Cops Arrest Journalist at Occupy Miami and Allegedly Delete His Video…That He Later Recovers
- Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:44am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
(Image: Carlos Perez)
A photo journalist covering the eviction of Occupy Miami protesters from a park recently was arrested and the video footage he captured deleted. But Carlos Miller was able to recover the deleted videos, which he accuses police of removing, including one showing his arrest. Now he’s protesting that arrest with the support of press advocates.
Miller is well-known as a photo journalism advocate. His blog Photography Is Not a Crime has allowed him to “[document] some of the most absurd cases against photographers over the last few years.” The Blaze has linked to several of his stories in the past, which have facilitated discussion about the rights of citizens to film police.
Ars Technica reports that Miller was moved along with a few protesters and journalists by law enforcement down a road away from the park. He then took a different route to reach his car and encountered a second wave of officers. Seeing they weren’t arresting other journalists around him, Miller continued toward them in the direction of his vehicle. At that point, he was placed under arrest.
This video footage, which Miller said was at one point deleted from his camera without his permission, shows the moments of his arrest:
Miller explains that releasing this video is his “first step in not only clearing my name, but in exposing how police media spokeswoman Nancy Perez singled me out from the rest of the media.“ Miller calls it a ”major blunder” that Perez (the female officer in the video above) arrested him while letting other journalists walk by.
Nancy Perez (Photo: Carlos Miller)
Here is some of Miller’s play-by-play of the video:
AT :23 seconds into the video, you will seen a group of Miami-Dade cops walking past me, ensuring that all the activists had been dispersed. None appeared concerned with presence.
[...]
At :43, you will see Miami Herald reporter Glenn Garvin in a white beard and glasses talking on the phone as he walks toward me on the sidewalk. He also witnessed my arrest, but did not know my name. He mentioned it in the fifth paragraph of this story.
At :47, you will see Perez who had just allowed the above-mentioned videographer in white shorts walk past her without stopping him. You will also see two more television news videographers behind her.
At :51, you will also see another television news videographer crouching down behind her video recording the marching cops from a low angle.
At :51, you will also see her step in front of me to detain me.
Miller states that he told Perez he was only headed back to his car, to which she replied: “No, it doesn’t work that way” and says that he has refused the cops’ dispersal request. Miller writes that even as police were taking his cameras and searching him, he was not resistant, but Perez still said: “We don’t want to hurt you:”
They are pulling the strap hard against my neck, so I tell them they don’t have to choke me, that they can do all this a little easier.
At 1:39, you can see my right hand extended at my side, showing no signs of aggression or resistance.
At 1:40, I point out to the arresting officers and the officer with the camera that “I am being cooperative” because I really feared they would use any excuse to beat me into submission.
In a separate post about his arrest, Miller states that the park was mainly evacuated except for six activists who stayed behind in protest. He says that police had put most of the media behind yellow tape, but some — including Miller — stayed in the park with the remaining protesters. It was at this point that the police began marching toward them, shuffling them down the road that led Miller to try an alternate route back to his car, before he was arrested. Miller says he asked authorities if he would be allowed to walk to his car but did not get a response. Miller did identify himself as a member of the press to Perez at the time. He says he asked about the other journalists who were not being arrested and did not receive an answer. (Read a more detailed account from Miller’s perspective of how he tried to reach his car here.)
As of right now, Miller says his camera is being reviewed by forensic specialists who will determine the exact time footage was deleted, to show whether or not it was removed while he was in custody. Miller will not only be seeking to clear himself of the charge of resisting arrest, but will also be filing a complaint over the deleted footage.
Ars Technica reports that Mickey Osterreicher, who is legal council for the National Press Photographers Association of which Miller is a member, is protesting the arrest saying it violated several of his constitutional rights:
“Aside from a blatant violation of Mr. Miller’s First Amendment rights to record matters of public interest in a public place,” Osterreicher wrote, “we do not understand how, absent some other underlying charge for which there was probable cause, a charge of resisting arrest can stand on its own?”
“We believe that the recovered video of the incident will show that officers acted outside of their authority, in violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 and similar protections provided by Florida law,” he wrote.
Miller says that in addition to full recovery of his footage and dating its time of deletion, he will also be seeking out the video recorded by Miami police as well as that from another journalist on the scene.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 676 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 527 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 412 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 372 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 268 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 278 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 152 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 268 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (90)
scrapadapolis
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 6:24amIs it me or does the police look dressed like gastopo?Almost paramilitary in their actions and their move out down the road.Eventhough I live in a small town and know most of our officers who‘s to say our government won’t be importating jackbooted thugs from other areas to perform martial law?A little question how do you fight back,what can you do?
Report Post »BrotherWill
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 6:48amIt‘s you and you’re an idiot. You have no idea wtf the Gestapo is or just how stupid you sound even comparing the two. Just stop posting before you make yourself out to be more of an idiot than what we already know you to be.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:26pmFalse arrests are actually very serious crimes according to the law. If you were to do that as a private citizen you’d be charged with false imprisonment which is a felony carrying a penalty of up to ten years in most states.
If they would actually prosecute the cases where police make false arrests and bring people to jail without just cause, then you wouldn’t have all these nuisance arrests that are just intended to show you what badasses they are. They happen because the justice system generally refuses to prosecute crimes committed by police.
False arrests are routine everywhere in the country.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:00pmThis was sloppy, sloppy work all around, though. The woman let one photojournalist walk right past her and then stepped into his path. This entire incident was of her design, not his, and then the deletion of video without his permission, provably, is pure amateur hour. Hopefully, this chick has participated in her last police action on that side of the badge. This is a case I will be keeping an eye out for in the future.
Report Post »oldoldtimer
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 8:21pmThey are no longer cops. they are now paramilitary just like in a third world dictatorship. Wait a minute. That explains it.
Report Post »Wilbur D Pig
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 4:36amHow do we know it was a false arrest? There are some small, very conspicuously absent edits in this video. I can’t be the only person to see this. In the video that officers take, if there is any break in the camera footage the plaintiffs always use that as their springboard to a million dollar lawsuit. I don’t want to deny anyone their rights, but what happened in those edits that possibly prompted the response that he got?
Also conspicuous is the fact that this guy is a photo-activist. What’s to say that police erased his video? He could just be saying that they did; throwing the burden of proof to the MDPD officers whose only recourse is to say, “No, we didn’t” (even if they did). Lose-lose for MDPD and now this guy has (thanks to theblaze) the most attention his sorry little cause has ever had.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 4:38pm@ Wilbur D Pig
I agree, but the police have there own cameras too. At 1:16 you see an officer with a camera walk off stage right. So, there is other evidence. not to mention that this was most likely digitally recorded and is one complete file. If deleted, the drive will have all pieces (unless it was saved over). His claims seem very choice to support that he did nothing wrong.
However, the police are very calm (even when arresting him). It seems they were even explaining something to him, when she says, “That is not how it works.” Probably him claiming to be Press with no credentials (WHICH ARE REQUIRED WHEN PASSING POLICE LINES).
As for the guy walking past her, he is from a major network and most likely already has clearance from her (as she is the Media Relations Officer for Miami Dade Police). He also has something hanging (black) from his right front hip. This is most likely his credentials from the major network.
As TureLiberal was schooled below, here is his source that he states says no credentials are needed. However, I showed that they state they are for breaching police and Fire lines:
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/press_credentials.html
Read the Government ID section.
Report Post »g.prunty
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:12pmwell this is the first time I am on the 99% side
Report Post »kdcddd
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:45pmHitler would be proud,,,,police state America.
Report Post »kdcddd
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:42pmHitler would be proud.
Report Post »robert
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:35pmSomebody tell me what VALID reason the police have for going ballistic just for having their actions recorded, unless they‘re aware what they’re doing is either illegal or an example of misconduct?
The same situation exists with voice recording. The fat politicos are so fearful of being held accountable for what they say they made laws in various states declaring it illegal to record a conversation unless the person being recorded is notified what he might say will be on tape.
Of course it is o.k. if they record the rest of us and the public at large either by voice or video. But they draw the line at being held accountable themselves for what they do and say.
This country is a far cry from what the founders intended. Representative government has turned into doing what the politicos want that is in line with their own personal desires and ideologies and they don’t even bother to send you a form letter anymore if you happen to contact them by mail.
This system is now dysfunctional. The only way they could set thjings straight once again is to have the people vote on issues via referendum. That would be the only change that could work.
As it is, we now have taxation without representation, and a revolutionary war was fought over that issue many years ao.
Are we going to have to fight another one in order to get control of our own country back, wresting it away from the control freaks who now are in control?
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:31pmHow come the police didn’t just smash the camera when they are attempting to destroy the evidence?
If you want to destroy evidence, then the last thing you should do is give the recording device back to the defendant because that only gives him a chance to use that evidence against you in court.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:21pmI don’t think we can accuse the police of being members of mensa,but if one of them could actually figure it out the heel of their jackboot could crush the evidence.
Report Post »enough_liberal_BS
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 5:29pmDoes his smug smile lead anyone else to consider that he may have just been looking for a reason for a little “creative editing”?
Report Post »altops
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 3:30pm“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
Report Post »“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
Buck Shane
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 4:41pmGood stuff.
Report Post »It seems to me that if the only charge is “Resisting Arrest,” it is an admission that the police had no reason to make the arrest the person is supposed to have resisted. If he is entitled to defend himself, how can he be charged?. Someone has to lose their badge.
Buster Hyman
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 5:18pmExecellent post. If we do not use our liberty it will be abused. It is our duty to our children to protect our rights and thereby their rightrs.
Y’all have a nice day.
Report Post »JesusH.Christ
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 5:21pmHave you ever been in a situation where you were being unlawfully arrested and abused by police?
Report Post »If so, did you try to fight back or resist? Did it work? No? Did you get your head cracked open? Ribs broken? Nose Broken? Black eyes? Were you then charged with a host of other charges including assault on a police officer? Spend a few days in jail? Hire a lawyer, file a suit, go to court only to have the case thrown out for lack of sufficient evidence? No?
Wish I hadn’t. I should have just let them arrest me without protest and I might have survived unscathed. Maybe even gotten a judgement against the SFPD.
But I’m not bitter. :-)
Buck Shane
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 5:38pm@ JesusH.Christ
“Have you ever been in a situation where you were being unlawfully arrested and abused by police?
If so, did you try to fight back or resist? Did it work?”
Yes.
It worked until I decided to stop resisting.
Report Post »There were witnesses. Got off with no problem. It was worth it because I then went to the police station and said exactly what all of us here would like to have said in my place to the chief and the officers he called over to protect him in case I got physical. He got me an audience.
Sheepdog911
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 5:41pmAltops, Nice misquote from Plummer (1893). When physically attacked, you have the right defend yourself, even from a policeman. However, if a policeman places you under arrest, HE/SHE has the right to use force including killing the person he’s attempting to arrest. Your quotes are danger misstatements based on arbitrary extracts that only serve your purpose, not the truth..
Report Post »txbigfoot
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:14pmIts not illegal when you have no place being there and you are interfering. The camera man he walked by had his camera down. The other guy may have been a police officer in PC.. hello. Use your brain for something other than being an agitator or an occuapooper.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:07pm@ Sheepdog911
In reviewing your post, I find his court decisions to be availlable. Do you have the decisions that support your objection?
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:16pm@ txbigfoot
“Its not illegal when you have no place being there and you are interfering. The camera man he walked by had his camera down. The other guy may have been a police officer in PC.. hello. Use your brain for something other than being an agitator or an occuapooper.”
Report Post »or
This might be another case of police officers trying to arrest someone for filming them. I saw nothing illegal in what this man did. Am I wrong?
FaithfulFriend
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 2:12pmThere is nothing in the video which even remotely suggests the police did anything other than carry out their duties in a professional and friendly manner.
Report Post »OneTermPresident
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 3:29pmObviously his right to record in a public place was violated and then the resisting arrest charge… did you see or hear him resisting?
Report Post »proliance
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:04pmWrong. He was arrested and charged with a crime. The video tape was evidence. When the cops deleted it they committed a felony by destroying evidence and since more than one was probably involved it is also a conspiracy
I‘ve been following Carlos’ blog for at least a couple of years. He‘s been arrested twice before by cops who don’t know the law and has beaten both charges.
Carlos will beat these charges, the cops will be disciplined and retrained and he may also make a few bucks off being illegally arrested.
