Cop Arrests News Reporter For Filming Accident
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
There's cars parked in front of the crews truck and cars parked behind the truck, why did he single out the guys that were filming the wreck?
There was also other folks out of their vehicles looking at the wreck. What was the difference?
There were others leaning on the fence seemingly talking through the fence right up till the time the camera hit the ground.
Did he tell everyone else to move along?
"Released in minutes, investigation launched."
There was also other folks out of their vehicles looking at the wreck. What was the difference?
There were others leaning on the fence seemingly talking through the fence right up till the time the camera hit the ground.
Did he tell everyone else to move along?
"Released in minutes, investigation launched."
Are you guys watching the same video I am? The cop tells them to leave. They head for their truck, yes they are being "sassy" but going. Then the cop COMES TO THEM and said "No you aren't leaving" and arrests both of them.
There is something definitely wrong here. Did the cop have a bad day? No excuse! The cop was causing more potential problems and distraction by arresting the reporter and camera man than by just chasing them out of there - for safety or whatever the reason.
This cop at the very least deserves some unpaid time off.
FWIW, the tv station had the reporter and camera man on the news about a week later. The officer, the Chief of Police, and all retired officers they invited to appear - declined to appear! Now that's a shocker!
There is something definitely wrong here. Did the cop have a bad day? No excuse! The cop was causing more potential problems and distraction by arresting the reporter and camera man than by just chasing them out of there - for safety or whatever the reason.
This cop at the very least deserves some unpaid time off.
FWIW, the tv station had the reporter and camera man on the news about a week later. The officer, the Chief of Police, and all retired officers they invited to appear - declined to appear! Now that's a shocker!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Are you guys watching the same video I am? The cop tells them to leave. They head for their truck, yes they are being "sassy" but going. Then the cop COMES TO THEM and said "No you aren't leaving" and arrests both of them.
Not quite.
There are about 10 seconds of the cop being verbally forceful and the reporter and camera man refusing to leave. Then the cop gets physical and the reporter is still being verbally combative, although physically compliant. THEN the cop takes the reporter away.
The worst you can say about the cop is that he is a little lacking in patience. That'd be a fair criticism. But first of all, it's quite different from saying he did the wrong thing. And second, we still don't know what happened before the camera started rolling.
Are you guys watching the same video I am? The cop tells them to leave. They head for their truck, yes they are being "sassy" but going. Then the cop COMES TO THEM and said "No you aren't leaving" and arrests both of them.
Not quite.
There are about 10 seconds of the cop being verbally forceful and the reporter and camera man refusing to leave. Then the cop gets physical and the reporter is still being verbally combative, although physically compliant. THEN the cop takes the reporter away.
The worst you can say about the cop is that he is a little lacking in patience. That'd be a fair criticism. But first of all, it's quite different from saying he did the wrong thing. And second, we still don't know what happened before the camera started rolling.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'm sure it's edited for impact.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Are you guys watching the same video I am? The cop tells them to leave. They head for their truck, yes they are being "sassy" but going. Then the cop COMES TO THEM and said "No you aren't leaving" and arrests both of them.
Not quite.
There are about 10 seconds of the cop being verbally forceful and the reporter and camera man refusing to leave. Then the cop gets physical and the reporter is still being verbally combative, although physically compliant. THEN the cop takes the reporter away.
The worst you can say about the cop is that he is a little lacking in patience. That'd be a fair criticism. But first of all, it's quite different from saying he did the wrong thing. And second, we still don't know what happened before the camera started rolling.
I guess your idea of "verbally combative" is different from mine.
What happened seconds before this tape started is totally irrelevant. (BTW, the tv station does play a little more of the tape on their web site)
The cop told them to leave, obviously they were doing that by going back to their truck. The worst they could be accused of is being "lippy" to a cop. If that were a crime, the courts would be backed up for decades and we would be building jails for the next 20 years!
"The worst you can say about the cop is that he is a little lacking in patience."
Are you kidding me? That is police abuse - cut and dry. The cop was way out of line and over reacted. The reporter and the camera man NEVER assaulted or threated the cop. They were arguing with him at best, and not very convincingly at that!
The fact that the cop was put on desk duty, and EVERYONE refused to go on camera speaks volumes to me. Maybe not to everyone else . . .
Notice the cop RUNS towards him. The cop keeps telling them to leave. At about 50 seconds the reporter said "Okay, I'll leave". Then the cop said "No you are NOT going". The cop does essentially the same thing with the camera man.
The cop didn't need to RUN towards them in the first place, and in the second place as I said the reporter states over and over "I'll go. I'm going".
That SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF THE STORY!
Even if it is edited (which I doubt) the fact remains that the cop overreacted and escalated the situation. Very sad. IF you can't see that, well I don't know what to say. I hope you are never in a situation like that!
I'd love to know what becomes of this. Lawsuit maybe?
Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Are you guys watching the same video I am? The cop tells them to leave. They head for their truck, yes they are being "sassy" but going. Then the cop COMES TO THEM and said "No you aren't leaving" and arrests both of them.
Not quite.
There are about 10 seconds of the cop being verbally forceful and the reporter and camera man refusing to leave. Then the cop gets physical and the reporter is still being verbally combative, although physically compliant. THEN the cop takes the reporter away.
The worst you can say about the cop is that he is a little lacking in patience. That'd be a fair criticism. But first of all, it's quite different from saying he did the wrong thing. And second, we still don't know what happened before the camera started rolling.
I guess your idea of "verbally combative" is different from mine.
What happened seconds before this tape started is totally irrelevant. (BTW, the tv station does play a little more of the tape on their web site)
The cop told them to leave, obviously they were doing that by going back to their truck. The worst they could be accused of is being "lippy" to a cop. If that were a crime, the courts would be backed up for decades and we would be building jails for the next 20 years!
"The worst you can say about the cop is that he is a little lacking in patience."
Are you kidding me? That is police abuse - cut and dry. The cop was way out of line and over reacted. The reporter and the camera man NEVER assaulted or threated the cop. They were arguing with him at best, and not very convincingly at that!
The fact that the cop was put on desk duty, and EVERYONE refused to go on camera speaks volumes to me. Maybe not to everyone else . . .
Notice the cop RUNS towards him. The cop keeps telling them to leave. At about 50 seconds the reporter said "Okay, I'll leave". Then the cop said "No you are NOT going". The cop does essentially the same thing with the camera man.
The cop didn't need to RUN towards them in the first place, and in the second place as I said the reporter states over and over "I'll go. I'm going".
That SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF THE STORY!
Even if it is edited (which I doubt) the fact remains that the cop overreacted and escalated the situation. Very sad. IF you can't see that, well I don't know what to say. I hope you are never in a situation like that!
I'd love to know what becomes of this. Lawsuit maybe?
Last edited:
Never argue with the police, even if you are right.
Why? Because he CAN give orders and arguing with his orders CAN get you arrested.
Even if you win in court, being arrested is a royal pain in the behind.
The reporter may have been walking back to his vehicle, but he was still telling the officer that he was doing nothing wrong. You don't plead your case with the officer unless he says why should you be here.
You plead in court, not on the street.
Why is the police department silent? No big cover up, their lawyers advise them to be quiet.
Do you think the media is going to be objective about this? Do you think there will be stories about how stopping on the side of the road to film a news story violates the law? Of course not. It will be all about how bad the cop was.
Something like this was not worth arguing with the cop.
When the cop says get out of here, the only correct answer is "yes officer." You don't keep filming, you don't argue with the cop that he's making an unlawful request or say that you are not doing something wrong.
You MAY be able to ask why you have to leave. But I don't think our reporter investigated why the officer might want him to leave. Instead, it was all about our reporter and him getting his story. The reporter demonstrated little regard for what the officer had to do and believed he knew the law better than the officer by insisting he was doing nothing wrong by being there.
That's an argument I suspect this reporter will lose every time.
So if you want to argue for your rights, do it before a judge, never a cop.
Why? Because he CAN give orders and arguing with his orders CAN get you arrested.
Even if you win in court, being arrested is a royal pain in the behind.
The reporter may have been walking back to his vehicle, but he was still telling the officer that he was doing nothing wrong. You don't plead your case with the officer unless he says why should you be here.
You plead in court, not on the street.
Why is the police department silent? No big cover up, their lawyers advise them to be quiet.
Do you think the media is going to be objective about this? Do you think there will be stories about how stopping on the side of the road to film a news story violates the law? Of course not. It will be all about how bad the cop was.
Something like this was not worth arguing with the cop.
When the cop says get out of here, the only correct answer is "yes officer." You don't keep filming, you don't argue with the cop that he's making an unlawful request or say that you are not doing something wrong.
You MAY be able to ask why you have to leave. But I don't think our reporter investigated why the officer might want him to leave. Instead, it was all about our reporter and him getting his story. The reporter demonstrated little regard for what the officer had to do and believed he knew the law better than the officer by insisting he was doing nothing wrong by being there.
That's an argument I suspect this reporter will lose every time.
So if you want to argue for your rights, do it before a judge, never a cop.
Subchapter G of the Texas Motor Vehicle code clearly gives the officer the right to tell the reporter and cameraman to move on.
SUBCHAPTER G. STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING
In particular:
Sec. 545.302 I believe every entrance ramp to an interstate highway has a sign that prohibits standing, stopping or parking except for emergency situations.
Sec. 545.305. REMOVAL OF UNLAWFULLY STOPPED VEHICLE. (a) A peace officer listed under Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, or a license and weight inspector of the department may remove or require the operator or a person in charge of a vehicle to move a vehicle from a highway if the vehicle:
...
(9) is, in the opinion of the officer, a hazard, interferes with a normal function of a governmental agency, or because of a catastrophe, emergency, or unusual circumstance is imperiled.
The officer was acting lawfully asking the reporter and camera man to move along, and the reporter was 100% wrong when he said he was doing nothing wrong.
SUBCHAPTER G. STOPPING, STANDING, AND PARKING
In particular:
Sec. 545.302 I believe every entrance ramp to an interstate highway has a sign that prohibits standing, stopping or parking except for emergency situations.
Sec. 545.305. REMOVAL OF UNLAWFULLY STOPPED VEHICLE. (a) A peace officer listed under Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, or a license and weight inspector of the department may remove or require the operator or a person in charge of a vehicle to move a vehicle from a highway if the vehicle:
...
(9) is, in the opinion of the officer, a hazard, interferes with a normal function of a governmental agency, or because of a catastrophe, emergency, or unusual circumstance is imperiled.
The officer was acting lawfully asking the reporter and camera man to move along, and the reporter was 100% wrong when he said he was doing nothing wrong.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
When the cop says get out of here, the only correct answer is "yes officer." You don't keep filming, you don't argue with the cop that he's making an unlawful request or say that you are not doing something wrong.
Here's where a cop can be a MAJOR j'off. I've been directed off of the beaten path many a time due to some accident or a fire. They send you to ANYWHERE but here. You stop to ask where the next road that is "clear" and they just treat you like some disobedient dog that needs a beating and tell you to KEEP MOVING. Meanwhile you're in BFE and wonder which backroad is going to get you anywhere you need to go.
This would also be the case if this reporter had paused and asked if he could setup on the berm further down. I suspect that the "bull you over" mentality of escalating aggressive demeanor would have prevailed in the light of an honest and passive attempt to "normalize" the tension level.
When the cop says get out of here, the only correct answer is "yes officer." You don't keep filming, you don't argue with the cop that he's making an unlawful request or say that you are not doing something wrong.
Here's where a cop can be a MAJOR j'off. I've been directed off of the beaten path many a time due to some accident or a fire. They send you to ANYWHERE but here. You stop to ask where the next road that is "clear" and they just treat you like some disobedient dog that needs a beating and tell you to KEEP MOVING. Meanwhile you're in BFE and wonder which backroad is going to get you anywhere you need to go.
This would also be the case if this reporter had paused and asked if he could setup on the berm further down. I suspect that the "bull you over" mentality of escalating aggressive demeanor would have prevailed in the light of an honest and passive attempt to "normalize" the tension level.
Filming police doing their duties is a protected act. Supreme Court defines a resonable distance as 15 feet.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Gary Allan's view is not mutually exclusive with javacontour's. IMO, both are equally insightful and important.
And I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you; Gary would definitely be more of a power bottom reporter. Not mutually exclusive entirely, but not mutually complimentary either. Teeth and a zipper both go together, but not in the same way (as they say).
Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
There is something definitely wrong here. Did the cop have a bad day? No excuse! The cop was causing more potential problems and distraction by arresting the reporter and camera man than by just chasing them out of there - for safety or whatever the reason.
Very good point.
Gary Allan's view is not mutually exclusive with javacontour's. IMO, both are equally insightful and important.
And I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you; Gary would definitely be more of a power bottom reporter. Not mutually exclusive entirely, but not mutually complimentary either. Teeth and a zipper both go together, but not in the same way (as they say).
Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
There is something definitely wrong here. Did the cop have a bad day? No excuse! The cop was causing more potential problems and distraction by arresting the reporter and camera man than by just chasing them out of there - for safety or whatever the reason.
Very good point.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Well, I'm sure that it's not a blanket license. It just states that it's NEVER unlawful to film/tape/photograph police doing their duties. I'm sure that there's an implied "lawfully" (in terms of conduct otherwise) to it.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Filming police doing their duties is a protected act. Supreme Court defines a resonable distance as 15 feet.
Yes, but are you allowed to violate other laws to do this?
Parking on the side of an interstate highway is clearly an illegal act.
Should the officer have just taken him in, given his law breaking status already?
No, he told him to move along, gave him a break and for that, the officer gets an ear-full from a reporting who thinks he knows more about the law than a police officer.
The guy got cuffed up because he chose to argue.
We can't speculate about the others at the scene, because the reporter here decided that road-side on I-10 in El Paso near a traffic accident was the appropriate venue to argue his case.
It's not like the other side of the interstate was any safer. In fact, it was less safe for parking, standing and pedestrians since traffic was likely still moving on that side of the road.
If the reporter wanted to film, do it without violating the law parking the vehicle on an interstate highway.
Filming police doing their duties is a protected act. Supreme Court defines a resonable distance as 15 feet.
Yes, but are you allowed to violate other laws to do this?
Parking on the side of an interstate highway is clearly an illegal act.
Should the officer have just taken him in, given his law breaking status already?
No, he told him to move along, gave him a break and for that, the officer gets an ear-full from a reporting who thinks he knows more about the law than a police officer.
The guy got cuffed up because he chose to argue.
We can't speculate about the others at the scene, because the reporter here decided that road-side on I-10 in El Paso near a traffic accident was the appropriate venue to argue his case.
It's not like the other side of the interstate was any safer. In fact, it was less safe for parking, standing and pedestrians since traffic was likely still moving on that side of the road.
If the reporter wanted to film, do it without violating the law parking the vehicle on an interstate highway.
Remember, the officer didn't tell them to stop filming, he told them to get out of there. Something that was a reasonable request. They were parked illegally and at risk of being hit by an inattentive driver.
There was never a question of the legality of filming, the question is can the officer tell them to leave? The answer is yes, he can LEGALLY tell them to leave if he thinks they are in danger or are creating a hazard by being there, filming, etc.
There was never a question of the legality of filming, the question is can the officer tell them to leave? The answer is yes, he can LEGALLY tell them to leave if he thinks they are in danger or are creating a hazard by being there, filming, etc.
The other thing I just thought of was how vulnerable the cameraman was if a car wasn't watching where it was going. The camera man probably had little awareness of anything not in his viewfinder.
Regardless of if you like the officers tone of voice, these guys were putting themselves in danger, AND breaking the law while doing it.
Sure, others were doing it. Does that make it OK for the news crew? Nope. In fact, the news crew SHOULD have been the first to send away. Why? They were likely the most at risk, as well as attention gathering team on that side of the equation. Others couldn't argue to stay if the news crew was dispatched and the rest of the crowd would more likely go quietly.
However, the reporter thought he knew more about law and safety than the officer trained in such things.
Got himself cuffed up and some marks on his wrist for that brilliant line of thinking.
Regardless of if you like the officers tone of voice, these guys were putting themselves in danger, AND breaking the law while doing it.
Sure, others were doing it. Does that make it OK for the news crew? Nope. In fact, the news crew SHOULD have been the first to send away. Why? They were likely the most at risk, as well as attention gathering team on that side of the equation. Others couldn't argue to stay if the news crew was dispatched and the rest of the crowd would more likely go quietly.
However, the reporter thought he knew more about law and safety than the officer trained in such things.
Got himself cuffed up and some marks on his wrist for that brilliant line of thinking.
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to elaborate some...
The reporter indicated that filming at an accident scene was something that they normally did. He also said that they had never had a problem before.
So I ask myself, what was different about this accident scene? Ahhh… The response of the military personnel on-scene.
Possible scenario:
Police officer responds to accident scene. Military personnel have already responded, and have taken "command & control" of the situation. Police officer's BMOC status has been usurped. His pride has suffered a wound. He has been relegated to traffic duty. In attempt to reassert his perceived authority, he targets the news reporters.
-Could be something like that...
The reporter indicated that filming at an accident scene was something that they normally did. He also said that they had never had a problem before.
So I ask myself, what was different about this accident scene? Ahhh… The response of the military personnel on-scene.
Possible scenario:
Police officer responds to accident scene. Military personnel have already responded, and have taken "command & control" of the situation. Police officer's BMOC status has been usurped. His pride has suffered a wound. He has been relegated to traffic duty. In attempt to reassert his perceived authority, he targets the news reporters.
-Could be something like that...
Originally Posted By: DmanWho
Could be something like that...
COULD be. Makes about as much sense as anything else I've heard!
Could be something like that...
COULD be. Makes about as much sense as anything else I've heard!
Another possible scenario: The police officer is really a Man In Black, the reporter and cameraman are really aliens, and the entire encounter was a coded threat to the mothership to stay away from Earth's population centers. COULD be that, too.
Seems like the cop didn't really prioritize control. Control over everybody's safety = important. Control over the news teams' collective mouth = not important. Didn't they eventually try to leave of their own accord?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
