PDA

View Full Version : Flash Mob Police Action



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Matt Phillips
5/28/2011 6:24pm,
I'm all for maintaining decorum in museums, etc. but going "mall cop" on silent dancing flashmobbers? If you can't freely express yourself in front of the Lincon Memorial you can't relieve yourself in front of the Pentagon...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PDhjNF9eUQ

And that's unacceptable.

Soldiermedic
5/28/2011 6:36pm,
The takedown at 1:00 seemed completely unnecessary.

judoka_uk
5/28/2011 6:42pm,
Solid takedown at 1:04.

Flash mobbers are cunts.

Whats going on here?

Are those guys proper police? Can the police close a building like that in America? Don't the American police have to do the whole 'I'm arresting you on suspicion of X anything you say may be taken down in evidence and used against you' when handcuffing people etc...? Is it illegal to film the police in America, because over here the terrorism act allows the police to arrest people for filming.

Soldiermedic
5/28/2011 6:48pm,
Hey...I've been in a flash mob. Slutwalk Boston 2011!!!

It varies from state to state as far as being illegal to film the police, I dont know about District of Columbia. I would assume that the US Parks Police Force receive adequate training, but you never know

maofas
5/28/2011 6:54pm,
It's illegal to film the police in some states? That seems pretty fascist to me.

TaeBo_Master
5/28/2011 7:00pm,
Solid takedown at 1:04.

Flash mobbers are cunts.

Whats going on here?

Are those guys proper police? Can the police close a building like that in America? Don't the American police have to do the whole 'I'm arresting you on suspicion of X anything you say may be taken down in evidence and used against you' when handcuffing people etc...? Is it illegal to film the police in America, because over here the terrorism act allows the police to arrest people for filming.


The takedown at 1:00 seemed completely unnecessary.

I was also surprised by the takedown at ~1:00. Since it's in the background, I had to rewind it. The first time I only caught it from the corner of my eye. Seemed completely unnecessary, that particular individual didn't seem to be resisting.

And yes, for the most part (exceptions in the case of being witness to a felony in process), the cops are supposed to take those cautionary actions you mentioned. Citizens are supposed to be immediately informed of the allegations and evidence against them. And police are supposed to be unable to use force to simply maintain the status quo unless there is a threat of violence or harm.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no law against filming the police. In fact, if you read the first few amendements of the Constitution, it's pretty obvious that the police are supposed to fear the people, not the other way around. You'd think that filming the police would serve to keep them honest. Then again, some cops don't want to be kept honest.

Soldiermedic
5/28/2011 7:17pm,
http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

this is a pretty scary article regarding cameras and the police

The 3 states where existing public filming or wiretap laws have been used to charge individuals who have recorded police actions have been Maryland, Illinois, and my own beloved Massachusetts.

TaeBo_Master
5/28/2011 7:23pm,
Generally, I'd oppose anti-filming laws. Simply, the police should not be engaging in actions which they're afraid to have filmed.

Of course, during the investigations, evidence gathering, and the like I can understand how privacy can be important. But once the police engage the citizen, no more privacy. Also, if there are unique situations where publicity may somehow create an increased element of danger, I can tolerate exceptions. But I would imagine such situations to be pretty damn rare.

W. Rabbit
5/28/2011 7:25pm,
There is a lot of official misconduct going on in this video....

For once I'm (almost) speechless.

Welcome to the post internet age, this video will go places.

Keep in mind the US Park Police are a federal agency, not local police.

This is Fed brutality.

And yes I'm too lazy to look up why, but it has been prohibited to film certain DC monuments since 9/11.

Omega Supreme
5/28/2011 7:37pm,
I'm going to play devil's advocate. I think they handled that correctly because the last thing you want is to have happen is a crowd pressuring you because they believe you are not in the right. You've got interfering with the duties of an officer, resisting arrest, inciting a riot.

You have no right to judge until you have been put in that situation.

TaeBo_Master
5/28/2011 7:38pm,
That makes a very very slight bit of logical sense (about filming monuments). But mostly not. Some of the measures in the wake of 9/11 do some good, but a large amount of them are reactionary and useless. Like this bit about filming monuments, and having to undergo a 2 hour security check at airports. Did no one stop to think that with everyone waiting around at security, you don't even need to go through the checkpoint anymore to commit terrorism? The bomb doesn't even have to get on the airplane any longer. Just bring it to the terminal and you've got more casualties than the plane ever would. A lot of this **** is just stupid.

