Black man harassed by cops for filming

[Peter King]

A new Chick Fil A near me was simply built in the wrong location. The line for the drive through has created a nightmare for this one neighborhood. They got together and hired a firm to monitor, count, film and otherwise document the traffic nightmare.

Well that is something different, not so called self appointed auditor losers.

 

[Court Jester]

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

Hate to break it to you DiAnna, but there are no laws which are specifically created to protect people's feelings, including government agents. Here in AMERICA it is LEGAL to photograph, film, video record, or otherwise observe ANYONE in a public place, especially on public property---even near a police station. And as long as a citizen is not directly interfering with police activity, or obstructing them from doing their jobs, their FEELINGS about being observed are not a protected right.

The guy with the camera is a jerk.

How was he a jerk? He was calm, respectful, and compliant. He complied even when the officer's demand were UNLAWFUL. So, how does that make the citizen a jerk? And we know the officer's demands were unlawful, by the very fact that after detaining the man with the camera, and with ZERO crime to charge him with, they let the man go with a warning to stay off police property----which BTW the man never violated. And besides, "police property" which is accessible to the public is in FACT public property.

There are a lot of these so called 'first amendment auditors' who are jerks, and who cuss, yell, or are disrespectful, but this guy did none of that.

 

[Bodi]

Failure to Identify - the Texas Criminal Law | PC §38.02

The article provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the updated Texas Failure to Identify law in PC §38.02. Learn more about the law here.

saputo.law

Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with @DiAnna until I find something that says otherwise.

Did you read it all the way through?

The Failure to Identify crime in the state of Texas requires you to provide police officers your name and certain other identifying information when you have been arrested. It also gives police the right to arrest you if they have lawfully arrested or detained you or if you are a witness to a crime and you give a fake name to the officer. The punishment for this offense ranges from a Class C Misdemeanor to a Class A Misdemeanor, depending on the specific allegations. Learn more detailed information about the Failure to Identify offense below.

 

[Bodi]

or DETAINED.

You can only be detained if the police suspect you of having committed, about to commit or in the process of committing a crime.

They can't "just demand" ID from a person engaging in legal activiity.

 

[Bodi]

Why was he filming the police station?

Irrelevant. It is legal to film a police station.

 

[Court Jester]

How, by asking him to identify himself, and holding him in the cop car for five minutes while they figured out who he was?

Why did the police need to figure out who he was? What crime did the man commit? He wasn't even doing anything which could be reasonably believed to be criminal?

What if the man just showed up and stood across the street from the police station like he was in this video without a camera and was observing the police station? Would that mean the police should have a right to detain him? This happened in Texas, and to my knowledge Texas does NOT have a 'stop and identify' statute, so what makes you think the guy was obligated to ID himself when he was committing no crime?

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.

Yeah, he showed up to make a video and possibly bait the police. But he broke no laws, and the police should be smarter than taking the bait, and then come of looking like Gestapo officers.

There is no problem with the police approaching and ASKING questions. And maybe had they done so without making illegal demands and threats the cops could have had a polite conversation and got a feel for what the guy was doing--- which BTW should be obvious to anyone with half a brain anyway. And maybe after a different type of approach, and the citizen just like in this chooses not to answer questions, the police just walk away. Because I assure you that happens MORE times than how this happened, and yeah, those interactions never make to youtube. But these cops chose to take the bait, and so they come off like the jerks. Even going so far as to unnessesarily clamp down the handcuffs and bend his arm when he was in NO WAY resisting, just to play some retaliation on the guy for what, for not licking their boots?

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.

How racially intolerant are willing to make yourself sound DiAnna? Do you actually believe that all Black people are the exact same complexion? And besides, all people have lighter palms/wrists than other parts of their bodies, even White people. There is always a lack of melanin in the palm/wrist area on EVERYONE--- hello!!!!!

 

[Bodi]

If you don't know why he was filming them, you could have just said so.

Using your reasoning, it seems you would be completely comfortable with someone following your children to school and filming them on the street, day after day. 100% legal, right? You wouldn't consider that suspicious? You wouldn't ask the police to find out why this stranger is filming your children?

No. That is stalking, harassment and child endangerment.

 

[Bodi]

Nope. You called it "stalking" because they were your children. Public sidewalk, 100% legal.

Definition of Stalking — Judicial Education Center

Tutorial on the crimes of stalking and harassment for New Mexico judges

jec.unm.edu

THis asshole wasn't filming the building, he was filming the police officers coming and going from their jobs.


When there are shift changes. What shifts a particular police offer works. What personal car does an officer drive. What's her license plate number. Cops deal some of the nastiest of nasty ass people in our society. and we we clearly see here, a lot of people hate cops.

And it is unimaginable to you why the police would consider it suspicious that someone is filming them coming and going from their jobs.

 

[Bodi]

But he is right. Detention is not arrest and in Texas you do not have yo give your name until you are arrested and the cops should actually know that.

Detention is irrelevant though... the police can not simply detain a person engaging in a legal activity. The police must suspect you of committing, having committed or about the commit a crime to detain you. Filming in public is legal.

 

[Bodi]

Okay, looks like I was wrong about the Texas law.

One of the reasons you are cool and so many others are not... we are all wrong from time to time and it is best to just admit it and move on.

AMERICAN ROX!

 

[Court Jester]

Why was he filming the police station?

He was doing it to spark the very thing which occurred. To see how the police at this particular station would react.

Personally, I don't believe that these types of First Amendment auditor videos are very interesting. But some of them do catch some cops acting badly. Good cops, who are I believe the majority, do not concern themselves with citizens observing, monitoring, even filming them. Why should they? And it isn't like the police aren't filming us just about everywhere now anyway.

I suspect nobody likes being filmed while they are working, but today it comes with the territory. Show many any business today which does not have cameras covering their employees nearly everywhere, other than in restrooms or break rooms?

 

[American]

maybe a self appointed auditor.

I have seen loads of government facilities who people film because it is their right, but I have also seen them filming a Chick Fil A, I don't get why that is being "audited". To me that sounds a bit like trying to get attention from the restaurant, maybe get them angry enough for them getting "assaulted/confronted" so that they an either sue or get clicks.

I did notice videoed the gate opening and closing.

 

[Rawley]

Irrelevant. It is legal to film a police station.

And it's completely legal for someone to film your children walking to school. You wouldn't call the cops? If you say no, you are full of shit

 

[Rawley]

No. That is stalking, harassment and child endangerment.

No stalking, not harassment - other side of the street, just like your guy.

 

[Rawley]

He was doing it to spark the very thing which occurred. To see how the police at this particular station would react.

Personally, I don't believe that these types of First Amendment auditor videos are very interesting. But some of them do catch some cops acting badly. Good cops, who are I believe the majority, do not concern themselves with citizens observing, monitoring, even filming them. Why should they? And it isn't like the police aren't filming us just about everywhere now anyway.

I suspect nobody likes being filmed while they are working, but today it comes with the territory. Show many any business today which does not have cameras covering their employees nearly everywhere, other than in restrooms or break rooms?

This creep wasn't just filming them doing their jobs. He was filming what personal vehicles these officers were driving. Cops had every right to be suspicious.

 

[Drowning Man]

This creep wasn't just filming them doing their jobs. He was filming what personal vehicles these officers were driving. Cops had every right to be suspicious.

Suspicious? Sure.

Detain him? Nope.
Demand an ID? Nope.
Hot-box him? Nope.

 

[Bodi]

And it's completely legal for someone to film your children walking to school. You wouldn't call the cops? If you say no, you are full of shit

No stalking, not harassment - other side of the street, just like your guy.

You said following a specific child every day filming them. That is stalking, harassment, etc.

A person just standing across the street from a school filming kids arriving or leaving or parents dropping off kids for 15 minutes or so like this guy did? No problem.

A person filming the crossing walk for how many people don't stop and your kid is in the video a couple of days as a result? No problem.

But you are creating a Straw Man here and it is not very honest.

 

[Bodi]

This creep wasn't just filming them doing their jobs. He was filming what personal vehicles these officers were driving. Cops had every right to be suspicious.

If course the cops do. They are also within their right and job description to check it out. If the film guy consents to talking and they have a conversation and get info? Cool. What they are not legally allowed to do is detain the person and demand ID. That is ILLEGAL.

 

[Gaius46]

Detention is irrelevant though... the police can not simply detain a person engaging in a legal activity. The police must suspect you of committing, having committed or about the commit a crime to detain you. Filming in public is legal.

I agree. The problem is that judges bend over backwards to give the cops every benefit so if the cop says “your honor he was being detained because in my experience people with cameras who make furtive gestures are up to no good.” it’s even money or better that the judges will agree.

 

[Bodi]

I agree. The problem is that judges bend over backwards to give the cops every benefit so if the cop says “your honor he was being detained because in my experience people with cameras who make furtive gestures are up to no good.” it’s even money or better that the judges will agree.

That is changing though, big time. Less and less cops come up guns blazing and are chill about people filming them.

Film every interaction with the police so that they can not later lie about it to a judge. NEVER trust that they will have their bodycams on, or sound or video working. NEVER trust that they will not redact portions of the footage. Film them yourself.

 

[Rawley]

You said following a specific child every day filming them. That is stalking, harassment, etc.

A person just standing across the street from a school filming kids arriving or leaving or parents dropping off kids for 15 minutes or so like this guy did? No problem.

A person filming the crossing walk for how many people don't stop and your kid is in the video a couple of days as a result? No problem.

But you are creating a Straw Man here and it is not very honest.

Nope. Not a strawman. Completely legal. Legally speaking, no different from what your friend is doing.

 

[Bodi]

Nope. Not a strawman. Completely legal. Legally speaking, no different from what your friend is doing.

Filming the police and public servants doing their job is legal.
Following a child around every day filming them is not legal.
I am sorry that you do not know the difference nor understand what a Straw Man is... it is replacing the argument, BTW. ie public servant vs private citizen

 

[Rawley]

Filming the police and public servants doing their job is legal.
Following a child around every day filming them is not legal.
I am sorry that you do not know the difference nor understand what a Straw Man is... it is replacing the argument, BTW. ie public servant vs private citizen

I really could not care less about your very uninformed positions or your hatred for the police. Thank God you are the tiniest of constituencies in any society.

Have a nice day.

 

[Bodi]

I really could not care less about your very uninformed positions or your hatred for the police. Thank God you are the tiniest of constituencies in any society.

Have a nice day.

As long as you understand that your argument was wrong and that my argument was correct I am more than happy to approve your departure from here.

 

[Bodi]

I really could not care less about your very uninformed positions or your hatred for the police. Thank God you are the tiniest of constituencies in any society.

Have a nice day.

I care about society and your hatred of innocent people is well noted here. And it is very clear which of us has an uniformed position here.