Northern California Cops Beat Mentally Ill Man, Seize Phones, Claim it’s their Right

Police in Northern California beat and tased a mentally ill man before siccing a dog on him, then turning on citizens who recorded the incident, confiscating cell phones and in one case, ordering a witness to delete his footage.

But one video survived anyway, slightly longer than two minutes, where a cop from the Antioch Police Department can be heard saying he wants cameras confiscated right before the video stops.

ABC7 covered the story, using the old mainstream media tactic of acting clueless about the right to record issue, which saves them from having to take an actual stance and therefore, keeps their relationship with the local police department cordial.

This brings up some interesting questions about the rights of people and their video versus the rights of the police and whether or not they can take away that video.

The “interesting questions” have been answered long ago and it seems as if everybody, but the cops and the media know we have the right to record cops without getting our cameras confiscated, especially when they are beating somebody in public.

As usual in these cases, police refused to provide a video interview to ABC7, who nevertheless spoke to three witnesses, all of them choosing to remain anonymous because it is obvious their local police department has no regard for the law or for people’s civil rights.

But the Antioch Police Department did release a statement claiming they have the right to seize cameras if they are not handed over voluntarily.


The only time police have the right to seize your camera without a warrant is under “exigent circumstances,” a legal term meaning they have a strong belief the witness is going to destroy the video which contains evidence to a crime.

In this case, it was obvious they were seizing cameras to coverup their own crimes.

The first witness told ABC7 News, “I thought it was overkill. I was disgusted by it.”

Several witnesses say the man, who appeared to be mentally disturbed, was handcuffed while police used a Tazer on him and hit him with a baton. Then, they say, an officer released a police dog that began biting the man until he was bleeding and unrecognizable. 

The first witness continued to say, “Not his legs and his arms, his face and his head! That’s doing too much.”

A second witness ABC7 News spoke to says officers began confiscating cellphones from anyone who shot video of the incident. An officer asked for his cellphone after he shot video and the witness said, “Then he took my phone anyway because I didn’t want no problems. He emailed the incident to his phone.”

The first witness said, “They didn’t take no for an answer apparently because they pulled one lady out of her vehicle to get it, and she wouldn’t give it up and they were about to arrest her and finally they let her go because I believe she gave it up.”

However, a third witness told ABC7 News he was ordered to erase his video. So he did. He said, “They were being kind of controlling, like demanding, ‘erase your phone’ and they were trying to take people’s phones away.”

The American Civil Liberties Union says police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your digital photos or video without a warrant. 

Antioch police told ABC7 News in a statement, “If a person is not willing to turn it over voluntarily, an officer can sometimes seize the device containing the video. The police would have to get a search warrant to retrieve the video from the device.”

They are wrong, but nothing will ever be done about it, despite the fact that the United States Department of Justice made the following very clear in 2012:

Policies on individuals’ right to record and observe police should provide officers with clear guidance on the limited circumstances under which it may be permissible to seize recordings and recording devices. An officer’s response to an individual’s recording often implicates both the First and Fourth Amendment, so it’s particularly important that a general order is consistent with basic search and seizure principles. A general order should provide officers with guidance on how to lawfully seek an individual’s consent to review photographs or recordings and the types of circumstances that do—and do not—provide exigent circumstances to seize recording devices, the permissible length of such a seizure, and the prohibition against warrantless searches once a device has been seized. Moreover, this guidance must reflect the special protection afforded to First Amendment materials.

Policies should include language to ensure that consent is not coerced, implicitly or explicitly. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 228 (1973) (“[T]he Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that a consent not be coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force. For, no matter how subtly the coercion was applied, the resulting ‘consent’ would be no more than a pretext for the unjustified police intrusion against which the Fourth Amendment is directed.”). In assessing whether an individual’s consent to search was freely and voluntarily given, Courts may consider “the characteristics of the accused . . . as well as the conditions under which the consent to search was given (such as the officer’s conduct; the number of officers present; and the duration, location, and time of the encounter).” United States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650 (4th Cir. 1996). BPD’s explanation of the process for obtaining consent includes clear guidelines regarding what steps an officer should take once an individual provides an officer with consent to review a recording. However, BPD’s general order should include language to ensure that consent is not coerced, implicitly or explicitly.

