Discuss

144 Responses to “NYPD wrongfully seize wrong SD card”

  1. Brian Bishop says:

    Citizen looking for trouble finds it. News at eleven.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      Would everything have gone better if they’d just been less uppity?

      • Brian Bishop says:

        If the goal was to record the police without interference, I’d say the police were allowing that. The citizen was obviously not content with merely recording, so I’d say that was not her goal.

        • agrovista says:

          Speech is not interference

          • cavalrysword says:

            If you are talking to someone else, and a 3rd party comes up and starts talking to/over you about something else, is that interruption interference?

            I think so.

            You gave a nice, pithy little sound-bite of a slogan, but I don’t think it stands up to much analysis.

          • Jake0748 says:

             If some cops are LAWFULLY arresting someone, and not being sneaky or guilty about it, then, NO, no speech could be interference. 

          • agrovista says:

            Its not a sound bite its from
            NYPD Patrol Guide under PG 208-03 Arrests – General Processing, effective 01-01-2000 
            b. None of the following constitutes probable cause for arrest or detention of an onlooker unless the safety of officers or other persons is directly endangered or the officer reasonably believes they are endangered or the law is otherwise violated:
            (1) Speech alone, even though crude and vulgar

      • John Randolph says:

        So, you think it okay to knock people on the ground, cuff them, and arrest – oh sorry  ‘detain’- them for being uppity?  Is asking a cop what is going on somehow uppity?  I guess those cars pulled over were being  ‘uppity’ too???

      • WinstonSmith2012 says:

        “Would everything have gone better if they’d just been less uppity?”

        Standing up for your right to ask questions and not cowering like a _bunch of sheep_ when confronted by your “public servants” (yeah, right) is “uppity”?

    • Peter says:

       People charged with protecting citizen rights instead violate them for petty reasons.  So common it won’t even make the news. 

    • anwaya says:

      Yes, I agree, clearly these police officers were looking for trouble: that’s what their traffic stop is meant to turn up. But evidently there wasn’t enough, and they went looking for trouble from a citizen who had the audacity to attract their attention and ask a perfectly civil question, and engage in an activity that citizens are free to perform.

      The NYPD has two mottoes. The official “fidelis ad mortem” is creepy,  but the one on the cruisers is “Courtesy/Professionalism/Respect”. I see Professionalism, but these cops abandoned Courtesy and Respect when they assaulted a citizen and deprived her of her property. No warrant, no justification for cuffing her and detaining her. She was certainly not “secure in her person, … papers and effects”, and I didn’t hear her give consent to being searched: I don’t think it seemed reasonable to her. It didn’t seem reasonable to me either. For those of you new to the game, that’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

      Or perhaps you think the Constitution is “just a piece of paper”? Do tell.

      • WinstonSmith2012 says:

         “I see Professionalism, but these cops abandoned Courtesy and Respect”

        Courtesy and respect are important components of professionalism, so they weren’t even that.  And if you buy what’s printed on the side of cop cars, see the non-fiction film Serpico.

  2. overtonewiz says:

    When you throw rocks at a hornet’s nest, please don’t be surprised when you get stung.

  3. Mary McCurnin says:

    Why did they take the sim card? Was the traffic stop they were conducting somehow illegal?  

    It is not against the law to mouth off to cops. She didn’t throw rocks at a hornet’s nest, she yelled at it. No law broken.

    • gedsudski says:

      It was a check point.  I looks like they had a lane closed and several cars in cue for a “check”, for what I have no idea.  It’s not illegal to yell at police (although I find it disrespectful and stupid), and it’s not illegal to record them while they work.  It is annoying though, and I think all of us would agree, to have some crazy bat with a stick cam breathing down our necks while we were trying to focus on something potentially important and/or dangerous.   Guess what?  It’s also not illegal for cops to have a check point.  I think people harassing every cop, because they may be doing something wrong is not the way we want to go.  I think this lady got exactly what she wanted and HEY! Here we are talking about her and watching her video! 

      • If the State would stop harassing the citizenry, the citizenry would feel a lot less reason to harass the State.

        • msbpodcast says:

          In France, the government fears its people.

          In the ‘States the people fear their government.

          There are historic reasons for this.

          The French had their revolution and guillotined their 1%ers.The French government knows first hand what can happen when you push people too far.

          The American government will have to go the same punishment predicted long ago: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”Thomas Jefferson

          • gwailo_joe says:

            History eh? We didn’t slaughter half a million of our own people during the Civil War for nothing. . .

            We learned quite a lot: The  powers that be in these United States holds the majority of its citizens in contempt, because it knows it can always pay and supply 20% to keep the ‘uppity’ 70% in line.

            The other 10% can then freely cut in line at Disneyland.