Report Post »drphil69
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 2:10pmSo the next time I get pulled over for speeding, I will tell the he didn‘t pull over the 6 cars speeding around me so he can’t write me a ticket…
Typical LIBERAL CRY BABY!
Report Post »M24
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 1:42pmIm thinking since Obama got elected Its real Hard To Be A Good Law Enforcement Officer ,City and State Politicans Are dropping them In the Grease Almost daily, I agree some officers have a attitude and Thats Why I just Dont Trust Anybody But GOD, The Violence at these protest event is going to get worse ,First rule of Survival DONT GO INTO CROWDS !!!!!
Report Post »Dinkiecb
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:55pmI’m sorry … I firmly believe the cops should be able to do the job they do and realize even that some days … it’s just a bad day… but if I’m on the street (public property) with my camera, and I’m out of their way (for which I can imagine why I would be) if I want to take pictures.. “I” will .. it’s just insane to believe that with all the cameras out there these days it should be a problem unless of course the police are doing something truely illegal and using their badge to cause you problems. There’s no excuse for em to get away with it… the public wouldn’t be so why should the cops.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 1:09pmall “on duty” public officials are subjected to being filmed. they can not refuse.
Report Post »this has been settled in many court cases… they are OUR employees. it’s that simple.
OniKaze
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:09pmThis is why police cannot be trusted. Most let the power of their position go to their head. Not all of them are bad, in fact many police DO have good intentions, however, there are enough of them out there with “bully-syndrome” that I don’t trust any of them.
I respect them, but I will never TRUST them. And I am sure (from my few interactions with them) that the feeling is mutual. Not everyone is a criminal, but many officers look at people as if they are just criminals-in-waiting.
I could understand something like this, if the person had a gun on their hip (for the officers safety sake) but a camera is not a lethal weapon. Our police need to stop with Gestapo tactics, and get back to enforcing laws.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 1:05pmThe video is seriously edited and cutting out most of the information. I bet you he claims they deleted the conversations, but the officer‘s tone is quite calm when she says it doesn’t work like that. I am willing to beat his credentials were not on him. They were questioning him on his rights as a press agent. He must wear his press badge at all times when working at an event like this with heavy police presence due to possible riots.
There is also a bad edit job right after she calls the other officer. Look at it at his blog (as the vid here is not working).
http://www.pixiq.com/article/here-is-the-recovered-video-police-deleted-of-my-arrest
Report Post »IceTrey
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 2:14pmRead the story. The video was deleted. What you are seeing is what he was able to recover. That is why it is choppy, not because it was edited.
Report Post »TrueLiberal
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 2:59pmJohnny, you are quite simply, wrong. As a member of the press I can tell you there are no such thing as “Press Credentials.“ This idea people walk around wearing a hat with a paper sticking out of the band with ”PRESS” written on it is a fantasy. It never happens and never did. Most photos and videos you see are produced by freelance photojournalists just like this guy. I understand you may not like his politics, (I’m not sure what they are by the way) but the fact is, countless rulings provide precedent, a private citizen in public has the RIGHT to record anything occurring in public view or within public audio range.
Report Post »One wonders if you would be so critical of James O’Keefe? Then again, I doubt you know who he is, hypocrites are usually pretty ignorant.
JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:15pm@ TrueLiberal
Nice try, but You do need a badge (IE credentials). That is why all major news stations have credentials and supply them to their reports. Independents/Freelancers must either get there credentials upon hiring for a job or through site like this:
http://www.ia-pp.com/en/faq/about-press-passes.html
They are to avoid situations like he found himself.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:20pm@ IceTrey
I read the story and went to his page to get the video (it was deleted on the page when I visited).. It was edited. You do not have to be George Lucas to tell that. At :50 she starts to turn, then at :51 she is off camera to the left. Unless she is the flash, Superman or suprer human, that officer moves fast.
Then at 1:01 the frame is of her, then at 1:02 it jumps and is pointed at the bridge. Come on… you need to be honest with proof like that the video was not edited.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:33pm@ Tureliberal
Here is another source:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/whos_a_journalist_1.php?page=all
LMAO
Freedom of the press is freedom to write what you will not go where ever you want. Learn the law? You need to read the constitution.
