20 votes

4409 - Scottsdale Police call me a TERRORIST

Don't know how to embed the video so here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lPhE6edIyw

I showed up at a scene with 7 cop cars to make sure there was no "suicide by cop".

I will NOT second guess their response at first due to the nature of the call. I do however wonder why it took ten cops one hour to find out this guy was not a threat.

I pulled the 911 call to be fair to the police on why they were there.

Even though I deliberately stood 50-70 feet away from the scene I was still approached by a busy body cop that wanted to explain to me what he had been brainwashed to think by watching Hollywood movies and listening to talk radio. He claimed that terrorists film cops.

One good thing that came about is that it was one less hour they had to drive around and harass people in their cars.

Please check put the 4409 website at www.Formula4409.com

Link to secondary footage: 4409 -- 7 Police Cars to Detain Man on Electric Bike...WTF - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-czwy6UPvRs




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

U.S. Department of

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
JMS:TDM:RJO
DJ 207-35-10
Special Litigation Section - PHB
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington DC 20530
May 14, 2012
Mark H. Grimes
Baltimore Police Department
Office of Legal Affairs
601 E Fayette St
Baltimore, MD 21202
Mary E. Borja
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K St NW
Washington, DC 20006
Re: Christopher Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Department, et. al.
Dear Counsel:
Judge Paul W. Grimm scheduled a settlement conference in Christopher Sharp v.
Baltimore City Police Department, et. al. for May 30, 2012. While we take no position on Mr.
Sharp’s claim for damages against the individual defendants, it is the United States’ position that
any resolution to Mr. Sharp’s claims for injunctive relief should include policy and training
requirements that are consistent with the important First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights at stake when individuals record police officers in the public discharge of their duties.
These rights, subject to narrowly-defined restrictions, engender public confidence in our police
departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers
accountable, and ensure public and officer safety.
The guidance in this letter is designed to assist the parties during the upcoming settlement
conference. It specifically addresses the circumstances in this case and Baltimore City Police
Department’s General Order J-16 (“Video Recording of Police Activity”), but also reflects the
United States’ position on the basic elements of a constitutionally adequate policy on
individuals’ right to record police activity.
1. Background
In his complaint, Mr. Sharp alleged that on May 15, 2010, Baltimore City Police
Department (“BPD”) officers seized, searched and deleted the contents of his cell phone after he
used it to record officers forcibly arresting his friend. Compl. at 9-12, ECF. No. 2. Mr. Sharp
further alleged that BPD maintains a policy, practice or custom of advising officers to detain
citizens who record the police while in the public discharge of their duties and to seize, search,
and delete individuals’ recordings. Id. at 7. On November 30, 2011, BPD and Frederick H.
-2-
Bealefeld, III filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint of for Summary Judgment. According to the
Motion to Dismiss, BPD promulgated a general order on recording police activity on November
8, 2011. BPD did not file this policy as an exhibit to its Motion to Dismiss. Instead, BPD filed a
declaration providing a brief summary of its contents.
On January 10, 2012, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in this matter. In that
statement, the United States urged the Court to find that private individuals have a First
Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties, and that
officers violate individuals’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize and
destroy such recordings without a warrant or due process. The United States also opined that,
based on the limited information on the record regarding BPD’s development of new policies
and training on individuals’ right to record the police, BPD failed to meet its burden of
establishing that it had taken sufficient action to prevent future constitutional violations. On
February 10, 2012, BPD provided the Court, Mr. Sharp and the United States with a courtesy
copy of General Order J-16. The same day, BPD released General Order J-16 to the public.1
Following a hearing on February 13, 2012, Judge Legg denied BPD’s motion.
Constitutionally adequate policies must be designed to effectively guide officer conduct,
accurately reflect the contours of individuals’ rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and diminish the likelihood of future constitutional violations. BPD’s general
order does not meet these requirements in some areas. In other areas, BPD’s general order does
adequately protect individuals’ constitutional rights. We discuss those areas below, as well as
others in which BPD should amend the general order to ensure that individual’s constitutional
rights are protected.
2. Guidance on the Right to Record Police Activity.
A. Policies should affirmatively set forth the First Amendment right to record
police activity.
Policies should affirmatively set forth the contours of individuals’ First Amendment right
to observe and record police officers engaged in the public discharge of their duties. Recording
governmental officers engaged in public duties is a form of speech through which private
individuals may gather and disseminate information of public concern, including the conduct of
law enforcement officers.2
1 Peter Hermann, Baltimore Police Told Not to Stop People Taking Photos or Video of Their
Actions, The Baltimore Sun, February 11, 2012.
See, e.g., Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011) (“[b]asic
2 There is no binding precedent to the contrary. In Szymecki v. Houck, 353 F. App’x 852 (4th
Cir. 2009), the Fourth Circuit issued a one page, unpublished per curium opinion summarily
concluding – without providing legal or factual support – that the “right to record police
activities on public property was not clearly established in this circuit at the time of the alleged
conduct.” Id. at 853; see also McCormick v. City of Lawrence, 130 F. App’x 987 (10th Cir.
2005). In the Fourth Circuit, “[u]npublished opinions have no precedential value.” United
States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 199 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Glik, 655 F.3d at 85 (“[T]he
absence of substantive discussion deprives Szymecki of any marginal persuasive value it might
otherwise have had.”).

Note: If interested in the entire 11 page report,and you can not find it on line; send request to dallascounty at live dot com.
Put D.O.J. Report in the subject line. Thanks. Please note that PDF forms do not keep their paragraphs when posted here. Big SORRY, I don't have time to edit.

YOUR servant for freedom, Clay Carey

Who will watch the watchers?

Exposure of their wrongdoings terrifies them.

They are terrified of justice not the witness.

They should be terrified if they violate someones rights or worse.

Free includes debt-free!

Majority of Terrorists

are cops in the country and Military outside of the country. that is reality because there not only attacking to kill but also to invoke fear as well.

Chipped in

Chipped in a bit for the bail fund. I'd encourage a bunch of us to give a little.

Unreal

My husband had to sit through training recently at work. First, they were lectured on how they had to be tolerant of pretty much anyone and anything. Next came how to spot a potential terrorist at the workplace. Scenario after scenario of middle-aged white men going on a rampage at work.... Made him so mad he wanted to go on a rampage... lol! (It really did made him update his resume' anyway!)

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

I guess this is the new deal...

I've been noticing cop overkill a lot lately.

Also, I was censored from commenting on your video on Youtube, and when I shared it on Facebook, no preview photo, or title would come through. Thanks for doing this - you're a brave guy!

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Overkill is an

Overkill is an understatement. At the time you shared youtube was under maintenance. It should work now

don't be too tough on them....

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/sto...

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

It has finally

dawned on me that we are living in a nightmare after just reading the first few paragraphs. Orwell's warning has not only come true, it has surpassed even his expectations. If humanity on its own does not find the awareness to evolve into higher functioning co-inhabitants than this experiment of nature will recoil backwards to a time and place without this most unfortunate mutation we call man.

Front Page

Everyone should be doing this every time 7 cop cars pull up to investigate a homeless dude or to forcibly search a car that was merely going 5 mph over the speed limit.

.

GO GET Em !!!

Scottsdale cops arrest 4409 nine hours after posting that video?

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Thank you

for watching the watchers.

thanks :)

thanks :)