U.S. based Marshal Destroys Cell Phone of Woman Filming Law Enforcement Activity

[john_h.1]

<p>...but didn't realize there was a someone else will a cell phone recording the cell phone recording...<br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/us/california-marshal-smashed-phone/index.html</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>That has been all over the news here in Los Angeles. Can't wait to see how far it will go in the courts.</p>

[woolly1]

Well what do you think will happen to the Marshall? Won't be holding my breath ......

[john_h.1]

<p>I believe he should be dismissed and charged with whatever California's equivalent of statutes are regrading destruction of property, breach of peace, assault (which usually can involve mere touching) and possibly tampering with evidence. Being under the pressure of the public spotlight and in hot water at work is something for now at least. But, mostly, I hope this gets enough attention to promote the end of police power used to violate the constitutional rights of those who photograph law enforcement, which deviates from the dedicated service provided by the large majority of our law enforcement officers.<br /><br />This wasn't some split second decision in the midst of a scuffle. He knew what he was doing and did so on purpose. What other officers knew is less clear.<br /><br />This type of suppression of recording, itself, reveals why it is so important to prevent it.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>he may get dismissed and the taxpayers get to pickup the cost of the lawsuit and the payout. He and the law enforcement community then repeat it.</p>

<p>Have the settlement come out of his pension, see how long this abuse of citizens continues.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>taxpayers get to pickup the cost of the lawsuit and the payout.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see a big payout. No injuries or results rising to the level of ongoing distress or harm. Some sort of damages as to civil rights violations, maybe. An lawsuit (probably brought or supported by the ACLU) seeking to enjoin efforts to ban photography of police seems possible but usually there has to be a showing that the conduct is prone to repetition since the event is over. Being an rogue attack rather than a policy might make that difficult.</p>

[curt wiler]

<p>The video recorded by the woman was released last night (it survived having the phone smashed). According to the recording, there were actually three marshals involved, two blocking her view and the third grabbing the phone. On the one hand this looks like assault and a violation of her rights, but she is also guilty of failing to follow an officer's direction to move back, and arguing with him about it. All of this took three marshals away from the original problem which could have had disastrous consequences. A very poor way to handle the situation on everyone's part.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>she is also guilty of failing to follow an officer's direction to move back, and arguing with him about it. All of this took three marshals away from the original problem which could have had disastrous consequences.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would want to know more about the "guilty" part. Ordered to move back justifiably or because the presence was merely undesired. Seeing that this was no arrest for anything. Also why it would be necessary for three or any Marshal responses. In any event. smashing the phone and walking off is obviously more that just "poorly handled".</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Good thing the video file was recoverable. But now with Periscope and Meerkat, the video is already out there before anything can happen to the recording device.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>If the woman was committing an offence then wasn't the marshall destroying evidence?</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>A Marshall with a rifle approached the woman with the cell phone. Let's celebrate, that this time the Marshal did not shoot.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>The "people", and I'm using the term loosely, over on Petapixel are raving about how he should have shot her, and how it was for her own safety because she was standing in the wrong place. Me, I fail to see how destroying her camera and leaving her standing where she was was protecting her. With responses like that it's easy to see why our country is heading in the direction it is. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"I fail to see how destroying her camera and leaving her standing where she was was protecting her."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your logic is impeccable. The lady, as seen on her video, was told she needed to leave because she was "in the line of fire". She was also told she was "in the way of this investigation". Yet she was left there to continue doing so?</p>

[finnegan]

<p>I think that is Federal stuff, "Color of Law", a violation of Constitutional Rights perhaps.<br /> "Color of Law" means an act against a citizen by an officer of the law is given justification because of that position: i.e., an Officer of the State (meaning the government, any government) when it is not, when it is in fact an illegal act. The appearance of an action as official masks its illegality and harm to the citizen (like REAL harm as we see now all the time).<br /> Cops can't steal your cell phone for the legal action of using its camera in public. No one legally can. If it weren't a cop you'd call the police or bop the guy on the nose. However, your Rights are violated because you are now in the predicament of "Color of Law" and can do nothing to protect yourself or have relief from damage.<br>

So if it was me I'd be at the FBI the next morning, file a complaint based on the above and get this stuff STOPPED, and this guy OFF THE FORCE because he's a thug.</p>

 

[shutterbud]

<p>I have to say it seems very much to be the case that some US police departments are at war with the people they are supposed to protect. We have seen a spate of appalling incidents recently. And as has been noted above, it seems a disturbingly large proportion of the American Public support whatever action is taken by them. I have read many disgusting posts on another famous photography forum which are exemplified by the quote "If a police officer wants to see you dead, I want you dead too."<br>

The LAW doesn't get a look-in. The police seem think they are The Law. Perhaps they all need to get fancy gold helmets and redesignate urban areas as Megacities?</p>