New Mexico Videographer Arrested

[Lazlo Toth]

video
http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=257326



ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A New Mexico news photographer was cuffed and cited on Thursday for disobeying a police officer, and the whole thing was caught on tape by his camera.




Albuquerque police are reviewing the tape to see if the officer crossed the line, reported NBC Albuquerque affiliate KOB-TV.

Authorities said it started when a driver and police officers exchanged gunfire early Thursday morning.

At 3:30 a.m., a KOB photographer approached two police cars, believing a suspect was already in custody.

He was told he had to go to a media staging area, KOB reported, but he said the officers did not tell him where that was. So he just moved back.

On the videotape, the two officers can be seen talking before one of them approaches the camera and tells the photographer where to go.

"Was that so hard? Was that so hard?" the unidentified photographer said on the tape. "Could I get your name? Could I get your name and your badge number, sir? It's not asking that much."

In the video, the officer starts to walk away, but then he walks out of the frame while the other officer begins to drive away from the scene.

The photographer then begins to put his camera in the news vehicle when the officer circles around. The camera shakes as the two of them struggle.

"We're rolling bud, you hit me," the photographer said. "It's all on camera. Quit it, (or you'll) break a $50,000 camera."

The photographer was released by police about 90 minutes later with a citation, KOB reported.

An Albuquerque police representative would not comment on what happened but said the incident would be reviewed by the Independent Review Office, which will then make recommendations to the police department.

[Produce man]

Photog had it coming.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

I saw at least two places on the video that the photog could have diffused the situation.
This type situation has happened to any of us that have been in the field for a while.
Is it worth the confrontation?
Almost never..
It works better for me if the camera is obviously not running and I can have a reasonable conversation with the person.
If a calm chat doesn't work then holding a camera on him and being antagonizing certainly won't bring a positive outcome.

Bottom line: I would rather retreat and reorganize than go head on into an authoritarian brick wall.

[Clever Login Name]

They both had bad attitudes ... not surprising for a cop dealing with the media, nor for a photog rousted out of bed(?) at 3am. The cop always has the upper hand ... but they both ended up looking stupid.

[McCovey Cove Returns]

The photographer definitely did not help his own cause in this instance. He certainly had a bit of a confrontational attitude to the whole thing. Considering it's 3:30 AM, hard to know whether he was staying up late or had rolled out of bed. The police officer was doing alright until he came after the photographer, not a wise move either. I'd put both at fault, but more so the photographer for coming across as confrontational.

I could not hear what the officer said the first time if he said anything at all, though I think most of us know how this situation played out. Photog goes to crime scene, seeks information. Cops stonewall, but photog clearly sees something happened. Photog pushes for info and everything escalates.

[Rambunctious]

Pick your battles but don't pick a fight. I don't care what the exchange was earlier... If a cop walks over to tell me where the media staging area is I just say thanks and head that way.

"Was that so hard?"

I don't know... are you that dumb?

[Bureau Chief]

Ya, while im a very vocal proponent of media rights, this guy was asking for it.

[Zero]

The photographer was being a jerk. But last time I looked, being a jerk isn't against the law.

The police officer can't punch someone because he's mad, then arrest THEM for committing a crime.

This officer deserves to be suspended at least, but I'd fire his ass and charge him with a crime based upon the evidence on that videotape.

The photographer needs a stern lesson in professionalism, but again, it's not illegal to be curt with a police officer and it's not illegal to videotape a police officer getting steamed.

Nothing I saw on that tape justifed the officer's outrageous and illegal actions.

[Produce man]

Here we go again...:rolleyes:

[Judge]

Is it not odd that this cop said NOTHING after this thing started escalating?

Wow. What a figure of authority.
Feeling cornered like a badger (by a lowly photog with a short fuse, no less) He could do nothing but silently sneak around and eventually sucker-punch him.

Nice work all the way around.

[Another side]

I wonder whether the cop got an order from the other officer in the patrol car, and that's why he attacked the photog. The officer looked young and uncertain of what to do.

I suspect he'll get gigged by the chief, and the station will pay the ticket and it ill all be over.

[Zero]

I suspect he'll get gigged by the chief, and the station will pay the ticket and it ill all be over.

You think the chief will just "gig" the officer for attacking someone while in uniform? Because that's what he did. The photographer was putting the camera away when the officer attacked him. How was that even slightly necessary to making an arrest?

He has to be fired and charged with assault.

[Sigonfile]

I'm sure he will have big trouble with his future assignments dealing with local law enforcement. His name us "Mud" with the local cops and he'll continue to get scrutinized from now on. Believe me, "The Brotherhood in Blue" has put his name on the "Sh*tlist". I've seen it happen many times.

[Shot A Load]

The officer has only been on the streets for 7 months. I've been in situations like this before. Nothing ticks me off more than a cop telling me I have to go somewhere while I'm not even in the way. Simply put they don't like us and don't want us there. They use these "lawful orders" just get us away and flex their muscle. I'm waiting for the day that I get "lawfully ordered" back to the station.

[Lazlo Toth]

You think the chief will just "gig" the officer for attacking someone while in uniform? Because that's what he did. The photographer was putting the camera away when the officer attacked him. How was that even slightly necessary to making an arrest?

He has to be fired and charged with assault.

You're probably right, but in the real world, it won't happen that way. The chief will apologize to the station and the ticket will be dismissed. The chief will promise to council the officer and all his officers about media rights. Then, he will take the young officer aside and say, "Next time, dumbass, make sure the camera's not rolling. Considere yourself reprimanded and counseled."

The cop mindsiet is all about taking charge of the situation. They call it "command presence." If anyone challenges you, you have to sep up to them, chest to chest. If they don't back down, you have to keep escalating.

In the cop's mind, and likely in his fellow cops' minds, the photog challenged the cop's authority by taunting him. That's a violation of their cardinal rule of manhood (which also applies to female officers). So he had to show the photog whose lens was longer. The other cops, including the chief, will relate to that and excuse his behavior because they don't like us anyway. Our job is to question everyone, which they take as challenging their authority.

[Zero]

In the cop's mind, and likely in his fellow cops' minds, the photog challenged the cop's authority by taunting him. That's a violation of their cardinal rule of manhood (which also applies to female officers). So he had to show the photog whose lens was longer. The other cops, including the chief, will relate to that and excuse his behavior because they don't like us anyway. Our job is to question everyone, which they take as challenging their authority.

I can see this as the cops' justification. But that still doesn't make it legal. I think a prosecutor, with that evidence of an assault before him/her and the entire community, has to prosecute the cop for assault. It'll happen.

Albuquerque police spokesman John Walsh says an independent review officer will look at footage of the incident. The name of the police officer in the video is Daniel Guzman.

This guy will get arrested and fired.

Then the photographer should file a federal civil suit against Guzman and the poilice department for violating his constitutional rights. And he'll win.

[Spike]

My understanding of the situation is that the cop in question told the photog he had to move to the "media staging area" but couldn't tell him where it was and just kept insisting that he leave. The photog couldn't just leave and go to this staging area if he didn't know where it was. The cop took the photog's reluctance to just leave without further explanation as a challenge. When the cop finally started thinking clearly enough to go get the necessary information, that's when the photog said, "See, was that so hard?"

In the video the photog's line is taken completely out of context, and it just sounds like he's being an *******. In context, it's not an unreasonable reaction at all. How would any of you react to an idiot cop insisting that you go to a "media staging area" while refusing to tell you where it is? Would you just leave and drive around hoping to find it?

I've had cops pull a similar stunt, telling the photogs to go a "staging area" that didn't even exist. Usually when they tell you to go to some "staging area" but won't tell you where it is, it's because there's no such thing, and they're simply trying to get rid of you.

Lawful order my ass. I didn't see any crime scene tape in that video. A cop can't just tell you to go away without telling you where the boundaries of the crime scene are. Telling you to go to a media staging area isn't good enough. As long as the streets are still open to the public (and there was no indication that the street the photog was on was closed) then the photog has the right to be there. A "lawful order" has to be specific enough for the individual to be able to follow it.

Apparently the previous confrontation was contentious enough that the photog thought the cop was going to do something to him. That's why he made sure he was rolling and wouldn't let the cop circle behind him. You can hear him tell the female officer that the camera is the only thing protecting him. It was.

Pointing a camera at a cop is NOT a provocation.

[Sigonfile]

Just because you have a camera on your shoulder doesn't mean you have specific rights to a crime scene. I see way to many photogs pushing the limits these days. All it gets them is 15 minutes of "Youtube" fame and a bad reputation with the local law enforcement community.

[The Fedora]

but Spike is correct. No tape, there is even a civilian Ford truck pulling into the shot at one point on the tape, about 75 feet past where this confrontation is taking place.

[!]

Just because you have a camera on your shoulder doesn't mean you have specific rights to a crime scene. I see way to many photogs pushing the limits these days.
Just because you have a badge on your shirt doesn't mean you can make up the rules as you go. I see way too many cops pushing the limits of their authority these days.

[Lazlo Toth]

I can see this as the cops' justification. But that still doesn't make it legal. I think a prosecutor, with that evidence of an assault before him/her and the entire community, has to prosecute the cop for assault. It'll happen.

Albuquerque police spokesman John Walsh says an independent review officer will look at footage of the incident. The name of the police officer in the video is Daniel Guzman.

This guy will get arrested and fired.

Then the photographer should file a federal civil suit against Guzman and the poilice department for violating his constitutional rights. And he'll win.
I don't disagree with you about what SHOULD happen. But I think in the real world, none of that WILL happen.

The other cops will write reports about how the photog disobeyed lawful orders. The review officer will say it wasn't handled the best way, but nothing illegal happened. The prosecutor, who has to work with the cops every day, will say there's insufficient evidence to prosecute either guy.

