Cop attacks cameraman.

RMThompson

the TPF moderators rock my world!
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
11
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I don't know the background on this video at all, for all I know it could be fake.

However it seems to be legit, and shows what happens sometimes when a Police Officer decides the rights of another person are not important.

AGAIN: I want to make it clear I have NO IDEA the background on the video, and there could be a legitimate reason the officer needed to "take down" the camera man... he could have been threatening, could be brandishing a weapon, I just simply don't know.

LINK:

http://www.break.com/index/cop-attacks-cameraman.html

EDIT: After watching it again, it seems that the camera man is merely filming what's going on, and the officer asks him for his name, to which the cameraman does the same. Regardless, the officer seems to be in no harm, and does not ask the cameraman to do anything or warns him before attacking him.
 
Wow, there is more information than I thought:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats outrageous. That cop should lose his job and go to prison for that. For god sakes, the cameraman was just standing there!
 
Hmmm treading closely with this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124733

As I said in that thread, Police officers and Law Enforcement in general has a really bad PR campaign that is really off track. There is no way LE in general is going to have the public's trust until corrected.

What I did find REALLY interesting is that someone who claims to be a police officer added this tidbit to the comments section of the youtube page:

"I am an officer and I am reluctant to be critical of another officer but I think there is enough evidence to say he crossed the line. Photographers have certain rights."

This is exactly one reason for LE failure in PR. The whole reluctance to be critical of another officer regardless if the other officer step out of bounds. It simply festers an "us versus them" mentality.

I usually say cooperate with the police adding "with reason" at the end. I say this is one of those times that the cameraman (hopefully) filed a major complaint against that officer.

"Respectfully Distrust"
 
Hmmm treading closely with this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124733

As I said in that thread, Police officers and Law Enforcement in general has a really bad PR campaign that is really off track. There is no way LE in general is going to have the public's trust until corrected.

What I did find REALLY interesting is that someone who claims to be a police officer added this tidbit to the comments section of the youtube page:

"I am an officer and I am reluctant to be critical of another officer but I think there is enough evidence to say he crossed the line. Photographers have certain rights."

This is exactly one reason for LE failure in PR. The whole reluctance to be critical of another officer regardless if the other officer step out of bounds. It simply festers an "us versus them" mentality.

I usually say cooperate with the police adding "with reason" at the end. I say this is one of those times that the cameraman (hopefully) filed a major complaint against that officer.

"Respectfully Distrust"

It is unfortunate that this type of incident does occur but it has nothing to do with photographers and it even has nothing to do with cops. First, let's be real. Photographers are not the only victims of rogue cops. Second, you mentioned the reluctance of another officer to be critical. When have you ever seen a surgeon express criticism of another surgeon?

I will state categorically that the only way to reduce these occurrences is for victims to take appropriate action afterwards. However, many victims are scared of additional retaliation or perhaps they have something to hide. In either case, that reluctance is what allows these situations to continue to occur.
 
It is unfortunate that this type of incident does occur but it has nothing to do with photographers and it even has nothing to do with cops.

It has everything to do with police officers. The topic is about a police officer's actions isn't it?

First, let's be real. Photographers are not the only victims of rogue cops. Second, you mentioned the reluctance of another officer to be critical.

I am being real. Where in my post did I single out photographers? I didn't say they were the only victims of rogue cops. The overwhelming feeling is that the general public is a victim of rogue over zealous police officers. "Senor Hound" even expressed his feelings in the other thread. I didn't say those feelings or the negative PR compaign was earned or valid BUT in the end it doesn't matter. Just like the Bell shooting in NYC... regardless if the shooting is justified or not (that's not for me to debate), the public simply sees 50 rounds of police issued bullets emptied into a car of unarmed citizens. As I said... ALWAYS respect a police officer BUT you do not have to trust him/her.

When have you ever seen a surgeon express criticism of another surgeon?

Actually YES.. I've been in a court room were a medical doctor (surgeon?) was specifically brought in to testify their expert opinion that refuted the medical examiner's findings (another doctor). There is very few professions like Law Enforcement that there is this unwritten rule that you protect your fellow officer at all costs... that you shall never ever be critical of the actions of another officer regardless of their actions. This is specific behavior that puts the public against the officers.

