Did anyone see Fox 9 news last night. Co-workers were just telling me that a female reporter witnessed an arrest and started videoing. Her camera was thrown into a squad and locked up. I'd like to hear more about this.
Tex

here ya go cousin:
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfox/pa ... geId=3.1.1

Wonders: Will he ever learn to do things for himself??

It's amazing. After all that Fox 9 has compromised its professed values to please bad cops, they get no consideration in return.

Exactly what I was thinking last night.

And I bet you were also thinking, "Too bad there wasn't somebody there with a more discreet recording device, recording the theft and coverup." I know I was.

Jeepers, after listening to this guy it sounds like his only crime was being black. I mean other than having heroin and evading the po po.

"Everybody knows: If the police have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass-kickin with them!" - Chris Rock


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uj0mtxXEGE8&feature=related"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uj0mtxXEGE8&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Remember: When recording the police, do so as surreptitiously as possible.

The most obnoxious part was the reporters attitude: "They didn't stop violating my rights when they found out I was a REPORTER! I'm a SPECIAL person!"

I am not too sure if your skin color matters much after a 25 minute police chase, through city streets, you are going to catch an ass beating!

I especially love this story for a couple of reasons...

#1: The Officer friendly vs Treptow incident, where Fox 9 had a clear bias in reporting and didn't expose the nature of the relationship between Officer F. and one of the Fox 9 staff untill they were pressured to do so

#2: Just last thursday on the "Fox 9 Investigates" segment at 9PM they did a story on wireless cameras, and how easy they are for a person with a 2.4 GHz video reciever to intercept while mobile. They played the whole story up like it was the most horrible thing in the world, like a person with a video reciever is the worst kind of peeping tom. One homeowner who put one of these cameras next to his baby's playpen used to term "pedophile" no less than three times in the course of the story. Then what looked like a fashion model wanna-be from Russia used the term "criminal" about four or five times.

Basically, they made it seem like anyone who was tech-savvy and knows electronics is a criminal in training or something*.

Looks like they got hoisted on their own petard.

(Here's the wireless camera story.)

*Yes, I do feel pretty strongly about the matter; when I get played up as a criminal, and I've done nothing wrong (and am actually acting fully within my rights), I resent anyone implying criminal behavior.

But this rant is best left to another thread.

Oh, I don't doubt for a moment that he's a jerk, and I strongly suspect that he committed a felony or three. But . . .

a: I don't think that the appropriate punishment for either being a jerk or committing a felony is a beating -- in public or private -- administered by people who are supposed to enforce, not break, the laws, and

b: I think that anytime that somebody goes to any trouble to hide or destroy evidence (like, say, by snatching a camera from somebody taping a beating) they're not only committing a crime, but are demonstrating that they know that what they're covering up was also a crime.

The story ticks me off that Fox 9 has to glorify a thug to get across the story that the cops stole private citizens camera!

Lose the 2nd amendment and what will protect the first!

1) We know he got beaten because he says it happened so it must be true
2) A TV reporter says it happened so it must be true because the TV reporter is well versed in "use of force" during an arrest.
3) Physical force never wins an argument. Just ask him to "please stop your inappropriate behavior and sit comfortably in the back seat".


Well it doesn't appear that they destroyed anything. The images were still on her camera but they were too blurry to show anything. Taking the camera was/is a bad idea as it only makes people assume the worst.

I have never had a beating by the police and I don't know anyone who has so I'm not the most objective on this point. I'm sure there are bad cops out there but the vast majority are good folks. I think cops have a really hard job to do that is done under a microscope and second guessed by everyone who wasn't there. I tend to cut them some slack.

Well, no. We know that he was beaten, alas, because one of the cops snatched away the camera to prevent the beating from being filmed. That's not really in dispute, is it?It sure makes me conclude -- not assume -- that they were hiding something. What do you think would have happened if the cops beating Rodney King had noticed the cameraman? It's not exactly uncommon for bad cops to destroy the evidence, is it? Me, neither.I know a few. Me, too. What I don't cut any slack for is tampering with evidence. That, by me, is very strong evidence -- damn near proof -- of mens rea.

Edited to add: that said, if there's some good reason -- not a lame excuse -- why a cop ran over and snatched away the camera in the first place, I'd purely love to hear it.