Unhinged cop goes after camera-wielding black men


Blacknbengal

Blacknbengal

Well-Known Member
Muttering that "I've already been hurt here once today," an off-duty Houston cop working a second job as a Wal-Mart security guard blew a brain gasket after spotting two black men videotaping in the parking lot. The video appears to confirm that the officer allegedly hit and grabbed at the men for no apparent reason, then threateningly pulled out his Taser while becoming increasingly agitated.

http://now.msn.com/now/0401-unhinged-houston-cop.aspx


<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jwGlbWKKbD4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jwGlbWKKbD4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once in Hattiesburg, I pulled out a camera to videotape police brutality. It didn't end so well. the camera ended up broke and me in Forrest General.
 



Is it lawful to take pictures on private property? What if you're asked to stop?

These guys kept mentioning the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to take photographs or record a video on private property?
 
SUJagFan said:
Is it lawful to take pictures on private property? What if you're asked to stop?

These guys kept mentioning the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to take photographs or record a video on private property?
Click to expand...

...but I don't recall hearing them told or asked to cease recording. All the cop requested was not to record him. The kid even questioned, "stop recording?" to which the cop replied again "...just not me." So in this situation they were compliant with his request and no they do not have to show their id just because a cop tells them to when they are doing nothing wrong.
 
wbishop3 said:
...but I don't recall hearing them told or asked to cease recording. All the cop requested was not to record him. The kid even questioned, "stop recording?" to which the cop replied again "...just not me." So in this situation they were compliant with his request and no they do not have to show their id just because a cop tells them to when they are doing nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

:retard:

The kids replied "stop recording" ... to what? Right. A request to stop recording.

And they were not compliant because the kid never stopped recording. He resisted and finally held the phone down which did not record video but still recorded voice conversation. While repeating some nonsensical gibberish about "knowing the Constitution". Apparently, they don't know the Constitution if you think you can go on private property, act a fool and get away with it just because you're black.

This is all I know - if someone were to come to my place of business cursing and recording or photographing anything, then I would want to know what they are doing and who they are. If I or one of my employees requests that they stop recording, they better well damn do it or they will be thrown off my property in a not so kind manner.

Just because a place is open to the public does not give black folks the right to behave any way they want to and get away with it. Cries of racism does not excuse acts of stupidity. When you go to a business, you are a GUEST and you need to act appropriately or your "rights" to be a guest can and will be revoked.

Black folks think they can go anywhere and behave any way they want and cry "racism" when they are told that's not the case.

Fvck those kids and their "knowledge of the Constitution".
 
SUJagFan said:
:retard:

The kids replied "stop recording" ... to what? Right. A request to stop recording.

And they were not compliant because the kid never stopped recording. He resisted and finally held the phone down which did not record video but still recorded voice conversation. While repeating some nonsensical gibberish about "knowing the Constitution". Apparently, they don't know the Constitution if you think you can go on private property, act a fool and get away with it just because you're black.

This is all I know - if someone were to come to my place of business cursing and recording or photographing anything, then I would want to know what they are doing and who they are. If I or one of my employees requests that they stop recording, they better well damn do it or they will be thrown off my property in a not so kind manner.

Just because a place is open to the public does not give black folks the right to behave any way they want to and get away with it. Cries of racism does not excuse acts of stupidity. When you go to a business, you are a GUEST and you need to act appropriately or your "rights" to be a guest can and will be revoked.

Black folks think they can go anywhere and behave any way they want and cry "racism" when they are told that's not the case.

Fvck those kids and their "knowledge of the Constitution".
Click to expand...

They arent required to show him ID, the most he could do is ask/tell them to leave the property. They violated no law. He didn't ask them to leave, it's not against the law to film.
 
GSU4LIFE said:
They arent required to show him ID, the most he could do is ask/tell them to leave the property. They violated no law. He didn't ask them to leave, it's not against the law to film.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me what part of the Constitution gives someone the "right" to film or record on private property.
 
SUJagFan said:
Are you sure about that?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me what part of the Constitution gives someone the "right" to film or record on private property.
Click to expand...

Positive walmart parking lot is consider public, because it is open to all. It's on you to show where it is against the Consitution.
 
SUJagFan said:
Not so, my friend.

Parking lots are still private property.
Click to expand...

It may be private but because it's open to the public it's consider public. It's not against the law to film, now the retailer has the right to evict you from the property but it's not a crime. The retailer also has a right to expressly forbid filming (written notices) on the property but again it's not a crime.
 



GSU4LIFE said:
It may be private but because it's open to the public it's consider public. It's not against the law to film, now the retailer has the right to evict you from the property but it's not a crime. The retailer also has a right to expressly forbid filming (written notices) on the property but again it's not a crime.
Click to expand...

:no:

What you're saying makes no sense. A retailer can't evict you from a public place. Nor does a private entity have the power to restrict rights in a public place.

You're contradicting yourself.
 
Last edited:
Store parking lots are considered public, in that, the public is free to access it. But since that parking lot is owned by that Walmart, it is private property. However, if it is explicitly stated that "recording is prohibited on that private property", then I don't see the point of the security doing what he did. However, if it is posted than recording is prohibited, then Walmart could press charges against them...right?

~shrugs~
 
PVSAX99 said:
Store parking lots are considered public, in that, the public is free to access it. But since that parking lot is owned by that Walmart, it is private property. However, if it is explicitly stated that "recording is prohibited on that private property", then I don't see the point of the security doing what he did. However, if it is posted than recording is prohibited, then Walmart could press charges against them...right?

~shrugs~
Click to expand...

What would be the charge? Trespassing?
 
GSU4LIFE, let me give you a scenario:

Let's say I'm going down the street and I see your house. I love your house. It's beautiful. I get out of my car, stand on the street or sidewalk (public property) and take pictures of the front of your house. So far, so good. No laws broken.

I see a driveway leading from the street to the rear of the house to a detached garage. I decide that I want pictures of the garage and, while I'm at it, the rear of your house also. You see me behind your house taking pictures. What do you do? Do you ask who I am? Do you ask me to stop taking pictures? Do you ask me to leave your property? Or do you let me continue because "there's no law against taking pictures"?

Let's say you ask me to stop taking pictures and leave your property. A few weeks later, you're in ... Wal-Mart ... and see a picture of your house on the cover of House Beautiful. You look inside and see other pictures I've taken of the side, rear and garage.

The question: Do you have recourse against me? On what grounds? (Don't say trespassing).

:)
 
SUJagFan said:
:no:

What you're saying makes no sense. A retailer can't evict you from a public place. Nor does a private entity have the power to restrict rights in a public place.

You're contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...
Not really the retailer is open to the public, that creats the public consideration. Now the retailer has the right to setup guidelines while on the property. No weapson allowed, filming etc. if you violate those rules they can ask you to leave (evict). The simple fac that they are open to the general public makes that parking lot a public place (quasi-public).
 
SUJagFan said:
GSU4LIFE, let me give you a scenario:

Let's say I'm going down the street and I see your house. I love your house. It's beautiful. I get out of my car, stand on the street or sidewalk (public property) and take pictures of the front of your house. So far, so good. No laws broken.

I see a driveway leading from the street to the rear of the house to a detached garage. I decide that I want pictures of the garage and, while I'm at it, the rear of your house also. You see me behind your house taking pictures. What do you do? Do you ask who I am? Do you ask me to stop taking pictures? Do you ask me to leave your property? Or do you let me continue because "there's no law against taking pictures"?

Let's say you ask me to stop taking pictures and leave your property. A few weeks later, you're in ... Wal-Mart ... and see a picture of your house on the cover of House Beautiful. You look inside and see other pictures I've taken of the side, rear and garage.

The question: Do you have recourse against me? On what grounds? (Don't say trespassing).

:)
Click to expand...

I'm not selling a service or product to the public. The relationship doesn't exist, now if I was selling BBQ plates to the public that would be different.
 
Last edited:
GSU4LIFE said:
I'm not selling a service or product to the public. The relationship doesn't exist, now if I was selling BBQ plates to the public that would be different.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't.

A business that is open to the public is still a private entity. And the property it sits on is still private property.
 
SUJagFan said:
Not so, my friend.

Parking lots are still private property.
Click to expand...

Not true. In Texas, a public place is one "...to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access." Typically, a Wal Mart parking lot will not have a controlled access gate or a parking attendant screening who is allowed onto the lot, and you don't need a parking pass, which makes this a public place, per the Texas definition. Heck, you can get a DWI charge for driving in that same parking lot.

Now, I am no expert, but I don't see a justification for the officer's actions, unless there was something that happened between the officer and the 2 young men prior to what we see in the video. Barring that, if there are no signs that prohibit video-taping, then there is no expectation of privacy for the store itself. The OFFICER can request that he not be video-taped, as can any person. But in and of itself, this is not a criminal act (to my knowledge) and the only remedy I know of for filming someone without their consent is in civil court, and they likely wouldn't award any damages if the person who shot the video isn't making money off of it.

Absent of probable cause, I don't think the officer is justified in asking for an identification, as there was no criminal offense.
 
Last edited:
s phi s said:
Not true. In Texas, a public place is one "...to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access." Typically, a Wal Mart parking lot will not have a controlled access gate or a parking attendant screening who is allowed onto the lot, and you don't need a parking pass, which makes this a public place, per the Texas definition. Heck, you can get a DWI charge for driving in that same parking lot.

Now, I am no expert, but I don't see a justification for the officer's actions, unless there was something that happened between the officer and the 2 young men prior to what we see in the video. Barring that, if there are no signs that prohibit video-taping, then there is no expectation of privacy for the store itself. The OFFICER can request that he not be video-taped, as can any person. But in and of itself, this is not a criminal act (to my knowledge) and the only remedy I know of for filming someone without their consent is in civil court, and they likely wouldn't award any damages if the person who shot the video isn't making money off of it.

Absent of probable cause, I don't think the officer is justified in asking for an identification, as there was no criminal offense.
Click to expand...

Okay.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say it's a lovely night in Texas and you visit the friendly Wal-Mart. The lightbulbs are out in many of the security lights in the parking lot. Let's just say something bad happens in the parking lot - an accident, an assault ... whatever. In Texas, who gets sued? Wal-Mart or the State/Municipality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top