Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Woman arrested for videotaping New Haven PD assault.

  1. #1
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960

    Woman arrested for videotaping New Haven PD assault.

    The article admits she didn't break the law, but look at the unions justification:

    "if you capture something on video that can be evidentiary, you run the risk that your phone/video can be confiscated to further the case".

    That last part is really gives insight to the mindset. You record law enforcement breaking the law, and their excuse to confiscate your device is to further the case....... yeah, right. I see them logging that video and giving it to internal affairs or a review board.

    http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/l...157522235.html

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Hmmmm... I always supposed that evidence (as well as witnesses) was subpoenaed unless there was some exigent circumstance that demanded otherwise. Gee, whadayahknow.


    "YouTube superheroes"... um, yeah. Great public relations work there, Tolnay. Anyone who sees something - films something is a "YouTube superhero".
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 06-07-2012 at 01:14 AM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    He went on to state that "YouTube superheroes" have to keep in mind that there are certain limitations to recording officers and you cannot interfere, come within the safety zone of police and something captured on video can be evidentiary, so you run the risk of your phone or video of police being confiscated to further the case....from the nbc link

    Doesn't look like anything outrageous occurred ... and the woman kept her phone?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    75

    The link imbedded in the original linked story has more detail

    Apparently the video taker was arrested and her phone confiscated. This story doesn't say if or when she got it back.

    http://www.newhavenindependent.org/i...g_video-taker/

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by dogsandhogs View Post
    Apparently the video taker was arrested and her phone confiscated. This story doesn't say if or when she got it back.

    http://www.newhavenindependent.org/i...g_video-taker/
    That's a better story ...

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    “Sgt. Rubino is a veteran officer. If he felt that he needed to take those actions at that time, I’m certain he followed what he thought was the best at the moment. I’m sure he had a reason for it. At that particular point of time he thought what was being videotaped might be of evidentiary value. ... We’ll let IA [Internal Affairs] do its investigation.”

    I'm sure Ofc. Rubino felt it best at that moment that he should take steps against possible prosecution.
    I'm sure Ofc. Rubino had a reason to not want his actions to be recorded on video.
    I'm sure Ofc. Rubion, at that particular point of time, thought that any videotape might be of evidenciary value against his actions.


    If the tape was of "evidenciary value" then the best evidence would be to allow the taping to continue rather than have it interrupted.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 06-07-2012 at 05:57 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member bmmd321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hamden,CT
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    “Sgt. Rubino is a veteran officer. If he felt that he needed to take those actions at that time, I’m certain he followed what he thought was the best at the moment. I’m sure he had a reason for it. At that particular point of time he thought what was being videotaped might be of evidentiary value. ... We’ll let IA [Internal Affairs] do its investigation.”

    I'm sure Ofc. Rubino felt it best at that moment that he should take steps against possible prosecution.
    I'm sure Ofc. Rubino had a reason to not want his actions to be recorded on video.
    I'm sure Ofc. Rubion, at that particular point of time, thought that any videotape might be of evidenciary value against his actions.


    If the tape was of "evidenciary value" then the best evidence would be to allow the taping to continue rather than have it interrupted.
    Well said!!!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    86
    Are the police allowed to take your property on the spot for "evidence?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    125
    the fourth ammendment says no but what an officer is allowed to do and what they will do are two completely different animals.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by badey View Post
    Are the police allowed to take your property on the spot for "evidence?"
    No.

    The police try this alot, and unfortunately they are doing it illegally. The legal way to seize evidence is with a warrant, or subpoena.

    The constitution charges those capable of resisting unlawful arrest and fighting to retain rights, to do so.

    And every second we allow police to continue these illegal practices, while using the "fight em in court" attitude, we lose. The police need to know that this will no longer be tolerated. The US supreme court has ruled that an unlawful detention/arrest is considered an assault. And that the aggressor, including a law enforcement officer, is considered the criminal in the situation.

    Resist. Resist. Resist.

    Stop the police.

    Be free.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •