May 10th, 2013

California Deputies Seize Phones from Witnesses After Beating Man to Death 153

By Carlos Miller

Kern County

 

Law enforcement authorities in California beat a man to death with their batons before seizing at least two cell phones from witnesses who captured the incident on video.

One of the phones was seized without a warrant. The second phone was seized with a warrant but only because an attorney for the witnesses had arrived on the scene.

It doesn’t appear as if the lawyer had any sense to download the video before the phone was seized.

Or more likely, Kern County sheriff deputies would not allow it.

According to the Bakersfield Californian:

John Tello, a criminal law attorney, is representing two witnesses who took video footage and five other witnesses to the incident. He said his clients are still shaken by what they saw.

“When I arrived to the home of one of the witnesses that had video footage, she was with her family sitting down on the couch, surrounded by three deputies,” Tello said.

Tello said the witness was not allowed to go anywhere with her phone and was being quarantined inside her home.

When Tello tried to talk to the witness in private and with the phone, one of the deputies stopped him and told him he couldn’t take the phone anywhere because it was evidence to the investigation, the attorney said.

“This was not a crime scene where the evidence was going to be destroyed,” Tello said. “These were concerned citizens who were basically doing a civic duty of preserving the evidence, not destroying it as they (sheriff deputies) tried to make it seem.”

Deputies told the witnesses they could retrieve their phones the following day after the footage had been downloaded.

Now they’re telling the witnesses it could take years.

The law states that authorities can only seize your phone without a warrant under exigent circumstances, meaning there is probable cause the witness will destroy the video evidence. And they still would have to obtain a warrant or subpoena to view the footage.

But the law does not forbid citizens from downloading the footage before handing it over. A judge might be able to order a citizen from posting a video online but would have to provide a valid explanation as to why.

But despite what the law states, nothing will stop a group of cops from seizing your phone if it contains evidence of them violating the law.

And in this case, it appears as if they did just that as Kern County sheriff deputies and California Highway Patrol officers responded to a report of an intoxicated man standing in front of a local hospital, meaning there could possibly be video from surveillance cameras.

David Sal Silva, a 33-year-old father of four, died begging for his life, fighting up to nine law enforcement officers.

People who say they witnessed the incident as well as Silva’s family members described a scene in which deputies essentially were beating a helpless man to death. They were indignant that cellphone video had been taken away by deputies.

“My brother spent the last eight minutes of his life pleading, begging for his life,” said Christopher Silva, 31, brother of the dead man. He said he’s talked to witnesses but did not see the incident himself.

At about midnight, Ruben Ceballos, 19,was awakened by screams and loud banging noises outside his home. He said he ran to the left side of his house to find out who was causing the ruckus.

“When I got outside I saw two officers beating a man with batons and they were hitting his head so every time they would swing, I could hear the blows to his head,” Ceballos said.

Silva was on the ground screaming for help, but officers continued to beat him, Ceballos said.

After several minutes, Ceballos said, Silva stopped screaming and was no longer responsive.

The Kern County Sheriff’s Office identified the officers involved as Sgt. Douglas Sword and deputies Ryan Greer, Tanner Miller, Jeffrey Kelly, Luis Almanza, Brian Brock and David Stephens. The CHP hasn’t identified its two officers involved in the incident.

Although there are several methods of being able to transmit video footage to a remote server while it is being recorded, they all come with certain drawbacks and are not always reliable.

That will one day no doubt change as technology keeps evolving, but one method to keep them from deleting your footage is to lock your phone with a password, but that still won’t keep them from taking your phone along with the footage, then claiming they lost the phone.

If you have any suggestions on how to save or store your footage in such a situation, please list them below in the comments section.

KCSO badge


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • Rail Car

    And for those of you who always proclaim…”Cops Can Do NO Wrong!” you wonder why cops are hated so much. I wouldn’t be surprised if this incident is swept under the rug like most of the others. Too bad we can’t bring back vigilantism and public hangings.

    Rail Car Fan

    • steveo

      Also, if the PD is silent on the story or saying that “the situation is under investigation” for the next couple of weeks, you know it’s bad for the cops because they would leak those videos right away if it showed something that exonerated the actions of the police. They would also start putting the victim on trial in the press by listing all his past arrests and run ins with the law and make him seem like the biggest scumbag in the world like they did with Rodney King, even though Rodney was the biggest scumbag in the world.

    • Cruella DeVille

      There is no argument against this. None. I cannot even begin to think of any reasons at all that would justify this. I’m actually rather speechless, which rarely occurs. If this shit gets swept under the rug then maybe it’s time to remind them we won’t tolerate that and riot Rodney King trial style.

  • http://www.facebook.com/JTraceyJr John Tracey

    Google plus automatically uploads all photos and videos as private, which you can make public or view/download from your account later. Android phones have a setting to encrypt all data. I’ve found both pretty useful, although I haven’t needed to film a violent beating, and hopefully never will.

    • Too soon?

      Photos, yes. Videos frequently only upload when there’s “X” amount of available bandwidth (which is usually only satisfiable by wifi or really solid LTE connection).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lawrence-Brown/100000325857175 Lawrence Brown

    If the court don’t get the Just Rember GOD was watching and he will hand out punishment

    • -0z-

      Unfortunately, no. There’s no magic “judge in the sky.” We only have each other, so keep those cameras rolling, and don’t let the cops take your footage without backing it up first.

      • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

        Hi, 0z. Your above assertion is an irrational statement, since no evidence exists that God does not exist. Hence, you are asserting as a fact something which you have no evidence for. That is, you are simply taking it on blind fancy.

        Howbeit, God has been proven to exist according to mainstream physics. For the details on that, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God’s existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

        James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708.

        Further, if God does not exist then that also means an infinite sapient state does not exist, which due to the Quantum Recurrence Theorem means that immortality is impossible, i.e., all sapient beings’ consciousnesses would eventually come to an end. In which case nothing in life actually matters at all, since it all will equate to the same thing: eternal death. For the details on that, see Sec. 8.1.1: “The Dysteleology of Life without God” of my foregoing article.

        • Difdi

          On the contrary. God has not been proven to exist, the Flying Spaghetti Monster altered the evidence with his noodly appendage.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Nah, the FSM altered Tipler’s noodle.

