a few questions here and there and they saw my record was good that they'd go ahead and kick me loose, not hold me for an additional 10 minutes!"
He obviously thought wrong.
Once again we see that voluntarily giving up one's rights when one hasn't done anything wrong in the first place doesn't make a whit of difference to the sort of police officers who like to make up their own laws and rules as they go along.
If you ever find yourself being rousted in a similar manner for innocently taking pictures of public people and places, remember the following sentences (standard disclaimer: we are not lawyers, nor do we wish to be ones, but we have consulted with quite a few of them and here's what they told us to say):
Am I being detained or am I free to go about my business?
Please articulate your reasonable suspicion that I am committing a crime.
I do not consent to a search of either myself or my belongings.
I will not answer any questions and I wish to speak to my attorney.
Just so you know, please realize that you're probably going to be taking a ride downtown if the cops do in fact have a valid reason to arrest you. If they don't and are simply hell-bent on unlawfully making life rough for you for insisting on using your Constitutional freedoms then there's no sense in arguing with them (and anything you say out of anger or frustration at the situation might actually count against you in any future civil lawsuit you may bring against them), so it's best to just keep your mouth shut except for the above statements.
(As always, a big h/t to Carlos Miller for staying right on top of stories such as these)
The supposed actions that made him so "suspicious"? Including in his shots a few of the uniformed officers standing by marked cruisers who were hanging out in the public plaza in front of the White House fence while gossiping away with one another:
We suppose they were a little embarrassed at being caught lounging around and had to somehow justify their presence with a little show of "authoritah".
Q: "How long have you been here, sir?"
A. "I don't know, 5 minutes?... is there like a time length that you give to people?... I know that woman all the way down there has been there for like, 40 years, so, no one's kicking her out of here."
Now that's an appropriate answer to some truly inane questions.
The photographer did pretty well for himself despite unfortunately answering quite a few of the bullies' questions after he clearly stated he wouldn't (cops are kind of good at ignoring any assertion of one's rights). As the harassee himself says in the video's comments,
" i also thought maybe if i was answering a few questions here and there and they saw my record was good that they'd go ahead and kick me loose, not hold me for an additional 10 minutes!"
He obviously thought wrong.
Once again we see that voluntarily giving up one's rights when one hasn't done anything wrong in the first place doesn't make a whit of difference to the sort of police officers who like to make up their own laws and rules as they go along.
If you ever find yourself being rousted in a similar manner for innocently taking pictures of public people and places, remember the following sentences (standard disclaimer: we are not lawyers, nor do we wish to be ones, but we have consulted with quite a few of them and here's what they told us to say):
Am I being detained or am I free to go about my business?
Please articulate your reasonable suspicion that I am committing a crime.
I do not consent to a search of either myself or my belongings.
I will not answer any questions and I wish to speak to my attorney.
Just so you know, please realize that you're probably going to be taking a ride downtown if the cops do in fact have a valid reason to arrest you. If they don't and are simply hell-bent on unlawfully making life rough for you for insisting on using your Constitutional freedoms then there's no sense in arguing with them (and anything you say out of anger or frustration at the situation might actually count against you in any future civil lawsuit you may bring against them), so it's best to just keep your mouth shut except for the above statements.
(As always, a big h/t to Carlos Miller for staying right on top of stories such as these)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
