Philadelphia Cop Attacks and Arrests Man for Video Recording (Updated)


A Philadelphia police officer stepped out of his car, walked across the street and grabbed a man who was video recording him, all while ordering the man, “don’t fucking touch me.”

The cop smacked the man’s camera out of his hand, which is when that video cuts out.

However, another person was video recording the incident and was able to capture the cop pushing the first man into the street before arresting him.

The incident took place on March 31, 2013, but wasn’t uploaded to Youtube until April 27. However, it has only been viewed 324 times as of this writing.

No further information is available at this time.

Earlier this month, the ACLU filed a pair of lawsuits against the Philadelphia Police Department for arresting citizens for either observing or recording them.

UPDATE: The Philadelphia Inquirer had written about this incident back in May, reporting that a lawsuit has since been filed, but they did not post the video:

AN IRAQ WAR veteran is suing the city, claiming he was roughed up by police and illegally detained for taking a cellphone video during the confrontation.

The alleged incident happened Easter Sunday on 13th Street near Rodman in Center City, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday in federal district court. The complaint was filed on behalf of Roderick King, an Air Force veteran from Lansdale, and Thomas Stenberg, Sara Tice and Brian Jackson, all of Philadelphia.

The suit claims the four friends were walking on 13th Street about 2 a.m. March 31 when they saw a Philadelphia police officer in a marked SUV driving erratically. Stenberg yelled at the officer about making an illegal turn, prompting the cop to pull over and confront Stenberg, the complaint says.

King, Tice and Jackson all pulled out their cellphones and began recording the confrontation, according to the complaint. The video, which was posted to YouTube, shows the officer approach King, who raises his hands above his head. The officer yells “Don’t f—ing touch me” as King keeps his hands raised while still recording. The officer knocks the phone out of King’s hand, grabs King by his shirt and throws him against the SUV before handcuffing him and putting him in the back seat.

According to the complaint, the officer told King he was under arrest for public intoxication and drove him to a dark location in North Philadelphia. The officer then drove King back to where his friends were standing and released him without explanation.


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


Florida Cops Shoot Up Family’s Home After Responding to Wrong Address

Florida police riddled a man’s home with bullets as his wife and son slept inside …

  • El Guapo

    At 00:04 a mysterious hand comes in from the left and “open palms” the officer’s left shoulder. I assume its the camera man’s hand. Is this entrapment because the LEO was aggressively walking towards the camera man causing physical contact? Or in these kinds of scenarios are we just supposed to bump chests like we did in grade school confrontations? Any legal beagles want to chime in on this?

    • KB

      I saw that and what i see is someone protecting themselves as someone threatining aproches. (I know my spelling is bad get over it). When someone aproaches that fast and hard its unreasonable to expect any other reaction. As for striking the cop No the cop walked into his hand. Thats very obvious to me anyway.

  • TruthToBeTold

    Looks like kidnapping.

    ” KIDNAPPING: The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.”

    • ExCop-Lawyer

      It’s not kidnapping. Even if the arrest is found to be without probable cause, the fact that there is an arrest takes it out of the kidnapping statute normally.

      • harry balzanya

        You never seem to mention the crimes he is obviously guilty of.

        • ExCop-Lawyer

          You mean like Assault & Battery, and possibly Official Oppression? I’ve mentioned them a lot.

      • TruthToBeTold

        2009: Trooper accused of unlawful arrest, kidnapping…

        “A criminal complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court accuses Franklin Joseph Ryle, 41, of kidnaping the man Jan. 8 “while acting under the color of the law.” That act, the complaint alleges, deprived the man from his Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures.”

        Police officers/Public Servants lose immunity and can be sued personally if Civil rights were violated. In this particular case a Judge will decide that after viewing the evidence/video above.

        Like I said… it looks like a kidnapping NOT an arrest. The victim should pursue his lawsuit accordingly in every aspect of the law possible.

        • tiny

          heya bro, EXCOP is full of shit, always was, and always will be. he/she been talking shit for a very long time now, and he/she still at it.

          • Dan Matthews

            Okay, time out for you Tiny, in the corner for at least a month.

            Being charged with kidnapping and being convicted as an LEO are most likely two different things.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Hey Dan, just give him his sign…

          • Dan Matthews

            Kind of sounded like the ravings of a drunk.

