[Daniel.Black]

Normally I would chalk this up to some nut job getting belligerent with Police and then trying to tape them as they “subdue” him, but in this case the person (Michael O’Brien, 29) who filed the lawsuit is a corrections officer and a member of the Army National Guard.

According to O’Brien the incident revolved around an accident his friend got into that involved a double parked car. When police showed up they became “aggressive, intimidating and threatening” toward O’Brien’s friend. O’Brien states that after he inquired about the parked car belonging to some worker at a federal agency, the police charged him and that’s when he started filming with his cell phone.

** Reality Check ** If six cops are bearing down on me and don’t look happy, the last thing I’m probably going to do is whip out my BlackBerry Tour and ask them to smile for the camera.

After said beating ended the phone was returned but with no video. (Imagine that)

Again, according to O’Brien he suffered a brain injury and has been unable to return to work as a corrections officer or serve in the Army National Guard since.

One fascinating tidbit is that the primary officer named, Williams, was booted off the force in 1999 for his alleged role in the beating of a fellow officer, but he was later reinstated by an arbitrator in 2005.

Original Article on MobiMadness: Did Boston Police Beat Man over Cell Phone Filming? | MobiMadness

[strictlyS IC]

the question is... WHAT happend to the berry!?!?!?! lol

no but seriously who would win in court.. Army boy or Popo?

[blue_and_bold]

Pull the trigger first, ask questions later.

[Daniel.Black]

the question is... WHAT happend to the berry!?!?!?! lol

no but seriously who would win in court.. Army boy or Popo?

Cops are going to win this one because there were 6 of them there who will testify that O'Brien was being loud and disorderly.

O'Brien just has his word and his buddies.

6 vs 2 = win for cops

That is unless there were other witnesses.

What's ironic about your comment is that I inserted a poll in my article that asked basically the same question about the phone. Great minds think alike?

[Radius]

A recent court case determined that citizens are allowed to video the police while they are in action, it is not against the law. The cops still seem to think it's a bad thing though.

[anon(147228)]

Maybe the can still retrieve the deleted video from the SD card.

[Coruptyed]

Wow that's pretty crazy thanks for the read

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Daniel.Black]

A recent court case determined that citizens are allowed to video the police while they are in action, it is not against the law. The cops still seem to think it's a bad thing though.

Two words: Rodney King

[wolf1989]

A recent court case determined that citizens are allowed to video the police while they are in action, it is not against the law. The cops still seem to think it's a bad thing though.

Yeah well how would you like if I came to where you work and followed you around shoving a camera in your face all of the time? I'm pretty sure that eventually you would get fed up with it wouldn't you.

Do you have a link to that court case? I'd like to read that because last I checked it was illegal to film someone without their consent when not on private property.

[Testingchip]

Stupid is as stupid does.
I bet mr. Obrian thought he would show out for his friend and was wrong.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[DravenX]

You can record me all you want. I say that because if your not military you won't be getting on base.

[McCracken]

A recent court case determined that citizens are allowed to video the police while they are in action, it is not against the law. The cops still seem to think it's a bad thing though.

As a paramedic I am often filmed by both news cameras and cell phone/hand held cameras on the scene of accidents and the like. I hate it for a few reasons:

PATIENT PRIVACY. end of story

It is easy to over analyze a tape and take something that was the best option in the moment(for instance rapid extrication of spinal protocol patients) and make it look like I did something horrible, especially if the outcome is bad for the patient(which it would still be if done "properly").

It is so easy to take a film of something and miss some of the context. Am I saying things like the Rodney King beatings didn't happen... NOPE. But I am weary of the intent of some people filming some incidents. In our "sue happy" world, sometimes it is about more than "documentation".

That is all.

[McCracken]

Yeah well how would you like if I came to where you work and followed you around shoving a camera in your face all of the time? I'm pretty sure that eventually you would get fed up with it wouldn't you.

Do you have a link to that court case? I'd like to read that because last I checked it was illegal to film someone without their consent when not on private property.

As long as YOU are on public property(In MOST STATES) you can film whoever you want, where ever you want. They can be in their bathroom, taking a shower, doing the dirty with the plumber, and eating funions--all at the same time--and it doesn't matter if you are on public property.

Public property(domain) in most states includes public road and sidewalks. Now, there are exceptions to this, and depending on stalking statutes(many states have very inadequate stalking laws) and laws concerning schools and children. The law is seriously struggling to keep up with the digital age.

[Testingchip]

Why does everyone always act like Rodney Kings thing was Soooo bad? He was coked out of his head, ran in his car and could have killed people and would not comply with police.
Rodney King was the first one in the wrong because his actions led to the events.

[Coruptyed]

In Canada we had a guy who filmed police for about 25 minutes while they were on his property for evidence

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com