An Arkansas State representative who helped pass a state law protecting people who film police was arrested Monday while filming Little Rock police as they put a black man in handcuffs after a traffic stop.
The charges against Rep. John Walker have been dropped, but his colleague, fellow civil rights lawyer Omavi Shukur, faces charges for obstruction of government relations.
Officer Jeff Thompson wrote in his police report: “I ordered Walker several times to leave or be arrested. Walker replied ‘arrest me’ at which point I did.”
Police on Wednesday released dashcam video of the incident. “I’m just making sure they don’t kill you,” Walker told the man who had been pulled over, according to the police report.
Citizens who film police often face arrest or retaliation. For example:
- Ruben An sued the NYPD in July for arresting him in while he filmed police officers in 2014. Ramsey Orta, who filmed Eric Garner’s arrest in 2014, said he was later arrested in “retaliation.” He is suing the city of New York.
- Lynwood Keith Golden was arrested after filming police in Wetumpka, Alabama in June. He has filed a lawsuit.
- Maurice Crawley was arrested in Syracuse, N.Y., in July while filming an arrest, sparking protests.
- Kenneth Holmes was arrested in May while filming an arrest in Austin, Texas.
- A lawsuit alleges that police illegally detained Abdullah Muflahi, the man who filmed police officer Blane Salamoni shoot Alton Sterling. They seized his convenience store surveillance video and cell phone in Baton Rouge.
Arrest for filming are actually becoming less common, said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at the ACLU. “The long time that it took police officers to recognize this right was in many ways an indictment of police management. It also shows that photography is a form of power,” he told the Intercept.
In February, though, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that two people who were arrested while filming police were not protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU has appealed the ruling.
“There is a Constitutional right to film the police that’s extremely well settled,” Stanley said. “Police have such tremendous power in our society… to use brutal and in some cases deadly force,” he added. “it’s important for police to engage in oversight.”
Photo: Members of the New York City Police Department block demonstrators and photographers trying to get into Zuccoti Park in New York on November 15, 2011.
“There is a Constitutional right to film the police that’s extremely well settled,”
The Supreme Court has flat out said that cops can’t stop people from filming them. It doesn’t get any more settled than that.
Fa66ot + retard = Cop.
Too bad.
As Wnt posted earlier, this is indeed a better video of how the whole incident played out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv-8WISLpPM
It shows a textbook case of how NOT to de-escalate a situation, and should be shown as such to every cop trainee in America.
A man videotapes a traffic stop from across the street. No interference whatsoever.
Cop crosses the street to ask why he’s videotaping. A sincere question? Bullshit. Every cop in America knows why someone would videotape a traffic stop involving a black man.
The cop acknowledges the man’s right to videotape but continues to interrogate him about it, taking up time from his very busy POLICING responsibilities to ask dumb questions of a person who has committed no crime.
Second cop comes across the street, also taking time out of his packed crime- fighting schedule. Cop 2 is openly belligerent, picking a fight.
Having been thus antagonized, and determined to exercise his constitutional rights, the videographer gets closer to the traffic stop situation. Gets arrested.
Thanks, John Walker for exposing these pricks.
Sorry about the re-post. Glitch.
As Wnt posted earlier, this is indeed a better video of how the whole incident played out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv-8WISLpPM
It shows a textbook case of how NOT to de-escalate a situation, and should be shown as such to every cop trainee in America.
A man videotapes a traffic stop from across the street. No interference whatsoever.
Cop crosses the street to ask why he’s videotaping. A sincere question? Bullshit! Every cop in America knows why someone would videotape a traffic stop involving a black man.
The cop acknowledges the man’s right to videotape but continues to interrogate him about it, taking up time from his very busy POLICING responsibilities to ask dumb questions of a person who has committed no crime.
Second cop comes across the street, also taking time out of his packed crime fighting schedule. Cop 2 is openly belligerent, picking a fight.
Having been thus antagonized, and determined to exercise his constitutional rights, the videographer gets closer to the traffic stop situation. Gets arrested.
Thanks, John Walker for exposing these pricks.
It’s called “contempt of cop” and is the worst thing you can do. You are supposed to be an obsequious Toad in the presence of the lowest rung of the power structure. They are para militaries and they are trained and recruited as such and like all career people live in fear of their job or opportunities for promotion and they wear guns in a world where ultimately everything depends on violence or the threat of violence. Be careful around them, avoid confrontation; your very life could be at stake. Do your fighting in court where the officer class prevails over them.
Thanks for the wake up to reality Naomi.
Just another sign of the deterioration of the U.S. as a ‘free’ country. And a sign that laws don’t apply to those that administer or those that write them.
That charge – “Obstruction of govt relations” is the most retarded charge i think i may have ever heard!
There is no possible way in which someone can avoid subjectively having done so – because the person pretending to “be govt” can just state that their desired outcome didn’t happen because it was obstructed.
There is no clarification – do they want good relations? Do they want the relations to be based upon fear? WHAT the hell do they want? This is a totally BS charge
Since the govt is literally a fictitious legal entity – WHERE WAS THIS GOVT THAT HAD IT’S RELATIONS OBSTRUCTED!!! Where is the signature “of the govt” on the charges? They can stamp all they want, sign all they want – but that is a human being pretending to represent a fictitious “being” known as govt.
Damnably ludicrous to thinking people.
i think this pushes me toward anarchy. From the Greek.
An = without, archy = (from archon – ark -on, meaning ruler, in other words, without rulers)
This is NOT crazy bomb throwing wackoness like the people in power want you to think. You don’t need to be monitored when you buy groceries or workout at the gym, ride the bus, or go to work. Govt is totally over-rated and mostly unnecessary.
Great way to have justice 2 injustice served as many officers take advantage of the law them selfs.
I filed a lawsuit against NYC to confirm our first amendment to film police and had a federal judge throw out my constitutional claims by “getting the law wrong” and 2 days after filing, Eric Garner was murdered on video. Sigh. http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=13925
Case Filed: July 15, 2014
Case Dismissed: April 20, 2015
That’s not two days. Stop lying.
Source: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2dsc7win4/new-york-southern-district-court/goodman-v-the-city-of-new-york–et-al/
Eric Garner date of death: July 17th, 2014.
Debra was appearing to say that “2 days after filing, Eric Garner was murdered on video”.
I believe you mistakenly read that as the case being thrown out two days after filing, which was not what she said.
There’s something wrong with the lead photo – there are more photographers and photojournalists than anyone in the photo.
Doesn’t that seem, um, that the news is being created for fancy rather than something which actually existed?
Dunno, I see things funny I guess. . . .
If the cops aren’t doing anything wrong, they have no reason to worry about being filmed.
Everyone wishes they could actually be documented doing their superb job!
Those that don’t want to be documented are afraid, either of their actions or the rules they are required to follow. Sometimes doing a good job doesn’t jive with official protocol.
So who is the officer more afraid of being documented about, official protocol or the job that he actually did?
“Those that don’t want to be documented are afraid…”, y’know, I don’t think so. The cops have figured out that they have nothing to be afraid of regardless of whether they’re scrutinized or not: prosecutors simply do not prosecute police. John Pike knew that, Anthony Bologna knew it too. Chris Dorner was crazy, but he wasn’t wrong when he pointed out that the officers in the Rampart and Rodney King scandals were promoted instead of punished. They aren’t afraid of anything; they’re simply willing to use violence in response to any perceived slight to their authority, which, after Warren v. District of Colombia, is pretty much the only job function police have left — using force to enforce their authority.
Chris Dorner wasn’t crazy, he was framed. Know your history.
GTFO!
welcome to the police state of 3rd WORLD USA
Where you are, like it or not, just another worker for wallstreet thieves who will proceed to pick you clean by theft of productivity, price extraction, loan fraud, ponzi scheming, student indentured servitude, war making and profiteering, and other predatory schemes.
have a nice day
– which power to rob Americans is to be enforced by “wallstreet paid police”.
israel does not want witnesses to genocide
israel did not want witnesses to the attempted nuking of egypt 8 JUNE 1967
POWER.
money is power
voice is power
guns are power
voting is power
recording with camera and mic is serious power
wallstreet interests do not want Americans to have power
who’s your friend?
Oh, the irony–the watchers hate being watched. They feel they have the right to know everything, and we to know nothing.
