September 25th, 2013

Michigan Deputies Accused of Deleting Footage After Citizen Recovers Footage Through Software 91

By Carlos Miller

 

Michigan deputies are accused of forcing a woman to delete her video footage after she recorded them handcuffing her husband for legally carrying an unloaded shotgun on their property.

The couple managed to recover the footage, so now we are able to see a 36-second video clip showing a Crawford County sheriff deputy holding the husband facedown on the ground in handcuffs while another deputy has another man in handcuffs.

The second deputy then turns to the camera, ordering her to turn the camera off while approaching her. The first deputy can be heard saying they are going to take it as evidence before the camera turns off.

The woman, Heather Donald, told her story to The Blaze, reporting that deputies did seize the camera, returning it only after they had deleted the footage.

She even provided screenshots to The Blaze showing they used a program called iCare Data Recovery to recover the footage.

But even though there is little doubt that deputies tried to destroy this so-called “evidence,” there is little chance that they will be disciplined.

The incident took place Sunday when Thomas Donald called authorities to report a trespasser on his 10-acre property. He said he had been hunting on the property with his 11-year-old son when they came across the trespasser on a dirt bike.

But Donald ended up arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, a felony charge that can land him in prison for four years. The trespasser, who said he rode onto the property without realizing it was private, was issued a citation and released.

Deputies accuse Donald of pointing the shotgun at the trespasser, an allegation the Donalds deny.

But the fact that deputies can be seen on video ordering Heather Donald to stop recording, claiming they need to seize the camera as evidence should be enough to discredit anything else they have to say.

According to The Blaze:

When officers with the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department arrived on the scene, Heather says her husband held up the “open shotgun” with his left hand while holding the shell in his right hand to indicate the weapon was not loaded and assure officers he was not a threat.

The officers apparently didn’t see it that way. And while Heather later would start recording the incident, it should be noted that there is no footage available to show the moment deputies confronted Donald.

One of the deputies, identified by Heather as Shawn Schnoor, “fumbled” with his pistol and trained it on Donald, ordering him to get on the ground. Heather told TheBlaze it took her husband longer than the officer wanted because he has a badly injured back but he moved as fast as he could. Donald was handcuffed before police made their way to talk to the trespassing suspect.

 


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.

To help support the blog, please click below to make a donation or purchase Photography is Not a Crime apparel on PINAC Nation.





  • Barbara Schold Kiser

    heard the cop “your gonna be under arrest” to the woman…They are soooo Lucky that wasn’t me. Unlawful detainment, property destruction, false arrest, just for starters

    • James

      …much easier said than done. The court is on their side and they will throw any and every obstacle they can in your path. Not that I agree with it, but the reality is, they have the control.

  • Jawsh

    Her: I don’t understand why you have him in handcuffs!
    Cop: Because we pull up and he has a handgun.
    Arrested: …I had a rifle.
    Cop: Er, excuse me, a rifle.
    Arrested: Shotgun!
    Cop: A shotgun.

    LOL

    • Stan Tall

      How’s that for a great cop! Doesn’t even know what kind of gun the accused had!

  • Rich7553

    Destruction of/tampering with evidence.

  • Ray Askins

    Police can’t touch that camera, its their property as well as the video footage.

    • John Morely

      In theory they can’t in reality they can. It is standard practice to take your camera off you in the US and in the UK if no body else is filming them at the time. I have seen footage of them closing in on cameras demanding them. In my own life I have seen every right trampled under foot by them. They insisted they could search my house without a warrant last year and then denied it later and said I agreed.

      I formally complained about it. They sent me a form so I could appeal against them not recording the complaint. They took my phone the same day. The other part of my complaint. I eventually got my phone back minus it’s charger. Another part of local government got my other charger for the same phone so I have no charger for it now. At the time they seized the phone I asked them why. They said “threatening [phone calls” I challenged them to name one call. They never bothered naming one. There wasn’t one. Rendering me incommunicado was their only reason.

      It happened on their own CCTV so not difficult to prove. Even so these crooked pricks at my local police force refuse to record the complaint. No wonder there are so few complaints against these scumbags. I hate the b4stards from the bottom of my heart. They were taking me in to face serious allegations which have proven to be made up by others in local government. They knew if things went the way they were planning I was going to be sectioned that day for a trumped up mental illness of convenience. They knew exactly what they were part of and played their part without a second thought even trying to convince me I would be back out again after being charged. I got lucky and the shrink refused to section me. I’ve been on the run for more than a year now to stop them having another go and another go as many times as it takes.

      I’m staggered that the public allow these crooked b4stards in Lancashire Constabulary to get away with this.
      Please sign…
      http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/handover-two-recordings.html

      I am merely trying to highlight what is already proven.

      My story is a long and complicated one and I am just referring to the odd snippet here and there.

      After years of getting screwed for taxes (a big portion of my wages taken to be squandered on such bullsh1t as policing cannabis) I had years where I earned nothing. They wriggled out of paying me any benefits and have assessed me as owing the cheeky cunts untold thousands in taxes though I earned nothing. I can only guess as I don’t know the full damage. Assessments are £50,000 year (that’s $100,000 in your money). We are talking more than one year so it will be my house gone. I can’t fight it as I am so hampered by having no money and having to hide from the cun7s.

      This is my second year in hiding getting passed from safehouse to safehouse by sympathisers.

      • Vlad Vondoom

        You gave up your guns 30 years ago. They at least have to pretend we are not slaves in the US. You were absolute slaves the moment you were castrated of your power of revolt.

        • Bob Manke

          I have never owned a single firearm in my entire adult life, 60+, but NO GUN GRAB IN USA… or we are ruined. I don’t care a fig for the NRA, but NO GUN GRAB IN USA… the nazi central banksters are amok and very endangered as we wake up by the internet more and more and more… 911 was an inside job. dick cheeney is a mass murderer for insurance fraud, insider trading and far more… Keep the Internet Free!

  • Dave

    Do you think its just cops not knowing our legal right to record them (she was even on her property) or do you think that they know we are aloud too but want to intiminate us?

    • Hank_Thoreau

      They LIVE to intimidate us.

  • Elliott W

    I have to start wondering when this is regularly going to escalate to officers getting gunned down. Not that I am advocating that, but lets be real, we are at a breaking point where officers are acting more and more lawlessly and the citizens are even less willing to tolerate it.

    What is also likely is the trespasser is shot and then the cops never called. They’ll just take care of the problems internally.

    • Jonah Manke

      It will eventually and then the government will declare martial law as things spin violently out of control because our law enforcement has gone from keeping us safe to insuring the continued flow of cash to our now mostly for profit prison system. This is helped by most schools using extremely flawed “zero tolerance” policies that are used incorrectly to punish so called “problem students” when a good portion of the time the “problem” student is just different enough to be ostracized and hounded by the “students who are trying to learn.” The constant betrayal of children to this system is what generally leads to huge problems with authority if not violence. After all when schools are so fearful of being sued that if a child say’s “I understand how the kids in Columbine felt.” and gets put out of school for being “potentially dangerous” when all that needed to be done was a conscious effort to keep bullying down to a manageable level. However it is always easier to label and remove, than fix something. Schools will continue to do this and in doing so generate angry frustrated young adults that get into trouble. How do I know? I was that kid. Over five years of hearing “freak, fag, queer, retard” and others along with constantly being told how I COULD fix things by ignoring and not doing anything in response (which for those that don’t know is about as effect as trying to put out a fire by ignoring it) left me a very bitter and angry individual with little respect or patience in high school. Thankfully i had already been in so much trouble by then because of acting out that things hit a wall and got better but that doesn’t always happen. Many times a bullied child goes out of their way to find a way to retaliate normally to disastrous effect. Then involvement of Law Enforcement as a means of containing the situation leads to mistrust of law enforcement coupled lack of respect. This is how we have so many teen’s acting violent and young adults in legal trouble. OUR SYSTEM HAS BEEN TAKING THE EASY WAY FOR FAR TO LONG AND HAS FAILED.

