Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
MiMedia, letting you access your media, wherever you are 
Lightroom 4 on Apple's Mac App Store
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
The Fujifilm Finepix X10, A Review
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Strategies for shooting action
20 Tips for Insects on Flowers
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk Inkjet Paper — Audiocast
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
Taking your Portraiture Higher
The "Bible" of Time-Lapse Photography
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Activist Assaulted by Miami Police for Taking Photos
Renita Holmes, a Miami inner-city activist, said a police officer assaulted her while she was photographing a candlelight vigil last month.
The vigil was to memorialize a man named Marvis Williams, whom she said was the eighth person to be killed in this area of Overtown within the last year.
A Miami police officer named Keandra Simmons – who is related to Williams – did not want Holmes photographing the vigil.
“She said, ‘why don’t you leave? Why do you have to take pictures?’” Holmes said in an interview with Photography is Not a Crime.
“She was not in uniform. She comes running out of the crowds of the marching family and says, ‘get the fuck out of here, this is my motherfucking family.”
Holmes stood her ground, telling Simmons she had the right to document the vigil.
“Next thing you know, I got this big black man pushing against me,” she said.
“I put my camera in my pocket and they’re pushing me towards my car. They’re saying, ‘you’re causing a disturbance.’
Holmes, who had been holding her seven-year-old son’s hand, ended up getting separated from him during the tussle.
“(The cop) was grabbing my arm and wrist and pushing me. I wasn’t resisting him.”
Another cop pulled out his handcuffs as the first cop pushed her towards her truck.
“They basically bum rushed me. They didn’t say anything to anybody else who was standing there.”
Once in her truck, she demanded to know his name and badge number because he was wearing a police t-shirt without a nameplate.
He refused to give it to her so she drove to a local precinct where she tried to file a complaint.
She ended up talking a group of other cops, including one who threatened to arrest her for making a false report.
“I told them to go ahead, I would sue them for making a false arrest,” she said.
She kept asking them for the name of the officer whom she said assaulted her, but they refused to give it to her.
Through other sources, she eventually found out his name was Hank Kelly, but she isn’t even sure that is his real first name.
She also ended up filing a complaint with internal affairs, but hasn’t heard back from them.
Those of us familiar with internal affairs investigations know that when and if they do get back to her, they are not going to sustain her allegations against the officer.
We wouldn’t expect anything less from cops investigating cops.
Note: Although the photos are dated 1/1/2008, they were taken last month.
Comments
More thuggery from the scum-of-the-earth brigade. How long will it be before people stop tolerating this kind of bullshit from cops?
When leadership and information is provided.
I hope people soon wake up to the fact that cops are about controlling us, not protecting us.
We might learn from the Venezuelans. They know what their cops are about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-EDKItvnP8
There will be no charges. if this person pursues charges, there will be harassment.
So it goes.
another oxymoron seems harassment already started. And the threats. so it goes.
another oxymoron seems harassment already started. And the threats. so it goes.
Once again, it looks like police get special rights when they're upset.
Though I'm curious: The Westboro Baptist jerks never have protested at a police funeral, have they?
Imagine that comedy for a moment.
I know they've picketed firefighter memorials, but police funerals, maybe. Somehow, I think they're not arrested. Maybe if they picketed a Miami cop funeral and that officer was there.
Gee...no comment from Johnny-One-Note-Law...what a shock.
Pixiq has people register and create accounts in order to post. Trolls don't tend to like that.
Ahhh, the old 'doesn't agree with me = troll' nonsense. Usually says a lot more about the person saying it than it does the "troll."
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the actual previous incidences of trolling behavior... even the passive-aggressive insult in his first post in the new forum.
(In fact, I never said it was because he didn't agree with me. It's his behavior and hypocrisy that's been appalling. Where did you get that nonsense?)
"Yeah, it has nothing to do with the actual previous incidences of trolling behavior"
You appear to be unclear on what a troll is and is not.
You may vehemently disagree with him and you may think he is as wrong as the day is long -- and I respect your views there; no one is obliged to agree with him -- but none of that makes him a troll.
What I've seen of him is this: he expresses a dissenting viewpoint.
That's about the extent of it. He offers the viewpoint of a cop. (A cop who frequently and repeatedly makes clear that he thinks any and all corrupt and misbehaving cops should be punished for it, but many people conveniently ignore that.)
You can stamp your feet and hold your breath all you like, but a dissenting viewpoint is not in and of itself trolling.
You appear to be unclear as to what I'm actually talking about.
Specifically the links to earlier discussions where he vilified an officer for speaking up about abuse - when he himself has claimed before that he intentionally gave up on doing the same thing, because it was hard. And so he continued to participate in a corrupt manner until he transferred.
Well, allegedly.
Or http://bit.ly/johnnylaw
That's hypocrisy and bad behavior, not a dissenting viewpoint.
You can claim it's because I disagree with him all you like, but you're ignoring what I'm actually saying.
Mike,
I'm sorry, when did I say I participated in a corrupt manner? I think you may be talking about when I was in the domestic violence unit and had to enforce the mandatory arrest policy. Is that it? Mandatory arrest policies are common in numerous jurisdictions nationwide. They are not considered unconstitutional or "corrupt". However I disagree with their effectiveness and I think the system is often abused by "victims" who know how to play the game. Unfortunately even when I think the victims are playing the game, the official decision is to let the courts determine guilty because everyone is afraid failure to file charges will lead to additional abuse and potential liability.
I bucked the system as much as I could until it became obvious it was becoming harmful to my career. Then I transferred out as soon as I could to another position. If you consider that corrupt, then color me guilty I guess. Of course, according to you I am probably not really a cop so perhaps I made all that stuff up.
As I said in an earlier exchange, you may not have many moral dilemmas while delivering papers but things are not quite as black and white as you wish they would be.
Really though Mike, your little personal vendetta with me is quite amusing. Please continue to make stuff up and misrepresent my position. It's fun to watch you thrash around.
One other question for you Mike. How is me placing my own opinions on my own blog considered "trolling"? So basically you are admitting that you since you don't like my opinion on something, you consider that "trolling"?
Pretty dang mature on your part.
Just for the record, the original links went away in the transition. Original post linked to: http://bit.ly/b2BUrd
Oh, and the thread: http://www.pixiq.com/article/miami-dade-cop-exposes-abuse-within-his-own...
You saw something wrong, you tried to stop it once - which I applaud! - and then you gave up when you found out it might actually inconvenience you.
You could have done something, but you quit. And that's not the part that's even that bad. Hell, that's acceptable even. Not everyone is cut out to be a crusader.
The bad part was when you whined about it on your blog so people could feel sorry for you; worse was when you had the temerity to even begin to denigrate Officer Adams in Carlos' post that was doing the thing you couldn't bring yourself to do.
"I bucked the system as much as I could until it became obvious it was becoming harmful to my career."
Good to know you'll stand up for what's right, as long as it doesn't harm your "career."
So no, that part isn't you being a troll. The trolling occurs in all the name-calling jackassery you've gotten up to in the past on this blog.
No, this is just you being either a terrible cop or putting together stories of being a terrible cop to feed your little blog hobby.
And you know what? Fuck you. You're no cop. You're some kid in a basement making up stories for all we know. Maybe you just like the attention.
Carlos and Pixiq can loosen their editorial standards if they'd like; after all, they directly benefit from keeping you around in terms of comment volume and hits. They profit from keeping you around.
Then again, accepting you as real means they'll be known as accepting any anonymous person as legitimate if they can talk them into it.
I, on the other hand, have nothing to gain by taking you at your word. You're just some person on the internet who claims to be a cop, wants the attendant weight to your words that goes along with that status, but without any of the attendant responsibility.
Yeah, I don't think so. I'll believe it when I see it.
U mad?
Man you are really going off the rails here Mike. This "kid in a basement making up stories" has apparently gotten you worked up to the point of sputtering insults.
Dude grow up. Seriously. There is a whole wide world out there of people who are going to disagree with you. Try to actually have a debate instead of losing all composure and resorting to name calling and other insults. Stop acting all butt hurt when people call you out on things. I'm beginning to feel kinda embarrassed for you here.
I really have no desire to prove anything to you so keep banging your head against the wall. Feel free not to respond to any of my comments from now on if that helps you cope. There are plenty of other people here who want to have an adult discussion with this "fake cop".
LOL.
No, seriously. Go fuck yourself, Johnny. You're not a cop.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Until then, you're just some anonymous idiot on the internet, only suitable for providing myself and others entertainment.
Keep at it! :D
"You appear to be unclear as to what I'm actually talking about."
Unfortunately, you appear unclear about what you're actually talking about, too.
You called him a troll. I disputed the notion. You responded that he has a history of trollish behavior. I again noted that you don't seem to know what a troll is (and you obviously don't). And your response amounts to, 'He's a bad cop and a hypocrite.'
Huh? What does that have to do with what we were talking about, i.e. whether or not he is a troll?
Answer: Nothing.
Again, nothing you're saying makes him out to be a troll. He may be someone you don't like or don't approve of, and that's fine, but that does not a troll make.
Uh, sure Bill.
I called him a troll. You disputed that. I gave examples. You then claim I don't know what a troll is... but you don't dispute the examples.
But that's ok: we can look right at this thread.
JdL : "Yes, cops are literally and figuratively our neighbors. But they are not a representative sampling, for two reasons:"
He gives two reasons.
Johnny: Questions JdL's usage of the Stanford Prison Experiment... for some reason. Concludes:
"Sorry that this doesn't support your theory that evil evil people are drawn to police work. If anything, it supports the idea that your private police forces would act exactly the same way as the public law enforcement entities."
You'll note that this has NOTHING to do with what JdL was trying to say - but it does reference one of the points JdL brought it up so it sounds kind of like something JdL was saying, even if it wasn't his point. JL is using his favorite thing, the Straw Man. He either can't or doesn't have anything to say about JdL's actual point, so he picks on some tangent bit of what JdL said and attacks that.
But you know, you may be right. Johnny might not be a troll. He might just be *fantastically stupid* and not even realizing he's doing this.
Me: "He didn't say that evil people were drawn to police work."
Explanation of why I believe this.
Johnny: Insult, tries to tell me I shouldn't even comment, insult.
Me: No, seriously, here's what he said, either you missed that bit or didn't understand it.
Johnny: See you have to have the last word herp derp, argle blargle, etc.
JdL: Look I made two points, etc.
Johnny: You said twisted people are drawn to police work!
And so on, ad naseum.
But again, perhaps you're right, Bill. Maybe Johnny isn't a troll. A troll is smart enough to argue this badly on purpose just to keep people going.
He might really just be dumb. With a little bit of trolling reserved for me, since he's still pissed I got the better of him before.
I can live with that. :)
Mike,
So when you accuse me of using a straw man argument and then you misquote me while using that rewording as part of your response, what exactly would you call that?
Ahh that's right. It's called hypocrisy. If that is how you get the better of me, then congrats on small victories I suppose.
It's called summarizing. You might want to look into it.
[EDIT] No wait, I'm sorry. I just realized. You might *actually* still not get what a straw man argument is, and how summarizing isn't that.
See, when someone doesn't want to copy and paste all the text that is actually in the same thread and just wants to summarize the points for quick reading, it's OK to write a sentence or two that represents the text that can be easily scrolled down to for verification. Misquoting is when you represent something as a quote (that's what those funny " marks are for, Johnny) but don't actually use the same text in those quote marks.
See how that works, Johnny? Words are fun! :)
All this bitching and whining about what someone said months ago is pointless, and childish. So what? Get over it Mike. If Katia wants to do something about it, that's her business. You killed that horse almost a year ago, yet you still continue to beat it. Just let it rot in peace already. Christ you hold a grudge worse than any woman I've ever met.
Well said Bill. +1
I seldom agree with Johnny Law, though there are times that I do. He does make some very good points at times.
Bill,
I don't know if you were active on the old site but that is pretty standard for Mike. I've dealt with for a while and have learned a few things about him. Since you may be new to dealing with his behavior, let me fill you in:
1. He is incapable of having a discussion with someone who disagrees with him without resorting to rude, insulting, and condescending behavior. It doesn't matter if you ignore him or not. He will continue to try to bait you. Then when you finally say something back, he will call you a troll and run to the moderators to try to get you banned.
2. He is incapable of not having the last word. It doesn't matter if he has anything further to say or not. He cannot resist the urge to post some insulting remark to try to get a parting shot. Usually this will involve calling you a troll.
3. He will never ever ever admit when he is wrong about something. Even if you cut and paste his error and point it out to him, he will simply ignore your posting and continue to declare that he was not wrong. If you continue to point his error out to him, he will call you a troll and run to the moderator to try to get you banned.
Oh, still on that, are you?
The worst part is, you still have yet to copy and paste that alleged contradiction... http://www.pixiq.com/article/deaf-man-placed-in-chokehold-accused-of-vio...
You did start behaving a little better after your hypocrisy was pointed out here, though http://www.pixiq.com/article/miami-dade-cop-exposes-abuse-within-his-own...
I guess you figure after a while, people would forget.
I wish Johnny Law would register and start commenting. I liked having him around.
He did drive hits and comments... which is good for metrics and ad impressions for you. Not very good for any kind of reasonable discussion, though.
I dunno... Lately I've been noticing a change in attitude from JL. I have actually agreed with the last few comments he made. It could be though, that the situations that I agreed with him on, were too preposterous for even Johnny Law to side with the blue light gang. Then again, I do drink a little.
Well, a point of view from someone who's actually a cop wouldn't be bad. They manage it over at Bikeportland.org - PoPo has even written guest blogs (http://bikeportland.org/2007/01/23/guest-post-why-cops-ride-on-sidewalks...) - but then he can behave like a reasonable human being who doesn't claim to fear bad people on the internet tracking him down.
Or maybe it's because he's an actual cop, and not a troll looking for an excuse to be an ass without worrying about accountability.
Actually I've been meaning to register but just haven't gotten around to it. Thanks Mike for giving me a little boost of motivation to finally do it. I've just been too busy with my pretend police job.
I guess this site still needs a little counter-balance to the smug/arrogant bike couriers out there.
We'll see how long it lasts.
Who are those bike couriers you're worried about?
Seriously, Johnny, where's this bike courier you keep referring to?
Maybe he is hanging out with that pretend cop you keep going on about?
Even anonymously, still not brave enough to just come out and say what you mean. Sad Johnny.
But then, you'll always just be an internet bully. http://bit.ly/johnnylaw
Well if you aren't smart enough to read between the lines, I guess I will just let you twist in the wind.
Once again though, I get such a kick out of someone like you calling me a coward. Oh you sure showed me with your internet courage.
And I still hate those homeless losers. What about it?
Hey why don't you make that link your signature? That will teach me a lesson!
It's bad enough that you think calling someone a bike courier is an insult. It's worse when you don't have the guts to just come out and say it. But the special, entertaining bit of stupid comes when you're convinced someone's a bike courier *in a city that's never had bike couriers in it.*
THAT'S entertainment!
It must really burn you every time you remember you got caught and had to change your site. By us little people. And not a thing you can do about it. :)
As for cowardice... At least I can post under my own name, without fear. Officer Pickett manages to. You must really be afraid of those internet photographers coming to get you.
We've had this conversation before Mike. If my job wasn't one where I could be disciplined just for saying my opinion in a public forum, then I would be happy to tell you everything I think about you face to face. Unfortunately, my job has consequences more than a bike courier's so I'm going to stay with my alias for a little long. Thanks for caring though.
So basically you're admitting that at least some of the opinions you hold are against your alleged department's policies. That's good to keep in mind.
Of course, you could just be talking a lot of trash, and we'd never be the wiser. Terribly convenient for you.
Still with the bike courier. Are you in some way retarded, Johnny? You have an odd fixation on calling me something I can't even be. It's kind of creepy and weird.
"alleged department"? Cute.
Let's say that a gang member gets shot dealing drugs on the corner. I couldn't care less. However even though most cops (and probably my chief) feel the same way, we aren't supposed to say it. My department would frown on me saying that as a member of the department because it could appear that I am acting as an official spokesman. There have been plenty of court cases that say an officer who identifies himself as such can be disciplined for all sorts of things, whether they are said on a blog or a facebook page.
I know that someone in such a...minimal...line of work probably has a hard time understanding this but if you do enough research perhaps one day you will get the concept.
Nice little story, but it doesn't change the fact that I pretty much have exactly as much objective evidence that you're a cop as I do that you're a delusional internet wannabe.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't instantly believe an anonymous person on the internet is exactly what he claims to be. Especially when that person often behaves as a cliched caricature of what they claim to be.
But I really don't think you're afraid of being fired. I think you're more afraid of your more... condescending... comments being attached to your actual name.
Also, still really creepy that you keep insinuating that you know what *I* do for a living. I've never claimed my job had anything to do with the discussions here. It's not a subject to discuss. Are you going for creepy internet stalker points?
As did I. He was pretty straight forward on his viewpoint. I never found him to be unreasonable, any more than anyone else. His was just a dissenting voice, which on the internet means you are going to be pummeled.
OK, am I hitting the wrong thread button? I hit the one at Carlos' comment on JL and I ended off the thread.
This seems like it would be a hard case to prove in court because:
She is unlikely to have witnesses testify on her behalf.
She has no physical evidence of anything occurring.
She does not have an injuries.
(most of this assumed by the content of the article)
If only she had video of the incident, she could at least bring her video to the attention of local news outlets to pressure a real investigation and prosecution. There is nothing that police hate more than video of them breaking the law.
At this point I rarely go out to shoot stills or video without a partner with their own less obvious/concelaed video gear. When incidents like occur there is a separate view of the incident. It solves the he said - he said issues.
My partner recently used said equipment to record a non-photgraphy related incident. That video is about to cost a local cop his job. Union is claiminbg it was unfair to record him but the local media and chief are not buying it.
I am also happy to see JL back.
A good discussion includes multiple viewpoints.
Unfortunately while I suspect that this woman did indeed get the bum-rush, there is little or nothing to prove it. She said/ they said is not going to be sustained when the police investigate themselves.
To take the blue side for a moment, would we want a system where someone could lodge a complaint against an officer and not have the playing field tilted at least somewhat in favor of the Police? While some of their interaction is with upstanding members of the community, quite a lot of it is with those who don't respect the laws of the community.
From what I can see, as a group, no one is as lawless as the police.
Right you are JdL. The police are out of control.
I would remind everyone that crime has risen as police forces have grown. The recent drop in crime rates is attributed by many to increased private security more than anything. Read about how the police contribute to crime in:
Drug Prohibition: Law Enforcement Is The Problem
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/04/drug-prohibition...
I agree that the war on drugs should be rolled back but you are crazy if you think that government police services should be turned over to private security.
Post new comment