Trust them, they’re the good guys.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/699236946e3140659fff8a2362e16f43/ap-across-us-police-officers-abuse-confidential-databases
In thrice reporting violent crimes, I was threatened with arrest when police officers insisted that I leave the scene without taking my vitals or eyewitness testimony. All three incidents were in poor urban environments of mixed race. Two of the incidents were assaults on women (prostitutes) in the vicinity of apartment complexes. The third, a sexual assault, was in a gas station/ market parking lot. All three incidents occurred between 1-5 AM. When I questioned why my eyewitness testimony was not needed, I was aggressively told to leave the scene with threats of arrest for interfering with a police officer. When I brought my concerns to my councilman, he informed me that police had been unofficially instructed to “resolve such incidents in the field whenever possible.” Apparently, this policy was implemented to reflect lower violent crime stats in the city. I can imagine that, in filming such incidents, police feel compelled to cover their ass by by reluctantly filing a victim’s complaint. On one of these occasions, I went to the police station itself to acquire an incident report and was told that there was “none on record.”
Keep fighting the good fight and keep an eye on those savage niggers, Karl. The anti-white police may not appreciated now, but you’ll be recognized as the hero you are in due time.
Isn’t it funny how your mind went directly to black people (“savage niggers”) when I recounted incidents of violent assault and rape. This is not an uncommon reflex among guilt ridden, self hating white progressives who feel that they have to preemptively defend black people as if they are chronically abused weeping children who are incapable of defending themselves by dint of the fact that they are all perpetually languishing in some dark corner of a white-owned, rat infested basement in some urban ghetto.
As far as your use of the term “anti-white police”, I am far to simple a man to understand what you intended to convey with that particular term. Sounds like the MONAdic component of a “word salad” to me.
OUCH!!! Donny boy… the pipes, the pipes are calling. Dude, you fell face down into a punji trap. Karl used your own body weight and momentum against you to make you reveal your own racial bias and hypocrisy all in one fell swoop. Double shame!!!
Hey Mate, freakin brilliant conveyance of liberal hubris and how it is intended to perpetually nurture a victim mentality in those they secretly perceive to be inferior to themselves. If black people truly understood the degree to which their victim mentality has been nurtured and exploited by white and black progressive politicians, they would rise up and hang Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on a cross directly next to Lyndon Johnson and Teddy Kennedy. Personally, I support black separatist movements like the Nation of Islam and Black Lives Matters; Malcolm X was one of my heroes. However, I do not believe that further handouts from “white folks” is the way in which they should wean themselves from the teat of White society. Let them go cold turkey by rejecting all of the educational grants, affirmative action and health programs that they currently enjoy at the expense of the American taxpayer. I am all for blacks becoming self reliant as a race. Let them set up their own banks, fund their own businesses and mortgages, pay for their own schools, create and staff their own fire and police departments, educate their own children, set up their own courts, appoint their own judges, prosecute and imprison their own offenders, develop and incorporate their own towns and cities etc. Hell, they could even produce a mega sports franchise that would rock the world. The could come to dominate whole segments of the American pop music scene while reaping the benefits normally reserved for owners. There is no limit as to what they could accomplish once they are left to their own devices. They have the examples of numerous sub Saharan black cultures from which to draw their inspiration…
Why dont you separate yourself from society?
There is a movement here in the United States of America, on the part of law enforcement, a now fully overt movement, to instill fear of the police in everyone, and most especially in minorities.
Interfering with basic rights, such as observing police in actions, and filming actions, is particularly irksome to them, as it eliminates the opportunity to lie, if they feel the need.
As a nation, we are on a fast track to authoritianism; take a careful look around and note that our police departments, the majority of them, are fully combat equipped, so much so, they could be deployed as a military unit, in any war zone.
We need to get a grip before the opportunity is denied us.
Hillary and Trump are both in favor of this program to restrict and eliminate our rights.
As written, the police could have a point. They say that “SUSPECT 3 (KUSHUKURU) AND WALKER BEGAN WALKING TOWARD OUR TRAFFIC STOP. OFFICER J. ROBERTS TOLD KUSHUKURU AND WALKER TO STOP AND NOT TO COME INTO THE AREA OF THE TRAFFIC STOP. OFFICER ROBERTS REPEATED THE COMMAND SEVERAL TIMES. KUSHUKURU AND WALKER IGNORED THESE COMMANDS.”