Warrantless seizures are only permitted if an officer has probable cause to believe that the property “holds contraband or evidence of a crime” and “the exigencies of the circumstances demand it or some other recognized exception to the warrant requirement is present.” United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 (1983). Any such seizure must be a “temporary restraint[] where needed to preserve evidence until police c[an] obtain a warrant.” Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 334 (2001). Seizures must be limited to a reasonable period of time. For example, in Illinois v. McArthur, the Supreme court upheld a police officer’s warrantless seizure of a premises, in part, because police had good reason to fear that evidence would be destroyed and the restraint only lasted for two hours – “no longer than reasonably necessary for the police, acting with diligence, to obtain the warrant.” Id. at 332. Once seized, officers may not search the contents of the property without first obtaining the warrant. Place, 462 U.S. at 701 & n.3. In the context of the seizure of recording devices, this means that officers may not search for or review an individual’s recordings absent a warrant.

Police departments must also recognize that the seizure of a camera that may contain evidence of a crime is significantly different from the seizure of other evidence because such seizure implicates the First, as well as the Fourth, Amendment. The Supreme Court has afforded heightened protection to recordings containing material protected by the First Amendment. An individual’s recording may contain both footage of a crime relevant to a police investigation and evidence of police misconduct.The latter falls squarely within the protection of First Amendment. See, e.g., Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1034 (1991) (“There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the State’s power lies at the very center of the First Amendment.”). The warrantless seizure of such material is a form of prior restraint, a long disfavored practice. Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 503 (1973) (when an officer “br[ings] to an abrupt halt an orderly and presumptively legitimate distribution or exhibition” of material protected by the First Amendment, such action is “plainly a form of prior restraint and is, in those circumstances, unreasonable under Fourth Amendment standards.”). See also Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (Where sheriff’s deputies suppressed newspapers critical of the sheriff “before the critical commentary ever reached the eyes of readers, their conduct met the classic definition of a prior restraint.”). An officer’s warrantless seizure of an individual’s recording of police activity is no different. See Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F.Supp.2d 534, 541 (E.D. Penn 2005) (By restraining an individual from “publicizing or publishing what he has filmed,” officer’s “conduct clearly amounts to an unlawful prior restraint upon [] protected speech.”); see Channel 10, Inc. v. Gunnarson, 337 F.Supp. 634, 637 (D.Minn. 1972) (“it is clear to this court that the seizure and holding of the camera and undeveloped film was an unlawful ‘prior restraint’ whether or not the film was ever reviewed.”).

The warrantless seizure of material protected by the First Amendment “calls for a higher hurdle in the evaluation of reasonableness” under the Fourth Amendment. Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 504 (1973). Police departments should limit the circumstances under which cameras and recording devices can be seized and the length of the permissible seizure. BPD’s general order does not convey that the warrantless seizure of recording material is different than the warrantless seizure of many other types of evidence, in that it implicates the First, as well as the Fourth, Amendment. General Order J-16 should make it clear to officers that, in the ordinary course of events, there will not be facts justifying the seizure of cameras or recording devices. Moreover, General Order J-16 does not define “temporary” seizure. BPD should clarify how long and under what circumstances an officer may seize a recording device, even temporarily, and how the recordings on the device must be maintained after seizure. A policy permitting officers, with supervisory approval, to seize a film for no longer than reasonably necessary for the police, acting with diligence, to obtain the warrant if that film contains critical evidence of a felony crime would diminish the likelihood of constitutional violations.