            Tipler is a discredited scientist, called a “crackpot” by other scientists. Sean Carroll, The Varieties of Crackpot Experiences, Discover Magazine (2009). Tipler, who compared himself to Galileo and Copernicus, was part of the psuedoscience movement.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Physicist Dr. Sean M. Carroll couldn’t even obtain a professorship, as he was rejected for said position. For my reply to Carroll’s dishonest criticisms of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, see WebCite: 5yDcRx6IZ.

            Most physicists haven’t commented on Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology and are almost certainly unaware of it. Far more physicists have endorsed Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology in the form of being approving peer-reviewers of his papers on the Omega Point cosmology than have criticized it.

            To date only two physicists have criticized Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology using the Scientific Method’s process of peer-review, they being physicists Prof. George Ellis and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the 1994 paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            You don’t understand.

            Your reply means nothing until we know what your credentials are.

            Besides, Tipler is widely criticized, as you are well aware. Shermer devoted a chapter to debunking Tipler’s loony-toon theories, Carroll is widely regarded as a Fellow of the Am. Phy. Soc., Ellis says Tipler’s work is “the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the
            normal constraints of scientific or philosophical discipline”, and Kraus says it is “a collection of half-truths and exaggerations, I am tempted to describe
            Tipler’s new book as nonsense—but that would be unfair to the concept
            of nonsense.”

            I’m inclined to believe the above gentlemen. All of them are respected and published scientists. As far as I can tell, you are neither, with no scientific credentials of any type.

            Besides, your contention has nothing to do with the point of this blog or article.

            Thanks for playing.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, ExCop-LawStudent. You state, “Your reply means nothing until we know what your credentials are.” That’s a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow. You have a great yen for engaging in logical fallacies.

            You further state, “Shermer devoted a chapter to debunking Tipler’s loony-toon theories”. No, Michael Shermer most certainly did not. In the chapter of Shermer’s book which you refer to, Shermer makes no attempt to “debunk” Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology. Shermer nowhere in that book states any error regarding the Omega Point cosmology.

            To date only two physicists have criticized Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology using the Scientific Method’s process of peer-review, they being physicists Prof. George Ellis and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the 1994 paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

            Ironically, Lawrence Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe’s expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Turner point out that “there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be.” (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, “Geometry and Destiny”, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.)

            So when Tipler’s critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler’s case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that’s the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            I have to draw exception to your monotheism. Given in the 21st Century we have begun to understand that dark energy and dark matter are the actual drivers to why this Universe is what it is, I have to believe polytheism is the only best fit. It’d take a committee to make that kind of Universe.

            So I propose FSM, FLM, FPM, FNM, FRM, and all other possible noodles as the only possible best fit to explain dark energy and dark matter. Furthermore, no evidence exists that all possible Flying Noodle Monsters don’t exist.

            Why do you think your monotheism represents the only possibility?

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Actually, RaymondbyEllis, such evidence of the nonexistence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist in the form of the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Said known laws of physics instead mathematically require the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). That is, the Omega Point TOE is a mathematical theorem per said known physical laws. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The only way to reject the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.

            In answer to the question you posed to me why it is the only possibility allowed by the known laws of physics, see my following article:

            James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Guys, just ignore the troll. If you feed him, he keeps coming back.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, ExCop-LawStudent. When you use the word “troll” in the context in which you gave it (i.e., misnomeredly referring to me), you actually mean to say that you have no good rebuttal to me. You indeed have no good rebuttal against me. But your irrationality on these matters is a choice of your own making. I never put a gun to your head and ordered you to behave irrationally. That was an outcome of your own fallacious Weltanschauung. The solution is to revise your false beliefs. To ameliorate them.

            For how to do that, see my following article, which is actually a self-help deprogramming-guide for all of us who have been raised within the massive death-cult called government:

            James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708.

            If you do manage to deprogram yourself, then you can thank me for the impetus when we’re in Paradise.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Your statement and paper are useless as evidence. First, the article shows no indication of being peer-reviewed. Second, the article has not been published in a scholarly journal. Third, you wrote it and are therefore biased and/or trying to hawk the paper. Fourth, there is no indication anywhere that I can find of your credentials, and they are not linked to the paper. Fifth, you can’t piggyback on someone else’s scholarly works and citations to prove credibility for your work.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, ExCop-LawStudent. You could benefit from a reading-comprehension course. Perhaps there are elementary schools in your area which offer such a course on weekends to the general public.

            Just to enlighten you, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler is not me. My name is James Redford. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of prestigious physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain’s main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world’s leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal Prof. Richard Feynman, awarded the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics, also published in during the 1980s), etc. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. For much more on this, see my following article:

            James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            LOL – Never said that you were Tipler.

            I said that your work, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything,” is useless.

            YOU are not peer-reviewed, YOUR credentials are not out there, YOUR paper has not been cited or published, and YOUR paper or article is useless.

            Which basically make YOUR conclusions as to what Tipler said fit for the bottom of a birdcage.

            Clear enough?

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, ExCop-LawStudent. Have you never read a nonfiction book? Given your above responses, it wouldn’t be too difficult to imagine that you hadn’t. Only a very small portion of nonfiction books are refereed. And those are academic texts that are almost always virtually unknown outside of a narrow field.

            My work “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything” is a book or a long article. If you have read a unrefereed nonfiction book (which consitute virtually all nonfiction books), then you grant that veracious information can be conveyed by a text without it having been peer-reviewed, since the whole point of reading a nonfiction work is to obtain veridical information.

            You state that you are currently a college student, but apparently you haven’t yet taken a class on logical fallacies. Your claim that because a text hasn’t been refereed that it “is useless” is a non sequitur, as that doesn’t logically follow. As well, it’s a claim which you yourself don’t actually believe, because your own posts (whether on your blog or in response to others) also haven’t been peer-reviewed, yet you seem to think that they are not “useless” and are not “fit for the bottom of a birdcage”.

            The purpose of my work “The Physics of God” is to make more widely-known results which have been extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. I additionally examine the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology. My aforesaid work makes copious use of the Scholarly Method, with 330 footnotes and a bibliography containing 490 entries. So I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything, as anyone can inspect for themselves its correctness.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            And all that can be done in a pseudoscientific treatise including incorporating “widely-known results which have been extensively peer-reviewed”, with extensive footnotes to boot. A lot of non-fiction is crap, but not all is Gardner’s CRAP. You might furthermore look at the metaphor of the “living puddle”.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, RaymondbyEllis. The quote you gave of me should instead read that the purpose of my work “The Physics of God” is to “make more widely-known results which have been extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.” Regarding it being “pseudoscientific”, the Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The only way to reject the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.

            Regarding Martin Gardner, notice that he never states any error on Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s part. However, I do find the below exchange between Prof. Tipler and Gardner to be quite telling; it transpired from Gardner’s review of Profs. John D. Barrow and Tipler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). Note Gardner’s two-word reply to Tipler.

            Frank J. Tipler, reply by Martin Gardner, “The FAP Flop”, New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 19 (Dec. 4, 1986). In reply to Martin Gardner, “WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP”, New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 8 (May 8, 1986).

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            So?

            You are writing on psuedoscience that has been debunked by numerous reputable scientists.

            You have no credentials, nothing that would indicate your opinion is more apt to be correct than their opinions. You can’t even get your book published.

            Further, it has nothing to do with the purpose of this blog.

            Bye.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, ExCop-LawStudent. My book has been extensively published. It is in the public domain, and also under two open-source licenses. The concept of intellectual property is illegitimate, due to the reason that property concerns scarce resources over which conflict can arise (since, e.g., if another takes one’s lawnmower, one no longer possesses the lawnmower), whereas information can be infinitely reproduced without subtracting any physical resource from the original possessor of the information.

            The Omega Point cosmology has never been “debunked” by anyone. To date only two physicists have criticized Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology using the Scientific Method’s process of peer-review, they being physicists Prof. George Ellis and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the 1994 paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

            Regarding it being “psuedoscience”, the Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The only way to reject the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.

            Pertaining to the subject of this blog, I orginally replied to 0z’s irrational claim that God does not exist. So if you’re truly concerned about that matter, then he is the one to whom you should be replying.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            ECLS,
            I only regret that you did it first.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            ECLS,

            You could have easily stopped after he threw in the 2nd LofT as part of the proof.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, RaymondbyEllis. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to reject the Second Law is to reject empirical science.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            JR,
            That would be germane if that was what I wrote. That you went there…

            It is the interpretations, usually given as actual definitions, of the 2nd Law that lead to the problems. The worst usually tied to “proof of God”, with words like “order, disorder, universe, or closed system” being central to those definitions.

            As much as I dislike horses beating one long dead seems pointless.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, RaymondbyEllis. If you accept the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics then your previous remark is a non sequitur, as it certainly doesn’t follow that a conclusion is invalid because one of its premises is correct.

            Regarding understanding the Second Law, Prof. Frank J. Tipler is by far the most erudite physicist in history. Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory. His Omega Point cosmology–which is now a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God’s existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics)–has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of prestigious physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain’s main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world’s leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal Physics Nobel Laureate Prof. Richard Feynman also published in during the 1980s), etc.

            Prof. John A. Wheeler (the physicist who gave black holes their name and the father of most relativity research in the US) wrote that “Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics” on p. viii in his “Foreword” to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler’s Omega Point Theory was described. On p. ix of said book, Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, “rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters].”

          • RaymondbyEllis

            JR,

            This is just gobbledygook: “If you accept the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics then your
            previous remark is a non sequitur, as it certainly doesn’t follow that a
            conclusion is invalid because one of its premises is correct.” I pointed out that it isn’t the validity of the 2nd Law, never raised the question, but is the twists of the interpretations which are often wrong but so much is made from them. Give the damn definition and quit hiding behind “2nd LoT”.

            Your usual regurgitation is really a long appeal to authority. As for SAP, yeah that’s proven with certainty (that’s dripping with sarcasm).

            The pseudoscience part went over your head. Any one can meet the criteria you gave and still “publish” a piece of total pseudoscience CRAP (Gardner again for the fun of it).

            If you don’t get the humor in the metaphor of the “living puddle” you should try. Really hard.

            I’m going to go with ECLS here, not only because I know he’s right, but because I’m watching classic “Gish and the Bombardier Beetle” behavior, though writ on and about a larger scale.

            In other words, I’m outta here.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Maybe he could get Gish to hire him at ICR. Might be best to keep all the loons in one spot.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            ECLS,
            The loons can never be gathered in one spot. Too many things to be looney about.

            I’ve taught my children it isn’t what you think , it’s how you think. And no that doesn’t mean think like an engineer, think like a scientist, think like a historian, or a philosopher. Or even agree with capitalism over socialism. It’s how you deal with the arguments.

            To put it more obscurely: it isn’t the beliefs you hold, it’s how you hold the beliefs.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            LOL, true, ’twas just a wishful thought.

            I agree with you about teaching children.

            If children are taught to use their ability to reason, to think about a
            situation beforehand, to reflect back on past events and actions, to
            make decisions based on their reasoning, and to be accountable for those choices, then one has taught the children what is necessary to succeed in life, more so than rote learning and memorization.

            “Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error.” Thomas Jefferson, 2 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson : 1816–1826 102 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899).

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Correct, RaymondbyEllis. Yet you’re rejecting a mathematical theorem (of which action certainly must qualify as one of the most extreme forms of irrationality) not due to how you think but instead due to the fallacious beliefs that you hold. You greatly dislike what this mathematical theorem requires vis-à-vis God’s existence. If the known laws of physics–of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date–are correct, then God exists. So until and unless the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) start being disconfirmed by experiment, then the only way to reject the existence of God is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

            For the details on the foregoing, see my following article:

            James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, RaymondbyEllis. The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to violate one or more of the known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and/or Quantum Mechanics. These physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, there exists no rational reason for rejecting the Omega Point cosmology. That is, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per said laws of physics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The only way to reject the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.

            For the details on that, see my following article:

            James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Yeah, but I like to poke the trolls.

          • http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 James Redford

            Hi, ExCop-LawStudent. You like to poke yourself?

  • Michael Sauers

    http://qik.com

    Instant Video Sharing
    Share videos privately with family and friends, automatically post to social networks, or broadcast to blogs and video sites.
    Videos can be viewed live (right as they are being recorded) or anytime later.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Henderson/1621992229 Joe Henderson

      Excellent.

  • http://sohailsk.zenfolio.com Sohail Khwaja

    Dropbox and iCloud will both instantly start uploading any images and/or videos when recording stops.

    • nrgins

      That’s great as long as they’re not tech-savvy enough to look at your phone for a dropbox app, and then use it to go and delete the video.

      • rick

        Dropbox can be passcode protected…in addition to phone lockscreen.

      • steveo

        But if you have the dropbox app on your main pc at home or in the car or even on your tablet, you can access the file from one of those devices immediately and copy it and transfer it, before the IT staff gets ahold of the smart device, I really like dropbox for clips up to 20 or 30 min. Plus android uses a file format called .gpp which is a major compression file format. 10 min of .gpp is about 7mb, so it will upload fairly quickly. Even if you are in an area with 2g or 3g.

        If you have your pattern password on your smart phone, the leo at least won’t be able to access the apps on the phone, he might know enough to take the SD card, but that only eliminates the file on the SD card.

        • rick

          Pattern passwords stink. The smudge marks are easily seen when held at the proper angle to the light.
          Don’t record to SD card, record to internal memory

        • Difdi

          If you use an SD-WORM card, you can refute claims that the card was “accidentally” erased while in police custody. Won’t stop it from being “lost” but if the card CANNOT be erased…

      • http://sohailsk.zenfolio.com Sohail Khwaja

        Then lets be more tech savvy than them. Sync the home computer to Dropbox also, which then can be backed up to an external drive. That final backup will not be deleted if Dropbox files are deleted. :)

  • -0z-

    Here’s thier FB page. Let them know what you think.
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kern-County-Sheriffs-Office/103298983111448?fref=ts

  • Freedom_Fighter_of_America

    And when there is probable cause to believe the cops who want to take the phones to destroy the evidence implicating them in murder, then they have no authority to hold you in any manner. They are terrorists. Plain and simple. TERRORISTS. They are no different than al quida. They hate the peoples freedoms, they are hell bent on destroying the freedoms and the authority that the people hold over these PUBLIC SERVANT terrorists. I for one am fed up with this bull shit. It’s time to start treating these officers like the terrorists they are. Charge them with treason. That was levying war against the people and that’s exactly what it is, treason. Start charging these officers who pull this shit with treason and watch police nation wide as their heads spin so fast they won’t even so much look at a citizen in any other way except the public masters that the citizens are. Terrorism and Treason Charges are the only thing to whip these officers back into the control of the people.

    • Proud GrandPa

      ” who want to take the phones to destroy the evidence implicating them in murder, ”
      In light of the above and not for trivialities like parking tickets and barking dogs, one would be morally justified in the sight of God and man to keep the cell phone in the interest of justice for use at trial. This is one of those rare cases when lying may be the moral and ethical path to follow by carrying several cell phones and turning over the wrong one.
      .
      Report in to a police station soon afterward to report you have video that may bear on a crime AFTER you have already made copies and sent some to your lawyer and pastor in ministerial confidence.
      .
      These two are immune from most police demands to reveal conversations with you. Your evidence will be safe.

    • Greg

      It’s not treason. It is murder under state law and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law under federal law, Both felonies. Both punishable by life in prison or even death.

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law

  • http://meancreativity.com/ Mason Pelt

    Let’s see so Sheriff’s Deputies beat a man to death and it’s on
    video, but the Sheriff’s Deputies are the ones who control the evidence?

    • Mark G

      Yep, that’s called fox guarding the hen house…

      • Difdi

        Don’t forget the panel of foxes in charge of determining whether what the fox did once inside the hen house was lawful and justified.

        • wearerevolution

          There seems to be a lot of foxes, however foxes are supose to be clever..these people are plain stupid. The time will come when all these corrupt police, judges, state officials and presidents will be themselves, by the people of the nation, judged. That time is coming!

  • Phred

    Gee, we’re really sorry, but your phones have mysteriously disappeared. Such a shame. We did everything we could to secure them, but we just couldn’t protect them 24/7. There are just too many dishonest people in this world!

    • steveo

      Because these leos got warrants, I’m pretty sure that those camera/phones went right to the prosecutor’s office or the judge might even have said to deliver them to him.

  • Harry Balzanya

    What we need is the name of the judge who signed the warrent

    • steveo

      That judge should have gotten up off his fat ass and gone over to that house called the prosecutor and figured out how they were going to secure the evidence. They should have gotten an FBI agent to take the phones, then that would have stopped conspiratorial theories. Citizens have to have confidence in the warrant process, otherwise all hell breaks loose.

      • peck2

        An FBI agent? They are as crooked as the rest of the LEO’s.

  • himself

    Only way I can think of to preserve the video is to use a second camera, one of those spy pens, and have two recorders going, the obvious one, and the spy pen.

  • Too soon?

    How long until one of the apps that does automatic uploading of photos comes up with the idea to automatically upload videos, too?

    • rick

      Dropbox does upload videos automatically on wifi AND data, at least on GS2 running android.

  • http://www.facebook.com/adrian.bolchis Adrian Bolchis

    Hi all. There is a way to stream live to your account on livestream. Step 1. Get your free account at http://new.livestream.com/. Step 2. Download the app for iPhone or Android. Step 3. You are ready to go.

    Android app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.livestream.livestream&hl=en
    iPhone app: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/livestream-for-producers/id493086499?mt=8

    • rick

      Too clunky. Create event, event date, post picture, etc…
      If I cant record within two taps of the screen, forget it.

  • The Judge

    I want America to see these videos!

  • steveo

    Watch the clip from the Connecticut conference where Mickey, Mario and the Prosecutor and leo are in. The State Attorney said that they couldn’t deny the person who gathered the video the right to publish it immediately, for any reason. He said that they might need the original, but that his office would make a copy to give to the owner within 24 hrs of taking it. Something as important as this, (are you listening Mr. lawyer) I would be in court that morning with an emergency motion demanding copies of the videos. I the local court didn’t go for it, then take it right to the next level.

  • steveo

    They had a dog and they still had to beat the guy with sticks? They beat on Rodney King for about 2 min and didn’t kill him, maybe that’s what they were thinking.

  • LRH

    Maybe I’m being too simplistic about this, but why not just absolutely refuse to hand it over, basically say “you will NOT get your hands on my camera, period, you’re just not going to do it,” and back it up–do not give it to them, if you have to physically fight them, do so. I know that, in theory anyway, that is exactly what I would do.

    • jrwreno

      I would put the phone in my pocket, and quietly remove the memory card in my pocket. I already have all my media downloaded to it. That way, they can have the phone, but not the actual recording,….

      • Difdi

        You might not have time, and the sort of hurried motion you’d need to remove the card is exactly the sort of thing police love to describe as furtive. Gunfire usually follows.

        • peck2

          Stop using cell-phone cameras and start using firearms.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Go ahead. I don’t see you doing what you advocate.

    • Phred

      You will lose that fight (and possibly be severely beaten or tased into submission), be arrested, will spend at least a few hours in jail and/or a hospital (perhaps a lot more), get charged with resisting or obstruction or some other crime against a police officer, and face the real possibility of a trial. I’m not saying it’s right (it’s not), but that’s the way it is. Better to “live” to fight another day via a civil suit.

      • LRH

        If I understand it correctly they legally can’t demand you give them your camera or phone. It would seem you could quote that statute and call your lawyer and tell them they will not get your device until your lawyer is present.

        • Daniel Bilodeau

          They just don’t care about the Law or about peoples’ lives.
          These cops need psychological profiling, since they carry the right over life and death (and have such a terrible penchant for abusing that right).

          • Difdi

            They need a few loads of buckshot. But no one was armed there except the criminals and the predictable result occurred.

          • n4zhg

            Won’t do much good. Books are written on how to beat the psych test.

          • Barking Dog

            Luckily, only the ones who can read make use of that…..

        • Kass

          They also can’t, by law, beat someone to death so clearly quoting a law to them won’t work.

    • http://twitter.com/om43photo Rob

      It would take a very brave person to do that. I’ve trained in Kenpo for years learning how to defend myself, and seriously hurt people in the course of my defense. I would like to think I’d do the same thing and refuse to turn over my camera/cell phone, but when confronted by 9 armed criminals with badges who are still high on their adrenaline fueled authoritarian blood lust, I can’t be sure what I would do. Fear is a powerful emotion, no matter how brave or prepared you are.

      • Difdi

        I know what I’d do. I’d die. I’d hope to take at least one with me, but my natural response to that sort of thing would be to protect the innocent from the guilty. And the guilty would kill me for it. Then they’d probably get a medal for valor for it.

        • peck2

          Die free..or die a slave. Your choice. Mine too. I will die free… after taking down as many of the LEO filth I can. I’ll get more of them than they will get of me. Keep this in mind. They are so used to a compliant Sheeple population that they will be stunned to inaction for the few seconds it will take for you to drop several of them. Practice daily for various defens strategies.

    • steveo

      I really believe that the Judge that signed the warrant made some stipulations on how the cameras/phones were to be secured. When the leos apply for a warrant they become the arm of the court. If anything untoward happens to those videos from the time they leave the hands of the owners to the time they get to the judge or the prosecutors, the leo that transports them, is going to be in more hot water than the other ones.

      • Difdi

        The police are required to treat seized evidence and seized property according to certain standards. But the punishment for destroying evidence and stealing property are both less than the punishment for second degree murder. And the cops already did that.

    • peck2

      Don’t “fight” them..shoot the bastards.

      • Difdi

        It’s California. Only the police are armed, since they outlawed unloaded open carry (and concealed carry permits are almost impossible to get).

    • Difdi

      Remember, this is California we’re talking about. If you refuse to comply you have no weapons to back it up with if the criminals decide to use force to compel you.

      Having seen officers beat a man to death, then start beating a woman for doing nothing other than exercising a constitutional right, the proper response by good US citizens witnessing this would be to draw weapons and take down the criminals. But this happened in California, where it’s illegal to carry weapons in public without permission that is only granted to Important People.

    • Greg

      “911, what’s your emergency?”

      I have evidence of a murder, and the murderer and accomplices are trying to seize the evidence.

      “I’ll dispatch an officer.”

      An officer committed the murder. I have it on video. Please send the FBI, not more accomplices.

  • FUCKUPIG

    Christopher Silva (dead mans brother) needs to remember these cops names, write them down and be patient. Do what needs to be done and do it with honor. Do not let your Brothers name quietly disappear with no accountability.

  • genewitch

    Raspberry Pi Computer: $30.00
    Wifi/bluetooth Adapter: $10.00
    Software to connect to any available wifi signal: $0.00
    Software to write data to a virtually indestructible encrypted media device: $0.00
    Said media device: CF card and reader encased in a 1Gallon bucket of concrete: $15

    They’d have a lot of explaining to do if everyone had this in their trunk and phones went missing and memory cards got lost. Good luck explaining the loss of a 10+ pound bucket of concrete spraypainted pink with a USB cable dangling out the back.

    • Difdi

      Weld the memory module into the frame of the car instead. Harder to find than a bucket of concrete, more durable and it weighs less so it would impact your gas mileage less.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.maloney.75 Jim Maloney

    send it to facebook!

  • io-io

    The problem is that the law does not address destruction of evidence by the law – essentially covering their potential crimes up.

    “The law states that authorities can only seize your phone without a warrant under exigent circumstances, meaning there is probable cause the witness will destroy the video evidence. And they still would have to obtain a warrant or subpoena to view the footage.”

    The question to the Judge who signed the warrant – how is the evidence going to be protected if seized by the police (the assailants)? The Judge owes it to the general public to state how the evidence is going to be protected FROM the police, CHP, the DA, etc. The best way to protect it is to provide copies to the Copyright owners for publication.

    However, what assurances does the public have that the video has not already been altered or destroyed?

    • Difdi

      There is no law enforcement exemption in the destruction of evidence/tampering with evidence statutes in any state in the United States.

      Finding a prosecutor willing to file charges, on the other hand, is highly unlikely.

      • io-io

        The point I was attempting to make is that there is the assumption (on the part of the law) that the evidence is going to be destroyed by the citizen and thus the police need to prevent its destruction. Unfortunately, in these cases – its the police that the evidence needs to be potentially protected from.

        • Difdi

          The question is, does the fact that there is probable cause to believe POLICE will destroy the evidence create exigent circumstances for the CITIZEN to preserve the evidence, up to and including a lawful use of force if necessary?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            What probable cause is there that would show there is reason to believe in this case, with this agency, that the agency would destroy the evidence? Hunches and personal bias doesn’t count.

          • io-io

            It is difficult to disprove a negative – you do beat your wife – don’t you? – If you have nothing to hide, then you should not mind one bit – my pawing through your computer, bank accounts, medical records, tax returns, let me just search your car, house – empty your pockets.

            The exigent circumstances exemption is based on the legal belief that the citizenry is not to be trusted, and thus the evidence needs to be seized in order to protect it. A neutral third party does this – in this case I do not see a neutral third party involved. There is an inherent conflict of interest present. The conflict of interest contaminates the chain of possession, as it introduces questions in terms of the validity of the evidence – or if the “evidence” vanishes, what evidence. It has been observed before in many of these types of situations. There is a direct correlation to the loss of public confidence as the police departments ramp up their efforts to militarize. Loss of rights, police must be protected at all costs. Their safety is paramount, etc. The police are to be believed in all cases, as the public can never be believed, etc.

            I would never have written this several years ago, since I had confidence in the police. I have not changed – the police agencies have.

          • Difdi

            That situation would give the citizen greater probable cause for such a belief than most police have when exigently seizing cameras.

            Like you’ve said in the past, probable cause isn’t a very high standard of evidence.

            Someone who has just committed murder rushing to seize the evidence against them certainly meets or exceeds the standard.

    • peck2

      “The law states”? I no longer care what “the law states”. Neither do “they”. Way past time to turn in your cell phone and start using your firearms.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        So what are you waiting for? All I hear from you is talk. No action.

        • JdLxx

          So what are you waiting for? All I hear from you is talk. No action.

          peck2 is understandably very frustrated, and all you can think to do is try to goad him into actually shooting someone? What is your motivation? Would you feel any moral culpability if he DID pick up a gun and start blasting the nearest cop?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I’m sick and tired of internet heroes advocating armed revolution and resistance against the police, telling others what ‘they’ should do, but not willing to put their money where there mouth is.

            And to answer your question, I don’t have any responsibility for idiots.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Corky-Rathbun/777773896 Corky Rathbun

            that’s what Manson thought !

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Officers can, have been, and should be charged with destruction of evidence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sethlevy Seth Levy

    I use Google Drive. It uploads videos regardless of file size even on ios.

  • Jon

    One thought: As we move quickly toward new apps that can broadcast a live feed, this nonsense about cops stealing our phones will be a thing of the past, but I’ll not wait for that day. If I find myself in such a situation, I’ll say “You’re welcome to the phone, Officer. This has all already been broadcast across the internet, to several servers, right up to this moment. Is there anything you’d like to say to the world at this point?? Officer? Officer? SIr?”

  • http://twitter.com/om43photo Rob

    California cops seem to be the worst when it comes to beating people to death. At least according to the stories I’ve read about in the last decade. I really hope those witnesses had passwords or pin numbers protecting their phones, and that the videos don’t magically disappear.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sbeyeforhire Joey Ortega

    We only have one article and though my knee jerk reaction is anger I have seen too many stories play out that end up showing that first impressions are not as informative as they seem and the conclusion is not always “obvious” .

    That being said. I am quite positive there are more videos out there and it will only be a matter of time and may lead to officers being possibly vindicated or found to be deceptive in statement made while believing all the evidence was in their hands.

    In regards to the question about storage. It varies on phone device. iPhone and the like are becoming more common as prices lower. Many are tied to a clod account. I know that iPhone now seems to upload videos to the cloud where as before it was a manual function to this day people may not know that they still have copies of old photos or videos they deleted on the device. One can also tie their device to other similar services such as dropbox and have photos and videos copied there automatically. Some social media services do the same such as Google+ and Facebook I believe.

    Bottom line(s)-

    1. Stop trying via media and give time for all the facts to come out before grabbing the pitchforks and lighting the torches.

    2. there are so many ways that to now automate backing up your data that theft or warrant-less confiscation (justified or otherwise) can never have the power to destroy evidence and besides neither acting in accordance of their role should care; a thief usually just want your device and confiscations are intended to preserve evidence not destroy it.

    • steveo

      Five witnesses is pretty compelling. If they all have the same story and the dead man didn’t have any weapons, I’m not sure how a leo with a German Shepard can reasonably argue that the subject was “fighting” with him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/polar.assualt Polar Assault

    video and pictures can be shared from a phone by either texting it to another phone number or sending it to an email. Myself I have never been in a position to have to take pictures or a video for such a reason and then send it immediately but so far as I have experienced or known (via my android phone like the 3rd model) I can take long video and am able to email it to my google account and others emails (Not all google) as well send it to other phones via text. I have not experienced a limit on the length of video recently as I had in past years with older models of phones but seems at that time I was also limited on how long of a video I could record before having to re-record or restart the recording…

    I can not say for other phones as I am aware there are differences between them but seems to me with android phones (all i have seen have some kind of google connection/back up) and other smart phones (also believed by me to have some kind of web/net back up protection of data in case of lost or stolen)

    In the case of google attached phones (Androids and Android platform phones) you are able to back up your phone info and send pictures/videos via email and then if you choose, my personal adoption of rules, to log out of your google account and log into a different google account which also then locks out all your contact information from being changed or modified or viewed once the phone updates to the contacts on the 2nd account. This is smart to do as I have already in selling an older android and getting a new one forgot to do and had all my contacts deleted when the person who bought the older phone removed the contacts and put in their own contacts which then removed all my google contacts and added his google contacts to my google email account… (was a real pain to get my contacts back as I did not bother having a back up to my contacts…my mistake there)

    hope this info helps some for people in future situations

  • V vendetta

    When law become lawless, take laws into your own hands.

    • peck2

      Screw the “laws”..use your guns.

      • Difdi

        Depends on what LAW you take into your hands…

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

        • peck2

          The LAW of survival difdi.

          • Difdi

            Click the link. I was agreeing with you.

    • Difdi

      When legitimate justice becomes impossible, vigilante justice becomes inevitable.

  • peck2

    Stop using cell phones and start using guns. LEO’s are the enemy.

