October 17th, 2013

Missouri Police Arrest Man for Recording Arrest (Updated) 132

By Carlos Miller

 

Missouri police arrested a man as he was recording them arresting a woman, possibly his wife, after he refused to provide identification.

But it was clear the real reason they arrested him was because he was recording the initial arrest.

There is not much information available at this time, other than the incident took place in Cape Girardeau and that it was posted on October 2.

Police had entered what appeared to be a public restroom, grabbed a woman and started walking her out of the building as the woman demanded to know why she was being arrested.

A man started following them while recording with his phone, making it clear that was all he intended to do, saying, “I have the right to film you.”

Once outside, he even advised the woman not to resist and when one of the officers told him to back off, he quickly obeyed, moving to the other side of the car while keeping his camera focused on what appeared to be an overly aggressive arrest.

That was when a third officer came out of nowhere, yelling at him to “get back!”

The man started moving back, telling the officer, “I can lawfully film, I am not ….”

But the cop started demanding his identification as he pushed the man back.

“I don’t have to give you my ID,” he said.

“Yes, you do,” the cop said.

“No, I don’t, I have not done anything wrong, sir,” the man responded.

And the man was right.

According to Missouri Revised Statutes, 84.710:

84.710. 1. The members of the police force appointed in pursuance hereof are hereby declared to be officers of the state of Missouri and of the city for which such commissioners are appointed.

2. They shall have power within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof to arrest, on view, any person they see violating or whom they have reason to suspect of having violated any law of the state or ordinance of the city. They shall have power to arrest and hold, without warrant, for a period of time not exceeding twenty-four hours, persons found within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof charged with having committed felonies in other states, and who are reported to be fugitives from justice. They shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going. When stopping or detaining a suspect, they may search him for a dangerous weapon whenever they have reasonable ground to believe they are in danger from the possession of such dangerous weapon by the suspect. No unreasonable force shall be used in detaining or arresting any person, but such force as may be necessary may be used when there is no other apparent means of making an arrest or preventing an escape and only after the peace officer has made every reasonable effort to advise the person that he is the peace officer engaged in making arrest. 3. Any person who has been arrested without a warrant may be released, without being taken before a judge, by the officer in charge of the police station whenever the officer is satisfied that there is no ground for making complaint against him, or when the person was arrested for a misdemeanor and will sign a satisfactory agreement to appear in court at the time designated.

UPDATE: Many readers are suggesting the man was guilty of interfering with the arrest, but the Missouri statute on interfering, Section 575.150, states he must either threaten violence or physically interfere, neither which was the case here.

(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or

(2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference.

 


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.





  • Difster

    Ka-Ching. Pay day for false arrest. No probable cause.

    • Phred

      Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

      • Elliott Whitlow

        Why should we, it is happening more and more and with the sheer number of cases the officers can’t rationally argue they didn’t know they were wrong.

        • Phred

          They know they are wrong and don’t care because they know nothing will happen to them. It rarely does.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Not arrested for photos but for interfereing twice with cops. The photog was wrong twice for moving too close.

      • Herbert Napp

        He was too close initially and nothing was said by either cop, the third cop that pushed him too far back overstepped. One of the top comments explains this well:

        “That’s horseshit, and you probably know it. MO Rev Stat Section 84.710 gives the police the ability to demand ID if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (photography is not a crime). That interaction was so brief, and so aggressive on the part of the cop, that it is tremendously weak. It isn’t even clear that he was detained before he was arrested.”

        • Josef Roesler

          Two of the cops were busy doing their job, whether they were right or not in the arrest. They didn’t have time to be screwing with the idiot cameraman. You do not have to be detained before you are arrested for something. You internet lawyers are just making things up.

          • Herbert Napp

            Their mouths were not occupied, son. I know several retired LEOs that would have definitely barked at that kid. Thanks for the judgement.

          • Josef Roesler

            Not necessary, the third cop handled it. Son. Good for you, you know some old people.

          • Herbert Napp

            It was necessary, idiot.

          • Josef Roesler

            Name calling…last refuge of the desperate. Why was it necessary for the 2 cops to be distracted when the third cop was available to handle it?

