February 15th, 2014

Pennsylvania Cop and Fire Chief Order Man to Stop Recording Traffic Investigation from Front Yard 193

By Carlos Miller

 

A Pennsylvania state police officer along with a fire chief ordered a man to turn off his camera, informing him that it was illegal to record a crash investigation after they walked onto his parent’s property in an intimidating manner.

Fearing for his safety, Mike Bosmay complied with their orders even though he knew they were wrong.

He said he had no plans to share the video of police testing a man’s sobriety after he crashed his car into a telephone pole but the fact they violated his Constitutional rights prompted him to upload the video to Youtube.

The video shows a man wearing a Pennsylvania State Police hoodie walk up to him, trying to snag his phone, telling him he was not allowed to record, followed by South Greensburg Fire Chief Eric Hardy who also told him he was not allowed to record.

This is not the first time a Pennsylvania fire chief impeded on the rights of citizens to record in public.

The state cop is probably from the Greensburg Headquarters. Trooper Stephen Limani, the station’s community services officer, can be reached at (724) 832-485.

The non-emergency number to the South Greensburg Fire Department is (724) 834-5470. Chief Hardy can be reached by email through here.

UPDATE: After sending me the video and ensuring he has no problem with me using his name, Bosmay then was upset that I included the phone numbers, pleading with me to take them down, fearing they would retaliate.

I told him I wouldn’t as I do that with all my stories. These are publicly listed numbers after all.

So then he made the video private.

Please, people, don’t waste my fucking time sending me videos if you’re going to act like this.


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

    There’s just no way in hell that every cop in this country doesn’t know it’s perfectly legal for us to record them. They are lying and need to be held ‘personally’ accountable for those lies. We need to start demanding they be fired for this habitual ‘mistake.’

    • matism

      Good luck with that! You actually seem to think they work for you. Or respect their very oath of office to the Constitution. Not hardly. They work for whoever signs their paycheck. And will do WHATEVER they are told. Oath of office be damned!

  • RPM

    That just irks me so much. So much ignorance out there.

  • MadLibertarian

    “I just told you you can’t video tape this”. Oh, so because he said that I now have to apparently….

    • matism

      Well, unless you want him to shoot you and claim he feared for his safety. Like the retired pig here in Florida who got in an argument with a man in a movie theater, went out to his car, got his gun, went back into the theater and murdered the man. Wanna be he gets away with it? Jonathan Corbett? ExCopLawStudent? Proud Grandpa?

      • Rail Car Fan

        You forgot another name… “Johnny (Cops Can Do NO Wrong!) Law”.

        Rail Car Fan

      • pinbalwyz

        Harvey Milk’s killer (a fire fighter for the city) got away with murder when his attorney used the ‘Twinkie defense’. Apparently the killer was suffering from a sugar psychosis, or so his defense counsel successfully argued. Later (after his release) the killer committed suicide. What happened to the Florida killer? He could get away with it like so many others.
        But public opinion didn’t give Harvey Milk’s killer a reprieve. It continued to condemn him regardless of the miscarriage of justice in his case.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

    • Clark

      “That’s fine, because I haven’t used tape in years!”

  • CEDUPZ

    how stupid are cops, they let this moron have a gun, and he’s wearing shorts in Febuary in the SNOW!! Where do they get these assholes, and arm them? You can’t film this, i said so!!!! THAT is the big issue! He says so! Really, we are truly FK’D. What law did he mention, oh, his!

    • matism

      Not “stupid”. Corrupt. And treasonous. Because they know very well not one GD thing will be done to them.

  • CEDUPZ

    Cops truly are walking jerkoffs, sanctioned by the state, how F’in DUMB is this country? He aggressively approached, looking for a fight, STEROIDS, all cops need to be drug tested.

    • G

      I can understand cops being jerks, but I thought fire personnel were more friendly, courteous, and helpful to the public. I was wrong.

      • CEDUPZ

        Really, since when do firemen and EMT turn on people,? Very weird. What if he was inside through a window, would that dopey cop pushed his way into the house illegally, and started some shit? cops are really tyrants, what is feeding their disdain for people, too many STEROIDS? What has happened to cops?

        • G

          This website has videos now of fire personnel turning on people who are filming.

  • Guest

    Name. We need to find out and publish the name of this traitor. His wife, his parents, his children, his friends need to see the filthy traitor that he is.

    • matism

      They already know. And they don’t give a damn. As long as he keeps bringing home that paycheck, they will cheer him on.

    • pinbalwyz

      That’s irresponsible. One doesn’t combat fascism by becoming a Nazi. Chill!
      -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

  • StreyDawg

    A little context; I used to work in public safety in this area and I don’t believe either of these fellows are state police troopers. The one clown might have had a hoodie that said PSP, but it was probably a reflection of his limited wardrobe where he is unable to wear clothing that doesn’t reflect his yinzerness and lack of ability to wear clothing that he doesn’t think defines him in some way.

    I fully believe that these are two low-IQ volunteer firefighters that work low-wage blue collar jobs that fit their level of motivation and derive the remaining bit of life relevance by being vollie firefighters and believing they have the authority to tell people they can’t record. I’ve done public safety photography in western PA and these clowns are a dime a dozen.

    This is not an effort to defend the police, but it appears this was solely an activity of some volunteer firefighters, and not the police.

    • Tijuana Joe

      So let me get this right—-these assholes are not really police?

      • StreyDawg

        I doubt it. They look like fire department vollies to me. Probably the guy with the most teeth in the room when the department elected their chief and assistant chief.

    • matism

      So there is a vehicle accident, a man is being subjected to some form of sobriety test, but you don’t think it was a pig who was involved in the threat to the videographer?

      • StreyDawg

        The video did not show the police at all being involved in the confrontation of the man with the camera.

        You can think what you want, but the video doesn’t show the police being involved; it shows two guys in civilians clothes taking it upon themselves to violate this guy’s rights.

        • pinbalwyz

          I had the same confrontation with a citizen at the Highland Games festival in a State park near Belfair, WA when an elderly man collapsed on the grass and the EMT’s had to come to transport him to a hospital. The citizen appeared to have just come from the beer garden at the public event. It wasn’t until after he refused to stop threatening me no matter how many steps backward I took while warning him to back off and leave me alone when I reached inside my vest that his wife pulled him off of me. Being a street photographer isn’t for the feint of heart. It’s dangerous! Photographers should always give some thought to an exit plan and means of self defense–it could save their life.
          -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Rogue Reflections

            Many people like to consider EMTs and Firefighters the good guys. I have been harassed by them as well. I live in Washington State and will say that here, all uniformed people seem pretty well trained. I think a uniform and badge, if not on a balanced person, is easy to give a false sense of authority. Having worn the uniform of an EMT, I know this first hand. I had to remind myself, continually, that I am not God.

  • Brent Busch

    They’ve got some real morons on the fire department there. I got a call back and the “chief” said that it’s illegal to record his voice without his consent. He was specifically talking about the guy that was recording the video. He said he’s a volunteer so he’s not a public servant. Where do they find these morons?

    • pinbalwyz

      Ben Franklin worried about corruption in the people as well as the government. Educating our public officials about the right to photograph will be incomplete until we educate the people as well.
      -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

    • n4zhg

      His department gets authority to operate from the township. A complaint to the board of supervisors is the next step.

  • STOPbadCOPS

    Once again, low IQ cops that know less about the law than the rest of us. I hope that police across the nation understand that this kind of crap is going to eventually blow up in their faces… people are not going to keep tolerating the steroid head dopey tough guy routine. We know where you live in the communities, we know your family, and we can make your life pretty uncomfortable socially… you SERVE US. Get it through your low IQ heads.

    • pinbalwyz

      It does the cause of photographer’s no favor when a proponent advocates threatening LEO’s and their families. Chill out.
      -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

  • Ray186

    Hmm, the video is now private. He must have had a visit.

  • Mike Bosmay

    Don’t call the fire department, or the State Police (He most likely isn’t a State Trooper, just a wannabe). It won’t solve anything, I am contemplating legal action or using the ACLU.

    • Guest

      Legal action against who?

    • Josef Roesler

      What legal standing do you have in this case?

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

        He’s got standing, he just doesn’t have any damages.

        • Josef Roesler

          Sorry, I didn’t realize Mike Bosmay was the same guy in the article, I had forgotten his name.

        • jcfromnj

          Correction, he’s doesn’t have the Balls to confront them….

          • pinbalwyz

            When you expose these people, they WILL come after you and retaliate, rest assured. It does take some courage to expose them nevertheless.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

        • pinbalwyz

          WRONG! ExCop-LawStudent. You should know better. A violation of a citizen’s civil rights is considered damages, in law, by definition. One need not demonstrate actual damages to maintain a 1983 civil rights lawsuit.
          -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

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

            Why not go back to typing whatever your supervising attorney tells you to type, and leave actual legal analysis to those who know how to do it?

            “[N]o compensatory damages may be awarded in a § 1983 suit absent proof of actual injury.” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 112, (1992).

            “[T]he abstract value of a constitutional right may not form the basis for § 1983 damages.” Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 308, (1986).

            “[S]ome actual, if intangible, injury must be proved before compensatory damages may be recovered.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 264 (1978).

          • pinbalwyz

            The emotional distress of being denied the exercise of one’s lawful rights and/or damage to one’s reputation and/or any of a number of alternate theories easily ascend that most minimal of thresholds. If an arrested suspect is raped by a cop in the jailhouse, he/she need not show an invoice or change in the balance of his bank account for related expenses. It’s enough that his/her rights were violated. After all, if one is prevented from voting because of one’s race, actual damages would be hard to show. But the 1983 section of federal law is explicitly designed to prohibit/punish these kinds of abuses. The violation of civil rights IS the damage.

            Moreover, the 1983 law doesn’t cite a threshold amount…conceivably it’s anything more than a peppercorn, counselor in waiting. If the law were without teeth, the police would violate the civil rights of suspects with impunity–which they too often do anyway. There are consequences to violating someone’s civil rights, and actual damages theories may serve as no shield to those consequences.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

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

            Do you have any authority to cite, or is this the normal BS?

          • pinbalwyz

            http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/lweinberg/monropub.pdf

            Damages as well as injunctive relieve (or both) are available under the federal 1983 section of civil rights law. A LEO who violates a citizen’s civil rights under color of law loses whatever qualified immunity he/she may otherwise have had.

            Suits directly under the Constitution have always been known, and have been brought both before and after the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Home Telephone is an instance; Ex parte Young is a more famous example.

            Young is the celebrated case in which the Supreme Court saved injunction suits against state officials from the operation of the eleventh amendment.

            Actions for damages were also available directly under the Constitution, without need for a statutory remedy. Certainly Osborn v. Bank of the
            United States was an action for money, if a famous example is wanted, although Osborn was in equity. In (1991) BYU L. Rev. 742 Osborn, the
            plaintiff bank was seeking to get money back from state officials who were trying to enforce an unconstitutional state tax. The Court decided
            that the constitutional federal judicial power extended to this.

            Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 857-58. See, e.g., Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 58, 113-14 (1897) (holding that an action to recover damages against state officials for property wrongfully taken is not a suit against the state within the meaning of the eleventh amendment).

            After Monroe and Mapp, the Court began to “incorporate,” among other rights, the parts of the Bill of Rights that could impact most directly
            on the general population: those controlling the criminal law enforcement process. Soon after Mapp, the Court handed down, among other incorporation cases, Robinson v. California, incorporating into the due process clause the eighth amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Such rights, like fourth amendment rights, have inherently actionable qualities. They are violated by identifiable individual employees of the government; these employees, though likely to be reimbursed, can be sued in their own right, obviating a doctrinal need for respondeat superior; and their violations can cause personal injuries or other weighty and measurable damages.

            Explaining Some Characteristics of Monroe Actions:

            We now can begin to understand certain features of litigation under Monroe. The civil rights injunction litigation under Brown and Baker v.
            Carr89 typically is against a very different sort of governmental defendant from the damages defendant under Monroe. Monroe does not happen in equity. This is not only, as the second Justice Harlan remarked, because for victims of unlawful searches, as a practical matter, it is “damages or nothing.”

            For the most part the incorporated rights that, after Monroe, revived the Civil Rights Act were rights attaching to the state criminal process. A
            federal injunction against a state violation of these sorts of rights is virtually unavailable and would have been virtually unavailable throughout our history. Federal judicial interference with state criminal process has always been under a cloud. Not coincidentally, perhaps, Younger (1991) BYU L. Rev. 751 v. Harris, the modern key doctrinal
            inhibition on federal injunctions against state criminal proceedings, emerged after the Supreme Court’s incorporation of the fourth, fifth, and
            sixth amendments into the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause.

            Even when civil rights injunctions are sought to restrain police misconduct or other extra-judicial dysfunction in state criminal justice, the Supreme
            Court typically disapproves them. So federal equity as against state officials is confined, by and large—as Brown v. Board of Education
            suggests—to rights that would work outside the context of the state criminal process: to equal protection claims (but only after Brown), and to
            substantive due process claims, as Ex parte Young suggests.

            The Supreme Court was more forthcoming, and Justice Holmes true to his word on damages, decades later in the well known case of Nixon v.
            Herndon. There, under the fourteenth amendment, the Court held, reversing the court below, that black qualified voters could sue state
            election officials for damages for denial of the right to vote in a primary election. Despite Holmes’s pessimism about judicial power to right “great political wrongs,” he could now say, “The objection that the subject matter of the suit is political is little more than a play upon words.” Here, no doubt, he meant to distinguish damages (1991) BYU L. Rev. 757 from injunctions, since he cited Giles v. Harris. No mention was made of
            the Civil Rights Act; the action appears to have been brought directly under the Constitution.

            The 1971 case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics was another well known exercise in Supreme
            Court creativity in the field of civil rights. Bivens arose on fourth amendment facts fairly like those of Monroe, except that the defendants were federal, rather than state, officials. In Bivens the Court held that, even in the absence of a statutory cause of action, a civil rights action for
            damages could be brought against federal officials for violation of a constitutional right. In effect, in Bivens, the Supreme Court created a
            non-statutory civil rights “act.”

            209 U.S. 123 (1908) (holding federal injunction against state official not barred by eleventh amendment because official stripped of authority to act by violation of the Constitution).

            Today, Justice Gray’s concerns about requiring an official to pay personal damages for official actions and Justice Holmes’s concerns
            about the efficacy of injunctions to right political wrongs have not gone away. The Bivens action is hedged round with proliferated official immunities defenses just as the Monroe action is. And recently the Supreme Court has refused to extend the Bivens action beyond the rights earlier made actionable under Bivens.

            There is no single, omnibus civil rights statute in the United States. Rather, over the course of a century, Congress has enacted many different laws to protect specific aspects of civil rights from infringement. Section 1983,’ for example, was enacted in 1871, as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act, to deal with racial violence in southern states. The 1964 Civil Rights Act3 contains many crucial provisions prohibiting discrimination, including Title II, which prohibits discrimination by places of public accommodation; Title VI, which limits discrimination by recipients of federal funds; and Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, national origin, gender, or religion.” Title IX subsequently amended Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit gender discrimination by recipients of federal funds. Many other federal civil rights laws exist, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)’ and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

            All of these laws share a key feature in common: they create civil liability for civil rights violations.’ Each law imposes civil liability so as to deter wrongs and compensate injured individuals. Indeed, .the United States Supreme Court has
            recognized expressly that each of these laws serves the twin goals of deterrence and compensation.

            42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). Section 1983 provides:

            Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
            jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit-in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress….

            READ it & weep, tyrants, thugs, and incompetent/corrupt cops! NO qualified immunity for you. When you violate a citizen’s civil rights, it’s your @$$!
            - amicuscuria.com/wordpress -

    • Carlos_Miller

      Don’t even bother. You complied when they told you to stop recording, then you made the video private when I posted publicly listed numbers.

      You’ve already lost.

      • inquisitor

        Fear is the mind killer.

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

          “I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.”

          • James M Morriss.

            In this guys case: “…over and through me…to dwell in my pants.”

          • inquisitor

            And when it has gone past me I will turn to see fears path.
            Where the fear has gone there will be nothing…
            …Only I will remain.

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

            “Your mother has taught you many things, I see.”

      • Reddit_Guy

        Carlos- Just a thought: It’s quite easy to download (and then re-upload?) youtube videos. I use FlashGot for Firefox, but there are several plug-ins that do the same thing. I realize you may have moral objections / legal concerns with this, but thought that I’d mention it in case you decide it’s prudent to have a personal copy of a video before adding it to your site.

        • Carlos_Miller

          I’ve actually been doing that on the PINAC Youtube channel for archival purposes because videos get taken down many times, but this time, he beat me to it.

          And I went back and forth with the guy several times on email, so it was very clear he wanted me to post the video along with his name.

          He just turned into a chickenshit when I posted the phone numbers, telling me he didn’t think I would do it, so obviously he is not very familiar with my blog.

          Screw that guy. Let him deal with his own shit for now on.

          • Doogie Howzer

            Hey Carlos, you are way out of line here. You cry all the time about how you should be treated as a “professional journalist” and then you burn your sources online by calling them profane names ?
            Also, you have no right to post videos online that you don’t own the copyright to.
            In addition, not everyone in the country wants to make a job out of fighting with police and all the heavy handed attention and pressure that comes with it.
            You need to respect peoples wishes if they don’t want certain information made public.
            Just remember that people are watching how you handle this and in the future they will know not to send you videos or inform you of stories because you will burn them.
            Learn and practice some ethics.

          • Carlos_Miller

            Whatever, Doogie, hopefully they will read this and not send me videos unless they are 100 percent certain they want it published.

            It’s not only a huge waste of my time but it’s very misleading to my readers to post a video along with a story, only for them to click on the story and the video has been made private.

            “You need to respect peoples wishes if they don’t want certain information made public.”

            Which is why I double-checked to make sure if we wanted his name published. As far as the phone numbers go, screw him. He’s not my editor. Those are publicly listed numbers.

          • pinbalwyz

            Doogie, once Mike Bosmay gave Carlos permission to publish the video (he WAS asked, according to Carlos), there’s no copyright violation involved. Accordingly, Carlos should have downloaded an archive to finalize the agreement and keep Mr. Bosmay from reneging on it. Mr. Bosmay removed public access to the video as a way to influence/dictate editorial control. Carlos admitted he wasn’t quick enough to download the video before Bosmay changed his mind.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Rogue Reflections

            Doogie: Bomsay posted a video on YOUTUBE. One does not do that unless they want the world to see it. It is a social media sharing site. He got in over his head and decided to withdraw. If NOTHING else is learned from this, the lesson should be: don’t film cops unless you are willing to take it to the last level. I applaud Bomsay for stepping out and trying. I respect his decision to take his video down. Why on earth would he send a video to PINAC and then back down? That simply makes no sense.

          • pinbalwyz

            Carlos, it’s really ALL of our ‘sh*t’, inasmuch as injury to one is injury to all. We must encourage and seek to strengthen the hearts of our more timid fellow Americans, not publicly repudiate/belittle them.

            This guy’s courage failed him. OK. But he should still be welcomed and urged to take some calcium tablets for his backbone…politely, of course. We shouldn’t become so arrogant as to judge others who have made their own determination where their safety threshold lies. For all we know, this may have been a man whose application to become a U.S. citizen is pending. We don’t know. What we *do* know is the granting of citizenship (or even entry to the US) is discretionary. It can be denied for any reason or no reason at all. That’s only ONE example of retaliation. Will Potter (author of Green Is The New Red) has another one to tell where the FBI approached him to act as an informer and threatened his career and Fulbright scholarship if he didn’t accept their ‘invitation’. Leah Plante is another example: a Grand Jury resister in the Pacific NW who caved in after being incarcerated for a week or two. It’s arrogant to suggest we should be somebody else’s litmus test on where to draw the boundaries for their own (and their family’s) safety. Cops are all about kontrol, intimidation, lying (in their reports), and brutality when forcing others to submit. Would we 2nd guess a rape victim who didn’t want to be seen as publishing her attacker’s personal information such as phone number, work/home address, and other contact info?

            Let’s build resolve through encouragement rather than criticism.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Rogue Reflections

            Patriotism is often misunderstood. Some don’t have the strength to take on the “Force.” Some do. I would have loved to see the video. That guy attempted, but lost his way. We an pick up his slack.

        • James M Morriss.

          That would seem to be a good question to pose to the lawyers. On the other hand you could tell this guy it’s illegal complain to the moderator and he would stop.

      • Michael Burns

        seriously .. was wanting to see the video

      • Josef Roesler

        We agree!! Woohoo!

    • Rob

      Make the video public again, pussy

      • pinbalwyz

        Oooh!–there’s a compelling and persuasive argument. Hire Rob for the State Dept. immediately.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

        • Rob

          I like that idea. I also appreciate good sarcasm :)

    • inquisitor

      After examining your reactions, it would have been best if you had never submitted your story and video to a journalist for public consumption in the first place.
      If you are going to take this stance now and were considering legal action, then you should have just kept your mouth publicly shut about it and contacted an attorney and kept it private.

      Why the hell did you even provide it to media in the first place?
      What were you hoping to accomplish by releasing the video and your story to PINAC?

      • pinbalwyz

        I think there’s a lesson to be learned by ALL here, especially Carlos. Wait until you’ve actually secured all the material elements to the story (including video) before publishing it. Not doing so invites this kind of embarrassment.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

    • JayBone

      The best thing you could do to help your cause and prevent retaliation is to let Carlos show the video so that it can get some exposure.

    • Brad Wesley

      Stop being a pussy and put the video back up

    • StreyDawg

      You will fight this battle alone.

    • jcfromnj

      Mike, save your energy on this, ACLU only gets involved in high profile Politically Correct issues, and a lawyer is not likely to get involved with you as you haven’t made a stand on your behalf. Your between a rock and a hard place. I’m in Federal Court with my PD and it;s the ONLY thing they respect…..

      • pinbalwyz

        Ain’t it da Truth! (ACLU, that is). You might as well ask for a Presidential pardon as try to get real help from those guys.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

        • Rogue Reflections

          Pinbalwys: Watch out…you might get sued for that. LOL

          • pinbalwyz

            Rogue, there’s a wonderful video of you interacting with the Auburn police while open carrying and video recording when 4 of them confronted you outside of Auburn’s ‘justice center’. I was told it was a video of ‘Drew Hendricks’ a local @ctivist. Indeed, it DOES sound like him, but gives no footage of the photographer, presumably you. Are you ‘Drew Hendricks’?…or are you someone else? Hopefully, I can find a picture of you online, if not your legal name, to make a determination one way or the other. Drew has criticized/challenges my fact checking and journalistic skills. I’d like to redeem myself in the public’s eyes. I published an article including a link to the video in question.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress.

          • Rogue Reflections

            Pinbalwyz: I was curious why a person who commented on my video kept calling me Drew. It makes sense now. The Auburn police video was shot by me. I am the citizen talking in the video. I have never heard of Drew Hendrick, until someone kept calling me Drew on my video.

          • pinbalwyz

            Rogue, please make any appropriate corrections to clarify the misidentification. I was told by another journalist Drew had posted the video. Now, I’m uncertain about whether I was had or it was an honest mistake by the other reporter. Fact checking is sometimes difficult but can be important to preserve a reporter’s credibility.

            Drew is a notorious self described @narchist who was one of the litigants in the John Towery lawsuit alleging government spying on dissident groups.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Rogue Reflections

            I imagine if you look at the date and time of the posting on YouTube (or any other site where my video may be) you will see the date and time I posted this on YouTube is first. I know this has to be true because I took the video. The story that I saw on your post is word for word, the introduction and video description I wrote. If there is someone saying they had anything to do with this video (other than me or the officers in the video) they are lying. I will say this knowing full well I can not get in any trouble for slander because what I am saying is true. I appreciate that my “Rogue Reflections” was not chopped off at the beginning of the video. The Auburn video (as well as all the other videos on my channel, which say Rogue Reflections at the front) are my videos. Anyone who tries to lay claim to those videos is a snake in the grass.

          • pinbalwyz

            Rogue, I believe you. I was simply given bad information and accepted it because I trusted the reporter who gave it to me. I’ve published a retraction and given proper attribution to you.

            Hey, I’m in Mason County, you’re not. But sometimes I get as far away as Seattle and Bonney Lake or Olympia. If you ever want a backup photographer when you’re living dangerously, contact me to see if I can be there. I like your style and your videos.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • Rogue Reflections

            Will do. I am not sure if it is too much to ask, but are you able to correct the information on your blog? Your article says it was by this Hendricks person. You were given bad info. I would love to partner up on a photo safari. Thanks viewing and bringing this person to my attention.

          • pinbalwyz

            Rogue, no, no–it was MY error for accepting erroneous information given me by another reporter. Drew Hendricks actually commented on the article and stated it was NOT him in your video and he had nothing to do with it. He ridiculed me for claiming it was him. In the same article, I did post a video actually by him, so you can see what he looks & sounds like, if you wish. I issued a retraction and properly attributed your video (and narrative) to YOU.

            You can see it at:

            http://amicuscuria.com/wordpress/?p=12843

            I’d welcome a photo safari. I’m 67 years old, though and my health won’t permit me to get into a brawl. I’m on blood thinners and have a heart condition. I am, however, a paralegal and have defended myself in court numerous times from miscreants, both official and unofficial. I’m sold on the idea of exposing the corruption in our justice system in an effort to clean it up and warn the public about its excesses.

          • Rogue Reflections

            Thank you for the correction. It is funny seeing my pictures on another site. LOL I love it. Regarding brawling, I don’t do that. I film brawls though. ;) Defending yourself in court is awesome!

  • Carlos_Miller

    After sending me the video and ensuring he has no problem with me using his name, Bosmay then was upset that I included the phone numbers, pleading with me to take them down, fearing they would retaliate.

    I told him I wouldn’t as I do that with all my stories. These are publicly listed numbers after all.

    So then he made the video private.

    Please, people, don’t waste my fucking time sending me videos if you’re going to act like this.

    • BC MotoGuy

      download a copy of these posted videos, once it is posted it is public domain, yes?

      • http://421a.douglasavenue.com Erin Winking

        Copyright law does not work that way…

        • BC MotoGuy

          if it is used as news, commentary or.. better yet we can parody it fair comment.

          • http://421a.douglasavenue.com Erin Winking

            At the risk of getting into a Fair Use debate here, there are four guidelines to fair use, one of which is ‘amount and substantiality’. To properly show the video, without cuts and accusations of editing to make the police look bad – something I commend Carlos for always ensuring to the best of his ability never happens – you need the whole video.

            Using the whole video instantly means you don’t meet the amount and substantiality guideline.

          • BC MotoGuy

            because MSM News never edit or always use complete video showing the whole story. specious at best buddy. a few stills would suffice to keep the story alive and provide context, and identify the bad bad men. I agree it is not in PINAC interest to do this, but the point being the greater good should trump the chickenshit change of mind. hard copy better than links as the source could be compromised.

          • pinbalwyz

            I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis of the pitfalls. I do the same thing because, after I publish, some people object to the content of my story. Thus, I secure the elements needed for the story, not only video but text too–especially text as well as stills. Too many people try to wrest editorial control away from the publisher.

            There’s a reason why it’s said a reporter has no friends.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • BC MotoGuy

            thank you i will brush up on fair use, no offense intended.

      • Carlos_Miller

        I didn’t have time to download it because I was too busy trying to post the damn story.

        A serious waste of two hours of my day.

        • BC MotoGuy

          not a complete waste, but yes frustrating!

        • Jack Brown

          People shouldn’t expect you to stand up for their rights if they’re not willing to do it themselves.

        • pinbalwyz

          Carlos, do you start out on a long trip without a spare tire or a full tank of gas? Cover your bases. Practice defensive journalism.
          -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

      • pinbalwyz

        Youtube DOES have a user agreement for those who upload content suggesting as much. But, once Carlos had received consent to publish the video, he was free to act on that agreement if he’d done so in a timely fashion. Carlos blew it by publishing before he’d secured the essential elements to the story including the video.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

  • Seth Derrick

    So how do we get to see this video? I get a message saying I can’t see it because it is marked ‘private’

    • Rob

      Read the update to the story. The guy who uploaded it is a pussy.

      • Seth Derrick

        Oh fer the sake of fuck….yeah…missed that bit in the story. Thanks Rob…

  • Mahonri Young

    Probably fans of Jerry Sandusky

  • Brad Wesley

    The general lesson seems to me that every video should be downloaded because you never know when some asshole is going to take it down or make it private.

    • Doogie Howzer

      asshole ? you mean the copyright holder ?

      • pinbalwyz

        Doogie, he absolved Carlos of any allegations of copyright infringement when he agreed to have Carlos publish it. Perhaps, if Carlos hadn’t struck a meeting of the minds and agreement with respect to publishing the video, your cautionary note would be more relevant.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

        • John

          I don’t know why you keep saying this. It just isn’t true. Unless the individual explicitly said “You can use this video forever, and you’re allowed to copy it and download it from YouTube,” then the owner of the copyright can revoke permission at any time. As a matter of fact, Carlos didn’t even need the copyright owner’s permission in the first place to post an embedded video, since the copyright owner agreed to allow everyone to do that when he posted the video on YouTube in the first place. Even if the copyright owner had said verbally that Carlos could make his own copy, it would take a written contract to make it enforceable since it’d be PINAC’s word against the copyright owner’s.

          Further, YouTube’s TOS expressly prohibits users from downloading videos from their site. This is easily the top concern premium content owners have when uploading videos to YouTube.

          The video posted was merely a link to a YouTube video — nothing more. It’s the same as posting an html tag, except it makes the content viewable directly on the page itself.

          Permission to post a video using YouTube’s embed tag does not grant a publisher the right to download and repost that video. Not even close.

          If Carlos really wants to prevent this in the future, he should have a quick contract ready to send electronically (echosign or docusign are best) saying the copyright holder grants a worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable license to post the content, then he should get a copy of the original and upload it himself.

          • pinbalwyz

            All that sounds like the lawyer full employment act. Yeah, paper contracts are ideal although no contract in the world will protect you from an @sshole. Paper contracts are not the sin qua non of an enforceable agreement. Verbal contracts are binding if they can be proved. A simple audio recording (w/permission embedded in the audio) providing the date, time, place, and terms of the contract (even over the phone) is sufficient. E-mail works well too. Personally, I prefer a signed contract, but circumstances don’t always lend themselves to that. Once Carlos got such an agreement, he should run with it immediately by downloading the video before publishing. Screw Youtube. That’s a separate issue altogether under its TOS. There’s no actual way Youtube can physically prevent downloading so long as the audio and video show up on a user’s monitor. In a pinch, I can always simply video record what’s on my screen. Youtube can eat my shorts! They permit greedy corporations to claim copyright to everything, even Happy Birthday and church congregations singing Christmas carols celebrating our Savior’s birth, or one legged buskers singing Imagine on a street corner. They really suck big time. Copyright in the US has become the tail that wags the dog. Canada has a much more reasonable interpretation of copyright law.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • John

            Oh my. I don’t even know where to go with that one. I’ll give it a shot.

            The the main issue:

            You can easily send someone a link to an electronic contract. Echosign and Docusign are companies that do this and make signing a contract as easy as typing in an email address. I’m not sure why someone in Carlos’s shoes would need or want anything else given how simple those solutions are.

            To the issues about YouTube:

            You clearly know zero about how YouTube responds to copyright complaints. YouTube doesn’t adjudicate copyright complaints themselves, and in fact when anyone — corporation or individual — makes a copyright complaint against another party, all the other party has to do is say “I have the right to use this video or audio clip.” Then boom, it’s back online. The benefit of doubt at this step is given to the poster — not the complainant. If the complainant still believes they own the copyright, they then have to make a DMCA takedown request.

            Interestingly enough, while YouTube can’t prevent you from stealing someone else’s video, if you post it under your own account and the owner of the copyright wants to stop you from doing so, YouTube provides technology (as well as the aforementioned process) to let the copyright owner do so.

            But YouTube as a company makes no decisions on who owns a copyright. Why would they? They aren’t a court, and that’s a business they don’t want to be in. They punt the issue to individual copyright holders and the courts.

            YouTube is a platform. They don’t make decisions on who owns what. So I’m not sure why you’d direct anger there instead of to the people claiming their copyright.

            We’re way off topic, but since you were so extremely incorrect on all things YouTube, I felt that needed to be corrected. If you’d like to actually understand the process and how it really works, by all means, ask questions. If you’d rather assume the sky is falling, I won’t stop you.

          • pinbalwyz

            I’ve litigated copyright issues several times–in court! I’ve dealt with online hosts including Youtube about this issue MANY times. Youtube accepts take down notices under the digital millennium copyright act as required by law, but they also accept counter notices that put the challenged content back online. When it goes that far, they provide each of the parties in conflict with the address/contact info for the other.

            This process helps reduce the specious/abusive copyright claims. I blame Youtube for prostituting itself to corporations who make a business out of specious copyright claims such as I’ve previously described in return for $ considerations. What are those consideration$? It involves advertising. Youtube/Google allows these specious claims to benefit the corporations falsely alleging copyright infringement by providing the opportunity to piggyback the video with advertisement which most accounts do NOT want–they don’t want to serve as a platform for advertising which Google then collects a fee for. The corporations also scam the ‘protected’ artists by either charging them a fee for their ‘service’, or getting them to sign over their copyright infringement claims for a pittance. It’s all about the $, and Youtube is in on it. Youtube is NOT an ‘innocent’ bystander in all this, but a player…a major player. Too many are abusing the digital millennium act to either harass others, discourage publishing (1st Amendment exercise) or for the $ without reasonable justification. Copyright is not absolute and fair use should be expanded to coincide with how Canada interprets it. It has become the tail that now wags the dog and interferes with creative license.
            - amicuscuria.com/wordpress -

          • John

            First, you don’t understand YouTube’s process correctly, and I can assure you beyond any doubt whatsoever that I have forgotten more about its process than you will ever know. You also contradicted your earlier claim that YouTube lets greedy corporations take down content on a whim. Now you’re saying that the small content owner can simply send a counter-notice and the content is back online. (That’s not true btw, once a DMCA takedown is sent, YouTube takes the content down and steps out of the picture until the parties reach agreement or a court decides.) Further, you failed to mention YouTube’s three strikes policy. If you lose a claim 3 times, whether as a copyright claimant or content poster, you lose your rights to make those claims or post content, as the case may be. So, no, YouTube does not allow abuse of DMCA, and as a matter of fact spent years developing a very careful process that protected both large and small content owners.

            Second, no, there is no “scam the content owner for money on the side” scheme that YouTube is in on. That’s tinfoil-hat-worthy.

            Third, on the ads YouTube shows alongside videos, you’re suggesting YouTube should just not try to make money at all? I note you conveniently left out how YouTube shares ad revenue with content owners (as does Google in the case of AdSense). The vast majority of content owners love this — it lets them monetize content that previously would never have made any money. Even if the content owners didn’t want ads shown against their videos, they could just post them somewhere else.

            If you really are a lawyer, you’re a pretty bad one. Either way, you certainly have more spare time on your hands than any lawyer I’ve ever met.

            I’m sure you’ll keep replying, but I’m done with this topic as it’s *way* off the subject of this post, and you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to YouTube. Cheers.

  • kerry

    Carlos, you can’t be too hard on the guy, because after what happened in Fullerton, basically we’re all pretty afraid now. I never, in a million years, would have dreamed 3 cops could get away with murder like that – with video footage of the entire beating!? I think it takes a lot of chops for people like you, Antonio, Alex Jones, Cop Block, Filming Cops, and others to expose these oppressors, but clearly the law is on their side now and… well let’s face it, we just don’t have the rights we used to have. They shot an 80-year-old man in his bed – for absolutely no reason – and they’ll get away with that too.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    the guy is in fear for his life – that is why he made video private

  • StreyDawg

    Here’s the coward’s facebook page. Now we can waste a few hours of his life.

    https://www.facebook.com/mike.bosmay

  • Anon

    Way to be an asshole towards the victim. Real professional. Maybe the cops are correct when they question whether you are a real journalist or not. You certainly aren’t acting like one with the childish name calling. You are just as much a bully as the cops are.

    • Carlos_Miller

      I don’t give a fuck what you think. I was finishing up a project for a client that he needed urgently but I ended up taking two hours off that project to post this story because I felt it was important, so him removing the video because I posted the phone numbers, which is something I normally do (and my readers do when I don’t) was extremely irritating.

      Next time call a “real journalist” on a Saturday afternoon and see how quickly they will jump on your story.

      You’ll be lucky if they get back to you by Monday.

      • Anon

        You don’t care what your readers think? Real nice. Maybe you are a real journalist after-all.

        So everything didn’t work out for you as planned. Now you are upset and making your own personal problems the story.

        This guy is still the victim of a crime, no matter how you personally feel about him. It’s one thing to ignore him. It is another to use your site to further victimize him.

        • Carlos_Miller

          If I really wanted to victimize him, I would really go all out, posting his email address and other personal info.

          I’m just ranting because I don’t like to put a video up there, only for it to go private, which ends up frustrating my readers who have not seen the video.

          I’m here to publish content, so yeah, I care what my readers think. I like to deliver when I say I do.

          This guy was not a reader because he was all shocked when I posted the publicly listed phone numbers of the fire department and police department.

          Anybody who has read this blog even occasionally since the Boston Boondoggle in November should know I do that with much regularity.

          But somehow he came across my blog and sent me the video, telling me I can post it.

          I asked him a few questions over several emails, ensuring he didn’t mind his name being used and he didn’t.

          But then when he saw I published the numbers, he went into panic mode and privatized the video, making it a complete waste of my time.

          There are other stories that are waiting to get written, including one that is ready to be posted by a new writer. Other stories about people that desperately want their story told.

          But I made this one a priority.

          So it just fucked up my day and I’m pissed and I will rant as I give everybody else the right to do the same here.

          • Anon

            One man’s rant is another man’s call to attack this guy (example: StreyDawg post below). I’ll give you credit for not posting his personal info, but who knows what your readers will dig up when you rile them up. You have a fan base that won’t hesitate to swarm whoever you point them towards. It is nice when you use them against corrupt police departments. It’s frightening to see this being used against someone like Mike Bosmay, whether that was your intention or not.

          • Carlos_Miller

            One guy posted a link to his FB page which can be found by Googling and you call that “frightening”?

            Nobody is going to mess with him, other than maybe a few insults here, which is nothing that he can’t handle.

          • inquisitor

            Would you like another nail for Carlos’ other hand.

          • Anon

            Would you like to wipe the brown off of your nose?

      • Doogie Howzer

        stay classy carlos…….

    • Carlos_Miller

      And because of that, I’m still up finishing up that goddamn project when I should be sleeping, so lesson learned on my part.

      • Francisco_dAnconia

        If this country wasn’t 75% chickenshit we wouldn’t have these problems in the first place. Take solace in the appreciation your readers feel.

  • Prisoner416

    For fucks sake, I was looking forward to this one, given that I was actually arrested in Harrisburg years back for daring to record a crash. Lesson: Always back up videos before posting the articles. I try to back up everything nowadays, even got a tool to save streams from news sites.

  • JdL

    Mike Bosmay, please grow a pair and make your video public again.

  • Ian Battles

    In regards to the update, this kids needs to grow some balls and download a livestreaming app. They’ll still do whatever they’re gonna do to you, but they won’t be able to destroy the video proof.

  • dravo1

    Mike, this sounds like you have a blockbuster video. At the very least please turn it over to the local news media. The ACLU will definitely be interested but you have to be willing to go public and make your stand. Definite possibility of a cash settlement here. Don’t blow it now Mike.

    • John

      Why do so many here always say “A cop bothered you? Sue them! Lawsuit!” It’s nearly impossible to be successful in civil court against police, which is why settlements are rare. In this case, the videographer complied with the cop’s order and turned the camera off. Cops are allowed to lie. The videographer chose not to stand up for his rights and risk being arrested. That’s his choice to do so, but because he did that, there were no damages. He wasn’t arrested, he wasn’t injured, so there’s nothing to sue over. The ACLU would do little more than write a letter. Local news *might* do a story (sans unprofessional name calling), but there’s no lawsuit here.

      • dravo1

        The officer denied this individual his first amendment rights by issuing an unlawful order under the color of law. If the ACLU picks up the case he will receive money.

        • John

          If only it were that black and white, one could make a good living from lawsuits. In reality, however, it’s just not that simple.

          • pinbalwyz

            Hah! People can and DO make a good living filing lawsuits. There are attorneys who do the same thing. This abuse of due process is old news. Barratry by attorneys is alive and well. In fact, that’s what many do for a living and they’re almost never disciplined for it. This particular turkey who intimidated the photographer could become a cottage industry in his town for itinerant photographers looking to make a living suing the pants off this bastard and his public employer.
            -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

          • John

            To be clear, I was referring to non-lawyers, not to class action and other attorneys who, duh, search for and file lawsuits for a living.

      • pinbalwyz

        John,
        There’s federal case law ruling a LEO loses his/her qualified immunity when they violate a citizen’s fundamental liberty interests (such as in this instance). The ‘damages’ exist as a matter of law when you are denied your fundamental liberty interests (e.g. Being illegally banned from a public library, or being denied the right to exercise 1st Amendment rights such as photography, etc.).

        Many lawsuits as settled simply because of the nuisance value which is typically around $10,000. I was sued by a miscreant transient for taking pictures and audio recording him threatening me in a small public park. I called 911. The guy LIED to the cop about threatening me. So did his 4 pals. The cop, after talking to them and me separately, tells me this. I say, “Sir, I have the audio right here; in fact, I’m recording THIS conversation right now.” He confronts Phillips with this new info and the guy ADMITS he lied to the cop–a crime for which he was never cited. He did, however, cite the man for criminal harassment. The dude pleads GUILTY in court in exchange for a deferred sentence. He then finds a lawyer willing to engage in BARRATRY. I get a specious lawsuit served on me. I’m in the right, legally, as there is no expectation of privacy in a public park. My God!–the local transit authority even video and audio records EVERY passenger (even in the dark) and it’s bus driver (and the front windshield view) WITHOUT anyone’s permission because, as they explain, you have no expectation of privacy on a public bus.

        Nevertheless, and despite all this, I referred it to my insurance company, and THEY, rather than sticking up for the principle involved, SETTLED without admission of anything, of course, for $2,000. Inter alia, there’s money in suing others, even specious lawsuits. The judge, when I was representing myself, refused to throw it out under Rule 12(b)(6), which is interpreted in a light extremely favorable to the plaintiff by Washington State Courts whereas the federal courts require a PROBABILITY of success if the judge allows the suit to go forward. You can sue in State court for violation of federal law (such as 42 USC 1983). The State courts DO have the legal authority to enforce those federal laws and it is a legal & proper venue to try such cases civilly in State Court. Given how far State Courts will allow even an case without merit to proceed, that’s your best choice to wring out a $ettlement. Sue The Bastards. You cannot lose.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

    • jcfromnj

      dravo1, you need a reality check on the ACLU. I was a MEMBER in New Jersey and the chicken shit bastards wouldn’t even respond when I sent a copy of a DELETED video of my encounter that I was able to recover. Folks FORGET about the ACLU, they won’t even respond to members, what makes you think they give a shit about your little dust up ? Put you energy into IA complaints, local presure and find a good Civil Right lawyer with some balls, they ARE out there ….

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

        Did it occur to you that they did not respond because you are a whackjob?

        Just sayin’.

        • pinbalwyz

          ExCop, we’re ALL ‘whackjobs’. That doesn’t mean we don’t retain our inalienable and civil rights. Even ‘whackjobs’ deserve justice.
          -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

      • pinbalwyz

        Jcfromnj is telling the sad truth. I can confirm it’s the same here in western Washington. The ACLU is all about the publicity, not the poor, the sat upon, spat upon, and ratted on. They’ve become something like the Audubon Society or some of the mainstream (now corporate) environmental groups: Soulless.
        -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

  • Ta2ed Warrior

    https://www.facebook.com/stephen.limani/about

    Email the moron directly yourselves.

    • Guest

      Who is Stephen Limani, why is he a moron, and why should we care?

      • Ta2ed Warrior

        The state cop is probably from the Greensburg Headquarters. Trooper Stephen Limani, the station’s community services officer, can be reached at (724) 832-485.

        He is a moron because he is a cop.

        I don’t give a shit what you or anyone else cares about.

    • Rob

      Nevermind the deleted comment. I forgot the trooper’s name.

  • OhSnapDJB

    This guy Mike Bosmay has to be the biggest pussy ass coward I’ve seen in the last few weeks. Every now then I come across someone filming the cops but then they bitch up when the cop starts in on them. I’ve seen PLENTY of videos like this (even though I didn’t actually see it). The fact of the matter is this: If your bitch ass if “afraid” of retaliation by the cops or getting arrested, then STOP FILMING COPS! Keep ur punk ass at home and save urself the embarrassment.

    • Doogie Howzer

      what is the name of your youtube channel ? I would like to see all of the videos you have shot of police

      • OhSnapDJB

        My youtube channel has nothing on it. I have approximately 13 videos of cops and in only one of those a cop actually walked over to me and somewhat tried to be a smart ass. The other 12 the cops said NOTHING to me at all. In fact they didn’t even look my way. I live in Pittsburgh and it’s cold as hell outside now so I dam sure ain’t gonna be out there filming cops. I prefer to film them when they’re actually doing something and not just sitting in a car (possibly on lunch) or walking their beat. I’ll be more than happy to let u (or anyone) see the one video I shot where the cop walked over to me, that’s not a problem. Instead of putting this video on youtube, I sent it to the CPRB (Citizens Police Review Board) and to OMI (Office of Municipal Investigations). The video was actually quite boring…….they ALL were. Nevertheless, if u go to http://www.bambuser.com and search: djbpgh, u will see it there.

  • Derrick J. Freeman

    It’s frustrating that I wanted to report on this video and now it is gone. I wonder if the person who put it up originally will put it back up.

  • jcfromnj

    Mike: You need to grow a pair, bro.This is NO work for a wanna be videographer. Carlos is right, stay home and get punked if you can’t take whatever heat comes your way. Streay Dawg is on point, these clowns might not even be in the mix. I for one don’t see any point in getting on board with this if you don’t want to bake up up your position. They LOVE guys like YOU…roll hard or don’t roll at all.

  • James M Morriss.

    PA has the “Ag-Gag” laws that outlaws the filming of farms and farm related businesses (e.g. slaughterhouses) even from a public rd. So maybe you can’t film the pigs…

    • pinbalwyz

      Nope, James! No Ag-Gag law prohibits filming from a public road as it would be unconstitutional otherwise. You can film the police in all 50 states and D.C. That doesn’t seem to stop some LEO’s and members of the public from trying to intimidate photojournalists, nevertheless. The only remedy is to Sue The Bastards and to consider providing for your own self defense, have mutiple back up video cameras and audio recorders as well as witnesses. This is serious stuff, not a game of tiddly winks. We either exercise our rights and defend them or we LOSE them!
      -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

  • James M Morriss.

    This is an example of a good scared little citizen caving in from the mere though that there might be “retaliation” from the great guardians of freedom.

    • hesapus

      I bet he wears thong underwear.

      • James M Morriss.

        JSYK(Just So You Know): That is actually spelled with an apostrophe: Th’ong. It is a contraction of THat is wrONG underwear.

        • John

          Heh… clever. Kind of wish this were true.

      • dravo1

        Anybody remember ‘Underoos’ ???

    • Doogie Howzer

      what is the name of your youtube channel ? I want to see all of the videos you have made of police

    • pinbalwyz

      Mr. Mike Bosmay is welcome in this forum so far as I’m concerned, and on my own blog as well. We don’t build a coalition of concerned citizens and solidarity by turning on each other. Chill out. We cannot educate the public and LEO’s by alienating them.
      -amicuscuria.com/wordpress-

  • Rob

    I’m betting the reason Mike Bosmay didn’t keep the video up, is that he has something to hide. A cursory google search turned up some very interesting details about Mike, and show him to have some issues with telling the truth, and other shenanigans. From what I’ve read so far, the dude is a regular weirdo.

    • James M Morriss.

      Only ONE “Mike Bosmay”? Ok after hours of bouncing around the web I found two, seemingly related(father/son?). One in his 30′s and one in his 60′s. A wife/sister too, in her 30′s. That is one unique name. I found dozens with a first/last and several with same initials as mine.
      So I was going to ask how could you be sure you had the right guy, but the easy to find(AKA free) says you do. Your right there are forum posts that go on for days. They read like a classroom full of five year olds arguing.

      • Rob

        I agree, the comments were extremely juvenile, however I’m pretty certain I’m thinking of the right Mike Bosmay. I’m just going out on a limb that they weren’t referring to the 60 year old Mike.