Chilling video: Man ‘assaulted,’ arrested by bully cops for recording militarized neighborhood raid

September 8, 2014 by

An Oregon man’s life changed the moment he took out his iPad to record local police officers plowing through his girlfriend’s neighborhood at 4 a.m. with armored vehicles, blasting flash grenades into a home and shaking up the whole block.

Within moments of filming the military tanks and officers in GI Joe gear, YouTube user Skylow Production said that the Gresham Police Department homed in on him, according to Photography is not a Crime (PINAC).

After refusing to stop recording and go inside (he knew his rights), the cops “assaulted” and arrested him, according to his description of the video.

Watch the video below. This is the man’s Youtube description:

Gresham OR 9/2/14 4:00am I was laying in my apartment sleeping an I heard multiple bombs blasting and glass breaking and my entire apartment shook repeatedly. I grabbed my Ipad and ran outside as fast as I could to see what was going on There were 5 or more Tank/Military Trucks just cruising through my neighborhood. 503 Gresham/Portland Oregon right across the street from Mt.Hood Community College. I was assaulted multiple times and I feel like it was Gresham Police Abuse and my rights were violated. I now owe $5000 and i am charged with 2 crimes. 2 CRIMES! At first I was scared to post this video but now I dont care because the Gresham Police Department has already made a copy of it as proof of my crimes. I feel more like this is proof of their crimes or am i crazy?

I was charged $5,000 for two different crimes $2,500 each. The first one i was charged was interfering and the second one I was charged with was Resisting. I did not resist and I was not angry or aggressive at all I simply was woken by bombs going off and my apartment rattling so I ran down the street with my tablet from my house as fast as I could to film whatever what happening. Yes I submitted video evidence they told met it is proof of my crime but I do not see a crime. I am INNOCENT!

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed

Michele Kirk

Michele Kirk is a writer, editor, and field reporter for BizPac Review. Michele can be reached at michele@bizpacreview.com & @michelekirkbpr

Latest posts by Michele Kirk (see all)

Powered by Starbox
From Around The Web
About Michele Kirk

Michele Kirk is a writer, editor, and field reporter for BizPac Review. Michele can be reached at michele@bizpacreview.com & @michelekirkbpr

← 
Newer Comments  →
  • Old Wolf

    According to the supreme court, you have the absolute right to resist an unlawful arrest. The only way this person was ‘interfering’ with the service of a warrant was the police officer’s paranoia about being caught doing something wrong…
    So they committed an armed assault on a person who was filming them.

    • Garys_opinion

      Law suit.

    • Marilyn Z

      If the police are serving a warrant and decked out like this, they are probably afraid there will be gunfire and a bystander will be hurt. This kid sounded like there was something wrong with him. YOU OBEY ORDERS…not doing so only causes you problems. He could have recorded from inside his house but not right there where he could be hit.

      • Old Wolf

        The police have been known to use this kind of gear for nonviolent offenders on civil charges and empty buildings where they got a false report. This is also not ‘serving a warrant’. Under the meaning of the term, the service of a warrant is accomplished by knocking on the door, PRESENTING the warrant, then entry. If nobody answers the door, you can then force the door.
        Further, the limits to official orders are lawful orders. They cannot order you to leave your own property, nor order you to allow them to enter without a warrant, nor order you to give up any of your constitutional rights.
        This is an artifact of very similar behavior by the police powers of the state at the end of the civil war, where civilian militias and the police were engaged in direct deprivation of rights by force. It is still part of US law. The tools have changed, but the personal limits have not, nor the personal liability issues.
        We are not subjects, nor slaves. We are not, as citizens of these United States, required to submit to ‘authority’ which is outside that which either the state or federal government may establish.
        These are long-standing principles of law.
        In essence, your argument boils down to ‘they have the guns, kneel down, subject’. At that point, lacking any right to protection by the police, or even enforcement of the laws themselves, are they any different from any other criminal gang?

        • Marilyn Z

          You know what..resisting an unlawful arrest can get you dead. Go with what they want and tomorrow hire an attorney.

          • Old Wolf

            Resisting any criminal act can get you dead.

          • Marilyn Z

            We hear of it everyday and it is not worth your life to demand your Constitutional rights at this point.

            My son walked in on an armed robbery one time. He is a big guy who studied martial arts and like most young people (he was in college at the time) thought he was invincible but when they pointed the gun at him and told him to lie down on the floor and not look up, he had the sense to obey.

        • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

          He wasn’t on his own property, he ran down the street from his house to see what was going on.

          • Brian Robinson

            Still doesn’t matter he has the right to film them and he was not interfering.

          • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

            You’re right, it doesn’t matter and you maybe correct about him not interfering. But he was in the line of fire and a threat to his own safety, therefore, here comes the important part, he was ordered to get off the street. Did he do as he was asked, no. He failed to follow the police officers orders during an emergency, in most places that is an arrestable offense and normally is the police officer’s job to protect the public’s well being. Laws of this nature have been on the books for many years, long before the police state that is taking place now. The camera guy has a right to film, but from a safe location, not in the line of fire, endangering himself and the officers that had to deal with him instead of the house where the warrant was being served. So, in away, yes he was interfering and that is my opinion just like you have yours, just like the cops had theirs and the filmier had his, and that is what a courtroom is for. One question for you, if you had the cops job and had to go out to a house at 4 am, and serve a warrant, wouldn’t you want as much protection as you can get so you can maybe go home that morning? I don’t understand the camo uniforms, but I do understand wanting the best protection I can get anytime I’m putting my life on the line. I worked Firefighting for 18 plus years and I know every time I had to go in a burning building or fight a forest fire, I made sure I had the best equipment money could buy. Anything less would be really ignorant. And I’ll tell you one more thing, if I ordered you off an emergency situation and you didn’t do as you were ordered I’d have you arrested too. You’re a threat to the safety of everyone involved when you fail to follow a lawful order. As long as that order is not putting you in harms way, you should comply and ask questions later. It’s called common sense.

          • Brian Robinson

            I do get what your saying and he should have moved down the street a little. But it is not the police officer’s job to protect the public’s well being.
            WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.

          • realreform

            we don’t have to obey illegal, unlawful orders from police, simply because they think it would make them feel safer. That’s too bad; they are the cops and just have to deal with some risk from annoying citizens who want to come watch the scene. This is America, not Nazi Germany or Stalin Russia. We are not British servants anymore.

      • AFCrewChief

        I fully agree with you. He’s a stupid kid.

      • Y2U

        Marilyn Z, if people understood why the cops dress like this, then they would not have a reason to further hate them, silly woman!

        • Marilyn Z

          Who said anything about hating them?

          Denigrating speech does not become you.

          • Doug

            Jack says you’re a coward and a go along gal. Me, I’m just crazy about waking up tomorrow. They say jump I say “How high.”

          • Marilyn Z

            You remind me of my now dead MIL….she LOVED to needle.

          • Y2U

            I was being facetious. Sorry you missed it.

      • jack43

        “Obey”. Really? Everything is going to be okay if we simply obey? The Jews obeyed and look at how well that turned out for them. Remember the trials at Nuremberg? That’s when we learned that simply obeying was not a valid defense for crimes committed against the rights of others. You think this “kid” sounded like there was something wrong with him? There was. It’s the same thing that’s wrong with me. I am affronted by tyranny and the behavior of these “law enforcement officers” was tyrannical.

        • Marilyn Z

          Jack, you must be senile. If someone confronts you, a totally unarmed person, with a gun and threatens you with it, you would not obey? Kiss it good-bye, Jack, because you are a very foolish person to resist. I have to agree with Dougie, above…if they have a gun aimed at you and say jump ask how high. Thank God, my son obeyed. Do you think he should have jumped in the middle of two armed men for a few dollars? Sorry, he is far more valuable to me that some store’s money.

          Listen to this kid….he has either been drinking or smoking something. His voice has that timbre to it that I have heard many times.

          You be just as *affronted* as you want, Jack, but obey and then go hire your lawyer the next day…if you can find one who would take your case.

          Any cop can get carried away, but they are a necessary evil. Look what happened to Michael Brown because he did not obey an armed officer. The same thing happened in Salt Lake City shortly afterwards only it was a black guy who killed an unarmed white guy (20 yo) because he didn’t follow orders. He had earphones in and didn’t hear the orders.

          OBEY anyone with a gun and then work to remove them from power if you feel they overstepped their bounds.

          • jack43

            Marilyn, your first words reveal all: “you must be senile.” Typical ad hominem attack. Don’t even pause to deal with what I say, simply dismiss me for disagreeing with you. No, I won’t bother responding other than this. It would be a waste of my time, my life…

          • Marilyn Z

            I dealt with every point you *tried* to make, Jack.

          • Ronald Green

            When you lead off with an insult, you demean and belittle the person you address, which was your intent or you wouldn’t have done it. So your intent was not to discuss rationally, but to ridicule. Therefore the person you insulted dismissed you for your pomposity. Feel superior now?

      • Jeff Simon

        I saw an interview once where the interviewee stated that the suffuse of video recording devices has given a large section of the populace the impression that they are free-lance journalists. I agree with you that he probably could have recorded from inside his house.

      • realreform

        you don’t have to obey unlawful illegal orders.
        The police cannot just blanket shut down an entire neighborhood simply because they are doing a search warrant and would feel safer that way. They just have to suck it up and post a bunch of officers around the scene to keep people back. They cannot just order everyone to “stay inside your home”. This isn’t Nazi Germany; we are not British servants anymore. If they can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. They took that job; they know the risks, they have to just shut up and deal with some risk from annoying citizens who want to watch.
        You sound like someone from Communist China; “you obey orders”. What a joke. Are you even an American?

    • Ljubica48

      In Oregon:
      2011 Oregon Revised Statutes
      ORS Volume 4, Chapters 131 – 170
      ORS Chapter 161
      161.260 Use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.
      A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest by a peace officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful. [1971 c.743 32]
      I am unaware of any SCOTUS ruling that there is an absolute right to resist an unlawful arrest. Most states prohibit resisting arrest, even if the arrest is unlawful. There are some very restrictive provisions for self-defense if excessive force is used in making the arrest, but generally it is inadvisable to resist or be non-compliant. Let your lawyer handle it in court.

      • Old Wolf

        “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
        accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very
        different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the
        arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in
        the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the
        facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
        John Bad Elk v. US. Supreme court case. State laws can not override constitutional rights.

        • Ljubica48

          That does not appear in any way to imply an “absolute right to resist an unlawful arrest.”

          • Old Wolf

            If you want the entire history of the right, there is insufficient space in this format, and one could likely write a doctorate thesis on the subject (which would be remarkably boring reading).
            It does go back to the Magna Carta and Queen v. Tooley, was used as an affirmative defense by the founders against the British officers self-writ warrants, among other things, and the states were required under article 4′s privileges and immunities section to respect it, not that they have for the past hundred and fifty years or thereabouts.
            A good portion of the debate on the 1871 civil rights act, and the 14th amendment which was to make the 1866 civil rights act (included via the 1871) the ‘law of the land’, discussed official acts that were outside the constitution. In intent, the acts of 1871 on the subject were intended to limit the power of the officers of the states, and civil militias within the states, and to preserve the effective right to resist.
            The claim in the Cruikshanks case was that the rights (including the second amendment right) to self-defense preexisted the constitution and therefore were not protected by it. This case is currently seen as bad law. The common law right, according to Story’s commentaries on the constitution and laws, could not be abrogated or altered, as it was one of the constraints on civil government. It might cause embroilment and controversy, it may cause upsets and problems, but it was far better than unrestricted police power.
            It reminds me of a statement under Gulag Archipelago by Soltzenetzyn.
            “What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?” — Gulag Archipelago
            Unfortunately, the right is only enforced by individual exercise. The officers have a vested interest in preventing its enforcement, as the lack of exercise increases their power.

          • Doug

            Lots of scholarship and lots of jurisprudence. Kudos.

        • rchguns

          State lines cannot override constitutional rights.

          It’s a nice thing to say but it happens every day in New York, Illinois, California, and many other places where the citizen’s Second Amendment rights are nothing more than scraps of toilet paper to the police departments.

          • Old Wolf

            And they know federal prosecutors will not prosecute them for it, and the people won’t stand up to them either, in spite of the plain purpose and intent of the freedman bureau’s acts of 1866, and the subsequent civil rights act of 1871, the debates in the congress, and the debates at the state levels for the constitutional amendment which made it the ‘law of the land’. It’s part of why congress hasn’t gotten rid of title 18, section 241-245.
            But it is not self-enforcing. The clear claim and exercise of the right must be involved, and the officers will attempt to claim immunity which is not granted, and cannot be extended by the state. Title 28, section 1343, says specifically the original jurisdiction is federal, but the federal jurisdiction requires you now to go through the state process, which takes years and will nearly always exonerate them, if you don’t end up dead first.

          • rchguns

            At one time Oregon was estate that respected the people and the environment above everything else. Anymore Oregon is nothing but a suburb of San Francisco. The same is happening in Washington state. The Democrats control the state and pretty much get away with whatever they want.

          • Old Wolf

            Well, it’s hardly surprising, considering our current laws are extensions on the old ‘Black codes’ designed to keep the ex-slaves on the plantations, established by the democrats, and claimed to be for the state protection and the protection of the freed men.

          • Millie Tyler

            …or in the poor house.

    • Y2U

      They were serving a warrant. How does your logic figure that the COPS were doing something wrong?? The ass with the ipad was interfering in a very dangerous way.
      Bizpack, congrats for trying to dig up a non-story. The idiot with the ipad was in the wrong, plain and simple. It’s called INTERFERENCE. And it’s very illegal. When will people understand not everything is a story? As to their dress and armored vehicles…have you seen the type of criminals cops are dealing with these days??
      Do people even understand what a SWAT team is??

      • Millie Tyler

        During the Ferguson riots I heard law makers were preparing laws which would prohibit police from interfering with a person taking pictures or video of them. If this were a non-story, people would not be discussing it all over the internet. The militarization of the police terrifies folks. As in Ferguson, when the police start arresting bystanders for filming them, it looks bad and public opinion for the most part instantaneously turns against them. I love the police, I’m on their side, I don’t care what kind of gear they ware or what they have to do to protect themselves but don’t go after an innocent with an iPad, assault them and arrest them or I will want you fired every time.

