US Marshal attacks woman and smashes camera

Fujifilm XF 10-24mm f/4 R IOS

04/25/2015 11:15:25 AM · #31

Originally posted by jomari:

I bet you'd really jump for joy if the cop had beaten her senseless and shot her a few times too. After all, if you'd condone assault, battery and destruction of property, why not?

markwiley

Fujifilm X-Pro2

04/25/2015 12:04:11 PM · #32

Originally posted by Spork99:

I bet you'd really jump for joy if the cop had beaten her senseless and shot her a few times too. After all, if you'd condone assault, battery and destruction of property, why not?

Seriously? I think that is a wee bit of a leap. The cop should not have stomped on her phone. However, I believe he may well have had her safety in mind when he told to go film from across the street. If he was concerned for her safety and she refused to move and kept that harpy drone going on, then I can understand how his frustration might have gotten the better of him. Does the woman deserve to have her phone replaced? Yes. Does she deserve anything more than that? Not in my view. Can I easily forgive the cop for busting the phone in this situation? Yes, but I'd hope he behaves better next time. Could I as easily have forgiven him if, as you suggest, he had beaten her or shot her? No.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/25/2015 12:54:31 PM · #33

Originally posted by tanguera:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Here's a thought... make having liability insurance a pre-requisite for all police officers, determine what the minimum amount of coverage will be required, have them pay for it, monitor the process to ensure that coverage is up to date and voila, the burden on taxpayers is greatly reduced.

Any ideas on this suggestion.

Ray

Awful idea - why? Because just like malpractice insurance with doctors, the cost will get passed along to the tax payers in the end, and the actual cost will be magnified by the fact that we would now have a for-profit 3rd party in the middle.

ETA: Additionally, this would probably just further embolden the thugs, as they'd figure "Screw it, I'm insured!"..

The only solution is to make the officers themselves directly liable for damages.

Just a bit simplistic, I'm afraid. This would unduly burden the vast majority of cops who are doing their job right. I think the real issue is the "blue wall", and that's almost impossible to address. First, its mere existence has to be acknowledged, and then the entire culture needs to be shifted. The main problem with that is the type of work they do. It's literally life and death, and you really need to be able to trust your partner to do it properly.

I also think the police force needs to do a better job of screening applicants, keeping an eye on those who start displaying worrisome tendencies, and reassign them to positions off the street while undergoing mandatory counseling until such time they are cleared for duty or fired.

Cory I would bring to your attention that my proposal would have the individual police officers assume the cost of insurance, just as you and I do for house and car insurance.

To

Tanguera while you may view it as overly simplistic, I see no difference between this and my having to pay for car insurance, house insurance, life insurance etc. I have paid those religiously for almost 50 years and have not made a claim on any of them yet and hope I won't have to anytime soon, particularly the last one. :O)

Things like this, from my perspective, fall into the "Cost of doing business" category.

Ray

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2015 01:20:42 PM · #34

Originally posted by markwiley:

The cop should not have stomped on her phone. However, I believe he may well have had her safety in mind when he told to go film from across the street.

According to this commentary/report by Dave Ross these were two different officers -- a local police officer who was telling her to go film (sic) from across the street, and a US Marshal who then intervened and destroyed the phone.

Seems to me that if she really wasn't there "appropriately" then the police should have arrested her for obstruction of justice or interfering with police carrying out their duties, and the marshal liable for destruction of evidence.

Originally posted by Dave Ross:

Generally, the law says that you have the right to record anything in a public place that is in plain view â�� including police officers arresting people â�� as long as you don't interfere.

The catch is that it's typically the officer who gets to decide whether you've interfered.

But if this gets to court, I'm guessing it won't just be about the rights of citizen journalists. It'll also be about whether a citizen journalist can give orders to a cop.

04/25/2015 01:49:50 PM · #35

Originally posted by markwiley:

Originally posted by Spork99:
I bet you'd really jump for joy if the cop had beaten her senseless and shot her a few times too. After all, if you'd condone assault, battery and destruction of property, why not?

Seriously? I think that is a wee bit of a leap. The cop should not have stomped on her phone. However, I believe he may well have had her safety in mind when he told to go film from across the street. If he was concerned for her safety and she refused to move and kept that harpy drone going on, then I can understand how his frustration might have gotten the better of him. Does the woman deserve to have her phone replaced? Yes. Does she deserve anything more than that? Not in my view. Can I easily forgive the cop for busting the phone in this situation? Yes, but I'd hope he behaves better next time. Could I as easily have forgiven him if, as you suggest, he had beaten her or shot her? No.

How is it a leap? If you're willing to accept the marshall's assault, battery and destruction of that woman's property in violation of her rights, why not accept it if he'd beaten her senseless or shot her a few times? There's nothing that justifies the marshall's actions. If he'd arrested her for interfering with a police officer, that'd be fine, but meting out punishment in the form of assault and battery along with destroying her phone isn't. Her punishment is not for you to decide, it's not for that marshall to to decide either. That's why there are courts. Being stressed out or in a tense situation doesn't justify it either.

If you think "she got what she deserved", you should be ashamed.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2015 02:09:56 PM · #36

Originally posted by Spork99:

If he'd arrested her for interfering with a police officer, that'd be fine, but meting out punishment in the form of assault and battery along with destroying her phone isn't. Her punishment is not for you to decide, it's not for that marshall to to decide either. That's why there are courts.

Exactly.

Nobody

Pentax K-S2

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF for Pentax

04/25/2015 02:43:54 PM · #37

You (the police) are in a potentially life & death situation. Protecting the citizens from the bad guys. You put your life on the line and some idiot gets puts herself in an unnecessary position of danger, and potentially endangers others. She also refuses your reasonable requests to move to a safe distance. Tensions are high, and police are human. It wasn't necessary or right to damage the phone, but its pretty easy to empathize with the police. She was trying to get in the way, and she succeeded. I know this statement doesn't make sense but, while she didn't deserve to have her phone broken, she certainly earned it.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2015 02:51:43 PM · #38

I notice there's been almost no attention paid to the police action occurring at the time ... I've heard audio from earlier in the incident where the officer informs her that she was "in the line of fire" ...

If there was indeed a possibility of an armed confrontation then it would seem to me asking her to move across the street might be pretty reasonable, if it was to conceal possibly illegal/unconstitutional actions by the police not so much so ...

markwiley

Fujifilm X-Pro2

Fujifilm XF 10-24mm f/4 R IOS

04/25/2015 03:11:10 PM · #39

Originally posted by Spork99:

We agree that what the officer did was wrong. But, if you are not willing to admit that it's a leap to go from the cop getting upset and breaking her phone to the cop getting upset and shooting her, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

Originally posted by Spork99:

There's nothing that justifies the marshall's actions. If he'd arrested her for interfering with a police officer, that'd be fine, but meting out punishment in the form of assault and battery along with destroying her phone isn't. Her punishment is not for you to decide, it's not for that marshall to to decide either. That's why there are courts. Being stressed out or in a tense situation doesn't justify it either.

I didn't say the officer was justified -- only forgivable. I completely agree it would have been better to arrest her.

Originally posted by Spork99:

If you think "she got what she deserved", you should be ashamed.

I didn't didn't say that she got what she deserved. She should have her phone replaced, but I do not have any sympathy for her.

CNovack

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

04/25/2015 04:19:28 PM · #40

We can all agree that the Marshall acted unprofessionally and absolutely should be held accountable for his behavior. BUT, the woman, Beatriz Paez, is also very much responsible for her behavior in her role in what transpired.

1. The neighbor who recorded the altercation. -take a good look who she is recording. What is her main focus is the camera frame? It is not on the police action going on down the street. It is interesting that she is focused on her neighbor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-J-6SkuKJ0

2. When she goes to retrieve the smashed phone, she appears to look directly at the neighbor across the street who is recording the incident. The question is: was she knowingly or unknowingly aware of being filmed?

3. Take note and watch Paez's facial expressions when she tells her story to CNN reporter Kyung Lah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xd4oSrUrlU

4. In the NBC Los Angeles news report it states "Paez, who has been recording police activity in South Gate for five months, said she did not instigate the forceful reaction. "I've watched things happen a lot and I have close friends with families of people who have died at the hands of police," Paez, who plans to file a civil rights lawsuit against the officers and the city, said. //www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/New-Cellphone-Video-of-US-Marshal-Destroying-Womans-Phone-301024981.html

5. Paez is quoted in CNN article that " The woman said marshals asked her to stop recording but she told them she had a right to do so." //www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/us/california-marshal-smashed-phone/

6. Early on in the recovered video footage of Paez's smashed phone you can clearly hear the officer state "You are in the way of our investigation....This is unsafe right now. You are right in the line of fire. Go across the street and film all you want." This contradicts with #5 //www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/New-Cellphone-Video-of-US-Marshal-Destroying-Womans-Phone-301024981.html

7. News agencies report law enforcement was making arrests /raid against known gang members of the Mongols Biker Gang //www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/New-Cellphone-Video-of-US-Marshal-Destroying-Womans-Phone-301024981.html

8. In Paez's own video it shows two officers approached her but as the video shows they mostly turned their backs to her all the while she keeps on talking stating" You need to stand back I don't feel safe (officer replies. then keep on going) No, you need to stand back. I do not feel safe with you getting closer to me. You're making me feel unsafe. And I have the right to be here. You need to stay away from me. I don't feel safe with you close to me. You need to start moving away from me. You need to be at least a couple feet away from me. I have a right as a citizen to feel safe."

9. Take note she tells the officers they need to "be at least a couple of feet away from me". Look at the neighbor's footage and you can see that the officers are at least 6 feet away from her.

The irony in this particular situation lies in her last statement of "feel safe". We would be having a very different discussion if the news was reporting on Paez being seriously injured in a shoot-out if one or more of the gang members tried to escape or if one gang member managed to take her hostage because she insisted she had a right to be there.

Again, her actions of being at the site DOES NOT give that U.S. Marshall the right to destroy her personal property. The Marshall had the duty to ask her to leave to safer premises and arrest her for obstruction of justice if she did not comply. No question, he failed in that duty.

But taking a look at *ALL the material that has been released to the public*, it appears to me that Paez set up a situation where she could use it to manipulate public opinion in a quest for personal justice. In my opinion, she choose the wrong way that potentially put her life in danger and that of the officers lives in danger (as in dividing the officer's attention between arresting the gang members and having to protect a citizen putting herself in the danger zone).

Message edited by Bear_Music - parsed limk.

04/25/2015 04:43:15 PM · #41

Originally posted by markwiley:

Originally posted by Spork99:
How is it a leap? If you're willing to accept the marshall's assault, battery and destruction of that woman's property in violation of her rights, why not accept it if he'd beaten her senseless or shot her a few times?

We agree that what the officer did was wrong. But, if you are not willing to admit that it's a leap to go from the cop getting upset and breaking her phone to the cop getting upset and shooting her, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

Originally posted by Spork99:
There's nothing that justifies the marshall's actions. If he'd arrested her for interfering with a police officer, that'd be fine, but meting out punishment in the form of assault and battery along with destroying her phone isn't. Her punishment is not for you to decide, it's not for that marshall to to decide either. That's why there are courts. Being stressed out or in a tense situation doesn't justify it either.

I didn't say the officer was justified -- only forgivable. I completely agree it would have been better to arrest her.

Originally posted by Spork99:
If you think "she got what she deserved", you should be ashamed.

I didn't didn't say that she got what she deserved. She should have her phone replaced, but I do not have any sympathy for her.

So with what felony do you draw the line? You're willing to excuse the officer's crimes because he's under stress or some equally inane bullshit excuse, so why shouldn't he give her a good old asskicking and you could excuse that too? A violation of her rights is a violation of her rights.

You don't have any sympathy for her? Who cares? Whether someone creates sympathy or not is irrelevant to their legal rights. Rights aren't just for the sympathetic. The Westboro Baptists are pretty horrible people, but they get the same rights as everyone else.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2015 05:23:58 PM · #42

Originally posted by CNovack:

When she goes to retrieve the smashed phone, she appears to look directly at the neighbor across the street who is recording the incident. The question is: was she knowingly or unknowingly aware of being filmed?

No question, I believe she arranged to be filmed ...

markwiley

Fujifilm X-Pro2

Fujifilm XF 10-24mm f/4 R IOS

04/25/2015 08:22:27 PM · #43

Originally posted by Spork99:

I think you misunderstand my position. He did violate her rights by grabbing her phone and smashing it. The woman's phone should be replaced. But, I cannot get myself worked up over this particular incident. If this is an isolated event in this officer's career, I can personally forgive him. If he had beaten her up that would be another story. If you really think that, because I can personally forgive him for breaking the phone, that I'd be willing to accept the officer beating her senseless or shooting her a couple of times, then I think there is no point in attempting reasonable discussion with you.

Originally posted by Spork99:

You don't have any sympathy for her? Who cares? Whether someone creates sympathy or not is irrelevant to their legal rights. Rights aren't just for the sympathetic. The Westboro Baptists are pretty horrible people, but they get the same rights as everyone else.

I just said I had no sympathy for the woman. I never ever meant to suggest that that fact should negate her rights.

bohemka

Nikon D700

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/26/2015 10:29:31 AM · #44

Spork, I really don't understand why you're so upset about this. She went out with the clear goal of getting involved in an altercation with police, becoming a victim, and have it make the news. You should be celebrating her success.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

04/26/2015 03:28:45 PM · #45

Originally posted by bohemka:

I'm not sure it was quite so clear, but I do feel that being a douchebag shouldn't punishable by these means.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

04/26/2015 04:41:40 PM · #46

Originally posted by Nobody:

FromDaRock

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

04/26/2015 04:42:41 PM · #47

Looks to me like they should both face a judge, as they both deserved to be charged for their actions.

If she truly wants to 'monitor' the police actions in her neighborhood, she should get a real camera with a zoom lens and do it from a safe distance instead of inserting herself into whatever is going on. It seems pretty clear that she set this up, and her repeated 'I don't feel safe, you need to move farther away' was downright idiotic. If she didn't feel safe, she should remove herself from the situation, apparently the cops thought she would be safer on the other side of the street as well, and specifically told her she could film all she wanted from there.

That being said, the marshall going a little berserk was idiotic on his part as well, the other two policemen seem to have everything under control as it was by telling her what she should do and then duly ignoring her requests to move further away.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

04/26/2015 04:44:39 PM · #48

I'm not going to re-quote all of the post by

CNovack ... but I'll give it a +1 for sure.

Surprised with all of the quote snippets being used that none mention/use any part of what

CNovack posted. Not sensational enough?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/26/2015 04:55:36 PM · #49

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I'm not going to re-quote all of the post by CNovack ... but I'll give it a +1 for sure.

Surprised with all of the quote snippets being used that none mention/use any part of what CNovack posted. Not sensational enough?

I used/quoted one ... and the link I posted earlier addressed some of those points.