Shooter gets tased

[Corporate Management]

Apparently, police in Portland busted out the beanbags and taser when a guy refused to stop shooting video of them allegedly conducting an illegal search of a friend's property. The cops claim the camera could be used as a weapon.

Full story, with video:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/multimedia/2007/10/four_sue_police_alleging_dirty.html

[Run&Gun]

I hope that guy owns the city when he's done with them. And cops wonder why no one likes or trusts them(and they don't trust us, talk to fromer cops and they'll tell you it's an "us vs. them" mentality. Most cops look at the general public all as criminals/potential criminals). When they change some of the laws that basically remove all liabilty from the police when they're on-duty "serving the public" maybe some of this abuse of power will stop.

[BNVN]

Ok, I have a question for everyone that has always made me say how can they do that. How can the media around Los Angeles get right up next to a car chase suspect or other breaking news as it is happening and the cops don't care? Is there some different law in CA for news photogs and stringers?

[Land Rover]

Ok, I have a question for everyone that has always made me say how can they do that. How can the media around Los Angeles get right up next to a car chase suspect or other breaking news as it is happening and the cops don't care? Is there some different law in CA for news photogs and stringers?

I've seen it hear in Dallas too. Photogs get right on top of the arrest and the police don't seem to care. I'm they DO care but there is probably some standing order that the media can get their shots as long as no one is put in harm's way while they do it.

[shootercub]

Looks like a complete abuse of police power to me!

Cops have got to get used to camerasQ

Be careful when you're in the People's Republic of Portland.

[Chicago Dog]

Okay, there's no doubt the cops are idiots for pulling this stunt. Their actions are inexcusable, and the victim's got some compensation coming his way.

I can't say, however, I've ever heard of residents complaining about cops running through their neighborhood looking for a suspect. Give me a break.

Let's say the guy actually was in the area. He gets into a house and holds someone hostage. A standoff ensues, and God only knows what happens after that. Then, the story becomes, "The cops aren't doing enough."

If cops think some crazy bastard is running around my property, they're welcome to it. Capture him, throw him into the back of your car, take him downtown, and lock his ass up.

I've got nothing to hide. The worst they might find is an unpaid parking ticket on the dining room table.

[Baltimore Shooter]

Let's say the guy actually was in the area. He gets into a house and holds someone hostage. A standoff ensues, and God only knows what happens after that. Then, the story becomes, "The cops aren't doing enough."
If that's the case, then why did they stop looking for the suspect and all the cops that were there turn their attention to the man with the camera? So they could have let the suspect get away while the taze a man for no reason at all.

Hmmmm...

Warren

[Chicago Dog]

If that's the case, then why did they stop looking for the suspect and all the cops that were there turn their attention to the man with the camera? So they could have let the suspect get away while the taze a man for no reason at all.

That's a very good point.

As some people have had bad experiences with cops, I've been on the opposite end of the spectrum. Most cops I've met are quite helpful. Unfortunately, it's these same guys that get crapped on by obviously scuzzy citizens just looking for a reason to bitch.

I feel sorry for some of them. They aren't paid much at all, but still have to help slimeballs in trouble just like they'd have to help me.

This is no excuse for the handful of idiots that somehow get a badge. Please keep in mind, though, that there are good cops out there.

[104imdirect]

Ok, I have a question for everyone that has always made me say how can they do that. How can the media around Los Angeles get right up next to a car chase suspect or other breaking news as it is happening and the cops don't care? Is there some different law in CA for news photogs and stringers?

From the LA Press Photog's Website:

Media representatives should be provided access to report and photograph from within police lines at an accommodating distance from the immediate crime scene. This placement of the media should be superior to that of the general public and situated in such a way that the media representative might work without disturbance from the general public. Public safety officers may restrict journalists from entering a crime scene during police investigations or activity since preservation of evidence is of paramount importance. "Media members do not have access rights to any immediate crime investigation, or police SWAT Team locations, when public safety officers or investigators, believe a crime has been committed.", (Leiserson v. City of San Diego, 1986.)


"Media members shall have reasonable access to the emergency, crime scene or disaster location at an accommodating distance.", (Leiserson v. City of San Diego 1986.) What is an accommodating distance? This is a notion which has yet to be defined by either statute or case law. It is generally considered, by MAIC, to be a distance which will place the media adjacent to the immediate crime scene and give them a line-of-sight view of the incident. This position will be close enough to allow journalists to photograph the incident as events unfold while giving them a route of access so they may move freely to and from the area. The accommodating distance should be at a position which is nearer to the scene than the general public is to be allowed and the general public should be restricted from entering the area reserved for journalists. (See Media Photo Site.)


Often times the media representative will arrive at an incident scene before the first public safety officer. In such case, the journalist must take it upon themselves to show reasonable restraint so as not to disturb evidence.

[BNVN]

ahhhh, ok so it is the "Hollywood" act... The media can be inside the line as for their own protection from the general public and paparazzi's...

