Pixiq

it would seen that Kym Worthy is trying to make a name for her self.. I hope the reporter appeal her conviction..

its too bad she didn’t have a video camera on her to record what she was doing and what was being said…

She broke the law and was justly convicted. Being a reporter doesn’t give anyone a free pass to ignore the police. Let this be a lesson to all of you who think you’re somehow special because you’re carrying a camera.

I wonder if she had a press card on her, and what that allows? I believe the NYPD-issued “Working Press” credentials allow their holders to cross police lines as long as they don’t interfere.

It’s usually up to the police on the scene who we allow across the police line. We may admit someone holding a press card but it’s not an automatic guarantee you can just cross the line when you feel like it.

LEO is right. The first amendment does not give anyone license to violate the law. Bukowski violated the law so the police officers did not violate her first amendment rights in arresting her. Her conviction underscores that.

There’s nothing inappropriate or overzealous about Worthy filing additional charges. That frequently happens subsequent to an arrest once prosecutors review the facts of an arrest.

Carlos,

Do we know exactly what section she was convicted under?

750.81d Assaulting, battering, resisting, obstructing, opposing person performing duty; felony; penalty; other violations; consecutive terms; definitions.
Sec. 81d.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

(2) An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties causing a bodily injury requiring medical attention or medical care to that person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

1 or 2? Just wondering if someone made a misstatement of the possible penalty. She was on the other side of the one piece of tape. But near the end of the video you can see where they are putting more tape up. Like she walked through an alley that wasn’t taped off. So she didn’t go through any tape but instead violated the intent of the tape if that makes any sense.

LEO and 10-8 thanks for posting. I don’t think anyone here is contesting that she was most likely in a place she didn’t belong. I don’t think any of us who are photographers think a camera gives us special access, makes us special or gives us a free pass. I do believe that we think that carrying a camera doesn’t automatically single us out for special negative treatment. That’s what this site is about.

This is what happened to Carlos and most of the people that are reported about on this site. Because we were carrying a camera and took a photograph we were singled out for special treatment, harassed and subject to some kind of pretexted arrest while not breaking any laws.

As far as Worthy filing additional charges. As 10-8 pointed out it’s up to the prosecutors to review the facts. Most people that are not involved in the criminal justice system think that the police actually charge people with crimes. In the case of a summons they do. The police have arrest power and an arrest has to be backed up with some kind of charge that’s believed to be violated. But it’s the prosecutors office that actually has the duty to charge someone either through a grand jury or an information in cases like this.

Do I think that Worthy was venting anger with the charges she brought against Bukowski? I’d say there is a high probability.

I agree with all that Duane Kerzic wrote, including the thanks to both LEO and 10-8 for posting, but would add to both LEO and 10-8 that a badge also “does not give anyone license to violate the law” including perjury. Balko, Mansoor, Packratt, Mr. Miller, and others have documented many cases of officers that have forgotten that very fact.

Best to both of you and hope you remain safe.

And Duane, congrats on the 100K. I’m only about 60K, but split between two old Guzzis so it doesn’t really count.

Do any of the officers think four years in prison for crossing a police line is a little excessive?

I saw no indication of violence from her part and neither did the original arresting officers, which is why they only charged her with a misdemeanor.

Areil,

Thanks and thanks. To ride two old Guzzis to 60k miles is indeed a testament to endurance and perseverance.

In BMW land they let you count different bikes. I used two F650′s, a ’99 and an ’05. The ’99 had 83k miles on it when it’s life was ended on 21 Nov 04 by a car making a left hand turn out of a driveway in front of us. I had intended to ride that one all the way. I sold the ’05 in ’07 with 36k miles on it. I now have two KTM’s, an ’06 950 Adv S and a ’08 530 EXC. They have about 25k combined miles on them.

I agree with you that a badge does not give anyone license to violate the law. This point also needs to be driven home.

On another note it seems that people that post with high blood alcohol levels tend to ramble all over there place and not say much of use. Is there such a thing as posting under the influence? If not there needs to be.

Carlos, if I may call you Carlos, I see no indication of violence either. At most, she didn’t appear to be perfectly compliant but I may be mistaking the yanking and shoving done by the FLEO for the reporter’s actions. I think the Prosecutor saw an opportunity and ran with it. The question is how did she “prove” it in court.

Duane, thanks. Loops get in the blood. My point on the badge and “license to violate” was elicited by LEO’s “let this be a lesson to all of you” because it has become obvious that many officers need more lessons in what is legal and what is not. And what is definitely not is to falsify charges and reports, and as this blog and others have shown, often only a videotape has kept an innocent citizen from going to jail when a cop lies. Who knows how many others have gone to jail on “resisting”, “obstructing”, or “assaulting” because there was no record but the cops word.

You ask, “Do any of the officers think four years in prison for crossing a police line is a little excessive?”

She has not yet been sentenced. What sentence she ultimately receives will be a decision made by the judge. He will rule within the guidelines established by statute, passed by the state legislature. If she has no prior convictions, she’ll probably receive something well below the max.

If the citizens of Michigan feel four years is excessive for this type of conviction, their recourse is to ask their state legislators to amend the law. The Michigan State Police has no involvement in sentencing policy.

Police officers leave judging to the court system. If the judge feels four years is an appropriate sentence, then so be it.

10-8

While I agree with your legalistic boilerplate, and I do, you are a citizen yourself, so what is your opinion as a citizen? Please note that a 4 year sentence requires that one of the officers would need medical care, by statute. Do you see anything in the video that would indicate an officer suffering injury requiring medical care?

Ariel,

That’s why I asked the question if we knew what she was convicted of. To me it looks like 750.81d (1) which would be 2 years max. Sometimes mistakes get made.

Ariel,

Of course you can call me Carlos.

Duane,

I exchanged emails with Diane Bukowski tonight and will interview her Tuesday night. She was busy tonight preparing material for her pre-sentencing interview on Tuesday.

Carlos,

I thought he had to call you Mr. Miller.

Good news on getting the interview set up. That will provide some better information I’m sure.

Oh, I tried to send you an email and I got a failure notice that your mailbox was full.

duane: cause i send carlos lots of spam about DHS and whatnot.

Carlos, thank you. Coyote blog called yours one of the most even-handed blogs on the Net, especially given the subject matter, and I have always agreed.

Duane, yep, I’m sorry 10-8 hasn’t come back yet with a more personal opinion on the charges. It would only make sense if 750.81d (1). If 750.81d (2), after viewing the video, something is very wrong here.

You people are reading the wrong part of the stat. She was convicted on two counts: one for resisting, one for obstructing. Two counts times two years each equals four years total.

Interviewing the woman is a waste of time. She’s been convicted by a jury of her peers. Of course she’ll say she was wrongly convicted and that the police are great big meanies. The facts prove otherwise. That’s why 12 jurors found her guilty.

The police do not target photographers for “special negative treatment”. That’s a crock. We’re photographed at nearly every crime scene by citizens with cell cameras. We could care less. Photographers get into trouble because they don’t do what the police tell them to do at a scene, they ignore instructions, they cross the tape, the get arrogant and mouthy.

LEO,

Good point on the stat. I was forgetting the two counts, consecutive. I’m sure you’re right.

However, as to the “crock” part regarding photographers or videographers, you’re drawing from your own experience and extrapolating outward, which is specious. Just one example to show your error: Modesto Copwatch had a video camera taken by a Deputy for “evidence”, the camera was returned two days later with an apology. It was evident that the Deputy was bothered by the taping and simply wanted it stopped so he faked a reason. There are way too many cases documented here for your argument to hold up across the board.

Your understanding of the jury system is simplistic. So all of the guys released on new evidence, or DNA, or prosecutor malfeasance, or false confession, or defense incompetence were actually guilty until they were innocent? I realize it is the system we have to work with, and live by, but the “black-white” approach is an impediment to improving the system.

Your last sentence really sounds too close to “contempt of cop”. If you go over to tell someone to do something or to stop them from doing something, and you have no right to do either, what do you expect from them? To say “yassah”? The badge does not give you carte blanche to make people do what you want. If you think it does, and I am not saying that you do, then you need to find new employment because you are dangerous to good citizens. Have you considered you might be copping an attitude that is both “arrogant and mouthy”? By the way, we aren’t “civilians”, in case you use the term, we are citizens just like you.

I watched one family member go from a kind, gentle, respectful guy to a real arrogant, close-minded jerk after a few years as a cop, full blown “us (cops) vs them (the rest of us)”. Happily, he came back to center after more years on the job and with a FLEO wife who stayed grounded.

Anyway, stay safe.

LEO,

There is plenty of special negative treatment of people for taking a photo and holding a camera. I’ve experienced it a number of times personally. From orders to not take a photo when standing in a public place, to orders of not to take a photo on the property I live on. I’ve even personally experienced LEO’s go so far as to say that taking a photo of them in a public place while on duty and dressed in a uniform was harassment and if I didn’t stop I’d be arrested. There was no crime investigation taking place, they were merely standing where they were stationed.

I’ve also had experiences where officers asked me to take their photo. That’s the problem photographers have. We never know how LEO’s are going to behave with us.

If your department has a mature view of cameras and photo taking my hats off to you, congratulations.

While this doesn’t have anything to do with the police, something that I don’t believe was pointed out was that the prosecutor made a motion to prevent Ms. Bukowski from offering as part of a defence that she was engaged in news gathering at the time of her arrest. I think allowing this motion is an grave error by the trial judge. I don’t believe that the trial will survive on appeal on this very point. Also I think there is a question of competent representation. Bukowski’s lawer was changed 5 days prior to the trial.

Ariel, well two counts as LEO pointed out can explain it. Since they are two counts of the same crime arising out of the same act I’d expect them to run concurrently. But maybe they do things differently in MI.

If LEO knew his ass from a hole in the wall and wasn’t busy guarding the “thin blue line”, he might take time to investigate the case before he comments. Be sure to run to the rescue of any cops attempting a cover-up.

The real issue here was that the cops caused this accident. The accounts from witnesses are very different than the officer’s accounts of what happened. I am willing to bet that if the officers were charged with manslaughter, then they would see less time than she will for what they charged her with.

Being as I am from Detroit and know how the city works, Kim Worthy likes to pull in favors for these high profile cases. She has ambition for a better position in the pecking order and this is just the kind of case that will do that for her.

Beyond that, how could you possibly know what the facts prove? Did you attend the trial? Do you have special knowledge that those of us who might have followed the trial do not?

I’ve got an idea. Go back to your squad car and work on ways to trump up charges on innocent citizens and pray that they day doesn’t come when you run into folks like me who know a little something about the law. You may even find yourself with liens on your house (not to be confused with your degenerate lien system) wondering what may have gone wrong with your calculations.

Duane, interesting on what was disallowed. She may win on appeal.

Mark, you’re obviously angry and I checked your site to see why. I am curious as to what you were charged with and why. Given there is data on how innocent people plead guilty to avoid the prosecutorial promise of worse, I’ll take what you wrote at face value.

It does seem that there is more to this story on Bukowski than just the “facts”.

Note to LEO: You said, The police do not target photographers for “special negative treatment”. That’s a crock. We’re photographed at nearly every crime scene by citizens with cell cameras. We could care less.

In one sense, though it’s a very limited sense, you’re correct. The key point is that the police view uncooperative photographers as being “contempt of cop” criminals. LEOs do resent being photographed, but it’s the refusal to obey orders that sets them off. It doesn’t matter if the orders are legal or not.

And no, the police don’t get to decide whether or not one of their own orders is legal. You are not the law, LEO. You’re useful to society, just as dentists and sanitation workers are useful to society. However, you answer to the Constitution, and to me.

It’s reached the point where, as I’ve said before, the photographers on this site really ought to work in pairs. One photographer needs to document how the police interact with citizens. His or her partner needs to stand back, a long way back, to document how the police interact with the first photographer.

If somebody is guilty of “contempt of cop”, there’s a distinct possibility that the police are going to knock them to the ground, rub their face in the dirt or in broken glass, etc. Possibly shoot them while they’re lying there, and I’m referring to normal situations, not to the Oscar Grant case.

I’d always assumed that the police couldn’t be stopped, that nothing could be done about it, but this site has given me genuine hope. If photographers have the courage to confront you, LEO, to document the things that you do, and so to break the Code of Silence once and for all, more power to them. If this site manages to survive and thrive, and if similar sites come along, eventually society will be able to deal with people such as yourself, people who apparently support the Code of Silence and “contempt of cop”.

You are not a hero, LEO. People like Serpico, who stood up to the Code of Silence, they’re heroes. If you support the Code of Silence and “contempt of cop”, you are a criminal and a thug. Your days are numbered.

Ariel,

It was true. I was angry when I posted. It is not usually in my character to do that. I apologize to everyone for posting while angry.

The issue of corruption in my local departments hits close to home and I have filed criminal charges on officers, filed liens and all sorts of neat little caveats. Why?

I spent years directing an inner-city christian camp. I served my country. I spent years volunteering at homeless shelters. Do I say this as a badge of honor? No.

I know how it is to think that people who propagandize “protecting and serving” in your community will come to your aid in distress. The truth is, everyone is treated like a perp.

Law enforcement has become a legalized gang activity who do just enough to not be pulled from community funding.

Read the articles of the officers charged in recent news. Isn’t it funny how people who investigate crimes every day seem to forget how to investigate when other officers are involved in crimes? Then, you watch the course of the cases… Officer denies allegations. Video emerges. Officer makes excuses. Officer is convicted of a lesser crime Officer mentions his years of “community service”. Officer gets probation.

It seems to me that when you commit a crime, as an officer, you are willing to throw away all of your years of community service. So, I am willing to throw them away, as well.

One last thing, I was married to law enforcement I know how they work. They are dishonest and manipulative. I don’t deal with law enforcement without taping the event.

So, what can be done? Learn the law. I have been to court and had judges squirming because they were trying to manipulate the law and cover for these guys. This is a fight we can win. I know it. I have seen it.

We have a trial for a State Trooper about to start here in NJ, they are finishing off jury selection. The trooper is charged under NJ’s death by auto reckless driving statue. He was driving at a high rate of speed. Ran into a mini van that had the right of way with two young people in it and killed them. He claims he was closing the gap on a car he observed speeding so he could make a determination on whether to enter pursuit or not. My understanding of the operation manual is that once they enter pursuit they have to report in what they are doing. Wouldn’t a reasonable mind think that once he’s turned around and closing the gap he’s in pursuit? Many think this is the first time a State Trooper has been charged like this.

After observing these hot dogs drive around over the years it’s about time they are held accountable for their actions. Issuing a speeding ticket isn’t worth two lives. I’m sure this doesn’t register in the troopers mind or he would have plead guilty by now. He was just doing his job chasing a speeder.

Duane: you come dangerously close to Godwin’s Law in that last comment :-p

I think that this site shows that there are two justice systems – one for people that serve the legislative branch; and one for plain ol’ unwashed masses.

That needs to stop. Protecting your co-workers is one thing, lying under oath and BSing your way through paperwork and trials is another.

There’s a difference between “steve is a good guy and i’ve never seen him do anything that threatens the safety of the public” and saying “that perp was about to pull a weapon, steve acted appropriately” – if in fact the “perp” was not pulling a weapon.

Perjury is NEVER ok. Regardless of why or for what reason. I think police understand this, they just think that while it isn’t “OK”, it is in fact excusable. That tenet needs to change.

genewitch,

I didn’t say anything about Storm Troopers yet, give me a few more posts. hahaha

I agree with you about perjury. I think things are starting to change a little. Time will tell.

I was convicted of the two counts of “assaulting, battering, wounding, resisting, obtructing or endangering” police on May 1 by a jury with only two Detroiters. This has been an issue I’ve covered for a while. Wayne County Circuit Court juries are not representative of the Black population in Detroit as well as Wayne County, and white suburbanites tend to believe the cops, not their lying eyes. They saw the complete Fox 2 news videotape of my arrest from beginning to end, which showed no resistance. The judge told the prosecutor to have Trooper Eric Byerly, who deleted my photos , take the Fifth because it was a crime, but nothing was done to him. The troopers who conducted the chase ending in the deaths of two men violated numerous Michigan State Police rules but were not disciplined or charged. I was the only target. Fortunately, due to mass community support, on June 1, instead of a prison term, I was sentenced to 1 year probation, a $4000 fine (questionable as to legality) and 200 hours community service. I am indeed appealing this gross violation of the First Amendment. The whole trial focused on whether I crossed a yellow tape, which I did not, but according to my appeals attorney John Royal that should not even have been an issue because the lower court judge who bound the case over said such an action did not rise to the level of violations under the cited statute. As killings, beatings, rapes and frame-ups by Detroit and state cops are on the rise, so is repression of the only real outlet that reports on them, The Michigan Citizen, and I am the reporter that covers those stories. My website is http://www.freedianebukowski.org, it will be shortly updated. Donations are needed for my appeal and can be sent to The Committee to Defend Diane Bukowski at 1055 Trumbull, Detroit, MI 48216. I thank Carlos Miller for establishing this excellent website and express solidarity with all other journalists and photographers who are victims of increasing repression in this post/911 era. My phone is 313-205-6718;

I have been batteling wildlife agents in Colorado, Michigan and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over charges of hunting without a license, a misdemeanor. In their efforts to convict me they have committed felonies by manufacturing evidence by altering recorded interviews. My friend and I both have electronics backgrounds and were the subjects of interrogations. When we heard the recordings we knew they had been corrupted because we were there. Although they used the two cop to one victim rule ( one lies and the other swears to it) we knew we had our own witness, the recordings. At the direction of a Colorado judge the prosecutions recordings were sent an independent crime lab. Three experts agree the recordings had been grossly altered. Audio images of the video recordings were laughably screwed up to the point they could be easily described and understood by a child. The next laughable incident was a judge who managed to cover it up and convict anyway. A second case had a more honest judge who demanded copies of the recordings from the prosecution. They didn’t supply them and the case was subsequently thrown out. At this point we are out of money as we are trying to go after them in a civil suit. Hopefully we can find a degree of honesty and help in the F.B.I. I will relay the outcome to this site. good luck