      • realreform

        wanting to stand there and videotape an incident is not interfering. Maybe in Communist China it is, but not here in America. The cops just have to shut up and deal with it and let annoying citizens stand around and videotape them if they want. This is America. Please get out of our free nation you freedom hater.

        • Y2U

          realreform, you are so wrong on so many levels it would take me days to sort it out. Instead I will simply state that you are wrong. A person is interfering ANY time they insert themselves into a law enforcement situation in which they are not involved. The dork didn’t have to get out of bed in the middle of the night to go try to make a story where there was none. There is no reason to go insert himself into the situation, none at all. The police are doing their jobs, LET THEM. Don’t be a jackass and you won’t get your widdle feewings hurt!

          • realreform

            as an American, you don’t have to have a “reason” to do anything. He WANTED to go videotape the incident, which is SUPPOSED TO be his legal right.
            He did not insert himself into a law enforcement situation, he simply stood far back and wanted to record the incident. Since when the hell has that become illegal?
            If you, yourself, want to be a cop kissa$$, fine go right ahead and grovel at their feet you boot licker. But the rest of us aren’t going to be cower at their feet.
            They could have done their job without resorting to arresting him. All that did was take them even more out of their investigation. It took an officer completely away from the scene to have to transport this guy to jail. And you think that is smart?
            All they had to do was tell him to stand back a certain distance and don’t come any further, and he would have complied. But no, they wanted to be a bunch of narcissistic maniacs and try to get on a f$%#ing bullhorn and demand that all citizens “stay in your homes”. Are you kidding me? Since when the hell can American police tell people to “stay in your homes” simply because they are conducting a search warrant??!! This is outrageous!
            And you called me wrong? No, I believe you are wrong for America. You really need to go move somewhere like Communist China where you belong, you freedom hating anti-American.

    • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

      An armed assault? Give me a break, did they draw their guns to arrest this guy? And the Supreme Court may state that you have the right to resist, but I feel that would be pretty dumb. I’d rather let them take me in and fight them in a less violet way in court anytime.

  • dspence

    They don’t even look like the police! They look like soldiers in a war zone! Whatever happened to serve and protect? This man did nothing wrong!

    • Rip Rogers

      The militia should be the police. This making the police into assault teams with armor is not constitutional.
      We have a fight on our hands.

      • Old Wolf

        The militia are the police. They are, by legal definition, a ‘select militia’. They bear arms with the official force of the state ostensibly behind them and protecting them, in an ostensibily civilian office.
        The second amendment was preserved as a check against militias, select or otherwise. It was to prevent the states from organizing groups that could use the military power to quash the authority of the people themselves.
        Lot of discussion on this in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
        “Second, municipal respondent’s argument ignores the clear terms of the Freedman’s Bureau act of 1866, which ackowledged the existence of the right to bear arms. If that law had used language such as “the equal benefit of laws concerning the bearing of arms,” it would be possible to interpret it as simply a prohibition of racial discrimination.
        But §14 speaks of and protects “the constitutional right to bear arms,” an unmistakable reference to the right protected by the Second Amendment.
        And it protects the “full and equal benefit” of this right in the States.
        It would have been nonsensical for Congress to guarantee the full and equal benefit of a constitutional right that does not exist.
        Third, if the 39th Congress had outlawed only those laws that discriminate on the basis of race or previous condition of servitude, African Americans in the South would likely have remained vulnerable to attack by many of their worst abusers: the state militia and state peace officers.”

        it is nothing less than the military authority to engage in that final right of self-preservation against unjust actions by those authorities, military or civil, that believe that they should be the only ones to determine what rights the people are allowed.

        • Marbran

          In Constitutional terms, the police are not the militia. The concept of ‘police’ or ‘law enforcement’ didn’t exist in 1787. Constables and sheriffs kept the business of law enforcement at large, issuing summons and serving warrants, but it was mostly up to the citizens themselves to handle miscreants and troublemakers amongst them. That changed when private companies, and then urban communities, began hiring men to serve as official police, maintaining order and permitting businesses to sustain or thrive without being strong-armed by common thugs. Law enforcement has always been, and remains today, a science of controlling people in accordance with the whims of those who are in power. That is why none of us are truly free today; we are merely free to act within the confines of the laws around us. Only the very rich and/or very powerful are “above the law” since they have the money, connections, or simple societal gravitas to avoid serious prosecution.

          • Old Wolf

            Most of the shift happened just after the civil war on that, generally centered around the vigilance committees who were often political enforcers for various leaders. The police departments in Chicago grew out of the fire fighters and poll enforcers, if I remember right, under Poole. Then there were the dock strikes in California, with the ‘Shoulder Strikers’.
            Coupling that with the Cruikshanks decision (manifestly bad law, and contrary to the stated intent of congress and the law) they ended up with licenses for exerting rights, for work, and many other things, and then grew into our current police forces.
            The Bar Association is as much a problem as the police are, which doesn’t help. They, as a group and individuals, profit from the chaos.