    • Al

      Yup, especially with the increase of non lethal weapons being used for compliance on a regular basis. What’s that did you ask a question? Now I’m going to tazer you. What’s that. not moving as fast as I would like while presenting no threat whatsoever? Now I’m going to tazer you. I’d rather be on my own then have cops like this show up.

    • Film The Police Always

      Ambushes on cops have gone up. I look at it this way, WHO CARES!

      • Rail Car Fan

        That’s a B I G 10-4!

        Rail Car Fan

  • Bullet Gibson

    Gutless cowards. Nowadays way to many cops are just that. COWARDS WITH A BADGE. That’s why they got the job.

    • Thomas Ratcliff

      well then why don’t you step up and be one since your so much better .you pull up where there is a gun that is the first thing on your mind to take care of the weapon first . they do not know any one from any one there , i guess you would just have forgot about a shot gun in a mans hands that you dont know .did they do some things wrong yes as soon as they found out who he was they should have taken the cuff’s off but till then the cuff’s stay on . and they had no right to take her phone but the fact is still there was some one with a gun i love you people that have never been on a call and put there life on the line but you all know so much more about what you would have done .

      • Larry

        Aw stow it Ratcliff! You turkeys can only use that excuse just so many times and then it becomes as unbelievable as the now-worn-out “racism” cry!

        • Nicholas Sikes

          I agree with Larry, I know many good LEO but lately more and more are becoming corrupt or they just aren’t trained well enough. The wife had all the right in the world to video on her own property. Once the shotgun was secure the handcuffs should have come off. LEO work for us. If the husband pointed the shotgun at the trespasser so what? He was trespassing. If I dont know you, Im holding you until the cops get there.

          • Oathkeeper

            I think its because the monetary incentive to make more arrests and the fact that LEO’s dont have to worry about any real consequences to their unlawful actions. Take all the police shootings you hear about where the (unarmed) suspect is shot multiple times because he wont get down on the ground. Or
            when people get wrongfully arested like this guy, who will recive no compensation for the trauma he had to endure from these officers. I you sir were a cop then you should be disgusted at these things. Cops themselves have made being a cop more dangerous by the way they act and protect the officers who do things like this and enforce unconstitutional laws. Try and remember the sacred oath you took to uphold the constitution and if you are going to break that oath because you are afraid of getting hurt doing it, you sir are a coward and have no place in law enforcement, and should be ashamed.

          • matism

            Your so-called “good” LEOs look the other way as their Brothers in Blue pull this sh!+. How long do you think these fine Only Ones would last if there were ANY “good” cops in their department?

        • Thomas Ratcliff

          tell you what you do next time you need a cop dont call them be the big bad man you think you are

      • Jeremy Fogarty

        Because they don’t hire people with common sense and decency. ( I know there are good cops out there and this comment doesn’t apply to all)

        • Todd Hill

          If there were any good cops, there wouldn’t be any bad ones.

      • Sarah

        If they were following the law then why did they need her camera to destroy evidence?

      • Bob Hanna

        Ok..ya said yer piece..wanna comment on why they took the wifes cam??? hmmmm oh i forgot thats proto call! dumbass cops!

  • Guest

    There’s an apparent contradiction of the facts in the above story.

    “Michigan deputies are accused of forcing a woman to delete her video footage”

    “The woman, Heather Donald, told her story to The Blaze, reporting that deputies did seize the camera, returning it only after they had deleted the footage.”

    Which one is it? Did she delete it? Or did the officers delete it?

    • Why5ks

      they could have ordered her to delete it and she refused, so they could have taken the camera and then deleted it for her. there is no contradiction

      • Jason

        There’s no contradiction? Then you don’t know what “… forcing a woman to delete her video footage” means. If they forced her then the action had to take place. Otherwise it would say that they tried to force her.

        • Why5ks

          Yes Jason if they take it from her and they delete it that is also a means of forcing her too delete it. The words could have been changed by an editor at the Blaze to make the story flow better, grab peoples’ attention or condense it down. That is why later they say seized the camera, not that it was taken. Also, the “forced to delete” sentence is a typical editorial type introduction sentence to grab a reads’ attention. If you haven’t got people hooked in 3 sentences they won’t keep reading. Who would keep reading if the first sentence says, Police tell woman to delete video shot on her own property?

          • Jason

            I agree with you about the “attention getter” issue, but how does that make it any less contradictory? Sure, they are trying to get attention, but it’s still a contradiction. Me forcing someone to delete is not the same as me taking something by force and deleting. They are both very wrong actions, but very different wrong actions with very different implications and consequences. The contradiction does stand regardless of whatever needs the writer has to get attention. With that logic then let’s make murder OK as long as it is with the intent to get readers’ attention.

          • Why5ks

            Jason, we are not talking about a sworn testimony here by a witness, we are talking about the words used by a reporter and editor to write a story. There is no contradiction when you look at the full meaning of the words. Just as in an “armed robbery suspect” can be a person involved in a robbery whether they held a gun or not. If someone involved in the crime told the bank teller they had a gun, then the crime becomes armed robbery whether there was a gun involved or not. The officer using intimidation and ordering her to delete the recording. If she refuses and the officer then takes the camera and deletes it that is forcing her to delete it. Just because she was not the one to physically push the delete button does not negate the fact that she was forced to delete it, because he prevented her from keeping it.

          • Jason

            So this appears to be our disagreement: You state that forcing her to delete it is the same as the officer taking it by force and deleting it. I’m saying that those are two different things. They may be somewhat similar and have the same outcome, but they are still two different events. If you go saying that those two are the same I guarantee you that a lawyer, a judge, and even an English teacher will tell you that words have meaning for a reason and that those two scenarios do not equate each other. Here’s is an example of similar outcomes and intent but totally different events. Stealing a car without the keys versus stealing the keys and taking the car. I encourage you to check with your local authorities or lawyers and you will learn the difference between auto theft and unauthorized use of a vehicle. Two wrong actions with same intent and same outcome, but completely different in the steps taken, the implications, and the consequences. If she was forced to delete it, then one out of many issues to take into account is if it was done under duress. If the phone was taken and then tampered with brings a whole bag full of other issues to consider. So yes, each sequence of events is of high importance to establish how bad the situation really is and to see which actions were within the boundaries of the law and which ones were not. Did you know that a police officer can pretty much detain anyone at any given time for a limited period of time without much cause? So if a cop can deprive a person liberty for a limited period of time, then do you think a phone has more rights than a person? No, they can also hold property for a limited period of time until things get sorted out. So the cop taking the phone and then tampering with evidence is a whole different thing than forcing a person to take certain actions, even if those actions lead to the same tampering of evidence. And I agree, we are not talking about sworn testimony. We are talking about an issue with two statements in the article that pose a contradiction because they both cannot happen simultaneously: either the phone was taken and the video deleted by the cop or she was forced to delete the video. Those two events cannot happen at the same time. Either she deleted it or the cop deleted it. It can’t be both. So if it can’t be both we have a situation of contradictory information.