          • EH says:

            Ah good, the tree of liberty makes a Birchy appearance. French political culture is not as tied to acts of 225 years ago like the Tea Party is, sorry. French representational government can take out the President, unlike the US, which is authoritarian all the way from bottom to top, regardless of party or the presence of “Don’t Tread On Me” flags.

      • Rob says:

        Not all checkpoints are legal.

        .And FTFL: “Simultaneous with our “arrests”, the checkpoint was closed down.”

        That doesn’t scream “legal checkpoint” to me

        • cavalrysword says:

          Or lack of sufficient manpower to do two things at once.

          • EH says:

            Why have a checkpoint if you can’t arrest people? That would suggest it’s even more illegal.

          • scav says:

            So keep doing the one that they presumably had a reason for doing in the first place, and not the illegal one that makes them look like idiots?

      • Mitch_M says:

        How is a member of the public asking public employees what they are doing “harrassment”?

      • Jake0748 says:

         What the hell is a “check point”?  I don’t want to live in a country that has them. Sounds too much like the old “Show me your papers”.    When I was a kid, my mom always told me to consider cops as my friends, and to go to them if I was ever in trouble. 

        Geez, I miss those old days. 

      • vinculture says:

         But if the cops have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear! Isn’t that what they’re always telling us?

      • Leto_Atreides says:

        I agree with you. it’s important to denounce Police abuse when it happens. But filming and harassing cops  in order to trigger or fabricate a case of police abuse  is ridiculous.

      • wysinwyg says:

         If it’s not illegal then it’s not an arrestable offense nor cause for confiscation of a citizen’s private property.

        I think people harassing every cop, because they may be doing something wrong is not the way we want to go. 

        I wasn’t the one who made the relationship between cops and citizens in the US so adversarial and I kinda doubt the person who took this video did either.  Given the choice between “harassing every cop” and rolling over and accepting authoritarian bullying dressed in the clothing of “law enforcement” I know which I’d take as the ethical choice.

        Now be a good little sheep and get back in your pen.

  4. Mitch_M says:

    I think some unsafe cars may have gotten by them during all this.

  5. cavalrysword says:

    I would like to offer a little practical information about how to go about this properly.

    Law Enforcement agencies are hierarchical.  The officers on the scene are there because they were assigned to be there.  They are performing their duties as assigned.

    If you want to question it, go find someone wearing Sgt.s stripes or Lt. bars or higher, and ask them.

    Would you want to answer questions where someone is asking you to criticize your boss?  Because I guarantee you that is how the bosses would take it.  You are putting the officers in a lose/lose situation.

    Leave the working policemen alone, go bother the brass.

    • Just_Ok says:

      Yah, they were only following orders.

      • cavalrysword says:

        As far as the safety inspection point goes, yes, they were only following orders.  Lawful orders to do a lawful thing.  They have families to support.

        As far as how they handled the provocation from the civilian (note I do not use the word citizen, because I disparage her good citizenship), I give them an F-.  

        Just as she should have sought out a Sgt or higher, they should have directed her to one.  Politely.  And/or called for one on the radio, and directed her to wait for him.  Including where to stand to meet him.  As in “He’ll park over there, so wait for him there.”

        Although I am sure they were just as aware as I am that the chances of her proceeding in the manner were essentially zero.  She was there to cause a scene.  They were stupid enough to provide her with it.  She won, they lost.

        If the officers had handled it my way, she would have wound up looking more and more obviously like someone who was just trying to create a situation for her own aggrandizement.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          …just trying to create a situation for her own aggrandizement.

          Kind of like those thugs who dumped tea in Boston Harbor. Maybe she’s trying to make changes in the corrupt, violent and oppressive internal army that wrongfully searches, seizes, impounds, assaults and lies every minute of every day in the US. It seems to me like she’s trying to do whatever she has to in order to defend her Constitutional rights. That doesn’t seem to mean anything to you.

          • cavalrysword says:

            Pray tell how her Constitutional rights were being violated by the officers conducting a safety check point.  She was not in any of the cars being stopped.

          • HarrietNYC says:

            her the first amendment rights were being violated, freedom of the press, speech and to petition the government for a regress of grievances and fourth amendent right to be secure in their person from unreasonable searches (asking for ID) + in NY state you have the right to film the police, and stand on a public sidewalk, strange that

        • EH says:

          As far as how they handled the provocation from the civilian (note I do
          not use the word citizen, because I disparage her good citizenship), I
          give them an F-. 

          Why do you disparage soldiers by implying that the officers are not also civilians?

          • endrest says:

             I’ll tell you why they’re civilians, just like you and I.  They are civilians because their jurisdiction is  set by the Constitution of the United States. Military actions are set by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Constitution gives Congress the power to set those rules that the military must follow. IIRC, there was a time when you could get dishonorably-discharged for revealing you were gay –try denying a civilian for a job you’re going to go to court for discrimination. I’ll say this once so you can understand what Big Media has been trying to give you the opposite impression of: Police are civilians just like you and I; they are not military and not subject to court martial when they misbehave.