    • Difdi

      Hey, if they’re going to beat you to death if you don’t resist, why not shoot?

      After all, if you just witnessed them beat a guy to death and then they come to beat you…

  • steveo

    The lawyer for the owners of the news(video) should make an emergency motion for the court to release a copy of the media to the owners. The prosecutor might come back and argue that the videos are too inflammatory or prejudicial to the the leos and ask for a gag order or sealing. This would be a real interesting case because the SCOTUS has never authorized this because it is prior restraint.

    You’ve got Near vs. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931),

    Bantam Books v. Sullivan 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963),New York Times Co. v. United States 403 U.S. 713(1971), Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart 427 U.S. 539 (1976). This is a steady progression of SCOTUS decisions all saying that censoring anything by government is not allowed.

    • io-io

      The concept of “exigent circumstances” is designed to safeguard the information and/or evidence. However, in this case the “exigent circumstances” is being used by the police to potentially coverup their possible crime through the possible manipulation / destruction of the video. Its the citizenry trying to protect the evidence from the possible police self interest destruction. How is the chain of evidence/possession going to work if the officers/friends/associates accused of the crime seize the evidence? It would be very interesting to actually be able to read the warrant signed by the Judge authorizing the police to seize the video, potentially showing the police beating the man to death. Was the Judge aware that the police had an self interest in possible suppressing the evidence? Was the Judge fully informed? If the Judge was fully informed, why did he not ask the FBI to take possession since both the county and state governments stand accused of criminal acts. Either the Judge was not provided all the necessary information or ??????

      So why was the officer allowed to follow the camera in “hot pursuit” in to the house and hold the camera hostage until they were able to take possession. Whiteness tampering? Evidence tampering?

      Just my opinion….

      • steveo

        There wasn’t any hot pursuit. The leos didn’t come to the houses of the witnesses until 1 1/2 hr later. Then apparently the homeowners let them in voluntarily. plus the idiots told them they had recordings when one of them called 911. They were on top of the situation enough to record the beating, but why not record the encounter when they came to the houses? This whole case is really fubar.

  • -0z-

    VIDEO SURFACES! It’s from a security camera, but it’s enough. This proves you can’t bury a public beatdown, no matter how hard you try.

    http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/newly-released-video-allegedly-shows-fight-between-intoxicated-man-and-law-enforcement

  • http://twitter.com/scottaw scott

    I would upload the video to dropbox, and then delete the dropbox app from my phone to hopefully limit their odds of getting access to that with a forensic utility.

    • http://www.facebook.com/elliott.whitlow Elliott Whitlow

      Set your pin on dropbox, set the password on your phone, set dropbox to automatically upload all photos and videos. All those are supported and easily setup. If your phone is configured correctly if won’t accept a USB connection for anything but power and if the video/pictures are on the internal memory removing the card won’t give them access to the pictures.. What happens then is the video is uploaded without intervention and the app won’t let them in to your account without the dropbox pin, and it isn’t obvious that the upload took place.. Basically they have to go to court then to access it since the security is in place.. I don’t even think the celebrite thing can get around all that.

  • Rick Stokes
  • John Gault

    I keep telling everyone that these nazi drones with guns and badges are the most dangerous element we have in our society today. The addresses of every one of these drones needs to be posted on the internet and let them know that the people know where they sleep.
    I’m sure they are all due for a big promotion now.

  • Papillon

    Look up Bad Elk v. Us. Killing a cop when he threatens you with death or grave bodily injury not justified by your actions or his duties is lawful self defense. Same applies if you are defending the defenseless.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      You may want to read http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/the-common-law-right-to-resist-at-least-according-to-contitution-org/ before you go too far with what Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900) states. First, Bad Elk is no longer good law in California, having been superseded by statute. See Cal Pen Code § 834a; People v. Curtis, 450 P.2d 33, 39 (Cal. 1969).

      You may still defend yourself from excessive or unlawful force, but Bad Elk is not the case to cite, Curtis, 450 P2d at 39. Instead, one should look to California law for the answer.

      “[R]esorting to the extreme measure of taking life has never been and will never be laid down as a sound doctrine of the law, except where there exist or appear to exist to the person thus sought to be arrested, at the time the arrest is being attempted, circumstances which, being sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable man, would justify in him the belief that he was about to be injured in body or limb or that his life was in danger of being destroyed by the party or officer attempting to make the arrest.” People v. Dallen, 21 Cal. App. 770, 775 (1913).

      The reason for looking to California law is threefold. First, as mentioned, Bad Elk is no longer good law. Second, unless it involves a federal question, which Bad Elk does not, U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not binding to a state court as to state law. Third, one should not base their choice of case law on internet BS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=607403075 Mike Smith

    Fuck these pigs they give good cops a bad name!

    • James Jenkins

      Do you really believe there are ANY good cops left? It seems to me, if there were any left, we would hear about “Good Cops arresting Bad Cops”, yet, I have yet to hear even one story in 30 years about a “Good Cop” arresting a “Bad Cop”, and I mean one doing his dirty deeds (beating down some innocent citizen) in uniform, not one accidently arrested while NOT in uniform.

      When the Feds decided to Militarize our neighborhood Police, they also weeded out all the “Good Cops”, as a “Good Cop” would honor his oath and would have to refuse 80% of the tasks assigned to him/her. Besides, how could any “Good Cop” sit through the standard training where they teach them how to “trick” the citizens out of their rights and take advantage of them, rather, than honor their oath and defend those citizens rights; the primary purpose of having Police was for the protection of our rights to life, liberty, property…etc, and to seek justice for all, where rights have been violated. But then again, laws were supposed to be about protecting our rights, yet today, they all seem to be designed to take more and more of OUR rights away (properly labeled “unjust” laws).

  • maximus

    dropbox app to auto sync to cloud based dropbox account.

  • Anonymous

    There’s an app called Bambuser. It will instantly store your video offsite. Also if you don’t have signal at the time, then it will save it on the phone until it detects you have signal and then automatically upload. This is especially helpful if your phone is confiscated.

