Cop Chokes Then Body-Slams Man For Recording Arrest With Cellphone

[ScienceRocks]

I don't know all the facts, but if the cop did slam him for just recording the arrest. The cop deserves some prison time for assault.

At the very least fired for miss conduct.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Obama's silence is deafening on this matter, Matthew.

Filming the Watchmen Why the First Amendment Protects Your Right to Film the Police in Public Places

Police are relying on state wiretapping statutes to arrest citizens who film police in public. The federal circuit courts that recognize a First Amendment right to film police in public places where the citizen-recorder has a right to be present are in line with Supreme Court precedent. While the exercise of the right to film police is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, police cannot be allowed to suppress speech at the core of the First Amendment’s protections. State wiretapping statutes that prevent citizens from filming police officers in such places without any further justification violate citizens’ First Amendment rights.

Brandy Berning spent the night in a Florida jail because she used a cell phone to film a traffic stop on I-95.[1] George Thompson of Fall River, Massachusetts, claimed that he was verbally abused, arrested, and locked up overnight for filming a profane police officer with a cell phone from his front porch. The officer was across the street in full view and within earshot of anyone who happened to be passing by his home.[2] Most recently, Florida police arrested and charged Lazaro Estrada with obstruction of justice for peacefully filming an arrest with his cell phone on a public street.[3]

Why is this happening? Police are unhappy that people are using their cell phones—which often have video capabilities—to film police conduct. Some state statutes generally prohibit the recording or interception of oral communications unless all parties to the conversation consent.[4] To prevent citizens from gathering and disseminating information about police conduct, police are relying on these statutes to arrest citizens who film police in public, even if those citizens have a right to be present in the locations from which they film.

The question arises: Are such filming and any subsequent publication protected by the First Amendment? If so, what can we do to better secure our rights?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The First Amendment generally protects the right to film police officers in public places and to publish the information acquired. At the same time, the exercise of the right to film, like all First Amendment rights, is subject to limitations. But speech about how public officials are conducting their duties lies at the core of the First Amendment’s protections, and filming should therefore be given a wide berth.

Citizen-recorders should be presumptively free to film officers in public places when they have a license to be present, and state laws that authorize officers to prevent them from filming without any further justification are unconstitutional. Even where state wiretapping laws contain exceptions for in-person communications where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, drafting exceptions that specifically except the filming of police officers in public may help to deter police from suppressing speech. At a minimum, the issue deserves further exploration.

—Evan Bernick is a former Visiting Legal Fellow and Paul J. Larkin, Jr., is Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Filming the Watchmen Why the First Amendment Protects Your Right to Film the Police in Public Places

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I don't know all the facts, but if the cop did slam him for just recording the arrest. The cop deserves some prison time for assault.

At the very least fired for miss conduct.

Prison time ? That's a bit extreme.

 

[Nutz]

It depends on the races involved before you get outrage one side or another.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It depends on the races involved before you get outrage one side or another.

Depends on rather the guy had committed a crime or not. This guy didn't deserve it.

 

[Nutz]

You can already see a softened approach from the teapers and a hardened approach for the lefties. Hypocrites...the whole lot of you.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I don't know all the facts, but if the cop did slam him for just recording the arrest. The cop deserves some prison time for assault.

At the very least fired for miss conduct.

Prison time ? That's a bit extreme.

Why not? Do you know what happens to a civilian who slams a police officer to the ground - even with a legitimate reason? Prison time. The same should apply to an officer sworn to uphold the law only to use that power to violate the law and physically attack a law abiding citizen.

Don't be mistaken. I support the NYPD and the officer in Ferguson. But I do not support bad police and any officer who physically harms someone recording him is hiding something. Otherwise there would not be such a violent reaction to it.

 

[Nutz]

It depends on the races involved before you get outrage one side or another.

Depends on rather the guy had committed a crime or not. This guy didn't deserve it.

Just say it depends on the race of the victim and the cop, Matt...we already know you are a racist piece of shit.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

You can already see a softened approach from the teapers and a hardened approach for the lefties. Hypocrites...the whole lot of you.

I fail to see that. What post # would that be?

 

[ScienceRocks]

It depends on the races involved before you get outrage one side or another.

Depends on rather the guy had committed a crime or not. This guy didn't deserve it.

Just say it depends on the race of the victim and the cop, Matt...we already know you are a racist piece of shit.

We already know you're a criminal loving piece of shit that loves to see innocent people get fucked over and killed. Fuck you, nut case. You're the one bringing up race in this case.

 

[Nutz]

You can already see a softened approach from the teapers and a hardened approach for the lefties. Hypocrites...the whole lot of you.

I fail to see that. What post # would that be?

Just wait...you can already see the softened approach by DD. And I am sure you are familiar with the resident gimp racist....Matthew. He wants prison time for the cop....if the victim were black, he would be railing about the evils of the negro.

