September 3rd, 2013

Massachusetts Cop Threatens to Smash Camera into Man’s Face 839

By Carlos Miller

 

A Massachusetts cop threatened to smash a camera into a man’s face if he dared take one more photograph of her.

Instead, he started video recording her.

The video shows Barnstable police officer Gretchen Allen walking away from Robert Bastille, who runs a local news site called Hyannis News.

“You’re going to hit me?” Bastille can be heard saying. “I”m sorry, you’re going to threaten me, officer?”

“Are you trying to cause a scene right now cause I’ll arrest you for disorderly instead,” an obviously distraught Allen tells Bastille.

Instead of what?  Smashing the camera in his face?

According to Bastille, her exact words, which prompted him to turn on his video camera, were, “I swear… take one more photo and I’ll take that camera and smash it in your face.”

Barnstable police officer Gretchen Allen: “I swear… take one more photo and I’ll take that camera and smash it in your face.” Photo by Robert Bastille

Barnstable police officer Gretchen Allen: “I swear… take one more photo and I’ll take that camera and smash it in your face.” Photo by Robert Bastille

In the video, Bastille continues to berate her for threatening him, an allegation she never denies.

She instead calls for back-up and orders him to “stop taking my photograph.”

Meanwhile, some clueless wanker walks up and tells him to “be nice to the officer, be a gentleman.”

After a minute when it dawned on her that he was shooting video and not taking photos, she informed him that it was illegal to record her.

“Are you recording right now?” she asks.

“I am videotaping, which is within my Constitutional rights,” he responds.

“It most certainly is not,” he replies.

He then brings up the Glik vs. Boston landmark case, which not only took place in the same state, but established the citizens do have the right to record cops in public.

But that didn’t stop her from threatening to seize his camera “as evidence,” a threat which he also brushed off.

It is clear that Bastille knew the law and that Allen didn’t, even though she tries to berate him by pointing out that he is not a cop, so there is no way he can know the law better than her.

Lieutenant Michael Clark eventually arrived on the scene and straightened her out, according to Bastille’s write-up on the incident, where he goes to great lengths to explain he is not anti-cop.

But he doesn’t hesitate to state that Allen is not fit to be a cop, which anybody can see from this video.

Here is a synopsis of the incident from his write-up:

The patrol officer was inspecting a bag in plain view and I was naturally curious as to what was going on. When the severity of an investigation is unknown, it is the policy of Hyannis News to take several still photos of the action just in case it turns out to be something interesting.

I took my first photo and looked up. The officer was angry about something, but having an earplug for the scanner in one ear… I was unable to discern precisely what she was trying to say. I only sensed she was very angry.

I walked closer so I could hear, she told me she didn’t want her picture taken or placed on the internet in one of my stories. Her tone struck me as aggressive. She wasn’t requesting I withhold a photo as a courtesy for some good reason. She was basically ordering me not to take pictures of her whatsoever.

At this point I raised my camera and took another photo. The officer stopped, abruptly turned and said the following,“I swear… take one more photo and I’ll take that camera and smash it in your face.”

Lieutenant Micheal Clark arrived and removed the arresting/detaining officer from the scene. He took her around the corner of the building where they had a lengthy conversation.

My father arrived to check on me and told the two backup officers that in almost 50 years I had never ever been in trouble with the law… not once. My father was as confused and worried as I was about the way things were going.

Bottom line: The officer returned to the scene and with a tear in her eyes asked me if I was “happy.” I took that to mean she didn’t get the news she wanted. She was hoping she could charge me with felony wiretapping or something else.

 


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • VJ White

    Wow !!! The psycho from hell cop of the year !!! Thanks for sharing PINAC !!

    • Rayvaflave

      Seriously this is how it goes, I got in so much trouble asking a cop > Why you threating me? I haven’t done anything.
      So this type of thing is obviously not just with one cop lol. A lot of cops pull this tactic, Threaten you then if you are an aware individual and ask what the ?… they turn it on you .. typical cop tactic which gets So many people needlessly in trouble. GLAD SHE GOTA CAUGHT and I am GLAD he did not back down!. good looking out for the little guy!

    • john cokos

      Excuse me Officer, can you say “Official Oppression”? It’s a Federal Civil Right’s issue….

  • Bacon

    I am a staunch supporter of constitutional rights and know firsthand how some officers can become intoxicated with the power of their batch.

    That said watching the video I’m of the opinion that you pushed this situation farther than it had to be in other words I don’t think you handled it well. I’m not saying the officer was right I’m saying you were just as wrong

    • FlashingScotsman

      How so?

      • hazy

        The videographer followed the cop. That is generally not a good idea as it weakens your position if they arrest you.

        • Joe

          He followed the cop – What’s that mean – Follow a cop get arrested? Oh please, STOP! Why do you cops think that you’re all golden boys & girls and we the little folks should make may to the almighty? Screw that. She was a bitch, this photographer did NOTHING wrong and he pursued her because of the threat that she made. If he would have made that threat to her he would have been arrested. Someone please, please tell me why she should not be arrested for the same offense?

          • Fotaugrafee

            I love how “anyone who disagrees with my stance on the issue, or is not anti-cop” translates to “you cops”. Nice! #rollingeyes.

            Was there a need to chase down someone? I’m with this guy, she’s far from right, but he’s not doing himself or the movement any favors by following her & being a belligerent ass in the process.