          • Herbert Napp

            The third cop was -NOT- available to handle it until it was too LATE and handled it WRONG, IDIOT. Secondly, I am calling you an idiot because you are one ,and responded to a multilined post with a shitty one liner.

          • Josef Roesler

            Aww, I hurt your feelings with my short comment.

            The cop handled the douche with the camera just fine. He made all the yelling and the interfering stop.

          • Herbert Napp

            He also overstepped his authority. The guy filming was an idiot, but cop #3 really set the bar for idiocy. Thankfully though, the photographer was not armed, alert, and ready to defend his rights,

          • Fotaugrafee

            Distracted? Sounds like another chicken shit excuse like New York’s new “annoying police” law.

          • Heisenberg

            You are right you do not have to be detained before arrest, but he must be committing a crime in progress for that statement to be true. Was his crime in progress interfering, Mo law seems not to address this situation, maybe you can enlighten me, since I am a moronic internet lawyer that make things up please explain to me the what law was broken.

          • Josef Roesler

            I don’t know what law was broken because I can’t see the affidavit of probable cause that was filed, but I am quite sure it doesn’t say, “illegal arrest.”

          • Fotaugrafee

            Big surprise. You poke your stick at “internet lawyers”, but you’re just an “internet boob that wishes he had a badge & gun”.

          • Fotaugrafee

            And what is it that you wanna-be internet cops do exactly? Oh yes, you tell us what they person has done wrong…which is nothing. Thanks for smacking that one home!! ;)

          • Meric Ackerman

            And because they didn’t have time to screw with the cameraman then they are displaying incompetence in choosing to do so, anyway. He was not interfering. They might not like being filmed, but his filming didn’t effect their behavior in any possible way, except perhaps to keep them honest.

      • BusPass

        I don’t know why you even post on these videos…the officer actually said he was arresting him for failing to identify himself, not for “interfering” with cops. In fact, when he approached the woman (who he seemed to know), it was to de-escalate the issue (“Diana, don’t resist,” he said). The cop then said, “you need to back up or you are going to be placed under arrest.” At that moment the photog immediately backed up as he was told.

        The third officer, who looked like remarkably like Barney Fife, actually told him that he was required to identify himself, and then said “YOU ARE UNDER ARREST FOR FAILURE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF.”

        Not for “interfering twice with cops,” or “moving too close.”

        Do you actually watch these videos before you type the idiotic stuff that comes off your keyboard?

        One more thing…I find it ironic that the fluffy lady is asking them over and over again why she is being arrested and they never answer her. The guy who doesn’t ask is immediately told that he is being arrested for “failure to identify,” even though that’s not a crime.

        Modern cops are walking contradictions.

        • Herbert Napp

          I’ve never seen him take the side of a photog, lol.

      • Carlos_Miller

        Please read the definition for “interfering” for Missouri. He was not interfering.

        (1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or

        (2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference.

        http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5750000150.htm

      • inquisitor

        Wrong…FOOL!!!
        The cop arrested him for failing to identify, not for interfering.
        Put a new battery in that Siemens.

        • Mark Olish

          There is no such crime,moron….

          • inquisitor

            I know there is no such crime you sour cunt.

          • Mark Olish

            I can’t even imagine what food would taste like with a mouth like yours. Give your wife a big kiss with it for me…

          • Fotaugrafee

            DERP…I think he realizes that, which is the point of this discussion.

      • Antonio Buehler

        What is “too close” and how is that “interfering”?

      • Fotaugrafee

        Are you REALLY that dense old man? Christ almighty… :(

      • Rail Car Fan

        Here we go again… “Another Country Heard From!!”

        Rail Car Fan

      • BusPass

        “interfereing” should be ‘interfering.’

    • Antonio Buehler

      Wrong. Most people who are falsely arrested never get justice.

      • Difster

        Having it on video helps though.

      • Heisenberg

        You are probably right, the officer will hide behind qualified immunity. But they need to prove that any “reasonable officer” should have made the arrest. In LA county for example approximately half of “”interfering”" arrest are tossed on the spot. Unfortunately, California have interfering law that is vague and is the perfect cover charge.

  • Guest

    We need to stop allowing these traitorous pieces of filth to roam our streets with guns. These are our police departments, not the police department’s police department.

  • Film The Police Always

    Only one thing will change police behaviors.

    • Rob

      To start holding officers personally responsible for their actions without qualified immunity.

  • Tom_Blackwell

    An attorney will be able to advise him about his rights under civil and criminal statutes.

  • Xavier Lfd

    It looks and sounds like two false arrests. Before male police bust into a women’s restroom to arrest a woman they should be showing a warrant and announcing why they are arresting her. This recording is wrong on so many levels. These cops need to be fired, all of them, for allowing such procedures to pass.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Exception is if they have reason to believe a crime was in progress, or going to be commited, or evidence was going to be destroyed, or they knowledge that she is wanted or escaped from custody or from bail… none of which require a warrant.
      .
      And the photog was interferring with the arrest. What does he expect?

      • Frank Talk

        He absolutely did not interfere with the arrest. He moved to the other side of the car when first asked, then moved back when approached by the other officer. The other cop could have not been a dick and just told him he wasn’t far enough back. I think the cops were looking for a reason to arrest the guy.

        • Josef Roesler

          The cameraman could have not been a dick and kept his distance without making the third cop go after him. Close proximity and all that yelling is plenty of cause for interfering.

          • BusPass

            All that yelling? He was telling the woman they were arresting to not resist the police.

            Since when is telling someone to comply with the police the same as “interfering?” If another cop said “Diane, don’t resist the police,” would he be interfering?

            Holy s*&$. People are really unaware of what they actually just saw, or else they aren’t even watching the video.

          • Josef Roesler

            I’m sorry, I thought he was yelling all through the video. My mistake. I guess you didn’t just single out the one helpful thing he yelled. As far as the cops are concerned, they don’t care what he was yelling. Can you do your job with a man standing three feet from you and yelling?

          • BusPass

            You said “close proximity and all that yelling.” Context is important. He can “yell,” if that’s what you want to call it.

            Yes, I can do parts of my job with someone standing “three feet away and yelling.” And if they would do it at improper times, I wouldn’t lie to them and violate their rights.

          • Josef Roesler

            Maybe you can. Add to that the ever present threat of danger from anyone who walks up to you. You have the luxury of living in a bubble where it’s safe. You have no idea what it’s like to not know who the next person who will try to kill you is.

            Obviously, he can’t.

          • BusPass

            Good grief, give me a break. Being a cop doesn’t even crack the top 10 of most dangerous jobs.

            You have no idea where I’ve been or what I’ve done. I know first hand the risk on the street in these circumstances, and I know that the police are the only people in America that use that same lame excuse to ‘justify’ their own misbehavior. Smart and discerning Americans know it’s a ruse. Theater. Nothing more.

          • Josef Roesler

            I didn’t say it was a top 10 dangerous job. But threat of danger is just as hard to deal with. I don’t need to know where you’ve been, it’s obvious these cops couldn’t have done anything to please you cop haters.

          • Voice-Of_Concern

            You misunderstand.. or perhaps intentionally misconstrue. Many of of don’t hate cops per se. We hate cops who abuse their authority & arrest folks for what usually amounts to Contempt of Cop. Yeah, we totally hate that.. and if you don’t, you are indeed the problem.

          • Josef Roesler

            I don’t defend the minority of cops who do bad things. But in this particular video, nobody even knows why the cops arrested the woman in the first place. And if you want better relationships with cops and fotogs, then don’t get in their way while they are doing their jobs, whether you agree with what they are doing or not. Film it, keep the yelling to a minimum, then actually DO SOMETHING with the video instead of just posting it to YouTube to be sensational. I see too many fuck the police videos that could have been used to re-educate police departments, but are instead just intended to foment hate.

          • Phred

            The cops know how to use YouTube. If they want videos as an educational source, they can find them just as easily as anyone else.

          • Josef Roesler

            That’s a cop-out. Just rely on them to YouTube it and retrain themselves…how’s that working for you?