 

[Nutz]

It depends on the races involved before you get outrage one side or another.

Depends on rather the guy had committed a crime or not. This guy didn't deserve it.

Just say it depends on the race of the victim and the cop, Matt...we already know you are a racist piece of shit.

We already know you're a criminal loving piece of shit that loves to see innocent people get fucked over and killed. Fuck you, nut case. You're the one bringing up race in this case.

You brought up the race issue when you sided with the criminal, you racist gimp

 

[Montrovant]

Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.

I certainly agree with that. Which makes me wonder why did Obama authorize all police to where a camera while on duty but refuse to do away with the law against citizens recording the police? If he is on the side of the citizens of America don't you find that very strange? I do.

Which law against recording police are you referencing? I seem to remember hearing about one being passed, but I only recall it as a small-scale thing, perhaps a city ordinance, not even a state-wide law. Am I incorrect in this?

Yes, according to the articles I have been reading this is nationwide and if they do not have the law on the books they still use it against you as in the case of the black woman who recorded police brutality and they used a taser on her and then demanded she get in her car and move it - when she refused they accused her of using her car to try and run them over. Thank God she had it recorded on her phone. They erased the video on her camera but it was retrieved through cloud technology and later they had to drop the charges against her. This was in a state where recording the police was not against the law!

Wrong is wrong and the police involved should have been fired.

There is a difference between police trying to find a law which can be twisted to include taping them in public, such as wiretapping laws, and a law which specifically forbids someone from recording police performing their duties.

 

[hadit]

Assuming the man recording the incident didn't do anything wrong, I see no reason for him to have been treated this way.

Though I tend to support our police force, I do agree that these happenings where officers mistreat people simply for video recording their actions must stop.

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.

I certainly agree with that. Which makes me wonder why did Obama authorize all police to where a camera while on duty but refuse to do away with the law against citizens recording the police? If he is on the side of the citizens of America don't you find that very strange? I do.

Which law against recording police are you referencing? I seem to remember hearing about one being passed, but I only recall it as a small-scale thing, perhaps a city ordinance, not even a state-wide law. Am I incorrect in this?

Yes, according to the articles I have been reading this is nationwide and if they do not have the law on the books they still use it against you as in the case of the black woman who recorded police brutality and they used a taser on her and then demanded she get in her car and move it - when she refused they accused her of using her car to try and run them over. Thank God she had it recorded on her phone. They erased the video on her camera but it was retrieved through cloud technology and later they had to drop the charges against her. This was in a state where recording the police was not against the law!

Wrong is wrong and the police involved should have been fired.

There is a difference between police trying to find a law which can be twisted to include taping them in public, such as wiretapping laws, and a law which specifically forbids someone from recording police performing their duties.

Not to the people who are intimidated into not taping.

 

[Wake]

I think the issue is the spirit of this case.

Punishing those who are recording your public actions. To me it feels as if those specific police officers are worried that their actions may be made known and scrutinized. As though they have something to hide. In spite of these few unsavory officers I do support our police force. There should be laws that don't make police officers exempt from being video recorded.

 

[bucs90]

I dont care.

Punk kid probably deserved it.

 

[bucs90]

Officers told crowd to break it up and leave, which they refused. Another display of disrespect for the police.

Figured as much. 99% of these outrage stories involves dipshit punks or thugs resisting arrest or disobeying lawful commands by police.

 

[bucs90]

HAHA! Watched the video.

That punk kid was:
1- Intoxicated in public
2- Refusing to leave the Varsity after being told to leave (aka trespassing after notice)

The cops made a lawful arrest and his preppy know it all ass is crying because his ego got hurt.

Fuck him haha! Awesome takedown by the cop!

 

[Montrovant]

Recording civil servants doing their job publicly should never be illegal.

I certainly agree with that. Which makes me wonder why did Obama authorize all police to where a camera while on duty but refuse to do away with the law against citizens recording the police? If he is on the side of the citizens of America don't you find that very strange? I do.

Which law against recording police are you referencing? I seem to remember hearing about one being passed, but I only recall it as a small-scale thing, perhaps a city ordinance, not even a state-wide law. Am I incorrect in this?

Yes, according to the articles I have been reading this is nationwide and if they do not have the law on the books they still use it against you as in the case of the black woman who recorded police brutality and they used a taser on her and then demanded she get in her car and move it - when she refused they accused her of using her car to try and run them over. Thank God she had it recorded on her phone. They erased the video on her camera but it was retrieved through cloud technology and later they had to drop the charges against her. This was in a state where recording the police was not against the law!

Wrong is wrong and the police involved should have been fired.

There is a difference between police trying to find a law which can be twisted to include taping them in public, such as wiretapping laws, and a law which specifically forbids someone from recording police performing their duties.

Not to the people who are intimidated into not taping.

That statement does not change whether or not there is a law specifically forbidding the taping of police at the federal level.