          • Lorentz Factor

            I love having the right to be a belligerent asshole if I please. Welcome to America. Being an asshole, whether socially right or wrong, is well within our rights and we have EVERY right to complain if it results in a cop overstepping their bounds.

    • ConcernedPatriot

      The man defending your right to videotape “Public Servants” for your own protection was out of line? What happened to us? How did we turn into a bunch of spineless cowards. A Badge does NOT give anyone the right to violate ANYONE’S right. There is no debate. There is no argument. Quit standing up for cops who don’t know the constitution. Quit standing up for people who don’t care about your rights. Wake up!!!

      • Ron Smith

        I agree about being spineless cowards. Whats this about not being able to follow a cop? Should we also cross the street when we see one coming the other way? If we cant cross the street should we humbly bow and scrape as they go past (avoiding eye contact of course)?

  • Proud GrandPa

    Nowhere in the recording does the officer threaten to hit the photog. In fact twice the LEO denies making the threat.
    .
    The officer did err on at least one matter. She said the photog did not have a right to video her. The officer did not, however, seize the camera on the video or arrest the photog.
    .
    She wisely called for backup instead of making an unwise arrest. She detained the photog until she could get clarification about the law. Wise move!
    .
    When she learned that he was within his rights, she did not apologize. She evidently cried and dried her tears and asked about his being ‘happy’. I find that far better than an arrest, but not as good as an apology.
    .
    In my opinion she is fit to be an officer of the law. She learned from this and I see no reason to trouble her further. The rest of us should also.
    .
    As for her department they evidently know the law and respect our rights as evidenced by the super’s talk off camera.
    .
    Would hope the department will train its officers in photo rights to prevent future lawsuits. In all this turned out well.
    .
    The photog either erred or may have erred by interfering with an officer by standing too close to the officer at the scene. That is what caused this incident. We will never know because he failed to produce any evidence of what preceded this video. I suspect his account is true, but we will never know. Why not? One can only wonder. Maybe the photog was mistaken. Why not record before risking intrustion into a crime scene?
    .

    • Herbert Knapp

      ProudGrandpa, how has your experience of following the facebook groups treated you? I see you are still being an apologist… did you learn anything?

      • Amigajoe

        Details?

        • Proud GrandPa

          Yeah, I wondered the same thing myself. HKnapp makes several wild assumptions lacking any supporting evidence.
          .
          Have no idea what Herbert is writing about. He doesn’t either!
          .
          The video facts speak for themselves. Nowhere in the recording does the officer threaten to hit the photog. In fact twice the LEO denies making the threat.

          • Herbert Knapp

            ProudGrandpa, you said you would follow certain facebook groups that report police brutality and show the prevalent militarization of police force against the citizens of this country. You said you would observe these sites and facebook groups for two weeks because you “honestly” wanted to understand my point of view.

            It seems that not only didn’t you do it, you’re a mudslinger now.

            Well, good luck senile old man.

          • Proud GrandPa

            I understand your mistaken assumption now. I followed the websites you offered. I never followed them on Facebook.
            .
            Perhaps there were ensuing discussions on Facebook which are more illuminating that those on the websites, but based upon the content of the websites I find no need to read rants and complaining on Facebook too.
            .
            The websites you listed and expanded (three in total) collect a variety of examples of how police are (1) corrupt in some locations but not all, (2) arming themselves with surplus military weapons in response to better arms used by terrorists and gangs, and (3) part of plot to takeover the USA and the whole world.
            .
            As a devout believer in the Christian faith, I can tell you we also have our believers in less conventional theories. Let us love them all. God does.
            .
            I have replied and commented about these websites elsewhere on PINAC. My failure to comment on this thread was no disrespect to you. One can tell you sincerely believe something and want others to share your beliefs. Perhaps Carlos would allow you a blog on PINAC if your concerns about law enforcement also explains the anti-media or pro-mainline media bias in some police departments. Give it a try.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Herbert,
            .
            I understand your mistaken assumption now. I followed the websites you offered. I never followed them on Facebook.
            .
            Perhaps there were ensuing discussions on Facebook which are more illuminating that those on the websites, but based upon the content of the websites I find no need to read rants and complaining on Facebook too.
            .
            The websites you listed and expanded (three in total) collect a variety of examples of how police are (1) corrupt in some locations but not all, (2) arming themselves with surplus military weapons in response to better arms used by terrorists and gangs, and (3) part of plot to takeover the USA and the whole world.
            .
            As a devout believer in the Christian faith, I can tell you we also have our believers in less conventional theories. Let us love them all. God does.
            .
            I have replied and commented about these websites elsewhere on PINAC. My failure to comment on this thread was no disrespect to you. One can tell you sincerely believe something and want others to share your beliefs. Perhaps Carlos would allow you a blog on PINAC if your concerns about law enforcement also explains the anti-media or pro-mainline media bias in some police departments. Give it a try.

          • ConcernedPatriot

            Why don’t prove him wrong grandpa? Oh yea, you can’t!

          • Kellen Lawler

            Enough of the god shit

    • Nemo

      “Nowhere in the recording does the officer threaten to hit the photog. In fact twice the LEO denies making the threat.”

      Default conclusion by Gramps here: “Cops never lie, therefore the photog must be lying.” Not stated, but definitely implied.

