We have another video of a police officer destroying the cellphone of a citizen who is filming an arrest in clear violation of her constitutional rights. New reports indicate that the officer holding an automatic weapon in the videotape below who is seen charging the woman and smashing her phone on the ground is a United States Marshal in California.
The video shows the woman standing out of the way while filming an arrest. She is actually backing up when an officer rushes her, smashes the phone on the ground and then kicks it before walking away. Unfortunately for the officer there was a second person filming and the woman asks “Did you record that?” She did.
We have been following the continuing abuse of citizens who are detained or arrested for filming police in public. (For prior columns, click here and here). Despite consistent rulings upholding the right of citizens to film police in public, these abuses continue.
The question is what to do with this officer absent some unknown reason for this assault. I cannot imagine the justification for such conduct. However, if it is as it appears, there is the question of whether this officer should be allowed to retain his position. The level of contempt for the constitutional rights of this woman is shocking. I would be very concerned about the judgment and the level of personal control that would be shown by this officer in other circumstances.
What do you think?
@Pogo
You asked, “You want us all to get licenses to be citizens???”
There is a short cut procedure for those who don’t want to study the booklet, and watch the stupid videos. Just go to Nuevo Laredo, and wade across the Rio Grande. Take a life jacket, and get one of those little “Senor Obama says I can come here!” cards.
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I do appreciate Mike Appleton pointing out my error however. I had read that Balko post on militarization some time ago and had not recalled how long it’s been going on. It traces not to Reagan or even Clinton, but Bush père.
In any event, we can both agree it has become a capricious and massive monster.
Pogo:
I stand corrected. I had no idea the program had been expanded.
OMG, Max and I agree.
Strange, but I had expected a series of thunderous booms on that occasion.
Glenn
He was “protecting” a undercover officer…….CASE CLOSED
= = =
LOL… good one.
However, such protection didn’t stop the other neighbor from filming.
John F. BaRoss Jr.
I think having citizens pass a test determining if they are capable of dealing with police is going the wrong direction here…
USA – thug state and armed madhouse.
Quite simple really.
Mike:
In HuffPo:
7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization
“Under Obama, this [Pentagon giveaway] program has continued to flourish. In its October 2011 newsletter (motto: “From Warfighter to Crimefighter”), the agency that oversees the Pentagon giveaways boasted that fiscal 2011 was the most productive in the program’s history. And by a large margin. “FY 11 has been a historic year for the program,” wrote program manager Craig Barrett. “We reutilized more than $500M, that is million with an M, worth of property in FY 11. This passes the previous mark by several hundred million dollars. … Half a billion dollars in reutilization was a monumental achievement in FY 11.”
The George W. Bush administration had actually begun phasing out the Byrne program. It had been funded at a half-billion dollars per year through most of the Clinton presidency. By the time he left office in 2008, Bush had pared it to $170 million a year. But the grants have long been a favorite of Vice President Joe Biden. And so Obama campaigned on fully restoring their funding, declaring that the Byrne grant program “has been critical to creating the anti-gang and anti-drug task forces our communities need.” On that promise at least, he has delivered. As part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama infused the program with $2 billion, by the far the largest budget in its history.
Just as it had with Byrne grants, the Bush administration was phasing out the COPS program in the 2000s. But like the Byrne grants, COPS grants have long been a favorite of Biden. In fact, Biden often takes credit for creating the program, and claims it’s responsible for the sharp drop in violent crime in America that began in the mid-1990s. (There’s no evidence to support that contention, and a 2007 analysis in the peer-reviewed journal Criminology concluded “COPS spending had little to no effect on crime.”) And so Obama resurrected COPS, too. During his first year in office, he increased the program’s budget by 250 percent.
The Obama administration has defended the use of aggressive, militaristic police actions in court. In the case Avina v. U.S., DEA agents pointed their guns at an 11-year-old and a 14-year-old during a drug raid on the wrong house. The agents had apparently mistaken the license plate of a suspected drug trafficker for the plate on a car owned by Thomas Avina. Obama’s Justice Department argued in federal court that the lawsuit should be dismissed before being heard by a jury because the agents’ actions were not unreasonable.
Under Obama, forfeiture has flourished. According to a 2012 report from the General Accounting Office, the Justice Department’s forfeiture fund swelled to $1.8 billion in 2011, the largest ever. That same year, equitable sharing payouts to local police agencies topped $445 million, also a record.
Obama has fought for broad asset forfeiture powers in court, even for local governments. In the 2009 case Alvarez v. Smith, the Obama administration defended a provision of Illinois’ asset forfeiture law that allows police to seize property they believe is connected to drug activity with little evidence, then hold it for up to six months before the owner gets an opportunity to win it back in court. It’s one of the harshest such laws in the country.“
Watch the case go nowhere in court. The cops can will say anything and the judges will side with the cops. Hell just read and watch the so-called news every night and tell me I’m wrong.
Randyjet, that makes sense.
Glenn, I hope they won’t be getting away with that excuse, however I’m sure they did in the past.
Ingannie, No link..but…The police will use that as their defense count on it.
He committed a crime. He should be prosecuted just like anyone else would be who had done what he did.
If he gets fired then it would be appropriate for some relative of the victim here to go beat the punk to an inch of his life. With a hammer.
Peter, Paul & Mary – If I Had A Hammer Lyrics
If I had a hammer,
I’d hammer in the morning
I’d hammer in the evening,
All over this land
I’d hammer out danger,
I’d hammer out a warning,
I’d hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters,
All over this land.
If I had a bell,
I’d ring it in the morning,
I’d ring it in the evening,
All over this land
I’d ring out danger,
I’d ring out a warning
I’d ring out love between my brothers and my sisters,
All over this land.
If I had a song,
I’d sing it in the morning,
I’d sing it in the evening,
All over this land
I’d sing out danger,
I’d sing out a warning
Pogo:
Your sense of history tends to treat 2008 as the beginning of everything. The militarization of domestic police forces predated the election of President Obama by many years. The transfer of surplus military equipment to the police for enforcement of drug laws began under President Reagan. The 1033 Program, which has transferred billions of dollars of heavy equipment to local police forces, began under President Clinton. There are plenty of things to criticize President Obama for, but the militarization of the police ain’t one of them.
Glenn, do you have a link for that? That’s interesting. So if there would be an undercover officer involved in an arrest, a citizen’s camera could be confiscated and destroyed?
The only thing that is closed is his mind. The fact is that if a so called undercover cop is engaged in doing active PUBLIC police work, he is NO longer undercover. In fact, most undercover cops allow themselves to be arrested to keep their cover. This is simple BS. Once an undercover cop blows his cover publicly, there is NO reason to give him more protection based on the idea he is undercover.
Too bad this cop was not in DC when Dick Cheney cost the CIA millions of dollars when he blew the cover of Valarie Plame. I would have liked to see him storm into Cheney’s office and beat him up. THAT was a REAL crime.
Does the U.S. Department of Justice have a conflict of interest in these type of “color of law” crimes perpetrated by these federal agents (also part of the DOJ)?
The DOJ is excellent at prosecuting public corruption at the local and state levels but do we need a new agency that is ultra-independent to police corruption at the federal level?
Could the DOJ police the FBI’s CoinTelPro tactics or abuses of the DHS preemption grants that deputize local and state governments? Citizens that been blacklisted since 9/11 (or before) seem to be out of luck – they have no watchdog agency to go to.
He was “protecting” a undercover officer…….CASE CLOSED
Until officers risk criminal penalty or punitive consequences for violating a citizen’s constitutional rights (and violating their own oath of office) nothing will change. They should face some penalty for violating the Bill of Rights.
Even so, we can agree this is no longer tolerable.
“Regarding conservatives’ new found concern for constitutional rights…”
The false premise renders the remainder of the post erroneous.
Conservatives have been decrying no-knock raids and militarized police for years.
And the militarized police arose under and through efforts by the DOD under the Obama administration, not Reagan.