Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LiveLeak)   Smartphone user detained for "suspicion of terrorist activity" doesn't take any shiat from cops; walks away a free man   (liveleak.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, smartphones  
•       •       •

8124 clicks; posted to Video » on 15 Aug 2012 at 9:30 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-15 12:37:02 AM  
He got so much more video during the conversation....well done.

// sweet beard
 
2012-08-15 01:47:58 AM  
I normally think guys that do this are just being attention whores, but he did a pretty good job there. It'd be nice if they'd get the message that just because you don't like someone doing something, that doesn't mean you get to intimidate them into not doing it.
 
2012-08-15 05:03:09 AM  
Anyone who video records a police station for no apprent reason is just an attention whore who is asking to get his ass kicked,

/and he should.
 
2012-08-15 06:27:53 AM  
Weirdly, I am usually for the bloke, but this time, he was so belligerent I am siding with the officers. They seemed calm and just wanted to talk to the guy about what he was doing. With both sides talking over each other, it's hard to be rational. All he had to do was show he wasn't filming the police station, and let's face it, what real terror info can you get from a mobile phone film of the outside of a police station?
 
2012-08-15 07:02:17 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Anyone who video records a police station for no apprent reason is just an attention whore who is asking to get his ass kicked,

/and he should.


Maybe he was reading his e-mail, or just making it look like he was taking pics. Either way, cops are getting too militaristic, need to be reminded they aren't gestapo.
 
2012-08-15 07:10:56 AM  

PreMortem: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Anyone who video records a police station for no apprent reason is just an attention whore who is asking to get his ass kicked,

/and he should.

Maybe he was reading his e-mail, or just making it look like he was taking pics. Either way, cops are getting too militaristic, need to be reminded they aren't gestapo.


And libertarians are pretentious dickheads. So a pox on both their houses.
 
2012-08-15 08:21:38 AM  

colinspooky: Weirdly, I am usually for the bloke, but this time, he was so belligerent I am siding with the officers. They seemed calm and just wanted to talk to the guy about what he was doing. With both sides talking over each other, it's hard to be rational. All he had to do was show he wasn't filming the police station, and let's face it, what real terror info can you get from a mobile phone film of the outside of a police station?


Cops shouldn't have needed to even talk to him about filming outside a police station. He has every right to be belligerent when there was no crime.
 
2012-08-15 09:21:50 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Anyone who video records a police station for no apprent reason is just an attention whore who is asking to get his ass kicked,

/and he should.


I don't believe for a second he was recording video or pictures. The cops admit he was holding it sideways, yet the entire video is vertical.
 
2012-08-15 09:42:42 AM  

GAT_00: colinspooky: Weirdly, I am usually for the bloke, but this time, he was so belligerent I am siding with the officers. They seemed calm and just wanted to talk to the guy about what he was doing. With both sides talking over each other, it's hard to be rational. All he had to do was show he wasn't filming the police station, and let's face it, what real terror info can you get from a mobile phone film of the outside of a police station?

Cops shouldn't have needed to even talk to him about filming outside a police station. He has every right to be belligerent when there was no crime.


Cops should only investigatively detain people they know are guilty of a crime, and not those who they suspect but cannot prove are criminals. They should especially steer clear of those suspected of crims that GAT_00 thinks shouldn't be crimes. Anyone not proven guilty in a court of law has every right to be belligerent, and should be as belligerent as possible.

Finally, they should be focusing their resources on helping GAT_00 stick it to the potheads, because he hates those guys they are so dumb.

/been terry stopped before.
//it went fine, cost me all of a couple of minutes.
 
2012-08-15 09:48:20 AM  
More like a dumb phone user.

Seriously, this guy is an idiot... making his video with the phone turned incorrectly, he's not even getting the police officers int he frame properly that he's trying to record.

If nothing else, this guy should have been knocked down to the ground and tazed for recording vertically. I would support laws enabling police officers to do this.
 
2012-08-15 09:50:50 AM  
Awwww. Smitty is projecting. Some big bad cop made smitty feel all bad. Poor snow flake. Mommy make it better.

.
...
.....
You're a sh*t for brains smitty.
 
2012-08-15 09:55:34 AM  

Smackledorfer: Cops should only investigatively detain people they know are guilty of a crime


That's called arrest.

So if I get a suspect description and you match that description in the area of the crime, I shouldn't stop you?

Terry v/ Ohio that you referenced is clear. If you can articulate the facts as to why you put someone in investigative detention you are legal. Filming a federal building, police station, hospital, school, etc will get the attention of police and they will ask you what you are doing. That is called, doing their jobs.
 
