US Marshal attacks woman and smashes camera

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/26/2015 05:17:48 PM · #51

Originally posted by bohemka:

Spork, I really don't understand why you're so upset about this. She went out with the clear goal of getting involved in an altercation with police, becoming a victim, and have it make the news. You should be celebrating her success.

You're a mind reader? You know exactly what was in that woman's mind? Congratulations!

You're wasting your talents here on DPC. You could be a zillionaire.

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

04/26/2015 06:20:57 PM · #52

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
I'm not going to re-quote all of the post by CNovack ... but I'll give it a +1 for sure.

Surprised with all of the quote snippets being used that none mention/use any part of what CNovack posted. Not sensational enough?

I used/quoted one ... and the link I posted earlier addressed some of those points.

Yep, I missed that. My bad. :-/

tanguera

Nikon D750

04/26/2015 08:24:11 PM · #53

This has become a thread about baiting each other. Stay civil or it goes to Rant.

bohemka

Nikon D700

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/26/2015 11:01:43 PM · #54

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by bohemka:
Spork, I really don't understand why you're so upset about this. She went out with the clear goal of getting involved in an altercation with police, becoming a victim, and have it make the news. You should be celebrating her success.

You're a mind reader? You know exactly what was in that woman's mind? Congratulations!

You're wasting your talents here on DPC. You could be a zillionaire.

CNovack provided a nice summary of this situation. I have my interpretation of those events and you have yours.

No one here has said the marshal's actions were legal, by the way.

04/27/2015 12:46:14 AM · #55

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by bohemka:
Spork, I really don't understand why you're so upset about this. She went out with the clear goal of getting involved in an altercation with police, becoming a victim, and have it make the news. You should be celebrating her success.

You're a mind reader? You know exactly what was in that woman's mind? Congratulations!

You're wasting your talents here on DPC. You could be a zillionaire.

CNovack provided a nice summary of this situation. I have my interpretation of those events and you have yours.

No one here has said the marshal's actions were legal, by the way.

Only that his illegal actions should be excused, which is the same as saying they're legal. If there are no sanctions for such a clear and obvious violation, then why should there be sanctions for more egregious violations like giving her the full Rodney King beatdown? And why are so many of you willing to accept that

I also never said that the woman shouldn't be held accountable.

Spork, I've removed your pointless provocation. Keep it out of the forums.

Message edited by tanguera - Remove provocative language.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/27/2015 01:46:52 AM · #56

Having photographed police actions in the past, as far as I know there are 2 issues officers have a right to be concerned with. Having enough room to safely conduct their duty, and secondly to protecting the privacy of people with whom they are dealing. There is another issue that is always present, they really don't like having someone photographing them when they are making a stop.

In this case, it sure looks like the last issue was the main factor. This woman may be a PITA, but she has the right to film from where she was filming; the officers claim that she was in a possible line of fire is IMHO total BS for two reasons. Two officers were standing in front of her to block her view of the action, if they thought that was a likely line of fire, they would not have been there. Police are trained not to stand in the line of fire, and they want to go home at the end of shift. If there was likely to be an exchange of fire, it most likely would have come from the house the suspects had been in, into the group of officers parked on the street, the stray rounds would have gone across the street, where the officers had directed this woman to go. Frankly the flank that she was filming from was a much safer place to stand if gunfire had been exchanged.

As an officer, you have the power of arrest. You are not allowed to engage in criminal activity. If you think a person has broken a law, you can arrest them. You are not allowed to physically assault them, remove their personal property from their persons, and vandalize said property. This makes you a criminal, no matter how justified you feel in your actions.

I am really looking forward to the day that every officer is equipped with a vest cam, so they can get comfortable with the idea that cameras are OK, that having a record of interactions with the public will not only be inevitable, but will benefit good cops and make us all safer.

bohemka

Nikon D700

04/27/2015 10:10:50 AM · #57

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by bohemka:
Spork, I really don't understand why you're so upset about this. She went out with the clear goal of getting involved in an altercation with police, becoming a victim, and have it make the news. You should be celebrating her success.

You're a mind reader? You know exactly what was in that woman's mind? Congratulations!

You're wasting your talents here on DPC. You could be a zillionaire.

CNovack provided a nice summary of this situation. I have my interpretation of those events and you have yours.

No one here has said the marshal's actions were legal, by the way.

Only that his illegal actions should be excused, which is the same as saying they're legal. If there are no sanctions for such a clear and obvious violation, then why should there be sanctions for more egregious violations like giving her the full Rodney King beatdown? And why are so many of you willing to accept that

I also never said that the woman shouldn't be held accountable.