If you are correct, the the New York code is illegal and against the constitution. If so, it would have been addressed a long time ago.
Report Post »TrueLiberal
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:42pmOne more time Johnny, there is NO SUCH THING as a “press pass.” The website you gave a link to is just a place a person can buy an official looking card to try using so they might be able to fool some idiot guarding the backstage gate at a Britney Spears concert. This is the 2nd post from the Q and A section on the front page of the site YOU gave:
Q: Is there such a thing as an official press pass?
No. Any press association can issue a press pass. There is no such thing as an official or national press pass.
Let me quote, “no such thing”, this site doesn‘t even have an ethics requirement for Pete’s sake! The only press photogs association with any credibility is the NPPA. http://www.nppa.org/ Notice it is a .org NOT a .com. Not only that, NPPA says on their website what they issue is an ID, the point being it is NOT a “press pass”, why, no such thing. And, the NPPA at least has an ethics requirement and you must be sponsored, however, they STILL don’t issue a “pass”, why, NO SUCH THING!
I understand you like to think yourself informed but, on this, you are not. The photographer was in the right, the police were, legally, in the wrong. Such will be shown in court, one more time, I expect.
Report Post »TrueLiberal
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 7:16pmYes Johnny, I am fully aware CJR wants a “government recognised credential” system for the press. Why, because CJR would be quite influential in WHO gets the pass. Let me see, umm… THEIR GRADUATES that’s who!
I never said anyone can go anywhere they want. But public view is public view.
The court has ruled repeatedly in favor of private citizens being able to photograph anything, YES ANYTHING, (which includes cops) in public view. Such is why we have FREELANCE (the very definition of the word) journalists in the United States and from our press freedoms, the world moves toward more transparent society.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:33am@ TrueLiberal
The police were establishing police lines and prevented him from entering. The video is edited as to remove most the conversation.
As to Backstage Pass’? Those are regulated by the event holders:
http://bzmedia.com/presspass.htm
Even Ehow tells you what classifies as credentials:
http://www.ehow.com/how_4444054_obtain-press-pass.html
Even your .org Verifies this:
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/press_credentials.html
Event specific press credentials are usually provided by the organizers of the event, i.e. major league sports, concerts, festivals, press conferences, corporate meetings.
You do not need government approval to work as a journalist, although it may be beneficial to obtain a “Press ID” or an official government-issued press credential for other reasons.
The zone was a quarantine zone and access was restricted. They most like asked him for credentials. He could have shown a business card, unless Miami Dade (not Broward County) require members of the press to have special credentials like New York City or even the White House (and countless other government buildings).
Can you claim to be a press agent and have an interview with the President? No! It is high regulated. I am not saying it is right. I am only telling you the laws and policies. The issue wasn’t him filming, it was him trying to avoid a police order (most likely due to lack of credentials).
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:52am@ Trueliberal
Here is another site that mentions you need credentials from the event to have access to backstage concerts.
http://mia-carter.suite101.com/how-to-get-a-press-pass-for-a-concert-or-event-a103439
Sorry dude, freedom of press is regulated, by the people (as the 10th Amendment states – or did you overlook that one?).
That is why NPPA says:
It is important to realize that you do not need a press “credential” to take pictures or cover events in public places (streets, parks, sidewalks that are not closed off to public access).
The event is closed off to the public. And when the police were entering the park area, the park was closed to public access. I really doubt the photographers story. It doesn’t hold water, especially with his heavily modified video. He claims he is recovering it, but his approach brings more question to his motives than his “story”. Sorry man, if it smells like doo doo, it most likely is.
Not all cops are innocent, but seeing as the police (from what footage is available) were quite calm. As if a casual conversation was happening. She was explaining the policies and how to gain access (most likely), as she states calmly, “Awwwww… It doesn’t work like that.” At that point he probably refused to leave and demanded access (or tried to walk past).
BAM!!!! Why he was arrested. There are times you need credentials. No law exists that says it, but police have policies to establish who is a reporter and who isn
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:54amOh, and the NPPA even states what I said:
http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/press_credentials.html
Government-issued ID
A government issued press ID may provide improved access in some situations. It is another form of identification and in some communities may be acceptable to law enforcement agencies for purposes of access beyond police and fire lines (but this is always at the discretion of the officer in charge of the scene). Some courts may allow media with a court-issued ID or other government issued press pass to enter the courthouse without being screened (a big help when you are late for court and have lots of camera bags to run through the x-ray machine). Other courts may require a special ID.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:58am@TrueLiberal
And I am informed, you simply refuse to be wrong, because you have an agenda. “The Truth has no Agenda”, which is what I am offering. You refusal to except it is 100% ignorant of the constitution, the policy of government agencies, and policy of journalists everywhere. I mean this is journalism 101 here, not a fly by night blogger (who assumes the law and policy without studying). There is tons of info to support my stance (even from your own sources).
Again, bow out gracefully. No harm no foul. Unless you keep making veiled attacks and I am forced to continue making look uneducated.
Report Post »David Hudson
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:42amQuis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchmen?). Apparently nobody! I would think that the police would want it filmed for their protection.
Report Post »The Bees Know
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:12amFunny, it seems as if part of the film was recovered, not all. There could be more to this story. Office Perez, you out there? Are you allowed to comment?
Report Post »Whitey4West
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:36amGood thing he’s got carbonite (sp?) online backup!
Report Post »qzak491
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:30amConsidering these two articles how can Beck think cops are good, there playing God just like the government. ALSO It says she let other journalists go by without anything being said. If this is true this means this “cop” was prejudice against this man and seems to be using “profiling” in her assesment of who is bad. I didn’t think we were supposed to use these tactics against Mexicans or Arabs but it is alright to use against journalists, something is wrong here, shouldn’t she be called a racist for discriminating against him and his group, we would it we did it. Me thinks she is an osama follower and we know they are always right.
Report Post »Darla_K
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:46amI think there is good and bad in all groups of people, no matter if they are cops, judges, politicians, and presidents. If you ask 50 people about this story most of them will probably jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts and say the cops acted stupidly. Myself, I need more facts.
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 11:09amDARLA_K. I think I remember our Race-Baiter-in-Chief who is also a guy who has had his own run-ins with Law Enforcement back in the day saying just that…”Police/cops acting/acted stupidly.” Some people have it in their mind that the Police/Law Enforcement/Authority is always bad. IMO many of those people have had run-ins with them and have a bad taste in their mouths due to their own stupidity at one time or another.
Provoke or antagonize the Police and a person might more than they bargained for… or exactly what they wanted.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:39pm@ qzak491
You just don’t understand. It is an important part of a policeman’s job to protect us from photographers. I certainly feel better knowing that my police are not being photographed. If we just allow anyone to record the police’s actions, how would they have the flexibility to administer “street justice?”
Report Post »The country is much safer if the police are not responsible for their actions. /sarc off
Buck Shane
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:52pm@ Darla_K
90% of the police give the other 10% a bad name.
Report Post »Robert in Texas
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:28amI’m a little confused by the whole 1st Amendment violation here… yes, we have a freedom of the press, but in today’s technological setting – it seems EVERYONE calls themselves members of the press. Granted, he was “covering the story” but for whom? What official Press Outlet – recognized as PRESS in Miami, was he working for at the time of his arrest. Yes, the Miami Herald Journalist was NOT arrested, but I’m sure that might be because he held official press credentials. Unless, this “journalist” presented credentials and was actually “ON THE JOB” covering the story – rather than being one of thousands of others with a camera who pretend to be “Journalists” – then yes, he violated orders of police. He admitted to not taking the route that Police told him to take when he was told to disperse. Had he done so, and had dispersed when told to do so – he would never have been arrested. Any attempt to try to get an officer to stop arresting you – including “Don’t Arrest Me“ is considered ”Resisting Arrest” so that charge will stick. THey told him why he was being placed under arrest. He kept asking why and saying they didn’t tell him. Sorry – but just because you carry a camera and have an online blog doesn’t mean you are a member of the press.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:24pmDoes that mean the Blaze is not a news source and not protected by the Constitution? His is a member of the National Press Photographers Association. I encourage you to visit their site. This is an accrediting body for professional photojounalists. He might be a free lance who sells stories.
