Daytona Cops Try to Detain Man for Video Recording Cop Cars as Man Calmly Walks Away


PINAC correspondent Jeff Gray entered Daytona City Hall/Police Department to submit a public records request, which despite what the Florida Sunshine Law states, have proven extremely difficult for government officials to abide by throughout the entire state.

If you remember, it got us detained by police in Hialeah last month.

But this time, it was surprisingly easy with a clerk allowing him to video record the daily visitor log, which is allowable by state law and probably the easiest public record to obtain considering it is sitting right there in the front lobby.

You may wonder why he would care about the daily log. The point is to get them accustomed to us walking in and asking for public records. It’s something we should all learn to do in our respective states. Start simple, so when you ask for something major, they are prepared to handle it.

Unfortunately, Daytona police had to go and ruin this positive experience when they detained him outside for video recording cop cars for b-footage.

Cops are funny like that. They think it’s suspicious for a man to openly record the cars leaving the parking lot, not realizing anybody could just walk in and make a public records request of the surveillance video recording the cars coming and going through the gate.

Under Florida law, that person wouldn’t even have to provide a name or identification, so maybe we should start doing that just to send them a message that we allowed to observe them in the line of duty.

But the two plainclothes cops that confronted Gray in front of the police station weren’t too keen on the law considering they were under the impression that Florida’s wiretapping law pertains to areas where they don’t have an expectation of privacy, giving him the old “I didn’t consent” to being recorded.

So maybe they should check out Gray’s other video where he speaks to an assistant state attorney who had written an article two years ago that confirmed citizens are allowed to record cops on duty with or without their consent.

Although he was asked several times, Gray never provided identification nor his name, keeping in full control of the conversation.

Instead, he handed them the yellow card pictured below, which is all they needed to know.

He eventually walked away to his car and drove off, with them no doubt writing down his plate number so they could run his name through their crime database, which is not exactly legal either (hopefully Joel Chandler will comment as to why as I have a video of him giving a detailed explanation, which I will eventually upload).


Jeff Gray card

Jeff Gray card2


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 …

  • IcedTeaParty

    It is actually amazing how full of s#^% these officers are.

    I also like the “Minority Report” mentality that the cop was exhibiting.

    • Ian Battles

      You’d think those tasked with enforcing the law would…ACTUALLY KNOW THE LAW!

      This is like a doctor not knowing how to give an injection.

      • Difster

        You’re misreading it Ian. It’s not about the law, it never has been. It’s about force and compliance. They are doing exactly what they’re getting paid to do; it just runs contrary to what most people think the police are for.

        • Film The Police Always

          Hey look, a cop was here reading. They gave you a down arrow. LOL You gotta love how cops think they are smarter then everybody else. Stockholm Syndrome

          • Difster

            Ha, yes. Or a family member of a CopRoach.

        • Cees Timmerman

          He was referring to these cops being “full of shit”, meaning that they were spouting untruths.

  • Blake Williams

    What you could have said, is actually, I don’t have to have your permissions, because you’re a public employee, paid by me, and this is public property also paid by me. That’s how you solidify the argument.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Yes, the less said the better. There is a video called, “Don’t Talk to Police” on You-Tube. Check it out.

  • pig watch

    I can tell you the names of those three cops. It’s MOE, LARRY, and CURLY.

  • it’s sad

    That lady inside was more knowledgeable about the law than those three idiots.

    • duh

      Of course their idiots. That’s why their Daytona cops. It’s a requirement for employment.

      • They’re

        While they are idiots, so too are you. Not only once did you use the incorrect form of “their”, you did it twice. That’s like the fly calling the piece of crap gross.

        Learn proper grammar, ‘THEY’RE’ moron.

        • he’s a cop

          Wow, A cop that knows how to spell.

        • whatballs

          Our constitutional rights are being ripped from us by corrupt cops and this jerk is worried about proper grammar!? What an asshole!

          • Proud GrandPa

            I agree with They’re. Poor language skills speak badly for one’s I.Q. and attentiveness in school. It means the student failed grade school spelling. Obviously a product of public education as run by the NEA!
            Seriously spelling speaks volumes for or against you. They’re is right. Learn from him.

          • u r pitiful

            And you need to learn punctuation.

