Feds Aggressively and Illegally Harass Man over Photography; Seattle Police Does Nothing

One day after an Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent snatched a camera out of a man’s hands and deleted a photo before returning it to him, Phil Mocek returned to the federal building in downtown Seattle with a video camera.

This time, he was aggressively confronted by a Federal Protective Services officer named Housam who kept sticking his cell phone in Mocek’s face in a manner that would have gotten Mocek arrested if had done the same to the cop.

But considering Mocek had called Seattle police on the ATF agent on Wednesday and they didn’t do a thing, Housam obviously believes he can get away with anything.

Now Mocek is really pissed off, which means we should expect him to either file a lawsuit, organize a protest or probably both as anybody who has read this site long enough can attest to.

I’ve reached out to Mocek for comment on the incidents that took place yesterday and today, but he hasn’t responded yet.

However, the Associated Press has already picked up on the initial incident:

Phil Mocek says he was walking to work Wednesday morning when he took a picture of what appeared to be unmarked or personal vehicles parked in a row of spots reserved for law enforcement.

Soon afterward, a white truck pulled up next to him. A man got out, grabbed his camera and started going through the pictures, as an officer from the Federal Protective Service and a private security guard watched.

Mocek called 911, and two Seattle police officers arrived but refused to take a report. Department spokeswoman Renee Witt says that was their judgment.

Mocek says the man who took the camera eventually identified himself as an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He returned the camera, but Mocek says one of the images on it had been deleted.

Here are some numbers to call.

ATF’s Seattle field office: (206) 204-9866

Federal Protective Service national hotline (couldn’t find the regional number): 1-877-4FPS-411 (1-877-437-7411)

Seattle Police Department: (206) 386-1850

FPS Housam

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

Over the years, Springfield police detective would happily pose with money seized from drug suspects. Now he stands accused of pocketing that money. (Photos via Mass Live)

Retired Massachusetts Cop Charged with Stealing $400,000 from Evidence Room

In 2014, Massachusetts Police Detective Kevin Burnham retired after 43 years on the job with …

  • rick

    Seized camera and deleted a picture? Unless the Seattle police saw the ATF agent with camera in hand it will be a he said, she said situation.

    But then again, this area probably has security cameras on every corner. There’s a good chance the event was captured by one of them. In that case take them to task for gross constitutional violations (1st, 4th, 14th).

    In addition, return to the lot and take more pictures! “Get some video” of the dufus named Housam.

    • Minnesota CopBlock

      film him everyday

    • Difdi

      He said/they said is typical for police encountering the general public. But when one of the parties involved is reporting the other for committing multiple felonies, perhaps a LITTLE investigation is in order.

      • rick

        It’s not clear if the ATF agents were still on the scene when SPD arrived. If not, only Mocek remained. He was uninjured and in possession of his camera. Absent other evidence what can you do? And is it reasonable to expect Heaven and Earth being moved when denial of wrongdoing by the agent would quickly stop any investigation?

        If the police arrived and saw the ATF agent in possession of Mocek’s camera then their lack of action needs to be questioned.

        • Difdi

          Police only need to witness a crime to make an arrest for misdemeanors. A report is sufficient for a felony. And since when does a simple oral denial put the brakes on a felony investigation?

          • http://www.rockinghorseguy.com/ TheFlashingScotsman

            If the perps are gone when officers show up to a strong-arm robbery in a liquor store, do the officers have the option of not taking a report? The photo was stolen, and there was no intention of giving it back. A crime was committed.

          • Difdi

            Exactly. They didn’t even check for surveillance cameras recordings, they just refused the robbery victim police services and went away.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Unfortunately & apparently when the perp is an LEO of some sort.

          • rick

            With lack of evidence a denial probably stops quite a few investigations. Let’s examine: No marks on the victim, no loss of property, no video evidence (assuming no visible security cameras), no name or ID number of agent, no license number of vehicle driven, and no witnesses.
            What is the SPD officer supposed to do?
            Unless the agent returns, is identified by Mocek, and states truthfully that he took the camera by force and deleted the picture the investigation is over before it began.

          • http://www.righttorecord.org/ Mario K. Cerame

            @rick Take a report? Document the allegation? There is an alleged loss of property–the picture was her IP as soon as it was reduced to a tangible medium, i.e. electronically written into the memory in ones and zeroes. Also alleged battery and assault.

            The refusal to document smells like bad faith, no?

  • mothafuqajones

    Haha these cops are fucking heros

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      What does the cops’ sex lives have to do with anything?

      You can fuck whoever consents.. But who you fuck, in no way entitles a uniformed officer to try to provoke a law-abiding citizen (or law abiding non citizen, for that matter)

      • Fotaugrafee

        Tunnel-vision. Take a deep breath. Woooo-saaaaaa.

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          Your non-sequitur does not make sense.

    • http://www.righttorecord.org/ Mario K. Cerame


  • rick

    It would have been EPIC if Housam and pal had high-fived as they walked away.

  • JJReilly3

    the only difference is taxpayers are paying for them to take personal photography on the job .Phil Mocek is doing this on his own time and these guys are doing it on the taxpayers dime big difference and they are in uniform which means they are representing their agency while doing it

  • JJ_Swiontek

    You need to set the value of the deleted photo. One might suggest $1k per photo and send the ATF a bill. If they refuse, take them to small claims court. Start with a small claims lawyer and have a friend do the process serving to save money. Who knows, it might make for great Youtube drama.

    • nrgins

      You’re not allowed to have legal representation in small claims court.

    • Difdi

      There are no lawyers in Small Claims Court in Washington state. As far as I know, state courts do not have jurisdiction over the federal government, but you might have a decent point on suing the BATF agent in Small Claims, since he was not acting in an official capacity when he deleted the photo(s).

      He can’t have been, since his actions are a felony under federal statutes.

    • Guest

      Value is a matter of degree of harm, not whether there was harm. Even poor people deserve to have their property protected, and the officers should have taken the report.

  • NomadTV

    Lol, cop was a douche, but seriously, turn about is fair play.

    • Voice-Of-Concern

      Taking pictures is fine. A pair of officers, in uniform shoving a camera into his face, in what appeared to me, to be a very provocative manner. Intentionally provocative. How eggzactly is that fair play?

      • Difdi

        Nomad is obviously not from the US, he’s not used to having rights.

      • Marcin

        Provocative by itself could have still been OK, but the physical harassment is probably illegal. I cannot walk up to people and keep on shoving stuff in their faces when they try to distance themselves from me.

      • steve618

        It might be provocative, but when one is an activist one ought not whine about it. He should anticipate such antics and be better prepared for them. Being up in his face like that simply means he is also able to be equally up in theirs. he should use it to his advantage.

        • Difdi

          Since the BATF agent was not on federal land at the time, the citizen absolutely could have made a citizen’s arrest while the guy was pawing through his phone.

          Washington’s resisting arrest statute does not make a distinction between police arrest and citizen’s arrest, providing the arrest was proper and an arrestable offense has actually been committed.

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

            And how long do you think it would be before the citizen was facing federal charges? 18 USCA 111 for example?

          • io-io

            “Soon afterward, a white truck pulled up next to him. A man got out,
            grabbed his camera and started going through the pictures, as an officer
            from the Federal Protective Service and a private security guard

            So how is this any different than how the KGB or Stasi operated – other than he didn’t disappear – well at least this time?

            What Constitution? What Bill of Rights? What equal protection?

          • http://www.righttorecord.org/ Mario K. Cerame

            I like the EPC thought. For nerdy nerdy constitutional law reasons, often EPC claims are weak, but when a fundamental right is involved–like the First Amendment–then stuff gets ratcheted up.

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

            I don’t disagree that it was wrong.

            I’m saying that Difdi’s advice on making a citizen’s arrest, while technically correct, was not a wise move.

          • Difdi

            18USC111 wouldn’t apply to this sort of situation because violating 18USC241 is not part of the official duties of an agent of the BATF.

            Of course, if you’re worried about being charged with something inapplicable, why not worry about 18USC2251A or 18USC2381?

          • rick

            Applicability? Ha! When has that ever curbed the government’s prosecutorial zeal?

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

            It wouldn’t stop you from getting charged with 18 USC 111. You would have to bring up a defense that he was not engaging in his official duties. He would claim that he was, as part of operational security, to protect agents.

          • Difdi

            Again, I could be charged with human trafficking of children for sexual purposes or treason for making a citizen’s arrest of someone for armed robbery.