        • Rip Rogers

          The South was not and is not the abusers.
          The military has no authority in the USA.
          The militia is the people and the final word in this matter.

      • Ginger Lage

        What I don’t understand is that these same “police” have neighborhoods, wives, children so what are they thinking? Promised a place in utopia? Given a test to see who will do their will maybe.

        • ScroodeMcDuck

          Secret brotherhood of the darkness.(for some) The blue line is thick as blood.(for most)

        • machodog

          Maybe they’re promised 72 virgins.

      • Marilyn Z

        Most cities now seem to have SWAT teams and they look like this. Personally, I think the smart thing to do is take cover inside and behind brick or stone walls.

        YOU would be a moron to wander around with the possibility of guns being used.

        ONLY STUPID WHITE people go out when they hear gunfire…black people have the common sense to take cover at least. This kid was deliberately baiting the cops.

        Now if those same cops are coming after me without due cause, there will be serious problems but come on now…they are serving a warrant on a drug house.

        • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

          “ONLY STUPID WHITE people go out when they hear gunfire…black people have the common sense to take cover at least.” Bad form, you just took away from everything else you stated by making this “stupid” remark.

          • Marilyn Z

            I am actually repeating word for word something a black man told me and it makes perfect sense to me.

            My moronic WHITE son-in-law heard gunfire in his neighborhood in the middle of the night. He walks out into the middle of the street along with several white neighbors. The cops come running through with guns drawn and yell at them to get inside. This black friend told me this when I related that story to him and I think it is very appropriate.

          • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

            So, than you believe because of this story that only whites would ever go out into the street to see what all the gun fire is about, that’s what you stated.

          • Marilyn Z

            Well, if they are stupid like my son-in-law they would. I would not. I would imagine Hispanics would go outside, too, but I think blacks are more conditioned when they hear them, they know there is trouble.

          • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

            That still doesn’t make your remark a all around truth and I’ll bet there has been black people that have done the exact same thing somewhere at sometime. Stop putting everyone of one color or race in the same box, we are all human and we all make mistakes during our lives on this planet. Many of your comments here are thoughtful, intelligent comments, your comments on this point are failing you and below your intelligence.

          • Old Wolf

            The sad part is that most of these laws came into existence after 1871… when the southern democrats decided that they had to control the new population of ex-slaves, and anyone that would defend them, set up systems of licenses that could be arbitrarily denied, denied them the right to assemble in public places without license, denied them the right to be able to witness in front of a jury, etc. The surviving portions of that are firearms licenses (which they had to make general in order to get it to stick), licenses to have or create businesses, requirements to present identification on pain of punishment, requirements to gain marriage licenses, etc. They took out the racial components to the laws because it would mean that they could be challenged, then established them upon everyone.

          • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

            So whats your point concerning my comment about “only whites would…”?

          • Old Wolf

            That the blacks and whites are both blind to their rights, and both, sadly, mistaken as to their purpose, their limits, and unwilling to look at their recourse. Most of this has nothing to do with race at this point, it has to do with control. The division between ‘black and white’ should have been ended in 1871. The democrats kept it alive for a purpose, and the dehumanization of both sides has been a willful effort.

          • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

            Ok, now I understand what your trying to say, and yes, I agree with you, the government is playing the people to divide us up and cause fighting amongst ourselves.

          • Doug

            Whom do you despise more your son-in-law or that daughter-in-law who vaccinates her kids?

          • Marilyn Z

            YOU DOUGIE!

        • Y2U

          Color has NOTHING to do with it.
          The rest of your post makes sense. If you see a SWAT team serving a warrant it’s best you keep your behind in your house where it belongs.

        • Rip Rogers

          At least one of my rifles shoots through bricks and other walls. I practice accuracy for over 500 yards. We cannot hide from the dangers of government out of OUR control.

          The police have long since passed their use (peace time when Americans obeyed law and had civic training). LE does what ever politics dictate including coming after us white guys when the government so dictates.

          The constitution has allowed if not dictated the militia not police controlled by government. It is a grass roots thing.

          Americans go to the sound of battle, it is in our bones and history.

          Armored vehicles is an act of war in the USA. Nothing military is to be used against us in any fashion. We cannot arm the LE with military weapons unless all of us have access to same. No we cannot trust politicians who control the police, we must rule per the constitution.

          If villains have armored protection then send in the militia or National Guard.

  • WiseDove

    Michele, the travesty of this event aside, as an editor you should know they “honed” in on him….not “homed”. Unless this was a typo….?

    • c a martin

      Your wrong. Look up both words.

      • Doug

        Your wrong is wrong. Grammarians use you’re.

        • c a martin

          I’m not a grammarian, and my wrong is right, it’s my your that is wrong.

          • Doug

            The one thing we can agree on is you’re no grammarian.

          • c a martin

            Yes we can.

    • Doug

      Michelle is to put it politely, ……spelling challenged.

    • machodog

      HOME is the correct one.

    • Marbran

      Rule of thumb: Never use “in on” after hone. Hone means to sharpen or increase a trait; to ‘home’ is to close the distance to a target.

  • Aldo

    You deserved it. Disobeying lawful commands to leave potentially dangerous situation. If suspect shot out the building window and struck you we would be reading your boo hoo belly aching they didn’t do there job to protect you

    • Jerimiah

      He “deserved” it? How eager you are to become a slave! You’d make a fantastic citizen of North Korea.

      • Doug

        The police are never wrong. Witness Ferguson.

        • Marilyn Z

          The police are often wrong and you know it, but when a man carrying a gun tells you, an unarmed fool, to get inside and stay away from windows, that is the time to be smart, not stupid.

          • Doug

            I love my bed and in this case under it.

      • Aldo

        Hey Zipper head. How do you compare NK with some boob refusing a lawfull request to leave a potential fire zone. Why do you think they had an armored vehicle and tac gear on . Dummy. Think the situation may have warranted it due to a dangerous suspect. North Korea hahahaha

        • joe

          It was probably a possession charge.

        • dabub

          Lawful command is newspeak! I’m giving you a “lawful command” to never comment here again! It’s not lawful just because someone claims it is! It’s lawful if it’s a written law, and does not trump the U.S. Constitution!

        • patriot156

          lol more likely the worng address and if not only found a speck of weed in the carpet.
          maybe a lawfull request but we can lawfully deny or is that a no too?
          they bullyed him and you know it and over charged for nothing. Live in a police state if you want we’ll take care of it from here your dismissed!

          • Aldo

            Patriot you got it all figured out here huh. ” Likely the wrong address” and “IF” ( big If Mr Patriot ) they only found a little weed. And no you can not Lawfully disobey a LAWFUL POLICE ORDER. I love the bullying comment. Your truck driver IQ is so apparent. Hey Patriot keeping that community safe is not a police state. You heading down to Area 51 to wait for the saucers to come and getcha ya. Hahaha

          • Marilyn Z

            When my husband was a magistrate in a much smaller city, if the police came to him in the middle of the night and needed a warrant signed, he could only get the facts from the police side to see if the warrant was necessary.

            There is no other way to do it.

            We know the police are supposed to keep law and order and it sure beats not having law and order.

          • Doug

            Amen

        • Marbran

          Actually, almost all usage of heavy equipment in police raids is over-kill. They use this stuff to issue the most basic of warrants. Do your research and you’ll see how out of control it is. Read Radley Balko’s “Rise of the Warrior Cop” to see how bad the situation has become. Even pols on both sides are asking why so much heavy equipment and military gear was deployed in Ferguson.

          • Marilyn Z

            These *commandos* love nothing more than a chance to get suited up for the kill and drive in their armored vehicles. We laughed when our tiny little berg got the money from the government to buy all that gear. The last thing we needed was a SWAT team and they only used it to help out a larger neighboring city ONE time. Overkill to the extreme, but what boy isn’t going to go play soldier if given the chance? You should have seen them on *maneuvers*….quite the show.

          • Y2U

            They want to be SAFE. Would you rather they went in shorts and flip flops to serve a warrant, one of the most dangerous duties as an officer??

          • Doug

            Can we wear armbands? Can we huh?

          • Aldo

            No such thing as basic. If the cop wants to go home at the end of the day, go in prepared. Columbine was just a regular school say

          • Marbran

            You may like being a subject, Aldo, but most of us do not. You’ll do very well in camp.

            And ‘safety of police officers’ is NOT a justification for arming and armoring them to the teeth. Really? Please defend how that is even remotely a sound reason. That’s like defending our military if they decided to nuke North Korea by stating, “We’re just defending ourselves because we know you’ll attack us eventually.” UFB.

            Did you see when they raided the organic farm Rawsome Foods with a SWAT team? Took all day, and the cops destroyed much of the inventory. Rawsome’s crime: selling unpasteurized milk that “might” be harmful to drink. I guess you support actions like that, too?

          • Aldo

            How we get to milk farms and nuking NK. I hope you don’t drive. You take your medicine today. Your a perfect example why woman shouldn’t vote. You make donation to Obama this month yet

          • Marbran

            We got to milk farms because you think the use of SWAT is okay in every situation.

            “If the cop wants to go home at the end of the day, go in prepared.”

            But you’re right. Why bother talking with idiots. Bye-bye

          • Marbran

            Hmm… You use a one-off event like Columbine to defend the weekly if not daily use of SWAT? The scary part of your line of reasoning is that there is a 1 in 2 chance that you vote.

        • rocinante2

          The courts have held that you have a right under the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments to film or otherwise record the police in public.

          Cops are slowly starting to get the memo. Some don’t like the scrutiny, and will use physical intimidation and legal harassment to discourage it. Don’t let them; the sooner they figure out that there are legal, financial, and PR consequences for intimidating/harassing the law abiding for recording them, the sooner this kind of nonsense will stop.

          http://www.righttorecord.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/10-1764P-01A.pdf

          http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_ltr_5-14-12.pdf

          “…it is the United States’ position that … important First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights at stake when individuals record police officers in the public discharge of their duties. These rights, subject to narrowly-defined restrictions, engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety.“

          • Aldo

            You may film and record or just film. No audio unless you verbally state to the second party your recording audio. #2 you must be in public ( as you correctly cite ). #3 it must also be lawful. Police action involving swat and armored vehicles during police action limits where you my video from. If they tell you to move due to concerns for your safety while they executing a search warrant , move back and film from there ( usually 50 feet is requested ). If you feel there request is improper file a lawsuit the next day. You don’t argue with them on scene and act disorderly and think they are gonna say ok and leave. If they didn’t move you and you got accidentally shot the first thing your lawyer would cite is why wasn’t the public and my poor client told he could get shot filming there

    • OUT DEMON!

      ALDO LOVES THE POLICE STATE ! ALDO YOUR A FOOL !!!!!

      • Aldo

        You want to see a fool go look in the mirror. Due to morons like you this country is being invaded by illegal terrorist and will be cutting off heads in a city near you. It is fools like you that disregard law and order and encourage disobedience and chaos. You tree huggers know what’s best. I bet you would vote for Obama again too if they would let you. Stay frosty . It is coming thanx to people like you

        • disqus_MZrkvD6tvk

          I’m with you Aldo – now a days a cop cannot do anything, say anything without coming under ridicule and people like the idiots posting here to your remarks cannot see what’s right there on the video.

      • Doug

        Does anyone use your correctly any more?

        • Marbran

          Know.

          • Doug

            Very good. Very very good.

        • Marilyn Z

          Correct usage has been outlawed. This sort of thing is hard on retired English teachers, Dougie. Use of you’re and your and to, two, and too and all the other homophones does not carry the importance to most people like it does to you and people like my son who is obsessed with proper spelling and grammar, etc.

        • Marilyn Z

          Dougie, I once worked with a woman whose writing and grammar were atrocious. She wanted a promotion and asked me to quietly correct her every time she misspoke. I did, for a while, but it was so often, it started to get her back up so I stopped; it was never mentioned again. She never got a promotion either.

          • Doug

            When I worked as a broker I was asked to proofread every letter that left the office including the branch manager’s. I saw things that made my blood run cold.

    • garyamusic .

      Every day that I step out is a “potentially” dangerous day Aldo……….don’t be ridiculous!

      And your comment………….stupid!

      • Aldo

        Ok smarty pants. Your comparing stepping out for a walk on a sunny day to walking through an active public safety threat at 4am with armored vehicles and SWAT officers. Where you live Baghdad or Benghazi. God help us with clowns like you out there.

        • garyamusic .

          He wasn’t walking “through” anything, he was on the sidewalk across the street filming the military cops actions. Within his rights! Cops get very nervous when you put a camera on them, they don’t like witnesses and hate being filmed…………..The guy was in no more danger then if he had been in his living room.

          According to you!

          “If suspect shot out the building window and struck”, your words Einstein……………

          Freekin trolls…………….

    • patriot156

      Pig?

      • Aldo

        Hey gay music guy watch the video. He standing in front of a house that swat team is about to breach. Armored vehicle and tec hear on. Nah no danger there.

    • ooddballz

      Actually, the SCOTUS has determined the police have no obligation to “protect” you.

      • Aldo

        In my state failure for public safety to act resulting in personal injury to the public is negligence and punishable

        • Raconteur Duck

          Cite the case law, or admit you’re full of it. Police are not public safety. They are law enforcement.
          The police only have a duty to maintain public order. Not to protect individuals. The SCOTUS case was Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278.

          • Old Wolf

            “. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to
            provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular
            individual citizen.”–Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.
            App.181)

            “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.” — Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice

            Some 30 or so cases on the subject. Castle Rock said that even with a restraining order demanding action there was no civil liability for failing to act.
            Riss V. City of New York said that you couldn’t demand them to protect you even if they disarmed you with a known threat against your person.

          • Aldo

            Police are not public safety????? I am not even gonna respond to that

          • Sparkle Plenty

            “To protect and serve” has now become “to abuse and intimidate”.

          • Raconteur Duck

            Can’t cite any SCOTUS cases to support your argument, eh? Thought not. Go away, hoser.

        • Marbran

          Not anywhere I have ever heard. Can you provide a cite? In fact, the SCOTUS ruling went the way it did specifically because the alternative would likely lead to having no police left. if they were held accountable for failing to protect or act and were dismissed, they’d all be gone eventually. BTW, don’t forget those LEOs on the border who have been ORDERED not to execute certain laws against illegals. That’s because the masters have spoken. See how that whole ‘police’ thing works?