          • Harry Balzanya

            “Exactly! In time the LEO’s superirors will get the message and train their staff. All in good time…”
            YOUR a DOUCHBAG,

        • Film The Police Always

          No one likes the internet grammar police. Nobody!

        • Guest

          No the lady inside was totally ignorant as to the law. As a seemingly intelligent person she was aware of the deficiency and sought information from another source. Having no knowledge of a law to the contrary she allowed Jeff to look at a piece of paper that lays on a counter she knows anyone can look at anyway.

          You all have jumped to a conclusion not supported by the evidence at hand. Not good.

        • Jim Morriss

          To all those who comment on the spelling and contractions issue remember
          this: “A well educated public is essential to a democratic society.”
          (+-) Jefferson spoke of it often, as did Franklin and Payne. If you
          cannot keep track of your simple spelling chores why on this earth would
          I trust you to take care of anything of importance?

          • lordhelpus

            Go away TEABAGGER!

          • guesswho

            You must be one of those Communist Jews

          • Proud GrandPa

            Some of us may be Christian Jews.

          • hardh8

            lordhelpusremovethedumbacrats you’re a bigot

    • Proud GrandPa

      Exactly! In time the LEO’s superirors will get the message and train their staff. All in good time…

      • 5oh4

        You managed to misspell superiors, Gramps. Poor language skills speak badly for one’s I.Q. and attentiveness in school. It means the student failed grade school spelling. Obviously a product of public education as run by the NEA!

        • Proud GrandPa

          Yes, absolutely right HeHe!
          Seriously I should proof some of this for typos, which to the uninitiated appear to be spelling errors.
          The problem with some posters here is that they cannot tell the differences between they’re, there, and their. Others think that cannot is two words. Oh the pain of liberal public educrats running NEA union schools.

    • Jim Morriss

      No the lady inside was
      totally ignorant as to the law. As a seemingly intelligent person she
      was aware of the deficiency and sought information from another source.
      Having no knowledge of a law to the contrary she allowed Jeff to look at
      a piece of paper that lays on a counter she knows anyone can look at

      You all have jumped to a conclusion not supported by the evidence at hand. Not good.

  • r hall

    contact FDLE ask who has run your tag ,, then go back and see why they ran it , i know in my local city LEO , ran the state troupers background who stop the cop for speeding the city had to pay her for them miss using there powers,, just depends how far you want to push

    • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

      I have a plan to do just that. Stay tuned I promise when I do it will be very interesting.

      • Scott Parker

        Good. I was going to ask where the follow-up was. It’s one thing to point out and film the officer’s mistakes/rights abuse, etc, but another thing entirely to ensure that their supervisors are aware and training is done so it doesn’t happen again.

  • Jeff Rielley

    Does YouTube have Emmy’s?

  • Fred P!

    I’d be interested in hearing why it is “not exactly legal” for an officer to run your tag. It seems to me that it is visibly displayed and out in public, and is something that they do as a part of their routine. All police officers are NCIC/DCI certified to run that information. When I was a cop back in the late 90’s I used to do it quite often and would find all sorts of stolen cars, fictitious tags, insurance lapses, etc.

    Seriously, I only ask out of curiosity. I love to come to this site and am bewildered at how poorly trained and uneducated so many officers are today about citizen’s rights.

    • Happy_Tinfoil_Cat

      4th amendment. Unless you have reasonable suspicion that someone’s insurance has lapsed, it’s a fishing expedition.

    • Farid Rushdi

      I wish you weren’t right but I think you are.

      Police have new technology that scans plates of parked cars as they drive by looking for wants and warrants. It they can do that they should be able to run plates as their leisure.

      Unless it’s state by state. I don’t know the answer.

      • Jbroyles

        I believe that the plate scanning technology you’re referring to only alerts the officer with the registration information of the vehicle and it’s owner if it flags the information for a possible violation. For instance, the scanner scans plates automatically and if there is a potential violation (expired, operator suspension, etc…) then it notifies the officer thereby furnishing reasonable suspicion to the LEO to conduct a stop. It seems like cheating but in the circumstance described the LEO receives no personal information beyond what’s publicly displayed until a hit of a potential violation so technically they have not violated the 4th amendment provisions regarding reasonable suspicion.

  • Joel Chandler

    What Carlos is referring to is the DPPA (Driver’s Privacy Protection Act), which is a federal law severally restricting access to DMV records. The law was passed in 1994 in response to the murder of an actress who was stalked and killed after a mentally ill man accessed her DMV records.

    The DPPA creates a private cause of action (meaning a person whose rights under the statute have been infringed upon can sue to enforce the Act), liquidated damages of $2,500 plus attorney’s fees and punitive damages. There have been numerous cases in recent memory in which LEOs have abused access to DAVID (Driver and Vehicle Information Database – DMV records) in violation of the DPPA. The results of those violations have included civil litigation and settlements (Donna Watts for example), demotions, firings and in rare instances criminal prosecution.

    DPPA violations are rampant. Many LEOs use DAVID as their personal Google and often use the DMV records to stalk women. Anyone that cares to dispute that please do so and I’ll be happy to disabuse you of your contrary and erroneous opinions. These sorts of abuses are exceedingly well documented.

    In Florida if you want to see who has been accessing your DMV records just contact DHSMV (Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles) and make a public records request. You
    may also consider contacting FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) to check on access to your FCIC/NCIC records (Florida Criminal Information Center and National Criminal Information Center). FCIC is operated by FDLE and NCIC by the FBI. These databases are also wildly abused, but DAVID has pictures and is, therefore, the first choice of LEOs (another reason LEOs use it to stalk women).

    If you need help making a public records request let me know and I’ll be happy to help.

    • Dave Minsky

      NCIC is monitored in real time and LEOs are not allowed to arbitrarily access records through the database (doesn’t mean that they do). They have to have a legally justifiable reason (doesn’t mean they can’t just make one up). NCIC also contains a keylogger.

  • cvondra

    You are a parasite. These people protect you. If I was them I would have immediately suspected you for malicious activity that could result in casing the area for a future event. I’m all about freedom to film in public but going to a Police Station and not being forth right before hand as to not create suspicion and only to waste LE time and act like a total jackass is simply asinine. The fact that you published this trash shows your complete disrespect for anything .

    • inquisitor

      Suspicion of “malicious” activity is irrelevant unless it is illegal activity.
      Suspicion of “nefarious” activity, as the officer had stated, is irrelevant unless it is illegal activity.

      What crime do you suspect the photographer of committing or planning to commit?
      Otherwise police could stop anyone, anytime for doing something totally legal and say it is suspicious. But it has to be reasonably suspicious. Engaging in a lawful activity is not suspicious.

      Photography or filming is not a crime.
      Photography or filming of public buildings whether police stations or otherwise is not a crime.
      Should you choose to think that a citizen engaged in totally legal activities is “reasonable suspicion” to conduct an investigation then that it is up to you or the cop.
      But the burden of proving anything is on the cop, not the citizen. It is not the burden of the citizen or the accused to do anything regarding lowering the suspicion of the officers or to profess his innocence because he already is innocent until proven guilty.
      As someone who is presumed innocent until proven guilty the photog is not obligated in any way to provide any information to police to pacify their irrational suspicions not based upon anything resembling an articulated and reasonable suspicion.

      I would never waste my time talking to one of these retards in an effort to sway their suspicions of me. I would wait and tell it to the judge…or the jury.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Thanks for a very logical and well-thought reply. These are my sentiments.

    • Donald Williams

      You realize they didn’t have to contact him at all, right? They could easily have just observed. If they’d left him alone he probably would have left after a few minutes, and there wouldn’t be an embarrassing video. They DECIDED to confront him, they DECIDED to harrass him. It’s their own fault that time was wasted.

      Also, the fact that you think like that shows your complete lack of appreciation for freedom.

    • Harry Balzanya

      you show total contempt for the law of the land. HE had absolutely NO obligation to report to the police beforehand that he was gathering content for a news story on police and Government corruption. That assertion is absolutely ridiculous. The first amendment is there to protect journalists who Expose Government corruption FUCK YOU PIG

      • Phred

        “These people protect you.”

        Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Best laugh of the year!

      • Proud GrandPa

        Clean up your speech. Don’t be a troll.

        • Harry Balzanya

          SUCK my Hairy balls Jesus FREAK. Your the troll.

          • Proud GrandPa

            You’re not your…
            This is yet another example of how inferior education and poor learning skills betray your comments, Harry!

    • DAnny

      You are an imbecile

      • he luvs donuts

        NO, He’s a cop.

    • jcfromnj

      cvandra: YOU are a knucklehead…LEO’s are under NO obligation to protect me or anyone else.

      Point of law for those interested in the facts: A recent Supreme Court decision stated that the Media is TECHNOLOGY. If you have the hardware and you you are on a fact finding mission, YOU are the PRESS. Not just NBC,CBS or Fox News. I’ll locate the decision and the Supreme Court audio transcript of the hearing.. Go out and buy a good digital camera and print up a “PRESS” badge. That’s all you need to do….

    • Proud GrandPa

      Yes, I am begining to be skeptical of PINAC videos, because the only photogs being denied the right to photo cops are PINAC provocateurs. Surely Carlos must know of some real people denied their rights in Daytona, eh, Carlos?
      Otherwise these videos are questionable exceptions to the rule. Is there any proof of normal people being denied photog rights in Daytona? Surely there must be.

      • IcedTeaParty

        No, it’s only “abnormal” and “fake” people, so it’s acceptable.

        • Proud GrandPa

          Well if only abnormal like provocateurs trying to anger cops get harrassed, but are still allowed to photograph, then the system is working. I see no constitutional complaint with asking a provocateur what he’s doing.

          • IcedTeaParty

            It’s interesting (no, predictable), that you would suggest that there is nothing constitutionally wrong with the police asking a photographer a question (BTW, don’t think I didn’t notice that you are using hyperbolic language), but that you want to label people that you think are trying to “anger cops.”

            It’s not illegal to try to “anger cops,” and we have no obligation to behave around them all as if they were unstable triggers on poorly made IED’s, or as if they are fragile eggs balanced on the end of a straw.

            The decision for them to get mad over entirely legal behavior is entirely their burden and responsibility, and since they do so under the color of law and during the alleged act of working for the taxpayer, then it’s not only reasonable that we would be heavily critical of such behavior, it’s IMPERATIVE.

            If the police are “harassing” people who have not broken the law, then the system is NOT working. I can’t even imagine what you must believe the fundamental role of law enforcement is supposed to be.

          • Pixie

            This is beautifully written. Thank you.

    • ChitoJr

      “forth right before hand” That hurt my brain to read.

  • jcfromnj

    Officer Bubba is dumb as a Bag of Hammers! This is a tax payer funded Comedy Channel !!!l

    He’s referring to Telephone conversation law’s from the 50’s. Families shouldn’t intermarry. LOL

    • Proud GrandPa

      You have good and bad and dumb and smart in every racial group. Affimative action, however, sometimes lets mediocre and inferior workers get jobs ahead of the best people.

      • WithinThisMind

        You have affirmative action and white privilege confused again.

      • n4zhg

        Best people? You do know police departments wash out those who score too high on the IQ test?

  • Film The Police Always

    Jeff you need to make a records request for the DAVID system and see if your tags are being run. Cops can only use the DAVID system on a lawful stop. You can have a nice settlement waiting on you plus get those asshats in trouble.

    As for those asshats, well the big ole fat guy was just dumb. Dumber then a box of rocks. The idiot who was doing all the talking was ridiculous. God, he wasn’t even making sense. “Florida’s a 2nd party state”. Dumbass It is so amazing that none of these guys no the law when it comes to filming, but they act as if they are all knowing because they have a badge. This is another reason why everybody should always film any police interactions. The Black cop, well he was just dumb also, and was about to get violent as you could hear it in his voice. He was getting pissed that Jeff asked for his name and badge number. Just so you assholes know, you are REQUIRED to give your name and badge number, and you CANT use the DAVID system unless for official business. PROBABLE CAUSE! I hope Jeff make a FOIA request to see if you ran his tag’s.

    • inquisitor

      Good points.
      The black cop did eventually lean over and hand the photog his business card, but it should not have been that difficult or conditional as the officer had attempted.

      Breaking down this interaction one could easily determine that none of these officers were competent enough to hold their jobs.

      • Film The Police Always

        and he only gave his business card when officer run-his-mouth told him to. FOIA the D.A.V.I.D. records!

    • io-io

      It would be interesting to request via FOIA the video recording of the encounter, with the police car following him out of the parking lot. Then make a FOIA request of his DAVID inquiries, possible showing a hit, at that time or very soon after. Since there was not legal stop involved – in his vehicle, then it would be a questionable DAVID inquiry – caught on tape with the Date/Time stamp. The only encounter that occurred was the one taped. Therefore one could conclude that the DAVID inquiry was the result of the photography event.

      Is it state law or just a policy that officers need to provide name and badge number. In California it is state law – and the name and badge number can not be covered or obscured.

      • TimSto

        In most of the states, it is NOT a law, but it is almost always a department policy to give the info to a citizen

  • SB

    I love how the officer referenced Terry v. Ohio while not meeting the requirements for the stop.

    • steveo

      If you read the facts of the actual Terry Court case, there were these factors:
      1) the detective had over 25 years experience
      2) the area he was staked out in was a very high crime area in Cleveland
      3) the two individuals had on long trench coats in fairly warm weather
      4) they were obviously casing out a business with a lookout on the corner of the street
      5) the detective patted them down because there were many places to conceal a weapon in the coats and persons of these gentlemen. And he discovered a gun.

      Terry is supposed to have to do with the situations like in “Beverly Hills Cop” when Axel Foley tells the other cops, hey there’s something about to go down.

      The officers have to have a reasonable suspicion that the person they are detaining is armed. But like all cases that give cops more authority, you have the inch and mile rule. Give the cops an inch and they take a mile.

  • Harry Balzanya

    I think its a number of things here. The Florida constitution is clear
    on the right to access public records anonymously. When he exited the
    building they sent three armed men out to force him to identify himself.
    He was detained specifically for exercising a constitutional right.
    Gathering content for a story is very protected. They stated clearly he
    was being detained for gathering the content of a story. They just
    phrased it as gathering intelligence. YES the content of a story is
    Intelligence. They Violated federal law. They then used the color of
    authority to threaten him if he were to choose to remain where he was
    lawfully present.They believe as the East Germans did that the end justify the means. They can trample on every single law in the name of Safety or keeping INTELLIGENCE/NEWS from the people. FUCK THEM they are cowards.

    • Proud GrandPa

      When he exited the building they sent three armed men…
      Who sent whom? Did the three armed men take it upon themselves instead. You don’t know. Some journalist!

      • Harry Balzanya

        Proud Grandpa runs out of convenience store right after it being robbed. police do not believe him Prosecutor does not believe him an most importantly the JURY does not believe him., Taking into consideration that these Armed men proceeded to unlawfully detain a Journalist another crime. I do not believe a jury will believe them either. These Armed thugs need to be placed under arrest.

        • Proud GrandPa

          HaHa. If someone ran out of a store after it had been robbed, you’d guess that somebody has ‘sent’ him. Still jumping to conclusions. You don’t know. Why did you say ‘they sent’? Mind reading, perhaps? The best you can say is that they left the building.

    • Jim Morriss

      You have no evidence they were sent out to ID him. The one cop said he observed Jeff as he drove in. To me He need not said anything as to why he was there other than it was legal to do so. That is all the reason you need. I do not ask LEOs if I am free to leave I just do. If they do not tell me I am being detained then I am not. I do not assume they have any right to hold me until they declare a reason. STOP giving them the power. If you’re “in control” of what’s is happening do not give them the control via assumption.

      To be honest I have had very few encounter with NC LEOs that have been anything but professional, courteous, and respectful.

      • Harry Balzanya

        What does that, have to do with this? They told him directly that he was being detained. There is no ambiguity here. They detained a journalist for gathering news. They said so directly. These men willing to violate the law and detaining a lawfully present news journalist for doing what journalists do.THEY LIED. WE have no reason to believe criminals. These Criminals LIED.

  • Barking Dog

    I have a similar video. It was in the NYC Housing Projects when 30 cops came for a giant cop killer that turned out to be 2 girls barely 5 feet tall and a pit bull.

    The cop who confronted me was from another precinct, shouldn’t have been there at all and certainly not parked backwards after all the cops from that precinct had left.

    He told me he was doing a uf-250 (wrong man stopped form) because I was taping a housing location, as if that was illegal or suspicious. I just laughed at him and pointed out there was a very public police action with 15 cars at that location and walked off.

    I think he wanted to see if I was Internal Affairs because he was afraid to be caught out of precinct while screwing around. It’s scary enough to be in stressful situations in the badlands of NYC taking pics, don’t need the threat of the NYPD having one of their goons attack me.

    • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

      I would love to see that video. Have a link?

    • Proud GrandPa

      I think I’d like to work for internal affairs. I don’t drink, smoke, use drugs, gamble, say racist, obscene, or profane remarks. I’d probably be too strict and demand compliance with the constitution and laws.
      Carlos, do your correspondants ever do ride-alongs with cops or work with IA?

  • DaleC

    Florida is a “two party” state when it comes to traditionally recognized wiretapping, eavesdropping and recording of phone calls. That law does not apply, nor does it circumvent Supreme Courty rulings, when it comes to recording people, for non-commercial uses, when there is no expectation of privacy. In this situaton, clearly, here was no expectation of privacy.

    • thetruthmaster1

      I would have told the Cop, that it is obvious I have a camera in my hand, as you just asked me not to record you, which I have a right to do since photography is not a crime. And since we are in a public space, you (The Cop) also has the right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment, which would result in your voice not being recorded, unless you volunteerly decide to open up your big fat Pig Mouth and keep spewing your bacon blabber, which this cop continued to do, therefore the Cop waived all his right to remain silent as well, and was rightfully recorded with citizen protections. Good Job!!

      • Proud GrandPa

        Why bother? You are under no obligation to educate LEOs.

  • Lyndell Byrd

    Law Enforcement officers breaking the law. A Nation of Law, except for those that are above the law. Shame.

  • Cynic in New York

    Where can I get some of those cards. Those would be handy at any political rally or any where one engages in political activism.

    • ΔИθᴎЎϻɸᵿƧ

      Just print some up on your printer and get some lamination sheets at a hobby store.

  • disqus_ZBXJDbYJHe

    Fred, cops don’t care about citizen rights since this country was founded over 200 years ago and they know the law enough to know what to do when they get in trouble plus telling their famly members what to do when are dealing with the police.

  • Proud GrandPa

    “But this time, it was surprisingly easy with a clerk allowing him to video record the daily visitor log”
    Thanks for the happy news, Carlos. This is more evidence that the rights of photogs are being respected by clerks.
    I believe the three officers will become equally agreeable on your correspondant’s next test visit. We test, they protest, they learn, then they comply. Everyone wins.
    Looking forward to the next video of how this department LEOs no longer claim to detain.

  • Jim Morriss

    At 7:02 the cop says it IS unusual for someone to gather intelligence to commit nefarious acts. We should trust this guy to testify in court? He has no idea what he is saying.

    To all those who comment on the spelling and contractions issue remember this: “A well educated public is essential to a democratic society.” (+-) Jefferson spoke of it often, as did Franklin and Payne. If you cannot keep track of your simple spelling chores why on this earth would I trust you to take care of anything of importance?

    • Proud GrandPa


  • Guest

    What a F*cking Idiot

  • Captain Obvious

    For Jeffrey and others actively courting these encounters – could you capture on tape once or twice (LEOs) their answer to this question:

    How, exactly, do you imagine that I am using these photographs or few seconds of video to plot something nefarious? Explain exactly what makes this so suspicious…

  • steveo

    How stupid can these cops get? they still don’t get it that THEY are the story.

  • steveo

    This is a good instructional video about RAS. Reasonable articulable suspicion requires 1) a suspicion (cops are good at this part being suspicious of just about anything or anyone) 2) they have to be able to explain the suspicion (articulate) 3) the suspicion has to violate a statute, county or municipal ordinance (reasonable test).

    The cops’ “suspicion” here doesn’t meet the 3rd test because, what Jeff was doing wasn’t violating any law.

  • Elhuero

    please upload a downloadable version of the yellow card!

  • cagelirious

    I’m a staunch supporter of filming the cops and fight government corruption and police brutality, but the second part of this video wasn’t journalism, it was you trolling the cops.

    Calling this journalism would be like calling Michael Moore a documentary film maker or Fox News a legitimate news source. You were not reporting on it or doing a legitimate investigation, you were making a story happen.

    Also a legitimate journalist has no problem shows their credentials, they don’t act like a child and be like “nah I don’t wanna”.

    I’m not saying the officers did anything right, but your did more harm to the cause than good. This kind of behavior does more damage to the cause than good. These kind of videos make us look like jackasses, who are trying to provoke a response.

    Sorry but everyone in this video came out of it looking bad, not just the cops. This kind of shit makes others not take us serious and once again is the farthest thing from actual journalists.