Report Post »Duey2000
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:47pmRobert, I was thinking the exact same thing as I read this article and the article by the Miami Herald author. “Journalist,” is a pretty loose term these days. Journalists aren’t out to make news but to report on it fairly and objectively. To become a part of the story (and yes, ignoring the orders of a police officer qualifies) then you are changing the story and twisting it into something that it is not. One protestor and this guy were arrested. Nobody was beaten, nobody was tazed, but because this little excuse for human being has a camera and a website he makes it sound as though the police are just going out there with batons and playing whack-a-mole with protestors. And people on this website that are commenting about how terrible the police behaved are just as guilty as this guy was. They jump to conclusions or have stereotyped all police officers into this group of vigilante justices.
Report Post »MidwestMomof3
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 1:20pmUm…if you follow the link to his blog and do a little bit of reading it says right in there that he HAS press credentials and is editor of a local media outlet of some sort. smh
Report Post »TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:21amLaw-enforcement agencies, especially police departments often get a bad rap and a bad reputation due to negative publicity or mistakes that might have been made in the field. Sometimes these stories get rather embellished and it is not the Police Department’s fault. Sometimes perfectly honest police officers are made to look like the devil and the mass media hysteria runs away with a story based on a short clip of a video, which is limited in length and does not show the whole picture of what happened.
It is important for law enforcement agencies to be out and about and respected by the public. Whereas some people who receive a speeding ticket are angry at the Police Department, the first time something happens to them the police are the first people they call. It is a love-hate relationship with citizens often and law enforcement and that is too bad. Clearly it does not have to be that way.
Police departments should form community policing units that improve visibility and understanding. Educational programs in the schools are also important for police departments and they obviously will help when it comes time for witnesses to come forward.
Law-enforcement agencies should always be on good terms with the local media and have open communication lines. They should also promote a very strong and robust public relations program so that they do not fall victim to hearsay when problems arise.
Report Post »circleDwagons
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 2:19pm@time4chains. i agree with you there is alot that the police should do, INCLUDING respecting the public. i have friends and clients that are law enforcement but that does not mean i trust ALL officers.
Report Post »Radiant.Simplicity
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 3:49pmYou mean like the other video on the Blaze of the diabetic guy on the ground with 3 cops holding him down and a another cop comes and kicks him in the head! That kind of distortion? And that guy still has a job!!!!
Report Post »momrules
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:17amThe bond set for Miller was $1000.00. I do wonder what the bond has been for the protesters that have been arrested or if they on the arrest and release program.
Report Post »Thighmaster
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:08amThank God he’s not diabetic..
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:56am.
Report Post »Are the cops friends or foes?…..Sometimes it’s hard to tell…………..
neverending
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:28amAnd I do also and that is a pretty frightening to think about.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:55amIn this case I have to wonder what the rest of the story was – did the guy actually provoke a incident and only told part of his story; or are we seeing more provocation of the cops part? I cannot say right now.
Report Post »dmforman
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:15amagreed! There isn’t enough information to know the entire story.
Report Post »nocalifornia
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:36amDid he even have press credentials and if he did were they visible for the police to see? I think this was an intentional act on his part to provoke an incident.
Report Post »Teufel Hunden
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 10:47amBy the smug look on his face in the booking photo I’m thinking he was not telling the whole story. Book him Danno!
Report Post »Nepenthe
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:01pmNow, leet’s all hold our breath for the chrages of Destruction of Evidence to be applied to these officers. Of course, we would all pass out, since many laws only apply to the civilian population.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 4:01pm@Nocali
What precisely are “press credentials”, pray tell? You don’t have to be “licensed” to be a journalist, last check. That whole 1st Amendment thing.
Report Post »Airb0rne4325
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 5:45pmAt 1:17 you can see a cop with a video camera of his own videoing the incident. Where is that video? That may give us more info
Report Post »Lesterp
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:52amThey can recover these videos but no one can recover one of Obama smoking! Laughable
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 12:57pmHe was charged with Resisting an Officer, not resisting arrest. There is a difference. Resisting and officer is when a civilian resists a lawful order from a law enforcement officer. Like, “You can’t pass this police line.” If you insist on pushing the matter, you are resisting an officer. This will lead to an arrest. Doesn’t matter if he is with the press or not.