      Shall we dig up links of cops perjuring themselves, or do we also need evidence of cops framing innocent people and lying on official reports, as well?

      Of course she denied threatening him, while she was being filmed. Duh. The photog, on the other hand was filming for some reason. Why did he switch from stills to video? A total set-up? I think not. The most probable reason for him to have switched from stills to video was because this cop did or said something that caused him to feel it necessary to document the encounter.

      While it is possible that the photog was running a “set-up” (just as it is possible that the cop shown routinely roughs up detainees, when not on camera), to conclude that without evidence shows bias, both for the cops and against the citizens that ought to serve.

      Considering that the cop was utterly ignorant of the Law regarding photography in public, not just misunderstanding the Constitution, but apparently mistakenly believing that cops can forbid photography on public-accessible private property, as well, I’d say that the scale of truth tilts against her, until proven otherwise. Those incorrert assumptions regarding the law would account for her being all worked up, and thus make her having threatened him more likely than him lying about it, especially when coupled with the fact that he converted to motion from stills, after the alleged threat.

      • Nemo

        Corrections: “that cops can forbid photography on public-accessible private property” *simply on a whim*. Cops can, of course, forbid photography in ways and manners prescribed by law, but I suspect that doesn’t include “I don’t want to be photographed”.

        Also “to conclude that *he was doing so,* without evidence…”

      • Farid @ Idaho

        You are 100% correct.

        If police like and twist the Constitution regarding little things like being video taped, imagine what they do when it’s a big deal, rape, murder, assault.

        Many people on the original website took the side of the officer because the photographer “hassled” her.

        All that matters is the Constitution allows us to hassle them if we want to within certain parameters. The rest of it doesn’t matter.

        Imagine what would have happened if the officer had said, “Recording me? That’s fine. Is there anything I can do for you?”

        It would have been over and done in 15 seconds.

        What drives me crazy is if this type of “customer service” happened in Wal Mart or your local grocery store, that person would have been fired in 30 seconds.

        But police–and most public officials–are impervious to complaints.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Thanks for the engaging analysis, Nemo. You point out two examples of jumping to conclusions which you attribute to me. I reviewed my original post and did not find either were conclusions, just possibilities.
        .
        I pointed these out as an antidote to the expected knee-jerk anti-LEO bias of some others.
        .
        Here is good advice for reviewing any video: How would a DA or judge and jury weigh the evidence? I usually take the most critical view favoring the accused whether it be police officers or photogs.
        .
        Your final conclusion is also my personal one. You wrote, “I’d say that the scale of truth tilts against her, until proven otherwise. Those incorre[c]t assumptions regarding the law would account for her being all worked up, and thus make her having threatened him more likely…”
        .
        I agree with you. Nothing in this conclusion is evidence in court, but might be part of an attorney’s argument. Either way her crying is not evidence she is unsuitable to be a police officer as some others (not you, Nemo) has concluded.
        .
        Thanks for your reply.

    • Christine

      No maybe the Reporter was taking pics for his News story and the Officer started her Mental Fit and threatened to bash his face in so he started video recording.Make Sense now???

    • crazyassmofo

      In your analysis gramps you tend to be an apologist for the cop and more invalidating or blaming of the photog by citing a lack of evidence on video.
      But then you create and insinuate even further and wider speculations as to what may have happened, in your own mind, to justify the cop’s behavior.
      You can’t have it both ways…unless you are bipolar.
      So let’s drop the he said, she said or what may have happened analysis for a moment.

      Let’s look at what the video does tell.

      The cop never arrests the photog journalist.
      Why?
      The photog never broke the law…obviously.

      What the video does clearly indicate more than anything else…

      This cop is clearly not in control of her emotions, herself or the situation. And this lack of professionalism and self-control is extremely expressed and apparent over someone just lawfully taking her picture or recording…not even a criminal matter. If she can’t keep her cool and conduct herself in a sane manner in this type of a situation, then imagine how much of an unreliable loose cannon she is in a more serious situation that a cop may encounter on the job dealing with real criminals.

      She is a serious liability. It is good she called back-up to help her just before her nervous breakdown.

      Now as an aside speculation let me examine what may be going on here as a cop may suspiciously examine and question a member of the public…

      Maybe she was aggressive and emotional because of what may have been in her bag. A couple kilos of blow that she just sampled herself…explaining her behavior. Or a pile of protection money that she has extorted and collected from all the local drug dealers and business owners. Maybe she is calling backup because that is her superior she is supposed to hand off the drugs and money to take back to the station and she is nervous because she knows she is doing wrong and is subverting her conscience for the sake of money and promotion.
      Gee officer, you are acting very aggressive and emotional?
      Your eyes are all glassy and red. Have you been crying? Or are you on dope?
      What do you have in your bag? Any drugs?
      I think I smell marijuana.
      Do you mind if I look in your bag officer?
      What have you got to hide?
      You could be a terrorist?
      Could be a bomb in there.
      You could be impersonating an officer…a perfect cover for elicit activities. Do you have some ID?

      See how it works grandpa when I am shining the light in your eyes?