          • Why5ks

            Jason you are wrong again. Using you analogy you leave out basic points. First, whether you steal a car or steal the keys first and then drive the car are the exact same thing. They are both auto theft, what you are referring to as unauthorized taking is a completely different scenario where there must be pre-existing conditions. For it to be use by unauthorized taking there must be an established relationship and secondly, and this is the most important condition, there must have been an established pattern of the accused having used the car previously with permission. This is a crime that is generally limited to family members, close friends with a history of borrowing, and people who live within the same residence. But if you see some one sitting in a restaurant and they get up to go to the bathroom, but leave their keys behind. If you go take those keys and then take the car you have committed auto theft…period. Changing this over to the situation above, if the person who deleted the video was her husband then that would not have forced to delete. But when you have an officer there with a weapon, who has just forcibly wrestled you husband to the ground for no reason. He orders you to delete the recording and you refuse, so he takes the camera and deletes it himself. Well sir, then you were forced to delete it whether you pushed the button or not. Yes, you are right they can detain you. They can even take hold of the camera, and laughably place it into protective custody, but they can not remove it from the property, look at its contents, or alter its contents (in this case download it to another source) without a court order known as a warrant. And for the record, it doesn’t matter whether the cop pushed the delete button or he made her push it. In either case the office committed the crime of tampering or destruction of evidence. The implied threat of his position of authority, his firearm, and the fact he had just put her husband in custody negates any claim he could use to say she did it on her own. And finally, you are right and English teacher will tell you that words have meanings. They will also tell you many words have a variety of meanings and inferences can be made from the context in which they are used. That’s the great thing about our language, you really can create language a variety of meanings from the way we use our words. This will be my final response because you seem to have a problem with the nuances of words and I don’t have the time to educate you.

          • Jason

            I’m glad you took the time to Google the difference between auto theft and unauthorized use. Now that you have demonstrated the ability to properly search for definitions we can move closer to my actual goal which, ironically, was to educate you on the following: Independent Mutually Exclusives Events without substitution. The cop deleting the video and the woman deleting the video are independent mutually exclusive events without substitution which is what creates the problem of contradiction. Please use your proven research skills to get a good grasp of that concept and you will learn how those two events cannot exist at the same time. What you didn’t know is that I teach in a university up to the Master’s degree level and this is a very common problem in writing and reading comprehension that is constantly addressed. Keep in mind that this is not poetry where you can take liberties with expression and words; this is a report of events and if the words do not describe the events or describe two independent mutually exclusive events without substitution as happening at the same time then you have a clear cut contradiction. I apologize for trapping you into showing that you do know how to research information, but it was a necessary evil to move this forward in a more formal way which is with proper research. But you don’t have to take my word for it, or have to respond anymore if you don’t want. I’m confident that if you take those two statements to anyone you trust with the proper training (i.e. English professor, lawyer, etc.) that they will let you know how those two things are not the same. I can tell by your shifting of responses (you started with the “attention getter” argument but now you’re somewhere else) that this not your field of expertise.

          • Why5ks

            First, there was no Google research, just common sense. Believe it or not, my Major was Secondary Education / History with minors in Biological Sciences, Political Sciences, and Russian Literature. I have also taken many pre-law classes. Second, you did not trap me in anything, I have just been following your ramblings and the direction you are leading. And for a college professor, and I don’t care what level you teach you really are dense. When you go back to my original point about how the words are those of an editor or reporter what more needs to be said. Any lawyer or English professor, except you apparently, would say it is not the most accurate wordings, but they are not contradictory but they are confusing. Since they are reporters words and not the actual words of in sworn statement. You are asking the statements of two different reports match and creating inferences from minor differences that may or may not have been the actual words of the lady involved.

          • Jason

            I apologize first for my delayed response. I was on a road trip and unable to connect. Second, I want to thank you for playing along the way you have. The entertainment value you have provided is PRECIOUS !!!

            1st – You say you will not continue to respond, but you did.

            2nd – I told you that I’m setting baits and traps and you continue to fall for them. You just admitted that your responses are based on your personal opinion without any research or supporting material: Your definition of unauthorized use of a vehicle is totally wrong, but I gave you a bit of praise for researching it and you turn around and debate that you didn’t research anything and it’s just your own personal biased opinion. That admission in turn makes all your other arguments baseless and unreliable. Here is the standard definition of unauthorized use which does not include all that mess you wrote: a person who, knowing he does not have the car owner’s consent, takes, operates or rides in that vehicle.

            3rd – Either you made up all those courses you took or you didn’t learn what you were supposed to learn in them. I say that because anyone with half those courses would clearly understand that when the same person writes two statements that declare – 1) The cop deleted the video 2) The woman deleted the video – that person has written contradictory statements (Caveat: it is understood in this scenario that the cop and the woman are not the same person).

            4th – Your response suggests that you didn’t care for learning about independent mutually exclusive events without substitution which means you will then probably never understand that one person doing something is not the same as another person doing it. I’m sure if the case was between “A cop forced me to have sex with my wife” and “A cop took my wife from me and had sex with her” you would see the difference right away.

            5th – You’re right regarding this discussion didn’t need to follow this path. You had already admitted in your earlier comments that the writer took liberty with his words in order to get attention. So you had already agreed with me long time ago, but I could tell you would make this fun if I poked a little. So THANK YOU! :) … and thank you again for responding even after you said you wouldn’t.

    • Mike Geddert

      Does it really matter they ordered her to give it up did you watch the video

      • Jason

        Both ways would be wrong, but yes, the difference does matter.

  • bobby day

    Officer Shawn Schnoor on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DJfive0

    • Carlos_Miller

      I can’t really figure out which of the two deputies he is, but he doesn’t seem to have an aversion to cameras judging by his Instagram account.

      • bobby day

        I think he’s the one that’s in-frame right when the video starts.

        • shimie

          He is the one who walks towards Mrs. Donald. What law is there against filming an event on your own property? The only assault that went down that day was an assault on private property rights, gun rights and freedom of expression. Everyone needs to be paying attention to the “Free Flow of Information Act of 2013”. This, if it passes will limit the scope of who is defined as a journalist and who is afforded freedom of the press protection. Though it does not appear to directly relate to grassroots persons, those in government will find a way to apply it. We already have “shield laws” in place for journalists. What is the purpose for passing this… we had better ask and call our congressmen.

          • Navy Nuke

            Isn’t there a physical fitness requirement for becoming a sheriff’s deputy?

  • Al

    Problem is both of these deputies are overdue for a decent ass kicking. Especially fat boy. And then, one might was well go ahead to the sheriff too since he’s clearly a pile of crap with a badge. (No not for securing the scene when they got there, but for the overall)
    The message from this county is clear, don’t call 911 until it’s over.

    • Mike Geddert

      yep

  • sam stuper

    Those cops should really lose some weight

    • Vlad Vondoom

      These cops need to be arrested. Their weight is none of my business, just their crimes against the Constitution and the people.

  • Claude

    Lots of time at Dunkin Donuts there!

    • Film The Police Always

      He is absolutely disgusting. The good thing is that his fat ass is going to die from a heart attack. What ever happened to pride in uniform. If I were close to that town, I’d purposely cruise over to that town and would mock him not only for being a youtube star, but would mock him for being grossly overweight.

  • Film The Police Always

    He stole her camera claiming it was going to be evidence and THATS not how it’s done. They need a warrant. He can also be heard on the video stating this which closes the case against him for evidence tampering and he should be charged at a minimum for that. If these people dont sue then they deserve this obese lard asses bad treatment. These people need to push the States Attorney to file charges against Mr. FAT ASS.

  • Film The Police Always
  • Pingback: Michigan Deputies Accused of Deleting Footage After Citizen Recovers Footage Through Software | Bydio

  • paschn

    If one looks ever so closely at the rotund sycophant-in-Blue pissing, yet again, on a fellow citizen’s civil/Human/constitutional rights, you can see frantic movement around his mid-section….MY GOD! he’s eaten the other fellow!!

  • Mike Geddert

    I say we start beatin cops, they need to be put in their places from time to time

  • Phred

    We destroy evidence, it’s a crime. The thugs with badges destroy evidence and its just business as usual.

  • Why5ks

    The courts can say we have the right to photographer or video record the police and it does us no good. because the penalty for the officers to intimidate or force people to stop, to delete recordings and pictures, and/or confiscate equipment are so minor they have no fear. Until the penalty becomes so severe they can’t risk doing it this will continue. We need a federal law that makes it a felony punishable up to 10 years in prison for doing it. Right now when local yokels do this crap they are investigated by the fellow local yokels, fat chance of anything serious being done about it. If it is a Federal Crime then the FBI is the one that investigates it and punishes it.

    • freedom1

      It is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison. Google 18 USC 242.

      • Rich Pea

        thats a hate crime law…

      • Why5ks

        That is where I got the 10 years from, but this law doesn’t apply to the situation listed above.

      • CitizenBrain

        I think 42USC1983 would be more appropriate to charge them with – “Vicarious Liability”

  • NiceTry

    “He is under… our…for our protection. “

  • http://twitter.com/ChickenSockPupp Chicken Sock Puppet

    That’s a good way for a cop to end up shot.

  • Jing Yagunazie

    lucky. We know who to hunt down now.

  • Robert

    I had a Relative that had a bad experience in the past with local So-called Law Enforcement and I learned from it, which is why I have Cameras set up on my House, and signs Visibly posted WARNING Law Enforcement they are being Filmed AND Recorded. The Feed goes elsewhere in case they bust in and try to Seize it. There are No Peace Officers left…… Only people who think THEY Are The Law.

    • Sarah

      Thanks for that great idea Robert.//. I know what I want for Christmas this year and it’s not another sweater.

  • Burgers Allday

    I agree with the comments about the naughty badness (and downright criminality) of what the policemen did.

    On a tangent, if the property owner held the trespasser at gunpoint until the police got there (not saying he did, but if he did), then I am not particularly cool with that. Unless it is some kind of repeat trespassing behavior, I say that the property owners should make clearer signs and build better fences rather than waiting for a trespasser to drive onto the property and then brandish a firearm at the trespasser. there may have been a time in America for that sort of behavior, but this ain’t that time.

    True, we don’t have all the facts, and also true that the property owner is wisely refusing to dish on the advice of his counsel. However, it is a bit tough to imagine a plausible set of facts that does both of the following: (i) leads to the trespasser not merely leaving the property, but, rather, waiting around for the police; and (ii) still leaves one feeling that the armed property owner acted reasonably.

    • proudGrandPa

      Yes, this raises many legal issues, which I wish more of our posts reflected instead of threats.
      .
      In some states where the necessary no tresspassing warnings are in place, may a citizen make an arrest? I ask because my neighbor had similar trouble with vandals (teen punks from a bad family). The neighbor caught them in the act and his son and he held them til police arrived. The punks wanted my neighbor arrested for kidnapping, but the cops said that vandalism is a crime and the detention was justified.
      .
      Does that apply to trespassing as well?

  • JdL

    Miserable pathetic COWARDS! I look forward to the day that the 99% of Americans who are asleep to the crimes of cops finally wake up!

  • http://www.blog2.tshirt-doctor.com/ Pissed Off

    Another episode in their unceasing war against cameras.

  • Matt Bauer

    Isn’t there a physical fitness test for this job? Lard-ass and tubby are less than intimidating if you ask me.

  • dont need to know

    Hmmmm here in ohio I was told by a sheriff it was perfectly legal to point a gun torwards someone and even threaten to shoot torwards them. At least thats what happened and the guy even admited to doing so

    • dagobarbz

      Yeah, because cops all have legal degrees and give good solid legal advice.

  • Brady

    Pointing a gun at a person implies you’re willing to shoot them. You can’t shoot someone for recreational trespass in Michigan. A person who is trespassing on a dirt bike when confronted is going to ride off. A polite one is going to apologize first. But they’re not just going to sit there and wait for the police to show up. The denial that the trespasser wasn’t being held at gun point when the property owner has a gun in his hand just doesn’t add up. But the police will still need to make their case in court.

  • Ian Battles

    Deleting the footage, since they claimed they were seizing it as evidence, is a felony.

    Tampering/Destruction of evidence, Obstruction of Justice, and numerous civil rights violations.

    Wonder if the DA will have the balls to do his job and charge these officers for their crimes.

    • Todd Hill

      You need to sue the officer in civil court under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”. Criminal courts and the DA are on the same side.

  • jujubea

    If they want to persue it they should sue them in small claims court for the cost of the software they had to purchase to recover the ‘stolen data’. The offier had no legal authority to cause the taxpayer money. The win in small claims will go a long way at his trial and could possibly delay the trial until the smal claims case is settled. (even with appeals processes possible) good luck to them.

  • Pingback: Cops Force Woman to Erase Video of Husband’s Arrest Before They Charged Him With Felony | The Liberty Voice

  • MATHEW WILSON

    when recording in public or on your property and a officer sees that and tells you to give him the camera or video YOUR REPLY IS. I CLAIM RIGHT OF POSSESION OF THIS PROPERTY ANY FUTHER ATTEMPT TO CONFISCATE IT WILL BE TREATED AS ATTEMTED ARMED ROBBERY YOU ARE NOW A CRIMINAL TRYING TO TAMPER WITH EVIDENCE

  • matism

    There are appropriate ways to deal with Only Ones. When is it time?

  • Wade Dewell

    police are scum

  • Wade Dewell

    FUCKING POLICE SCUM I HATE THEM ALL I SINCERLY WISH THEY ALL DIE A HORRIBLE PAINFUL BEATING DEATH AT MY HAND AND THE HAND OF EVERY PERSON THEY HAVE ABUSED. I AM SICK OF THIS SHIT AND I WANT TO REVOLT NOW. TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY FROM THESE LOWER FORMS OF LIFE WHO SOLD THEIR HUMANITY AND RIGHT TO LIFE BY SERVING THE ROTHSCHILD BANKERS AND THE CORRUPT NAZI GOVERNMENT

    • Proud GrandPa

      Were you ever dropped on your head a child?

      • Proud GrandPa

        Interesting combination of Rothschild bankers and Nazis. Since when did they kiss and make up?

  • dagobarbz

    People with phone cams! There is an app (of course there is) for that. Called Qik, when you activate it all footage recorded will be sent to the cloud, where it will live until recalled by you. I have it. If you live in a town that has a police department, you should have it too. Not selling nothing, it’s a free app.

  • dagobarbz

    “But even though there is little doubt that deputies tried to destroy
    this so-called “evidence,” there is little chance that they will be
    disciplined.”

    Now why is this? The cops answer to someone who was elected to answer to the people. So, the people should be ashamed that their community has such flagrantly obese douche-nozzles for cops, get up off your asses and make your elected officials get up off of theirs.

    To ignore this behavior is to condone it.

  • Proud GrandPa

    Hmmm…
    .
    Anymore it seems one would should wear body cam on one’s own property and whilst hunting too.
    .
    What Michigan laws apply here? What are the specific facts?

  • Derp

    “Deputies accuse Donald of pointing the shotgun at the trespasser, an allegation the Donalds deny.”

    The fact that you would leave out the complainant and state that the Deputies were the ones making the accusations should be enough to discredit your entire article.

  • MATHEW WILSON

    when you are recording in public or on your property and an officer of the law demands your recording device your response needs to state (I CLAIM RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF THIS PROPERTY ANY FURTHER ACT TO CONFISCATE IT WILL BE TREATED AS ATTEMTED ARMED ROBBERY YOU ARE NOW A CRIMINAL WITH INTENT TO DESTROY EVIDENCE YOU MUST LEAVE MY IMMEDIATE AREA OR YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH PUBLIC ANDANGERMENT)

  • mr. call it like i see it.

    can I be a deputy, I’m in way better shape than those two idiots combined….I guess they don’t have physical standards. don’t worry michigan, it’s every sheriff department in the country.

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.
%d bloggers like this: