• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Woman arrested for videotaping New Haven PD assault.

KIX

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
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/...olice-Misconduct-in-New-Haven--157522235.html

Jonathan
 
Fallschirjmäger

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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?
 
Fallschirjmäger

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
“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:
bmmd321

bmmd321

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
25
Location
Hamden,CT
Fallschirmjäger said:
“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.
Click to expand...

Well said!!!
 
S

smokeyburnout

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
125
Location
connecticut
the fourth ammendment says no but what an officer is allowed to do and what they will do are two completely different animals.
 
Tucker6900

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
badey said:
Are the police allowed to take your property on the spot for "evidence?"
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top