Unpermitted March does not mean the police can now
hurt the people for public safety. This is a video with clips taken from the
recent 2.14.13 unpermitted One Billion Rising March, recently in Portland in
which the police treated peacefully the unpermitted marchers *this time.In
contrast:There is out-takes added from May Day 2012 and from the N3 Austerity
march in 2012 that were both unpermitted marches... where folks who were
protesting were then pepersprayed, blocked and tackled by the police. [while in
the street trying to march]
Unpermitted
Does Not Mean Police Can Hurt People 2013 Portland Oregon
Unpermitted
March does not mean the police can now hurt the people for public safety.
This is
a video with clips taken from the recent 2.14.13 unpermitted One Billion Rising March, recently in Portland in which the police
treated peacefully the unpermitted marchers *this time.
In
contrast: There is out-takes added from May Day 2012 and from the N3 Austerity march in 2012 that were both unpermitted marches...
where folks who were protesting were then pepersprayed, blocked and tackled by the police. [while in the street trying to
march]
There is also a short out-takes from 2008 when
the police took my camera, whereupon I filed a lawsuit and changed the policy regarding filming the police in public [and]
I got my camera back, [plus $3,000 in lawyer fees and a tiny token 100 bucks for my personal fee]
The point of this video is to highlight the peaceful marches and the ones where their has been a (uncalled
for) call for violence orchestrated by the police, which usually always is justified by them, by using words like; public
safety, and anarchist [?] being involved, [etc.] The video from Veterans Day highlights the "A" word concern expressed by
Officer Friendly (inches from my face) The police were there, for the possible Veterans "unpermitted march" {that didn't happen]
"As the popularity of text messages has exploded in recent years, so has their use
in criminal investigations and civil lawsuits. They have been introduced as evidence in armed robbery, cocaine distribution,
and wire fraud prosecutions. In one 2009 case in Michigan, wireless provider SkyTel turned over the contents of 626,638 SMS
messages, a figure described by a federal judge as 'staggering.' Chuck DeWitt, a spokesman for the Major Cities Chiefs Police
Association, which represents the 63 largest U.S. police forces including New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago,
said 'all such records should be retained for two years.' Some providers, like Verizon, retain the contents of SMS messages
for a brief period of time, while others like T-Mobile do not store them at all. Along with the police association, other
law enforcement groups making the request to the Senate include the National District Attorneys' Association, the National
Sheriffs' Association, and the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, DeWitt said."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a controversial
Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.
By passing on the issue, the justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling
that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police
officers.
A temporary injunction issued after that June ruling effectively bars Cook County
State's Attorney Anita Alvarez from prosecuting anyone under the current statute. On Monday, the American Civil Liberties
Union, which brought the lawsuit against Alvarez, asked a federal judge hearing the case to make the injunction permanent,
said Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois.
Grossman said he expected that a permanent injunction would set a precedent across
Illinois that effectively cripples enforcement of the law.
Alvarez's office will be given a deadline to respond to the ACLU request, but
on Monday, Sally Daly, a spokeswoman for Alvarez, said a high court ruling in the case could have provided "prosecutors across
Illinois with legal clarification and guidance with respect to the constitutionality and enforcement" of the statute.
Illinois' eavesdropping law is one of the harshest in the country, making audio
recording of a law enforcement officer — even while on duty and in public — a felony punishable by up to 15 years
in prison.
Public debate over the law had been simmering since last year. In August 2011,
a Cook County jury acquitted a woman who had been charged with recording Chicago police internal affairs investigators she
believed were trying to dissuade her from filing a sexual harassment complaint against a patrol officer.
Judges in Cook and Crawford counties later declared the law unconstitutional,
and the McLean County state's attorney cited flaws in the law when he dropped charges in February against a man accused of
recording an officer during a traffic stop.
Alvarez argued that allowing the recording of police would discourage civilians
from speaking candidly to officers and could cause problems securing crime scenes or conducting sensitive investigations.
But a federal appeals panel ruled that the law "restricts far more speech than
necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests."
Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy has said he would favor a change
allowing citizens to tape the police and vice versa.
Meanwhile, several efforts to amend the statute in Springfield have stalled in
committee amid heavy lobbying from law enforcement groups in favor of the current law.
The New Jim Crow Race Policing Social Control in Portland
Community leaders will discuss issues ranging from the scathing Department of
Justice review of the Portland Police Bureau, Police violations of civil liberties, and the stereotyping of Black youth and
offer solutions to these problems. http://youtu.be/IEwG6mFwjrU
The Very next day I was home invaded. Illegally they have no warrant as you see by the
video. I had just left hospital day before this and the police warned me to remove the videos I posted from them brutally
assaulting me and I lost my spleen and other assorted guts to police brutality. I posted the videos and was then warned to
take them down or else. Again the very next day they broke in my home illegally and Assaulted me as you see by this video.
I'll take a lie detector test to confirm what you already know is true. Coral Springs Police are as corrupt as any other police
force you have an encounter with. Many police encounters are deadly. I almost dies at the hands of coral springs police and
also their fire rescue paramedics. All are sick and sadistic and care nothing about you, your family, your home or your lives.
They care not if you die in their care... It's become very sick in these times your aware now of the truth. This video is
one that survived the police deleting. They beat me in cuffs and deleted as many videos as they cared to delete. They left
behind a few and I've posted them. The truth hurts. Be well people pass on love today!
Message to All Police Officers
From a Police Officer Occupy Wall Street
Police Accountability & statnding in Solidarity with Ananiem Ca!
Portland - over 150 people march in solidarity with the citizens being abused
by Anaheim police and to call for Portland Polce to be accountable and to respect the community and all the many races and
cultures in our city. We want justice and we want peace in our communities, not violence and opression by those who should
be "protecting and serving" our communities.
Last week 4/2012 the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal
fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior
to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a "constitutionally protected right
to videotape police carrying out their duties in public." The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers
not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public.
Slowly but surely the courts are recognizing that recording on-duty police is a protected
First Amendment activity. But in the meantime, police around the country continue to intimidate and arrest citizens for doing
just that. So if you're an aspiring cop watcher you must be uniquely prepared to deal with hostile cops.
If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences
and video loss by understanding your state's laws and carefully adhering to the following rules.
Know Your Rights ((( i ))) The Police and a Converstaions
with you Video training film for the citizen / police oversight committiee Presented by the Portland Police on 10.5.10
- open to the public. Worth watching!
Must reads for all of you wanting to videotape or take photos.
In the above video, a news videographer is standing on public property when approached by a cop who demands
his identification (starting at 1:40).
The videographer refuses to provide his identification on the grounds that he is not doing anything illegal.
The cop, of course, gets irritated and calls for more cops.
But the videographer continues to refuse. And he continues to film, much to the dismay of the cop who comically
places his hat in front of the lens.
Did the videographer have the legal right to refuse to provide ID?
Yes.
But only because he was not being lawfully detained (the key word being “lawfully” as the officer
did tell him he was being detained at 4:20).
After several minutes of bullying, the videographer was allowed to leave without producing his identification
because they really had no reasonable suspicion to detain him.
However, he was ordered to leave the area when it is clear from the video that other civilians are casually
strolling the same area. That was another unlawful order.
But at that point, he probably didn’t want to push his luck.
He was in Texas, after all.
Contrary to what some might believe, there is no federal law mandating that we must provide identification
when asked by police.
However, several states have “stop and identify” statutes that require people to produce identifications
if they are being legally detained. And police can only legally detain you if they have a reasonable suspicion you have committed
or are about to commit a crime.
Texas recently joined the ranks of states that have these statutes. And the following 24 states also have stop and identify
statutes, according to Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia entry breaks down police interactions into three categories; consensual, detention and arrest.
A consensual interaction is no different than an interaction between two civilians on the
street. It gives the cop the right to ask the civilian questions, but it also gives the right for the civilian to refuse to
answer those questions, including providing identification.
A detention interaction is where a person is being legally detained, meaning the officer
needs to have some sort of reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. This is generally known as a “Terry Stop.” In the states that have stop and identify laws, the person could be arrested for refusing to provide identification.
The arrest interaction is when police have probable cause to arrest a person, which requires
more evidence than mere reasonable suspicion. This, of course, allows the officer to search the person for identification
once the arrest is made. If the suspect does not have identification, it could be illegal to refuse to identify oneself depending
on the jurisdiction. You might remember last year’s article about a New Hampshire man who spent several weeks in jail for refusing to provide his real name.
Some police apologists might argue that if a person refuses to provide identification during a consensual
argument, then that automatically turns it into a detention interaction because it gives the cop reasonable suspicion that
he is trying to hide something.
But even an article written by a senior legal advisor from the Plano, Texas Police Department published in
The Police Chief, described as the “Professional Voice of Law Enforcement,” confirms that an officer must be engaged
in a Terry Stop before he can demand identification.
To further confound things, the rules supposedly differ when a person is operating a vehicle because state
laws usually require people to produce identification upon request.
But even that has been challenged by a couple of Arizonaactivists who were arrested after refusing to comply with authorities after having been stopped at Border Patrol check
points, including one who recently had his charges dismissed.
-30-
Take a couple of minutes and vote for Photography is Not a Crime
in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Best of Blogs Awards contest. The main category is the Best Overall Blog category. That’s the grand prize.
I was also nominated for the “Politics” category, the “Art/DIY” category and the “Photography” category. You need to register to vote, but once you do, you can stuff the ballot box by voting for each category
at least once a day until the contest ends.
It only takes a couple of minutes. Think of all the time I spend
updating this damn blog. It would be well appreciated.
7.1.11
Joe Anybody Reports:
on Portland Police Accidental Beanbag Shotgun Shooting
When Dane Reister took my camera and ticketed me, I filed a tort claim and won. The city changed their policy to allow
the public to film the police in public. Wow! I had to fight for my right to film, which is my free speech. This officer reaction
to me or others that are watching him, is ugly and disturbing. So now that same officer shoots a 20 year old 4 times with
his beanbag [?] gun, BUT its loaded with real LIVE shotgun shells - This report is my opinion of officer Dane Reister.
The police say "Hi Joe" as they drive by me when leaving with the arrested (?) lady, the next cop waves to the camera
as he drives by. A related article about this same group of over zelous cops is posted here on indymedia http://youtu.be/X2pFW9zGS_E
Photographer arrested for just taking pictures at #OO protest.
Followed police orders to step back yet was still arrested. All these officers should be fired for infringing on people's
constitutional rights. This is a duplicate in case the original gets taken down.
(1) 1/3/11 Portland Anarchists marched 2 miles down the middle of the streets in Portland Oregon to show their
disgust and outrage over all the police shoots and murder. The police shoot people and deaths is rising. The 65 Anarchists
march past a bank and a couple of people leave their message on the front doors. The march continues, towards the police station
with a few dumpsters blocking the street and loud chants directed at the police for killing citizens.
(2) 1/3/11 The Anarchists are marching up NE 47th street to the NE police station, the police arrive behind
them in cars ordering them out of the streets. they continue chanting anti police violence chants and stay in the street.
A few re-cycle bins and garbage cans tossed in the street for the police to drive around. The march walks on sidewalk in front
of the police stations, chanting yelling and then disappears into the night... with 60 police all armed and standing around
the front of their building.
Faced with complaints from a citizen watchdog group, Atlanta police will stop interfering
with people who videotape officers performing their duties in public, an agreement reached with the city Thursday says.
The settlement, which also calls for the city to pay $40,000 in damages, requires city council approval.
The
agreement resolves a complaint filed by Marlon Kautz and Copwatch of East Atlanta, a group that films police activity with
cell phones and hand-held cameras. The group has volunteers who go out on patrols and begin videotaping police activity
when they come across it.
Last April, Kautz said, he pulled out his camera phone and began recording Atlanta police
who were arresting a suspect in Little Five Points. Two officers approached him and said he had no right to be filming
them, Kautz said. When Kautz refused to stop, one officer wrenched Kautz's arm behind his back and yanked the camera out
of his hands, he said. (read more)
This was a Community Oversight of Portland Police meeting that over 50 people attended. Most were there to tell how they
were treated by the police while participating in Occupy Portland march on January 25. Over a dozen people tell what happened
to them or what they seen that was inappropriate, unprofessional, unethical, and illegal. There is also testimony from other
police citizen related concerns. The meeting was in progress when I started taping so I missed the first 30 minute.
All new 2011 content will be posted at the top of this page. Not posted out of hatred or spite - posted to help
promote honest justice. Posted to provide transparency and accountabilityfor community