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 …

  • FitzND

    Look at these idiots. Two police officers would suffice. There’s like 20 of them. Just an endless stream of police cars speeding to arrive on the scene, as if there was an imminent terrorist attack. Nope, a homeless guy at a gas station beaten half to death lying on the ground probably in & out of consciousness by that point. Let’s unleash an attack dog on him for good measure.

    Then the highest ranking of the cops, not content with merely attempting to kill someone, decides to violate a bunch of civil rights in order to delete any evidence of their beating

    Just disgusting, indefensible, abhorrent activity. A bloodthirsty gang that sees themselves above the law they are ordered to uphold. And of course the Prosecutor’s office will sit there with their dicks in their hands not wanting to prosecute this gang of criminals. Terrible.

    • IcedTeaParty

      Additional officers are needed to initiate the cell-phone confiscation process.

      While the primate behavior of modern law enforcement is an issue, the point being made here is that the police think they can ignore the 1st Amendment and the elements of due process when it comes to taking people’s cameras and phones.

      Long past are the days when it was respectable to be a cop in America.

  • Richard Lord

    So by claiming evidence of a crime was on the cell phone the police admit that the officers committed a crime.

    • dundy12


    • Guest


  • Richard Lord

    The police dont give a shit about a thousand letters from god the tax payers pay they dont until wrath is directed at the politicians who fail to put them on a leash nothing will change.

    • furrykef

      Your comment is incomprehensible. Try using punctuation.

  • Jerry

    Why would they be ordering people to delete the video if they were confiscating for evidence. Almost sounds like….say you dont think….they would be trying to destroy evidence? Isnt that a crime?

    • dravo1

      Hmmm, spoilation of evidence under color of law? A felony? At the federal level?

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        “Spoilation of evidence under color of law?”

        Is there anything y’all won’t make up? Exactly what penal code or U.S. Code section is that located in? All of you talk about the cops making up laws as they go along and how bad it is, yet it is perfectly fine for you to do the same?

        It makes you no different than they are, and just as wrong. All it does it put you on the opposite side.

        • Guest

          No. No it doesn’t make us just as wrong. We didn’t swear an oath to uphold the laws. We weren’t given badges and guns and the public trust to go and arrest people. You miserable, arrogant, traitor defending, piece of shit.

        • kraz

          The difference is when police do it it ruins lives. When someone makes a comment on a public forum it’s just that, a comment.

        • Marley Mathers

          It is a real thing, the person who wrote simply spelled it wrong. It’s called spoliation of evidence and that’s kind of what these cops are doing when they order someone to delete a video. It probably wouldn’t hold up in court though because it generally refers to destruction of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.

          • Guest

            Thanks for pointing that out.


            Spoliation of evidence

            The spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. Spoliation has two possible consequences: in jurisdictions where the (intentional) act is criminal by statute, it may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            I’m familiar with spoliation of evidence and what it is. What I’m pointing out is that dravo1 wants to consider it a felony under that title, and it is not. He’s making up imaginary criminal charges, but screams like bloody murder if the officers make a similar mistake.

          • Guest

            Questions are not mistakes. So now you want to pretend that there weren’t 3 question marks in dravo1’s comment, even though you quoted one of them? You really do enjoy the straw man argument. Are you a piece of shit?

          • MongoLikesCandy

            Forgive us if we don’t know the exact name of the law they are breaking. Can you just give us the correct term and move on with the discussion?

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            I could (and have at times), but I’m under no obligation to do so.

            I can also point out where people are being hypocrites.

          • Ty

            and we are too happy to point out that you are nothing but a piece of shit cop lovin dickhead.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            LOL, yeah, you can say that if it makes you feel better.

            Fortunately, that changes neither the facts nor the law.

          • good luck

            The thing is that cops all over the states are out of control ..They need to punish them with double penalties ..They need to wear cameras while on duty that stream live to the net for monitoring in real time.If the camera goes off they get fired .The good cops won’t have any problem with that.
            Let’s not put up with that bullshit and do away with the law that says they can’t be held liable for any wrong doing.
            They need to be stopped now !!!
            Prison payback

          • claymore

            Sure spread your criminal stuff all over the net girlie boy.