    There’s a good article talking about recording police. Suffice it to say, I have a Bambuser and I know how to use it. ;)

    http://gizmodo.com/5900680/7-rules-for-recording-police

  • Robin

    Rights are to be defended, with violence if necessary. All public servants take an oath to the Constitution. I did and it contained the words “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Those who would violate your rights are enemies and are to be resisted. My oath did not include an exclusion clause for law enforcement. The only way this type of thing will stop is for someone to draw their firearm to defend their rights. I’d like to see any LEO explain why things escalated because they wanted to illegally confiscate a cell phone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Laura-Bradford/100000001862835 Laura Bradford

    simply transfer the video to someone elses phone…then delete the phones sending history!!…in some cases (smart phones) can be set up to automatically send pics and video to your computer in Email form or streaming…ask your service provider for tyhe app that allows secure transfer via email or streaming!! we people need to start contact circles for instances like this…people that you can auto send to and trustwith evidence of this nature…These cops need to have their lives ruined for all eternity…their is absolutely no excuse fore this loss of control!!

  • Blake

    Dropbox or Google Drive, you can set it so they automatically upload all your videos and photos after they’re taken. So if you press stop recording they’ll start uploading right away unless you have options like “Only on wifi” or “only when charging” turned on. Which means all you have to do is have a lock on your phone and keep it for as long as you can, depending on the video size it could take a while, and if you have 4g or not.

    You could also use a micro usb flash drive like this one http://preview.tinyurl.com/ceyj5ue and have your videos save to it and then remove it after you record what officers did and hide it, then start recording again but with your internal storage. That way you can still record the abuse done to you, but have the video of the victims abuse safe. How do they explain seizing a micro usb flash drive if they do go far enough to handcuff and search you? Could even easily hand it off to someone.

    You could even if you have an NFC enabled phone and so does your buddy, copy the video to his phone by having them close together hidden behind your backs etc. That way there’s two copies and the other guy can leave while you create a distraction by continuing to record and yelling out things.

    I personally would use the micro usb and also have it set to auto upload my pictures/videos to Dropbox or Google Drive that way if you forget to reset your videos to be stored on your flash drive they will hopefully be uploaded. Then when they confront you just say “ok ok, take it holy shit” etc. and act scared then give them your phone. They’ll think they’ve won but you’ll have the micro usb with the video of the abuse on it, or it will be uploading while they have it and take forever on scene fiddling with your lock screen or just pocketing it to Dropbox or Google Drive.

  • steveo

    This beating death occurred at about 1:30am. At 3am the leos show up to the witnesses house to confiscate the phones. Question: Who was in charge of recording this scene where the leos come to the house to take the phones? The news article says that they wouldn’t let the woman off the couch until noon when the warrant showed up. You record the beating but you don’t record this Part??????

  • Morgan Sheridan

    Murder. Outright murder.

  • Jeff

    “The law states that authorities can only seize your phone without a
    warrant under exigent circumstances, meaning there is probable cause the
    witness will destroy the video evidence”

  • Jeff

    “The law states that authorities can only seize your phone without a
    warrant under exigent circumstances, meaning there is probable cause the
    witness will destroy the video evidence”
    Does anyone know where this is stated? I would love to cite this if it ever becomes a problem

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      “It is well established that “exigent circumstances,” including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police officers to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant.” Kentucky v. King, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1853-54, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865, 872 (2011).

      • Difdi

        And when the evidence in question implicates the officer who wants to seize it in a second degree murder, and the officer plainly knows it?

        Would a citizen have exigent circumstances to resist the seizure, even if use of force became necessary?

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Is there anything to indicate that the same officer that was involved in the beating was involved in the seizure?

          • RaymondbyEllis

            ECLS,
            You might want to think that one through further, if only because I’ve read cops maintaining that if they “knew” that the videographer was either a family member or friend, seizure was justifiable under exigent circumstances. The assumption being that any or even mere relationship would lead to destruction of evidence unfavorable to that relative or friend.

            Cops do it also.

          • steveo

            Apparently, a Sheriff’s detective came by the home of the witnesses, 1 1/2 hours later to get the videos. So it wasn’t the leos who were involved in the prior incident.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mjackso6 Mike Jackson

    I can see absolutely no justification if the incident happened the way described above. Officers are only authorized to use the lowest level of force necessary to contain a subject or prevent him/her from harming others. For the batons to come into play, hand to hand and tasers/pepper spray would have to be ineffective for whatever reason, and there are certain regions of the body that are ~completely unauthorized~ strike-points; the head is one. And regardless of anything else, once the subject was ‘contained’ (quit or incapable of resisting), the beating should have stopped. So on absolutely ~no account~ did these officers do anything that they should have if things went down as described. Despicable; and pieces of trash like those are, deservedly, what give the rest of us a bad name.

  • Concerned Canadian

    If you have an Android phone, Sign up for Google Plus, and then Download the Google + app. In the settings you can have all your photo’s and videos automatic uploaded to Google+. You can set it to Wi-Fi only to save your data plan, but for something like this it would be best to just have it upload. that way even if you phone is confiscated you can just go to any computer and there is your footage. :)

  • MongoLikesCandy

    Why do they need the whole cell phone for months? If they wanted “evidence” couldnt they just download the file and return the phone immediately? A smartphone can be several hundred dollars to replace. Holding onto it seems like they are only punishing the person for capturing on camera.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      It depends on the Rules of Evidence in the jurisdiction.

    • steveo

      Apparently a leo tech tried to do that. First, we don’t know if the witnesses had smartphones or just the older version of cellphone camera with video capabilities. If they had android or Iphone/apple, transferring a file is no big deal, but if it’s the old thing, not sure how to transfer a file. Plus the news reports said that the tech was trying to copy the clips to a tablet. You can connect to the tablet through bluetooth and there are some easier android apps, but the tech would have to know how to do that and he might not know how. Not sure why he was using a tablet if he didn’t know how to do it.

      This story also is a little suspect because most major jurisdictions have a device that connects to just about any smart or dumb device and copies everything in about 2 min.

      Plus you are right about copying and giving it back and the lawyers should be filing motions to force the state to at least give a copy of the videos to the owners.

  • john henry

    -i always  say the only good police is a dead fucker.

  • http://twitter.com/djohngalt nez

    FUCK THE PIGS!

Javascript is currently disabled. This website functions better with Javascript. Please enable Javascript in your browser.
Internet Explorer is out-of-date. Please upgrade your browser or install Google Chrome Frame for an improved web browsing experience.