          • Dan Matthews

            LOL! Circle your wagons!

        • ExCop-Lawyer

          You do realize the differences in the facts I hope.

          First, Ryle was not making a normal arrest. He kidnapped the driver of a semi to get the truck. He was then going to stage an accident to collect a settlement from Wal-Mart. There was no “arrest” which was later determined to be a bad arrest, but just a straight up kidnapping. He was charged federally because he used his squad car and uniform, thus making it under color of law.

          Second, the idiot had earlier attempted to get another trooper to help him kill his wife.

          Third, he admitted that he intended to kill the driver.

          All of this was premeditated by Ryle as part of a crime, not a bad arrest.

          Thanks for playing.

          • MongoLikesCandy

            In the Ryle case, the other charges seem irrelevant to the actual kidnapping charge except to build a larger case (attempted murder and fraud). If intentionally taking someone you know you have zero reason to arrest isn’t “kidnapping under color of law”, I don’t know what is. Each charge has to be stand on its own merit. In both cases, I think the kidnapping charge would stand, even though one case was more likely to turn out badly. But dragging someone off the street and driving them to a dark location where there are no witnesses, demonstrating that he has no intention of taking you in, would make a guy think he’s about to be executed or beaten.

            I’m no legal expert though. You may have to give me a primer on the legal requirements and differences for: false arrest, false imprisonment, kidnapping, unlawful restraint, etc. When does that line get crossed?

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Well, first, false arrest and false imprisonment are torts, not crimes. They are handled in a civil cause of action, not a criminal trial.

            Kidnapping and unlawful restraint are crimes. The case has to be filed by the District or State Attorney.

            There are different elements that must be met for each of the four items you listed, and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

          • Difdi

            Not necessarily. They’re rare, but private prosecutions can still happen.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            It still has to be listed as a crime in that jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction has to allow private prosecutions. If false arrest and false imprisonment aren’t listed as criminal offenses, they are not crimes. Period.

          • Difdi

            I’ve read the odd article of people being charged in court with a laundry list of charges, some of which were not actually illegal, and being convicted on all charges — with a sentence longer than the statutory maximums of the crimes they were convicted of.

            The usually get overturned on appeal, but the fact that you CAN get convicted of not breaking any laws and sentenced to prison for it tends to ndicate you are wrong on that.

            And not everybody can afford to appeal.

          • Difdi

            I am not aware of any jurisdiction that outright forbids a private prosecution, and since it is based in common law, without a contradictory statute it remains lawful.

            I do know that Virginia actually officially recognizes them as valid, rather than leaving them to common law, though I don’t know if any other states do.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            ā€œ[D]ecisions of the New York Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States lead this court to conclude that private prosecutions by interested parties or their attorneys present inherent conflicts of interest which violate defendants’ due process rights.ā€ Kampfer v. Vonderheide, 216 F. Supp. 2d 4, 8 (N.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal citations omitted).

            “[T]he common law does not authorize private prosecutions of criminal offenses which may be punished by imprisonment.” State v. Martineau, 148 N.H. 259, 263, 808 A.2d 51, 54 (2002).

            “These consolidated appeals raise the issue of whether a private citizen may commence and maintain private prosecutions for alleged violations of the criminal law. We hold that he may not.” State ex rel. Wild v. Otis, 257 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn. 1977).

            “We believe, and hold, that the practice of allowing private prosecutors, employed by private persons, to participate in the prosecution of criminal defendants, is inherently and fundamentally unfair, and that it should not be permitted….” State v. Harrington, 534 S.W.2d 44, 48 (Mo. 1976).

            “Under our statutes a private individual cannot become a public prosecutor, nor can a county attorney act purely as a private prosecutor.” Lee v. State, 28 Okla. Crim. 397, 231 P. 324, 325 (Okla. Crim. App. 1924).

            I could list many more, but I think you get the point.

      • tiny

        a cop cannot legally kidnap a citizen? your full of shit! fact is anyone that acts outside what they are legally able to do with the scope of their job description, is acting without authority of any sort. that bastard may as well not be wearing a badge, it means nothing, and your a scumbag for defending this sort of shit.

        • Dan Matthews

          YEOW! Nice talk tiny, making up for having a small penis?

          I would put a bit more fath in ECLS’s comments, as he seems to have some decent experience.
          Nothing wrong with disagreeing with him, but your approach could use some fine tuning, perhaps with a hammer.

        • ExCop-Lawyer

          Sure a cop can kidnap a citizen. It is just not the situation that TruthToBeTold laid out above.

          Actually I figure I’ll be defending, or at least arranging plea deals for guys that are more like you.

      • Carlos_Miller

        Here is a South Florida cop charged with kidnapping for handcuffing a man who walked into the station to file a complaint against him.

        • ExCop-Lawyer

          Yeah, I can see it with those facts.

          It is different from this case. I can see other charges, just not kidnapping.

        • TruthToBeTold

          Carlos, Excellent update. It CONFIRMS the kidnapping probability.

          “According to the complaint, the officer told King he was under arrest for public intoxication and drove him to a dark location in North Philadelphia. The officer then drove King back to where his friends were standing and released him without explanation.”

          • dow daytrader

            premeditation by cop, probably never radioed kidnapping to dispatch, which would confirm premeditation to snatch the guy…yup, kidnapping…!

      • jimmarch

        Ha! Read the update. Turns out it really was kidnapping.

        • ExCop-Lawyer

          Sure, based on the additional facts you can meet the elements of the offense now. You couldn’t before.

          • TruthToBeTold

            OUCH… Thanks for playing šŸ˜‰

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            And that changes the fact that you didn’t meet the elements for kidnapping before in what manner?

            You still have to meet the elements, which you did not have before.

          • TruthToBeTold

            Your bias blinds you.
            The “elements” were always evident, law STUDENT.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Only in la-la land. Had he been making an arrest, you would not have met the elements for kidnapping.

          • Arashmickey

            I don’t know how it is over there, but generally Police officers get an exception in that they may arrest a person who is suspected of a crime,

            Logically, it would follow that If the person arrested or hauled away is not suspected of a crime, no exception is created to the first element of kidnapping.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            It’s the same here, except that some in the “Let’s Lynch the Police” crowd don’t believe that you have to prove elements of an offense against police officers.

          • TruthToBeTold

            * YAWN *

          • Difdi

            Police make arrests on less evidence than we had prior to the update every day. Prosecutors ask judges to hold people pending an investigation on less evidence than we had prior to the update every day. And people get arrested and denied bail in those sorts of circumstances on that sort of evidence every day.

            Why do you keep insisting that our opinions, which are not bound to any evidentiary standard, must exceed the probable cause standard in order to be valid?

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Judges won’t hold individuals with less than probable cause.

            I don’t insist that your opinions have probable cause as their basis. When you state that they should be arrested when you can’t show an offense, I’ll point it out, because you are doing exactly what you accuse the officers of doing. It’s hypocritical.

  • pete

    This is the NY “Annoy a Cop” law on display (should it pass). Get annoyed. Check. Create contact. Check. Arrest citizen and charge him with a felony. Check.

  • tiny

    this PIG comes over to a CITIZEN, and some out here would talk shit and defend this PIGS actions. “dont fucking touch me”? oh shit, he would say that to some out there, he would get his ass beat down, PIGS are what they are, and always will be, they choose their fights. they are nothing but bullies with guns, and badges is all they are.

    • ExCop-Lawyer

      I notice you aren’t doing anything about it.

      Why is that? Chicken?

      • JdL

        I notice you aren’t doing anything about it.

        Why is that? Chicken?

        Once again you’re inciting someone to violence who is merely venting (quite rightly, I would say) against official malfeasance.

        Is that how you get off, or do you have some other motive?

        • Dan Matthews

          How do you draw that conclusion, with your crayons?
          There are many ways for “Tiny” to “Do something” that would be far from violent, or is that the only way your mind works, or do you have some other motive?
          You are the only one suggesting any “violence” of any kind.

          • Difdi

            It’s the context. Suggesting that a pacifistic political activist ‘do something’ about a social wrong would have very different results than suggesting the same to a violent anarchist.

            In context, by making the suggestion he did to a belligerent person like he did, ECLS was inciting a violent act.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Only if you choose to interpret it that way.

            That is not the meaning of the comment that I made, nor would it be reasonably interpreted that way.

          • Dan Matthews

            I disagree! Surprise!!
            If an individual is not willing to send a message of protest to an officer of “authority” for a situation like this, some can refer to him/her as being “chicken.” Not being willing to place a call of complaint can be deemed as an act of a “chicken.”

            You, as well as “Tiny,” are only relating the term “chicken” as being associated to an act of violence, drawing your own opinion of what ECLS was referring to, as he did not state “violence” at all.

        • ExCop-Lawyer

          Where did I incite him to violence?

          I have seen no videos posted by Tiny, no audios, not even a report of what he has done. No indication that he has contacted any of the agencies involved, or the chamber of commerce, or the city government. Nothing.

          He comes here and throws out a bunch of crap, but doesn’t have the cajones to do anything about it, and generally acts like a pendejo.

      • Difdi

        Last I checked, inciting violence and/or riot was a crime. Texas does have a fighting words statute too, you know.

        See how easy it is to commit crimes? If I were to report you for it, odds are nothing would happen. But there is a teenager out there right now who posted the lyrics to the song he composed on Facebook and was arrested for being a terrorist. The system treats police, prosecutors and judges differently than it should. Private citizens who make statements like yours tend to get a visit from police that often involves rather unstylish bracelets.

        Either equalize it to the lowest common denominator or the highest, but it needs to be equalized. Right now, some animals are more equal than others.

        • ExCop-Lawyer

          There was no offense. Had there been an incitement of violence and/or riot (which there was not), there was no immanency. Ex parte Green, 46 Tex. Crim. 576 (1904); Coggin v. State, 123 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App.–Austin 2003, pet. ref’d).

    • Dan Matthews

      Something tells me about the only thing you can differentiate between is black and white, maybe. Surely not between a good cop and a bad cop, as you paint them with the same brush, no questions asked.

  • Chris Montgomery

    Stay classy, Philly.

  • Tom Jankowski

    Tell the ACLU to prepare to file another lawsuit.

  • KB

    After watching this sevral times the coop kidnapped him plan and simple. There was no reason for the officer to even get out of the car5 let alone aproach the so called suspect.

    • KB

      Sorry posting from my phone. forgive all the typo’s.

  • steveo

    They’re just going to keep filing lawsuits against them until the brass start handing out some punishment. Maybe the taxpayers don’t care. I don’t know much about Philadelphia except their football fans belong in a dog pound.

    • ExCop-Lawyer

      Lawsuits against larger departments have less effect than small departments.

      • Difdi

        That’s one reason people keep suggesting criminal law remedies instead of civil law remedies. Sue a department and the officer rarely ever owes a penny of any judgment.

        But criminal penalties adhere directly to the officer in question, his department doesn’t pay his fines for criminal convictions.

        Prosecutors will charge private citizens with incredibly dubious crimes on far less evidence than they should be operating on. You have an obvious bias in that you believe that such things don’t happen to anyone, and are firmly opposed to them happening to police.

        But why should someone sworn to uphold the law be treated more gently by the system when they break the law, than someone not sworn? Every time we suggest that officers be treated the same way a private citizen in equivalent circumstances would be, you chime in with reasons why that would be illegal and therefore should not even be suggested, much less actually done. But those sorts of things are done, every day.

  • juan santana

    NDAA it its finest

  • REALConservative

    So I was watching this, and I was thinking, “hey, surely one of those good cops we always hear about is going to step in and stop this egregious abuse of authority,” but yet again I was disappointed.

    BTW, I used to live in Philly…when did they change their uniforms?

    • Proud GrandPa

      And just how do you suppose one of the majority of cops (good cops) should step in while serving elsewhere or off duty? There was only one LEO in the video.


      Intervene? Step In? How? You describe an impossible situation… intervening from long distance. Feel free to speak up on behalf of the many good cops and I will join in condemning the misdeeds of the few.


      I think most LEOs are good and decent people. That is why we don’t have events like this multiple times daily in Philly. Now about this particular cop… Was he on drugs or something? Why the overreaction? Also is a cop in a marked car allowed to make what would be an illegal U-turn for civilians?

      • io-io

        The good and decent police officers should drum the “bad apples” off the force. However, in practice – the opposite is true, and the police in general create the “blue line”, and the officers that do not protect everyone else are castigated and forced out. That is the difference.