      • Christine

        Crazyassmofo I guess you put Grampa in his place lol

      • Proud GrandPa

        CA, Thanks for an interesting analysis of the video and thoughtful critique.
        .
        I agree I often defend the LEOs in these videos. In this case I pointed out the lack of credible evidence and offer other possibilities as do you in your post.
        .
        I examine evidence and lack of evidence in a light most favorable to the accused, which on PINAC seems to be police officers. I put my own civil rights causes through the same test and am equally strict. Sometimes the accused is really in the wrong and there is evidence to justify the accusation. Sometimes the accused may or may not be wrong, but the evidence is unclear or inconclusive. That is what we have here.
        .
        What we have is a good video for discussion and speculation, but not for trial. I believe the most likely interpretation is that the cop did say or do something in response to the photog. Was he too close or interfering? Was she overreacting? See my original post, which pointed out the lack of evidence.
        .
        Thanks for a good discussion.

        • Kellen Lawler

          If he was interfering…. is there any qieustion she would not have arrested him? I think not. So evidently he was NOT interfering.

    • bj

      Yeah GrandPa, “In all this turned out well.” For whom? The photographer falsely detained and threatened with unlawful seizure of his property? Did it turn out well for him? If you honestly think it did then you have a very elementary understanding of the limits of government in the (free) United States. And as for not troubling her any further, in your words, reform does not come easily. It’s an ongoing struggle and it requires vigilance. Fair enough if you have other priorities or causes but you have no rightful place telling others that they should drop the issue. You have shown your true colours in that post.

    • Fotaugrafee

      Duh, anything is better than an illegal arrest. But a cop knowing her job & what NOT to do/say goes a lot further than her flying off the handle, too.

    • rayvaflave

      ..wt.. you a cop or something? the excuses listed here.
      She committed a crime in the beginning by threating to cause bodily harm.
      If it was a normal civie they would be in a bit of trouble. Also, it as no beqaring how long this guy followed her after making the threat,. Clearly she was guilty. Non admittance is just as good.
      Even when she thinks about it later she knows she was worng.
      And balligerant? this guy never once insulted her, no name caling, hadn’t even insulted the police force.

      Sure he could of stayed a bit on topic, but in the end the result is the same,. SHE committed the crime. And everyone wants to jump on the dude with the camera? typical over analyze the situation so the cop comes out on top. Typical tactic again. The BOTTOM line is SHE COMMITTEDD a crime!
      and nobody did anything except the guy with the camera, Nobody not even another cop shows up and says What happened. The guy with camera is No matter how you FEEL is still within his rights despite how you FEEL. cop lovers suck when they pull crap like this.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Ray,
        Allow a mass quote and comment please.

        >>> you a cop or something?

        Nope, but I played one on television. Seriously I like police and respect them. In fact I respect lawyers, judges, and politicians too. As a devout Christian I also respect atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews. I even mentally consider pros and cons of how to defend those who persecute my fellow believers. I feel pity upon the accused and interpret evidence most favorable to them.

        >>> She committed a crime in the beginning by threating to cause bodily harm.

        We have no evidence that she committed a crime. Did she not deny having made any threats?

        >>> Also, it as no beqaring how long this guy followed her

        Ray, would you explain this? Thanks.

        >>> Clearly she was guilty. Non admittance is just as good.

        Ray, where did you get your law degree? Are you perchance from the UK where the refusal to answer questions is admissible as evidence against the accused?

        >>> Even when she thinks about it later she knows she was worng.

        Ray, I failed mind-reading in school. How do you know what she thinks? Bottle it become a billionaire.

        >>> And balligerant? this guy never once insulted her, no name caling, hadn’t even insulted the police force.

        Ray, the video speaks for itself. In the USA a citizen is allowed to insult the police etc. At issue is whether something happened either before the video or in the video that justified detention. She thought so. She detained him and called for supervisor. Was anything in his behavior sufficient to justify detention until she could get advice from a supervisor?
        .
        Thanks for your comments.

        • Kellen Lawler

          >>> Clearly she was guilty. Non admittance is just as good.

          Ray, where did you get your law degree? Are you perchance from the
          UK where the refusal to answer questions is admissible as evidence
          against the accused? Gramps you might want to brush up on a recent SCOTUS ruling. http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want-to-claim-the-fifth/

          A police officer is
          asking you questions about a crime, and because the questions are off
          the record you answer willingly. Then, the questions take an accusatory
          tone and you stop answering. The Fifth Amendment, which allows a person
          not to present criminal evidence against themselves, surely protects you
          in this moment right?

          Wrong.

          Amid the slew of decision being churned out by the Supreme Court right
          now was a ruling in last week’s Salinas v. Texas. Genovevo Salinas had
          not been arrested, so he felt comfortable answering the police’s
          questions voluntarily. However, once a question made him uncomfortable
          he stopped responding. The police used Salinas’ silence in court to
          signify a confession of guilt.

          Salinas then brought suit against the state of Texas based on the fact
          that a person could not be incriminated for silence, nor could the use
          of the Fifth Amendment be used as evidence against a person. The
          question posed in the petition to the Supreme Court reads:

          Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s
          Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law
          enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda
          rights.

          The Supreme Court ruled against Salinas in a 5-4 vote because they
          claimed that Salinas did not make clear during questioning that he was
          utilizing the Fifth Amendment. In the words of scotusblog:

          The prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question
          as evidence of his guilt at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment
          because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to
          incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.

