I was gonna say: The moment that officer "came at him, in clearly aggressive conduct, the photographer should have used all necessary force to repel him, to the point of taking his life, if necessary. Notice the servant also carried no ID on his chest. And no lawful authority. Remember kids, "It's more [about] 'contempt of cop' than the violation of the ... law."
UPDATE 07.16.2010: My "paste powers" are okay, it seems it is my name that has been flagged/censored by youtube. If I put in the words killercop, then youtube errors me out and refuses to allow the transmission. If I put in killer cop I am able to transmit the speech. Hmmmmmm. The bad news is my subpoena powers are gone.
Several recent cases show the power of questionable officer behavior going viral on the Web.
• Several Houston police officers were fired in February after news programs aired video from a surveillance camera showing police kicking and punching a robbery suspect who did not appear to be resisting arrest.
• Last year, the FBI launched in investigation into Seattle police officers after video shot by a freelance videographer showed officers stomping a Latino man suspected of armed robbery. On the recording, one officer can be heard saying: "I'm going to beat the … Mexican … out of you homey. You feel me?" The man was later freed after the officers determined that he was not the robbery suspect.
• Several passengers used cameras to record an officer fatally shooting an unarmed man on a train platform in Oakland on New Year's Day in 2009. The footage appeared within hours on YouTube and triggered days of angry protests and rioting in the city. The video, however, ultimately aided the officer, Johannes Mehserle, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. In giving him a light sentence, the judge said the video showed the officer reacting with "shock and dismay" after firing the gun.
• Television footage and amateur video recorded LAPD officers as they indiscriminately used batons and rubber bullets to clear protesters from MacArthur Park during an immigration-rights rally in May 2007. The so-called May Day melee was a serious setback to then-Chief William J. Bratton's reform efforts and for many in the city served as evidence that the LAPD had not yet put its reputation for brutality behind it.
The use of cameras by the LAPD has evolved considerably over the years. Putting cameras in patrol cars was a key reform proposed by the Christopher Commission, which studied the LAPD after the King beating. After years of delays, the department recently installed cameras in a quarter of its cars and plans to outfit the rest of its fleet in coming years. In addition to deterring misconduct, police officials believe that cameras can help exonerate officers from false accusations.
The LAPD also sends its own photographers and videographers out to record large street protests or other incidents that could get out of hand. During training scenarios, drill instructors at the academy present recruits with various situations in which they must respond to the presence of cameras.
Some officers still bristle at the notion of a bystander recording them. In June, an LAPD officer confronted and then detained a man, who refused his orders to stop taping a traffic stop.
So, only "true" crimes can be prosecuted, allowing the false ones ro run free? And by true I mean the bad speech/conduct of the officer, and "bad" meaning only the good speech/conduct of the officers. Am I being clear?