I have nothing but respect for GOOD LEOs. But **** like in this video makes me think of a bunch of 9 year old schoolyard bullies getting violent because someone didn't give them their lunch money.

TaeBo_Master
5/28/2011 7:40pm,
I'm going to play devil's advocate. I think they handled that correctly because the last thing you want is to have happen is a crowd pressuring you because they believe you are not in the right. You've got interfering with the duties of an officer, resisting arrest, inciting a riot.

You have no right to judge until you have been put in that situation.

Granted, the preliminary actions aren't seen on this video. However, I think it's a stretch to call a flash mob inciting a riot. Furthermore, there was some legitimate resisting arrest going on, but there was also a large chunk of people arrested for their purely verbal opposition. American citizens have every right to non-violently protest to an unlawful arrest.

W. Rabbit
5/28/2011 7:43pm,
I'm going to play devil's advocate. I think they handled that correctly because the last thing you want is to have happen is a crowd pressuring you because they believe you are not in the right. You've got interfering with the duties of an officer, resisting arrest, inciting a riot.

You have no right to judge until you have been put in that situation.

That's a good point however it's important to point out there are a lot of Park Police in this video and not all are acting the same.

One officer in particular in this video assaults (yes forcibly shoves, throws, pushes) a number of passer-bys with cameras. These are bystanders...not suspects, people taunting the police etc.

Watch it again you'll see the one I mean.

It's the same officer with the bike helmet who throws the kid at 1:04.

Not only does he whip around a young man recording with his cell phone, he forcibly shoves an elderly man with a shoulder mounted video camera.

Really?

This message is for him:
"Hey tough guy, you just assaulted a kid with a phone, a dancer, and an elderly gentleman in the Jefferson monument for taking video. You look real scared for a jackass with a gun and a squad of police at your back, why is that? Is it because you realized you're being recorded by dozens of people and you can't arrest them all?

**** you asshole, this is America and now you're gonna be famous for the wrong reasons."

Omega Supreme
5/28/2011 7:49pm,
That's a good point however it's important to point out there are a lot of Park Police in this video and not all are acting the same.

One officer in particular in this video assaults (yes forcibly shoves, throws, pushes) a number of passer-bys with cameras. These are bystanders...not suspects, people taunting the police etc.

Watch it again you'll see the one I mean.

Not only does he whip around a young man recording with his cell phone, he forcibly shoves an elderly man with a shoulder mounted video camera.

Really?

This message is for him:

"Hey tough guy, you just assaulted an elderly gentleman in the Jefferson monument for taking video.

**** you asshole, this is America and now you're gonna be famous."
No, I saw that. Now we have to prove that what he said was not a lie; about video recording in the area. Of course that should be posted. Nobody called him on his actions which should've been stated. What we have here is a possible act of collusion on the police officers part but somebody should have pointed that out.

W. Rabbit
5/28/2011 7:56pm,
No, I saw that. Now we have to prove that what he said was not a lie; about video recording in the area. Of course that should be posted. Nobody called him on his actions which should've been stated. What we have here is a possible act of collusion on the police officers part but somebody should have pointed that out.

I didn't see the kid resisting when he decided to body slammed him, though. I guess he could have been but I had my eye on Bike Helmet the whole rest of the video...he doesn't seem to mind putting his hands on anyone. And not in that "I'm a police officer, please move along" way either. In that "I'm the Man and I'll do what I want" way.

That's a marble floor, too. Ouch.

Shawarma
5/28/2011 7:56pm,
While indiscriminate whomping of people with cameras recording police misconduct is indeed inappropriate, I can completely see why the police may have such a dislike of being recorded.

The person recording them may not be somebody trying to document police brutality or something similar but a career criminal wanting to ID the police officer in question so they can pay him and his family a visit later. In this day of social networking and Google, finding out such things as address and daily routine from the police officers name and photo would be a simple matter. If this is the risk, there's no way in Hell I'd let people film me either if I could get away with it.