        • Proud GrandPa

          Yes, I agree with “should…”. But what’s an honest police officer to do when he/she is blocked by labor union contracts that make it almost impossible to fire or discipline rogues?


          These abuses would not continue without the support of liberal politicians passing favorable labor laws. Otherwise we could clean house and respect human rights again. We still can by lengthy legal action.

          Much progress is being made. Labor unions are unpopular and shrinking. Liberal politicians own the badge of dishonor now. It takes time…

          • Difdi

            It’s usually easier to break the blue line, collect evidence and then arrest and charge a police officer than it is to fire one.

            Even if convicted, bad cops tend to receive about half of what the minimum sentence would be for non-oathbreakers. Often this turns a felony that would disqualify them from ever being a cop again into a misdemeanor that does not.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            It depends on the state. In Texas any class B or higher misdemeanor results in a suspended or revoked peace officer license, which means that the department can no longer employ them as an officer. Some class C misdemeanors have the same result (i.e., speeding won’t, but class C theft would).

  • Nemo

    Kidnapping? No, not the way the law is written, since it gives the cops discretionary powers. What surprises me is the lack of the “Stop resisting!” beat-down.

    Purely a contempt-of-cop haul, though, IMO. Cops abuse their discretionary powers all the time, almost always without consequence. Easy to do it when the union forces the taxpayers to pay for their members’ misbehavior.

    This cop should face real consequences, not get a wink, wink, nudge, nudge paid vacation at taxpayer expense. Too bad the Blue Gang is so good at manipulating legality to thwart justice.

    That’s what is the greatest injustice, is that cops and lawyers effectively, regardless of intent or collusion, agree to grant badged thugs special privileges despite the fact that those privileges are routinely abused without personal consequence for the wrongdoer.

    • io-io

      In “Animal Farm”, George Orwell portrays how “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      The standard 3 day vacation – er, I mean “suspension” (with pay and benefits) will not curb this police behavior. Perhaps, loss of job, badge, gun and power trip (attitude), coupled with 5 years of jail time and a felony conviction, might send a more appropriate message to the police force.

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        One of the problems is how the media has misportrayed the process. No officer would describe it the same way.

        What the media calls a suspension with pay is never described that way by most cops. They call it administrative leave, and it is not part of the punishment process. It is designed to get an officer off of the street and out of contact with the public, not for the officer’s convenience, but for the department’s and the public’s. The department will quickly evaluate if the officer is safe to be on the street, or if the charges are potentially serious enough to keep him off of the street while the investigation is completed.

        It is also not a vacation. While on admin leave, the officer is normally restricted to remaining at his house from 8 to 5. If he has to leave the house, he has to notify his supervisor. If he has something that he needs to do, like go to the dentist or doctor, he has to use his sick time. For other needs, he may have to use vacation or compensatory time. Basically he is just assigned to his home for the period of admin leave.

        A suspension comes at the end, after the investigation is concluded. It is always without pay. It may be a one day, a three day, a thirty day or more suspension without pay.

        • Guest

          “It is also not a vacation. While on admin leave, the officer is normally restricted to remaining at his house from 8 to 5.”

          Getting to stay home. Watch TV. Have friends over. Play with your kids. Most people would consider that a pretty nice relaxing vacation.

          “Basically he is just assigned to his home for the period of admin leave.”

          I’d like to be “assigned to my home” to watch movies, listen to music, and take nice long naps and get paid for it.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            It is not fun, and it is definitely not a vacation.

          • Guest

            Sarcasm warning. I’m gonna have to phrase it this way, because I’m honestly not getting it.

            I hate it when I get days off from work. Get to sleep late. Catch up on my reading. You’re right. “It is not fun, and it is definitely not a vacation.” Add getting paid, and it becomes absolutely dreadful. Nearly unbearable.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Yeah, and every day that you are on vacation you wonder if you are going to be suspended without pay or fired. I’m sure that while you are sleeping late and catch up on your reading that you are worried if you are going to be able to meet your bills, put food on the table, or even have a job.

            And if you do lose your job and it is not something that bars employment in the police field, you have to apply for another one. It normally takes 6-9 months to get hired due to the background investigation and other tests you have to take. Do you have enough saved up to live off of for that period of time?