Now I’m all for free speech but it doesn’t mean a camera is a backstage pass. However, the dropping of the charges gives me the distinct suspicion that the “area of the traffic stop” is bigger for someone who happens to be holding a camera, and that is unconstitutional. So we have to be careful to this, neither demanding too much as to be ridiculed by those who have to do this kind of work, nor meekly accepting genuine censorship under a pro forma excuse.
The police form is worth reading for the sheer silliness of it – it may even be worth researching for those at risk of police issues, i.e. blacks. I suppose the four different descriptions of hair might fairly reflect a police priority to get something so prone to change on the record at the time of arrest, to match potential witness accounts. But then… there are a bunch of checkboxes for “demeanor”: Angry Apologetic Calm Irrational Nervous Polite Professional Stupor Violent Drunk/High Other Unknown. I don’t know what, aside from skin color, can be used to ace this checkbox test and get a more favorable description. In this case Cedric Bell and Gary Gregory rated “Calm”, while John Walker and Omavi Kushukuru rated “Irrational”, which matches who was charged, but I don’t know what you need to do to get a “Polite” or “Professional” rating.
The top Youtube hit on this seems easier to view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv-8WISLpPM It looks like the cops come up to him while he’s on a corner and instigate a debate, eventually calling him a “race-baiter”. The cop complains that “he’s been doing it since 94″; they say he’s “welcome to sit here” but that “you’re only here to cause trouble”. Eventually Omavi and Walker follow the cops back over, and that’s when the arrest happened.
Now I know it’s not unusual for police to provoke an arrest, e.g. by posing as drug clients, but this kind of going out as police to start arguments is not a proper police activity. Despite the “irrational” characterization used by the cops, they seemed more than eager to debate! But the real message is that they can walk over to you to debate, but you can’t walk over to them.
I like how the police report says Victim #1 is “society,”.
Not to nitpick, but unless I am unaware of a recent Supreme Court case that has squarely taken up this issue, the ACLU’s Stanley is probably overstating things just a bit when he claims “the right to film police is extremely well settled.” There continues to arguably be a split among the circuits in the absence of the Supreme Court taking on a case that squarely frames this issue. And the signaling from the circuits is that while there is likely such a right, it may not be an unfettered right under certain circumstances.
The First, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh circuits have recognized such a “right”, and arguably the Second circuit, but the Third and Fourth circuits have not expressly done so given the issue was not squarely before them. The precise issue before those that haven’t found there to be such a right, was whether “qualified immunity” existed for police officers who infringe the supposed “right” in the absence of “clearly well-settled law” (i.e. a Supreme Court decision squarely on point, which at this point there isn’t, again, unless I’ve missed a recent Supreme Court opinion on this topic which is entirely possible).
Here’s a fairly recent law review article from Texas A & M doing a good job of laying out the history and recent cases in this area if anyone is interested.
http://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=lawreview
Thanks, rr! Opened in a tab and waiting for me to find a bit of time.
Here in California, we have the benefit of both the Ninth’s (kind of vague) ruling in Fordyce v. City of Seattle 55 F.3d 436 (1995) and last year’s “Right to Record” legislation.
It is a serious problem, of course, that the cellphone cameras most people have require getting fairly close to the action to record important details. That often gives the cops an opportunity to claim that they are interfering with or impeding them in their duties. Higher resolutions and better “digital zoom” will continue to make close approaches less necessary.
Good job, rr. I had the same thought when I read the “well-settled” comment. SCOTUS hasn’t ruled. Thanks for the overview of the circuits.
the military let journalist embed themselves in war since the VN war and they have caught some wrongdoings but mostly just the misery of war but it is shown on the t.v. yet hear at home the kings don’t want to be caught with pants down. boils down to you must be guilty if you do not want to be searched (hiding something) or you don’t want to be filmed (hiding something).
Keep it up rr…a reliable check on such matters is always a plus, and much appreciated.
“obstruction of government relations”? What the hell does that mean? Interfering with government employees having sex is what it sounds like.
Thank you for detailing this important issue.
Ironic.
In an time of surveillance of everyone, those doing it seem not to like it done on them.
It’s my favorite thing – puts the lie to all those trembling “it’s for our protection” arguments too.