            But just because a prosecutor can violate professional ethics and file bogus charges doesn’t mean I should back down and not rock the boat.

            Violating federal law cannot be part of his official duties without making him guilty of carrying out an illegal order, and his superiors guilty of issuing illegal orders. That right there would change an 18USC242 violation into an 18USC241 violation, if circumstances hadn’t already.

      • Frodo

        We actually don’t know the camera was in his face. The officer could have simply put his camera right up to the camera of the other person. It looks like it’s in your face because it’s so close, but thats what happens when two cameras are butting heads with each other.

  • Ron

    You have got to be kidding me. This is why I pay taxes so clowns like these two cops can act like 12 year olds? Not only are these waste of spaces drawing a salary to act this way, they have now also cost the city a nice sum in a lawsuit. Grow up you absolute idiots.

  • io-io

    I am thinking that he could file a Freedom of Information request asking for:
    1) the video footage of the encounter from the federal building
    2) the video footage from each of the ATF/federal officer’s phone cameras (were they federally owned or privately owned?), since they took the footage during their employment, and since they came out of the building – in the course of their apparent employment duties. If its deemed to be private footage (private phones), then they were participating in “waste,fraud and abuse” of their working hours, and were they “stalking” the photographer.

    I guess he could ask the courts to issue a protective order against:
    1) stalking and harassment
    2) from having his photographs illegally seized and deleted.

    Since this has now been published, the deletion of the images were essentially stopping the publication of them, something that the US Supreme Court has not allowed in the past.

  • Difdi

    Per the Supreme Court, photography is one of the tools of exercising a first amendment right and is therefore protected by the first amendment.

    Washington state law makes no distinction on value of object stolen or whether a weapon is displayed or how long the stolen item is retained, the key issue is the act of unlawful taking directly from a person. Federal agents, like police, particularly those of the BATF are rarely unarmed. This meets all the legal requirements to be armed robbery in Washington state, which is a felony.

    Police refusing to enforce the law is official misconduct which is also a crime, though not a felony.

    By any standard, at least one felony has been committed here, and SPD could not care less.

    Copied & Pasted from the Department of Justice’s own website:



    Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy
    statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons
    to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in
    any state, territory or district in the free exercise or
    enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the
    Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of
    his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy
    statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the
    conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming
    a crime.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a
    life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances
    of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any
    person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise
    or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
    the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
    and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts
    include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to
    commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title
    or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

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

      Local police don’t enforce federal law.

      • rick

        Unless it’s HIPAA.

        EMT’s and firefighters too.

      • Difdi

        Washington has a statute regarding armed robbery.

        But just because what the BATF agent did was illegal under state law doesn’t mean he cannot violate federal law too. You’re right that local police don’t enforce federal law, but so what? They can certainly pass along a complaint about a breach of federal law.

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

          None of what you cited in your comment was state law, it was all 18 USC 241.

          When I was an officer, if someone called and complained about a violation of federal law, we told them to call the FBI. We weren’t going to take a report on it.

          • Difdi

            I did mention state laws, you just ignored it. But since you seem to be insisting on the statute itself:

            “RCW 9A.56.190
            Robbery — Definition:

            A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal
            property from the person of another or in his or her presence against
            his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force,
            violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the
            person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to
            obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome
            resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force
            is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears
            that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of
            the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.”

            An armed and/or uniformed police officer or federal agent embodies a threatened use of force, thanks to how immersed the general public is in the concepts of “touch an officer, go to prison” and how willing police are known by the public to be willing to use force (the TV show COPS to name one such example). Even when the law actually permits self-defense against an overly aggressive officer, it’s something the average citizen doesn’t know about.

            Then there is this:

            “RCW 9A.56.200
            Robbery in the first degree.

            (1) A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree if:

            (a) In the commission of a robbery or of immediate flight therefrom, he or she:

            (i) Is armed with a deadly weapon; or

            (ii) Displays what appears to be a firearm or other deadly weapon; or

            (iii) Inflicts bodily injury; or

            (b) He or she commits a robbery within and against a financial institution as defined in RCW 7.88.010 or 35.38.060.

            (2) Robbery in the first degree is a class A felony.”

            When you were an officer and someone called and complained about a violation of state law or municipal ordinances, did you tell them to call the FBI too?

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

            First, it wasn’t robbery, and second, if it is a federal crime, you report it to a federal agency.

          • Difdi

            Are you being willfully blind, or are you feeling trollish today?

            How, precisely, was it not armed robbery to unlawfully seize (steal) property, while armed, with backup present? That absolutely constitutes a threat of violence if the victim feels that an attempt to resist would result in violence against him.

            The Washington state robbery statute turns on the unlawful taking of property directly from a person by threat or actual violence. Value of the item, duration it is kept and how much force is used is utterly irrelevant.

            Simple possession of a weapon while committing robbery makes it first degree robbery, even if the victim doesn’t see the weapon.

            When an armed man, backed up by other armed men, jumps out of a car and grabs your phone, there is a reasonable belief that resisting will result in violence. That, coupled to the unlawful nature of the seizure makes it armed robbery.

            All of that is state law. You report violations of state law to local or state police. In Washington, their refusal to even take a report is Official Misconduct, which is itself a crime by statute, not just a breach of police regulations.

            The federal agent and his backup also violated 18USC241, which carries the potentially most serious punishment of all of the various offenses involved in the incident, which is why I gave it the most attention.

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

            It’s not robbery because Washington, like most other states, require intent to steal, to permanently deprive the owner of the the property.

            “An intent to steal is a necessary element of attempted robbery.” State v. Clark, 42548-3-II, 2013 WL 1857267 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2013).

            “[R]obbery in Washington, however, requires specific intent to steal as an essential, nonstatutory element.” In re Pers. Restraint of Lavery, 154 Wash. 2d 249, 255, 111 P.3d 837, 841 (2005) (en banc).

            “[O]ur settled case law is clear that “intent to steal” is an essential element of the crime of robbery . . . .” State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d 93, 98, 812 P.2d 86, 88 (1991) (en banc).

            You don’t have that here.

          • Difdi

            Actually we do have that here. Where is the photograph?

            While it might be recoverable, it is indeed the property of the photographer and the federal agent seized the camera with the intent to deprive the owner of the photograph permanently. His attempt was somewhat technologically inept (a tech savvy criminal would destroy the memory device) but the fact remains the intent was indeed there.

            Remember, for purposes of Washington’s robbery statute, monetary value of the property is irrelevant. Likewise, how the robber disposes of the property after the robbery is also irrelevant. Robbery doesn’t become okay if a mugger burns the wallet he just stole or donates the money to his church.

            Intent + unlawful taking from a person + implicit threat of violence + possession of firearm == first degree robbery.

  • steveo

    Is this the same phil mocek that went after the TSA? and won his case? It must be here is a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5DBUK1K8M.

    This guy should be given the silver star or the distinguished service cross or maybe even the Medal of Honor of videographers. We need to appoint a group that confers upon the heroes of the videography movement.

    I nominate, Carlos Miller, Mario Cerame, Mickey O.(raise your hand if you can spell Mickey’s last name) Jeffrey Gray and Daniel Saulmon. Does anyone second my motion. I’m serious.

    • rick

      He won. It cost him $34,000. Is this the price of asserting your rights in the face of government ignorance?
      Are lawsuits required to recover damages or are there protections against financial loss for the defendant acquitted of criminal charges?

      • http://www.righttorecord.org/ Mario K. Cerame

        I am so with you man.

      • steveo

        In Fl, a defendant in a criminal case can recover costs only, not legal fees, but only if there is a trial with a not guilty verdict. Costs would be filing fees, expert witness fees, everything you pay for except the legal fees. But prosecutors never think you are innocent, just not guilty with that judge or jury.

        example: George Zimmerman: what did the prosecutor say after the verdict, “He got away with murder”. But Seminole county, I believe it’s the county, is on the hook for his out of pocket costs. It would be interesting to see what kind of bill his lawyers present to the judge.

    • io-io
    • http://www.righttorecord.org/ Mario K. Cerame

      I think we do need some kind of Citizen Videographer Bad-Ass award. Or something with a better name.

      (The only way I remember how to spell Mickey’s last name is by breaking it down in my head. Oster reich er. “Oster,” which my primitive brain somehow remembers; and then “reich,” as in the third one, and then “er,” as in when I mess up. Er, yeah.)

    • Richard Fantasimo

      Seconded. Phil is the goddamn man.

  • Frodo

    This was highly unprofessional, but I’m uncertain if anyone’s rights were actually violated in this video.

    • Difdi

      According to the US Supreme Court, photography is protected as part of the freedom of expression and freedom of the press clauses of the 1st amendment to the constitution.

      Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241 of the US Code makes it a crime punishable by ten years in prison (a felony by any standard) for two or more people to conspire to deprive someone of a constitutional right. Section 242 of the same Title makes it a crime to do so while acting alone.

      The BATF agent did not act alone when violating the photographer’s constitutional rights, he brought backup with him when he pursued the photographer to stop him from exercising rights, and that backup didn’t stop him from committing his crime. This makes it a 241 violation, not a 242 violation.

      Federal agents have some immunity to state laws when acting in the line of duty, but they have no immunity to federal laws whatsoever, especially when doing something those same federal laws define as a crime.

      • Frodo

        All I saw was an officer aggressively filming someone. If you’re willing to stand in front of him and be filmed, as well as continue filming then it’s not a civil rights issue. You might infer that he was attempting to stop him from filming by doing this, but it was not implicit. No one tried to grab his camera, nor tell him to actually stop filming, nor was there an illegal detention. Heck, the officer didn’t even verbally assault him. This is nothing more than simple misconduct at the very best.

        • Difdi

          Perhaps you should try reading the article, not just watching the video?

          • Frodo

            I chose to respond to the video, not the article. These were two separate events.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            Cognitive dissonance much?

    • http://www.righttorecord.org/ Mario K. Cerame

      Refusal to document smells like viewpoint discrimination to me.

  • discarted

    I called the federal number. I was transferred to the Seattle office, I’m guessing. The woman, who was unaware of this video, took my complaint. I suggest everybody called to voice their concerns. This behavior from Houmas is absolutely unacceptable and we need to let people like him, his superiors, and colleagues/supporters know that.

    • Richard Fantasimo

      If nothing else it will slow the phone answering to a crawl. The woman sounded cranky today and it took a while to answer.

  • Tijuana Joe

    How come COPS episodes never look freaky like this video?

  • DTM

    We can all thank the Patriot Act for helping rapidly expand the police state. Hiring thugs and helping to create them And protected of their ways of work. Overpaid thugs protected by a thug unions. From local up through the feds. And it’s going to get so much worse quickly.

    As more and more Americans show their ignorance and submission http://youtu.be/k0he0cqHH20

  • Fotaugrafee

    Waiting game: Phil – 1: Housam – 0. “Are we done yet?” LOL

  • Guest

    “Mocek called 911, and two Seattle police officers arrived but refused to take a report. Department spokeswoman Renee Witt says that was their judgment.”

    If they failed to follow training protocol, or if they acted differently here than they would in other situations . . . smells like viewpoint discrimination, which could be actionable itself.

    • Difdi

      Official Misconduct is what it is. That’s an actual crime by statute, not just a breach of police regulations.

  • jackassletters

    If photography is not a crime for the citizen, is it a crime for the government to film the citizen in a public place? Honestly asking. Also, note both cops have no fucking idea how to hold a video camera.

    • http://www.righttorecord.org/ Mario K. Cerame

      I can’t think of a crime for just taking a picture of someone in public. But getting physical could be harassment at the least. If a reasonable person would be apprehensive–that could be assault. The touching could be a battery. Taking the phone and deleting images–could be official misconduct, or worse.

      Kudos for the videography critique. :)

      • Difdi

        In Washington, unlawful taking from the person of the owner is robbery. Doing it while armed, even if the victim never sees the weapon makes it armed robbery. Armed robbery is a felony.

        While law enforcement can under some circumstances confiscate property, those circumstances are limited by law. Taking property outside of those circumstances is an unlawful taking.

        The monetary value of the item or the duration it is kept for are irrelevant, the physical act of unlawful taking from a person is all that the law requires. Grabbing a phone, deleting (destroying) private property and then handing the phone back while armed is armed robbery, pure and simple.

  • http://www.righttorecord.org/ Mario K. Cerame

    In a super nerdy way, I just want to add that the Washington State Constitution has extra protections for speech and press rights that go beyond that of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. A case that comes to mind is State v. Coe, 679 P.2d 353, 359 (Wash. 1984) (prior restraints = per se no no).

    Granted, these are federal officials unrestrained by the state constitution (I can’t think of how they would be). BUT the officers, inasmuch as by their inaction they tacitly further the impermissible prior restraint, are so restrained by the Washington constitution. It is really odd to not even document an incident. I can think of a good reason–like in an emergency. But that does not seem to be the case here.

    (And of course, the federal agents are restrained by the 1A anyhow.)

    • Difdi

      They are unrestrained by the state constitution when acting lawfully in the course of their duties as federal agents, especially on federal land.

      But you could make a fair case for state laws, including the constitution applying to them when they act outside of their official duties as private citizens or in violation of federal laws, on state land.

  • $58984987

    Vindictive child-like behavior from tax-payer funded psychopaths.

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

      I didn’t know you were on the government dole.

      You know, they have training programs where you can get a trade and get off of the government dime.

      • $58984987

        Wouldn’t be the first time you were wrong.

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

          LOL, but based on your initial answer, you know, the one before you edited it to this one, I’m not wrong.

          That’s the great thing about Disqus email alerts – it sends the first response, not the edited one. And your response was way too personal and way too vulgar for my comment unless it were in fact true.

          Thanks for playing.

          • $58984987

            I am quite aware of Disqus email alerts and I make use them accordingly.
            The first message was meant for you, not meant for others who don’t get those email alerts.
            Why soil the board for others unnecessarily with appropriate characterizations about yourself?
            Glad to know you got the message that you were meant to get.
            And, mistakenly yet again…cunt, your personal attacks never ring true.

            Editing is not the sign that you “caught something” as much as you may need it to be.
            But your need to be right apparently fogs your judgment oftentimes.

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

            LOL, yeah, whatever.

          • $58984987

            …the whatever is that your accusation I was on the government dole is false.
            You are simply…wrong.

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

            LOL. OK.



      • SwimmingTowardsPie

        Here’s a thought…why would inquisitorX’s status as a dole recipient be relevant to the value of his/her opinion?

  • fightevil

    “Federal Protective Services officer named Housam” – you’re a pussy and you’re lucky you live in a state full of pussies; some day one of your kind who lives in my area will try this, and i’ll shoot you in your fucking pigfucked face you chickenshit. if you were a man, if you had any balls, you’d be hunting actual violent criminals not some peacenik with a camera who had his rights violated by another pussy – someone who hides their name and works for the atf. pussies. your fucking time is coming.

  • The Marine

    I love how much you people THINK you know. Lets take a step back and look at the situation with the ATF agent, A person that may or may not conduct undercover operation in the Seattle area may not want his pictures circulating on the internet. How is the agent suppose to know what Mr.Mocek’s intentions with the pictures were? who’s to say he wasn’t taking pictures for a third party? Does the agent take the risk or does he just react? Majority of you are so quick to try to out whit someone that you end up missing the logic and you all make me sick. You all are the same people that will cry about the level of security at the airport or in out public areas and then cry even louder when an incident occurs due to a lack of security. LESS COP LESS COP.. BUT YOU BETTER RUN WHEN I CALL. LESS AGGRESSION LESS AGGRESSION but you better protect me when someone attempts to inflict harm on me or my family. It’s all about the public’s level of convenience. After 9/11 EVERYONE wanted to see more security to prevent another attack, but i guess after a few years the public is now bothered by the level of security so it needs to go after all its been a few years the risk is gone.

    You (the public) like to run your mouths until something happens and then sit and point fingers at the same people you asked to relax. Mocek is tampering with the security of the public by using the legal system to attempt to break down the security we have in place. No one cares about MOCEK, but we cant ignore it and treat it as just another self-riotous idiot on the loose.

  • barque

    To your question, j, no it is legal for a cop to pull out a camera and photograph someone. However, it is quite likely harassment if the cop is taking the photos, as these two were, as part of a strategy to chase away a law abiding citizen by intimidation. I imagine it is also against police department policy to act like clowns in this manner. Further, as was pointed out to the cops, every photo they take in carrying out the official duties of their jobs, is public property. I believe the public can ask for copies of those photos, and I also believe the officers can get in trouble for deleting them. There is a lot going on this video!