          Read more at: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/supreme-court-salinas-silence-fifth-amendment/
          A police officer is
          asking you questions about a crime, and because the questions are off
          the record you answer willingly. Then, the questions take an accusatory
          tone and you stop answering. The Fifth Amendment, which allows a person
          not to present criminal evidence against themselves, surely protects you
          in this moment right?

          Wrong.

          Amid the slew of decision being churned out by the Supreme Court right
          now was a ruling in last week’s Salinas v. Texas. Genovevo Salinas had
          not been arrested, so he felt comfortable answering the police’s
          questions voluntarily. However, once a question made him uncomfortable
          he stopped responding. The police used Salinas’ silence in court to
          signify a confession of guilt.

          Salinas then brought suit against the state of Texas based on the fact
          that a person could not be incriminated for silence, nor could the use
          of the Fifth Amendment be used as evidence against a person. The
          question posed in the petition to the Supreme Court reads:

          Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s
          Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law
          enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda
          rights.

          The Supreme Court ruled against Salinas in a 5-4 vote because they
          claimed that Salinas did not make clear during questioning that he was
          utilizing the Fifth Amendment. In the words of scotusblog:

          The prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question
          as evidence of his guilt at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment
          because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to
          incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.

          Read more at: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/06/supreme-court-salinas-silence-fifth-amendment/

          • Proud GrandPa

            Thanks for the information. It seems the conclusion offered in the blog does not follow from the facts of the case. The 5th Amendment still applies WHEN INVOKED. Pardon my use of caps for emphasis.

            .

            Read this again…

            The Supreme Court ruled against Salinas in a 5-4 vote because they
            claimed that Salinas did not make clear during questioning that he was
            utilizing the Fifth Amendment. In the words of scotusblog:

            You see, had Salinas clearly invoked then he would have prevailed. The rule is one must clearly invoke one’s rights. I don’t see that as setting aside the 5th Amendment.
            .
            Thanks for good information and thoughtful reply.

        • http://withinthismind.com/ WithinThisMind

          — I also respect atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews.—

          Liar

    • John Cokos

      I just stopped laughing my ass off. She cried?

    • Difdi

      It’s quite common for criminals to deny that they committed a crime — does that mean police and the general public should take their word for it?

      Threatening an unlawful act in an attempt to discourage someone from engaging in lawful behavior is extortion/coercion whether they actually follow through on the threat or not. The only difference is the length of the prison sentence, not whether they get one.

      Additionally, making threats to use your authority under color of law to violate rights is a federal crime. Anyone can commit this one, but it’s easier for public officials like cops to trip over. Doing so with threat of dangerous weapon or with backup is a felony.

      If a citizen makes a citizen’s arrest in error, they are typically charged with a crime. If ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it, why is it that police (who have MORE training in the law than the average private citizen) are excused for ignorance?

      She may have learned from her mistake, but if she had been properly trained (even to the standard a non-police officer is expected to meet) she wouldn’t have made the mistake at all. I’m not a cop, but I read news that impacts my profession. Usually, if I make a mistake in my profession I am not facing prison the way cops easily can be.

      Supposedly the photographer didn’t think there’d be a problem with his behavior, since there has never been one before. He wasn’t recording until after she threatened him because he didn’t think he’d need to. You can’t betray a trust (public or private) if you’re not trusted, after all.

  • http://photographyisnotacrime.com/members/carlos/ Carlos Miller

    He was taking photos, which was why he not recording. And he apparently has a comfort zone in taking photos in that town without getting threatened, so he was not prepared as some of us would be.

    • Difdi

      You can’t betray someone unless they trust you. With a little less trust, we’d have video of the entire encounter, not just the end of it. There’s a lesson in there.

  • Not a Crybaby

    Gretchen you fucking CUNT. Who the HELL do you think you are threatening someone with bodily harm because you have a badge. You are unfit to be a cop, and just because your able to give your little stink trap a trim to look like Hitler doesn’t mean you can run around acting like a GOD DAMN GUSTAPO !

    Now look at you, you are a Barnstable EEO hired women cop that cry’s when told you’re a fuck up by your bosses. Your peers and the general public are laughing at you.

    • burt

      Not a Crybaby don’t use a word you have never done F* or a word you have never seen CU*

      • Urbud

        Butt
        Ugly
        Rectal
        Turd
        Whats it spell?

  • Herbert Knapp

    All comments are moderator approved? Are you CNN? Wow Carlos. Go back to Disqus.

    • http://photographyisnotacrime.com/members/carlos/ Carlos Miller

      Wow, Herbert. These things happen when you switch hosts, among other things. I’m still trying to get everything back to normal.

      • Herbert Knapp

        Sorry, I thought this was intentional. Coulda posted something! I bet you did and I missed it. Again, apologies.

      • Buspass

        I used to visit a lot but my visits have decreased because something has happened to this website and it doesn’t work right anymore. I get error messages, I can’t see some of my old posts, and for a while I couldn’t see any posts newer than April.

        Your work is good, but this is annoying. I’ll be leaving this alone for a while until this becomes a usable website again.

        Thanks for your work, Carlos.

        • bj

          Me also, Buspass. A few days ago I couldn’t see the site at all, then only back issues.
          Can’t be easy running on the smell of an oily rag, Carlos. Full credit to you for keeping it running.

          • Proud GrandPa

            What? You mean all those “new” threads dated from the year 2015 were errors? And here I thought Carlos had tapped into a time machine. What a news scoop for PINAC.
            .
            On the positive side maybe in 2015 LEOs will all be properly trained in photog rights, so there won’t be stories for PINAC anymore.
            .

          • Difdi

            We can only hope. But I doubt it, given current trends.

    • Fotaugrafee

      Hear, hear!! What he said. I notice they don’t have Disqus on this new setup, what gives? And no “LIKE” button, either! :(

  • Amigajoe

    So cops crying when they don’t get their way makes them ‘fit for duty’? hmmmmm

  • n4zhg

    The lesson to be learned here is to start the video recorder before you start photography. That way you have the gestapo thug dead to rights and can play the tape at the next city council meeting.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Exactly. Or at least carry an audio recorder. One can stream those or flash save them too.
      .

  • rick

    Police manual:
    1) Assertiveness
    a) threats and intimidation
    b) assault and battery

    • crazyassmofo

      c) draw firearm, shoot to kill, get creative writing report.

      • crazyassmofo

        d)consult with superiors, internal affairs, DA and prosecutor’s office to get the lie straight and begin the cover-up.

        • Boomer

          e) denigrate intelligence of detainee by asserting superior knowledge of law by virtue of badge on uniform

          f) Scream “Stop resisting!” while you beat detainee to death

          g) Invent laws that don’t exist, and assert enforcement of them

          h) Lie as often as possible to detainees, so often it becomes second nature.

          i) Mislead superiors as to events leading to incident.

          There are more, but those are a good start.

      • Rail Car Fan

        CrazyAssMofo…

        You comment beat me to it!

        Rail Car Fan

  • HOWARD

    sure i damn happy, i made your day, didnt I? biatch! if she would act like that where i grew up, she wouldnt make it out alive!

  • G

    So much for the arguement that female cops are better than male cops. With a lot of post 9/11 laws being passed that criminalizes homelessness, political, social, and economic protests, I have my doubts about female cops showing compassion, empathy and sympathy to people who are fed up with what is happening in this country.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Are women temperamentally unsuited for police work? I think some are emotionally stable and others less so. Judge each on an individual basis.
      .
      Police and fire departments had to lower physical standards in the USA so women’s libbers could get hired. With union rules don’t expect women’s emotional issues to be a basis for discipline or firing. On the other hand if a male cop did the same thing…

      • TskTsk

        The only one who is unsuited in this case is the moron that hired her.

      • Voice-Of-Concern

        “women’s emotional issues” <– really? Women are not inherently more or less stable than men. Sheesh, grow up!

        • Proud GrandPa

          Obviously you’ve never known any females over age 12.
          .
          Beware of stereotyping both genders as equal in any ways except spiritually and legally.

  • burt

    the media thinks their poop smells like ice cream and should never be challenged. its my right to do this is my right to do that blahblahblah. did the officer act correctly not really, but the videographer was a pompous ass

    • JJ

      …and that is illegal how?

    • Christine

      Burt seriously get your nose out of that big Ass!

      • burt

        I always despised moderators (censors), however now I see that without them the lowest clASS people feel free to run amuck.

        • Difdi

          That’s real irony, considering your posts make it quite clear that you are lower class than she is.

      • burt

        Christine you need to lose a few pounds

        • Christine

          Thank You Burt that means alot coming from someone with such big fingers and a Penis the size of a cashew.Time for Zumba lol

    • trub

      Pompous ass? Look in the mirror.

  • Angela

    Cops are ignorant pigs!!… they think they know about the law….but some can hardly speak the language…..LOL

  • Welhunglow

    She needs to get laid soooooooooooo bad!

    • crazyassmofo

      I would throw her a bang just out of mercy.
      She needs a double tap on her vag from my nine.

      • Strapon

        Shes hot! For a lesbian that is.

  • John

    To the video guy. If you ever take a video of me or my family and I am not a cop I will shove that video camera up your ass. I know someone else will do it sooner or later. Smart asses like you are a dime a dozen. I would love to see her kick your ass as your wife or boyfriend does.

    • Christine

      John we don’t give a fuck about your Anal desires you hard up Horny Toad.

    • Difdi

      And then you will go to prison where your anal rape fantasies will be fulfilled, though not in a manner you’ll enjoy. Hope your family can afford to buy food without your paycheck, sucks to be them if they can’t.

      Committing assault and battery on someone who is not violating any laws makes YOU the bad person, not them.

    • Chirpy

      Derpy tough guy. DEEERRRRPPPPPP….

  • Phred

    The cop cried?! I love it!

    • crazyassmofo

      …she can’t hack it…sniffle…she should be working for me on her back at one of my whorehouses.

  • Dan Brown

    Errata in paragraph 14 (misspelling of the word ‘she’) – “It most certainly is not,” he replies. (in this case, it should be she, not he, in this context). Do you need a proofreader?

  • Joe Mamma

    This cops is a tool. You definitely can tell she is in the wrong by her body language. I hope she gets fired.

    • Proud GrandPa

      You can tell ‘definitely’ by here body language?! Might that be a tad too emphatic?
      .
      Have you ever worked at Gitmo?

  • Intheknow

    This is her third police dept.,and her father is a retired State Police officer.

    • crazyassmofo

      The body language is a dead giveaway that she is just not in control of herself. Almost like a pouting little girl stomping her feet.

