June 28th, 2013

DEA Agent in Ohio tries to Snatch Camera from Man's Hand, Claiming it was for Man's Safety 119

By Carlos Miller


 

A Drug Enforcement Administration agent tried to snatch a man’s camera from his hand after warning him that he was “liable to get shot” if he continued hanging around with his camera.

The DEA agent then tried to play it off as if he was only watching out for Virgil Văduva’s safety early this afternoon in Jefforsonville.

But the video shows he was really trying to keep Văduva from taking a photo.

Văduva said he was driving through a neighborhood when he spotted a bunch of  armed SWAT-looking cops walking out of a house, so he pulled over to start recording with his phone.

But even before he was able to turn his camera on, a man wearing a DEA cap ordered him to leave, telling him he was liable to be shot.

Văduva then turned on his camera and asked for the agent’s name, which as you can see in the video above, prompted the agent to try and grab the phone.

Văduva was using the Qik application, so even if the agent had snatched the phone, the video still would have survived on a server.

“Why did you take my picture when I’m trying to protect you?” the DEA agent demanded to know.

The agent then went on to say that there were people inside the home with guns that wanted to hurt him.

But if that was the case, he would have been watching out for his own safety instead of attacking Văduva over his camera.

“They were standing around chatting and laughing before I got there,” Văduva said on Facebook. “There were no people with guns there wanting to hurt anyone…except himself and his gang.”

DEA Ohio


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • Smoothjc1

    • Buckethead80

      Nice.

  • JustaVetSailorfromPennsylvania

    Federal Badged Uniformed Fascist Thugs proving again that we are nothing more than a Police State. They havi Absolutely no regard to the Civil Rights of Citizens.

    • Dan Matthews

      That is a pretty broad brush you are using there.
      Not all Federal Agents are corrupt or on a power trip.
      Look at Mulder and Scully, they are very honest……..except when they aren’t.

  • Michael Haley

    I understand freedom. But sometimes you are stealing their freedom and privacy by putting a camera on them. When you take a photo of a DEA and post it publicly, the guys we pay them to catch (with our tax dollars) have the upper hand being able to better identify them.

    • JdL

      I understand freedom. But…

      But, evidently it has little or no value to you.

      …sometimes you are stealing their freedom and privacy by putting a camera on them.

      No one, not even a costumed government goon, has an expectation of privacy in public. As for “stealing their freedom”, please explain why this is not a complete non sequitur. They’re roaming around pointing their guns at anybody they please, throwing anybody they please into a cage. Sounds pretty free to me!

      … the guys we pay them to catch (with our tax dollars) have the upper hand being able to better identify them.

      Boo hoo! The drug war is supported only by Statists (people who believe the government should control every microscopic aspect of our lives). I’m a sworn enemy of Statism. Therefore, I celebrate every time an undercover drug cop is outed.

      Interfering with the investigation of a REAL crime (murder, rape, theft) I’d feel bad about. Assuming it was actual interference, not just some cop whining because he doesn’t want to be recorded.

      • Michael Haley

        lol, the taxpayers dollars thing was the argument from the guy in the video. Funny how murder, rape, theft are important to you. But drug pushing (including to little kids that don’t know better) well, that’s OK with you? Or are there lines. Just answer this yes or no: Should we let people push illegal drugs like crack on little kids?

        • as

          Drug pushing is only a thing because there’s a black market for drugs.

          • Michael Haley

            So is that a yes or a no?

          • Anonymous

            Why should I care about your children if you are not properly supervising them to keep guys with drugs away from them? How many of your parental responsibilities are you going to push off on to everyone around you? Why must I give up my civil liberties to protect your offspring when you are not willing to do the job?

        • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

          The drugs came about because of the CIA. Heavens, are you not educated in history????
          This is easy to research for oneself. Google Scholar contains a lot of good information.
          As for pushing drugs to little kids that don’t know better, let’s talk about cigarettes and the REAL gateway drug, alcohol. We subsize those people with our tax dollars; alcohol kills FIVE TIMES over, more than all illegal drugs combined.
          I’m for legalization of ALL drugs. As incarceration doesn’t take the addiction out of the addict.

          • Michael Haley

            So was that a yes or a no?

          • RaymondbyEllis

            MH,

            Yes and no, because your question has nothing to do with it other than “think of the children”, an emotional plea that leads to all sorts of stupid actions. So to “think of the children” we should never photograph or videorecord police? Is that your stance? Yes or no? (See how silly it becomes?)

            CPW,

            The Hague Conference on opium was 1912. The CIA was founded in 1947. This issue goes back well before the CIA, however much you believe the CIA flooded the US with opiates to support the Cold War. The first laws on opiates was in CA, IIRC, but even if I don’t, it was 1891 and obviously against the Chinese.

            I’m not arguing against your call to legalizing all drugs, though I prefer decriminalizing them, if it can be shown the overall cost to society is lower. Portugal currently seems to find it is, but Switzerland didn’t. The Netherlands is just now getting pissy about tourists.

            Unfortunately, economists are the best to determine the cost with out moralizing, so we’ll likely never listen to them. When William F. Buckley came out for legalizing at least some drugs, that was a watershed for me. He spoke directly to the real costs to society beyond the moralistic.

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            Don’t forget the Boxer war with China.
            It’s been documented that the CIA flooded the streets with heroin, to further the mujahedeen when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, that cursed place for foreigners.
            We also had a flood of crack cocaine that mysteriously appeared on the streets of LA and other densely populated areas.
            I don’t care one whit about the “morality” and I cannot count how many times I’ve heard this or that will never become legal, yet society has seen these changes happen. I’m not Christian, I’m a scientist. Not a folklorist. I do know that I’ve seen pot become legal in some states, I’m pretty sure that more will follow. I’ve seen gay marriage become legal, as it should have been all along. I’ve seen the Bill of Rights decimated before my eyes.

            I’m 51, closer to 52, than not, and I lived through some of this.
            I am aware that the OSS preceded the CIA. I am also not wearing blinders. Allen Dulles was an effective dog of war.
            I hear some pretty interesting things on the crisis lines. Cause I do the military lines, too. There are quite a few Viet Nam vets that would very much disagree with you regarding the CIA.
            Never been a fan of William S. Buckley. Nor Barry Goldwater.
            There is a lot of American history, contemporary history, that one might want to research.
            As for the cost, how much do you think it costs the foster care system? How about the cost to incarcerate a drug addict? It’s WAAAY cheaper to treat them than to incarcerate them.
            None of them want to be addicts.
            One should try some volunteer time with that demographic. Quite illuminating.

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            Oh dear! Another try at weaseling out of the issue! I had that kind of concrete thinking trained out of my kids by adolescence. I’ll try to match your level of cognition…
            Am I for drug legalization? Yes, I am. We’ve done that dance in my family. 17 years of it with my oldest kid.
            Guess what I learned? That it doesn’t work to prohibit drugs.
            I have creds. I know, from real life, that you seem to miss, that the drug war was about control and racism. Not about little kids.
            Besides, why are you not making sure your kid isn’t exposed? Mine was out of the house and 19, when she started.
            I also have this thing called an education, with a special emphasis on neuroscience and behavior.
            Because of that, and the volunteer work I do on the suicide prevention lines, that addiction is not ended by legislation. One cannot legislate brain chemistry.
            Just not happening.
            We know that addiction has much to do with gene expression and that environment causes genes to express in different ways in order to be able to allow the organism, from bacteria to us, to adapt to our environments. This process can turn genes on down to the fourth generation.
            It’s all out there. I paid a ton o’ money for my education, so you can go research it on yer own.
            If you are not one of my clients, then no free therapy here….

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          MH, I note that your response is heavy on fallacy, but lacking any useful substance. Given such responses, why would you expect anyone to take you seriously?

    • rightytighty

      “……the guys we pay them to catch….” Actually, I didn’t “pay” them. I had my money confiscated to support all kinds of things *I* don’t support. Like, having Rambo-wanabees threaten some people harmlessly smoking dope. Let’s keep the druggies and get rid of the bullying, brutal, law-breaking cops.

    • bj

      ‘Stealing their freedom and privacy’?
      How, exactly? I’d love to hear your explanation.

      As for a photograph giving a criminal the upper hand, again, I ask how? Do you think dealers constantly scan the Internet for agents who might operate in their state and local area? And if such an unlikely thing happened – ‘I know that agent, I saw him on a video on the net’ – would that matter, when the agent has a very large gun and a uniform identifying he’s an agent?

      Your arguments don’t make sense and ignore the established legal right of citizens to photograph / video government officials.

      • Michael Haley

        Sometimes DEA are hanging out in the same bars and clubs as those they are following. In such a place, it only takes one to say – that guys DEA! No, they don’t go into bars with very large guns and uniforms identifying they are agents when they are undercover. The uniform would defeat the purpose.

        • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

          They knew that when they took the job. Whether you or they don’t like it, it is the law of the land that we who pay for them can photograph or film them.

          • Michael Haley

            And your mother (if you have one) knows that I can film her in public. She should know that because she lives here. Whether you or she doesn’t like it… is is the law of the land. So should I put video of her in public on the internet (again, if she exists)?

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            Why do you assume I don’t have a mother? What a strange attempt at an insult! Sure, go film the old girl!
            She lives in Wasilla, AK. I’m sure she’d LOVE to have you!
            I am pretty amused that you think this is a winning argument on your part. It’s not.
            Go ahead…film it and post it. I don’t care.

          • Michael Haley

            Because my mother is dead… and for all I knew yours was too. I didn’t intend to insult you. Sorry if it didn’t make sense.

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            OK. That makes more sense. One of the troubles of internet communication; no prosody, no body language, none of the paralinguistics we use to communicate. That’s why a lot of internet communications go bad.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            It didn’t, but your explanation clarifies it.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            I had considered commenting to you up the thread, but thought this the better place. You’re social mores just have no bearing, nor do your worries about DEA agents unless there is an overriding law. Let me explain this to you very simply, if it isn’t against the law no police agent has any say. None.

            You don’t want LE agents making up law as they go, do you? Would you like her mother doing the same? If an LE agent can make up law as he goes along, shouldn’t your mother be able to do the same? (The alive or dead has no bearing in a hypothetical. My mother died last year; the woman that raised me and is my real mother died 43 years ago this year. It has no bearing.)

            CPW,

            So an Alaskan. I remember seeing pot plants in the windows of homes on Kodiak, Sitka, and Seward back in the 70s. I believe that has changed?

            I do care about humiliating videos on YouTube, but I can only deplore them. I have no right to stop them, and the police have no power to stop them.

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            Oh yeah, I was in Anchorage during 1984 and there were pot plants in the windows there.
            I also don’t like to see people humiliated on Youtube, either. I see that as very different from this particular context though.
            I understand AK is one of the states that has the medical marijuana program.
            I sure wish the Obama administration would find something else to do besides bust these people. Just legalize, regulate and tax.

        • bj

          And how are the agents’ freedom and privacy ‘stolen’ by citizens exercisingtheir rights?

          To respond to your point, if the identity of undercover agents is paramount then they should not operate in a uniformedcapacity.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            “And how are the agents’ freedom and privacy ‘stolen’ by citizens exercising their rights?” They weren’t, but people have funny ideas about freedom and privacy.

        • Clark

          Ok, then in that case, all property surveillance equpment must be immediately removed, and all footage destroyed. Afterall, we wouldn’t want footage of a DEA agent anywhere now would we?

    • Jack Brown

      Jesus Christ. Why don’t you go the whole nine yards and claim taking photos steals their souls, as well?

      • Michael Haley

        That would be silly – they can’t compete for souls with the one whose name you took in vain.

        • RaymondbyEllis

          Perhaps he’s not a Christian? Buddhists can be real nasty about Christ, Mohammed, or Moses; if you’re not a Christian you can’t take his name in vain no matter how hard you try.

          Abrahamics though can be real nasty about each other.

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

          If one believes in revealed religions that would be germane, but it’s not to those that don’t.

          If you are going to insist on logic from the others here, you should apply it to your own posts.

    • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

      They were in a public place, the street. Therefore, they have no expectation of privacy. Period.
      Cops are not having their freedom stolen from them by being public servants performing duties in a public place.
      If they do not like being photographed, they should find a new career path. Seriously.
      I would prefer the war on drugs, which was actually from the Nixon administration in order to be able to crackdown on Viet Nam war protestors.
      You do not understand freedom, in any sense, if you are for the taking of that camera.

      • Michael Haley

        I did not say I am for taking the camera. But the guy that was holding the camera… what was his purpose? What was his agenda? What a pointless and offensive waste.

        • as

          His purpose? His agenda? It doesn’t matter. The 1st Amendment…come on, man. Freedom of the Press.

        • Cromwell

          “What was his purpose?”
          Are you an alien from Star Trek?
          How about none of your fing business. Officer Haley please go get a juice box, burp yourself and then take a nap. You sound cranky.

        • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

          It may be offensive to you, but it sure is not to me. He was filming them because they are employees of We, the People. The photographer is one of the employing, We, the People.
          He was filming the people that he pays for. If they had nothing to hide, as they keep telling us, then no fears on their part.
          Besides, this has been dealt with in the courts; the courts said it is legal for us to film cops.
          We used to have a vigorous democracy and part of that is a viable, and objective, Fourth Estate. We no longer have that part of the check and balance system. The news outlets are owned by only six different entities. Those entities do not report on what they used to. Now it’s all fluff. Kardashian nonsense in order to distract from the militarization of our police forces. That we pay for.
          This may not be newsworthy to you, but that is pretty much just you.
          I’m very interested.

          • Michael Haley

            “Besides, this has been dealt with in the courts; the courts said it is legal for us to film cops”

            Is that the best logic you have? It is legal, therefore he should do it?

            Regarding the newsworthy stuff that he was filming… where is it? where is the story? The only thing I saw was a flip flop wearing guy with a camera trying to annoy someone. He never reported on anything. He isn’t filling in the gap for the tv and news reporters. He was trying to create news, not report it. Wake up.

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            Eyebrow raised…
            You sound like one of my grandsons trying to weasel out of a bad statement.
            YOU are the one sleeping, my dear man.
            You are the one that needs a drastic wake up call, as you are for the decimation of civil rights.
            Like it or not, we do have a legal right to film them, and I say, YES! We DO need to keep the cops honest. Why do you have a problem with that?
            Why are YOU so ready to shred the Bill of Rights?
            Yes, he was and is, filling in a continental sized gap in the Fourth Estate.
            I feel sorry for you.
            I really do. Ignorance is not bliss, it is a ticket to being a victim. You may enjoy that state, but I sure do not.

          • Phillip D Breske

            ALL the videos of the Boston bombing were “not newsworthy” until the bomb exploded. All of a sudden, those videos were not only newsworthy, but also extremely important as evidence in the case against the bombers.

            Who’s to say this video wasn’t going to show a crime in progress? Can you say with one hundred percent certainty that the first few minutes of a boring video will not turn into the next Rodney King evidence?

            Virtually all of the videos we see on this site and YouTube that show details of police abuse of power start out as a boring video by someone recording police activity, then turn into the cops abusing, intimidating, arresting, beating, and sometimes killing the people who are recording. According to you, those people should have just left their cameras at home because nothing was happening.

          • steveo

            I wonder if Abraham Zapruder thought that he would be filming the most famous and important 27 seconds in amateur film making history that morning.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            Yeah, but that would have been wrong if Houston cops were arresting people during the Procession.. /sarc

          • steveo

            yeah, they said the same stuff about Larry Flynt. All of his censors are dead and Larry makes about 200 million a year. He called the Supreme Court 8 axxholes and a token cxxt and won his case 9-0. Let’s see, what was Larry’s agenda…..showing alot of naked women with their legs spread? What purpose is that?

          • Dan Matthews

            probably educational.

            They just didn’t like his cartoons.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            No, it’s legal therefore the LE agent should do nothing. It doesn’t matter why he the citizen did it. It doesn’t. Nada, zilch, zip. To repeat, if it is legal the LE has no say. Period. It doesn’t matter whether it offends you (frankly, you’re offending me) or the LE agent. If it’s legal, the agent has no say.

            Really, don’t you understand you are arguing for the Rule of Man not the Rule of Law?

            (I added “the citizen ” for clarity, and “really,…” for clarity and adamancy.)

          • Dan Matthews

            You are getting way to deep into this. Do you see a government agent behind every bush? Sweep your home and workplace for bugs?
            “I want to believe” but “Trust no one.”

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            Eyebrow raised again! Twice on one thread! It’s funny how you go after the female and let the guys off scott free. Hmn…Bad luck though. I’m not going to run and cry because a mean boy tried to prove he’s superior…
            An interesting insult!
            I’ll play:
            You are a devotee of Ayn Rand as well as a bit paranoid. It is kinda interesting that you have a problem with someone taking a legal photo. At least that’s my take with just as little information about you as you have about me.
            This is a fun game! Your turn!

        • steveo

          Yeah, leos should be in charge of the Ministry of Censorship. That would make our lives a lot safer.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            It would make their lives easier. Think of their children, if we could spare even one from watching their father/mother being an ass, wouldn’t it be worth it?

        • Phred

          The law does not require us to have a purpose just to take a photo.

    • R.R.