        • Patrick Elliott-Brennan says:

           I’m with you. They ought to have pointed her to the senior officer on duty and let them deal with it.

          I wouldn’t have answered her questions unless I was the senior officer on duty. Even then the most I would said would have been to given an overview “We’re stopping cars for….”. If she had a problem with what was happening, without any specific proof of her concerns, I would have told her she’d need to take the matter up with more senior officers, Police HQ, or whatever complaints services existed.

          Besides, the police are NOT employed by you, the public. I know little of the USA but in Australia (UK,  NZ etc) they are public servants employed by a specific department. They answer to that department and consequently to the Minister – who answers to parliament which answers to you.

          Videoing the police? Fine, I reckon.
          Asking them what they’re doing? Fine.
          Being told to speak to the boss? Fine.
          Having the boss give you a brief overview and then telling you they’ll no longer speak to you? Fine

          Being manhandled or arrested for any of the above. Dumb move by the police.

          I am not a police officer but I’ve worked in child protection. I’ve had bystanders question what I was doing and people who have wanted to get in my face (never mind the violent ones).

          Your job is to stay calm, be polite, explain clearly what people are entitled to know and what, if possible, they can know and may help them to understand what is happening.

          If you have the time (as against have the time but pretend otherwise) you should explain their options and give them information.

          My experience generally was that if you stay calm and act appropriately, the great majority of intrusive bystanders will calm down, listen and then get out of your way.

          In this video I didn’t see this person physically getting in the say, or coming up too close and acting in an harassing way and I fail to see why the police thought they should take action the did.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      You are putting the officers in a lose/lose situation.

      Losers don’t really have any other situational options. I’m sorry to hear that you have such disregard for the law that you slobber all over yourself to excuse these thieves.

      • cavalrysword says:

        So in your view law enforcement officers are losers?

        All of them?  

        Always?

        I have enough regard for the law to have studied it.  (B.S., Criminology)

        Therefor I know that even if the search and seizure are deemed unlawful, theft does not come into it and therefor there are no thieves involved.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          So in your view law enforcement officers are losers?

          Certainly the ones who violate the law are.

          I have enough regard for the law to have studied it. (B.S., Criminology)

          What you call regard for the law, I would call an unwholesome fetish for authority. That really has nothing whatsoever to do with law.

          Therefor I know that even if the search and seizure are deemed unlawful, theft does not come into it and therefor there are no thieves involved.

          You’re splitting hairs while we march into totalitarianism.

          • cavalrysword says:

            I earned a professional degree in my field of employment, Deputy Sheriff.  I cannot imagine what weird mental gymnastics you have to perform to characterize that as an unwholesome fetish for authority.  It is my opinion that the public would be better served if more officers pursued the degree of training and knowledge that I did.

            And I was not splitting hairs about your misuse of the term “thieves”.  I was correcting you and explaining why you were wrong.

            Perhaps, since you regard the study of law as an unwholesome fetish for authority, you missed the parts about libel and slander?  While it is unlikely that they would pursue it either civilly or criminally, your written description of them as thieves DOES constitute defamation of character.

            But you can say whatever you want about law enforcement officers, right?  Because you consider them 2nd class citizens and below the protection of the law.

            I increasingly get the feeling that law enforcement officers are to you as Jews were to Hitler, as blacks were to slave-owners.

            Please, I encourage you to re-read your posts and see if that doesn’t seem to be the case.

            Your logic is also faulty.  You repeatedly go from the specific, past the general, to the universal.

            In this situation a police officer did a wrongful thing.  How you launch from that to all cops do it all the time leaves the fields of epistemology and logic burning in the dust as you launch into vitriolic hatred.

            There is much about this website that I respect and admire.  Your attitude towards Law Enforcement Officers is not one of them.

          • Jun-Kai Teoh says:

            Police officers, while they have power, are also often manipulated into the position they are. The ideology that they hold aren’t theirs, but the ones instilled into them by those that are actually in power.

            I’m typically far more in favor of a class-view than a “authority-people” view. 

            To me, it’s much like how the poor/working class are often the ones that tout the American Dream the most, the “pick yourself up by the bootstraps” ideal, when it is the 1% that benefits it the most and instills it in them.

            For social change to happen, the poor/working class has to be educated and “won over.”

            I look at police officers the same way. They’re given some semblance of power, of control, which fuels their vigor.

            I work in the media and have butted heads with police officers enough to know that a lot of things they say or do falls under the “what the f-” zone, but I think picking your battles is very important. They’re people, too.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            They’re people, too.