If the officer asks him to move, he must move. If the officer refuses to let him pass, because he did not vacate with the other reports – he took that chance when he conscientiously decided not to vacate when requested. Also, was his credentials plainly visible? The only mention I see in this whole article is that he stated he was with the press. Sorry, that does not pass for credentials. Why do you think the press have badges? To identify them. For all we know, his badge may not have been visible nor being worn/displayed.
Would you except the officer seas to part for any crackhead with a camera?
Report Post »TrueLiberal
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 3:13pmAgain Johnny, your ignorance is showing. The press do not have badges. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution is WHY the press do not have badges in the United States or anywhere the press are independent of the state. Otherwise, “press badges” would need to be issued by the state. This would constitute institutional censorship and control of the press by the state. A situation expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
Report Post »Learn the law before posting, you will appear less foolish.
Endstatism
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 3:22pmTheir other favorite charge is “interfering with a police officer” It is the choice of larger Florida departments, notably Orlando. The charges are usually tossed by the states attorney. Sometimes the people file false arrest lawsuits but usually end up only winning small awards and the rotten apples in that law enforcement agency continue in their abuse of power.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:24pm@ Bryan from Florida
A list of lawyers say you are wrong:
http://www.dmt-law.com/lawyer-attorney-1589507.html
http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net/html/resisting-without-violence.html
http://www.miami-criminallaw.com/practice-areas/resisting-an-officer
It is an independent charge that is not solely for arrest and can been issued upon refusing to respond to a police order, provided the order was lawful.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:25pm@ TrueLiberal
Nice try, but you do need a badge (IE credentials). That is why all major news stations have credentials and supply them to their reporters. Independents/Freelancers must either get there credentials upon hiring for a job or through site like this:
http://www.ia-pp.com/en/faq/about-press-passes.html
They are to avoid situations like he found himself.
As for Ignorance, you my friend are the king! :)
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:27pm@TrueLiberal
Oh… I would suggest posting actual facts with links to support it from creditable sources. Not I work in the press…
LMAO… You are nothing but a name and agenda otherwise. I will never take you serious (especially when i can generate proof otherwise). Learn how to debate little man… lmao
Report Post »TrueLiberal
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:52pmOne more time Johnny, there is NO SUCH THING as a “press pass.” The website you gave a link to is just a place a person can buy an official looking card to try using so they might be able to fool some idiot guarding the backstage gate at a Britney Spears concert. This is the 2nd post from the Q and A section on the front page of the site YOU gave:
Q: Is there such a thing as an official press pass?
No. Any press association can issue a press pass. There is no such thing as an official or national press pass.
Let me quote, “no such thing”, this site doesn‘t even have an ethics requirement for Pete’s sake! The only press photogs association with any credibility is the NPPA. http://www.nppa.org/ Notice it is a .org NOT a .com. Not only that, NPPA says on their website what they issue is an ID, the point being it is NOT a “press pass”, why, no such thing. And, the NPPA at least has an ethics requirement and you must be sponsored, however, they STILL don’t issue a “pass”, why, NO SUCH THING!
I understand you like to think yourself informed but, on this, you are not. The photographer was in the right, the police were, legally, in the wrong. Such will be shown in court, one more time, I expect.
You sir, are a fool. The website you choose to hang your “facts” on debunks your argument within the text of the front page! You understand nothing about media law. You Google searched “press pass” and found a crackerjack-box site which accounts to a
Report Post »TrueLiberal
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 6:53pm*…guy with a printer and a lamination machine.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 9:39am@ TrueLiberal
And I work in IT… .org means nothing. Anyone can buy a .org, Just ask GoDaddy.com. For example, for $6.99, I can own and use youreatool.org. It doesn’t give a website more credibility. However, the NPPA itself has credibility.
You keep going thinking you don’t need credentials, even to get backstage. i have friends at CNN and Fox News that will tell you, in order to have access to sensitive areas were there is police involvement, credentials are needed. Especially to break police lines, and that is IF the police allow. The policies are to protect the lives of innocent people and to control an area when SHTF (doo doo hits the fan).
Sorry dude, you lose. You pathetic attempts to continue debating is a joke.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on February 9, 2012 at 4:19pm@ TrueLiberal
See above posts… lmao… Your site exactly states what I state. Try reading your sources first.
Mr ******* Jack LMAO
Report Post »