    • Timothy53

      It was not a lawful order. Unless of course you are one of those who thinks that if a police barks a command it’s a lawful order. Good luck when they order your wife/daughter/ mother/ girlfriend to disrobe because they think the see a pair of 38s that need investigating.

      Wake up!

      • Marilyn Z

        Explain to me how it was not a lawful order if it were coming from *assigned* peacekeepers? I obey anyone with a gun unless I, too, am armed.

      • Aldo

        Search warrant, armored vehicle, heavily armored SWAT and joe blow standing in the middle of it all with his IPad. No no lawful request to move along there. God this country is filled with idiots. Those reporters that keep losing their heads had the same idea

        • Frank Talk

          Standing across the street, hardly “in the middle of it all.” And the command to stop filming is not lawful. The man did nothing wrong here. His charges will be dropped, and he will pick up a nice check courtesy of the citizens of Gresham. Of course, the cops who were the source of this largesse will face no repercussions whatsoever.

          • Aldo

            Your correct on the filming. I beleive he was pushed back to the other side of the street. They won’t drop charges and open the dept up to a lawsuit. Elements for disorderly are present . He can film all he wants. That’s not the issue. He refused to leave or go insude

          • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

            Really, bullets don’t go that far?

  • Republiman57

    Again a blatant attack on our rights as citizens. This IS NOT police!!!
    This is a paramilitary bunch of strong armed thugs playing soldier in American neighborhoods. I have met the enemy and he is us. This will continue to play out on American soil as the Constitution has been as trampled on as this guys rights have been. Welcome to the machine which is the police state, or rather, military state .

  • Bob Smith

    Cops don’t want neighbors at their windows or outside because they are afraid the neighbors will shoot them.

    • Timothy53

      Then they should just bring in the state helicopter and strafe the neighborhood before the roll in the tanks.

      Wake up!

  • disqus_MZrkvD6tvk

    Idiot – he was provoking from word one – good grief, just do what your asked! It was not unreasonable, no funds for you Mr. Dumas!

    • Timothy53

      Unlawful orders are by their very nature not reasonable.

      Wake up!

      • Marilyn Z

        Those people had LOADED WEAPONS..that right there should be a wake up call to the moron with the camera.

        Odd things happen all the time..if a weapon is pointed at me, I am out of there and I will not argue no matter what kind of drugs I am taking (and this kid sounded like he was on something).

        You can argue the police state business all you want but I hope you would obey and teach your children to obey orders from a cop.

        • Frank Talk

          I have taught my children not to call the police unless absolutely necessary, and to say as little as possible to them. I would also encourage them to record every encounter with law enforcement.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Excellent advice. You call the Police in this day and age and they act like you’re the criminal.

          • TRex23

            Exactly. I quit calling the police the day I called 911 because a drug dealing neighbor was threatening to kill someone. The cops treated me like I was a perp. That happened in Tempe, AZ in 2009.

      • Riding the Tilt a Wheel

        The order they gave him was reasonable, get off the street stupid, only they didn’t call him stupid, I did. So what did they order him to do that was unreasonable mr. wake up?

        • Timothy53

          You are assuming that a reasonable request constitutes a lawful order. It does not. If the order was unlawful (and it was because he was not putting the Seal Team Six wannabes in any danger nor was he interfering) it is unreasonable.

  • klemmster1963

    I hate to say this yet the vehicle was not a standard police vehicle, and the uniforms were not of standard police issue… it clearly looks like a military action in this area,

    • ScroodeMcDuck

      Good eye,get used to it.

    • Marilyn Z

      Just a SWAT team with vehicles and equipment they probably purchased with a government grant.

  • catblue422

    My question is what would the justification be for rolling out this source of force! The reporter does not bother to inform what was the threat this force was responding to, seems to be a one-way story!
    Regardless, if the person videoing puts himself in danger, that is his right and not be met with force unless he get in the way, which he did not appear to be doing. I also believe ALL police should wear a camera to be ON at all times while on duty.

    • patriot156

      if it’s the guy who got charged he proably didnt’ have time or know for sure just knew a flash bang grenade went off!

    • Marilyn Z

      The justification was the warrant to be served on a drug house. The person with the camera was putting himself in danger. If the police think there might be gunfire, they cannot risk moronic little boys with cameras being shot.

  • Mike

    This dude asked for donations LMAOOOO, I guess he figure,, America gave half a million dollars to two murderer’s one being George Zimmerman and now this thug cop Darren Wilson,, why should he not get in on the free for all hahahahaha, I don’t blame him though.

    • Doug

      That’s making lemonade out of lemons.

    • arnonerik

      I think you reveal your political agenda when you call people murderers who have not been convicted of murder. America gave no money to those folks. Individuals freely donated just like you could decide to send a check to me.

    • Marbran

      You mean the thug cop who had his face shattered before shooting his assailant? That thug? I am no fan of cops, but since Brown decided to play like the grown man he was, he got what was coming to him.

←  
Newer Comments  →