Summary of the video: an investigative reporter for DC’s ABC-7 and her photographer were covering a story about suspected improper use of county police and county resources. They were tailing a county government SUV, driven by a police officer who evidently is a full-time driver for the county’s chief administrative officer. The reporter and photographer were stopped by at least six county officers who, at gunpoint, demanded them step out of their vehicle. The reporter filed a police brutatlity complaint due to a dislocated shoulder she suffered while being handcuffed. The reason they were stopped? The “citizen” (one officer’s word) they were following called in a report of being video taped from a suspicous vehicle.
This happened a month ago; ABC has only just given permission to Channel 7 to talk about it. The Prince George’s County Goverment isn’t saying anything except that none of the vehicles involved in the stop had a functioning camera. How convenient!
Not to speak directly to the police brutality complaint, but when you start tailing an official vehicle with a camera, I think you have to expect this treatment on occasion. And I find no fault at all with the driver of the tailed vehicle both in spotting the tail and calling in help to figure out what the heck was going on. This is, as you point out, D.C., so being paranoid is probably a good thing.
Could the driver of the tailed vehicle have known that there was a story being prepared? Sure. But he could also just have been taking sensible precautions.
PG County? I seem to recall hearing a lot of stuff about police corruption thereabouts. So this story doesn’t surprise me in the least. And it makes me glad I live in St. Mary’s Co.
Could you elaborate on your last sentence? What obvious threat could someone with a video camera pose that would supercede the right to videotape a public official in a public place? I’m honestly asking.
Sheesh, don’t you ever watch 24? Or read about the people getting arrested for videotaping infrastructure? I suppose that if I were a terrorist and wanted to get access to some restricted site, impersonating an official vehicle might be a good place to start. Which could conceivably involve videotaping it as it went around its daily routine.
And this is the same town that had all the sniper paranoia going on not very long ago, so any police officer who doesn’t get his hackles raised by being tailed isn’t paying attention.
And while videotaping someone in public might be perfectly legal, I’m pretty sure that if you noticed someone tailing you as you drove around town, you might get creeped out and consider calling some law enforcement guys to help figure out what was going on.
Note that my entire post references the thought processes that might lead up to the traffic stop. What happened afterwards might determine whether or not this was a coverup (e.g. after finding out that these were legitimate members of the press, did the police say “Sorry for the inconvenience” or did they say “If we see you again, we’re gonna make you regret it.”?)
I see, you’re talking about the call, not the police stop. In that case, I agree. Calling the police when someone is tailing you is not unreasonable. However, I still find it very strange that if the suspicious party has done nothing more than drive around with a camera, the police would approach the situation any differently than they would a noise complaint or a domestic disturbance: show up, find out what’s going on, then deal with it. While cameras can be used by terrorists for bad purposes, it seems insane to assume anyone with a camera is a potential terrorist.
It’s just a camera, the reaction by the PD is inexcusable. Guns drawn, even in a post-911 owrld for a car with a camera is just ridiculous. I think there’s a bit more going on here than a “citizen” complaint.
Which is the reason I started this thread. As one of the anchors brought up in the clip: was such force really necessary?
And, as FCM noted, it’s PG County. Their PD has a history of corruption allegations, filing false reports, and keeping mum on incidents where their actions are in question.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is wrong with this? I was under the impression that high ranking government types are often driven by law enforcement for their protection.
From the description, it looks like we have a clueless reporter (really, a tail with only one car!) getting caught doing something stupid. I don’t know about the dislocated shoulder but I don’t have a problem about her being arrested per se.
I mean, who here wouldn’t call for help if they found that they were being tailed? You really don’t expect the police to respond with only one car in this situation, do you? Suppose there were Bad Guys in the car - two officers wouldn’t be enough.
Here’s a link to a current story in Edmonton about something similar.
Basically, the allegation is that a journalist who had been critical of the police was meeting with the chairman of the police commission (overseers of the police force) in a bar to discuss problems with the force; they were followed as trumped-up risks for drunk driving, but fortunately for them, decided to take cabs home. It comes complete with transcripts of officers making derogatory comments about them over police radio.
Waitaminit Quartz, You’re saying that manhandling a citizen because another citizen felt they were being tailed is OK? That there were 6 police vehicles, weapons drawn, and questionable amounts of force used against the reporter doesn’t matter?
Are you fucking nuts? At best it warranted a traffic stop and some polite questioning, not an over-the-top, guns drawn, everyone handcuffed and sat in patrol vehicles reaction. I’m sure the woman could have produced her press ID pronto and cleared the matter up.
This is exactly the problem. We have groups of people, citizens like yourself, who see this type of force in use and think that the reaction os “ok”.
Excuse me but which bit of “I don’t know about the dislocated shoulder but I don’t have a problem about her being arrested per se” did you not read?
Well you see, there’s a little problem: the police don’t know the occupants of the tailing car aren’t malefactors beforehand; so they don’t know whether it’s a false alarm, some nutjob with a grudge, or something far more sinister. And do you really think the reporter and cameraman should be let alone while their credentials are checked? They might be fake, after all, and checking could take some time. I’d really rather the police err on the side of caution and send six cops than send a lone cop and later have him carried by six. And the driver being carried by six. And the official being carried by six.
The other POV is that we have people like you who would put officers in danger.
I have a healthy respect for the media, as well as the police.
She dodges the question whether she could be seen as a threat:
Peterson: "Do you think you would be seen as a threat?
McCarren: “I’m a mother of three, most of the time I drive a minivan.”
She wasn’t that particular day. She was in a sedan with a video camera in the back seat.
Peterson: “Did you tell them they were hurting you?”
McCarren: “I didn’t say a thing. . .”
The police were responding to a potential threat. These jackasses put themselves in that situation.
Prince George’s County Police: “They had no suspicion that it was a news crew. The police department was responding to a call for a suspicious person following a police officer. There was a threat felt.” - Jim Kearny, Cty. Spokesperson
Police brutality? Please. They were taking proper action against a threat. In this case, the media is blowing this way the hell out of proportion just for their story.
Immediate family members of mine are cops. And I’d be considered a conservative around here (moderate in the real world), but this is just crazy. The cop called his buddies and they over-reacted. I’m surprised anyone finds this police reaction “OK”.
I will mitigate it by the possibility that the woman didn’t pull over at first. She said something like “I didn’t think the sirens were for me”. That’s the only excuse for the police’s actions. The only one.
Absent a failure to pull over, there is no excuse. \
I will submit, that even in all jounalisitc endeavors, in this case I think there was some editing done, and we’re not seeing the entire story.
That editing may be the cops’ dash-cams being taken out. That editing may be an actual threatening word on McCarren’s part. . . We don’t know.
I don’t know what led to the “felony stop”, but I’ll side with the police. There was no brutality involved (on tape) as the report suggests, and the police took action on the part they saw fit: they took action to protect themselves.
Whether or not the pullover was just is relatively debatable. The fact that the media blows this way the fuck out of proportion astonishes me.
Tripler
I need the media, yet I hate it at the same time.
Pulling a woman’s arm out of her socket is not brutal?
What do you mean “The editing may be the cops dash-cam taken out”? How were they taken out? The cops either turned them off or erased the tapes. THE COPS DID THAT.
There should be records of whether the patrol units involved in the stop had working cameras. For example, if any of the cars were involved in filmed vehicle stops in the preceding days or week to this incident. Those records should be investigated and checked.
neuroman
I need the police, yet hate them when they are abusive and corrupt.