            When every citizen can legally stop, arrest, taze, shoot and otherwise harass their fellow citizens, then cops will just be ‘people’.  For now, they’re an occupying army with nearly carte blanche to abuse the rest of us.

          • Shohanna says:

             That reasoning didn’t go over well with the Germans why don’t you ask the Hague how they applied that knowledge?

          • doggo says:

            Holy hyperbole, Antimous! “Occupying army”? Really?!

          • Gilbert Wham says:

             Cop Apologist is Unapologetic.

          • doggo says:

            “… while we march into totalitarianism.” Please. Overly-dramatic much?

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Overly-dramatic much?

            Do please look at the size of the US prison population, Guantanamo, changes in IP law, Citizens United, etc.

            Not nearly dramatic enough.

        • jaduncan says:

          Criminology isn’t study of the law, it’s study of crime.

          This was a PSA from your friendly neighbourhood law grad.

    • Jonathan Roberts says:

      Leave the working policemen alone, go bother the brass.

      The working policemen are there so that you don’t bother the brass. If you could actually speak to someone with the power to change things, the beureaucracy wouldn’t be working.

  6. Boundegar says:

    I would take issue with the accusation of theft. When the police impound something, that doesn’t constitute theft, unless they just slip it in a pocket and run off and pawn it. Confiscating cameras is a clear violation of the First Amendment; but there isn’t a court in the land that would bring criminal charges in this case. And that thing about “innocent until proven guilty” applies to the po-po too.

    • Jake0748 says:

       No, morally it is still theft.  “Impounding” stuff, when the victim has no reasonable expectation of every recovering it, is theft.  Just theft under the guise of law enforcement. 
      Still sucks.

      • Gilbert Wham says:

        ‘Taking something with intent to permanently deprive the owner’

      • Boundegar says:

        Oh I agree it sucks. But if you have the legal right to take something, it’s not theft. And they do.

        Taking something isn’t theft if you paid for it, or if you promised to pay for it, or if it’s free, or if you’re a LEA in the line of duty. There’s probably 12 other exceptions.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          I guess that these cops aren’t true Scotsmen.

        • miasm says:

          Surely the procedural confiscation of a civilian’s personal possession, in the line of duty, becomes Theft when the intent at the time is to later ‘lose’ the thing.

          • Boundegar says:

            I agree. Too bad it’s so hard to prove bad intent.

            I take that back. If it was easy, I’d be in the jailhouse on the go.

          • wysinwyg says:

             Yes, it’s hard to prove intent.  This isn’t a court of law, it’s a discussion of events that happened in the world.  Conjecture — especially conjecture informed by context — is allowed.  And in context “theft” is indeed a fair characterization.

        • Jake0748 says:

           Ok. You are talking legalese.  I said “morally” it is theft.  And I’m really not sure that taking something as a LEA, even in the line of duty, is a good exemption.  Don’t they need warrants and stuff? 

    • Just_Ok says:

      It’s copyright-theft.

  7. Brian Bishop says:

    My comments near the beginning of the thread were removed and as far as I can tell did not in any way violate the comment policy. So I may continue to actively participate in a site I value greatly, can someone please help me understand the rationale behind removing my comments? Thanks.

    • Darron Moore says:

       Soapboxes

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      We have a policy against blaming the victim.

      • Aahz says:

         Good to see free and open discourse is alive and well here. 

      • Scazza says:

         Define victim?  When I watch the video, I see a bunch of cops set up by a lunatic who wants attention and goaded them into her little play.  I don’t see her as a victim at all, especially since I’m sure she was released within a few hours for her bs.  I guess its still cool to hate on the cops like everyone does. 
        Its nice how everyone likes to judge the entire group of “police” by the tiny amount of actually corrupt cops, but hate it when people are stereotyping against races or religions…  a bit of a double standard there sadly.
        Infact, no where on the video leading up to the confrontation do we see a need for this person to question the actions of the officers.  Safety stops and checks happen all the time, and nothing was amiss, so her actions to goad the officers into this situation just plays against her in my mind, but leave it to everyone to gloss over that.
        And no, I don’t think they handled it well, but I have no sympathy for her either.

        • (oops, comment deleted by mod because it doesn’t fit the TOTALITARIAN STATE narrative)

        • scav says:

          No double standard evident here.  Firstly, I see no indication that mockery of religious stereotypes is unacceptable here. Not complaining, just saying. 

          Secondly, you can’t equate being a cop with belonging to a racial group. One *chooses* to be a cop, and if in doing so you choose to be complicit in the actions of “bad” cops and don’t hold yourself to the high standard of responsibility that goes along with power over others, then you have to take your share of the criticism.

          Thirdly, while we’re talking about power: abuse, disparagement or belittling of others when carried out from a position of greater social power (for example, everyday boring old racism)  is not at all the same deal as criticising a group who have arbitrary and unaccountable power over you.

        • wysinwyg says:

          Define victim?  When I watch the video, I see a bunch of cops set up by
          a lunatic who wants attention and goaded them into her little play.  I
          don’t see her as a victim at all, especially since I’m sure she was
          released within a few hours for her bs.

          If she was subject to wrongful arrest and wrongful search and seizure then she is a victim of wrongful arrest and wrongful search and seizure regardless of whether or not she’s a “lunatic” (is that characterization somehow less prejudicial or pejorative than characterizing cops as armed thugs?  why is she a lunatic, because she dared to challenge authority?).  Standard definition of “victim” applies and “I’m sure she was released within a few hours for her bs” is no excuse for arresting someone for a non-arrestable offense.  Cops were clearly in the wrong here even if the woman was hypothetically being abrasive (as though cops are never unnecessarily abrasive /s).

          Its nice how everyone likes to judge the entire group of “police” by the
          tiny amount of actually corrupt cops, but hate it when people are
          stereotyping against races or religions…  a bit of a double standard
          there sadly.

          As already pointed out, people don’t choose their races but they do choose to be cops.  Also, one may fairly judge the entire group of cops to be corrupt (notice the lack of scare quotes) by the fact that the corrupt ones keep their jobs as cops.  When corrupt cops aren’t driven out of departments I’m led to believe that the institution is corrupt and that everyone who works as a part of it is complicit in that corruption.  This is one of the bases on which Catholocism is routinely criticized here on BB contrary to your whining.

          Infact, no where on the video leading up to the confrontation do we see a
          need for this person to question the actions of the officers.

          Whether or not there is a “need” for it is clearly subject to interpretation.  I think there is always a need to question authority.  You’re obviously not willing to do it you adorable little authoritarian follower, you; I’m glad this woman is cut from a better cloth than you.

          Safety stops and checks happen all the time, and nothing was amiss,

          Then why did the officers handle the situation so poorly?  How does the phrase go?  “If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide.”  Funny how cops never have a sense of humor about it when they’re on the other end of the sentiment.

          I guess its still cool to hate on the cops like everyone does.

          As long as police departments in my country routinely make themselves incubators for corruption and abuse of power I will hate on cops regardless of whether or not it is “cool”.  If you want to hang out somewhere where mindless deference to authority is “cool” there’s always theblaze.com and breitbart.com.

          • Scazza says:

             Wow, the irony is thick here.  I love how you glossed over the part where I said race or religions, and choose only the race part.  So you are saying its okay to generalize and sterotype jews on this site because they choose to be jews?  Is that what you are saying?  Because they CHOOSE to be cops, we can generalize that they are all corrupt and horrible people?  Seriously, where do you people get taught this crap? 

            “As long as police departments in my country routinely make themselves
            incubators for corruption and abuse of power I will hate on cops
            regardless of whether or not it is “cool”.”

            How about hating on corrupt cops only and not calling for the blood of all cops?  Nice job there. 

            Also the police have no reason to answer any questions of any bystanders in the middle of an investigation, and just because she thinks she has the right doesn’t make her have the right to interfer with the police during an investigation.  If she had a question, she could ask the lt. on duty who are in charge of these officers, they have no reason or need to answer any of her questions.
            Maybe you should get your information on police policies and procedures from somewhere other than other commenters on boingboing. 

          • wysinwyg says:

            Wow, the irony is thick here.

            Ah, impotent posturing.  The mating call of the internet tough guy.

            I love how you glossed over the part where I said race or religions, and
            choose only the race part.  So you are saying its okay to generalize
            and sterotype jews on this site because they choose to be jews?

            Actually I didn’t “gloss over” that.  I directly addressed it:

            When corrupt cops aren’t driven out of departments I’m led to believe that the institution is corrupt and that everyone who works as a part of it is complicit in that corruption.  This is one of the bases on which Catholocism is routinely criticized here on BB contrary to your whining.

            The irony is thick indeed.

            Is that what you are saying?

            Lord, thank you for making my enemies ridiculous.  You should also consider the fact that the term “Jew” is ambiguous referring both to an adherent of a religion (Judaism) and a member of an ethnic group (Jewish).

            Because they CHOOSE to be cops, we can generalize that they are all corrupt and horrible people?

            Where did I say all cops are corrupt and horrible people?  Just pull down the quote out of my previous post, don’t put words in my mouth please.  (I know, I know, it’s so hard to win an argument when you have to try to read and understand what the other person is actually saying.)

            How about hating on corrupt cops only and not calling for the blood of all cops?  Nice job there.

            Once again, please point out where I did such a thing.  I pointed out that corrupt cops are not driven out of police departments and a few implications of this fact.  You could try addressing the actual argument.  But you probably won’t.

