More Police State evidence. Video.

Well, first off, the one in question thinks he is a smart guy. But he made several mistakes in connection with his confrontation with the police.

For those cannot watch the video. A person saw a SWAT team practicing in a residential neighborhood with flash bangs and full gear. A armored vehicle was even there. The SWAT team noticed him filming and confronted him. We all know the police line of questioning. He asserted his rights and continued to talk with them. Mistake number one. Do not even bother to talk with them. It ends with him getting accused of operating a vehicle with a cracked windshield.

Hell, the police officer even brings up the terrorist angle. SOP for the the fear agenda.

Hope you enjoy. Discussion on how he should have handled himself better.



[edit on 5/13/2010 by endisnighe]

My first thought is that if had shown his ID things might have been a little easier. I don't like either sides attitudes to be honest.

reply to post by invetro


Yeah, he was right in stating that he did not have to show it. First off, am I being detained? If the police officer continues, you do not have to speak to him.

Unless they place you under arrest, then you have to show the ID.

It is kind of funny that it quits right when he is told to show the Driver's License for the cracked windshield. This is why I have been driving a perfectly maintained vehicle for over 5 years.

They cannot harass you if your vehicle is in perfect shape. Always check that rear license plate light. That one got me pulled over about 6 times in my life.

I find it surprising though, that they train in a residential neighborhood.

I thought there were codes, oh, what was I thinking. This is government related, they do not have to follow the same laws as us.

Also, training somewhere that the public cannot see you, does not create the same FEAR.

I did think of it as a little strange with them practicing in a street like that. They do not own the property that the filmer was on, so logically (not entirely sure of laws here) he can film what he likes? I know that if I see something that different in my street, if I have a camera nearby, I'm going to be recording it for old times sake.

reply to post by invetro


Videotaping anything in public is legal. Completely legal. Whatever the cops state, they are allowed to lie. Hell, it is one of their best weapons.

Just like politicians. Do not believe one thing out of their mouths.

If a cop approaches, am I being detained? If they continue, ask if you need a lawyer. If they continue. State , I do not want to speak with you and I would like a lawyer if you continue to speak with me.

Cops are doing their jobs of enforcing statutes. That is all they do. They have no obligation or responsibility to protect or serve anyone. That is long gone.

Now, their whole purpose is to collect funds. Period. Oh, almost forgot their job to enforce the status quo. Don't want any citizens to get uppity.

If you talk with them calmly and assert your rights, there should be no problems.

This video is a perfect example of someone that thought they can outsmart a cop. Calmly and rationally assert your rights.

I travel everywhere with a cam, camera, and a voice recorder. Comes in handy when I see nature and want to take the pics. Also, it may save my ass some day from a trumped up situation. Cops hate to be videotaped. They cannot go all gangsta on people then. Kind of makes them wonder in the future if they are on video.

They won't ever get them convicted of something, but at least the victim won't go to prison on lies.



[edit on 5/13/2010 by endisnighe]

He may not have done anything illegal but in this day and age, filming police exercises, just like filming bridges and tall buildings, will get the attention of the authorities.

I agree it was handled poorly by the officers considering they are using a training house out in the middle of town. I have no problems with them getting ID from the guy, but once that occurs, let him film. Being on a SWAT team we train in a lot of abandoned homes around the area and we have people stand and watch us sometimes, been filmed, pictures, etc...and there has never been issues as long as they stay outside the taped off area.

Obviously there IS some worry that people will film us, and those filming us are doing so to learn tactics, etc...but thats why when we use houses in public view the training is basic and mostly for repitition, and really gives no one a clear view or idea of how our team operates.

IMO had the guy showed ID the cops would of simply went back to training like we do....again, from MY experiance, stuff like this is can be kept to a minimum if handled correctly.

EDIT TO ADD: Using public areas to train accounts for only about 10% of our training time. The other 90% is done at the private complex, which obviously avoids the public.



[edit on 5/13/2010 by rcwj1975]

reply to post by rcwj1975


Yep, agreed. It was handled poorly on both sides.

Why not ask him his name?

That is still legal isn't it?

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


Well, I hope not. I am a videotape and camera nut.

Got some of the coolest photos of wildlife, nature and architecture.

Ooops, better give up that hobby, might end up in Gitmo!

[edit on 5/13/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


Yes they can ask him for his name. The thing they need to remember is they have no expectation of privacy training in public. That is why our team lets people watch. When they film us, or if we see a video camera, we ask for ID and explain to the people why, and NEVER had we had anyone give us a problem because they understood our concerns.

reply to post by endisnighe


I have to assume you are deliberately arguing here. The guy was not filming nature, he was filming police exercises; is there no possible danger you can imagine about that?

reply to post by rcwj1975


Well yeah. Now I have a question. If I as a citizen go up to the SWAT team when they finish their exercise. Can I go up to one of them and ask for their ID?

I mean, they are executing a paramilitary operation in a damn residential neighborhood. Hell, they could be some wild militia unit operating out in the open with possibility that they are impersonating police.

I wonder how far that would fly?

I mean really, anything is possible? Right? Hey, these people could be terrorists.

Just doing my civic duty and all. Do you think if I called the local precinct they would waylay my fears. Or is this really an attempt to show force in a neighborhood?

Which is kinda what it is.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


Like I said, I have photographed architecture also.

You are using a red herring argument to assuage a debate.

Of course it could be something bad. Of course the Sun could explode tomorrow into the next phase of a stars evolution.

Using the old, it could be.....argument is a red herring. Don't like red herring, it is too red, I like standard herring.

People are photographing and videoing cops and the cops do not like it. Period.

Tell me one incident involving terrorists using video equipment on cops. Not the guys involved in 9/11 and their tripod all set up. The cops seem to have let them go. Nothing suspicious with that, but this guy, he must be a terrorist.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Well yeah. Now I have a question. If I as a citizen go up to the SWAT team when they finish their exercise. Can I go up to one of them and ask for their ID?

YES, you can ALWAYS ask for an officers badge number and last name and by almost EVERY policy i have ever seen the officer is required to give that information....that IS our ID.

I mean, they are executing a paramilitary operation in a damn residential neighborhood. Hell, they could be some wild militia unit operating out in the open with possibility that they are impersonating police.

That would be interesting considering at SOME point an actual officer should drive by and question WTF is going on if it is NOT their department doing the training. So I really wouldn't fear this happening...and if it does, then fear the shootout coming when the actual SWAt team arrives on scene.

Just doing my civic duty and all. Do you think if I called the local precinct they would waylay my fears. Or is this really an attempt to show force in a neighborhood?

Which is kinda what it is.

Well we have had people call on us before because they aren't familiar with what we do. The precinct will inform them who it is and that it is ok or authorized training. Of course they SHOULD have a sign or something out in front of the place with the agency name on it...helps squash the OMG's...lol.

No its not an attempt to show force, its training. An argument COULD be made it helps people see who we are so when we DO show up to serve a warrant or there is an actual call out, they aren't AS traumatized by seeing all the gear and have a better understanding whats happening.

reply to post by endisnighe


I am not actually. I am saying that some things look mighty suspicious and people should expect to be questioned. Doesn't mean they are committing a crime, but the police can and should ask them questions.

reply to post by rcwj1975


A while back, the police in my city were doing some kind of training in the subway. They had sandwich board signs at the top of the stairs stating this and all was well.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


Yea we never have a problem because its clearly marked and as I said we don't hassle people, but will ID them if they want to film us.....have yet to have a problem with someone being ID'd...they seem to understand our concerns so its a two way street that has run smoothly for us.

i think this citizen has handled it very well my only problem is that he actually gave id for a crack in the windshield! can u beleive that, how sickening that the cops still couldnt explain what law that he has to give identification so they try scare tactics like mentioning the police station and then divert attention to the crack in the windshield.

i still wouldn't have gave id, but bless the man, he stood up and sacrificed for the greater good!

how sickening seriously i can feel the disgust of whats coming

double post

[edit on 13-5-2010 by togetherwestand]

During Bolshevik era (and many years earlier) it was prohibited to take pictures of some kind of structures: bridges, railway stations, military compounds ... list was really long. This law was one of the first recalled after "revolution" because it was somehow symbolic for freedom.
Cops are very often unprofessional here and often going nuts if they see camera. Even few properly signed journalists were attacked by police. I was stoned by undercover policemen during IMF/WB meeting in Prague - I did a "civic watch" and I was wearing blue jacket - our uniform. Police know that we will document the event long time earlier and memorandum was passed to every policemen who we are and what we do.
That is for Czech republic. Slovakia police is plain mafia and they even do not try to hide it. It is not about few bad apples - it is organized crime sponsored by taxpayers. I'll not show camera during encounter with them because I'll end up with broken ribs somewhere at forest.

It is real easy with a computer and the internet to make a ID that shows you are a freelance news photographer.

Anyone that likes to do photography and wants to cover there a** should carry some form of ID claiming to be a news or press photographer.

There are almost no laws defining what or who is classed as PRESS.
and with the internet and the number of news sites on it you have many ways to cover your a**.
If you have a blog and put news and photos on it YOU are protected under the freedom of the press and can make up your own press card.

I always carry a homemade press card in my camera bag and any cops that questions me will see it.

ask.metafilter.com...

www.identityprops.com...

While the LAPD or NYPD might not fall for home made press IDs allmost all small town and city Barney Fife's will fall for official looking press passes if you are carrying it with the right type cameras.
I carry a old Canon F1 and a Canon TL as these are will known cameras used by the press.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by ANNED]