2012-08-15 09:56:13 AM  
The shiatty part is that I want to like cops, but between the paranoia and the failed athletics careers, there are too many that just like farking with citizens. A few years ago, I was taking a walk at night near where I live. A squad car rolls up.

"I need to speak with you."
"How can I help?"
"What are you doing?
"Walking."
"Do you live around here?"
"More or less."
"Where are you going this evening."
"Nowhere in particular."
"May I see your ID?"
"No, sir."
"I need to see your ID."
"Well, you can't."
"Why not?"
"Because I'm not carrying any."
"Why are you walking around without identification?"
"Because this is America, and I don't my papers to walk around. Is there anything else that I can help you with?"
"No, sir. Have a good night."

I think at some level this cop actually appreciated the fact that I didn't just cave, partially because he didn't smash out my teeth.
 
Bf+
2012-08-15 09:58:12 AM  
Except he wasn't "detained for suspicion of terrorist activity"... he was simply being illegally harassed by the police.

Oh, and sweet beard.
 
2012-08-15 10:01:50 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Smackledorfer: Cops should only investigatively detain people they know are guilty of a crime

That's called arrest.

So if I get a suspect description and you match that description in the area of the crime, I shouldn't stop you?

Terry v/ Ohio that you referenced is clear. If you can articulate the facts as to why you put someone in investigative detention you are legal. Filming a federal building, police station, hospital, school, etc will get the attention of police and they will ask you what you are doing. That is called, doing their jobs.


One of us failed hard with regards to my intended sarcasm in that post.
 
2012-08-15 10:05:07 AM  
Filming a police station is terrorist activity?

Glass parking lot
 
2012-08-15 10:07:35 AM  

Smackledorfer: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Smackledorfer: Cops should only investigatively detain people they know are guilty of a crime

That's called arrest.

So if I get a suspect description and you match that description in the area of the crime, I shouldn't stop you?

Terry v/ Ohio that you referenced is clear. If you can articulate the facts as to why you put someone in investigative detention you are legal. Filming a federal building, police station, hospital, school, etc will get the attention of police and they will ask you what you are doing. That is called, doing their jobs.

One of us failed hard with regards to my intended sarcasm in that post.


Oh, irony! Oh no, we don't get that here. See, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at
 
2012-08-15 10:13:55 AM  
Hehe
 
2012-08-15 10:15:22 AM  

LesserEvil: More like a dumb phone user.

Seriously, this guy is an idiot... making his video with the phone turned incorrectly, he's not even getting the police officers int he frame properly that he's trying to record.

If nothing else, this guy should have been knocked down to the ground and tazed for recording vertically. I would support laws enabling police officers to do this.


Until it happens to you, of course. Then it would be terrible, horrible, awful, despicable, evil violations of your Gawrduh given rights.
 
2012-08-15 10:24:48 AM  
Good on him, but he sure spent a lot of time jawing there. Should've clammed up as soon as they said he was being detained, other than asking for a lawyer.
 
2012-08-15 10:24:57 AM  
You can usually avoid these situations by not being a dickhead.
 
2012-08-15 10:26:52 AM  

NashMcNash: You can usually avoid these situations by not being a dickhead.


You can also avoid these situations by rolling over like a puppy and licking the boots of the cop who demands your papers.
But that doesn't mean it's right.
 
2012-08-15 10:30:10 AM  

Theaetetus: Good on him, but he sure spent a lot of time jawing there. Should've clammed up as soon as they said he was being detained, other than asking for a lawyer.


He should have asked for a lawyer in a terry stop?

Good luck with that.
 
2012-08-15 10:34:13 AM  

Theaetetus: NashMcNash: You can usually avoid these situations by not being a dickhead.

You can also avoid these situations by rolling over like a puppy and licking the boots of the cop who demands your papers.
But that doesn't mean it's right.


Answering a few simple questions is licking boots and the cops asking are Nazis?
 
2012-08-15 10:34:58 AM  
The remedy for illegal search/seizure is exclusion of the evidence. I'll bet KY doesn't allow false imprisonment actions against the government, and a weak r.s. on suspicion of terrorist activity would likely defeat an intentional or deliberate indifference argument in a 1983 claim.

So go ahead and bark about your rights all you want...it doesn't make you any less of an idiot. Unless, of course, you enjoy spending some time in jail.
 
2012-08-15 10:35:38 AM  

Smackledorfer: Theaetetus: NashMcNash: You can usually avoid these situations by not being a dickhead.

You can also avoid these situations by rolling over like a puppy and licking the boots of the cop who demands your papers.
But that doesn't mean it's right.