            Also the police have no reason to answer any questions of any bystanders
            in the middle of an investigation, and just because she thinks she has
            the right doesn’t make her have the right to interfer with the police
            during an investigation.

            You might not be able to think of a reason — but then you don’t seem so strong in the “thinking for yourself” department in the first place.

            If she had a question, she could ask the lt. on duty who are in charge
            of these officers, they have no reason or need to answer any of her
            questions.

            If the Lt. was not on the scene then I’m not sure why that should be a requirement.

            Maybe you should get your information on police policies and procedures
            from somewhere other than other commenters on boingboing.

            Given that you’re trying to justify a wrongful arrest and search/seizure it seems to me you’re the one who needs a refresher on police policies and procedures (as do the cops involved).

  8. Darron Moore says:

    Following someone trying to do their job at close range, regardless of whether she/he is video recording, is both annoying and harassing.  The woman videoing is not satisfied with simply recording the activity, which she admits to not understanding or is in any way involved, and that, along with her inappropriate language led to her arrest and property confiscation.  If she had held her distance and simply recorded the activity we would not be watching this silly attempt to be the next martyred citizen.

    • Jonathan Roberts says:

      She actually seemed a bit disappointed that they weren’t taking any notice of her until she was right in their faces. Incidentally, “You’re a public servant” =/= “You work for me”, at least not in the way she seems to have meant it.

      • “You work for me” = “I pay your salary” = “Fuck you, pig”

        cops do not respond well to any of those.

        in other news, cop baiting! new sport? youtube seems to think so…

        • Al Billings says:

           Who gives a fuck if they respond well to it? I can stand on a public sidewalk watching the cops (or filming them) and it isn’t illegal, even if they hate it. It isn’t my job to make the cops have a nice day if they’re going to go around illegitimately abusing citizens.

    • HarrietNYC says:

      if you watched the video, the cop quickly escalated to arrest, she asked what they were doing, he said ‘safety inspection” (used to be a check for expired inspection and registation stickers, not sure what they were looking at here) so she asked what that means (i happen to know the two people involved, i don’t think she drives a car, so really she may not know what he meant), he tells her move along, she correctly states she is allowed to be on the sidewalk, he replies by asking for her ID, which is improper since we are not required to carry papers and this is a common intimation tactic for the NYPD and a run up to arrest), she refuses, so he arrests her. They also arrested the person she was with, that’s whose SD was stolen by the police. Yes stolen, it’s very common in NYC for cops to erase footage they don’t like, apparently they were being cute or lazy and just took the SD card. 
      It is very possible that this officer or one of his many co-workers on the scene knew the people who where filming them, the NYPD plastered their faces on flyers that looked like wanted posters in the station houses over the summer claiming they were professional activists, complete with their home address and SS numbers.  Later they showed up at their building, lights on, sirens blaring for no reason, just to harass them. This is the police department that had one of their own committed to a really horrible city hospital after they found out he was gonna whistle blow and out them for their quotas for low level arrests and manipulating crime stats, or   as the NY Times put it “a  a team of police officers, led by a deputy chief, raided the home of a police officer named Adrian Schoolcraft, and dragged him out of his bed and to the psychiatric emergency room at Jamaica Hospital Medical Center. He was held for six days in a locked ward. No judge was involved. There was no hearing.” His family wasn’t told where he was. Then there’s the NYPD’s abuse of Occupy Wall Street, from pepper straying to kettling and beating up peaceful protesters. Oh, and lets not forget the number of minority teenagers killed by NYPD, the latest being Kamini Gray.

      • SwimmingTowardsPie says:


        she asked what they were doing, he said ‘safety inspection” (used to be a check for expired inspection and registation stickers, not sure what they were looking at here)

        Brighter minds than I have called the practice a “fishing expedition.”

        • Scazza says:

           Maybe so, but they can and do have the right to pull you over and check if they have any reasonable expectation of a violation (ran the plates before pulling over, etc). 
          On top of that, maybe its different in the US, but in Canada, especially during cottage season, cops pull over all kinds of vehicles to actually inspect their “safety” when they are hauling trailers and campers etc, as many of them ARE in violation.  So they were doing their job, and doing it fine.

    • Mary McCurnin says:

      Does. Not. Matter. What the cops did was against the law.

  9. incipientmadness says:

    I’m just gonna post what all loyal Boingers are thinking right now: Fuck Tha Police.  Putting them on camera is the best way  to achieve this goal. 

  10. Eliza C says:

     I never understood WHY no one can video tape American cops. Undercover cops, sure but these guys? Is this the same for UK too?

    • Mary McCurnin says:

      It is not against the law. It is against the will of the cop. 

    • headcode says:

       Actually, we are allowed to video cops.  It’s just that the cops don’t know the law.

      • James Penrose says:

         In many cases they know it quite well but those being arrested are in for a wild ride until the situation can be resolved in court at great expense and after great personal humiliaiton

        Jail is not a pleasant place especially for the general public not on a first name basis with the jailers or those who routinely have a bail bondsman on speed dial like the bulk of the quaint inmates they will be spending some time with.

    • Jonathan Roberts says:

      There’s a summary of the rules in the UK and the US on this site: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/photography_law_rights.html
      It includes a summary of people’s rights specific to NYC: 
      http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/law/nyc_photography_police.jpg

  11. toyg says:

    Carrying empty or fake camera films to hand over to authorities “on request”, replacing good ones with a deft sleight of hand, has always been a staple of photo-reporters working in undemocratic countries.

    • Tynam says:

       This, exactly.  When videoing cops… palm a spare SD card in advance.  It’s not hard to do, and you can make the switch at the moment you pop the camera.

      • BradBell says:

        So do you put NWA on the SD card then?

      • Edward Becerra says:

         Or simply use an EyeFi and make certain that you’re uploading your photos in real time, taking the precaution to email them to off-shore accounts located in nations that have a grudge with the USA. I expect that sooner or later, a police officer will get caught, and embarrassing pictures will surface from overseas – just in time to really screw up any legal cases coming from it.

  12. Aahz says:

    Antinous, isn’t deleting comments you disagree with an abuse of your own power as moderator?  Or does BoingBoing only value free speech elsewhere?

    • Gilbert Wham says:

       Well, given the nature of the job, it’s certainly exercising that power. Now, I didn’t see it personally, but reverse-engineering from the replies, the very first comment on the article was the inevitable authoritarian ‘well, she got what she deserved’ type blather that pops up sure as night follows day every time there’s a post about police acting like assholes. It’s not really censorship if whatever was said is absolutely interchangeable with every other cop-apologist post ever in the history of the bloody internet. I’d delete them too, just to get on the poster’s tits.

  13. gedsudski says:

    This woman is nothing more than a professional inciter, and a fame whore.  And don’t say I’m a sympathizer,   I have seen my share of outrageous cop behavior and hate it.   I don’t think these were bad guys though, they only fell into her trap.  Do any of us believe for one second that this woman really had any genuine concern for the people in the cars being pulled over??    She wanted to have some internet fame, maybe go viral, make the news….get on Boing Boing… and it worked!!  She may have bruised wrists but she sure got the attention she was looking for!!

  14. gedsudski says:

    And if you do your research you’ll see this isn’t her first “video”….  it’s her career.  Definitely team NYPD on this one, no question. 

  15. Aahz says:

    So just to check – it appears comments the moderator disagrees with are deleted, while he states freedom of speech is important.  Antinous, isn’t this a clear contradiction between rhetoric and action?  This is a real question, as I am becoming pretty troubled by the way discourse is being edited/suppressed here.

    I’m not going to go overboard and say it’s the same level of behavior as the cops up there, but it does have the same root in using your power to get rid of behavior you don’t like, power the rest of us lack. 

  16. lostinutah says:

    Exactly how many SD cards does a single camera hold?

  17. lostinutah says:

    After viewing the video, it looked to me like:
    a) The woman spent a lot of time filming with no attention paid to her at all,
    b) It was only after DEMANDING attention that attention was paid to her,
    c) The “apparently stolen” SD card was not stolen after all.

    It’s interesting to me how many people either know or pretend to know the intricacies of the various laws the NYPD is tasked with enforcing, and the various rights of citizens to harass police vs. police not allowing citizens to harass them.

    People who make it their job to provoke action by police officers should perhaps not be surprised (and then pretend to be outraged) when their provocation has its desired result.

    • HarrietNYC says:

      It’s not clear from the video and the YouTube title, but the SD card that was stolen was from her friend’s camera. You can hear her calling out to him, and he was arrested also. The police took the SD card from his camera, apparently thinking that it was hers. I know this because I know both of them and they later cleared this up on their FB pages. 

    • wysinwyg says:

      Between the woman “demanding” attention and the police officers one of the two parties actually broke the law in this exchange.  Care to guess which?

    • Al Billings says:

       Sorry but it isn’t against the law to be an asshole to cops. Kowtowing to their authority isn’t part of the law either. There was LAWS. If you aren’t breaking the LAWS, cops have no actual cause to arrest you. Don’t want people filming cops? Go pass a law against it and then get it past the Supreme Court when people point out it violates the spirit of the Constitution.

  18. I always find it amazed when the people in these videos get outraged and emotional when things escalate and they get arrested.

    At some point you need to realize that, despite the fact that you do have certain rights, escalating a situation with the police will almost always end up with things being confiscated or you being arrested.

    When she decided to become confrontational and not listen to the police telling her to move down the sidewalk, common sense should have told her that she’s going to risk “unhappy” consequences for standing up for her rights.