      Clearly you DON’T understand freedom, then.
      Here’s a tip, they are CIVIL SERVANTS. They work IN THE VIEW OF THE PUBLIC EYE.
      There is NO LAW or STATUTE, ANYWHERE, that says that a Citizen cannot photograph or videotape an officer on duty.

      Cops have camera’s on their cruisers, THEY videotape US all the time WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. They have no such immunity from having the camera turned on them.

      WAKE UP

      • Michael Haley

        Finally a comment that makes sense.

        • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

          This was explained to you in the upper part of the thread.

          • Michael Haley

            Colleen, there may be comments up there that discuss this, but they have other things in them that most sane people would disagree with. That is why I said this one makes sense. I was referring to the whole comment. I can agree with small parts of the other comments. Ex. You are free to video these guys – yes… therefore we should – no. It’s an illogical conclusion. It would be legal for me to video your mother in public. But that doesn’t mean I should.

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            Yawn…
            We are all under surveillance in public, even my dead grandma. All of ‘em. Including you. You said this one makes sense because you got disagreed with in that upper thread and you are desperately trying to back pedal.
            Since I have no expectation of privacy in public, feel free. I live in Portland, Oregon. I’ll be expecting you.

          • RaymondbyEllis

            So you’re trained in the DSM now? I see you as advocating Rule of Man in your comments, I don’t consider that politically sane, but it isn’t mentally insane. “that most sane people would disagree with..” is more a refuge for scoundrels.

    • Difster

      You are a complete flucking idiot.

      • tiny

        yes he is, and MOON has one letter missing from his name! an R. bully with a gun and badge is all them scumbags are!

    • steveo

      what difference does it make if you take a picture of them. Like the Chinese say, “They all look alike to me.”

      • RaymondbyEllis

        Also a reference to early American immigration laws. You know most Slavic Jews, and many West European Jews were found to be intellectually deficient by that same measure.

    • Difdi

      Can you point to where it says in the constitution that a public official has a right to privacy in a public place that overrides the first amendment?

    • Buckethead80

      Good. That organization profits from turning non violent people into criminals and shouldn’t exist anyway.

  • JdL

    The Orwellian double-speak is reaching a crescendo. Before it’s finished, we’ll hear government thugs describing how they had to kill someone to keep him safe. It’s getting more surreal than the Vietnam-era expression, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Back then, I was foolish enough to believe it wouldn’t get any worse!

    • Difdi

      It has already happened, you know. People have been shot to death to prevent them from committing suicide.

      • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

        Yessirree, they sure have! In fact, Portland, Oregon, the darling of the Cops series, shoots the mentally ill first. Thus far, they’ve had to pay out millions because of cops that shoot to stop suicide; in point of fact, the DOJ has investigated PPD and they were found to be brutal and murderous.

  • pete

    am i the only one who can’t get this video to play? I’m using the latest Flash plug in….

  • Jarid Moon

    What a flip flop wearing moron. No one from the government threatened to shoot him or harm him in any way. The officer had already told him a few time what to do, that part was left off the tape. He said if he didn’t leave the area he could get shot by some of the “Bad Guys” that were in the building.

    • JdL

      The officer had already told him a few time what to do

      And if an “officer” tells a citizen what to do, that citizen should just say “Yessir!”, is that right? Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

      • RaymondbyEllis

        If you want to keep your orbits intact, yes. It really isn’t the society I want to live in, but pragmitism has it’s points.

    • Cindy

      You are correct, Jarid. Nowhere in this video did the officer threaten to shoot him. I’m all for arguing beliefs, but come on people, at least use facts in your argument….not fabrication.

    • Difster

      He was not required to leave and he had every right to take pictures. It was a very thinly veiled threat to shoot him.

    • Michael Haley

      You are right, Jarid. but wasting your time here. Me too… what a waste of time. I’m done – not coming back.

      • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

        Nonsense. You’ve been responding to my posts after you posted this. You just got disagreed with and can’t handle that. You should not come to a site you don’t like, post stuff and not expect a response that is not in line with your agenda.

      • RaymondbyEllis

        Be a man for Shiva’s sake. We disagreed with you. You’re points were poorly formed. Learn from it rather than “I’m taking my marbles”.

        • Guest

          I’d like to see that too. Unfortunately, you’re more likely to see a “polite” bystander saying to cop, “what you’re doing is legal, but damn your a jerk.” Then try to walk away, but get thrown against a wall and arrested for contempt of cop.

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

      The DEA agent was using a line of BS. If he’s walking around outside like that, they already have the people secured.

  • realreform

    Cops are psycho these days.

  • Pádraig Pearse

    The DEA is even worse than the ATF. Both federal agencies out of control.

  • huecityvet1968

    I have worked all over the globe and in most cases in third world police states. We are rapidly falling into that category and what is scarier, our guys and gals are really heavily armed
    and most of the time well trained in urban combat. Citizens don’t stand much of
    a chance if Holder turns them loose on us. If you think they are heavy handed now, wait
    till they take the constitutional leach off their two legged pit bulls.

  • Michael Haley

    Thanks for all the love. I’m unsubscribing from this thread.

    • Phillip D Breske

      All is lost. My life is a joke. I shall take my own life after reading this news.

    • Cromwell

      Oh the humanity!

    • Pádraig Pearse

      Achtung! Narcissist must announce he’s leaving…

    • Jack Brown

      We know… you’ve got better things to do. Those boots aren’t going to lick themselves, you know.

    • RaymondbyEllis

      I didn’t know you could subscribe to a thread. If while you leave you find you’re a few marbles short, I’ll give you some of mine. I have some to spare.

      Really, just hang in there. Refine your argument, though it’ll be hard from where you started, and slog away.

    • Ron

      Oh grow up!

    • Buckethead80

      Ummm…who is Michael Haley?

  • john

    5 Bucks says they had the wrong house

    • bj

      censor those pesky cameras just in case!

  • dumbassesturn yourphone

    turn your phone asshole

  • steveo

    I knew this would pop up sooner than later. I wrote on the forums about a juvenile being arrested in FL observing a SWAT raid, being told to leave and he wouldn’t. The leos arrested him and charged him with obstruction. He wasn’t recording, but standing in a vacant lot, across the street, apparently lawfully present. The Appellant court upheld the conviction because the leo testified that that kid was “exciting the riot” . This apparently is a term that means that he was yelling to others to take some kind of action against the officers.

    In other cases, however, the courts have held that observing law enforcement action in public while the bystander is lawfullly present and at least 15-30 ft away from the crime scene is not obstruction (They never address the issue of a recording device or not). SWAT raids seem to have some kind of exemption. I kind of wish this guy would have held his ground on a sidewalk or something and kept recording. I would have.

    The issue of safety of the journalist has been ground over in the courts already. Journalists can determine their own level of safety and leos cannot determine that for them.

    • RaymondbyEllis

      All depends on whether there is a video or not, doesn’t it?

      • Dan Matthews

        I guess it depends on assuming they only have pistols and rifles, or some form of explosive.
        Even a meth lab can be dangerous.
        I’m not defending anyone, but both Waco and Ruby Ridge are examples of underestimating your adversaries.

        • Difdi

          Yeah, if citizens had realistically estimate the dangers, none of those cops would have survived either event.

          • Dan Matthews

            Part of the job.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rockinghorseguy Rockinghorseguy AnRockinghorse

            So, the others who were within 20 feet of this man weren’t in any danger, but HE was? I’m kinda thinking he was singled out because of his past history with the department. Just my opinion, of course.

          • Dan Matthews

            Reread my comment, I did not say that.
            I responded to Difdi’s comment about the possibility of the cops being killed. Being in harm’s way is part of their job.

          • TheFlashingScotsman

            Roger that. Misunderstood. Oh, just to keep things from getting confused, this is the other persona of Rocking Horse Guy.

          • Dan Matthews

            Roses are red
            Violets are blue
            I’m schizophrenic
            And so am I

            Runs in my family too!

          • TheFlashingScotsman

            Since I retired from my day job as a heavy equipment operator, I now have two jobs, both of which I dearly love. When I’m wearing The Rocking Horse Guy hat, I entertain people at various events by taking them for rides on giant rocking horses. With my Flashing Scotsman hat, I’m a photographer. Sometimes I wear both hats simultaneously, and things get really interesting.

        • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

          A meth lab can be dangerous??
          Those are downright explosions waiting to happen.
          That cop didn’t care one bit about anyone’s safety. If they had, that cop would have had better things to do than to go over there and harass that photographer.

          • Proud GrandPa

            What if the cop had said there is a meth lab here and advised the photog to stand across the street out of blast radius until it is made safe? That would probably protected human life and still allowed photography.
            .
            As it happened the SWAT team remained near the building, thus discrediting the likelihood of an explosion, and the LEO in this case demanded the end of photo taking. Just wondering how a lawyer might take this.
            .

          • Dan Matthews

            What if that cops assignment was to keep the perimeter clear and not be part of the no-knock entry team, hmmmmmm?

          • http://www.facebook.com/rockinghorseguy Rockinghorseguy AnRockinghorse

            In my reading of the article, I noticed that he said the SWAT team was walking out of the house, standing around, chatting, laughing. In my opinion, that would mean any possible danger was over with.

          • Dan Matthews

            One would think so, but it seems that the young man who posted the video may not have all his facts straight.

          • Dan Matthews

            “Those are downright explosions waiting to happen.”. No shit Sherlock!
            That was the point.

            He didn’t care about anyone’s safety? How about some winning LOTTO numbers there Ms. Mind Reader?
            Please tell us what his scene assignment was.

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            I have to ask, so I can frame my answer properly, but how old are you?
            I’ve noticed that your responses tend toward a 16 year old level.
            One doesn’t want to eviscerate a kid.

          • Dan Matthews

            That is because I was responding down to your level.

          • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

            OK, so 16 it is.
            Since you are that young, and the American history is not taught as it used to be, a bit of history is in order.
            We have this thing, called a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, which is about additions to our Constitution, called amendments.
            These amendments give Americans certain rights as Americans.
            One of them is the right to a free press, which we no longer have.
            A free press is a part of the checks and balances system that we used to have in America.
            America today is very different than it was pre-Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the president before George Herbert Walker Bush, the father of George W. Bush.
            Reagan and the conservative party have totalitarian leanings. A totalitarian government is one that does not allow free speech, or free assembly. That means the right to complain about the government and the right to protest things one does not agree with.
            The problem with the muzzling of a free press, is that it allows corruption to go unchecked.
            I would guess your history classes do not cover this stuff anymore.
            One can look this up, but when a totalitarian government takes over, there is progression to the take over.
            Generally, the intellectuals, the smart people, get imprisoned first. Then the artists, then the dissidents. The press is either muzzled or decimated outright.
            We, in America, are following a historical path that leads to fascism.
            I don’t have the room here, but you need to look up fascism on Google.
            Learn about Mussolini and the repression of a free press.
            The more you young people find out about what is not taught to you, the better.

          • Dan Matthews

            Any press in the Uniyed States is as free as the owners want it to be.
            If you want a press that is any more free, start one.

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

            Take off your blinders.

            Fascism is a product of the left. Mussolini was a member of the socialist party, a labor leader, and a journalist before he took power. Hitler took over a “socialist worker’s” party, again, a product of the left that was denounced by the right wing parties in Germany at the time.

            Even Hitler said he was a socialist.

            ”We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” Adolf Hitler, Speech, May 1, 1927.

            It pretty much follows what you see today. Using the IRS to target political enemies. Seizing phone records of the press. Seizing phone data for the entire nation. It didn’t start with Bush though.

            Hitler, like all leftists, wanted to redistribute wealth. He nationalized or obtained governmental control of private industries (much like the government “investment” in General Motors).

            Is that what you want them to learn?

  • Tijuana Joe

    Ya know, I don’t think we pay their salaries anymore.
    When you’re talking drug running goons like
    the CIA and DEA, they have become such rogue
    entities I think they’re by now self-sufficient.
    BTW Poor DEA, got his face exposed on the net
    for just 3 seconds of power-trippin’.

  • dagobarbz

    Haha, Qik for the win!

    • ColleenPatriciaWilliams

      Exactly! Programs like Qik should be on every smart phone!

      • n4zhg

        Qik doesn’t work on my new LG Optimus G

  • thebronze

    I wish people would learn how to use their fucking cell phone/camera if they’re going to do this shit…

  • Ted

    I think Mr. Virgil Văduva’s was had by someone that was not DEA! When you look back NO Local LE all unmarked cars and a moving van? A guy in blue coveralls ( home depot $30) with a thigh holster ( ebay $25) handcuffs (anywhere $15) sunglasses( $5 ) and a DEA hat ($10), didn’t see anyone with a badge on in the video…. I think a call to local law enforcement would have done great at that time Mr Văduva’s…. But I think this was
    guy acting like a DEA agent and fucking with you … or B/ Mr Văduva’s was in on it and its all staged….
    BTW love that tattoo Mr Văduva’s (Anonymous)

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.