Police Question Videographer, Sorry I do not answer questions, Take the 5th

[JYD911]

So it looks like a couple guys were pulled over for no tie downs on a motorcycle in the back of their pickup. There were about 3 squad cars, and one motorcycle officer on scene, must have been a slow night.

One officer comes up to me, and another sneaks behind, so 2 deputy's at my 6 just because I was taking video of something the public finds interesting.

I am curious how many members on here give up their 5th A Right, and answer questions when police talk to them? IMHO it is never a good idea to answer questions when someone is on a "fishing expedition"

Real courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant and disapproving herd. — Jon Roland, 1976

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

Read More

 

[broncman]

My guess is that there is probable cause on the stop. Most everyone would strap down there motorcycle when it is hauled in the back of a truck.
If I was a officer I would assume that the two men had just stolen the motorcycle and that would be enough to pull over under securing cargo laws either by state or federal. So can I assume you had a scanner to know that the owner of the pickup wasn't wanted or know criminal and that is why the added police presence at the stop or you just feel if it is slow they all show up to the same traffic stop.
As for the filming if you don't want trouble don't look for it (let them do there jobs without the audience).

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/

 

[JYD911]

As for the filming if you don't want trouble don't look for it (let them do there jobs without the audience).

The highest courts have ruled gathering content, and recording openly public officials in public is covered by the 1st Amendment.

Remember Rodney King? Had someone NOT been recording, that whole thing would have been different.

And where do you think all the stock news footage comes from. Reporters go out, camera men go out and record crap.

Just because someone is recording, it does not mean they are looking for trouble.

JMHO

 

[Gunguy45]

The two officers standing behind the guy is a blatant attempt to intimidate him. I mean seriously, is it rational to be concerned that a guy with a video camera standing across the street is somehow a threat to the what? 6 police officers present?

If it's not rational for security reasons, then why do it? Other than to show they don't like being filmed and use "soft" intimidation tactics?

All perfectly legal and on the surface, "polite." But let's call it what it is: Intimidation of a law-abiding citizen doing nothing wrong because somehow they think they are exempt from being filmed in public. when police take people's pictures at demonstrations, apparently that's just fine. When the tables get turned, out comes the intimidation tactics or worse.

If LEOs are wondering why the law-abiding public is unhappy with the profession, ask yourself how you this guy felt with two armed men standing purposefully behind him for no apparent reason OTHER than intimidation. That's not "friendly," It's bully tactics.

 

[notazombie]

FWIW, your right to remain silent is valid before Miranda rights are read and before an arrest. It doesn't usually make an interaction with LEO better to be a d!ck but all they get from me now is license, registration, and proof of insurance. I've never successfully argued (reasoned) my way out of a ticket on the side of the road anyway. No reason to give them any more rope. They don't need to know where I'm coming from or where I'm headed or if I've "had anything to drink tonight". Those are fishing questions. "My attorney has advised me not to answer questions without his presence" is a good enough answer.

 

[JYD911]

FWIW, your right to remain silent is valid before Miranda rights are read and before an arrest. It doesn't usually make an interaction with LEO better to be a d!ck but all they get from me now is license, registration, and proof of insurance. I've never successfully argued (reasoned) my way out of a ticket on the side of the road anyway. No reason to give them any more rope. They don't need to know where I'm coming from or where I'm headed or if I've "had anything to drink tonight". Those are fishing questions. "My attorney has advised me not to answer questions without his presence" is a good enough answer.

AMEN!

 

[clearconscience]

In my opinion, I see no problem with filming a LEO at work it protects you and him.

However, being a jerk to a Cop or just stonewalling for the sake of "protecting your rights" is just a b!t@h move. Your just an ahole with nothing better to do.

I know that if you are a jerk or are being resistive to their inquiry and they have any reason possible to ticket you THEY WILL. They meet force with greater force for their protection and yours, they also meet aggression/attitude with the same aggression/attitude.

They are doing a really tough job and risk life and limb to protect me and mine, I will never make that harder for them.

You don't like the laws be mad at politicians not the blue collar guy enforcing it.

Having said that, anything you say can and will be used against you, 90% of the people that are charged/convicted you have gotten away with it if they kept their mouths shut, but that doesn't mean you have to be a richard about it

 

[jbett98]

Well worth the time to watch this if you haven't seen it before.

 

[Monica Cowles]

Another viewpoint....

 

[Gunguy45]

Another viewpoint....

I don't think the original video was claiming to be the be-all end-all of all contacts with police. and I question Branca's response that you posted. Look at the case of Larry Hickey. <broken link removed>

There's a specific case where police got a lot of things wrong, and misplaced and later did not remember a holster Hickey was wearing. Talking to the police extensively, as he did, did not help and probably harmed him.

As a trainer, I follow the advice of every attorney I've ever spoken to on the subject. Which is namely, to give a "bare-bones" account of the events so police understand

A: This was a defensive shooting, not murder.
B: How you were justified in believing you were under imminent threat of death of grave bodily injury.

AND THAT'S ALL.

It's also recommended to remind the investigating officer that most police departments do not interview their own officers for 24 hours after a shooting because adrenaline and emotions will taint any testimony.

If they're going to take you to jail for the night because you wouldn't talk to them further, they were going to take you to jail ANYWAY.

You've GIVEN them the bare facts:
1. I was here.
2. Bad guy was there and did XYZ which made me fear for my life.
3. I shot him in self defense.

SHUT YOUR MOUTH after that, because nothing you're going to say is likely to help, and may very well be used to help prosecute you, both in court and in the media. -Ask George Zimmerman's lawyer about his extensive cooperation with the police and whether he would have been better off doing what I've suggested. I PROMISE you O'mara isn't going to applaud Zimmerman's decision to talk.

Most self-defense shootings do not result in criminal prosecution. In fact, it's quite rare to be prosecuted.

It is COMMON, however, to be sued by the assailant or their family. And ANYTHING you say to the police, however innocuous, WILL be used in civil court which has a much lower threshold of proof than a criminal proceeding.

There is NO GOOD REASON to say more than what I've suggested without an experienced criminal lawyer present. There is not one, single benefit to you, and innumerable possible harms.

While the videographer's response to questions may seem rude to some, frankly the police ASKING him the questions was start of the encounter. His politely declining to answer that question was not rude, it was his right. And he shouldn't have had to assert it in the first place, because the police had no reason in the world to ASK him who he was after determining he wasn't a witness.

 

[pchewn]

You've GIVEN them the bare facts:
1. I was here.
2. Bad guy was there and did XYZ which made me fear for my life.
3. I shot him in self defense.

I would not include #3.


1. I was here.
2. Bad guy was there and did XYZ which made me fear for my life.
3. I heard some shots
4. Bad guy went down, I called 911 to get him an ambulance.
5. I tried to stop the bleeding with a compression....

 

[Nwcid]

Last time I called 911 it went something like this.

Me: I would like to report 2 dogs attacking a deer out in the lake
911: What is the location.
Me: Hwy x
911: Is this still going on?
Me: No.
911: What is the location of the dogs now?
Me: Floating in the lake.......
911: Ok.
Me: I am looking for an officer to come dispatch the injured deer out in the lake. It is too far out in the lake for me humanely take care of it.
911: Ok, we will be sending an officer when available.

It was very clear what happened to the dogs, but nothing was admitted or asked.

Never admit to shooting.

 

[Gunguy45]

I would not include #3.


1. I was here.
2. Bad guy was there and did XYZ which made me fear for my life.
3. I heard some shots
4. Bad guy went down, I called 911 to get him an ambulance.
5. I tried to stop the bleeding with a compression....

Wait, you just shot a guy in self defense and you're not going to tell the cops that you shot him? That really IS a good way to spend some time in jail, and to be looked at immediately as a suspect in a murder case, rather than as a victim in a self-defense shooting.

 

[clearconscience]

Yeah just throw your gun in the lake and wash your hands too!

 

[pchewn]

Wait, you just shot a guy in self defense and you're not going to tell the cops that you shot him? That really IS a good way to spend some time in jail, and to be looked at immediately as a suspect in a murder case, rather than as a victim in a self-defense shooting.

Huh?

Why would I want to tell the cops anything that I did other than call them and render aid to the wounded? Anything you say can and will be used against you. Not saying anything can't be used against you....

 

[Monica Cowles]

Because there are two lines to be filled out on the police report; "Suspect" and "Victim".
That poor fella lying in the ground with a hole in him is going to look an awful lot like a 'victim' to the first responders unless you offer come very compelling evidence to the contrary...

 

[Norm0931]

So, two things about the video. First off, If it hadn't been 2 cops and had just been 2 guys standing behind you would you have treated them the same way? Be honest with yourself, you were implying disrespect.

Some of you guys really go out on a limb to try to pull cops in to "intimidating" you. And most people who "cop watch" on youtube make it a point to do it so they can get a good video. No different than Westboro Baptist Church tactics.

Second, were you open carrying? Given that police are being targeted by people all over the country you can't really blame them for wanting to cover someone that could potentially be a threat. They didn't actually do anything to you aside from make you "feel" uncomfortable. If that's grounds for issue then every anti-gunner who "feels" threatened because someone is open carrying also has a case. To be honest, while you were within your right to deny answering any questions, they were within your right to ask you questions.

I'll admit that some cops bend or break the law and those individuals need to be weeded out. However, not all cops are dirty and it seems like the majority of these videos always try to invoke a confrontation. 90% of cops aren't coming over to the guy with the camera because they are worried they'll go to jail over what he is filming. They are worried their going to be attacked on video for criminal propaganda.

 

[IheartSig]

So, two things about the video. First off, If it hadn't been 2 cops and had just been 2 guys standing behind you would you have treated them the same way? Be honest with yourself, you were implying disrespect.

Some of you guys really go out on a limb to try to pull cops in to "intimidating" you. And most people who "cop watch" on youtube make it a point to do it so they can get a good video. No different than Westboro Baptist Church tactics.

And this is why 90% of these "videos" are more of an embarrassment to the ones filming than the officers. Guess what, if you have to go out of your way to provoke someone into a fight, its usually not a righteous fight.

 

[RicInOR]

...
but that doesn't mean you have to be a richard about it

I resemble that remark!