          • Mark Brown

            How about assault with a deadly weapon idiot exCop-LawStudent.Is that a felony?

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Have you always had problems with logic and comprehension? Try Sylvan Learning Centers. There are a couple of them in Arizona.

          • Boko Hos

            I really don’t understand why the fuck you’re even on here. Nobody gives a fuck about the laws, especially the cops that are caught in these videos. Pick a side asshole.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Aww, poor baby can’t stand to see an opposing opinion. Especially when has something besides BS behind it. You know, like law.

            If it offends you, too f’ng bad. Until Carlos asks me to leave, I’ll stay. He knows that all he has to do is tell me to leave and I will.

          • Boko Hos

            You aren’t giving any kind of opposing opinion, you’re just quoting law. Unless someone is claiming to be a lawyer, like you do, why bother correcting them? Are you teaching law via PINAC? Does their misquoting of a law or statute upset you so greatly that you feel the need to correct them? If so, maybe you should ask yourself why.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            I don’t claim to be a lawyer. Obviously you need reading comprehension work too.

          • Not pro Israel

            Hey FUCKtard, congratulations on leaving the PORCINE brigade of morons. No go get a fucking life and get off the cop peter puffing spree. FUCK THE POLICE!!!!

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Sure Chris. I’ll jump right on that.

          • Rail Car Fan

            Once again the only way “EC-LS” answers posts here is with his very “snarky” remarks.

            Rail Car Fan

          • Rail Car Fan

            Boko Hos said in part…

            “Pick a side asshole.”

            EC-LS already has. It seems to be, in most cases, on the side of “Badge Bully” cops!

            Rail Car Fan

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Hey, maybe you two could hook up. I mean since most of the people in Boko’s pics look like guys in drag and since RCF’s boyfriend left him, maybe that would be a way to ease your pain…

          • Kyle

            Well, “LAW enforcement officers” should know what they have a right to enFORCE before they go using their ‘authorized’ force on people… The idea of “protect and serve” and being a peace officer went out with Andy Griffith. You now have a gang of thugs that are there to use force for compliance rather than to simply protect the public and keep the peace.

        • Scott Bieser

          Being on the opposite side of thuggish brutality and wholesale Bill of Rights violations is, in my opinion, being on the side of angels.

        • Mark Brown

          Who is y’all? Anyone who is not a power hungry Idiot criminal cop gang member who beats a man for exercise.

        • Kyle

          In most states if you, the average peon did this type of thing, you would be charged with felony obstruction of justice and felony tampering with evidence… You can easily find these “offenses” in your state’s criminal code, as well as many examples of people charged under them…

        • good luck

          Good Luck in school.

    • Guest

      It’s worse than a crime. Police are worse than criminals. They’re traitors.

      • steve618

        They’re NOT traitors. They’ve become your enemy.

        • tj

          traitors are our enemies…

    • RevoltNOW

      NOT just ANY Crime… IT’S A FELONY!!!!

  • Guest


  • dravo1

    This was Cro-Magnon law enforcement at its very best.

    • CitizenBrain

      I’d say Neandertal. Cro-Magnon is a bit evolved for such animalistic behavior…

      • good luck

        Let’s clean house and get rid of all cops that have been in any questional incidents. They have become lower then dirt.

  • Guest

    Carlos, I wanted to say I really appreciate your insights and perspective of the media based on your knowledge and past experience. You’ve posted some of that here and in a few recent comments I’ve read. You also don’t pull punches in calling out the larger more established propaganda entities for being two-faced lying scum.

    Best wishes for continued success with PINAC

    • Carlos_Miller


    • John Strika

      If you really appreciate it why don’t you use your real name and not a guest nic. I’m sorry but that and the witnesses who didn’t have the balls to come forward is another reason they get away with this crap

      • n4zhg

        They probably know what will happen to them if the come forward. SWAT is always looking for doors to kick and dogs to shoot.

      • CitizenBrain

        Why? You and your SWAT buddies looking for another innocent household to victimize?

      • Boko Hos

        Bullshit. Who are you kidding? THe cops are caught lying on continual basis. Why should the public be forthright about personal information?

  • Rick Hiltz

    In order to seize a phone as evidence they must be able to show it was used in the commission of a crime just video tapping a criminal in a Halloween costume acting out like a psychopath is not a crime

    • Liberaltarian

      They’d also be able to seize camera phones if exigent circumstances existed. That’s a difficult standard to meet, however. I’d advise anyone who the police demanded they hand over their phone to proclaim they’re willing to provide their identification, will not delete any video or pics, and will comply with any lawful warrant for the camera. I doubt it will change any cop minds, but it will put you on a better legal footing if you later sue. Also, try to get all that recorded by someone else if possible!

      • ExCop-Lawyer

        You can also state that the video is for dissemination to the public, that 42 U.S.C. 2000aa requires that law enforcement may only obtain such material by way of subpoena, and that you are willing to comply with any such subpoena.

        • Boko Hos

          How many of the sociopaths and ignoramuses you served with would have any knowledge of such information and/or even be remotely willing to honor it?

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Doesn’t matter. Damages only start to accrue after they have notice that it is for dissemination to the public. At worst, you increase the damages. At best, they pause and check with someone who tells them not to seize the camera.

          • Rick Hiltz

            Umm maybe its just me but deleting footage would effect tampering with evidence once a phone is claimed to be evidence .Why is it all these cameras come back with out footage and no one ever gets charged . Or is it just that gang mentality that the Halloween costumed gang is free to do what it pleases

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            It depends on state law. I don’t have time right now to look at Cali. law on the issue.

          • Rick Hiltz

            plain and simple if they claim the right to lawfully seize it as evidence then when its returned the video must still be present if its not some one should be charged.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            OK, what section of the penal code is being violated and what are the elements of the offense?

  • steveo

    Sharp v Baltimore: Sharp got 250K for the same thing. Most of what Carlos has written here, comes from the Sharp case.

    Fairly simple facts, Sharp was at the racetrack when he witnessed police using force to arrest a female who was bleeding pretty bad. He started recording with his cellphone and the Baltimore police took it from him and deleted the video and most of the other stuff on the phone.

  • Chris Sky

    I can’t wait for the day I get to record the Police during an illegal act. I KNOW they have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to “confiscate” my cell phone or video camera or anything other media device I am using to LEGALLY record their duties in public. Then when they come to confiscate and you say “NO” of course they will TRY to arrest you (with no legal cause) making their arrest attempt illegal, and making your RESISTANCE legal. I’d love to be able to use my video for my wrongful arrrest/assault by an officer law suit. Bc they wouldn’t get it from me.

    • Joseph Murray

      Yes they would, toughguy.

      • Chris Sky

        LOL sure thing bud. I’ve had plenty of altercations with Police where they’ve gotten away with all kinds of illegal shit. But never once did they get what they wanted from me. And when you have the money for a GOOD lawyer…. that’s pretty much the only thing cops are scared of! They will stand up for each other, yes…. but when it comes time for somebody to “take the fall” thanks to an A+ legal team and a citizen with a spine…. they will throw their own under the bus in the blink of an eye, to save their own ass. 😉

        The “blue wall” is about as infallible as any other wall in history.

        • Erika Domnick

          Yep- you’ll get the laws and rights you can pay for….way to perpetuate the problem. Exactly what role does your “spine” play in all this?

          • Chris Sky

            be willing to do what’s RIGHT. film the injustice, then take the ILLEGAL consequences of the offending officers (Whether it be a hospital beating and or bogus charges)
            before FIGHTING back with the legal system armed with the evidence of the video. Videos never lie, which is why the cops hate them so much. They can have all the “sworn statements” they want. when you have them on video. You win. The entire point of this article is that people are being INTIMIDATED by the police NOT TO FILM them… simply because the police know it’s your best defence against immoral, illegal actions.