          • Fotaugrafee

            Why should there be a need for retraining??? They should have never received a badge & gun until it was patently understood that you do not violation civil rights of the people you’re charged to protect.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Education is only possible for those willing to learn. The problem is, they “know it all (about the law)” and you aren’t going to tell ‘em nothing.

          • BusPass

            Try to back out now, but you tried to make the case about how dangerous their job was, and that people like me “have no idea what it’s like” and that we live in a “bubble.” In order for you to make such a claim, you rather do need to know where I’ve been, because otherwise you are making broad unsupportable assumptions.

            It also reflects that you don’t realize the danger that so many more other people face who aren’t cops.

            What’s obvious is that you like the taste of bootleather. What you seem to have missed is that we’ve pretty clearly pointed out what the cops can do to “please” the people who love the Constitution, embrace the Constitution, and pay their paychecks, and that is for the cops to operate within the restrictions of the Constitution…and to exercise just a bit of respect for their fellow mankind.

            Was this really not clear to you?

          • Josef Roesler

            I didn’t back out of anything. There’s no other job besides soldier where the people you work for are trying to kill you at any given moment. I know you don’t know what it’s like because you are not a cop. The rest of your tirade I’ve already agreed with in other posts. You just chose the wrong video to demonize cops in since this one has no evidence of wrongdoing in, other than the third cop mis-speaking at the end.

          • BusPass

            It’s simply not true that “the people” they “work for” are “trying to kill” them “at any given moment.” Such a task would be simple.

            The fact is that they don’t crack the top 10 on most dangerous jobs.

            Again, you have no idea where I’ve been or what I’ve done, so your effort to marginalize my position on this is grossly misguided.

            Telling someone they are under arrest for “failure to identify” is not just a
            mis-speak,” it’s a violation of his rights, specifically because it involved a demand for ACTION…he demanded ID, then announced he was going to arrest him for refusing to produce it. That’s not “misspeaking,” that’s an intent to violate someone’s rights…unless you are suggesting that when the cop said “show your ID,” that he meant to say something else, and when he said “you are under arrest for failing to identify” he mean to say the man was under arrest for something else.

            Really…bring a better game to this argument. That was just pathetic.

          • Guest

            Better a cop hater than a cop apologist.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Better a cop hater than an apologist for corrupt, reckless authorities.

          • Fotaugrafee

            If the police weren’t so damn corrupt in the first place, I guess they wouldn’t have a need to be afraid of civilians. Now would they?

          • Fotaugrafee

            DERP…

            You ask him to move back, with reasonable respect to his right to record the ENTIRE altercation. This isn’t a life or death situation, and it doesn’t need to be ramshackle speed “git ‘er done” style. These goons are just in a hurry to avoid the camera, that’s the REAL crime here.

            Got any more excuses to pull out of your ass?

          • inquisitor

            He was not arrested for yelling or interfering.
            Carlos posted the legal definitions in that state for interfering.
            Being in close proximity and yelling are never mentioned.

          • Josef Roesler

            Maybe not, but that’s what got his ass in jail.

          • Difdi

            In other words, he was arrested for not breaking a law. That’s a false arrest.

          • Josef Roesler

            Yeah, I guess so. They probably let him go when he got to jail and they realized their mistake.

          • inquisitor

            Well then…end of story mooter.

          • Josef Roesler

            I already quit, cop hater, there was no need to continue your Alinsky insults.

        • Fotaugrafee

          They were looking for a reason to get his camera pointed AWAY from them, at the very least. We all know our cameras are THEIR biggest threat, accountability & whatnot.

      • Difdi

        What crime? Grand Theft Air Freshener?

      • Fotaugrafee

        But that’s not what we was arrested for, you geriatric retard.

      • BusPass

        Can you spell “hypocrite?” I keep seeing you being the grammar Nazi and chiding people for misspelling words over and over again, but it’s obvious from the three blatant errors by you that you are a pot being a half-wit douchebag.

        “commited” = committed.
        “they knowledge” should be they acknowledge, or they had knowledge.
        “interferring” = interfering.

    • Fotaugrafee

      I’m lost here, honestly…

      Serving a warrant on a presumably PUBLIC women’s restroom? I wasn’t aware that you needed a warrant to search a public area, despite it’s gender specific nature.

  • Tijuana Joe

    Is it illegal to identify yourself as “Joe Mama”?

    • quadeddie

      Yes. Just don’t say anything.

  • steve618

    He was WAYYY too close to the officers while recording. A “tactical” mistake which likely led to his arrest. They could argue he was interfering with the arresting officers. They may, or may not win a lawsuit and he may, or may not have his charges dismissed, but he did not manage to avoid being arrested for filming because he underestimated (as most do) what police are capable of doing.

    • John

      The problem is that what constitutes “interfering” isn’t as clearly defined as it should be. Courts have ruled that recording is just fine as long as you’re not interfering. But what constitutes “interfering”? I’ve heard at least one source say that to interfere you have to actually be touching the officers, whereas others say officers can ask you to stand at a “reasonable distance.” But what’s a reasonable distance?

      Seems like it’d be in both the interests of the public and law enforcement to define these terms more clearly.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Yes, this was a judgement call for the police. They gave the photog two chances and what did he do? He kept coming toward them again.
        .
        If a sober photog had just maintain distance and kept his mouth shut and not tried to interfere, there would be no arrest. I believe the photog got what he wanted… to be arrested.
        .
        He provoked it. He forced their hand with his own poor judgement.

        • Ron

          What are you? A broken record? You disagree, we get it, no need to keep repeating the same point over and over and over and over …

          • Josef Roesler

            You mean like the cop haters are doing? Film from a distance and keep quiet.

          • BusPass

            Look at the Gavin Seim incident in Boise…filming from a distance and keeping quiet will not keep the police from trying to force us to “identify” ourselves and surrender our rights.

          • Josef Roesler

            So then you have a case. You have no case when you’re getting in their space and harassing them.

          • BusPass

            You are missing the point…they don’t care, and they will fabricate any scenario they want to justify their misbehavior.

            We have no obligation to respect the police when they are being disrespectful.

          • Josef Roesler

            Maybe if so many people didn’t act like an ass on the streets, cops wouldn’t be so aggressive. You can disrespect the cops from a distance. That is the point.

          • BusPass

            Is there any reason why you can’t discuss this as an issue of law, liberty, and the Constitution?

            Doesn’t matter how people act if they aren’t breaking the law.

            No excuses allowed.

          • Josef Roesler

            Does matter how they act if they are breaking the law. Zero tolerance allowed.

          • BusPass

            That’s not the issue here. Try to stay on point. Focus.

            And it’s amusing that there is no zero-tolerance for police misbehavior.

          • Josef Roesler

            It is the issue here, you’re bitching about unconstitutional activity in a video where there was none. It’s amazing how easily libertarian types succumb to Alinsky tactics such as name calling and condescending speech.

          • BusPass

            Since the actual stated reason by the police for arresting the man was unconstitutional, then clearly this is not a case of “how they act if they are breaking the law,” but about whether or not the police are acting unconstitutional.

            BTW, I never called you any names. You, on the other hand, did use a negative label to define your critics, so not only are you projecting, you are dishing out what you can’t handle even when it’s not directed at you.

            That’s pure hypocrisy. And pretty damn funny to see.

          • Josef Roesler

            Condescending speech: “Try to stay on point. Focus.” Not funny at all. You’re the hypocrite.

            As I said, I am sure the cop misspoke in the heat of the moment. Since you’ve never been in a high pressure situation before, it’s easy to excuse you for not knowing that people can say the wrong thing sometimes. I am sure the charge the cop filed was not for anything other than interfering. But you don’t know that because you were not there, you’re just here to hate on cops and spread the word.

          • BusPass

            When you refer to people as “cop haters,” you relinquish your right to whine like a little bitch about how people talk to you, kapish, skippy?

            But not surprised, you’ll give the cop a pass in “the heat of the moment,” but fail to provide that some benefit-of-the-doubt to the citizens. Typical.

