• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cop snatches phone and smashes it (gets caught on video anyway)

But I do not want the cop to be fined, just for him to pay for the damages (or the police force). He also does not have to be fired, just reprimanded and warned not to do it again.

And mostly injuries sustained by arrested individuals are totally down to their own actions but sometimes officers go way to far and go beyond the reasonable violence needed for a safe arrest, that alone should be open for lawsuits. Breaking a finger because you struggled so hard that you broke it due to your own struggling then sorry, no lawsuit allowed against the police officer.

Now if that officer broke your finger after you were in cuffs then yes, that would be a case in which a lawsuit against that officer should be filed.

It all has to do with reasonable behavior. The behavior of the officer in this video might have been understandable (based on the stress officer might go through) but what this officer did was not right IMHO and that should mean paying for the damages and a warning/suspension for a few days at most.

Agreed 100%
 
Why this is an issue:
1. For discussion purposes.

That's fine for us, but I am pretty sure that the Marshall service isn't monitoring DP for our advice on how to manage their Deputies....

2. So that the next time a cop considers doing something similar they realize that it will have serious consequences.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that police forces all over the nation are tuning into DP to see what we have to say about their officers....They're shakin in their boots I tell ya....:lamo

I don't know about the cop's motive, but smashing a phone or camera appears to be an attempt to destroy evidence, most likely evidence of he cop's misconduct. It also may show an inability to control his anger. I would probably suspend him without pay for a couple of months unless there was some significant evidence that justifies his behavior.

Based on the limited information we know in here, this is somewhat reasonable...Other factors would have to come into play of course...Does this Marshall have a record of complaints of mistreatment of suspects? has he done this sort of thing before? How long has he been a Marshall? Just what was the woman saying to him as he tried to do his job? Like I have been saying, to take a snippet in time from the total incident and ongoing operation being preformed only serves on purpose, and that is to continue the narrative that police are out of control from the media...I'm just saying that you have to take stuff like this with a grain of salt, and not be played.
 
Agreed 100%

You see, conservatives and social democrats can agree on issues. Just because I am a liberal does not mean my common sense has "left the buidling" ;).
 
It's assault, by a police officer.

Possibly, that would have to be investigated, and determined legally by a court....You don't get to make that call.

why didn't the other officers arrest him?

Wait a minute...So, the other officers that had a group of suspects detained up against a wall being searched for weapons were supposed to what, say "ok guy's time out, we have to arrest Deputy idiot over here, now be still while we do that"? Are you serious? That could be a skit on SNL Rev...Really....:lamo

why did the officer have a problem being filmed?

Could be many possible reasons...He could have been part of a gang taskforce and didn't want his picture out there for id purposes, he could have received death threats in the past, his family could be in danger if people identify him...There are many reasons....And yes, he could have been doing something wrong, or the woman taunting them with the cell phone cam could have just said something that set him off at the moment....who knows? But I do know this, our pontifications on what this guy should have done after the fact, and what his punishment should be for any crime if any, should be is beyond dumb....This is a clear case of media manipulation nothing more....We shouldn't fall for it....
 
You see, conservatives and social democrats can agree on issues. Just because I am a liberal does not mean my common sense has "left the buidling" ;).

Never thought so Pete...We disagree on many issues, but you are one of the smarter, well thought out posters in here....Often if I have to debate you, I know I better have my argument clear....:peace
 
:shrug: initially his actions look fairly indefensible, however, it's pretty obviously clipped. We will see what fully comes out.

In the meantime, those who rush to jump on the cop are operating in as much dark as those who rush to defend him.

What defense is possible to justify an officer destroying the private property of a citizen? Did the officer feel threatened by the camera? Did the officer arrest the person holding (wielding?) the camera?
 
What defense is possible to justify an officer destroying the private property of a citizen?

None, but that is for the review to determine....

Did the officer feel threatened by the camera?

Possibly...More likely, with adrenaline pumping, and the lady's taunts in his ear, he snapped.

Did the officer arrest the person holding (wielding?) the camera?

I don't think so...None of the articles mentioned any repercussions to the woman other than the assault, and breaking of her phone.
 
None, but that is for the review to determine....



Possibly...More likely, with adrenaline pumping, and the lady's taunts in his ear, he snapped.



I don't think so...None of the articles mentioned any repercussions to the woman other than the assault, and breaking of her phone.

That review should be done by a jury (or at least a judge) after the officer is charged with a crime - not some goofy union arbitration to decide if he should get a stern talking to. Rest assured that if the woman had destroyed the officer's property then she would face criminal charges.
 
