Miami Shooting Incident

Just seeing if there was an update with the investigation that Miami police officers attempted or did attempt to destroy video evidence from cell phones when the shooting occurred, which I believe was around May 30th. I remember seeing the news and one of the witnesses that filmed the shooting had his phone damaged by a bike officer in order to make sure that the video was destroyed. The witness was even put in cuffs because the police "thought" he was a suspect. I guess he wasn't the only one that had this happen too. Thanks for any info.

recording the police

I tough it was against the law too record the police in florida, while he's in the middle of busting someone cell phone up.

I hate MD said:

I tough it was against the law too record the police in florida, while he's in the middle of busting someone cell phone up.

Click to expand...

Without the officer's consent, private or otherwise, any recording would have been illegal anyway.

j4l said:

Without the officer's consent, private or otherwise, any recording would have been illegal anyway.

Click to expand...

Illegal? Not in this case. This was a public incident, on public streets, of a very public event. Two of these killings occurred on the same night, and both had video recordings. Both recordings are legal not merely because they were public, but because the recordation of such a newsworthy event (these were massacres: they drew down all around these folks and emptied clip after clip) would protect its recorder under the First Amendment's own freedom of the press: no press pass needed; no credentials. It's a beautiful new world where news can happen at any moment and cameras are always a plus.

J4l would be absolutely correct in a police precinct or any spot where the LEOs have an "expectation of privacy," but I think of it this way: if it's a
Legal video, it's evidence; if it's an illegal video, it's leverage. If your vid is any good, your YouTube hits will go through the roof and your sponsors will go from the local curtain shop to the old spice guy on the horse: you'll put your kids through college (put the cash in a trust so it can't be touched by the LEOs you recorded, just your kid and other trust beneficiaries). Best advice: record, illegal or not.

Jojo712 said:

.....Best advice: record, illegal or not.

Click to expand...

UMMMM FORUM RULE 15 Please.

•(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

We-the-People said:

UMMMM FORUM RULE 15 Please.

•(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Click to expand...

Let's allow the courts to decide what's against the law, not our forum rules. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, and (hypothetically speaking but God forbid), if I were in any of the following situations, I would shoot first (gun or camera) and face the law later, without at any turn feeling that I "disobeyed the law":

1. I'm at a restaurant and I walk into the bar section for an instant to say hello to an old friend. Her jealous boyfriend stumbles in and starts shooting at her and me with his .380 bodyguard (fortunately he can't hit the broadside of a barn with that 700 pound trigger, but he keeps coming and shooting). I draw my concealed .45 and aim center-mast. She's now alive -- and newly-single. I'm alive, but in violation of my CCW because I happened to take the extra steps into a bar. We do advocate for "law-abiding only," but let a jury decide whether my actions were justified. I guarantee that in a case like this I'll get my license back, and a very nice acquittal (or even a no-action).

2. I'm on a public street and I see a Rodney King going down. I pull my weapon (in this case an iPhone) and start "shooting."

3. If I were teaching a college class and someone were to come in and try to pull a college massacre, I'd be glad I was concealed and protected, even if it were against current statutes.

See, I think that "law-abiding only" undertakes the entire legal system, and not simply the statute, ordinance (we have pre-emption now), or otherwise. The entire legal system involves a right to have all your evidence preserved rather than destroyed, a right to due process in both the procedural (where often your presumptively illegal act becomes legal by a virtue of a LEOs misconduct) and substantive senses of the term, a right to a fair and impartial jury of your peers, a right to counsel, and a right to trial. Until every legal avenue is exhausted, whatever I may advocate is "law-abiding" only: even something that may initially seem illegal may be law-abiding because of a LEOs mis-step.

The truth is, most of the time we don't know what's legal or illegal until it has been ventilated in the courts. In this sense, I follow forum rule 15 religiously and with vigor. Rule 15 rules.

I hate MD said:

I tough it was against the law too record the police in florida, while he's in the middle of busting someone cell phone up.

Click to expand...

Everyone agrees, except J4l, that in Florida in a public space, it is NOT illegal to record.

Not this steaming load of lies again....

The wiretapping law only applies in circumstances where the non-recording party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Read the definitions earlier in the statute. Yes, you can record the Police in Florida. Those who say otherwise are taking it out of the context of the statute's definition.

There is a pending case which deals with recording a public official in a place where they DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's outcome has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of recording in places where such expectation of privacy does not exist. This is very settled case law. Prosecutors won't even charge these cases anymore. There is no Qualified Immunity for Cops who violate it. Period. End of discussion. I'm not putting a disclaimer on it; it's a fact.

j4l said:

Without the officer's consent, private or otherwise, any recording would have been illegal anyway.

Click to expand...

And I'm taking my unicorn out for a little ride tomorrow. Hell, I might bring my talking :monkey too!

ixtow said:

Not this steaming load of lies again....

The wiretapping law only applies in circumstances where the non-recording party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Read the definitions earlier in the statute. Yes, you can record the Police in Florida. Those who say otherwise are taking it out of the context of the statute's definition.

There is a pending case which deals with recording a public official in a place where they DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's outcome has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of recording in places where such expectation of privacy does not exist. This is very settled case law. Prosecutors won't even charge these cases anymore. There is no Qualified Immunity for Cops who violate it. Period. End of discussion. I'm not putting a disclaimer on it; it's a fact.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but an expectation of privacy is a wholly contentious concept that can be argued in court, rather than dealt with by seizing or destroying the evidence that does not rightfully belong to them:

Shakespeare knew it before we did: "Oh, Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and Men have lost their Reason."

Merely the fact that the officers may think that they have an expectation of privacy in their "persons, papers, or affairs" doesn't mean $#!+ when contrasted against the first amendment principle that the people have a right to know if there's something rotten, and the press has a right to tell them. The officers' arguments for privacy pale by comparison when they go out and commit some type of atrocity that makes them, for all intents and purposes, public figures subject to public scrutiny.

Jojo712 said:

Merely the fact that the officers may think that they have an expectation of privacy in their "persons, papers, or affairs" doesn't mean $#!+ when contrasted against the first amendment principle that the people have a right to know if there's something rotten, and the press has a right to tell them. The officers' arguments for privacy pale by comparison when they go out and commit some type of atrocity that makes them, for all intents and purposes, public figures subject to public scrutiny.

Click to expand...

I agree, but the case which will seal that deal is still pending. What you and I agree on has nothing to do with the contortions the Government will go through to maintain it's unjustly seized powers.