THEY WILL ATTACK YOU … DESTROY YOUR PHONE
|| By FITSNEWS || In the aftermath of last year’s Ferguson, Missouri drama, this website advocated for the “independent wiring” of all police officers – local, state and federal. And in the aftermath of the North Charleston, S.C. shooting of an unarmed 50-year-old black man by a 33-year-old white cop, we all learned how important it is for citizens to be able to film police actions.
Of course a lot of police officers don’t like to be filmed … as evidenced by a video clip that’s surfaced of a U.S. Marshal attacking a California woman and destroying her phone this week.
According to the Fox affiliate in Los Angeles, the incident occurred Sunday as federal agents were serving warrants on San Juan Avenue near Venice Beach.
The woman, 34-year-old Beatriz Paez, was standing on the sidewalk filming the agents (as is her right to do). According to her, the Marshals had “around eight people including women … held at gunpoint on their stomachs with their hands held behind their back.”
Then this happened …
(Click to play)
Fortunately for Paez, another cell phone was recording the cop who destroyed her phone.
Like … destroyed it …
(Click to enlarge)
Again, unreal …
At this point, the U.S. Marshals Service has only said it is “reviewing the incident.” What the hell is there to review, exactly?
An example needs to be made of this cop. It’s not enough to simply affirm the right of the public to record their law enforcement officers in action, cops who improperly seize or destroy private property must be made to pay.
Seriously … as long as citizens are not obstructing the police from performing their duties, they can film them. And police are not allowed to seize cell phones without a warrant.
“There is no situation in which an officer can intentionally grab and destroy a camera being used to lawfully record law enforcement,” a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told The Los Angeles Times. “The officer’s conduct is a blatant and deliberate violation of the Constitution and his duties as an officer to abide by the law.”
We agree …