[cameradog]

I can't say, however, I've ever heard of residents complaining about cops running through their neighborhood looking for a suspect. Give me a break.

According to the article, the cops didn't just run through their neighborhood, nor did they simply go on the guy's property looking for the suspect. No, they busted out the window of the property owner's car. I was under the impression the residents were reacting to the unwarranted property damage.

You really want us to believe that if you looked out your front window to see a swarm of cops on your property busting out the windows of your car, you'd be happy about that?

[Chicago Dog]

You really want us to believe that if you looked out your front window to see a swarm of cops on your property busting out the windows of your car, you'd be happy about that?

You really want me to believe that you'd get bent out of shape about broken windows on an insured vehicle rather than worry about the immediate safety your family?

Those are some interesting priorities.

[shootercub]

HEY! Who's breaking my car windows?
Oh, the cops...

Never mind..

Move along... nothing to see here.

[svp]

Be careful when you're in the People's Republic of Portland.


America has become the new Soviet Union. Thank you GWB.

[Chicago Dog]

HEY! Who's breaking my car windows?
Oh, the cops...

Never mind..

Move along... nothing to see here.

Yep. That's exactly what I was saying, cub. Good job.

Given your lacking comprehension skills, though, you probably won't note that as sarcasm. Ah well.

Out of curiosity, do you have a record? Is that why you're so anti-cop? Did they bust you with a dimebag in college?

[The Next Generation...]

We can NOT give up civil liberties in the name of "Protection", especially when it is the cops running them over. I will take my chances, sustain my rights and protect my own personal property. You know....while we are at it lets throw out our 4th Amendment rights while we are at it. I do not need the cops breaking out my truck windows because the dog smells my left over lunch inside, they can obtain a warrant before they bust into my personal property. I hope this poor guy laughs all the way to the bank for this incident, he deserves EVERY penny the jury awards him!

*And for the record, I have a spotless record. I have never been arrested and only have had one speeding ticket so I am credible.

[Jonathan]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

[Chicago Dog]

I do not need the cops breaking out my truck windows because the dog smells my left over lunch inside, they can obtain a warrant before they bust into my personal property.

So, you're saying that you'd allow safe haven in the vehicle in your front yard to a potentially violent criminal just because you don't want the windows smashed out (which is most likely covered by insurance)?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

I'm not sure Mr. Franklin was referring to the harboring of fugitives.

Honestly -- you guys have some really effed up priorities. I hope none of you are my neighbors.

[The Next Generation...]

It sounds like Chicago Dog is the one with "effed up priorities". I'm certainly not afraid of someone trying to break into my house or personal property because I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights as well. And I completely agree with Jonathan, Benjamin Franklin summed it up very well with that statement. There is a difference between knowingly "Harboring a Fugitive" and protecting your BASIC civil liberties.

[cameradog]

So, you're saying that you'd allow safe haven in the vehicle in your front yard to a potentially violent criminal just because you don't want the windows smashed out (which is most likely covered by insurance)?

The cops had probable cause to go on the property. They even had probable cause to go into the vehicle. That's not the point.

The point is that a law-abiding citizen looked out his window and saw cops damaging his property. He didn't know the cops had probable cause. From his perspective, the cops obviously had the wrong place. Considering the multitude of other police incidents around the country, like cops murdering an old lady in her home in Atlanta, or cops pulling over a family on vacation in Tennessee and shooting their dog, it would be natural for him to be upset about what he was seeing. You're the only person I can think of who would see cops storm his property and start breaking stuff and be happy about it. Even if the cops had the right to be there, the residents' reactions weren't unreasonable.

So what did the residents actually do? From what I heard on the tape, the citizens were telling the cops that the guy they were looking for wasn't there. One citizen starts videotaping for evidence, which was probably a good idea considering that when the guy whose property they destroyed tries to make a claim, you can bet the city will fight it. I covered a "standoff" in which the keystone kops got the wrong house and sent their robot in through a sliding glass window, where it not only destroyed the window but ripped the carpet, left gouges in walls, knocked over a stereo cabinet and crushed several hundred CDs under its tracks. It did thousands of dollars in damage, but the innocent resident had to fight for every item on his claim. Bet he wishes he had video.

You have grounds for defending the cops' right to go on the property, but the citizens reacted completely rationally especially considering the climate of fear and unquestioned authority cops around the country are now trying to cultivate. Cops are supposed to be trained to stay cool in those situations, and it's amazing to me that you would come down on the cops' side in the assault on the guy videotaping the incident simply because the residents questioned the right of police to be there. Remember this IS still America, and we DO still have the right to question authority.

[Chicago Dog]

The cops had probable cause to go on the property. They even had probable cause to go into the vehicle. That's not the point.

I understand what the point is. A few responses back, though, the debate took a bit of a turn. You laid out the same hypothetical situation (sans the tasering) and people still get worked up about a few broken windows.

Unfortunately, they don't realize you and I (somewhat inadvertently) were talking about a hypothetical situation.

So, once again, a few people get worked up about responses they don't understand, and everyone's left arguing apples to oranges.