            Yeah, being put on admin leave is all sorts of fun.

          • io-io

            I am not against the police in anyway. My father-in-law retired as a Lt with the NYPD. My brother-in-law retired after 3 terms as the DA for his county, plus another 25 years as ADA and in the state’s AGs office.

            That said, when an officer decides to essentially arrest someone for “contempt of cop”, takes them to jail, in order to prove a point, it pretty much ruins your day. The old saying that you “may beat the charges, but not the ride”, becomes very true. So, you spend the night or weekend in jail, get out, perhaps requiring bail, you may have missed work, been fired, need to go find a lawyer, and appear in court. The charges may be dismissed and if not, you go to trial. More expenses and lawyers. Look at Carlos – even if you beat the charges, you are not whole. In order to see any type of justice, you need to hire an attorney and sue civilly for false arrest and anything else.

            Where is the justice? Just because some moron with a power complex decides to prove that they CAN prove a point.

            You file a complaint and it goes to internal affairs or a review board, police chief, etc.. The officer is goes on administrative leave, and has to “worry” about what is going to happen? Cry me a river. Maybe the moron should have considered that before trying to prove a point to a citizen who possibly has done nothing wrong? More often than not, his actions are found to be in line with the policy of the department – after 6 months of sitting on the charges, waiting for the problem to blow over. Err – I mean investigating the situation very thoroughly. Does the department then refer the problem to the DA – of course not.

            Change the law. Well now you have all the police officers and their unions across the city / state, yelling about officer safety, how difficult the job is, the stress, providing a public service, etc. Making false arrest a Criminal Felony – my lord, subjecting these fine folks to a felony for just performing a public service – while protecting and serving the public? I agree – good officers, etc. The bad officers, absolutely not – throw the book at them. However, that does not happen. The police union protects them, and all the officers defend their “brothers”. We have seen that too many times. It is incumbent on the good officers to get rid of the bad apples. They know who they are. If the good officers are not willing to do that, they are painted with the same stink as the bad apples – and the department rots from within.

            As the police continue to beat down on the general public, the general public is going to demand changes. You can see the start of that right now in a number of areas. The lower economic levels have been yelling for years, and it is moving up the chain. The police are starting to loose the trust and backing of the public. When the tipping point actually is met – it is going to get very ugly.

          • Difdi

            The law has plenty of tools to get rid of bad cops and corrupt departments. But they are almost never used. More laws that corrupt departments and prosecutors will refuse to enforce are not the solution, proper enforcement of existing laws is.

            Few individual officers would end up wearing anything other than a prison jumpsuit if the standards for what makes a private citizen a criminal conspirator or accomplice were applied to police.

            Few departments would survive being looked at through the lens provided by the RICO Act and similar legislation.

            But a cop who ‘overlooks’ a criminal act without directly committing any himself is a good cop in our system, even though a non-cop who overlooked the same crime in the same way for the same reasons, despite NOT being sworn to uphold the law would be prosecuted and very likely convicted.

            As gung ho as many departments are to get assets forfeited, as much as they stretch (or even break) the law to do so, quite a few departments would qualify as criminal organizations…but no prosecutor ever looks at them that way.

          • Guest

            Here’s another case of an officer being put on administrative leave for 4 days before returning to duty. All he did was order a woman during a traffic stop to lift up her shirt and bra and shake her breasts.


            I don’t know how the officer managed to stay sane during 4 whole days at home getting paid. It must have been hell for him. It figures that the media would focus on the other parts of the story.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            You’re way behind. I’ve already got three posts on my blog about the Lakeland PD, with more to come.

            I can just about guarantee that he’s not having fun. Nor is the Captain, Lieutenants, and other officers who are currently on admin leave, nor the officer they recently fired, nor the officer who is potentially facing perjury charges, nor the Chief, who appears to be on very thin ice.

            Yeah, they’re having fun alright.

          • Guest

            I still don’t think administrative leave is as bad as you think it is. But I realize my sarcastic comments are annoying and childish. I’m gonna stop. The only excuse I have is that I’ve been in a bad mood lately.

          • Dan Matthews

            I guess you would not make a good “LEO” or employee for that matter.

          • dow daytrader

            …there’s nothing on TV to watch…lol

        • Difdi

          A cop, sworn to uphold the law and granted a position of immense public trust is accused of a felony crime and gets a comfortable house arrest with pay and the ability to, under some supervision, leave his house arrest.

          A private citizen accused of the same crime is arrested, fingerprinted and jailed. They get an arrest record that will turn up on future background checks. They sit in an uncomfortable cell until they pay an exorbitant fee to secure their release (quite a few people view it as a ransom, due to the typically unreasonably high cost of it). If they do get ransomed out of jail, they experience greater supervision than the officer accused of the same offense. Even if later acquitted, the citizen is often financially ruined, having had to secure HIGH interest loans, sell house, car, business, etc, or otherwise put themselves deep into debt to afford unreasonably high bail.

          The hypothetical accused citizen, guilty or innocent has committed a lesser breach of the public trust than a sworn officer accused of the same thing. The law supposedly presumes them both innocent until proven guilty, but only the sworn officer is actually treated that way –especially when they are in fact guilty!

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            You are painting with too broad a brush. There are plenty of examples of private citizens who are not arrested, but have their case presented to a grand jury. Once indicted, many times their attorney is contacted, they surrender themselves, and are walked through with an immediate release on bail.

            Officers also face financial ruin. Your bias shows in your comment.

  • Tired of the Abuse

    This sort of thing reminds me why it’s a good idea to practice the Mozambique drill.

  • Jon Quimbly

    Carlos, I think this is the rest of the story. The upshot: he was detained and released, but not booked and charged. Now he’s suing the Philly PD.

    • io-io

      And “False Arrest” is just a civil action? This is a perfect illustration of why “False Arrest” needs to be a Felony Criminal action. It is crap like this that has the general public loosing support for the police. The mayor refers to this as a “Stop and Frisk”, it looks more like a “Snatch and Grab” operation to me. Maybe its not officially a “kidnapping”, but it certainly fits the definition of an “abduction”.

      Under “Color of Law” – let’s see – 1) Police SUV; 2) Police Officer; 3) Police Badge; 4) Gun; 5) Citizen disappears off the street into the Police SUV by the Police Officer with a Police Badge, wearing a Police Gun.

      Maybe the FBI should get involved.

      abduction [ƦbĖˆdŹŒkŹƒÉ™n] n

      1. the act of taking someone away by force or cunning; kidnapping

      If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck – then just maybe its a Duck!

      • Difdi

        Not all states call it false arrest per se, but most of them do have statutes that cover the situation. For example, in Washington state it’s called Official Misconduct, which is a gross misdemeanor (maximum punishment 364 days in prison or $5,000 fine or both).

        If a false arrest is made to prevent or retaliate against an exercise of rights, it would also be a violation of 18USC242 on the federal end of things. Again, false arrest is not specifically mentioned in the statute, but it would be an abuse of authority under color of law to prevent/punish an exercise of rights with an arrest, which certainly would qualify under 242. Maximum punishment for such a violation (assuming having a holstered gun doesn’t enhance it into a threat of dangerous weapon) would be a year in federal prison and/or $1,000 fine; If the gun DOES enhance the crime, it would be a maximum of 10 years and/or $10,000 fine.

        Note that the courts have ruled that being convicted for the same act in both state and federal courts is not double jeopardy. In that way, a false arrest could lead to anywhere from 2 years to 11 years in prison, and up to an $11,000 fine.

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        So contact your legislators. The law is not going to change by itself.

  • io-io

    Do we want to complain – then make it count!

    Philadelphia Convention and Visitors BureauCall and Write to let them know that you will not be spending one thin dime in their hell hole of a city.
    1700 Market St #3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103
    (215) 636-3300

    • Dan Matthews

      You can also mention the issue of the Philadelphia Highway Patrol cop who punched the lady at the downtown parade and then falsely arrested her.

  • Burgers Allday

    I am going to agree with the Ex-Cop posts on this thread, th ones about kidnapping and the ones about admin leave. My only quibble is that admin leave CAN be a “vacation” if the department decides to make it a vacation and I have no doubt that some departments do (for example, by informally letting the popo know that his job is in no danger). OTOH, I am sure that some departments do take it seriously and make it the less-than-completely pleasant experience that it should be.

    • Difdi

      Compared to what a private citizen experiences after being accused of a felony crime, almost ANY paid suspension is a vacation.

      The cop gets (at most, outside of a vanishingly few cases) house arrest in his own home and continues to be paid. A private citizen gets an uncomfortable cell and probably loses his job because he’s in the cell instead of at work. The private citizen gets an arrest record, the cop usually skips that, at least at this phase.

      The cop might end up jailed and have to post bail, but this is fairly rare. The private citizen has to post bail as the default condition. Bail is often set so high that the citizen needs to sell his house, car, business, etc to afford it. Bail is often paid by police unions.

      Private citizens have their lives disrupted or destroyed almost at the first accusation, and the full investigation is made after the damage is done. Even if the investigation exonerates them and they are dropped as a suspect, the damage is long since done. Cops get treated gently even by the harshest departments until the full investigation is complete and only then do they suffer any damage, and sometimes not even then even if the investigation shows them to be the worst criminal on the planet.

      The basis of our laws is that all are treated equally by the law. As it stands, some animals are more equal than other animals. The system needs to be balanced, whether that balance is the high common denominator police enjoy or the low common denominator the rest of us suffer under, but it must be balanced or it will fail.

      • Burgers Allday

        well, yes and no. In this case I fully agree with you. in many, many cases I fully agree with you (for example, I am the only person I know who was outraged that Mehserle wasn’t arrested on the spot in the Fruitvale BART).

        However, because of the nature of police work, there are also a lot of cases where a policeman is accused of a felony crime and the accusation is in enough of a grey area that admin suspension pending investigation is appropriate. As an example of this I would say Officer Weekley in Detroit, and I actually personally believe that he is guilty of murder now that they have had a trial. Still I was good with him being on admin leave pending his trial (and hopefully pending now his new trial).

        • Difdi

          Non-police get falsely accused of committing crimes too. The problem is that police are generally treated as innocent until proven guilty, while non-police start getting punished almost immediately.

          For the most part, the system considers that having charges dropped and being released from the county lockup makes a citizen whole. But it doesn’t. If someone has to sell the business they have spent 20 years building to raise hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars worth of bail, that amount being refunded when they show up for their trial does them little good, the business is already gone. Someone who takes out a ruinously high loan on their house to pay their bail likely owes more than the house is worth. Even for relatively poor lower class folks who don’t own much, being locked up means they usually lose their jobs.

          And that ignores the costs of defending themselves in court.

          All of these things are financial damage, punishments that start being applied on the accusation, not conviction. Police are more equal than other citizens in that they don’t usually suffer this sort of damage until the investigation ends and the investigators are all but positive they did it. Non-police suffer that damage at the start of the investigation and rarely recover if the investigation exonerates them.

  • Mike

    You took this person’s video and uploaded it to YouTube under your own name to run with ads. This is theft and violation of the original photographers copyright.

    For someone on a constant crusade to preserve 1st amendment rights, you sure need to take a close look in the mirror at your own ethics.

    • Difdi

      Assuming your accusation is correct, how do you know that Carlos didn’t have the permission of the video creator to do so? The thing about permission/licenses is they can (and do) turn a copying violation or theft into a completely legitimate use.

      If someone sends you a memory card or DVD of a video to post on a blog, how precisely would you suggest that it be posted WITHOUT uploading it to a video site?

      Also, why the heck do drag the 1st amendment into it? Copyright is not a 1st amendment right. When the two interact, journalistic reporting overrides copyright almost every time. If it were the other way around, each news station, newspaper or website would have totally different news than any other station, paper or site.

  • oops wrong person

    I had a problem back in march with a 24th district officer..a car flipped over on my street and my wife ran out to see if anyone was hurt..shes a nurse..but anyway..she was holding the guys arm from bleeding out and the fire emergency showed fire fighter told her to keep holding the towel on his arm till the rescue arrived..mean wile another one came over and yelled at her to leave..i was asking the fire fighter why he yelled at her and over comes officer fageo and two hand pushes me..i laughed at him and said get your supervisor you just asulted me..he never did..later that night we were still out side watching and he came over and harassed me i grabbed my phone he turned tail and walked away..i was afraid to peruse it..because if i did i know i would be harassed every day and it would have been a wast of time because nothing would have happened anyway..also i live in that district