            That’s called a spine. and a brain.

      • Rail Car Fan

        Not if the video was automatically uploaded to cloud, or some other web site.

        Rail Car Fan

  • Wade Dewell

    In this era of political corruption and police brutality, only open armed resistance will prevail. The mind set of the empowered is not upon citizens rights and well being. They have proved that time and time again. They are willing to shoot and kill innocent people, we should be as well. A cop takes an innocent life, a bounty should be issued, and he should be publicly executed. People put down bad dogs all over the world. Stand up. Arm yourselves. Meet no knock raids with automatic weapons fire. Riot troops should be surrounded and subdued using any means possible. This is America people. We are free Americans! START ACTING LIKE IT!!!!

  • Troy Spreadborough

    So… when are you folks there in the US going to start shooting these tyrannical oppressors that are assaulting, beating, kidnapping and murdering you all, one at a time, each after the other?

    They’re going to be coming for you with guns soon enough too, you all know that, right?

    Just watching from over here in Europe, wondering… is anyone going to fight back, and if so, when exactly? How many have to die before it’s enough already?

    • Erika Domnick

      You know what it is, Tony? It’s the fact that they have armies of thugs, and they throw your ass in jail for anything….you have no power in their cages; no voice, no rights, no dignity, no humanity. We got cops cavity searching people on the side of the road, we have them beating women, shooting dogs and children….they’re disgusting pieces of shit- and most of us know it….but it’s hard to organize an evolution when there are so many of them, and they’re so fucking righteous and arrogant, and PROTECTED! They investigate themselves for the fucksake! It’s gonna get ugly in America….we will fight back…right now- our most powerful weapons against the scum are cameras, phones, and voices. It ain’t much- but it made you aware of the problem so the word is getting out. To be continued…..I hope!

  • Mitch Mitchell

    Something very wrong going on here.

  • Creepy Gun Toting Cracker

    Until lawsuits actually effect each individual officer, the pay out can not be high enough. A week paid vacation, union lawyer. Abolish “qualified immunity”. Personal liability insurance policy’s need to be in place like any other (otherwise) highly trained professional.

    • James M Morriss

      I think for the LEOs it QI should be reviewed by a grand jury on a case by case basis or some such arrangement. Changing to that system might rein them in if not then abolish QI for LEOs. For DAs, kill QI and have a panel from the weekly jury pool review any case in which the suspects request it. An easy way to stop the BS prosecutions.

      • n4zhg

        The problem with that is the smart people can figure out how to get out of jury duty, leaving the easily led and the badge lickers.

  • Lloyd Welch

    There was evidence of a crime being committed the thing is that it was the police that were committing it.

  • James M Morriss

    SSDA: same shit different assholes. It must be something in their diet.

    • frank-kintz

      Glazed doughnuts and steroids mixed with low IQ, Judge Dread syndrome and police unions. Deadly combination for the safety and life of man or animal.

  • PeterGriffinsToilet

    Based on the legion of video like this one, it seems clear to me the traitors of law enforcement have been trained for many years now to circle a victim tight as they beat them illegally, to create a visual shield for themselves against cameras. They have a clearly ingrained policy which appears to be nationwide about how to beat people in public while blocking the cameras and peoples sight. How can so many shitty people all flock to one profession?

  • Nick Pezzolo

    One day cops will be rushed and we will see there eyes go black from fear,and instead of being a man,u pigs will get Monster’s.

  • Laura W

    World news stated that
    policemen deaths are up by 65% since 2011 and most are from ambushes. Police
    departments can’t really be surprised by this. As much as I hate hearing of a
    policeman’s death it doesn’t surprise me.

    It never ceases to
    amaze me how police departments are always saying how they don’t understand why
    people aren’t more sympathetic when a police officer is injured or killed. Well
    it is their fault. Social media has exposed their brutality towards people and
    their pets on a daily basis and with everyone armed with a camera they will
    continue to be exposed. Their own actions have desensitized people to what
    happens to them—-and for those who aren’t yet desensitized it is just a
    matter of time. Police openly break the law without consequences daily as
    evidenced by all the available video online and they wonder why they are not
    given any respect. You have to give it
    to get it.

    A policeman used to be someone you could look
    up to and go to for help but not anymore.
    Now people tend to take care of themselves rather than call the police
    due to their lack of trust in the police.
    I have known some very good policemen in the past but can’t say too much
    about now. I keep seeing the words “Police State” used to describe people’s
    respective police department which doesn’t bode to well for policemen. Again you have to give respect to get it…….

  • Rogue cops cost us money

    And the cops wonder why people hate them?

  • billdog1969

    Sign this petition below and help end police tyranny. Far to often police officers are caught on video abusing or killing citizens illegally, but nothing happens to them. They will get off, will be suspended with pay or in rare cases fired only to get hired at another police station with a clean record. Drs., Nurses and Aids lose their license to practice health care if they abuse or kill patients. This should be the same for police if you are not going to prosecute them at least forbid them from ever policing society again. They make all cops look bad. It’s time to clean out the trash so good cops can shine once again. Before we lose all respect for authority, and take steps to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens.

  • RevoltNOW

    Delete that footage NOW, or YOU will be arrested!!!! ARE YOU ORDERING ME TOO

  • ben dover

    killallcopskillallcopskillallcopskillallcops, What a great day that would be

  • Nad

    This is thanks to your President Obama (Bush started it). The Patriot act Bush signed is taking your rights away. The dollar is in trouble and the US GOV know that when the Dollar collapses there is going to be civil war. This video again just show you that the American citizen’s right are being taken away. The gun act is next to be changed very soon!!

  • jeffy1951

    While it is the moral duty of every decent person to cultivate disrespect for law enforcement, that attitude is not to blame (if that’s the appropriate word) for the growing resistance to officially sanctioned abduction. That inclination is a direct reaction to the impudence, arrogance, and aggressiveness of police officers, their palpable contempt for the public they supposedly serve, their sense of tribal solidarity with officers who commit crimes against innocent people, and the institutional immunity they enjoy.

  • Jay Sprueill

    Does anyone wonder why the majority of people living in California despise POLICE officers?

    • walshj


  • Erika Domnick

    This shit pisses me off so bad! Once a person is handcuffed- that’s it! The fucking assholes that keep beating him, tasing him, or siccing their dogs on him should be fired for being cowardly gang-minded bullies. Enough of this shit already- obviously, the situation is getting worse, and just as obviously, the cops are saying, “fuck you all, we do what we want, regardless of cameras, protests, laws, and rights”. So….if it’s allowed to continue, where do you suppose it’s going to lead? It CANNOT be allowed to continue- even if it means a civil war against these fuckers.

  • Raylan Givens

    Had someone did a home invasion at your house, beat your kids, raped your wife and then you manage to subdue the intruder, tie his hands behind his back and then proceeded sic your dog on him, and to do what they did to this guy, you can just count the felonies you’d be charged with. Not to mention the years in prison… They would prosecute you based on the fact “You should have stopped when he was no longer a threat”.

  • MongoLikesCandy

    “they have the right to seize cameras if they are not handed over voluntarily.”

    Somebody needs to look up the word “voluntarily”.

  • moofer

    I hope the Antioch police are sued by every single person who’s cell phone they confiscated for violating their civil rights.

  • Simon

    Go link your andriod phone to google drive or G+ and set it to automatically backup your photos and videos. That way when they take your phone, you still have the video to hold them responsible.

  • Shandi M Freedom

    These cops need to fucking die today!

  • Elie Ilano

    Great article. Thanks for the info, very helpful. BTW, if anyone needs to fill out a

    claim right form, I found a blank form here: and also here