Answering a few simple questions is licking boots and the cops asking are Nazis?


images.encyclopediadramatica.se
You lose. Have a nice day.
 
2012-08-15 10:36:33 AM  

Smackledorfer: Theaetetus: Good on him, but he sure spent a lot of time jawing there. Should've clammed up as soon as they said he was being detained, other than asking for a lawyer.

He should have asked for a lawyer in a terry stop?

Good luck with that.


I want a lawyer

Fine sir, have a seat there and call them, we can wait.

But...but...I was just...

No sir, you invoked your miranda protections and I have some questions I need answered. So here we are.
 
2012-08-15 10:38:32 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Fine sir, have a seat there in that there jail cell and call them, we can wait.


FTFY
 
2012-08-15 10:40:24 AM  
Don't get me wrong, I think filming the police is a great idea, but mouthing off to them and barking about your rights, when you have a scant understanding of what they actually are, is just asking for trouble.
 
2012-08-15 10:41:49 AM  

Theaetetus: Smackledorfer: Theaetetus: NashMcNash: You can usually avoid these situations by not being a dickhead.

You can also avoid these situations by rolling over like a puppy and licking the boots of the cop who demands your papers.
But that doesn't mean it's right.

Answering a few simple questions is licking boots and the cops asking are Nazis?


You lose. Have a nice day.


Yea, it was me who went overboard with ludicrous exaggeration....
/roll eyes
 
2012-08-15 10:43:25 AM  

Macinfarker: Don't get me wrong, I think filming the police is a great idea, but mouthing off to them and barking about your rights, when you have a scant understanding of what they actually are, is just asking for trouble.


Seconded.
 
2012-08-15 10:47:31 AM  

Macinfarker: Don't get me wrong, I think filming the police is a great idea, but mouthing off to them and barking about your rights, when you have a scant understanding of what they actually are, is just asking for trouble.


Our SOP is to continue about your business, don't engage them at all in regards to the filming, and always assume you are being filmed. If someone asks if they can my standard response is "I would prefer that you didn't but I can't tell you not to."

It works both ways though. You are recording a conversation so it isn't like this video is your personal property. You implicate yourself or others and guess what "Exhibit A" is.
 
2012-08-15 10:48:50 AM  
Holy Fark, the derp on both sides is overwhelming. I feel stupider just watching this.
 
2012-08-15 10:52:41 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Macinfarker: Don't get me wrong, I think filming the police is a great idea, but mouthing off to them and barking about your rights, when you have a scant understanding of what they actually are, is just asking for trouble.

Our SOP is to continue about your business, don't engage them at all in regards to the filming, and always assume you are being filmed. If someone asks if they can my standard response is "I would prefer that you didn't but I can't tell you not to."

It works both ways though. You are recording a conversation so it isn't like this video is your personal property. You implicate yourself or others and guess what "Exhibit A" is.


Absolutely...the other thing I thought about mentioning but decided to hold onto was the ability of your average idiot (like this fellow) to incriminate themselves on film.

How does your jurisdiction handle password-protected iPhones and the like? Do your judges view a court order for defendant to unlock the phone as a self-incrimination issue?
 
2012-08-15 10:56:04 AM  
Ah. Western Kentucky.

Makes Mos Eisley look downright civilized. Or at least edumacated.
 
2012-08-15 10:59:23 AM  

Macinfarker: How does your jurisdiction handle password-protected iPhones and the like? Do your judges view a court order for defendant to unlock the phone as a self-incrimination issue?


Always get consent or a warrant.
 
2012-08-15 11:00:21 AM  

NashMcNash: You can usually avoid these situations by not being a dickhead caving into the demands of authority figures.


FTFY, Citizen
 
2012-08-15 11:03:33 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Macinfarker: How does your jurisdiction handle password-protected iPhones and the like? Do your judges view a court order for defendant to unlock the phone as a self-incrimination issue?

Always get consent or a warrant.


I think there's probably a good argument that requiring a defendant to enter a password, even under a warrant, would still be considered self-incriminating. Sure the DA can confiscate the iPhone as part of the search warrant, and hack it or go through all 10000 combinations, but I think forcing the defendant to enter the passcode would raise a constitutional issue.
 
2012-08-15 11:06:08 AM  

Farktastic: Holy Fark, the derp on both sides is overwhelming. I feel stupider just watching this.


Canadians aren't likely to understand, so you get a pass. Our law enforcement are not like yours. Nor are our citizens. We've had a long history of douchery on both sides, sometimes brutal. I'm not defending that, just saying that you need to view this in that context.
 
2012-08-15 11:06:19 AM  
He must have gotten his GED in Law from the same online school that Farkers frequent.

I WANT A LAWYER! I'M ENTITLED TO A LAWYER! I WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS WITHOUT A LAWYER!

These AW films would be much more effective if the AW had an actual law degree.
 
2012-08-15 11:07:00 AM  
I'm guessing that this jackass watched a few Youtube videos and wanted to make himself famous by doing the same thing.
"I'm I being detained, or am I free to go?" Dead giveaway.
 
2012-08-15 11:09:37 AM  

Macinfarker: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Macinfarker: How does your jurisdiction handle password-protected iPhones and the like? Do your judges view a court order for defendant to unlock the phone as a self-incrimination issue?

Always get consent or a warrant.

I think there's probably a good argument that requiring a defendant to enter a password, even under a warrant, would still be considered self-incriminating. Sure the DA can confiscate the iPhone as part of the search warrant, and hack it or go through all 10000 combinations, but I think forcing the defendant to enter the passcode would raise a constitutional issue.


You don't need the suspect to unlock it, we can do that on our own. But it still wouldn't be any different if the suspect did it. Happens often on search warrants, "do you want to open this or do you want us to break the lock?" They typically open stuff so it doesn't have to be damaged.
 
2012-08-15 11:11:36 AM  

Silly Jesus: He must have gotten his GED in Law from the same online school that Farkers frequent.

I WANT A LAWYER! I'M ENTITLED TO A LAWYER! I WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS WITHOUT A LAWYER!

These AW films would be much more effective if the AW had an actual law degree.


Having a law degree doesn't guarantee anything...hell even passing the bar exam doesn't guarantee anything, since in theory you could pass the exam while still getting most of the 4th amendment questions incorrect.

That's why criminal law is so messed up, and why Miranda was so important...very few people actually know their rights, and nobody save a few district attorneys have actually read and know the criminal statutes so as to have notice of what conduct is criminal. How could you? The criminal statutes are generally splattered all over the state's books. Nevertheless the law does not forgive someone not knowing what conduct is criminal, and it only marginally forgives someone for not knowing their rights. It's kind of back-asswards if you ask me.
 
2012-08-15 11:15:49 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: You don't need the suspect to unlock it, we can do that on our own. But it still wouldn't be any different if the suspect did it. Happens often on search warrants, "do you want to open this or do you want us to break the lock?" They typically open stuff so it doesn't have to be damaged.


That's the type of answer I was looking for. Thanks :-)

The other thing most people don't get is that law enforcement is only restricted from using illegal search/seizure evidence against that person. If an illegal search divulges information against someone else, it's fair game to use that against the other person, unless the other person also had an expectation of privacy in the search/seizure.
 
2012-08-15 11:16:04 AM  

Theaetetus: NashMcNash: You can usually avoid these situations by not being a dickhead.

You can also avoid these situations by rolling over like a puppy and licking the boots of the cop who demands your papers.
But that doesn't mean it's right.


No, it isn't right, but being a dickhead doesn't help the situation. People in general tend to treat you better when you're not an offensive little shiat.
 
2012-08-15 11:19:17 AM  
 
2012-08-15 11:20:31 AM  

Macinfarker: Silly Jesus: He must have gotten his GED in Law from the same online school that Farkers frequent.

I WANT A LAWYER! I'M ENTITLED TO A LAWYER! I WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS WITHOUT A LAWYER!

These AW films would be much more effective if the AW had an actual law degree.

Having a law degree doesn't guarantee anything...hell even passing the bar exam doesn't guarantee anything, since in theory you could pass the exam while still getting most of the 4th amendment questions incorrect.

That's why criminal law is so messed up, and why Miranda was so important...very few people actually know their rights, and nobody save a few district attorneys have actually read and know the criminal statutes so as to have notice of what conduct is criminal. How could you? The criminal statutes are generally splattered all over the state's books. Nevertheless the law does not forgive someone not knowing what conduct is criminal, and it only marginally forgives someone for not knowing their rights. It's kind of back-asswards if you ask me.


Yeah, that was sort of a blanket statement on my part. I do know some lawyers who would probably do similar nonsense to this moran. It would still be much better if the AW read a book or something before performing their stunts. There was a post yesterday, I think, where another AW did this when the cops talked to him about open carrying his gun. He at least sounded informed and didn't just shout out things he'd heard on Law and Order and other AW LiveLeak videos.
 
2012-08-15 11:23:18 AM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Smackledorfer: Theaetetus: Good on him, but he sure spent a lot of time jawing there. Should've clammed up as soon as they said he was being detained, other than asking for a lawyer.

