TexasCHLforum.com

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/04/28/ma ... ell-phone/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As the Miami police spokesman said "he will get his day in court".

Obstruction of justice and resisting arrest without violence - aka, contempt of cop.

When will police learn that photography is not a crime?

Jaguar wrote:Obstruction of justice and resisting arrest without violence - aka, contempt of cop.

When will police learn that photography is not a crime?

Only when they start serving the jail time for the "crimes" they are so willing to falsely accuse others of committing. Doesn't look like that's going to happen since, as in this case, the officer clearly lied and submitted a false official report, and still has his job.

Jaguar wrote:Obstruction of justice and resisting arrest without violence - aka, contempt of cop.

When will police learn that photography is not a crime?

When there are real repercussions that result from false arrest, other than a slap on the wrist.

chip chip chip....that is the sound of public trust being chipped away. Eventually it will be a farce and a sham.

It clearly reads as though the officer was wrong. However, I have to wonder what transpired before the guy started recording.

Don't be so quick to condemn, folks. Especially from a news article.

VMI77 wrote:

Jaguar wrote:Obstruction of justice and resisting arrest without violence - aka, contempt of cop.

When will police learn that photography is not a crime?

Only when they start serving the jail time for the "crimes" they are so willing to falsely accuse others of committing. Doesn't look like that's going to happen since, as in this case, the officer clearly lied and submitted a false official report, and still has his job.

My Internet must he acting up. Where do you see evidence of that?

Due to the actions a very few officers, it's already a sham.
Personal recording devices should be mandatory for all law enforcement. Transparency should be the rule, not an option.

I thought SCOTUS just ruled that recording officers is perfectly legal? Am I missing something?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I thought SCOTUS just ruled that recording officers is perfectly legal? Am I missing something?

I thought it was a federal appeals court, was it SCOTUS?

He wasn't arrested for videotaping, he was arrested for failing to follow the officers repeated requests to move back. Unfortunately, from what I understand from the video, he only made one request, and it was complied with.

So where does this leave the DA. Pursue the case with video evidence showing no crime was committed, or attempt to show that despite the video evidence the witness to the arrest, violated the officers order. He can also, dismiss the case, which will then lead to the taxpayers of Miami getting to pay another judgement.

The spokesman for the Police seems to think the DA will give the witness his day in court. One way or another he probably will.

BTW the man who was thrown to the ground and was the reason for the videoing was armed and had a CHL.

The police chief in another recent incident that was photographed, reacted quite differently and immediately fired the officer involved. Miami apparently does not have that kind of police chief.

From the video itself, it doesn't appear that Estrada was ever very close to the incident....assuming they showed the whole video on the posted segment.

You know if I filed a false police report that got someone arrested, there would be consequences for me. Perhaps we, as the taxpayers and the ones that sign the checks, need to consider in cases where it becomes obvious that the police officer purposefully filed a false report consequences for them as well. We need some checks and balances here and we don't have many that do not include the taxpayers footing the bill.

From the video

“Let me explain something to you,” Valdez said as he approached Estrada.

“The guy is armed and is three times my size and I’m telling you to back off.

“You’re going to be arrested for … for … for … uh … ah…”

Allow me, the phrase you are looking for is "contempt of cop". But we'll settled for obstructing justice and falsifying his name. The obstruction charge was changed to resisting arrest. Estrada had every right to be there, to video the arrest and to not have to go inside.

Perhaps Estrada can report Valdez to internal affairs now that the unit’s lieutenant has been arrested on felony charges that he assisted drug traffickers, including plotting murders. -- http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/08/4 ... fairs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mamabearCali wrote:You know if I filed a false police report that got someone arrested, there would be consequences for me. Perhaps we, as the taxpayers and the ones that sign the checks, need to consider in cases where it becomes obvious that the police officer purposefully filed a false report consequences for them as well. We need some checks and balances here and we don't have many that do not include the taxpayers footing the bill.

Typically discipline records of officers are private. There could obviously be a civil consequence to this sort of thing to the department, but I think expecting the DA to prosecute both the "criminal" (guy who was taping/not following orders) and the officer probably is a conflict...

I think it's too easy for an officer to do something "wrong" and have the consequences be not-so-obvious to the public...

We'll see how this one turns out. Video behind a glass window sounds like a reasonable retreat to me.