Welcome to the Police State.

Fletchette · Oct 17, 2007

Welcome to the Police State.

http://instapundit.com/archives2/010581.php

October 17, 2007

MORE POLICE VIDEO THUGGISHNESS: "Frank Waterhouse of Oregon is suing Portland police after he was tasered and shot with a beanbag gun. His offense? Videotaping a warrantless police search on a friend's property. The police report helpfully explains that the force used on Waterhouse (who was standing far off on the edge of the property) was necessary because, 'He had refused to drop the camera which could be used as a weapon.'"

MudPuppy · Oct 17, 2007

I don't think he followed their lawful instruction.

Thernlund · Oct 17, 2007

'He had refused to drop the camera which could be used as a weapon.'

Great. Now I wanna start collecting cameras. Hmph.

-T.

damien · Oct 17, 2007

He didn't follow their unlawful instruction.

Let me reiterate my prior suggestion:

"All Police Should Be Required To Wear Personal Recorders"

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=284057

ceetee · Oct 17, 2007

[Monty Python] That's an offensive weapon, that is!" [/Monty Python]

PPGMD · Oct 17, 2007

He didn't follow their unlawful instruction.

Exactly making the case that he could use the camera as a weapon is pretty weak. I hope the department gets it's ass handed to it if they are in the wrong.

LaEscopeta · Oct 17, 2007

He didn't follow their unlawful instruction.

Why is it lawful for a LEO to order a citizen to drop a camera? A citizen who is (if the internet news story is to be believed) standing on their own property and not interfering with the actions of the LEO? If a camera can be used as a weapon, couldn't a belt be use as a weapon? Is it lawful for LEO to order anyone to take off their belt and drop it? How about their pants?

I don't know I'm just asking...

RKBABob · Oct 17, 2007

LOOK OUT! He's got a camera! :what:

Hmm... Does this mean all citizens can interpret someone holding a video camera as a potentially deadly threat?

Why is it lawful for a LEO to order a citizen to drop a camera? A citizen who is (if the internet news story is to be believed) standing on their own property and not interfering with the actions of the LEO?

If this is justified, then by the same logic, couldn't the police force stores and businesses to turn off all their security cameras every time an officer strolls by?

couldn't a belt be use as a weapon?

Officer #1: Sir, before I tell you why I pulled you over, I'll need you to pass your socks out the window...

Officer #2: Look out, Ponch! They're wool!

Fletchette · Oct 17, 2007

LOOK OUT! He's got a camera!

Hmm... Does this mean all citizens can interpret someone holding a video camera as a potentially deadly threat?

Actually, that might prove helpful with certain members of the mainstream media... :evil:

RKBABob · Oct 17, 2007

http://www.correntewire.com/and_speaking_of_what_police_wielding_tasers_think_of_as_b

And speaking of what police wielding tasers think of as being "attacked"...
Submitted by lambert on Tue, 2007-10-16 12:52.

tasers
Check this out from Oregon:

Frank Waterhouse is suing for unlawful seizure with excessive force, alleging that police fired a Taser and bean bag rounds at him on May 27, 2006 because he was videotaping their search of a friend’s property in the 5800 block of Northeast Portland Highway.

Police officers followed a police dog onto the property during a search for a fleeing suspect. After the dog keyed on a car, officers broke out a window. Upset residents, insisting no one had run onto their property, started to videotape the police search.

When one woman was told to stop recording, she gave the videocamera to Waterhouse. He walked to the edge of the property, climbed up a dirt embankment and continued to record. At one point, he yelled to his friend, “Yes, I got it all on film. They had no right to come on this property.”

He says in the suit that police immediately came after him, and yelled at him “put it down.” Officers moved towards him, and he said, “Don’t come after me.” Waterhouse said seconds later he was shot with a bean bag gun and a Taser and fell to the ground.

Officers wrote in their reports that Waterhouse ran off, they chased and then bean-bagged and Tasered him. One officer wrote, “He had refused to drop the camera which could be used as a weapon.”

No! Put down that zuchhinni!

Waterhouse was arrested, accused of criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. A jury acquitted him of all charges.
See, it’s not really the camera they fear; it’s what the camera symbolizes:

Accountability

highfive · Oct 17, 2007

Look at the camera, smile, drop dead.....lol nonsense police work. I'm just saying......

MrTuffPaws · Oct 17, 2007

Maybe he was using one of these

Red Dragon · Oct 17, 2007

What the hell is that?! Looks like a crew served camera.

230RN · Oct 17, 2007

Aren't those grips glued on in reverse order?

(Gawd, tactical cameras, now.)

Halo is for Kids · Oct 17, 2007

Flame-thrower?

ilbob · Oct 17, 2007

I don't think he followed their lawful instruction.

What was lawful about it? If the story is accurate (and complete) there was no lawful order given. Its amazing that the cop could not come up with a better story than he thought the camera could be used as a weapon. Creative report writing is one of the things all cops are taught. I wonder if the video is intact?

I hope the guy gets a lot of money. It seems to be the only thing that restrains the baser urges of some government entities.

<added> amazingly, the video apparrently survived.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7vNv-DKlK8

Justin · Oct 17, 2007

Obviously the officer was utterly afraid that having his picture taken would result in his soul being stolen.

Search

Search

Welcome to the Police State.

Fletchette

Member

MudPuppy

Member

Thernlund

Member

damien

Member

ceetee

Member

PPGMD

Member

LaEscopeta

Member

RKBABob

Member

Fletchette

Member

RKBABob

Member

highfive

Member

MrTuffPaws

Member

Red Dragon

Member

230RN

Member

Halo is for Kids

Member

ilbob

Member

Justin

Moderator Emeritus

Similar threads