He should have asked for a lawyer in a terry stop?

Good luck with that.

I want a lawyer

Fine sir, have a seat there and call them, we can wait.

But...but...I was just...

No sir, you invoked your miranda protections and I have some questions I need answered. So here we are.


..and get ready for one hell of a 4th Amendment case. I'm a photographer by hobby and this kind of police tactic is absolute BS. I'd love to get arrest for suspicion of NOT committing a crime. As the police in this video (and the guy filming this) suspicion of NOT having committed a crime, or that one is eminent, is not covered by Terry v. Ohio, not even close.

If the police say you cannot leave you are detained. If you are detained they have to have probable cause. End of story.
 
2012-08-15 11:27:18 AM  
I've gotta say, to me this looked like a battle of wills between a doughy blob of a law enforcement officer who I wouldn't expect to survive climbing a set of stairs and an unusually square authoritarian, and an unusually pissy hipster. Both are in the right, in their own ways, and both are also pushing the line, again i their own ways.

Given all that's happened in the last decade or so, police have good reason to wonder why some guy they don't know, whose intent doesn't seem obvious, appears to be taking pictures of their headquarters. The TY poster snickered at the 9/11 reference, which isn't completely misplaced, but remember that the first great act of random terrorism in the U.S. was in the heartland, not the coast. Yes, it's a small place where this happened, but we already know that unbalanced people are not rational. International terrorists seek major targets; domestic terrorists seek whatever interests them most, which might well be their local PDHQ. Probably every police officer has had run-ins with citizens who they suspected might entertain retaliatory acts of violence, and since we know that some tiny proportion of those people do act those fantasies out, it's probably hard for the police to not consider that if they see what looks to them like suspicious activity towards them.

Any citizen would have to be a little thick to not take that into consideration in a situation like this. Right or wrong, the police probably feel they have damn good reasons for wanting to know what you were doing and why, if they really believe you were taking pictures of their HQ, and they may care more about that -- about their own security -- than about what the law says about their asking you. (This comes up in the bike threads all the time: Where your own safety is on the line, you'll care a lot less about what the law says, or what anyone thinks about that.) That said, the guy has a good point to make, in that it's been common in this country for police to push citizens around, to casually overlook their real rights to not be randomly targeted and harassed by police; I don't know if this kind of interaction really does constitute harassment under the law, but if it does, they should know that, and the moment a citizen articulates their knowledge of those rights, it's prudent to take a step back and consider a different approach. It did seem to me that the police here were, like many, accustomed to pressing their authority and getting compliance, even if they might be a little outside the strictures of the law in doing so. And I suspect there might have been some ego play on both sides, though I'm reluctant to press accusations.

Both sides pushed a little here. I believe the citizen was ultimately in the right, but I think he also unnecessarily aggravated an already dicey situation. If he lied about taking the images, then he loses the moral high ground he's claiming, which tends to render the rest of his case somewhat hypocritical. On the other hand, if the police pressed their authority beyond its limits, then the same is true for them, too. I'd like to think that both sides came away with some valuable learning from this: Don't harass citizens just because you expect to be able to, and don't irritate police just because you can.
 
2012-08-15 11:28:29 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Farktastic: Holy Fark, the derp on both sides is overwhelming. I feel stupider just watching this.

Canadians aren't likely to understand, so you get a pass. Our law enforcement are not like yours. Nor are our citizens. We've had a long history of douchery on both sides, sometimes brutal. I'm not defending that, just saying that you need to view this in that context.


I have a good grasp of policing in the US. What I am saying is that both sides are choosing to be the dumbest person possible in trying to solve this "problem." Cop needs to stop people from taking pictures of the building. I am certain that before he went out there, police surveillance cameras picked up this guy. They have his picture. They can track him around their building. Yet instead of going out and saying "Hey buddy, we can't have people loitering around the police station because it has been targeted by shooters. It's safer for you and us. There's a nice bench half a block down the street. Would you mind going there?" he decides to be a dick about it. Not only that, he goes from "I want to see your pictures" to general whining. Guy with phone states his rights under the law, and feels the need to just stand and whine about his rights. Either he feels the need to school the cop or he's baiting for the video. He could have said "Oh sorry, just checking my email. I'll point my phone the other way next time if it makes you nervous. You know you can't look at my phone without a warrant, but thanks for asking."

The cop was actually letting him walk, but he had to stand there and biatch. Cop had to get him to move, but instead went after his phone, which any dumbass cop knows the rules to. At least there was no violence involved, but still, maximum derp saturation.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report