Spork, I've removed your pointless provocation. Keep it out of the forums.

Again, no one has said that his actions should be excused, or that he shouldn't be punished. Throughout this thread everyone has said that he should be held accountable. There is a distinction between understanding someone's behavior and excusing it.

It is impossible to have what could be an interesting conversation about the increased role of citizens wielding documentation devices and holding public servants to greater levels of accountability, the integrity that has to be maintained for it to be effective, where the lines are, etc., however, when you are likening this situation to Rodney King.

04/27/2015 02:30:04 PM · #58

Originally posted by bohemka:

Throughout this thread everyone has said that he should be held accountable. There is a distinction between understanding someone's behavior and excusing it.

There I would say we have a difference of opinion. I have no desire to call anyone out, but I got the sense that a few folks felt she got what she deserved. I expect the average officer to know the law and respect it. I expect Federal Marshals to be some of the best (they have a 5% applicant acceptance rate they are harder to get into than Harvard College) and here we have an officer behaving criminally, because he is annoyed by a woman. This is not some poorly run small town police department, this is the Federal Freaking Marshall Service. It is beyond my understanding that an action like this could occur when the Marshals had jurisdictional control.

Had the actions been reversed, had the woman become frustrated by the officers actions, and grabbed for something on their persons, be it a radio, a tazer or a gun; in all probability she would have been shot dead, and she certainly would be looking at a prison sentence had she survived.

There is a strong feeling in some communities that the police are just another armed gang who happen to wear badges and are therefore above the law. This woman was clearly of that belief before this incident, and I am sure her feelings are deepened by this latest encounter. I do not see the vast gulf between a man holding an automatic weapon breaking the law one way or another; be it smashing a phone in a fit of pique or imposing a beatdown. This sort of reaction to citizens who distrust officers of the law can only lead to greater distrust. The spiral widens.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/27/2015 02:58:06 PM · #59

Originally posted by bohemka:

There is a distinction between understanding someone's behavior and excusing it.

both sides could offer a little bit more respect to the other, instead of demanding it.

Message edited by author 2015-04-27 14:58:14.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/27/2015 03:33:22 PM · #60

wtf

seriously WTF?

04/27/2015 06:04:03 PM · #61

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by bohemka:
Spork, I really don't understand why you're so upset about this. She went out with the clear goal of getting involved in an altercation with police, becoming a victim, and have it make the news. You should be celebrating her success.

You're a mind reader? You know exactly what was in that woman's mind? Congratulations!

You're wasting your talents here on DPC. You could be a zillionaire.

CNovack provided a nice summary of this situation. I have my interpretation of those events and you have yours.

No one here has said the marshal's actions were legal, by the way.

Only that his illegal actions should be excused, which is the same as saying they're legal. If there are no sanctions for such a clear and obvious violation, then why should there be sanctions for more egregious violations like giving her the full Rodney King beatdown? And why are so many of you willing to accept that

I also never said that the woman shouldn't be held accountable.

Spork, I've removed your pointless provocation. Keep it out of the forums.

Again, no one has said that his actions should be excused, or that he shouldn't be punished. Throughout this thread everyone has said that he should be held accountable. There is a distinction between understanding someone's behavior and excusing it.

It is impossible to have what could be an interesting conversation about the increased role of citizens wielding documentation devices and holding public servants to greater levels of accountability, the integrity that has to be maintained for it to be effective, where the lines are, etc., however, when you are likening this situation to Rodney King.

Originally posted by markwiley:

...Can I easily forgive the cop for busting the phone in this situation? Yes...

At least one person in this thread has said so. More than a few have clearly enjoyed watching the video of this woman's rights being violated�

And, yes, you're right, I'm not willing to say there are acceptable circumstance for government agents to violate the rights of the citizens. Many of you here are. How can a meaningful conversation about rights take place when one party values rights only for those they they feel deserve them?

So again, if you're willing to excuse or even take joy in this woman's rights being trampled on, why wouldn't you also take joy in Rodney King's rights getting violated? Or be able to find joy in even more serious violations of an individual's rights?

Message edited by author 2015-04-27 18:40:32.

04/27/2015 06:35:53 PM · #62

Another case from Albuquerque. At least they're being charged with a felony.

You know what I really want to see? A summary of charges filed against officers by year for the last 50 years. I'm betting there has been a recent surge.

