Federal lawsuit: IMPD vs. camera guy

[Trigger Time]

You need to spend some time in court watching trials. You have no idea what goes on.

I can just find documented cases to prove it happens. No not all the time but one time is too much right?

 

[phylodog]

Hehe

lol

 

[rambone]

You missed his whole point. What if someone walked up and smacked your mother and you responded in kind, but the only video shows you yelling and beating the crap out of that guy and not what started it.

In the heat of a confrontation, nobody involved has any idea where the stranger began filming. There is no reason for the animosity toward witnesses and cameramen. Previous annoyances with YouTube videos are irrelevant.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

IME, the problem lies in that judges allow police to get away with the hide the ball nonsense. If we had stouter exclusionary rules for "missing" evidence, there would be far fewer cases of missing video.

Minnesota Man Who Filmed Sheriff?s Deputies Acquitted By Jury | Power Line#!

E.g., instead of destroying the Minnesota man's video and prosecuting him, law enforcement would have a vested interest to preserve evidence. Now police have a vested interest in destroying video evidence that they do not control.

Expand IRE617! But that's my answer for everything.

 

[phylodog]

In the heat of a confrontation, nobody involved has any idea where the stranger began filming. There is no reason for the animosity toward witnesses and cameramen. Previous annoyances with YouTube videos are irrelevant.

On what planet? I thought learning through previous experiences was one of the things which established human beings as an intelligent species.

 

[rambone]

On what planet? I thought learning through previous experiences was one of the things which established human beings as an intelligent species.

A cop can't take out his anger on a stranger with a camera for videos that frustrated him in the past. We don't know them. Even if their camera wasn't turned on until the beating began, that still isn't a crime or a reason to harm them.

If there is an experience to be learned from, it is the lawsuit.

 

[phylodog]

A cop can't take out his anger on a stranger with a camera for videos that frustrated him in the past. We don't know them. Even if their camera wasn't turned on until the beating began, that still isn't a crime or a reason to harm them.

If there is an experience to be learned from, it is the lawsuit.

I have not claimed the officers actions to be justified (as much as some really, really want me to) but to suggest that prior experiences cannot be indicative of future events is ridiculous.

 

[jbombelli]

Get off your soap box. You have no idea

Your words are your words. They give me all the idea I need.

 

[rambone]

I have not claimed the officers actions to be justified (as much as some really, really want me to) but to suggest that prior experiences cannot be indicative of future events is ridiculous.

All cameramen are not thugs. You only hear stories about the bad apples.

 

[phylodog]

All cameramen are not thugs. You only hear stories about the bad apples.

I've never laid hands on a cameraman, threatened anyone videotaping me or taken someone's camera away from them so what's your point?

 

[rambone]

I've never laid hands on a cameraman, threatened anyone videotaping me or taken someone's camera away from them

Ok, I accept that. We're discussing policy, not your personal record.

so what's your point?

You just told dross that his experiences did not represent the whole police profession. Then you went on to explain that an intelligent species forms stereotypes to predict the future. Contradiction?

 

[IndyDave1776]

All cameramen are not thugs. You only hear stories about the bad apples.

I've never laid hands on a cameraman, threatened anyone videotaping me or taken someone's camera away from them so what's your point?

Gentlemen, it seems to me that your positions are not at all incompatible. Rambone wants the small modicum of freedom required for people to be able to film events happening in public in peace, and Phylodog has no problem with filming but wants those doing the filming to present the entire truth rather than cherry-picking enough to make the police look like asses when then don't deserve it while concealing critical parts of the incident. It sounds like you both are looking for the truth, only from different angles.

 

[phylodog]

You just told dross that his experiences did not represent the whole police profession. Then you went on to explain that an intelligent species forms stereotypes to predict the future. Contradiction?

Not at all. I treat everyone (cops included) as somewhat suspect so it doesn't bother me if others do as well. I've provided a perfectly reasonable justification for why I don't particularly enjoy being filmed at work. What I have not done is accused (or made blanket statements about) everyone with a video or cell phone camera as being a liar or out to deceive others via incomplete or conveniently edited footage.

 

[public servant]

if someone wants to beat the crap out of my mother I wouldn't stop them.

Holy ****...someone needs a hug.

I'd like to ask what would lead a person to hate their mother so much...but I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[halfmileharry]

Holy ****...someone needs a hug.

I'd like to ask what would lead a person to hate their mother so much...but I don't want to derail the thread.

"Charlie Harper"