How many times do I have to see an unmarked police vehicle speeding down the highway at a high rate of speed and weaving in and out of traffic WITHOUT any lights puting commuters at risk? Yes they may have good reason (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) but I'm sure there is a large population of commuters that feel it is hypocrisy.

I will state categorically that the only way to reduce these occurrences is for victims to take appropriate action afterwards. However, many victims are scared of additional retaliation or perhaps they have something to hide. In either case, that reluctance is what allows these situations to continue to occur.

What in the world do you think I've been saying in this and the other thread? I specifically stated disappointment because fellow TPF members held it against the OP that he didn't stand up for his rights right there on the street against the police officer. I specifically went back and forth with Skieur stating that you should use your best judgement and cooperate with the police officer (within reason). More importantly, file a complaint through appropriate channels.

Socrates... really.. man... you don't have to pick apart my post as I'm agreeing with you 100%.
 
wow, he didn't even warn him or anything, just assault and battery. No different then if a guy on the street attacks you, Id say the cameraman was fearing his life in danger after a guy with a gun attacks you...??? what the heck..

Too bad the cameraman didn't have concealed weapon permit and used it to defend himself. That would have been a good thing given the circumstance. When did we enter nazi germany ?

If there wasn't another cop who would have shot the guy like a cheap wimp, I'd say pull out a taser and defend yourself against getting kicked to the ground and stomped on.
 
Going to play devil's advocate here. First, in my books 'destroy' would imply that the camera is no longer in working order and cannot be fixed. From what I can see, the camera was dropped from his hands and hung around his neck. Second, someone name a $50 000 camera that you normally hang from your neck. Third, if I was a police officer I would get really peeved off with anyone shining a light in my eyes seeing as it obstructs his vision and may place him in danger if a weapon was to be drawn.

Just some thoughts

ETA: Oops.. didn't notice it was a TV cameraman - but the third part still stands
 
If the cop had a legal leg to stand on I think we would have heard him asking the photog to lower the light, instead he maneuvers around, after the patrol car leaves and trys to sucker punch the camera man from out of view of the camera.

Kinda says a lot.....

Also, when he zooms out you can see is like a long ways back, probably 100 feet from the scene, the cop didnt have to walk up and intimidate the camera man, he could have done his job without it. The news has a history of being on the scene and using lights when something newsworthy happens and the courts always back this up.

If the cop had a legal reason to stop the cameraman he would have brought out his own taser and asked the cameraman to back down. Instead like a big sissy he sucker punches the guy.

Ill agree having a light shined at you can be annoying, but it doesn't give you the right to assault someone cause they have a camera light on you. The newsman is just trying to get the details about what happened, this is normal news activity and is covered well within the law.

I would have cheered if the cameraman had dropped the cop.
 
Going to play devil's advocate here. First, in my books 'destroy' would imply that the camera is no longer in working order and cannot be fixed. From what I can see, the camera was dropped from his hands and hung around his neck. Second, someone name a $50 000 camera that you normally hang from your neck. Third, if I was a police officer I would get really peeved off with anyone shining a light in my eyes seeing as it obstructs his vision and may place him in danger if a weapon was to be drawn.

Just some thoughts

ETA: Oops.. didn't notice it was a TV cameraman - but the third part still stands


Yeah, sure, okay..... Are you married to a cop?
 
...
Just some thoughts ...

ETA: Oops.. didn't notice it was a TV cameraman - but the third part still stands

This is why we have courts.
 
Ahh! Note to self: never play devil's advocate again.

Just a side note, there is a reason I am not going not going into law (everyone breathes a sigh of relief ;)) - however, I am certain there is always a different side of the sorry and the truth is always somewhere in between. I have had to deal with the media before and they are very errr... gifted in twisting stories into something that is quite far from how it actually happened.

Oh and Rick, I am neither married to a cop nor do I have any family members that are involved in the judicial system - we are mostly farmers and carpenters so I would say quite far from it :)
 
Who will watch the watchmen... indeed.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top