Black man harassed by cops for filming

[Drowning Man]

Crazy thing was that he wasn't even on police property...he was on the sidewalk, across the street!

 

[bluesmoke]

FWB.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Black grievance......HARD PASS.

 

[Drowning Man]

FWB.

Friends With Benefits?

Edit: Doh!
Filming While Black

 

[RogueWarrior]

wow 15 seconds until the Purple Cookie Award

 

[RogueWarrior]

Bouttoussai is Turner as in Turner v Driver
He is the reason you are allowed to video public official in the performance of the official duties.

 

[Drowning Man]

Bouttoussai is Turner as in Turner v Driver
He is the reason you are allowed to video public official in the performance of the official duties.

At least in the 5th circuit.

This is actually the scene that Turner v Driver was based off of.

 

[DiAnna]

I can think of lots of reasons that police would be nervous about someone filming their station, frankly.

The guy with the camera is a jerk.

 

[Drowning Man]

I can think of lots of reasons that police would be nervous about someone filming their station, frankly.

The guy with the camera is a jerk.

The police enforce laws…not feelings.

The cops were jerks

 

[trouble13]

I can think of lots of reasons that police would be nervous about someone filming their station, frankly.

The guy with the camera is a jerk.

There's no law against being a jerk. I don't see any evidence of racism but the police did violate his rights.

 

[DiAnna]

There's no law against being a jerk. I don't see any evidence of racism but the police did violate his rights.

How, by asking him to identify himself, and holding him in the cop car for five minutes while they figured out who he was? In most states the law requires all citizens to present ID to LEO upon request. The jerk with the camera showed up to deliberately create an opportunity to make a YouTube presence for himself, that's all.

Also, how does anyone know the camera guy was black? When he was whining about his poor wrists being in handcuffs, they looked pretty white to me.

 

[reflechissez]

How, by asking him to identify himself, and holding him in the cop car for five minutes while they figured out who he was? In most states the law requires all citizens to present ID to LEO upon request. The jerk with the camera showed up to deliberately create an opportunity to make a YouTube presence for himself, that's all.

You sure about that?

 

[DiAnna]

You sure about that?

Of course not. But he deliberately created the situation, and I'm pretty certain the police didn't ask him to film their precinct along with commentary for a future "audience".

There are some damned shitty cops out there; these weren't among them, in my opinion.

As for the bolded, I should probably change "most" to "many" since I'm not going to Google and count, lol.

 

[Bodi]

I can think of lots of reasons that police would be nervous about someone filming their station, frankly.

The guy with the camera is a jerk.

Do people think that terrorists are walking around in broad daylight openly filming police stations chancing being caught so that they can attack them later after getting information that they can get easily from other sources? How many police and police stations are actually attacked? The police attack and kill far more people than the other way around... and a terrorist would simply just walk past a few times, nonchalantly snap a couple of pictures or quick video or even better, just take some notes once around the corner... OR EVEN BETTER... just go onto Google Maps and see every single inch of the outside of the police station from the comfort of their living room.

Fort Worth Police Department Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.756...4!1sEnw3S7uy-xzAjNaMAhxUvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

[DiAnna]

@Bodi I keep forgetting that in your "cops are awful" threads, pointing out that not all cops are awful is a sin, lol.

I must just have been bored to have stopped by in the first place. I regret it. Bye!

 

[Bodi]

How, by asking him to identify himself, and holding him in the cop car for five minutes while they figured out who he was? In most states the law requires all citizens to present ID to LEO upon request.

That is only true if the officer suspects the person of committing, having committed or about to commit a crime which is why the guy specifically asked multiple times if they suspected him of committing a crime. It is known as a Terry Stop.

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime. RAS.

They offered nothing of any of that occurring and simply wanted an ID. That is illegal.

 

[reflechissez]

Of course not. But he deliberately created the situation, and I'm pretty certain the police didn't ask him to film their precinct along with commentary for a future "audience".

There are some damned shitty cops out there; these weren't among them, in my opinion.

As for the bolded, I should probably change "most" to "many" since I'm not going to Google and count, lol.

This has nothing to do with the question I asked you.

 

[Bodi]

That is only true if the officer suspects the person of committing, having committed or about to commit a crime which is why the guy specifically asked multiple times if they suspected him of committing a crime. It is known as a Terry Stop.

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime. RAS.

They offered nothing of any of that occurring and simply wanted an ID. That is illegal.

@DiAnna Almost all of my posts about police are actually genuine and are trying to point out the wrong to educate people to make things better.

 

[VanceMack]

You get that there is a small army of these "First Amendment Auditors" out there having these same types of conflicts...and race has absolutely nothing to do with the confrontations.......right?

 

[RogueWarrior]

Texas Law 38.02 is referenced in the video.
My emphasis and the point of the interaction. Mr Turner wasn't arrested only detained. He was not required to ID. 'Lawfully' is also an interesting word because LEOs have unlawfully arrested people for reasons only known to the LEOs. If knowledgeable people knows they have been unlawfully arrested, they could also refuse to ID. However, the safer route in that case is to ID and seek redress through the courts for a civil rights violation.
The point of the interaction is that government should not be interfering with a citizen going about their lawful business. Public photography from a public space is a lawful activity.

Texas 38.02:

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person;  or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is:

(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a);  or

(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code , the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07

 

[DiAnna]

This has nothing to do with the question I asked you.

Sorry to disappoint.

 

[DiAnna]

@DiAnna Almost all of my posts about police are actually genuine and are trying to point out the wrong to educate people to make things better.

In this case, the police weren't wrong; they were set up to be patsies for a self-indulgent propaganda purpose. Surely even you can see that.

You know I am among the first to stand against and decry actual police brutality, but a couple of confused cops obviously being used as YouTube fodder gets nothing from me but a disgusted scoff and a headshake.

 

[Bodi]

In this case, the police weren't wrong; they were set up to be patsies for a self-indulgent propaganda purpose. Surely even you can see that.

Are police, people we entrust to carry guns and kill people really patsies when faced
with a person standing there with a camera saying I have freedom of the press? They
can't take a few moments and check in with their boss and find out the actual law??

Instead what we see are cops just making stuff up, violating rights and demanding ID.

You know I am among the first to stand against and decry actual police brutality, but a couple of confused cops obviously being used as YouTube fodder gets nothing from me but a disgusted scoff and a headshake.

I know that you are I would just counter that cops should know the laws that they are paid to uphold.

 

[DiAnna]

@Bodhisattva You have my response to the actual facts. I'm not going to argue with your cop-hating silliness. Have a nice day.

 

[Bodi]

@Bodhisattva You have my response to the actual facts. I'm not going to argue with your cop-hating silliness. Have a nice day.

Have a good night!

I just had a good weekend with my eldest daughter and her first trip back from University. We went surfing and did a small hike the next day..