    It’ll be interesting how this story continues with the DA’s office.  She could sue , but they could charge her with obstruction for not moving down the sidewalk when asked.  

    • agrovista says:

      “they could charge her with obstruction for not moving down the sidewalk when asked.”
      No they cant 
      b. None of the following constitutes probable cause for arrest or detention of an onlooker unless the safety of officers or other persons is directly endangered or the officer reasonably believes they are endangered or the law is otherwise violated:
      (1) Speech alone, even though crude and vulgar
      (2) Requesting and making notes of shield numbers or names of officers
      (3) Taking photographs, videotapes or tape recordings
      (4) Remaining in the vicinity of the stop or arrest.

      • They can charge and sue her for anything.  The question is what gets dropped,  prosecuted, or kicked out of court.  An arrogant DA might push forward on this, claiming the situation doesn’t match those exemptions – or that those exemptions are outdated and in need of review.  Those are policy guidelines issued as part of a settlement agreement – not legislated conditions.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      At some point you need to realize that, despite the fact that you do have certain rights, escalating a situation with the police will almost always end up with things being confiscated or you being arrested.

      It will certainly continue to happen as long as there’s an army of authoritarian apologists cheerfully blaming the victims.

    • JonS says:

      “At some point you need to realize that, despite the fact that you do have certain rights, escalating a situation with the police will almost always end up with things being confiscated or you being arrested.”

      If that’s true, then you have no rights, merely suggestions about how you’d like the govt to behave. If that’s ok with them. And not too much of an inconvienience.

  19. James Penrose says:

    I believe the simple definition of theft is the unlawful taking of someone’s property with the intent of depriving them of it.  The cops did not act in good faith or so it seems to me in seizing her property.

    • WinstonSmith2012 says:

       “The government works for us and not the other way around.”

      Ha!  That’s the theory…

  20. Jenni David says:

    Madelyո. true tհat Kim`s repоrt is  surprisiոg, last mоոday I bоugհt  a braոd ոew Astоո Martiո DB5  frоm makiոg  $9863 tհis past five weeks aո wоuld yоu believe 10k lass-mоոtհ. tհis is aсtually tհe mоst  fiոaոсialy rewardiոg Ive ever dоոe.  I begaո tհis 5 mоոtհs agо  aոd almоst immediately startad  makiոg  miոimum  $86 per-հr. I fоllоw tհis great liոk,,.,,…. Fℴx85.ℂℴm

  21. WinstonSmith2012 says:

    You can sure tell the higher level of intellect here.  Take a look at the garbage comments by the sheep on YouTube to understand why this country is beyond help.

  22. Art says:

    The police department should hire PILs ( Public Information Liaisons).

    These PILs can stand around an ongoing police event and distribute real-time information about the police activity to the inquiring public.

    Just kidding :)

    • HarrietNYC says:

      The NYPD has community affairs officers who are kinda supposed to do that. A large events their the ones wearing light blue. They are ineffective, unless you need medical attention, then they are ones most likely to be nice and actually call for help. Such as it is in NYC with Bloomberg’s army.

  23. Onigorom says:

    It may not be illegal, but if someone picks me out to film me in public I find it unpleasant, particularly if I have no way to leave the scene. Generally, I don’t want to be filmed, and if someone does it, it makes me angry. But if s/he asks beforehand, I guess it is fine, depends of who or how the person is. So, I guess it is a matters of method rather than content. No one should be arrested because of filming, but filming can make some people angry, it is not a passive act.

    • Darron Moore says:

       And that is the point in a nutshell.  Turn the tables on any one of the folks who blindly defend the so-called victim and they would find it equally as annoying and would do anything to get out from under the lens.

    • Mary McCurnin says:

      This happens to you often?

      • it’s happened to me several times, and it’s irritating. either it’s “dude you’re crazy looking can i get some pictures” or “dude you’re crazy looking when you work can i get some pictures” or else people just don’t ask, they just shoot.

        i’m a photographer-for-money, and i don’t just bang away at people i don’t know without asking, because you never know what those photos are going to be used for.

        the internet. a good reason to not let any random schmo take your picture. (including me.)

    • SwimmingTowardsPie says:

      It may be unpleasant, but as the authorities are keen to remind the public when it suits them, people (including LEOs) have no expectation of privacy whilst located in a public place.  

    • Al Billings says:

       Who cares if you find it unpleasant if it is legal? Are you going to break the law to do something about it because you don’t like it?

  24. scav says:

    Thanks. Never seen that quote in context before.

  25. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Pointing out the blatantly obvious hardly makes you an “apologist.”

    Perceiving your own political prejudices as blatant obviousness is a good start.

  26. Cops acting like douches, but.. chick really sounds like someone who likes to push peoples buttons..
    Just sayin!

Leave a Reply