            I don’t have to “be there;” I can see the video, and when the police are failing to articulate any crime being committed, then we are not obligated to surrender our rights just for their convenience.

            Why do you hate the Constitution? What do you have against individual liberty? Why are you such a bootlicker?

            Please note, I escalated this language specifically because you are not only a whiner, you are a hypocrite. Don’t start none, won’t be none.

          • BusPass

            Dear asshat; you are the one to introduce the action of namecalling. Stop being such a whining little bitch.

          • Fotaugrafee

            OK…and what law was he breaking again?

          • Fotaugrafee

            Exactly, TWO WAY STREET. Golden Rule & all. The difference is, it’s their fucking job to be respectful in ALL situations.

          • inquisitor

            While they twist your wife’s arm after never answering the charge for her arrest when asked several times you can just hang back until her radius is cracked in half, rips a whole in her forearm and juts out while her arterial blood gushes down the side of the cop car.

          • Josef Roesler

            Yeah, none of that happened. And his yelling didn’t stop it.

          • inquisitor

            I wouldn’t wait long enough for that to happen before three men in blue are lying face down bleeding out on the ground.

          • Josef Roesler

            Big man.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Other than stating the fact that he “has the right to record” and offering advice to the arrest female party, what utterances of his are you taking issue with?

        • BusPass

          Kept his mouth shut?

          Again, why do you ignore the actual stated reason that the police used as their reason for arresting him?

          • steve618

            They will likely add several more charges and anything else they can come up with down at the station. “Failure to I.D.” was for the camera. The cops will merely say his proximity made them “feeeel” unsafe and therefore interfered with. He didn’t have to say or threaten anything with words. Courts routinely recognize “body language” as a form of communicating intent and the cops merely have to point this out.

          • BusPass

            You remind me of my brother in law.

            He’s a total toolbag, BTW.

          • Heisenberg

            Body language, this sound like a reach as a juror, I cannot convicted anyone for body language.

        • FTP

          Not sure that you and I are watching the same tape!

        • Heisenberg

          The problem is the perception we have of the police, the problem is seen that they are trying to cover up a rough arrest, I think the arrest was not rough by the way. I am not sure what she was arrested for or why he was even in the women’s restroom. I agree the term interfering is so vague it can be basically a cover charge. The backup cop should have just watched him make sure he did not physically interfere with the officer in fact he was helping the officers by telling her not to resist. Instead the officer went on his power trip and escalated the situation. His arrest did not need to happen.

        • Fotaugrafee

          Heel boot licker, heel.

          Good boot licker.

          WOOF!!!!

        • BusPass

          “had just maintain distance” should be ‘had just maintained distance.

      • Heisenberg

        That is a frustration of mine, I do not know what is interfering, I saw people arrested for 8 feet away to 90 or 100 feet away. And they were all arrested for “”interfering”" which make no sense to me.

      • Fotaugrafee

        The authorities will never allow it to happen. Strict definition doesn’t give them ANY wiggle room.

        Much the same as companies (in my business) do not want a discipline process for all, nor do they want anything on record that would jeopardize their charge. It gives them justification for termination when you have nothing with which to fight back.

      • Heisenberg

        I agree it seems that the courts and the law makers leave it to the cops. I heard cops use the excuse that if they are looking at someone else and you do something to make the look at u that is obstruction. A cop can bark out an order to film at a place that is useless and threaten arrest. Cops believe that there are two types of press. One is the “real” press like CBS new etc, then there is everyone else and we are treated with no respect, courts tells us we should be treated the same but LE treats us different. This is like the Dredd Scott decision cops believe that citizen photographers have no rights that they should respect as simple as that. We can just use obstruction non-sense as the cover charge to enforce out thinking.

    • jimmarch

      Came here to post this. Yes, he got too close. BUT he did back to across the car as they were putting the woman into it, and he told the woman not to resist – that will help him later. At the time the 3rd cop comes in he’s back far but, in my opinion, not far enough.

      I think the “21 foot rule” might help here. That’s at least how far back us cameramen should be in most circumstances. 21 feet is how far somebody can move in roughly 1.5 seconds, which is also the draw-and-fire time for a handgun. If somebody threatens a cop with a knife from 5ft away the cops are allowed to shoot him because he’s an immediate threat; if he’s 50 feet away, not so much. 21 feet is the “Tueller drill distance” that marks the boundary between those states.

      There are exceptions if a cop himself moves deep towards a cameraman! That is on them, and if they do that you have no responsibility to top filming.

      • Phred

        Who carries a 21-foot tape measure?

        • jimmarch

          Well at least make a ballpark attempt.

      • Heisenberg

        At least it is a defined distance why don’t they use this as the legal distance for filming, it seems that each cop can decide on his/her own what that distance is acceptable, so this leads to arbitary interfering and obstruction arrest. They decide on where you film so this on the face is a violation on the frist admentment. They need to be a book written for the cops and the public Obstruction for Dummies.

    • Phred

      Then why not arrest him for interfering instead of failure to identify?

    • Difdi

      And if they had arrested him THEN maybe they’d have a valid (or at least plausible) case for interfering. But they didn’t do that. Instead, they ordered him back and he obeyed the order, even going so far as to stand with a barrier between him and the arrest.

      He was arrested for doing something the law says he has a right to do by an officer who didn’t know or didn’t care what the law said, he just cared about his authoritah.

    • Fotaugrafee

      Anyone is “capable” of doing ANY thing, whether they actually do it is another story. Capability doesn’t equal legal justification.

  • Proud GrandPa

    I’d like to see a clear violation sometime. This wasn’t about photography. It was about interference. Proof? Listen to the cops warn the photog to get back. He did and then moved back in again. They warned him to back off again and he interfered again.
    .
    Carlos, if you want a example of police trying to stop photography, wouldn’t it be a refreshing surprise to actually offer your readers a video of cops trying to stop photograpy? Just a novel and really creative thought!

    • inquisitor

      The cop did not arrest the photog for interference but failure to identify himself.

    • LibertyEbbs

      Jesus fucking christ!!! You cannot see that stopping the photog from documenting the arrest is EXACTLY what the cops were doing? Perhaps you have a blind spot or you purposefully obfuscate in these cases? Seriously, I am asking again…which is it?

      • Ryan French

        I guess gramps missed the part when the man was arrested while backing away and the officer stated he under arrest for failure to identify, not interference. Doh!

      • Josef Roesler

        Looks more like it’s a result of him getting in the way and not doing what he is told. He could have filmed quietly from a distance and would have been left alone.

      • inquisitor

        …it is purposeful obfuscation in the case of gramps.

    • BusPass

      If you want to criticize the content, why don’t you actually figure out what’s going on in the video before posting?

  • Frank Talk

    Also, it sounded like the last cop said, “you’re under arrest for not identifying yourself,” not for interfering with the arrest of the woman. If so, that will be dropped in no time.

    • Difdi

      Yeah, but the irreparable harm has already been done with the ride even if he beats the rap.

  • TVCS

    Man they are quick on the Facebook page for Cape Girardeau police dept. They take down the video and any negative comments within 15 minutes and ban users – now, they’ve taken the page down apparently. We also posted on Cape Girardeau Municipal Government page – I think they’re a bit worried…

  • Mary Queen

    Missouri. “nuff said.

  • Truth For Students

    America has the highest prison population in the world for a reason. The cops arrest a lot of people for nothing.
    Everything is a crime in America today.

  • Prisoner416

    Have to sadly side with the cops on this one. The man was warned twice to back away from the area. Yelling, literally getting into their face, and ignoring orders is never wise. Someone needs to find out why the woman was being arrested… I suspect disorderly conduct given the types of things she yells out (somehow dragging Obama into it).

  • Mark Olish

    Typical for Rush Limbaugh’s home town. They are a constant source of embarrassment for our state. It’s also the oxycontin capital as well, go figure.

  • http://www.noneedforastinkingwebsite.com dow daytrader

    I think I know why she was arrested…it seems she was not taking her diet pills and she was over-eating 3x a day!

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: