Man Arrested for Video Recording Military Exercise from City-Owned Parking Lot


A man who was video recording a national guard training exercise from a city-owned parking lot in North Carolina was arrested over the weekend.

Not much information is available at this time but two videos were posted to Youtube today showing a group of citizens video recording the landing and taking off of a helicopter in a parking lot of a vacated shopping mall that is now owned by the city of Charlotte.

The training exercise was announced in the Charlotte Observer on Friday.

Members of the N.C. National Guard will be conducting training exercises at Eastland Mall this week, including landing helicopters in parking lots and moving ground convoys onto the mall’s property.

The training takes place from Friday until Monday. It starts at 1 p.m. each day at the mall site at 5431 Central Avenue and ends at 6 p.m.

Charlotte Area Transit System buses that make stops at the Eastland Community Transit Center won’t be affected by the training exercise. CATS buses will operate on a regular schedule.

The mall property is vacant. The city bought Eastland for $13.2 million last year, and council members recently voted last week to spend $781,520 to demolish the mall because developers looking at improving the property said they didn’t want the building.

The group of citizens who were in the parking lot video recording were speculating that the intent of the exercise was to to train the military to impose martial law on Americans.

Whether that is true or not, they certainly weren’t dissuaded from that opinion when one of their friends was arrested because he apparently got too close while recording the helicopter in the air.

The man appeared to have been confronted by two national guardsmen before a police officer walks up and arrests him.

Charlotte Arrest3

But the video shows he was nowhere near anything that could have been perceived as interfering or obstructing, so I can’t wait to hear what charges he is facing.

The top video shows the arrest. The bottom video shows the moments before the arrest when the man was standing more than 100 feet from the landing helicopter in an area that was not restricted by any time of police tape.


About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.

Check Also

William Robocop Melendez convicted

Award-Winning Michigan Officer Known as “Robocop” Receives 13-Month Sentence for Vicious Beating Caught on Camera

The Michigan cop known as Robocop will spend at least 13 months in prison for …

  • Jude I⚡caяiot

    See, this is why the National Guard was created, so they can be the military but also legally operate in the US.

    • ExCop-Lawyer

      Actually, the militia could always do that. The Dick Act of 1903 merely modernized the state militias under the authority of Congress contained in Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 16 of the Constitution.

      The militia has always been able to assist police or perform other state functions, and are not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act.

      It has been this way since the Articles of Confederation.

      • RI_JEFF

        Yes of course, remember the “Ohio State” murders?

  • Dave

    I admire people for taking the risk to do this type of recording, but please learn to hold the camera still!

  • ExCop-Lawyer

    Based on the one video, it appears as if the arrestee was told to leave and refused, since the other photographer was also told to leave.

    If the National Guard is conducting a training exercise involving Blackhawks, that is entirely reasonable and within the authority of the government.

    I don’t see an issue here.

    • Carlos_Miller

      So they send out a press release and arrest people who show up? Nice.

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        No, I think the issue is that the arrestee kept walking towards the area that the Blackhawks were landing. It doesn’t appear that they wanted to make an arrest, but it appeared that he refused to back up or leave the immediate area.

        It’s hard to tell with no audio of the officer.

    • Sam1

      under what law?

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        General property rights allows a property owner to close off their property for various reasons. The government has the same rights. I’m not going to look up the case law right now, but they are allowed to prohibit entry into their property.

        • Sam1

          then we have no “real” rights at all …. then they can prohibit photography and/or entry into (every public place) (their property)

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Under certain conditions.

            For example, we had a guy who was seriously injured in a fall and called in a LifeFlite helicopter that landed in an intersection (public property). We shut down not only the streets, but the sidewalks for a block in each direction to pedestrian traffic, about the same distance that the guy was in this case.

            At the mall, the officer told the guy that was filming to move back – and the guy that was arrested was even closer. If they had additional helicopters coming in, that was appropriate, or if there was a reason for it due to the training.

            State universities are publicly owned, but I can guarantee you that if the Texas Longhorns are running a closed practice, you’ll get run off the public property.

        • Ron

          It’s not ‘their’ property – it’s ‘our’ property.

        • lberns

          A fiction does not have “rights” therefore cannot own property. Only individuals can.

          • Difdi

            Then I suppose the arrest that follows is fictional too?

    • Johnny

      Asking them to leave is not unreasonable, forcing him to leave public property is illegal, and if me or you did it we would be charged and thrown in jail. Badges do NOT grant extra rights.

      • Johnny

        By “forcing” i mean using physical force. sorry i didn’t clarify that on first post.

      • twency

        “forcing him to leave public property is illegal”

        If you really believe this then try attending a Supreme Court hearing and then not leaving the gallery at the end of the hearing. The court will not be sympathetic to your claim that since the building is public property it would be illegal to force you to leave.

        • Johnny

          terrible straw man.

          • twency

            You’re the one who said “forcing him to leave public property is illegal”. You provided no citation of law or clarifying information. What’s your basis for claiming that it’s illegal to force a person to leave public property?

    • Gavin Seim

      Rubbish. The activities appeared to be some distance away and from what I can be seen the area was not coordinated off. Unless it was very different than it appeared in the video, it’s tyranny pure and simple.

      So tired of you cops defending your own. You really show how lacking in character you are. Thugs defending thugs who do not care about their oath or moral conscience. This is why police have so little respect.

      Down with tyrants. Long live our God given rights.

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        Gavin, I would suggest that you find out more about me before you just assume that I always back up the officers. It shows a real lack of character to paint everyone with the same brush and stereotype them.

        Anytime the officer does something clearly wrong, I come out and say so. I also will say when they are correct, as they appear to be in this case.

        If you don’t like that, too bad.

        • geektinker

          “I’m not going to look up the case law right now….” yet you’ll continue to argue about it? It’s not always about you.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            It has nothing to do with being about me. I had read enough case law yesterday I was tired of it, and I have no obligation to look up anything. I sure don’t have to look it up in order to be able to speak my mind and post about it.

          • geektinker

            “I would suggest that you find out more about me…” equals an “it’s about me attitude” Gavin nor anyone else here is under “no obligation to look up anything” about you, either. No one here really cares about you or your opinion. No one cares that you are an ex-cop or that you are currently a law student.

            What people are reading about here is the issue at hand, which is the city government allowing public property to be used for the National Guard to practice on, not blocking the area off properly to keep civilians at a safe distance, then arresting those citizens who are present and filming the event. An event that was made public by the notice in the newspaper.
            The civilians have just as much a right to be present on that public property at that time as the National Guard does. I’m not saying that it is a good idea, considering the safety issues of helicopters landing on the site, but the city was wrong to allow the National Guard to use that property to practice on without adequately blocking access and the police were wrong to arrest the civilian who was filming it.
            He will have his day in court. It was his decision to stay where he was and keep filming. He obviously knew the risk of arrest and was possibly proving a point by getting arrested.
            I’d say that those citizens who witnessed this event need to get the word and their videos out to the public in that city, so that the city government might be taken to task for allowing the National Guard to use this public location in the first place.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            “Such an argument has as its major unarticulated premise the assumption that people who want to propagandize protests or views have a constitutional right to do so whenever and however and wherever they please. That concept of constitutional law was vigorously and forthrightly rejected in two of the cases petitioners rely on, Cox v. Louisiana, [379 U.S.], at 554-555 and 563-564. We reject it again. The United States Constitution does not forbid a State to control the use of its own property for its own lawful nondiscriminatory purpose.” Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 568 (1972) (citing Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47 (1966)).

            The government is allowed to use the property the way that it decides, and if it wishes to allow a National Guard unit to train there, it can. If the citizens of Charlotte don’t like that, they can address it to the City Council.

            Gene, you may want to stick to tinkering. Thanks for playing.

          • geektinker

            That’s exactly my point. The city nor the National Guard were doing a very good job of controlling this site. They were doing little to nothing in the way of control the access of citizens to this public location during the exercise. No lights, no signs, no vehicles blocking roads, nothing.The civilian on site wasn’t protesting anything (other than his arrest). He was merely filming the exercise that was being held on public property and advertised to the public in a newspaper.

            If this is the best that you can do, you might want to consider a new career other than law.

      • Jay

        You are an idiot, the area was cordoned off, the guy was behind the security line, I was out there. You people are all the same. Let me guess, you had a daddy issue growing up so you have a problem with authority? Hows that, am I close?

    • RI_JEFF

      Now THERE’S the problem! We have people like you, an ex-cop law-student, WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER! THIS IS AMERICA! You know, “Land of the FREE!” This guy had just as much right to be there as the National Guard, whether they were “conducting training exercises” or not! If they wanted a “closed” training exercise, there are more than enough unused bases/ government land where they could TRAIN! We have many young, “gung-ho” cops AND Feds who have been brainwashed into believing it’s “US against THEM” instead of “WE ARE THEM!” Last Thursday was the 69th anniversary of the D-Day Normandy Invasion where THOUSANDS of our young sons GAVE their lives so that guy could stand there and take video of that training exercise! Every year, more and more of our rights and freedoms are being taken from us by TREASONOUS, OVER PAID, SELF-SERVING PUPPETS, who go along with the “AGENDA” so as not to “rock the boat!” There are no “checks and balances” anymore and I’m not sure there were any REAL “honest overseers” anyway! YOU my friend have BLINDLY given all authority to the criminal government and I like MANY others who are tired of the TREASON, are not going to sit back and let them take it all away from us!

      • ExCop-Lawyer


    • Voice-Of-Concern

      I have to agree with ecls here. For training purposes, they may well have had a larger safety zone, than they might have in other circumstances. They didn’t brutalize him. They didn’t take his camera or his footage. They didn’t seem to deal with anything, except where they were a safe perimeter. That does not makes them assholes.

      I do think that the video being posted here is good. I think having these discussions is very beneficial.

  • $22798478

    Were in a Police State. Get out while you can. It’s absolutely disgusting to be an american. This country sucks ass.

    • Phuket


  • NoNameInCLT

    I’m here in Charlotte, and there is more to it than the headline suggests (btw – I am a huge fan of PINAC). The shopping mall property has been posted “no trespassing” for a long time now, and although the parking lot may not be full posted and access-controlled because of the size, this is not same as public sidewalk. Also, given the nature of this exercise (using the parking lot), that the public should be excluded from the lot itself from a safety perspective is probably reasonable so that the NG could use any part of the lot they wanted to (multiple Blackhawks arriving and leaving etc).

    I am normally on the other side of this argument with the photographer, in this particular case – knowing the area and property – this may have been one of the few times where the police got it right.

    • steveo

      Man, I don’t know what your tres ordinances are, but generally, people have the right to be on public property as long as other people are allowed there. This looks like they were selective in who they wanted to censor. And excuse me, before I go into any of your hillbilly, Texas Deliverance scenarios as to whether a photojournalist can be there. If it was me, I’ll go to all of your fxxxing jails and wait until the judge denies me bail or I file so many pro-se motions that he hates my guts.

      I’ll take a life sentence before I let them tell me here that I can’t be here.

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        It appeared to be content neutral. There were no other civilians as near as the arrested person was. The NCARNG indicated that they didn’t know what the guy was there for, and were surprised when informed of the nature of the protest.

        The fact that property is publicly owned does not create an unlimited public forum.

        • steveo

          ok , mr prosecutor. I already told you that you can hang me from my handcuffs upside down on a fish hook. NCARBNG and the rest of the NSA and the acronym govt can do anything they want to me. When you don’t have anything left to lose, who gives a fuck.

  • Robert Baker

    Calling the police information officer now. Of course no one is there, I have left a message.

  • shawn haggard

    It is not illegal for the police to work with the military. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. Its intent was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor.

    • ExCop-Lawyer


      The National Guard works with police on a regular, abet infrequent, basis.

    • Guest

      It is against the framework of our republic for domestic law enforcement to become militarized or the general military to serve as domestic law enforcement. This was further codified by Posse Comitatus. The passage of the John Warner Defense Act (following the passage of the Patriot Acts) was intended by TPTB to legally blur the lines. Taking the militarization of U.S. homeland a step further, the NDAA allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens as suspected “terrorists”. There is a slippery slope here and the National Guard has a tangential role to play in plans for police state enforcement and is likely running exercises that will serve to desensitize the population to a military presence, whether the National Guard service members realize it not.

      • shawn haggard

        Could you try that with fewer logical fallacies and while staying on topic? There is nothing wrong with the National Guard and the Police working together. The National Guard has a wide range of roles with a minority of them being what would be considered strictly military such as providing manpower and expertise during natural disasters, and performing search and rescue operations. The idea that they should refrain from joint training with police when these responsibilities overlap lends itself to inefficiency and inefficacy. The National Guard is an organized militia and not a regular army. They are subordinate to each state’s government first and only to the federal government under special circumstances. The framers of our Republic certainly did not want the army to police the people, but they also provided the 10th amendment allowing states more rights than the federal government. These rights allow, among other things, the states the right to use their militias for domestic operations that include cooperative training with local law enforcement.

        • RI_JEFF

          Yes, well unfortunately, although they’re not a “regular army,” MANY are USED as “regular army” by the TREASONOUS government by being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan! AND, the Framers of our Republic didn’t want the army to police the people but, MOST police depts. have become SO “militarized,” they might as well be considered AN ARMY! And lastly, the 10th amendment might as well be taken out, considering the Federal government has pretty much BOUGHT AND OWNS MOST state governments with a few that there MAY be hope for! Our system has been “hijacked” by treasonous,criminal,self-serving,traitors, that should have been exposed, arrested,tried,and imprisoned or HUNG, ALONG TIME AGO!

          • shawn haggard

            I’m having a HARD time getting past your “over use” of quotes AND randomly capitalized WORDS. I did manage to READ it THOUGH and I’ve “got” to say you are very GOOD at spewing propaganda BUT not so GOOD at CONVEYING a “message” that makes SOMEONE want to take YOUR side.

            You have completely managed to stay off topic. Most people start out on topic, but you managed to start and remain abreast of what we’re talking about here.

            We’re not talking about the regular army, we’re talking about an organized militia whose oath of enlistment is quite different from that of the regular army. You do know what regular army means, right? I’ll assume you do know.

            The National Guard (not regular army) training with the police does not mean the military is “policing” us. Just like the National Guard, the police serve many functions, including Search and Rescue (SAR) and providing safety during and after a disaster. Do you think they should never work together like this?

            While in your special view a police force might be considered an army if it has been “militarized”, you are wrong.

            I find it ironic that you argue that the 10th amendment “might as well be taken out” due to federal abuses in order to ignore it when states are trying to use it.

            And finally, you come across as a schizophrenic. Now, that’s saying something coming from a Libertarian. I recommend you find the nearest tinfoil hat store and don’t leave it, or else learn to communicate on at minimum a 7th grade level.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            DNFTT, especially when he’s obviously a whackjob.

          • RI_JEFF


          • RI_JEFF

            First of all Shawn, it’s sad that you had such a hard time understanding how I emphasize some of my words, sorry, I just want people to get the TONE or passion in my voice by capitalizing my words! So, they weren’t “random” as you stated! Shawn, apparently, you forget what you write, even when it’s right in front of you because I replied to YOUR statement, so I wasn’t off topic! I was being SARCASTIC when I said, “Yes, well unfortunately, although they’re not a “regular army,” MANY are USED as “regular army” by the TREASONOUS government by being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan! That was in reply to your statement,”The National Guard is an organized militia and not a regular army. They are subordinate to each state’s government first and only to the federal government under special circumstances. Then you stated, the Framers of our Republic didn’t want the army to police the people, and I replied, “MOST police depts. have become SO “militarized,” they might as well be considered AN ARMY! Sarcasm! Remember that Shawn? I know what the difference between the regular Army and the National Guard is and I wasn’t disputing the sometimes working relationship between the police and Nat Guard so I don’t know why you had to let us all know how well researched you are on the subject! And my statement about the 10th amendment was, once again, SARCASM! Did you really think I would want to ACTUALLY scrap it??? You DO know what sarcasm is don’t you? And please show me where my so-called “propaganda” is! You see Shawn, that’s why I capitalize the words I want to emphasize, so people like YOU will get it! Ya douche-bag!

          • shawn haggard

            I didn’t really have a hard time. I was being somewhere in between condescending and facetious. The TONE or passion of your voice when you present yourself the way you do is that of a crazy old man waving a gun at the sky not having realized you forgot to A) put your pants on and B) wipe yourself.

            The regular army is the active component of the department of the army. It is the component that is always active, unlike the national guard whose members are only active, on average, 10% of the time. Yes, when they are activated by the federal government they are tantamount to the regular army, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about non-federalized national guard troops training with local law enforcement for purposes other than law enforcement or war.

            Furthermore, if you are going to be sarcastic on the internet then you should verse yourself with Poe’s Law ('s_law) which states, “Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.”. Basically, the internet lacks the ability to wink or use body language to add nuance to your communication. I suggest you use a winky face, ;-), when being tongue in cheek or trying to be sarcastic.

            So now you go on and say ” know what the difference between the regular Army and the National Guard is and I wasn’t disputing the sometimes working relationship between the police and Nat Guard so I don’t know why you had to let us all know how well researched you are on the subject!” Again, there is no way to determine if you’re being sarcastic from what you said, and if you weren’t disputing what I said then why bother making an argument?

            “And my statement about the 10th amendment was, once again, SARCASM! Did you really think I would want to ACTUALLY scrap it???”

            Again, it is impossible to determine sarcasm in written text without an overt effort to do so. See Poe’s Law. And I don’t know if you want to scrap it. Remember, you’re that balding old bare-assed guy waving his gun at a cloud.

            And I didn’t have to really research anything. I spent time in the military and gained my knowledge of it from experience. You, apparently, gained your knowledge from watching Glenn Beck, the guy who ridiculed a couple for having a miscarriage.

        • Guest

          In case you missed it, the term slippery slope was used. Have you noticed that rapid erosion of our civil liberties is occurring incrementally? This is by design and why we should always remain vigilant. That doesn’t mean that skeptics like myself don’t understand the traditional alliance between the National Guard and police and thus recognize the utility of this alliance. My comments and the comments of others are on topic and express a point of view tangential to yours. On your part, there is no need to resort to sarcastic remarks and repetitive explanations of obvious truths simply because you are unable to come to terms with deeper concerns many of us have.

  • Robert Baker

    I have just spoken with the Public information officer for the NC Guard. Col Williams and one of his reporters (I think I am not sure) Capt Scoggins. We spoke at length about this. He was aware of a detention of a person. He said he was told the person was released after the operations had ceased at Eastland. He did not know the premise or reason for the detention he directed me to the Charlotte PD for that. He said that the Guard was not responsible for the arrest they do not have police powers. I asked if he knew why any barricades had not been put up to help keep the public out of danger or to denote a no go zone. He did not know why this had not been done. Both Col. Williams and Capt Scoggins understand and agree that the public has a right to film anything in public view from public property. When asked if he knew that the people filming where there because they thought that the exercise was to help train troops to be able to suppress and control citizens, they both were shocked by the question slightly. They said the mission of the exercise was to be able to assist the Fire, Police and Disaster Preparedness Dept of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. As I do more interviews for this story I will continue to publish them here. If you have questions please ask I will attempt to get answers.


    • Carlos_Miller

      Thanks for the update, Robert.

  • Robert Baker

    I have another update on this incident. I have spoken with Officer Lawrence of the CMPD (Char Meck Police Dept.) She took my questions and called me back. She was just back from vacation today and was by herself in the Public Information Office. First item the person was detained and released not arrested. There is a report I have asked for a copy. A note from the report was that the man had walked into the area where the helicopters were ACTUALLY LANDING. He was asked to leave the landing area and refused the police were called and he was detained to prevent him from endangering himself and the Guardsmen and women. Officer Lawrence told me she would get back to me with further information tomorrow. She said it was public property and in public view as we discussed this we both agreed people have a right to video watch and take pictures but not endanger themselves and others such as standing in the landing zone of a UH-60 Blackhawk while it is landing. I will update this as more information become available. If you have any questions you wish to ask people please send them to me. Also does anyone have a working link to the video I would like to see it and all of the videos in their entirety not just one small clip. Thank You.

    • Greg Kudasz

      Good work Robert. Are you in the area? If CMPD won’t send you the report electronically I can go get it. I imagine they will be accommodating to you. Our cops are pretty cool most the time. Nothing like what Carlos has ran in to.

      This property should be considered dilapidated and unsafe simply because it is empty and not being up kept for pedestrians. The city should not spend money to fix potholes so people can stroll a parking lot for a property that is close to being demolished.

      If the city did anything wrong it was in not expecting people to show up. I think they should have blocked all entrances or cordoned off an area for spectators. The problem with that is they still need a place to park, etc. etc. so that’s more manpower and danger for the spectators if the cops would have tried to accommodate better. But openness is always best but they didn’t expect protestors for this kind of event and that was wrong of them.

      What I don’t like about the article title is that it implies it’s a regular parking lot used for standard city business. If that was the case then shooting from a sidewalk would be OK but even shooting from part of an operating parking lot could be considered dangerous enough to regulate. I don’t know what could have been seen from off the property. You could go to Google Maps and put “Eastland Mall” in and zoom in if you wanted.

      And then of course is the fact that he wasn’t arrested. I would like to know more such as was he detained onsite and was it until 6pm? Was he transported and held? Or did they let him go when he promised to leave?

      These cops have dealt with the DNC and Occupy without one report of brutality or even major arrests. I’m not their cheerleader but this is my home turf and I know these aren’t the jack booted thugs that many professional photographers have to put up with.

      And I am saying this without watching the video.

    • Greg Kudasz

      Try here for a working long version: or jump to here to see how close they were and the helicopter landing and finally the confrontation:

      If that goes away the channel is:

      Some points. I think he was treated with respect even if there’s a disagreement as to whether he should be there. Cops love to get into cute shouting matches with suspects but this one followed good training to not argue and try to diffuse. Both him and the Soldier called him “sir” though I would expect that from the Army. I don’t see where they asked him to stop filming or delete footage or confiscate equipment. These are all good things. There seems to be a claim by the Soldier that he was asking him to back up and we can hear him tell the cop he asked him to “exit the area for his own safety”.

      I think part of the “am I being detained or am I free to leave” question is, that if you are not being detained and there isn’t a great cause at stake you should leave. They have the footage of the invasion training and they have the footage of them being harassed by the government agents. If his rights were violated by government thuggery then he has his evidence. He could talk to a lawyer about a section 1983 lawsuit or bark up the CMPD chain of command for an explanation.

      But he was too close and to blinded by his beliefs that he could be anywhere he wanted as long as it was public property. Well try being inside the Government Center when it’s closed. Try being on top of the 4th street garage at 2am without a car there. And if you can come and go as you please I guess you don’t have to pay to park either so drive through the barriers.

  • ExCop-Lawyer

    When you interject yourself into the middle of a training exercise (at one point he keeps turning around and the NG troops are all around him) AND you are in the middle of the LZ, you can expect to be asked to leave.

    The officer did him a favor by detaining and releasing instead of charging him.

    Note that no one cared about the fact that he was filming – all they wanted him to do was move out of the LZ. It’s only when he refused several times that he got hauled off.

  • Jeff

    While I know it’s not at all the focus of this blog, the piece that really jumps out and smacks me in the face is this:

    “The city bought Eastland for $13.2 million last year, and council members recently voted last week to spend $781,520 to demolish the mall because developers looking at improving the property said they didn’t want the building.”
    Why in the hell is a city using 13.2 million of tax dollars to buy a mall and then another three quarters of a million to demolish it? How in the hell is this a good use of tax money – buying defunct businesses and tearing them down? I’m glad these were not my tax dollars – what a crock!

  • Jay

    Fyi, this guy was behind the military cordon that was established almost as soon as the exercise began. So yeah, he shouldnt have been where he was. 100 ft is actually really damn close.

  • SP

    Where did the video of the arrest go??