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

[Gunguy45]

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.

They didn't just stand behind him. AFTER determining he was no threat, they took up positions behind him for no possible reason other than to intimidate him out of filming and to "punish" him for refusing to give his ID. (which he was never required to do).
This is deliberate intimidation tactics on the part of the police.

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.

No. He was in California. Not O/Cing. Notice that at 9:43 they ask him if he has any weapons on him. He declined to answer, as is his RIGHT.
BECAUSE they were not making a lawful contact under Terry, they did not search him, because they have no right to do so.

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.

You don't think there's a different standard for official conduct of police vs private citizens? And tyou don't think the deliberate taking of positions behind someone who was not in any way disrupting or interfering with police activites was an act of intimidation? REALLY? Why else were they there? Behind one guy with a video camera who was at all times polite and non-combative.

I'm all for officer safety. And I don't object to a Terry stop search. Nor would I object to a temporary disarming had he been O/Cing. That's allowed under Terry and other rulings.

I DO object to deliberate intimidation tactics to "punish" a citizen for filming them. And that's how I interpret this.

As to running around with a scanner filming cops? Well, I think it's silly. And I agree that police interpret this as "One more knucklehead looking to make himself look important on youtube." But it's neither illegal nor "rude" nor "disrespectful." Nor is it interference, nor does it put anyone at risk.

Guys with cameras filming police stops because they find it exciting are about as worthy of interaction as the average nutcase with a sandwich board preaching on a street corner. In other words, ignore it.

 

[Norm0931]

They didn't just stand behind him. AFTER determining he was no threat, they took up positions behind him for no possible reason other than to intimidate him out of filming and to "punish" him for refusing to give his ID. (which he was never required to do).
This is deliberate intimidation tactics on the part of the police.

Huh, I didn't see you in the video. Were you standing behind the officers? You seem to know exactly when they decided he wasn't a threat and exactly what the atmosphere was. I thought the officers seemed jovial, as did he. And did they actually DO anything to him? No, so he can be a little whiny bubblegum and cry about how he was scared of the cops, but they never really did anything to him (Maybe he should called Penny Okomoto and Michael Bloomberg) OR man the bubblegum up and deal with the consequences of involving himself with police.

No. He was in California. Not O/Cing. Notice that at 9:43 they ask him if he has any weapons on him. He declined to answer, as is his RIGHT.
BECAUSE they were not making a lawful contact under Terry, they did not search him, because they have no right to do so.

Which is why they didn't search him. So what if they asked him questions. It's their RIGHT and DUTY to ask him questions. If he declines to answer then fine. I don't see the problem here. If you ask a cop if he is armed and if you can search him, he'll probably turn you down. Did you just violate his rights?

You don't think there's a different standard for official conduct of police vs private citizens? And tyou don't think the deliberate taking of positions behind someone who was not in any way disrupting or interfering with police activites was an act of intimidation? REALLY? Why else were they there? Behind one guy with a video camera who was at all times polite and non-combative.

I'm all for officer safety. And I don't object to a Terry stop search. Nor would I object to a temporary disarming had he been O/Cing. That's allowed under Terry and other rulings.

I DO object to deliberate intimidation tactics to "punish" a citizen for filming them. And that's how I interpret this.

As to running around with a scanner filming cops? Well, I think it's silly. And I agree that police interpret this as "One more knucklehead looking to make himself look important on youtube." But it's neither illegal nor "rude" nor "disrespectful." Nor is it interference, nor does it put anyone at risk.

Guys with cameras filming police stops because they find it exciting are about as worthy of interaction as the average nutcase with a sandwich board preaching on a street corner. In other words, ignore it.

What did they actually DO? If you seriously are too scared to stand next to some police that's ON YOU. Especially when you put yourself in to the situation. They had no idea who he was, for all they know he could have been filming the next "hit" on police officers. You are presenting the same argument as the Michael Bloomberg acolytes who scream and run away from OC'ers. If you want to film police during potential criminal situations then you gotta put on your big boy pants and not act like a scared little kitten.

Once again, point me to one event, in the entire film where they did anything but possibly hurt his "feelings." If you object to this then you should go join Ceasefire Oregon and Mother's Against Gun Violence. They also feel that "guns" intimidate them without any basis in reality.

 

[JYD911]

This has been a great read, thank you all for your opinions. Now, let me give you all some more food for thought to expand the discussion.

What are your views on patrol officers keeping a binder with information on EVERYONE they talk to, EVEN LAW ABIDING PEOPLE.

Example- When Deputy Perez first walked up he called me by my LEGAL first name. Now I had a previous short conversation with him a few months prior, a casual conversation, and gave him my first name only (Tom)
But when he walked up he called me by Thomas, which is how it appears on my drivers licence.

Also, not in the video, as he says his goodnight, he called me Mr (last name)
Why did he even ask me for ID if he already knew who I was? And If I had not given him the info, how did he know my full legal name?

Answer- they keep a file on EVERYONE they contact or talk to NO MATTER WHY.

After the Deputy's left and I spoke to a woman who was there being curious herself, and she told me that before the deputy came over to me, he pulled out a binder, flipped through it, read a bit, then came over.

If someone has a clean record, WHY have a file on LAW abiding people??

Let the comments roll!

 

[IheartSig]

If someone has a clean record, WHY have a file on LAW abiding people??

I feel like maybe you misrepresent yourself and/or the situation. it seems like you find enjoyment in antagonizing and or challenging law enforcement and expect others to agree because....... "5th amendment".

I understand that you fall back behind the 5th and your "rights" and what not, but it seems like if you are placing yourself in the middle of a situation that doesn't involve you, and filming all these "interactions" waiting for one of the officers to slip up after you are intentionally difficult, you aren't really accomplishing much. I also would question the validity of your facts based on the fact that your sole goal is to badger others into becoming that which you are seeking.

If you were a regular in my patrol area Id probably have a file on you too, keeping information is hardly a violation of policy or procedure, or even that shocking for that matter, they are Police after all. They kind of get paid to be aware and gather information. Id certainly share that information with my coworkers. You can continue to scrutinize and demonize these guys if you like, but personally I'm not seeing it.

 

[JYD911]

You can continue to scrutinize and demonize these guys if you like, but personally I'm not seeing it.

IMHO I have done neither, just inspiring a conversation about a topic

How did I demonize anyone??

As far as scrutiny, that is the job of all the public, when it comes to any and all public servants.
JMHO

 

[Member 5605]

 

[jbett98]

My late friend from Russia would cross the street and hurriedly put distance between the police and himself if he saw one on the same block.
I asked him why he would behave this way when he lived in America.
His reply was that the Russian police were so dishonest and corrupted that they were to be avoided at all costs.
Even after 30 years of living in Portland, he could not suppress the fear of being in close contact with the police.
I feel the same way anymore. I'd just as soon avoid any contact with them if it could be helped.

 

[Norm0931]

My late friend from Russia would cross the street and hurriedly put distance between the police and himself if he saw one on the same block.
I asked him why he would behave this way when he lived in America.
His reply was that the Russian police were so dishonest and corrupted that they were to be avoided at all costs.
Even after 30 years of living in Portland, he could not suppress the fear of being in close contact with the police.
I feel the same way anymore. I'd just as soon avoid any contact with them if it could be helped.

How many interactions have you had with corrupt police where they actually did something to you?

Jesus, every few months we get one of these "all police are evil!" threads. I'd like to see the video where someone flashes a blue light near some of you and you piss your pants. Maybe you guys and Ginny Burdick can start a support group together. "Irrational Fears and how to blame others for them."

 

[jbett98]

None so far. I avoid getting myself in bad situations, I don't poke my nose in other people's business and I certainly don't gravitate towards scenes where the cops are performing there duties.