Possibly, that would have to be investigated, and determined legally by a court....You don't get to make that call.



Wait a minute...So, the other officers that had a group of suspects detained up against a wall being searched for weapons were supposed to what, say "ok guy's time out, we have to arrest Deputy idiot over here, now be still while we do that"? Are you serious? That could be a skit on SNL Rev...Really....:lamo



Could be many possible reasons...He could have been part of a gang taskforce and didn't want his picture out there for id purposes, he could have received death threats in the past, his family could be in danger if people identify him...There are many reasons....And yes, he could have been doing something wrong, or the woman taunting them with the cell phone cam could have just said something that set him off at the moment....who knows? But I do know this, our pontifications on what this guy should have done after the fact, and what his punishment should be for any crime if any, should be is beyond dumb....This is a clear case of media manipulation nothing more....We shouldn't fall for it....


Wait, the media is at fault for this jack boot's actions? I think I don't understand your position.


Under what circumstances is it legal for anyone, including government agents to take and destroy anothers property without due process? What law permits grabbing a cell phone out of ones hand smashing and kicking it?
 
What defense is possible to justify an officer destroying the private property of a citizen?

:shrug: like I said, initially his actions look fairly indefensible - the situations that would justify or partly justify his actions are fairly rare. But I can think of several instances in which I or a police officer would have been justified in doing so. If we caught you taking pictures of our patrol ttps, our routes, etc., for example, we took the camera out of hand. That's a somewhat different scenario, but the rule remains - information can indeed be a threat, and you are justified in protecting yourself from a threat.

Did the officer feel threatened by the camera?

It's not impossible. It's simply not likely.

Did the officer arrest the person holding (wielding?) the camera?

Not a bad question.
 
Under what circumstances is it legal for anyone, including government agents to take and destroy anothers property without due process?

Interestingly, apparently, when you dare to own something the government wishes to price-control.

More generally, however, when you use your property to threaten or interfere with others in non-lawful ways. As a single example, in order to stop car-chases, police officers will happily throw down spikes to destroy your tires.
 
None, but that is for the review to determine....

Possibly...More likely, with adrenaline pumping, and the lady's taunts in his ear, he snapped.

I don't think so...None of the articles mentioned any repercussions to the woman other than the assault, and breaking of her phone.

That is probably the most plausible scenario. The lady chose to act like a bitch, and he reacted angrily and therefore unprofessionally.
 
Interestingly, apparently, when you dare to own something the government wishes to price-control.

More generally, however, when you use your property to threaten or interfere with others in non-lawful ways. As a single example, in order to stop car-chases, police officers will happily throw down spikes to destroy your tires.



Indeed, in persuit, or other lawful circumstances where the destruction of property helps aprehend a suspect, I can see that.


I can't see however this EVER applying to a cell phone.
 
Interestingly, apparently, when you dare to own something the government wishes to price-control.

More generally, however, when you use your property to threaten or interfere with others in non-lawful ways. As a single example, in order to stop car-chases, police officers will happily throw down spikes to destroy your tires.
You are seriously stretching when comparing spiking tires to stop a dangerous chase and destroying a camera. Seriously stretching. If this is the best parallel you can come up with, you got nothin'.
 
Indeed, in persuit, or other lawful circumstances where the destruction of property helps aprehend a suspect, I can see that.

I can't see however this EVER applying to a cell phone.

I can - it doesn't seem to apply in this case, but if someone were attempting to take pictures of police engaged in undercover work, for example, for targeting purposes, or using their cell phone to as a control mechanism for other, dangerous items.
 
I can - it doesn't seem to apply in this case, but if someone were attempting to take pictures of police engaged in undercover work, for example, for targeting purposes, or using their cell phone to as a control mechanism for other, dangerous items.


Is it illegal to take pictures of undercover police?

Targeting what?

and yes, if it was to be used as a bomb trigger like on teh tv, I agree.

but these examples are a bit extreme no?
 
You are seriously stretching when comparing spiking tires to stop a dangerous chase and destroying a camera.

I am not comparing the two. I am answering the question by pointing out that we do recognize rules governing when authorities can seize and destroy your property without due process.

I'm not defending the cops actions. My very first post in this thread was to point out that it is likely they are, in fact, indefensible. The post immediately below the one you are responding to was me stating that it is most plausible that he was acting angrily and unprofessionally. Stop trying to pigeonhole me into an opposition position I am not taking.
 
Is it illegal to take pictures of undercover police?

I don't know. I would imagine, however, if you are doing it for collection purposes, that they are going to take that from you before (hopefully) you have the ability to pass it around.

Targeting what?

Them. You think that criminal organizations don't do counter-intel?

and yes, if it was to be used as a bomb trigger like on teh tv, I agree.

teh tv? You've deployed enough times to know that's real.

but these examples are a bit extreme no?

:shrug: they are simply the first examples that leap to mind - they are easier to come up with because they are extreme. They simply demonstrate the rule that it is possible for taking and smashing someone's cellphone to be justifiable.
 
Wait, the media is at fault for this jack boot's actions? I think I don't understand your position.


Under what circumstances is it legal for anyone, including government agents to take and destroy anothers property without due process? What law permits grabbing a cell phone out of ones hand smashing and kicking it?

Oh for Jezbus sake! It really isn't that complicated.....I'll lay it out again just for you Rev, even though I've said it multiple times throughout the thread....

1. I do NOT condone the Marshall's action in that snippet of video.

2. I also believe that the woman taking the video on her camera was too close to the police operation thereby causing an impediment to the safe carrying out of that operation, and was taunting the officers as they did their jobs.

3. Should the incident be reported and investigated? Yes. The woman should absolutely follow up, and the Deputy Marshall should have to face the consequences of his actions on the scene.

4. This in my view though is one instance that the media got a hold of that fits rather neatly today into their narrative of police being out of control, therefore they ran a story with a fair amount of speculation that fits what they want to project, and clearly some in here are falling for it.

how's that?
 
I don't know. I would imagine, however, if you are doing it for collection purposes, that they are going to take that from you before (hopefully) you have the ability to pass it around.

Under what legal precident or law?


Them. You think that criminal organizations don't do counter-intel?

You are going to have to paint me a picture here. Give me an example.


teh tv? You've deployed enough times to know that's real.

I've built **** with old phones (nothing illegal), most see it on teh tv.


:shrug: they are simply the first examples that leap to mind - they are easier to come up with because they are extreme. They simply demonstrate the rule that it is possible for taking and smashing someone's cellphone to be justifiable.


I don't disagree with your position, I don't think you can make a case where it applies to a civillian holding a cell phone.


it is legal, and proper to film the police.
 
That is probably the most plausible scenario. The lady chose to act like a bitch, and he reacted angrily and therefore unprofessionally.

Yep....Like I said before, the person across the street filming what happened to here didn't generate the reaction from the Marshall's on scene, so, proximity, and taunting, not very smart on her part.
 
Under what legal precident or law?

I wouldn't know the specifics. There is such a thing as LES information, however, and it is protected the same as any other classification.

You are going to have to paint me a picture here. Give me an example.

of criminal counter-intelligence? or of how identifying undercover cops and passing their photographs around poses a potential threat to them.

I've built **** with old phones (nothing illegal), most see it on teh tv.

:shrug: about half the stuff I've seen, I've seen post-detonation.

I don't disagree with your position, I don't think you can make a case where it applies to a civillian holding a cell phone.

I don't know if you can make it applying to this instance of someone holding a cell phone (I would suspect you can't), but I can think of possibilities where they can be.

it is legal, and proper to film the police.

Under most circumstances, yes. Under some, no.
 
Yep....Like I said before, the person across the street filming what happened to here didn't generate the reaction from the Marshall's on scene, so, proximity, and taunting, not very smart on her part.

True. What is unfortunate is that her misbehavior is probably about to be rewarded, due to the cops reaction.
 
I wouldn't know the specifics. There is such a thing as LES information, however, and it is protected the same as any other classification.

So we don't know and simply should defer to the departments....


of criminal counter-intelligence? or of how identifying undercover cops and passing their photographs around poses a potential threat to them.


No of use of cell phones for illegal counter intelligence. Is it illegal to post pictures of known undercover cops? Why?


:shrug: about half the stuff I've seen, I've seen post-detonation.


How many cell phone activated bombs have you seen? seriously.



I don't know if you can make it applying to this instance of someone holding a cell phone (I would suspect you can't), but I can think of possibilities where they can be.



Under most circumstances, yes. Under some, no.



Why no under some? like what for example.
 
True. What is unfortunate is that her misbehavior is probably about to be rewarded, due to the cops reaction.

Yes, and the LATimes gets to further the narrative.
 
Back
Top Bottom