And let's say the prosecutor does decide to prosecute. Juries are usually very sympathetic to cops. The defense will play that "Was that so hard" a thousand times until the jury loathes the photog. The defense will talk about what a tough job the cop has and how they just dealt with a heinous crime and the officer was understandably upset. The jurors, who probably think the media are a bunch of jerks (because all they ever see are obnoxious reporters and photogs in movies) will nod in agreement and acquit. As will a civil rights jury on a first amendment suit. No lawyer will take the case on contingency anyway. The station, which has to work with the cops for decades to come, will urge the photog to accept the token apology and let it go. They won't pay for his suit. And unless the photog has inherited wealth and does thi only as a hobby, he won't have the money to pursue it.

And that's the real world.

[Zero]

I The review officer will say it wasn't handled the best way, but nothing illegal happened. The prosecutor, who has to work with the cops every day, will say there's insufficient evidence to prosecute either guy.

And let's say the prosecutor does decide to prosecute. Juries are usually very sympathetic to cops... And that's the real world.

You're absolutely right except you are forgetting to factor in the smoking gun... the video tape.

The chief always buys the cop's version. The prosecutor always buys the cop's version. The jury always buys the cop's version of events. But bring in the raw video and let the jury compare what they see against what the cops said happened... and they'll be pissed about the exaggerations.
Show the video to the public on your website, and the prosecutor, an elected official, will take immediate notice.

Sure the photog's not being as respectful to law enforcement as a jury would like, but the jury will be told that being a smart ass to a police officer is not a crime. And it's certainly not a valid reason for an assault... which is what took place. They may not like the photographer, but they can't conclude that it's okay for a police officer to punch someone and arrest him because he's a bit of a prick.

If this case gets to a jury, it'll be a quick deliberation and a justifiable guilty verdict.

I've seen it happen.

[Spike]

Just because you have a camera on your shoulder doesn't mean you have specific rights to a crime scene.

Except we're not talking about access to a crime scene. We're talking about public access to public streets. Where was the crime scene? There wasn't any tape up. The cop wouldn't tell the photog where the crime scene started or ended. The cop just wanted him to leave, because he had a camera, on a public street.

You're right that a camera doesn't give a photog the right to go wherever he pleases. But a camera also doesn't give the cops the right to bar the photog from a public street. To do so is a form of prior restraint and is a violation of the First Amendment.

The jurors, who probably think the media are a bunch of jerks (because all they ever see are obnoxious reporters and photogs in movies) will nod in agreement and acquit. As will a civil rights jury on a first amendment suit. No lawyer will take the case on contingency anyway.

I think you're wrong about that, because a civil suit would probably never make it before a jury. Most lawsuits of this type end up being settled. What may keep it from happening is that prosecutor will likely try to get the photog to sign something that says he won't sue the city over the incident in exchange for not pursuing the "disobeying" charge. If somehow that doesn't happen, then the photog shouldn't have any trouble finding an attorney who would take the case expecting a settlement out of court.

[Lazlo Toth]

You're absolutely right except you are forgetting to factor in the smoking gun... the video tape.

The chief always buys the cop's version. The prosecutor always buys the cop's version. The jury always buys the cop's version of events. But bring in the raw video and let the jury compare what they see against what the cops said happened... and they'll be pissed about the exaggerations.
Show the video to the public on your website, and the prosecutor, an elected official, will take immediate notice.

Sure the photog's not being as respectful to law enforcement as a jury would like, but the jury will be told that being a smart ass to a police officer is not a crime. And it's certainly not a valid reason for an assault... which is what took place. They may not like the photographer, but they can't conclude that it's okay for a police officer to punch someone and arrest him because he's a bit of a prick.

If this case gets to a jury, it'll be a quick deliberation and a justifiable guilty verdict.

I've seen it happen.

I have to disagree. Look at the most egregious videotape case in recent history .. Rodney King.

It was all on tape. And the jury acquitted the cops in the criminal trial. This isn't nearly as clear as that, and the jury was sympthetic to the officers.

But I don't see it getting prosecuted in the first place, so it is likely moot what a jury would do.

BTW, you say you've seen in happen. What, where, when and who was the case? Did it involve a TV news photog and a cop?

[Zero]

I have to disagree. Look at the most egregious videotape case in recent history .. Rodney King. BTW, you say you've seen in happen. What, where, when and who was the case? Did it involve a TV news photog and a cop?

The cops were convicted on criminal charges by a federal jury. I think he won his civil suit too.

What I saw happen involved a sheriff's deputy making a dui arrest. The guy's wife took out an instant camera and began taking photographs. The deputy told her to stop. She didn't. He arrested her and charged her with interfering with an arrest. He wrote in his report that she momentarily blinded him by sticking the camera in his face and repeatedly taking photographs.

Remember, this was an instant camera. Only one possible lens setting. And you can hardly advance the film very fast.

When the film was developed, it showed the approaching officer was a good ten feet away, not inches away as he wrote in his report.

She was acquitted. She sued, the county settled.

Without the photo evidence, it would have been her word against his, and she would have lost.

[Lazlo Toth]

The cops were convicted on criminal charges by a federal jury. I think he won his civil suit too.

What I saw happen involved a sheriff's deputy making a dui arrest. The guy's wife took out an instant camera and began taking photographs. The deputy told her to stop. She didn't. He arrested her and charged her with interfering with an arrest. He wrote in his report that she momentarily blinded him by sticking the camera in his face and repeatedly taking photographs.

Remember, this was an instant camera. Only one possible lens setting. And you can hardly advance the film very fast.

When the film was developed, it showed the approaching officer was a good ten feet away, not inches away as he wrote in his report.

She was acquitted. She sued, the county settled.

Without the photo evidence, it would have been her word against his, and she would have lost.

So in the case you cited, a cop was not charged. A cop was not prosecuted. A cop was not convicted.

In the King case, three of those four cops walked in the first trial, the one in Simi Valley. This New Mexico case is not of the magnitude of Rodney King. I cannot see a federal prosecutor pursuing this case if and when the cop is charged and acquitted in local court. As I said, I don't even see the local prosecutor pursuing it.

I understand your passion for wanting to see this pursued against the cop. But in the real world, I don't think it will happen.

[Zero]

So in the case you cited, a cop was not charged.

The point I was making that while a jury certainly is predisposed to taking a law enforcement officer's word for what happened... when given visual proof as an alternative... visual proof wins over testimony.

[Lazlo Toth]

The point I was making that while a jury certainly is predisposed to taking a law enforcement officer's word for what happened... when given visual proof as an alternative... visual proof wins over testimony.

Not in the first Rodney King case, it didn't.

[Sultanosurf]

Hey, now, that was a jury of peers. (When you're a cop living in Simi)

[JoinUsForCake]

It's just stupid to "test" a police officer. Jackass photogs like this piss me off.

True, I have been given ambiguous, sometimes contradictory directives by officers on scenes but pointing a camera in their face and not moving has never been one of my tactics.

[Spike]

True, I have been given ambiguous, sometimes contradictory directives by officers on scenes but pointing a camera in their face and not moving has never been one of my tactics.

If you think you're about to get into a confrontation with a police officer, the best thing you can possibly do is keep rolling. Otherwise they can say just about anything about what happened. Again and again we've seen police reports that say one thing and videotape that shows something completely different.

The photog was at the back of his car, trying to put his camera away. Why was the cop circling around behind him if he was complying? The photog didn't bring the camera back to his shoulder until the cop insisted on pressing the issue. It's a good thing he did, or he would have had no record whatsoever of the cop attacking him unprovoked.

[Zero]

It's just stupid to "test" a police officer. Jackass photogs like this piss me off..

Stupid, yes. Illegal? No.

What the officer did was illegal. And it was caught on tape. That's why he'll be fired. That's why he'll be prosecuted. That's why he'll be convicted. That's why he and the city will lose the civil case.

[JoinUsForCake]

I see your points, but when the officer was walking away, the photog was clearly not making any immediate effort to pack it up and leave. During these few moments I can easily see how the cop could have been baited. If a cop asks you to leave and you keep swiveling the camera around on your tripod, following him around you are kinda asking for it. Especially considering that situation.

Was the cop an a-hole? Probably.
did he need to arrest the photog? Absolutely not.
Did this photog help matters? Not really.

Even if the photog felt threatened, you can keep rolling on the situation and have some sound evidence. I don't condone what the officer did at all, but I definitely would have been a bit more expedient in packing it up.

[Zero]

Was the cop an a-hole? Probably.
Did he need to arrest the photog? Absolutely not.
Did this photog help matters? Not really.

All of this is true. But ask one more question: Did he need to resort to violence in order to make an arrest?

There's where it got illegal. He assaulted the photographer.

If everything the officer says is true, (and it's not) then he's still guilty of using force to subdue a suspect when the suspect (and I use that term loosely) when none is necessary. The cop was angry and he hit the photographer. Can't do it. It's against the law.

[Spike]

What the officer did was illegal. And it was caught on tape. That's why he'll be fired. That's why he'll be prosecuted. That's why he'll be convicted.

Uh, nope. Attacking someone would be a violent crime, remember? And you said that if there's no arrest in the case of a violent crime, no crime has been committed. The cop hasn't been arrested, so according to you, no crime has been committed. How can the cop be prosecuted and convicted if no crime has been committed?

You've bullsh*tted your way into a corner now. Good going.

[The Fedora]

but isn't video tape meant to be reusable? So they should erase it, this is now just file tape and as we've all been taught... file video is worthless and should be erased, right?

;)

[Zero]

What a couple of juvenile losers.

[The Fedora]

wow, that was pure wit.

[William_Jefferson_Clinton]

You get that Uploaded to You Tube and watch
how many hits it gets.
http://www.geocities.com/california_state_unfair2002/bill_clinton2.jpg
... the Officer left his post to engage this
subject, and his actions were flagrant.

There is no law against requesting an Officer's
Identification information, and in California, any
peace officer must also provide a form or instruction
if a Complaint would be requested.

The Officer stalked this individual like an Animal,
and if he isn't fired? ...he should certainly be in
line for some serious anger management and psycho-
logical review.

[Lazlo Toth]

wow, that was pure wit.

One must consider the possiblity you are half right.

[Spike]

One must consider the possiblity you are half right.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/shootER5/applause.gif

[Fire Hydrogant]

What the officer did was illegal. And it was caught on tape. That's why he'll be fired. That's why he'll be prosecuted. That's why he'll be convicted. That's why he and the city will lose the civil case.

Even though what was caught on tape can arguably be seen as the officer assaulting the photographer, I can already see the defendants in this case arguing that the officer wasn't actually hitting the photog, but rather aggressively reaching out to grab his arm or his camera in a quick maneuver to physically subdue him. I'm not necessarily defending the officers' decision to arrest the guy in the first place. I didn't witness what happened before the part that was on tape, so I have no idea whether there was really any grounds for arrest or not. I'm just saying that video might not end up being as damning in court as it might appear to be on the surface.

Did he need to resort to violence in order to make an arrest?
I don't know, the cop probably has more training on how to decide on that than you or I do. Like I said, I didn't witness what exchange took place before the part that was videotaped.

The following analogy might not be the greatest, but it's the best I can come up with to compare the professions of law enforcement and photojournalism side by side: It's kind of similar to a non-photog asking a photog, "do you really need to use a tripod (or a light, or a reflector, etc...) to shoot that?" Well, depending on the situation and what's being shot, the photog is the one who best knows the answer to that question.

The photog is trained to do what he does in the way he does it, and so is the cop.

The cop was angry and he hit the photographer. Can't do it. It's against the law.
It's NOT 100% clear from the videotape that the officer "hit" the photographer, nor is it clear that he did it out of anger.

[Sigonfile]

I think the whole story was exagerated just like the price of the camera. What was this guy shooting with? A panaflex movie camera with a steadycam mount? $50k for an ENG camera, my ass.

[Zero]

I can already see the defendants in this case arguing that the officer wasn't actually hitting the photog, but rather aggressively reaching out to grab his arm or his camera in a quick maneuver to physically subdue him.

It's NOT 100% clear from the videotape that the officer "hit" the photographer, nor is it clear that he did it out of anger.

Not a good argument to make in either opening statements or closing arguments. In opening statements you have to deliver what you promise the jury will see or hear. And if you promise that the jury will see the wrongly accused cop using physical force to arrest a photographer on a tresspassing charge AFTER he turns to leave the scene, and then say he was only reaching for his arm, the jury aint gonna like the cop any more when they see the tape for themselves and witness an aggressive cop over reacting to a minor taunt.

If you make the claim that the officer was only reaching for the photog's hands, it will come accross as a lie because the jury will have seen it for themselves. They will have heard the testimony of the photographer (yeah, the dude hit me! Just like I said on the tape!) And there's no reason to aggressively grab someone's hand when the photographer has only one hand free (the other was holding the camera).

You hear the strike to the body. You see the officer's angry face.
The guy is toast.

Any argument to the contrary is gonna sound like a lie. A jury won't like what they see. They'll be insulted if on top of that they find the cop lying to them.

What's more likely is that the cop will say he was full of adreneline after responding to and dealing with a very dangerous situation. That the photographer was taking the officer away from his responsibility at the crime scene. That instead of dealing with his more pressing duties, the officer instead had to refocus on continually ordering this intruder away from the crime scene.

He could have made a better choice, in retrospect, than to rush and grab the photographer, but at the time, as a result of the highly intense nature of his very dangerous job, he reacted aggressively when his order to leave was not only disobeyed but mocked by this tv news photographer who runs from tragic scene to tragic scene in order to exploit them.

That with the benefit of hindsight, some will conclude that this officer might have over reacted in arresting the photographer, but the officer was acting within his authority and certainly within the law when after offering a series of opportunities for the photographer to leave, (which was more than he needed to do) he finally had enough and took the photographer into custody, as was the right thing to do.

In short... excuse the behavior. Don't deny it.

[NewsguyMark]

Another out-of-control cop.

Fire him, prosecute him, convict him, send him to jail.

Why don't these cops have a clue about The First Amendment?

[Spike]

Not a good argument to make in either opening statements or closing arguments.

It doesn't matter because it's never going to get to trial. The cop hasn't been charged with anything. ACCORDING TO YOU, that means that no crime was committed.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

The moral to this story:

When two pricks meet someone always gets bent over.
In this case it was the photog.

[Zero]

When two pricks meet someone always gets bent over.

Don't say pricks and bend over in the same post. You just serve to excite Spike.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Speaking of pricks: did one of your former girlfriends tag you with the Sir Speedy name?

BWWWAAAHHHAAAHHHAAA

[Sigonfile]

I bet the photographer will end up being a "poster child" for the NPPA next month. They teach that "I have a right" crap.

[amp]

Both sides f'ed up here. The cop who tackled the photog didn't say anything. He could have said,"Put the camera away and leave or you will be arrested." And the photog didn't need to ask for the badge number with such attitude.

I tell my guys, as long as you are rolling, be nice and respectful, because if you get touched, that tape is going on the news, and whatever you say will be used in a court of public opinion.

[ewink]

I bet the photographer will end up being a "poster child" for the NPPA next month. They teach that "I have a right" crap.

I have a right crap?

You think standing up for your right to take pictures in a public place is crap?

[William_Jefferson_Clinton]

http://www.geocities.com/california_state_unfair2002/news1st_field2.gif

[Fire Hydrogant]

You hear the strike to the body.

Just because you hear a thud doesn't prove it was the sound of the officers hand striking the photog's body. When I'm shooting and make sudden movements, my shotgun mic can potentially pick up any number of noises that might sound like someone striking me. If there was a quick backward reflexive motion on the photogs' part in response to the cop grabbing him, the photog or his camera could have accidentally struck the back hatch of his news vehicle with the back of the camera, or the shotgun could have momentarily rubbed or bumped against something, even the camera strap slapping against the mic can potentially sound like someone intentionally striking something. Hearing the sound doesn't prove sh!t. I'd have to see a wide shot from a second photographer (unfortunately I guess there wasn't one) in order to know if anyone really "hit" anybody.


You see the officer's angry face.

If you think the officer's face looked "angry," you're certainly entitled to your opinion. To me, he may have looked somewhat annoyed, but not necessarily angry. Go back and look at the video. Is there any moment in which you see the officer yelling at the photographer? If the video shows any anger at all, it's the anger in the photographer's voice.

[William_Jefferson_Clinton]

If the officer did chose to arrest the photog?
It wasn't standard procedure.
http://www.geocities.com/california_state_unfair2002/bill_clinton2.jpg
... Without some pressing need to physically
engage a citizen, standard procedure would have
dictated that the officer request identification, and
ask the subject to sit at or near the front of his
squad car while he ran particulars on the subject.

And, whereupon, if he deemed an arrest were
necessary, he would ask the subject to turn around,
give him the cursory pat down, asking him if he had
any weapons.

Once he had determined there were no weapons, he
would ask the subject to sit in the back of his squad
car. Then he would attempt to extract further information
from the subject. I would say in Almost all jurisdictions,
if the arrest is of a recognized media person, a Supervisor
would be required to respond for the standard "Rubbing of
the Noses" with the arresting officer.

A Supervisor will generally be the instigator or the pacifier
in these situations. It's kind of like letting a canine get their
first bite in.

This way the deputy gets to keep up the Show of force
thingy, while the Supervisor appears to be the understanding
one so they don't appear as total *******s. It is a conditioning
process where LE establishes it's Alpha Position in the order of
things, so that you respond in a desired manner the next time
you come in contact with them.

Judging from the approach of this officer, he didn't like the
photogs attitude during the initial contact, relayed that info to
his Supervisor by radio, and was instructed by the Supervisor
to "Take Him Out" - meaning the photog.

That explains the slight delay between when the photog approached
his own vehicle, and the subsequent approach by the officer.

The Photog more than likely said something demeaning under his
breath after not receiving what he perceived as a less than helpful
response about the Media Staging Location.

This is the 'Trigger Mechanism" that sets off, mostly the younger,
more aggressive natured cops. When they find that certain someone
they feel they can release the day's tensions on, "Look Out!"

----------------------


I was once at a scene that started out like your basic Housefire,
and as time passed, the Sheriff's Dept showed, and set up some scene
tape. I was separated from my vehicle by the scene which took out
about 100 yards of the roadway. Once the scene was established, I
requested to walk the perimeter of the scene to return to my vehicle,
and was cleared by the on scene Battalion Chief to do so.

Unfortunately, when I arrived at the other side, I was confronted by
a Sgt. who I had little time for, nor he for I, do to past interactions.
He was also the Sheriff's Dept PIO at the time. After accusing me of
entering a crime scene, which never occurred, he said I must go no
where else but the Media Staging Area that they had roped off with
crime scene tape.

I looked over there to what was a field of about 2 ft. high dry grass,
and there stood just about a representative from about every news
outlet in town. They Stood there in the High Grass just Like the Sheep
that the PIO wanted them to feel like. I said, "**** That!"

I said, you listen hear sir!, "You can go say your little piece to those
people over there! And then You can come say Your little piece Over
Here!"

Needless to say, I was Fu@king Pissed! I had told him that I needed to
return to my vehicle for more tape, and I would need to speak to him
after that moment. But, I was a Stringer, and I knew the Story was
covered, and just returned to my vehicle and left.

I was far less pissed about being falsely accused of entering a crime
scene than I was to see those pathetic Mother-Fu@kers that would
ever stand for being purposely mistreated, as those who allowed them-
selves to be forced to go stand in that field.

That's what Pissed me Off!

[Fire Hydrogant]

As expected, there's a thread among law enforcement people about this same incident over on officer.com
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92221

[Shot A Load]

Just confirms their feelings about us. Liberal hippie?

[The Fedora]

As expected, there's a thread among law enforcement people about this same incident over on officer.com
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92221

Wow... those are some violent MFrs... I sure am glad they carry guns. News Flash: YOU DO NOT HAVE UNLIMITED POWER.

[Angel's Hell]

Since when does a news photographer DESERVE to be beaten up by a cop for doing his job??? Some of you people act as if you have never ever been a reporter, and you back up the badges at all costs. Even when they clearly were out of line. The officer gave no warning of his physical assault. This makes me sick to watch. Our nation has no controls on it's officers and they need to do some things to make sure that the ones with bad tempers, that flare up with violence, get some anger management courses, or fired for that matter.

Ah...life in these United States gets a bit nasty at times!

[elvez]

I found it was only the young cops who were a-holes.
Know your rights, roll on everything, stand up for yourself, respect the uniform, not the a-hole and don't let them bait you.

Remember as you deal with them, 90% of these guys have no college, and never learned to cognate beyond knee jerk responses.
Think of them as the jock who failed out every semester, dumb, slightly dangerous and always looking to prove something.

[The Mockingbird]

Remember as you deal with them, 90% of these guys have no college, and never learned to cognate beyond knee jerk responses.

I believe the word you're looking for is cogitate.

[William_Jefferson_Clinton]

They said it was for Our Security?
http://www.geocities.com/california_state_unfair2002/bill_clinton2.jpg
...because they couldn't spell Surquedry? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surquedry)


SState Dept. on National Surquedry (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surquedry)


Also See: National Surquedry (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surquedry)Advisor
http://www.geocities.com/california_state_unfair2002/rice_national_obs_advisor2008.jpg
...Once upon a time.

[elvez]

I believe the word you're looking for is cogitate.

Yes it is, thank you.

[Marty McFly]

I watched the report and also the raw tape. I have read the responses on this thread... so here's my take on the deal (not that anyone asked or cares).

1) The photog is easily 40-50 feet away (possibly more, at least 4 car lengths) from where the two patrol cars are.

2) There is no crime scene tape to restrict the press or the public and nothing to prohibit the photog from being where he is. All we have is that the cop told the photog in question to go somewhere else.

3) If there was truly any danger to any person (citizen, cop, press), I'm quite certain the cop in question wouldn't have had his hands in his pockets.

4) When the cop finally walks over and tells the photog where to go, the photog's first response was, 'Was that so hard?' That leads me to believe that the photog WANTED to know where the 'media staging' area was and had asked specifically about its location... and had gotten little to no response. He was obviously frustrated that the cops were less than helpful.

5) When the photog specifically asks for the cop's name and badge number, the cop doesn't respond at all. But seconds before he had just told the photog where to go! So now all of a sudden the cop can't talk?

6) The cop walks away. He doesn't give any instructions to tell the photog to go the media staging area. HE WALKS AWAY.

7) After walking away, the cop walks back and the photog is obviously packing his gear TO LEAVE. Still nothing from the cop.

8) From what I saw, it is my opinion that the cop in question was trying to avoid being on camera before he went over and walloped the photog. The same photog who was in the process of LEAVING.

Now some of you say the photog deserved it for 'mouthing off' and he had it coming. For argument's sake, let's say he DID deserve it.

So what?!

So now the police can 'dish out' whatever they feel necessary? Aren't they the public officials who are supposed to keep the peace and lead by example? Many of you take the attitude of 'do what the cop says or else.'

What?! You mean if a cop says to stand on one foot I should just stand on one foot?! What if the cop said to not white-balance? Would you do that too?

I think I'm more sickened at how some of you defend the cop's action rather than the action itself.

[!]

I bet the photographer will end up being a "poster child" for the NPPA next month. They teach that "I have a right" crap.
But they DO have a right.

They--and everyone else--has a right to expect cops will enforce the law, not make up their own as they see fit. That happens far too often, and the cops are allowed to get away with it by wimpy station management that won't file complains and/or lawsuits when police exceed their legal boundaries.

[!]

Just confirms their feelings about us. Liberal hippie?
Also confirms that they believe they have the right to do whatever they wish, whenever they wish. That's what needs to be stopped.


I hate reporters. Their job is to feed off of other peoples misfortune and make OUR job harder.
They will sneak around at a crime scene and look into your patrol unit and try to read your MDC screen or overhear radio traffic so they can spin something to make people hate the police. They will climb buildings so they can snap a picture of the poor guy who got run over in the street and has his brains splattered all over the road so they can get a good story.

Once again I hate reporters.

This post exemplifies the problem. This guy's probably done something wrong in the past--and been caught--so now he's decided we're all out to get him and his co-workers.

[Shot A Load]

that too and thought he must be making $hit up. I have never known a reporter to stoop to such low levels. What's even funnier is that poster kept referring to the photog as a reporter.
I am still waiting for an e-mail from that forum to allow me to post my two-cents.

[Sigonfile]

I had a cop try to deny me access to a scene last evening. He thought he was so cool, but what he didn't realize was, I already had my stuff and was leaving anyway. It was what I call a "news quickie", in and out, slam bam, thank you mam.

[Another side]

... a couple of cops on here, one encouraged us to visit that site and communcate with the officers.

So I hit the link and was greeted with "You are not permitted to access this site" or some such garbage. Never been back, nor will I ever. They don't want me -- what do I care?

[Lazlo Toth]

Breaking News.....turns out the two knew each other. Photog was porking officers wife on his off days.

I thought only cops and hog butchers could pork their wives, if you know what I mean.

[chickensalad]

To the cops blog. But it is restricted I could not add anything. And they call us one sided.

[Zero]

Even for Albuquerque, this is pretty Albuquerque. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUw6vpFLdMU)

[Hank Scorpio]

Alot of you here really make me f_cking sick.

How about you goose-step your sorry freedom hating a$$es over to officer.com with your facist opinions.

[ewink]

Remember as you deal with them, 90% of these guys have no college, and never learned to cognate beyond knee jerk responses.
Think of them as the jock who failed out every semester, dumb, slightly dangerous and always looking to prove something.
See here is my problem with this. What you just said is no different than the tool on officer.com claiming we serve no purpose other than to feed off of other peoples misfortune. Most departments I have seen and worked with require a certain number of college hours, if not at least an associates. As well, police acedemies have a lot of bookwork and not just any idiot can get through them.

Generalizing is never good, whether it's them doing it to us, or us doing it to them.
... a couple of cops on here, one encouraged us to visit that site and communcate with the officers.

So I hit the link and was greeted with "You are not permitted to access this site" or some such garbage. Never been back, nor will I ever. They don't want me -- what do I care?
Sounds a lot like the people who cry on here about 'you're not in the media! why are you posting here?!?!?!' :)

[!]

To the cops blog. But it is restricted I could not add anything. And they call us one sided.

They are also ruthless about banning anyone who posts anything with which they disagree.

[elvez]

well, I only generalized about 90% of them.
I'm willing to concede that 10% of them have college degrees.
To bad those guys to stay on the street very long.

[T-Towner]

Remember as you deal with them, 90% of these guys have no college, and never learned to cognate beyond knee jerk responses.


A few departments, like Tulsa, require a bachelors degree. TPD is generally very professional and easy to work with compared to other jurisdictions.

[Fire Hydrogant]

... a couple of cops on here, one encouraged us to visit that site and communcate with the officers.

So I hit the link and was greeted with "You are not permitted to access this site" or some such garbage. Never been back, nor will I ever. They don't want me -- what do I care?

What site was it? Wasn't officer.com was it? I've had no problem at all posting on there.

[Fire Hydrogant]

Alot of you here really make me f_cking sick.

How about you goose-step your sorry freedom hating a$$es over to officer.com with your facist opinions.

Freedom hating?

[Hank Scorpio]

Freedom hating?


Yes.

Freedom hating.

You are FREE to be on a public street, and the photog was denied FREEDOM to be on the public street, WITH NO CRIME TAPE, and shoot vid.

Being a mouthy photog is not a crime. I know many, I was one, but only when I was provoked and knew I was right.

I once was in an argument with a cop and it escalaled to him threatening me with jail and I said, "I dare you to take me to jail." He came to his senses and just walked away.

[Fire Hydrogant]

Yes.

Freedom hating.

You are FREE to be on a public street, and the photog was denied FREEDOM to be on the public street, WITH NO CRIME TAPE, and shoot vid.

Being a mouthy photog is not a crime. I know many, I was one, but only when I was provoked and knew I was right.

I once was in an argument with a cop and it escalaled to him threatening me with jail and I said, "I dare you to take me to jail." He came to his senses and just walked away.

Oh, sorry, Hank. I didn't know who your post was directed at, and didn't realize at first that you were a photog. I somehow thought you were a LEO from officer.com coming here to accuse journalists of "freedom-hating."

[Lazlo Toth]

KOB.com

Posted at: 06/12/2008 07:50:05 AM
Updated at: 06/12/2008 11:36:38 AM
By: Kayla Anderson, Eyewitness News 4, and Reed Upton, KOB.com
Scuffle with photographer prompts retraining http://kob.com/kobtvimages/cop_v_foley.jpg
Officer Daniel Guzman seconds before lunging at an Eyewitness News 4 photographer
The entire Albuquerque police force will undergo training as a result of a confrontation between an officer and an Eyewitness News 4 photographer, according to a published report.
The Albuquerque Journal (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/310836metro06-12-08.htm) (subscription) reports that Chief of Police Ray Schultz has viewed a videotape of the confrontation and concluded that several mistakes were made during the confrontation.
Photographer Rick Foley was on public property covering an early morning gunfight between police and some fleeing suspects late last month near Copper and Rhode Island when the incident occurred.
Officer Daniel Guzman told Foley to leave the area and go to the staging scene where the news media would be briefed. Foley contends that he wasn’t initially told where the staging area was.
Guzman later approached Foley, who was shooting video, rold him where the staging area was, and Foley responded, “Was that so hard?”
Videotape shot with Foley’s camera shows Guzman repeatedly pacing out of the frame and refusing to answer Foley’s request for his name and badge number.
Guzman suddenly lunged at Foley and the two struggled until a second officer arrived and took Foley’s camera.
Foley was cuffed and detained in the back of a squad car for about 90 minutes before being issued a citation for failure to obey a lawful command. He has a court date on July 1. The incident has been referred to an Independent Review Officer. http://kob.com/kobtvimages/cs/arrow.gif Watch the full video (http://kob.com/article/stories/s460111.shtml?v=1)

[Lazlo Toth]

Attack on Cameraman Prompts New APD Policy

By T.J. Wilham (http://www.abqjournal.com/cgi-bin/email_reporter.pl)
Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer
Police Chief Ray Schultz plans to retrain his entire police force because of mistakes he acknowledged were made by an officer who attacked a KOB-TV cameraman after ordering him to move from an area near a crime scene.
The incident— which was caught on tape, aired on TV and posted on the Internet— sparked hundreds of complaints to APD.
Schultz said Wednesday that he has drafted a policy that he plans to take to all of the city's news organizations for input. He also said the police force will go through training on the new policy and how to deal with crime scene onlookers.
One change would require an officer involved in a disagreement with the media to call a supervisor or public information officer.
The officer involved in last month's incident has been paired to work with a veteran officer— and never alone— until an investigation is complete.
"I have always said that we learn from our mistakes," Schultz said. "Obviously, there were some mistakes made. So, let's learn from them instead of repeating them."
Veteran KOB-TV cameraman Rick Foley was covering a police standoff on May 29 near Copper and Charleston NE when rookie officer Daniel Guzman told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report.
Foley at the time was some distance from the police cars blocking the street and was outside an area that had been blocked by officers.
Shortly after Guzman told Foley he needed to move, the two exchanged more words.
A video captured by Foley's camera shows the officer lunging at Foley. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited for "refusing to obey an officer."
The citation was filed Tuesday in Metropolitan Court. Foley has been given a July 1 court date.
Schultz said he couldn't intervene and have the citation dismissed. Only an officer or a judge can dismiss a citation once it has been written, he said.
Shortly after the incident, Schultz asked the city's independent review officer to investigate.
That investigation is ongoing. The IRO has reviewed Foley's tape but has not conducted any interviews.
The Journal made an official request on June 2 for records involving any prior disciplinary action taken against Guzman as well as any other resident's complaints.
Police have yet to produce the documents.
A deputy city attorney said in an e-mail that they are reviewing the request and will have a response within 15 days.
Schultz said action was taken shortly after the incident because of the severity of the allegations and the fact that his office has received about 200 e-mails— most of which attack Guzman and the chief. Schultz said that two of those e-mails had a threatening tone and that those e-mailers wanted to know where and when Guzman works so they could "talk to him."
"Because of the nature of some of the e-mails, we thought it was in his best interest not to put him in a situation where someone has an encounter with him and something escalates," Schultz said.
Schultz said that when he watched a video of the encounter, he noticed that several mistakes were made, although he declined to elaborate until the IRO completes its investigation.
Schultz pointed out that Foley had asked Guzman for his name and badge number, and that the officer refused to give it.
"That's an obvious policy violation," Schultz said. "We have a distinct policy you will provide name and identification number when asked by anyone. That did not occur."
Schultz said the new policy he drafted deals mostly with how officers are to treat representatives of the media when they think a reporter or photographer is disobeying a lawful order.
The drafted policy calls for the officer to contact his supervisor or a public information officer, but not to initiate an arrest.
The department already has a policy in place that says anyone from the community can record any crime scene as long as he or she is not standing in the scene.
"We want any conflicts addressed at the scene and not have our officers jump to enforcement action," Schultz said. "Let's get the right people there and not get to the point where someone is being arrested or cited."

[Zero]

Thanks for the update Laz, you're a good man.

[Spike]

Thanks for the update Laz, you're a good man.

And still no arrest. Therefore, no crime was committed. I wish you well.

[Zero]

And still no arrest.
There will be an arrest following the investigation.

[Spike]

There will be an arrest following the investigation.

How could there be an arrest? You said that if there hasn't been an arrest, no crime has occurred. If no crime has occurred, what are they going to arrest him for later? Are you saying that when the investigation is over, he'll commit a crime?

I wish you well.

[Zero]

How could there be an arrest?
It works like this: There was an altercation at the scene between an officer and a photographer. The officer arrested the photographer for disobeying an order. The officer used force in making the arrest. The photographer captured the arrest on video tape.

Are you following so far?

The photographer is disputing the officer's account and has offered the video as evidence.

Got it?

The chief of police has seen that video and has admitted that mistakes were made. An investigation is underway to determine if those mistakes rise to the level of violating department procedure, or perhaps a crime.

Okay?

Once that investigation is complete, there will be a recommendation. If the actions of the officer amount to a crime, the state's attorney will determine whether or not to file charges against the officer.

That would be an arrest.

If an arrest is made, the case will go before a magistrate court which then must decide if the prosecution has met it's burden of probable cause, in what is known as a preliminary hearing. If the magistrate rules that there is probable cause, the case will be scheduled for trial. If there is no guilty plea submitted by the denfendant prior to trial, the trial will proceed where evidence and testimony will be presented before a jury (or in some cases a single judge) who will then make a determination..... if the accused is guilty or not guilty of committing a crime.

If the jury unanimously votes to convict, it would be accurate to then say that a crime occurred.

Got it?

[Another side]

... people accused of misdemeanors do NOT have preliminary hearings. There is a probable cause hearing for the arrest ... and plea.

If they plead not guilty, they can get a lawyer and fight or negotiate a plea.

If they plead guilty, they are normally and immediately sentenced.

If they're charged with a felony, they have a probable cause hearing for the arrest ... followed down the road by a preliminary hearing for probable cause on whether a felony occurred and whether there was probable cause to believe the defendant committed it. Charges can be added or dropped based on the testimony at the preliminary hearing ... sometimes by a judge's ruling.

They are then ordered to stand trial ... and arraignment occurs ... which is a plea.

Even if the cop in this story is arrested, I think it will be the city prosecutor -- not the DA or "State's Attorney" who will make the charging decision, if any, because I don't think it's likely it will be on felony charges, and it apparently happened within city limits.

[Camera 47]

According to the FBI, this officer is subject to federal felony charges under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 of the United States Civil Rights statutes.

From the FBI's site:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

-----

The photographer was injured and brings this up from a misdemeanor to a felony.

[Lazlo Toth]

The FBI commented on this specific case?

[Camera 47]

Not on this specific case, no.

The above is the best clarification of 18 U.S.C. § 242 that I could find from a government site. It is the government's definition of abusing official powers and the penalties attached to such abuse.

The photographer also has the option of filing a civil tort against the municipality. That's the main reason why the chief made the preemptive move of retraining the entire police force. It weakens the penalties that could be assessed. I'm not sure if the law allows individual officers to be held for damages in civil torts, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

In any case, this will probably go on for a while.

[Lazlo Toth]

Well, I still think in the real world prosecution won't happen. I can see the rookie cop getting disciplined, maybe even let go. But right now, I'm doubtful even that will happen.

The chief has done his mea culpa on behalf of the department. He says mistakes were made. He says he's fixing things.

I doubt you'll get a local prosecutor, much less a US Attorney to go after the cop.

A civil suit is always a crap shoot. It could work.

And maybe in the end, I'll be proved wrong. But I'm a little cynical about how cops protect cops after so many years of doing this.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Schultz pointed out that Foley had asked Guzman for his name and badge number, and that the officer refused to give it. "That's an obvious policy violation," Schultz said. "We have a distinct policy you will provide name and identification number when asked by anyone. That did not occur."

That's cause for suspension, or some kind of serious disciplinary action right there.

[Another side]

... with both posts -- the chief's announcement was primarily to minimize damages in a potential lawsuit, and with Laz's belief very little beyond that is going to happen (in the absence of a record of other abuses or misconduct by the officer.)

Further, I'd suggest that if there is a history of similar acts by the same officer my guess is the chief would allow him to "resign" rather than face prosecution. That would serve the politics behind the issue, and get evereyone off the hook.

[Zero]

I don't think there's any way that the chief can do anything BUT fire the police officer. He has to show the community that there is zero tollerance for this type of behavior from his department.

And there's a practical side as well.

What happens to the city's liability should this same police officer let his temper get the best of him and attack someone else? Even if it's years from now. Even if there is no videotape evidence, just a claim, he's vulnerable. So is the city. Their liability is enomous, and it's just not worth the risk.

This guy Guzman will go.

[The Mockingbird]

I really hate zero tolerance policies.

Sure, the officer screwed up. So reprimand him, suspend him, whatever. But there's no reason to destroy a man's life over a mistake which, in the grand scheme of things, wasn't that huge.

[Zero]

So reprimand him, suspend him, whatever. But there's no reason to destroy a man's life over a mistake which, in the grand scheme of things, wasn't that huge.

It's so much more than a mistake. It's a public embarrassment to the entire department. It's a slur on the reputation of every good officer. It's also put the city at serious liabilty for a lawsuit.

This rookie Guzman has just recieved his officer training, which presumably encompassed more than how to shoot a gun and how to throw people to the ground, but also responsibility, self control, how to react under pressure and also how to deal with the public. And maybe something about respect for the laws which he's sworn to uphold.

Obviously he doesn't know what it means to be a police officer. He attacked a member of the press for no other reason than because he was pissed off.

That's just a little more than a mistake.

[Marty McFly]

I really hate zero tolerance policies.

Sure, the officer screwed up. So reprimand him, suspend him, whatever. But there's no reason to destroy a man's life over a mistake which, in the grand scheme of things, wasn't that huge.

A cop striking someone just because he doesn't care for their attitude ISN'T huge?!

Oh... maybe it's because it's his first time. You'd sing a different tune if he sucker-punched YOU.

[!]

I really hate zero tolerance policies.

Sure, the officer screwed up. So reprimand him, suspend him, whatever. But there's no reason to destroy a man's life over a mistake which, in the grand scheme of things, wasn't that huge.Sure it was.

When you allow cops to make up their own laws as they go, that's huge. If he hit someone outside the rules of law, that's battery.

[Groucho Marx!]

It's a slur on the reputation of every good officer. It's also put the city at serious liabilty for a lawsuit.

That's just a little more than a mistake.



The Mistake is: there's the World You
would like to Live in. ...And the One that
You Do.
http://www.geocities.com/california_state_unfair2002/groucho_marx_2007.jpg
...Officer Guzman could be Singing, "I'm Every Police Man ..."

(To the tune of 'I'm Every Woman!').

Here's the senario. As they go through their
re-training to be nicey nice, the whole time
they are thinking, "This is Because of You!" (Media!)

And, then have already had a chuckle with Guzman,
with a wink and a nod about his behavior.

Depending upon the severity of their perceived
insult? Depending on what part you played in their
Ire? You can expect anything from a higher ticket
count, to outright destruction of you being able to
be a functioning part of your community.

It's All about Attitudes. Your's and Their's.

And, when they don't like Your's, Their's
is the one that counts.


------------------------------


In the Year 2000. I did a story that instigated
some Racial Sensitivity Training Locally.

The Year after that, the Event in question went
off without a hitch. I felt kinda proud to have been
involved in something that helped improve the way
a certain group was being treated.

As I walked thru the event that year, with Camera
in tow, I noticed a large group of the Local Gentry
Law Enforcement all kind of bunched together watching
the crowd enjoy the evening. But, Yet? There was a
feeling like they were sequestered in that Location?

Tall Proud Men, Soldiers upon Horseback. Corraled.

When ... One took notice, ..."It's Him! ...This is All
Because of Him."

So much for the take on Racial Sensitiviy.


------------------------


The Particular Family Night in that regard was subsequently
Cancelled. And, the way the people are handle?

Pretty much the way it was before. Except now that don't
have a Night to Call their Own.

[Paper Trail]

By: Chris Ornelas KOB-TV, and Joshua Panas KOB.com (http://kob.com:80/article/stories/S497042.shtml?cat=519)

A judge has thrown out the charges against an Eyewitness News 4 photographer accused of disobeying a police officer at a crime scene.

The officer is now on paid leave, and is scheduled to have a disciplinary hearing next week.

It all started on the morning May 29 when photographer Rick Foley was sent to the scene of an officer involved shooting.

Before it was over, Foley was in cuffs and charged with disobeying a police officer.

APD officer Daniel Guzman claimed that he told Foley to go to a media staging area a few blocks away.

Foley was on a public street, outside of the police perimeter, which is supposed to be allowed.

When Foley didn’t move fast enough, Guzman lunged, and arrested him. Guzman also searched Foley's news unit.

Metro Court Judge Benjamin Chavez said Officer Guzman over-stepped his bounds.

"That in and of itself is not illegal, for instance the officer could run down to 4th and Lomas right now and tell everyone on all corners to just leave. The officer could then cite everybody who didn't leave with the crime of refusing to obey an officer," the judge said.

Judge Chavez also says Guzman messed up when he used a traffic citation to charge Foley with a crime. He says that Guzman should have used a criminal complaint that stated the probable cause for the arrest. Without it, the judge was forced to drop the charges.

Now Police Chief Ray Schultz wants to change the way officers deal with the media at crime scenes.

One of the proposed changes would bar officers from keeping reporters and photographers from gathering news outside of police lines. Another sets guidelines that say to call a higher ranking officer when in doubt about how to deal with the media.

[!]

One of the proposed changes would bar officers from keeping reporters and photographers from gathering news outside of police lines.
You mean, it took this event to make that happen?

[The Fedora]

Oh Zero...

[Lazlo Toth]

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Officer on Leave After Attack

By T.J. Wilham (http://www.abqjournal.com/cgi-bin/email_reporter.pl?staff=yes)
Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer
An Albuquerque police officer who was captured on video attacking a KOB-TV news photographer has been placed on leave.
Officer Daniel Guzman, who had been working with another officer since the May 29 incident, is to appear at a disciplinary hearing next week. Afterward, Police Chief Ray Schultz will decide what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against the officer.
Veteran KOB photographer Rick Foley was covering a police standoff near Copper and Charleston NE when Guzman, a rookie, told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report. Foley was some distance from the police cars blocking the street and outside an area that had been blocked by officers.
Shortly after Guzman told Foley to move, the two argued, and Foley asked Guzman for his name and badge number.
A video captured by Foley's camera shows the officer lunging at him. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited for refusing to obey an officer.
Foley has a court appearance today in Metropolitan Court. In a statement released through his attorney, Foley on Monday called for Guzman to seek dismissal of the charges.
“In my 27 years covering the news, I have never interfered in officers performing their difficult jobs, nor would I,” the statement said. “My father was a career police officer, and I have been brought up with the greatest respect for the job they do. Yet one officer found time to grab me on a public street, handcuff me, place me in a police car and prevent me from doing mine.
“I hope the officer will do the correct thing and dismiss this criminal case.”
Shortly after the incident, Schultz asked the city's independent review officer to conduct the investigation.
Schultz said he made the decision to place Guzman on leave after reading the independent review officer's report, which he received Friday.
He declined to comment further.
“There is very little I can say until the disciplinary hearing is conducted,” Schultz said. “I can say the reason he is on leave is related to the incident.”
Schultz has acknowledged that “mistakes” were made during the incident, and he has drafted a new policy on how to deal with onlookers.
He has met with members of the local news media to discuss the new policy.

[Lazlo Toth]

Does Law Aid Officers, Or Is It Abused by Them?

By T.J. Wilham (http://www.abqjournal.com/cgi-bin/email_reporter.pl?staff=yes)
Journal Staff Writer
Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal

You could be arrested for having a party.
Interrupting a police officer could land you in jail.
And if you videotape a crime scene on a public street, you could be cuffed, thrown in a police car and charged.
All of this has happened in Albuquerque: people engaged in what appear to be legal acts arrested and charged by police for “refusing to obey” a lawful order.
But are the orders lawful and is refusing to obey them a crime that is jokingly referred to in legal circles as “contempt of cop”?
It’s not a joke, of course. In addition to a possible trip to jail that night, refusing to obey carries a fine of up to $500 plus up to 90 days in the slammer.
But the charges frequently wash out when they hit the courthouse.
In 2007, Metropolitan Court judges dismissed 70 percent of the refusing to obey charge in 517 arrests made by police and sheriff’s deputies in Bernalillo County under a city ordinance called “resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey an officer.”
The top reason: 45 percent of the dismissals were due to a lack of prosecution, the officer was unwilling to proceed with the charges in court, a lack of probable cause or proper reports were not filed. Thirty percent of the dismissals were due to a plea agreement in which the defendant pleaded guilty to other charges.
“This law they are arresting people under is unconstitutional,” said Albuquerque attorney Ray Twohig. “Police in Albuquerque think they can give whatever order they want. You have constitutional violations happening in Albuquerque wholesale.”
The city ordinance that gives police the authority to arrest someone who disobeys them was adopted in 1973, a year before the city charter was written. Part of the ordinance says a person can be charged if he or she refuses to obey or comply with any lawful process or order given by a police officer. Anyone found guilty could be sentenced to up to 90 days in jail.
Albuquerque Police Chief Ray Schultz said the ordinance is needed because officers face situations when they have no choice but to arrest someone to avoid violence.
For example, police might respond to a domestic violence call in which both sides are arguing, and the situation will likely escalate. Officers will ask one side of the dispute to leave in order to avoid violence. If they don’t, they get arrested.
Many of these cases get dismissed.
Overlapping laws
Defense attorneys like Twohig question why the ordinance is needed since New Mexico already has a law called “resisting, evading or obstructing an officer.”
Twohig said the city ordinance gives police too much authority and is much more broad than state law, which does not include the word “obey.”
“Police in Albuquerque have more power than officers in any other jurisdiction in the state,” said Twohig, who last year represented a Roswell city councilwoman who successfully fought her arrest under the state’s version of the law. “You have a whole lot of people being arrested in Albuquerque for ‘contempt of cop,’ and it seems to me this law encourages it.”
Schultz acknowledged that sometimes it is questionable whether the order is lawful, but, he said, that’s what the courts are for.
“The courts recognize it’s a tool that law enforcement has to use to separate parties or to get someone to do something they don’t want to do,” Schultz said. “Without that tool, it would ratchet it up to the next level, and it is going to result in physical violence or a serious crime as a result of the parties not being separated.”
The ordinance does not explain what a “lawful order” is. According to legal experts, it’s a “gray area.”
Retired Judge Woody Smith said that when he was on the District Court bench, he judged each case individually and always looked for whether someone’s constitutional rights were violated by the order.
“You can’t define what a lawful order is,” said Smith, also a former prosecutor, Metropolitan Court judge and public defender. “It depends on the circumstances. Police have a lot of discretion, and lot of times it is determined after all of the facts are known.”
Smith noted that he felt the law at times was “overused” and certain police officers tended to use it more than others.
Schultz said most of the arrests are coupled with other charges. In the rare circumstances in which someone is only charged with refusing to obey, those arrests are closely scrutinized by supervisors who review the arresting officer’s report and criminal complaint to make sure there is enough probable cause.
“A clear majority of the cases, had the person just left the area and done what they were being asked, they wouldn’t have been arrested,” Schultz said. “These charges are the result of someone saying ‘No, I don’t want to, I don’t have to.’
“The officer just can’t leave — then the calling party would be upset at us for not intervening. This charge is used as a last resort. When the officer has no other option.”
TV photographer
The law was spotlighted last month when KOB-TV cameraman Rick Foley was arrested for refusing to obey an officer.
Foley was covering a police standoff May 29 near Copper and Charleston NE when rookie officer Daniel Guzman told Foley to move to a different location, according to a police report.
Foley at the time was some distance from the police cars blocking the street and was outside an area that had been blocked by officers.
Shortly after Guzman told Foley he needed to move, the two exchanged more words and Foley asked Guzman to provide his name and badge number.
A video captured by Foley’s camera shows the officer lunging at Foley. Foley was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police car and cited.
An investigation into Guzman’s conduct is under way, while criminal charges against Foley are pending.
Since then, Schultz has acknowledged that “mistakes” were made and has drafted a new policy on how to deal with onlookers. Guzman, meanwhile, has been paired with a veteran officer until the investigation is complete .
Recent cases
After Foley’s arrest, the Journal examined 36 recent arrests in which the defendant was charged only with “refusing to obey” an officer under the city ordinance.
Some of those arrests include:
n Nestor Pons Ocana, 47, was arrested May 4 after he interrupted an Albuquerque police officer. According to court records, Ocana was a passenger in a car that was stopped for a noise violation. The officer was citing the driver for the violation when Ocana told the driver not to sign the citation because the officer’s action was “racist.” The officer noted that he told Ocana to be quiet, but Ocana continued to yell, preventing the officer from hearing the driver. Charges against Ocana were dismissed due to a “lack of probable cause.”
.

[Lazlo Toth]

n Raymond Medina, 37, was arrested Dec. 29 because he refused to end a party at his apartment. Officers had responded to a noise complaint. When they arrived, police told Medina that he had to end the party. Medina said he would “keep it down,” but officers insisted the party was over and his guests had to leave.
Medina refused, saying he didn’t want his guests to get DWIs. An officer then stuck his foot in front of Medina’s door, preventing him from closing it, and took him into custody. Charges against Medina were dismissed due to a lack of prosecution. Medina was never charged with violating the city’s noise ordinance. Even if he had been, city attorneys acknowledge, officers can’t force everyone to leave.
n Antonio Serna, 39, was arrested Dec. 4 when he initially refused to let police into his house. The officers did not have a warrant. According to court records, officers were looking for Serna’s son in connection with a child abuse case. They went to Serna’s home looking for him. Serna told officers his son was not home. When officers insisted on searching Serna’s house, Serna responded that they needed a warrant and tried to shut the door. The officers said Serna was “preventing the possibility of further investigation.” The officers peeked in, saw his son and arrested both of them. Refusing to obey charges against Serna were dismissed because officers failed to file a report.
Peter Simonson, New Mexico director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization has received several complaints from people arrested under the city ordinance. The ACLU has successfully represented clients charged under the ordinance.
He said he doesn’t think the law is unconstitutional, just APD’s interpretation of it.
Simonson said he takes issue with Schultz’s theory of letting the courts sort things out.
“It shouldn’t have to get to that point,” Simonson said. “It is up to the police to properly enforce a law like this and not rely on the court to correct their errors. People should not have to go to court to prove they were not violating the law.”
Robert Saavedra decided not to prove his innocence.
Saavedra and his friend were Downtown on Dec. 21 when someone shot his friend’s truck.
They waited for several hours while police investigated. After awhile, Saavedra and his friend thought the investigation was over, so they started to get in the truck to leave, Saavedra said.
Officers got upset and took Saavedra’s friend into custody for refusing to obey, he said. Saavedra, who was not in the truck, called his friend’s brother to tell him what was going on when officers told him to leave the scene and to get off the cell phone.
Officers said in a criminal complaint that Saavedra took one step back, but proceeded to make a phone call and refused to move back on the sidewalk.
Saavedra was then arrested and taken to jail with his friend.
Saavedra decided not to fight the charges. He said he didn’t have enough money to hire an attorney. Instead, he said the officer told him that if he paid some fines and agreed to stay out of trouble, his case would be dismissed.
According to metro court records, that occurred in 16 percent of the cases in 2007.
“I didn’t back-talk him. I wasn’t mean. I just tried to explain that I was on the phone with my buddy’s brother so he could bond him out,” Saavedra said. “They didn’t want to listen. They just wanted to take someone to jail that night.”
In Saavedra’s criminal complaint, the arresting officers maintained that Saavedra refused to leave the area despite being told several times to do so.
Similar laws exist throughout the country.
But over time, some jurisdictions have eliminated the laws because homeless advocates have challenged their use, said William Walsh, a former New York City police officer and director of the Southern Police Institute in Louisville, Ky. Walsh said a similar law was in place when he was a police officer in New York City in the 1960s.
He said that officers mainly used the law when they needed to arrest someone involved in a riot, and he cautioned against getting rid of such laws.
“Police officers get called to disputes, and they are expected to settle them. They can’t walk away,” Walsh said. “The only tools they have is their own persuasion, their use of force and the law.”
City Code 12-2-19 RESISTING, OBSTRUCTING OR REFUSING TO OBEY AN OFFICER.
Resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey an officer consists of either:
(A) Knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer of this state or any other duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or execute any process or any rule or order of any of the courts of this state or any other judicial writ or process; or
(B) Resisting or abusing any judge, magistrate or peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(C) Refusing to obey or comply with any lawful process or order given by any police officer acting in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(D) Interfering with, obstructing or opposing any officer in the lawful discharge of his regular and affixed duties

[!]

Thanks. Now I can read this from across the room.

[!]

I don't think there's any way that the chief can do anything BUT fire the police officer. He has to show the community that there is zero tolerance for this type of behavior from his department.

Oh, now it's, "I think." Come on, Speedy/Paper Trail, you were 100% ceratin that you were right before. What happened?

[Zero]

Officer Daniel Guzman, who had been working with another officer since the May 29 incident, is to appear at a disciplinary hearing next week. Afterward, Police Chief Ray Schultz will decide what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against the officer...
...Schultz said he made the decision to place Guzman on leave after reading the independent review officer's report, which he received Friday.
Just as I've said all along, I don't think there's any way that the chief can do anything BUT fire the police officer. He has to show the community that there is zero tolerance for this type of behavior from his department.

The officer made an improper arrest that didn't stand up in court.
And he made that improper arrest after attacking a man who was walking away from him.
He embarrassed the department.
He will be made an example of to show the public it is unacceptable.
He will be shown the door next week.

[!]

He will be shown the door next week.

When it comes to predicting thse sorts of things, your record is poor, so I won't be surprised to see you proven wrong on this one.

Go back to posting other peoples' articles. Your ability to cut and paste is more honed.

[Zero]

When it comes to predicting thse sorts of things, your record is poor, so I won't be surprised to see you proven wrong on this one.
Know any specifics? Or will you just make them up for your own perverted enjoyment?
You can't intelligently discuss the topic so you instead choose to alter the discussion into something about me.

Glad to know that obviously I take up so much of your daily thought process. That leaves less room for other stupidity. A serious plus in your case.

[!]

Know any specifics? Or will you just make them up for your own perverted enjoyment? .This case is one.

[Zero]

And this case isn't over, yet in your tiny, convoluted and alleged mind, you think it's outrageous if I offer a well informed opinion, but it's okay for you to insist that something opposite will happen.

So far we have Chief Schultz saying that Guzman violated department policy. So far we have a judge throwing out the photographer's arrest as invalid. So far in this case we have Chief Schultz saying that he placed Guzman on leave after reading an independent report of the altercation. So far we have Chief Schultz saying that he can't do anything more UNTIL the disciplinary hearing, where of course the independent report of the altercation will play a major role.

And all this came AFTER I correctly deduced that officer Guzman was clearly in the wrong and all this came after I said Guzman would and should be fired for attacking a citizen who asked for Guzman's name and badge number.

And to you, that's a poor track record.

Stop it kid. You're embarrassing yourself.

[!]

well informed opinion[

"Well-informed" implies that you know what you're talking about, Paper Trail.

But the only place that's true is in your own mind, Speedy.

Remember, you were proven wrong in your "opinion" on the tape-erasing case, too.

[Zero]

"Well-informed" implies that you know what you're talking about, Paper Trail. But the only place that's true is in your own mind, Speedy.

You think you're well-informed, and you offer this?
I see, change the subject into juvenile name calling.
I'm not Paper Trail and I'm not Sir Speedy.

There, now you and your circle jerk friends can squeel with delight because you've changed the discussion into one of poster identity instead of the improper actions of a New Mexico police officer against a news videographer.

Way to go. High five. Beat it.

[Lazlo Toth]

Thanks. Now I can read this from across the room.

Okay, now cover your left eye. Which is better? One or two? Two or three?

[s'news]

:worship:

[!]

Okay, now cover your left eye. Which is better? One or two? Two or three?
Aw, I hate this test. Pretty soon, everything looks the same!

[Buffalo Soldier]

The Guzman disciplinary hearing is set for the 20th.

[Lazlo Toth]

The Guzman disciplinary hearing is set for the 20th.

Will cameras be allowed?

[Zero]

I anxiously await the opportunity to laugh at the fools who doubt me.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

I love it when you get indignant.
Just so you know, nobody takes you seriously anymore.

[Zero]

nobody takes you seriously anymore.
It's the "anymore" part that makes me laugh.
But you should continue to take me seriously, because I'm right and you know it.
Circle your calendars and synchroize your watches for the disciplinary hearing on July 20th.
You might also want to get your pathetic excuses ready when you discover that I was right from the begining, and you my sad friend were clumsy in thought and reckless in deed and just flat out pig-headed and wrong.

[rootboyslim]

I'm not Paper Trail and I'm not Sir Speedy.



Can you then explain how the post that was under Paper Trail soon disappeared in the Olberman thread?

[Zero]

Can you then explain how the post that was under Paper Trail soon disappeared in the Olberman thread?

Multiple users, same computer.

You're not very bright, are you big boy?

[Clever Login Name]

Multiple users, same computer.

You're not very bright, are you big boy?

So, you know who Paper Trail is, since he/she uses your computer too.

[Zero]

So, you know who Paper Trail is, since he/she uses your computer too.

We are indeed acquainted.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

It's the "anymore" part that makes me laugh.
But you should continue to take me seriously, because I'm right and you know it.
Circle your calendars and synchroize your watches for the disciplinary hearing on July 20th.
You might also want to get your pathetic excuses ready when you discover that I was right from the begining, and you my sad friend were clumsy in thought and reckless in deed and just flat out pig-headed and wrong.

What if the videotape evidence accidentally gets erased?
Would that affect the case?
After all it is still a tape and retains its value, right sirspeedy/speedracer/zero/papertrail?

[Zero]

What if the videotape evidence accidentally gets erased?

Don't know what you're talking about. And apparently neither do you.
Try to stay on topic, bison breath.

[rootboyslim]

Multiple users, same computer.

You're not very bright, are you big boy?

Same passwords, too. Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Zero]

Same passwords, too.
Nope. Log out old user, enter password for new user.

You're not very bright, are you big boy?

[rootboyslim]

Nope. Log out old user, enter password for new user.

You're not very bright, are you big boy?

So they entered your password and used your username? Caught again. Still don't buy it.

[Zero]

So they entered your password and used your username?
You really are dense, aren't you? This isn't an act, is it?

I posted, not realizing that paper trail was logged in. Erased it, logged him/her out, and posted under my username.

Sorry that's so complicated.

[Lazlo Toth]

Sounds like truth in posting might require the name Sybil.

[rootboyslim]

You really are dense, aren't you? This isn't an act, is it?

I posted, not realizing that paper trail was logged in. Erased it, logged him/her out, and posted under my username.

Sorry that's so complicated.

No zero, or paper trail, take a look at what you wrote about logging off and logging in again. Get your lies straight.

"Nope. Log out old user, enter password for new user."

Putz

[Zero]

take a look at what you wrote about logging off and logging in again.

"Nope. Log out old user, enter password for new user."


You really are an idiot. What about this do you find so difficult?
I logged out the old user, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A PASSWORD, and then logged on with my username and posted.

Someone help this pitiful clown. I have a feeling you have a host of usernames and every single one posts something as stupid as this.

[rootboyslim]

You really are an idiot. What about this do you find so difficult?
I logged out the old user, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A PASSWORD, and then logged on with my username and posted.

Someone help this pitiful clown. I have a feeling you have a host of usernames and every single one posts something as stupid as this.

Whatever you say, Paper Trail.

[Zero]

Multiple users, same computer. Two bad you don't have multiple thoughts in a single day.

[rootboyslim]

Multiple users, same computer. Two bad you don't have multiple thoughts in a single day.

Wow, you are a man of huge thoughts. Two bad???

Paper Trail at his best.

[Kace]

Unfortunetly, Zero in order for you not to be considered actually being Paper Trail, you'll have to actually prove it instead of just saying, "It's someone else on the same computer." If need be, you can do this through PM. Otherwise, you're still considered to be Paper Trail.

[rootboyslim]

Just as I've said all along, I don't think there's any way that the chief can do anything BUT fire the police officer. He has to show the community that there is zero tolerance for this type of behavior from his department.

The officer made an improper arrest that didn't stand up in court.
And he made that improper arrest after attacking a man who was walking away from him.
He embarrassed the department.
He will be made an example of to show the public it is unacceptable.
He will be shown the door next week.

Is there an answer in this case?

[Lazlo Toth]

This case is taking so long I'm beginning to hink it's being investigated by the same guys who investigated the Marine puppy video.

[Zero]

And it'll have the same outcome: relieved from duty for inproper conduct.

I personally believe the officer should be charged, tried and convicted. Don't know if that's gonna happen though. But I don't agree with Laz who says the chief at most will slap Guzman's wrist and be done with it.

[Spike]

I personally believe the officer should be charged, tried and convicted.

Why? He hasn't been charged, so no crime exists. If no crime exists, with what could he be charged?

[Produce man]

Erasing company tapes?

[Zero]

Why? He hasn't been charged, so no crime exists. If no crime exists, with what could he be charged?

You are a mongoloid.

[Lazlo Toth]

And it'll have the same outcome: relieved from duty for inproper conduct.

I personally believe the officer should be charged, tried and convicted. Don't know if that's gonna happen though. But I don't agree with Laz who says the chief at most will slap Guzman's wrist and be done with it.

I can only guess that's because you're not as cynical as I am.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

You are a mongoloid.

And what is your excuse?

[Zero]

I can only guess that's because you're not as cynical as I am.

Nope. The informed opinion is based upon basic knowledge and professional experience. While yours is based primarily upon instinct and a jaded heart.

[Lazlo Toth]

Nope. yours is based primarily upon instinct and a jaded heart.

formed by the knowledge and experience of more than three decades on the street as a reporter dealing with cops.

[Zero]

formed by the knowledge and experience of more than three decades on the street as a reporter dealing with cops.

I see. And you believe this gives you informed insight into the legality of the questionable actions of an officer who is videotaped performing said questionable actions?

It's public record. It's not a question of cops covering for cops.

Update your resume. You're irrelevant.

[Lazlo Toth]

I see. And you believe this gives you informed insight into the legality of the questionable actions of an officer who is videotaped performing said questionable actions?

It's public record. It's not a question of cops covering for cops.

Update your resume. You're irrelevant.

Yes, I believe it does. And my resume is up to date (whatever that means.). I'm not sure what you mean however by the reference to relevance. You mean actual experience dealing with actual cops and witnessing decades of how they actually deal with such situations is not relevant?

I would have to consider it more relevant than simply to read about such situations on your computer.

But bottom line, I agree with you mostly about what ought to happen in this case. Where we disagree is in our evaluation of what will actually happen.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

formed by the knowledge and experience of more than three decades on the street as a reporter dealing with cops.

And I'll bet you have the resume tape to prove it which is more than zero/sirspeedy/speedracer/papertrail can say.
I hear all his best work feel victim to a runaway bulk eraser.

[Zero]

Where we disagree is in our evaluation of what will actually happen.

And just so that I understand, your opinion is Guzman will get a slap on the wrist, right?

[Lazlo Toth]

And just so that I understand, your opinion is Guzman will get a slap on the wrist, right?

My opinon on Guzman:

In all likelihood, he will be reprimaneded. He might be placed on unpaid leave for a time and then "retrained." (Right now he's on paid leave pending his disciplinary hearing outcome. Standard procedure.).

Because he is a rookie on probation, he might even be fired, although I consider this less likely.

I do not believe he will be prosecuted for anything at any level related to this case.

But, as always, I could be wrong.

[Zero]

Hearing is now set for next week.
Yes, you could be wrong.

[Lazlo Toth]

Well, as we say in TV news, only time will tell and it remains to be seen.

[Zero]

In all likelihood, he will be reprimaneded. He might be placed on unpaid leave for a time and then "retrained." Because he is a rookie on probation, he might even be fired, although I consider this less likely.

Kind of names all the options for the chief, wouldn't you say? Yet you insisted that based upon your experience, cops take care of their own.

But as I've said all along, I don't think there's any way that the chief can do anything BUT fire the offensive police officer. The chief has to show the community that there is zero tolerance for this type of behavior in his department.

The officer made an improper arrest that didn't stand up in court.
And he made that improper arrest after attacking a man who was walking away from him.
He embarrassed the department.
He will be made an example of to show the public it is unacceptable.
He will be shown the door.
And there will be an arrest.

[Lazlo Toth]

Kind of names all the options for the chief, wouldn't you say? Yet you insisted that based upon your experience, cops take care of their own.

But as I've said all along, I don't think there's any way that the chief can do anything BUT fire the offensive police officer. The chief has to show the community that there is zero tolerance for this type of behavior in his department.

The officer made an improper arrest that didn't stand up in court.
And he made that improper arrest after attacking a man who was walking away from him.
He embarrassed the department.
He will be made an example of to show the public it is unacceptable.
He will be shown the door.
And there will be an arrest.

We'll see. And in my experience, cops do take care of their own. Get a few decades of the minutes from the San Francisco Police Commission and see how frustrating it has been for the civilian reviewers on that commission. And those are just the cases that came to light.

Look at an Oakland case of cops called "The Riders." They operated as cowboys for a long time. And even when charges were filed against them, the jury hung or acquitted.

I think if the cop in this case were not a rookie, he would not be fired. He still might not be fired. And that to me would definitely be a case of cops taking care of their own.

Arrest? I still don't think it will happen in this case.

But we'll both just have to watch it play out.

[Zero]

We'll see.
We'll have to wait until next week. Guzman's attorney asked for a continuance and it was granted. Do I need to explain this to you?

[Lazlo Toth]

We'll have to wait until next week. Guzman's attorney asked for a continuance and it was granted. Do I need to explain this to you?

Why the hostility? Don't be a hater.

[Zero]

Trying to be helpful.

[Spike]

Trying to be helpful.

I smell vinegar.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Trying to be helpful.

Kinda like helping bulk erase tapes so they could be used again.
How thoughtful.

[Zero]

Photog had it coming.

Come again?