04/27/2015 08:17:11 PM · #63

In Rialto California they have been doing a pilot study where every cop has a vest camera. It works.

"But Rialto's randomised controlled study has seized attention because it offers scientific � and encouraging � findings: after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%.

"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature," said Farrar. "As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better."

Cops being filmed is not dangerous, in fact it makes them much much safer. The key factor is that issue of public complaints going down 88%.

04/28/2015 09:04:39 AM · #64

Originally posted by Cory:

Never mind.. It was a clerical error. Turns out he's only charged with a misdemeanor, that fits in much better with what I expect.

Message edited by author 2015-04-28 09:05:13.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/28/2015 09:05:49 AM · #65

And of course, now we have the Cleveland riots going on, hope the officers who killed Freddie Gray feel horrible.

bohemka

Nikon D700

04/28/2015 09:09:58 AM · #66

Baltimore.

tate

Apple iPhone 14 Pro

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

04/28/2015 09:10:46 AM · #67

Originally posted by Cory:

Cleveland riots

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/28/2015 09:29:44 AM · #68

Originally posted by Cory:

And of course, now we have the Cleveland riots going on, hope the officers who killed Freddie Gray feel horrible.

They killed him? I must have missed that report.

I did read that he died in custody but nothing yet on his being killed by the police.

I will gladly joing the fray once it has been established that this poor man died solely due to the actions of the police and that he played no active part in his unfortunate demise.

Ray

04/28/2015 10:10:19 AM · #69

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:
And of course, now we have the Cleveland riots going on, hope the officers who killed Freddie Gray feel horrible.

They killed him? I must have missed that report.

I did read that he died in custody but nothing yet on his being killed by the police.

I will gladly joing the fray once it has been established that this poor man died solely due to the actions of the police and that he played no active part in his unfortunate demise.

Ray

Excuse me, Baltimore. :)

Look Ray, they have a term, called "Rough Ride" meaning basically use the vehicle to beat the shit out of someone. Like it or not, they've coined a term, the very fact they've coined that term is essentially an admission of guilt. (and there has been a history of serious injuries to subjects in custody during these rides),

I've been saying this stuff is systemic for years now, and it's admittedly really great that the media has fully caught on to the situation (even if they're not yet fully aware of the depth of the corruption)

Message edited by author 2015-04-28 10:11:21.

04/28/2015 05:58:27 PM · #70

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I will gladly joing the fray once it has been established that this poor man died solely due to the actions of the police and that he played no active part in his unfortunate demise.

Ray

We know he was walking down the street, saw a bicycle mounted officer and started running, then chased and put on the ground and the arresting officer put a knee on his neck when he was down. There is video of him being dragged into the van. He may have sustained some injuries then, or he might have been making life difficult for the officers passively resisting. When he came out 80% of his spine was severed and his larynx was crushed. He was hand cuffed and shackled, but the officers felt it was too dangerous for them to put the seat belt on him because the van was so small they felt it would risk their safety to put it on him. Baltimore PD has payed out millions in damages to other prisoners who they treated similarly, but they ended up paraplegics rather that flat out dead. It seems they are big fans of rough riding in charm city.

Message edited by author 2015-04-28 18:15:01.

04/28/2015 08:58:59 PM · #71

Best article I've read on the current state of affairs.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/28/2015 10:50:27 PM · #72

Originally posted by Cory:

Best article I've read on the current state of affairs.

That indeed is a great article and one part of it really struck a chord with me when the author spoke of the police:

This one: "The words used were literally �he did nothing wrong.� Really? Shouldn�t a court decide that?

There most definitely are examples of horrendous actions on the part of the police and they really need to be held accountable for that, but why not wait till all the facts are out and substantiated before we start condemning all police officers.

Some of the reactions towards the police are no better than what it is we are against.

Just my two cents.

Ray

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/28/2015 10:55:40 PM · #73

Originally posted by RayEthier:

... but why not wait till all the facts are out and substantiated before we start condemning all police officers.

Some of the reactions towards the police are no better than what it is we are against.

Perhaps the past history of police cover-ups/lack of accountability influence people's opinion of any "investigation" ... just consider it "profiling" ...

Message edited by author 2015-04-28 22:56:18.

04/29/2015 12:07:55 AM · #74

Originally posted by RayEthier:

...but why not wait till all the facts are out and substantiated before we start condemning all police officers...

Based on the behavior of those bad officers and the fact that they wear exactly the same uniform as the good officers, waiting could be a lethal mistake.