      Thanks for the revelations intheknow…explains everything.
      I refer you to my lengthier post above.

    • Sadly

      So if it wasnt for her daddy getting her a job as a cop ,she would be one of the slower waitresses at DENNYS.

  • La Verdad

    This man’s news site is Hyannisnews.com I’ve checked it out. Very credible. Credible because his stories are not of him chasing cops. He publishes stories having to do with police and fire. It’s clear he had been harassed and treated unfairly in this case. The video shows just the ending of the entire assault on his liberties. That department and city owes him for every second he was detained.

    • Proud GrandPa

      LV, you wrote, “That department and city owes him for every second he was detained.”
      .
      Have we any lawyers who can tell us if detention followed by release (not arrest) is grounds for a lawsuit? Has anyone heard of this happening?
      .
      What are the elements necessary and what are some defenses? I believe the photog would lose.
      .
      Do we have any lawyers reading PINAC?

      • Difdi

        Depends. Did the catch & release stop him from exercising a constitutional right? If so, then he’d probably have a case. If the officer made it clear that the intent of the arrest was to stop the exercise of rights, then he’d absolutely have a case.

        Confessing to a federal felony (18 USC 241 or 242) on camera is probably a bad idea for anyone.

      • willieboy50

        I’d say he at least has a case for threatening to smash him in the face- if you or I said that to a private citizen, we’d probably be arrested for assault/battery.

      • Kevin Clark

        I am not a lawyer but if I go and detain someone at large without justification I can be arrested. I am not a trained law enforcement officer, she is so her threshhold for being culpable should be proportionately lower. Just as I being a medical professional am held to a higher standard in a medical situation.

  • Pingback: Massachusetts Cop Threatens to Smash Camera into Man’s Face | Bydio

  • G

    I love your post, CracyAssMofo, about the cop being on the take, being a terrorist, etc. Funny how cops like it when people don’t know the law, and get upset when people do know the law. It seems like they pride themselves on being “barrack lawyers” but hate it when other people are “barracks lawyers”.

  • Dan

    The guy with the camera was just being an ass.

    • G

      The cop was acting like a donkey’s rear end

    • ConcernedPatriot

      That “ass” was protecting your rights you numb skull. Ill bet if they told you to shoot yourself for the greater good you would do it like a nice little slave. I Hate ignorant people!!!

    • Difdi

      I truly wish bad citizens like you would emigrate somewhere where the laws and the rights of the people match your views on what rights should be. North Korea sounds about right.

      Nobody ever needed a heavily-protected constitutional right to say exactly what everyone wants to hear. The first amendment protects assholes.

      But since when is expecting someone who put their hand on a Bible and swore to uphold the law and the constitution to not break that oath being an asshole?

  • Officer Tickle

    Okay Dan, the guy with the camera was an ass,,, so that makes the cop who tried to arrest his ass his worst case of diarrhea.

  • Kevin Johnson

    1. Police officers on the whole are good people just like the general population
    2. Just like the general population there will be some police officers who step outside of ‘whatever’ boundaries that bind a society.
    3. The gentleman with the camera would have not followed the officer if she had not overstepped.
    4. The gentleman is doing his fellow man/woman a favor in making the offense painful. Hopefully she will not do that again and will be better for it, as will everyone else she comes in contact with.
    5. There is a point where I believe (in my opinion) that he should have walked away as the lesson was received. Then he continued and at that point she shut down and the message was no longer valid. At that point his point was no longer effective and actually I believe had the opposite intended effect.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Good points, Kevin Johnson. I think the truth lay somewhere in the third and fifth points. The third point is probably true and makes sense, though there is no evidence of it in the video.
      .
      3. The gentleman with the camera would have not followed the officer if she had not overstepped.
      .
      There is another possibility. He was trying to drum up news the way papparzzi chase movie stars. Cops and firemen were his beat. Again no evidence.

      • Difdi

        If drumming up business invalidated the results, all police sting operations would be thrown out of court as entrapment.

        Letting someone choose whether or not to break the law then applying lawful consequences if they make the wrong choice is just how the system works.

    • Difdi

      If you applied the standard tests for what makes a private citizen an accomplice or conspirator to a crime to individual police officers, the typical locker room or after-shift bar chatter between cops would send most of them to prison.

      If you applied the standards found in the RICO Act to most police departments, fewer than 1% would survive intact.

      Good apples don’t look the other way when a fellow officer brags about committing crimes. Good apples don’t stay cops for long because if they choose to stay good they get slow or nonexistent backup if they’re not fired on the spot or involuntarily committed.

  • Officer Tickle

    Nah Kevin … you’re a moron. he would have walked away but he was being detained. this bitch wanted to arrest him. nice try though, moron

    • Proud GrandPa

      Troll Alert ==> Officer Tickle / Personal Insult
      .
      Don’t feed the troll. Ignore personal insults.

  • Pingback: Barnstable Cop threatens to smash reporter's camera...into his face

  • burt

    You people need to get a life. I subscribe to a few forums, all avoid low class gutter language, there are messages there from time to time here it is a constant parade of babbling over nothing (have another doughnut Christine) This forum shows where all the unemployed are

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Gutter language? Oh yeah, you sure are classing up the place. If you don’t feel safe, you should leave. If all you have to add is “adult language hurts my ears”, then you are wasting your time & our time.

  • Pingback: Cop threatens to smash camera into a photographer's face (VIDEO)

  • Real Deal

    holy crap this cameraman is an asshole.
    I was hoping that she emptied her clip in his face.

    • FUCKUPIG

      HAHA….THAT’S FUNNY! I was hoping that a random crazy person who wasn’t taking their medicine came up to her and slit her carotid artery.

      • Difdi

        Well, since the topic seems to be irrational violence, why not go all the way and wish Al Qaeda had dropped a biological weapon on her head?

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Well yeah, that would be an utterly rational proportionate response. (eye roll)

    • Pigsty

      The only asshole I can see in this situation is the Chief of Police for not firing her.

      • burt

        Look in the mirror

    • Difdi

      He has a right to be an asshole (nobody ever needed a constitutional right to say and do exactly what people like). But since when is it being an asshole to expect someone who swore an oath to the law and the constitution to not break their oath?

      Even if he was being an asshole, he hasn’t committed a crime. Even if he had committed a crime, it would not justify second degree murder.

  • The Limpet

    Damn, meant to vote down the foolish comment below, from ‘Real Dill’. Good to see Justice prevail once in a while. Keep up the good work PINAC – check out the campaign against tasers: RESIST CARDIAC ARREST. Solidarity and Thanks.

    • Difdi

      If you’re logged in, you can change your vote.

  • Pingback: Massachusetts Cop Threatens to Smash Camera into Man’s Face

  • Pingback: Massachusetts Cop Threatens to Smash Camera into Man’s Face

  • LBrothers

    Another badge heavy cop. None of them would say a peep without that tin.

    • Sunshine1011

      Seems to me this guy was harassing her. Guys like this always edit out the stuff that started the situation, have to wonder what he did.

  • Haeshu

    It’s almost like this officer has no law enforcement training at all.

    • stan gore

      They don’t need to know the law. They just make it up as they go.

  • Sean

    Awww, power-tripping cop didn’t get to illegally arrest or smash a law-abiding citizen’s face in… poor thing!

  • Difdi

    Assault, battery, coercion/extortion (I don’t know what MA calls it) and armed robbery are all crimes under various state statutes (and the MA constitution).

    It’s difficult to make an arrest without committing assault in most situations and you can’t apply handcuffs to someone without committing battery. Both are excused in the course of a lawful arrest, but a false/unlawful arrest makes them crimes again.

    Larceny by force is robbery in MA and a police officer being armed while doing it makes it armed robbery. The law is quite clear on when an arrest may be made and when it may not be made, and a false arrest to cover for robbery makes the crime worse, it doesn’t negate it — The required mens rea for robbery is intent to unlawfully deprive a citizen of lawful property, and trumping up a false arrest to justify the larcenous act satisfies the mens rea requirement.

    Coercion/extortion occurs when you threaten an unlawful act to coerce someone to engage in behavior they are lawfully permitted to refuse to engage in, or to stop engaging in behavior they are lawfully permitted to. An order to stop exercising a constitutional right or be falsely arrested absolutely qualifies.

    Violation of rights under color of law is also federal crime. A felony if the violation includes the threat of a dangerous weapon or a conspiracy to violate rights.

    Police are not exempted from having to obey laws when they put on the uniform, and it’s possible to make an arrest (police or citizen’s) while under arrest (though it rarely happens, a common police response to being the target of a citizen’s arrest is to arrest the citizen in turn). Police called to the site of a citizen’s arrest often discover that the suspect and the victim have arrested eachother (“I’m putting you under citizen’s arrest, I’m calling the police, please don’t resist.” — “Oh yeah? Well I’m arresting you too!”, heh).

    I’d love to see a video (and more than one) of a police officer being arrested for violating rights, coercion/extortion, assault/battery, etc. Ideally an arrest carried out by a fellow officer, but a citizen’s arrest would do. :D

    • Vincenzo Luciano

      There is also something called obstructing a police officer from doing his job, there is also something called stalking for which this guy could clearly have been charged, there is also something called harassment which this guy clearly stands guilty of, there is also something called your rights come with certain responsibilities which he like many of you guys obviously doesn’t care about. Your rights do not give you the right to infringe upon other people’s rights. She said do not video record me, did he stop? If he was a journalist he could have asked her for on the spot interview, why didn’t he do that? She is no celebrity, why he chased her? Just because she was a cop doesn’t mean you would treat her like a criminal, doesn’t mean she ceases to be a woman, doesn’t mean she ceases to be a human being, doesn’t mean she ceases to have any right to privacy what so ever. She was doing her job, why did he go there to disturb her? I tell you why, this attention seeking self proclaimed journalistic nut job was looking for a scoop, a scoop to instant fame, but after it turned out to be nothing he started chasing her, harassing her, video recording her with an obvious attention to pass himself as a victim, to get attention. He knew public sentiments these days viz a viz cops, so was trying to bank upon it. And by the way, who are you in relation this guy propagating hatred against this cop based on one sided version of the story? Did you care to find out her version of the story? What kind of journalism by both of you guys is being practised? If you know your constitution, you should also know that under the same constitution every accused is given a fair chance to defend himself, where is side of the story then? You guys are trying to conduct a kangaroo court here, conducting a media trial of her and for what? Being a victim of stalking and harassment?