Did this officer violate the law?

Great Debates
41

In the eyes of some, the cop has done something wrong merely by being a cop.

(This not my opinion I hasten to add)

So cops can get filmed not because they are actually doing something wrong , but because they can then be identified at a later date when out of uniform, and off guard.

And then Joe dickhead can get revenge on the law, or society whatever, or even make himself out to be a big man to his friends, by bringing harm to the cop, any cop.

Understandably this makes cops nervous, particulary when they are being filmed for no good reason.

In this case the person filming then lies to them, and then changes his story, all the while being mouthy.

A hell of a lot of the time police identify quite serious crimes in routine vehicle pullovers and the like because of their years of experience that makes them aware that something "Is not quite right ", almost always because of the behaviour of the person that they’re talking to at the time.

This has actually saved their lives on occassion.

I’m not suggestingthat Crooks was actually out to set up a cop for future drastic action, but the cop doesn’t know that at the time.

I DO think that Crooks was being deliberately provocotive for reasons known only to himself .

Maybe to gain some sort of fame in his neighborhood, who knows ?

I certainly don’t.

And I DO think that he will benefit financially from this incident, and no doubt he’ll achieve some sort of martyr status amongst certain people which will make him feel good.

As to the beating ?

From what the vid showed he was getting cuffed and struggling, not getting a good kicking.

Sorry but I find it very difficult to feel any sympathy for this idiot.

Also it trivialises the plight of genuine victims of police brutality, which as we all know does happen.

42

I disagree with virtually everything you just posted. In most States the police do not have the right to stop you from filming them, and fear of being “later identified” is ridiculous. If you wanted to identify a LEO for later “revenge” this method isn’t the best or even easiest way to do it.

This also isn’t the same as random traffic stops, which serve the dual and legitimate purposes of keeping the roadways regulated and potentially finding other major crimes in the process. This officer was responding to a crime scene and made what should have been an easy call into a major political incident that will result in a black spot in his career at best or a major civil judgment against him and loss of his job at the worst. For what? Because he didn’t like being filmed by some guy all the way across the street?

43

When I first started watching the video, I thought my speakers were unplugged. I even got underneath my desk to make sure that they were plugged in. They were; the beginning of the video is just very, very… what’s the word? Oh yeah, quiet. You know, the opposite of provocative.

44

If there’s one things cops hate worse than noise, it’s quiet. You don’t know what someone might be hiding if they are quiet. Serves him right.

45

From your link:

There doesn’t seem to be much mystery in this case. The prosecution did not commence because the boards did not file charges against him. While it might be possible to prove the crime without their cooperation, it would be quite an uphill battle.

I don’t agree this is a case of unambiguous evidence of guilt. Without the cooperation of the victim, proving embezzlement is a difficult task, since you have to show a clear lack of consent on the part of the property owner.

46

Yes.

But if you knew that, why did you say, “As a journalism student, I just know that it’s not against the law to film police officers?”

47

Professional tv news photog chiming in w/ 22 yrs experience.

This is the answer.

What you cannot do, in some jurisdictions, is record audio without the permission of one of the parties involved. This is called 2 party consent.

For example that is required in Maryland, but not DC or Virginia.

However, it is accepted by the courts that if you see a camera filming you and you continue to talk, you give your consent to having your voice recorded because it’s pretty damn obvious you are being recorded.

You are more likely to have problems with trespass issues than the legality of videotaping, because with very very few exceptions in America today you are allowed to tape at will on your own and on public property.

In the end the videotaper had every right to tape as much as he wished and needs to offer no reason to do it.

The officer was completely wrong. In my business we refer to an incident like that as ‘retirement fund’ because that’s what the videographer is going to get, minus the lawyer’s cut.

48

The laws you cited appear to apply only to surreptitious recording. The guy in the OP seems to have been pretty open about the whole thing, yes?

49

At first, I didn’t believe that it was against the law. It’s not against in most states; however, it is illegal in some states. You learn something knew everyday. I was always taught that it is not illegal to film police. I can admit that I was wrong.

50

Not in Illinois, I think.

What is an eavesdropping device?

[quote=14-1(a)…any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communications whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means…[/quote]

51

Well as I’m obviously over cynical, what was the reason he gave for filming an entirely routine L.E.O. job ?

And then so desperately needed to carry on, that when an obviously out of control officer (NOT) who called him Sir, ASKED him to stop, that he argued with him ?

Has he ever given a reason to ANYONE why he suddenly decided to leave his house, then lie to a L.E.O. etc. etc.

As to the posters who only heard silence when they played the video ?

I’d advise them to check their P.C./speakers/hearing out.

Where I come from,if anyone starts videoing them out of the blue while their going about their day to day business, they would definitely find it creepy, and a violation of their personal space.

Mind you where I live they’d kick the crap out of him, not cuff him.
(And yes I did hear the Drama Queen squealing and whimpers while he wriggled around while being cuffed…

Diddums.

52

WHY he was filming is completely irrelevant.

WHY he didn’t stop is also irrelevant. He was exercising a right; he doesn’t have to justify WHY he was doing it, that’s why it’s called a right.

53

Lest anyone think that Bricker left out any part that would exempt the case being discussed here, he didn’t.

54

Well no its not, if you passed me by as a complete stranger and I started filming you for no apparent reason, or for that matter, just started staring at you for no apparent reason, I’m pretty sure that you wouldn’t like it.
it looked like that he was seeking a confrontation of some kind, either that or he wanted to make the police feel uncomfortable, succeded, but didn’t get the outcome that he expected.

Recently terrorist sympathisers have been filming members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and posting them on, I believe, Facebook.

The reason being, that they personally are probably to cowardly to murder or even beat the officers up, but others, once being able to identify the police concerned, will.

I expect that if you ask, I can supply a cite, as this was in the news only recently.

55

Jebus, it seems like a hearing aid is in violation of the law in Illinois. Are there any exceptions?

Come to think about it. is my ear a device? If I have a cochlear implant am I violating the law?

56

Also, how does one hold a press conference in Illinois? Of course the hosts give permission to record, but does everyone with a recording device have to get permission from every other person in range? Color me skeptical this ever happens.

57

In fact, it is completely irrelevant. Anyone in public can be filmed without their permission. What a person, any person, does in public is not subject to a right to privacy.

Yes, he was. His own employer found that he violated department policies with his actions. Your attempt to rewrite it as acceptable comes off as a deliberate attempt to deceive or willful disbelief in the authority of his employer to determine the appropriateness of his actions. It’s already an established fact that he was, to some degree, out of control.

Officer Collings did not ask Mr. Crooks to stop; he ordered him to.

Officer Collings: Turn that off for me. (30 seconds on the video)

Officer Collings: Stop the camera for me. (34 seconds on the video)

Officer Collings: Listen, turn off the camera for me. (40 seconds on the video)

Those aren’t requests; those are directives. There’s a difference, and again, you seem to be deliberately trying to rewrite the facts about this situation or willfully ignoring what actually happened.

No one needs a reason to leave their own house and stand on their own property. I don’t know why you would think Mr. Crooks needs to justify this.

At this point we have no evidence that he lied to the officer, unless you are going to make the claim that you are able to retroactively read Mr. Crooks mind and know his intent with respect to the answer he gave to the one question he was asked.

Then you must not live in a developed country, because people in the US and in most of Europe, Japan, etc. are filmed nearly everywhere they go. And many police officers are filmed nearly all the time that they are on the job by their departments. Citizens in Nevada have no restrictions like those cited for other states with respect to being able to film police as they go about their duties.

Then they would, IMO, be guilty of civil rights violations as well as criminal acts, as would any person who physically assaulted or even threatened a person filming them in public.

58

Guys, guys, go easy on Lust4Life.

I happen to know that he lives in post apocalyptic Washington DC.

When he talks about the po-pos he means these guys:

Cops

Let me tell you, when they tell you to stop filming, you better stop filming. Why, I’d rather tussle with a super mutant.

59

Lust4Life, you don’t seem to get that, just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it illegal. The fact that you live with people who would assault someone due to it means you live around a lot of criminals.

Furthermore, a cop not liking something doesn’t make it illegal. As a cop, you serve your community. You enforce the laws that your community has created. Your own feeling do not matter one bit. And if you commit assault due to your own feelings, then you are incapable of being a police officer at all.

It’s because of cops that think they make the law that cops are not respected. Any dislike of cops from law abiding citizens comes from abuse by them. None of us dislike cops who do their jobs. We hate sociopaths with badges.

60

Yes, because decorum is a perfectly rational concern of someone who is being assaulted.