Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
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
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
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
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
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
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Illinois Cop Pepper Sprays, Then Chokes Non-Resistant Suspect On Video
A dash cam video showing an Illinois cop pepper spraying a non-resistant man could spark a state investigation against the Champaign Police Department.
The video, which was anonymously posted to Youtube Sunday but recorded last June, shows a cop detaining a man under questionable circumstances.
The man had been walking on a sidewalk populated with pedestrians when the cop pulled up and ordered him to step up to his car.
The man kept walking which prompted the cop to chase after him and bring him towards the hood of the squad car.
The man was not physically resisting but he was verbally questioning why he was being detained.
Within ten seconds, he was pepper sprayed.
Another officer runs up and helps the first officer – who is busy pepper spraying towards the crowd of onlookers.
“I hope you’re recording this shit,” the man says as he is led away.
The man’s crime: jaywalking.
He was also charged with resisting arrest but that was dropped in court.
The incident begins shortly before the 11-minute mark in the 53-minute video.
At 13:28, the cop can be heard telling another cop that the man and his group stepped into oncoming traffic and blocked traffic, but the video doesn’t support his claims.
Beginning at 14:30, the cop can be heard trying to get the identification of the man, who is already sitting handcuffed in the back of the car.
But the man keeps asking for another officer by name, obviously somebody he trusted because this cop was not coming across very trustworthy.
At 15:40, the camera switches to another angle showing the handcuffed man in the back of the squad car.
The officer opens the door, which prompts the handcuffed man to say, “I’m not letting you touch me” and asking once again for the officer he knows.
“Take me to jail,” the man pleads.
The cop then pounces on him, knocking them both of them out of frame.
“He just tried to choke me in the back of the car,” the man yells.
The man sounds like he is saying he is going to “tell my mom” but he’s not coming across like a whiny mama’s boy. Just as a pissed off citizen who was unjustly harassed and attacked.
Perhaps his mother is the cop he is asking for. Perhaps I misunderstood the mom part and he is asking for somebody else.
But it is clear he knows his rights and that is what is pissing off the cop.
The man’s attorney claims he doesn’t know who posted the video online and the name of the officer has still not been made public.
According to Illinois Public Radio:
Police department personnel investigated the case, and Chief R.T. Finney issued a finding that the officer’s actions regarding ‘use of force’ were within police and training standards. Meanwhile, Champaign City Manager Steve Carter said a possible investigation of the arrest by state police could start later this week.
“These are very difficult circumstances, and we’ll want to take a look at what’s the right thing to come out of this for both of those,” Carter said Sunday before the video was leaked. “So, the individual case needs to be resolved for sure. Wherever that leads us is where we need to go. ”
Champaign Mayor Don Gerard said he is ‘gravely disappointed’ the police video was posted online, saying it is counteractive to anything the city is trying to achieve in terms of police-community relations. The mayor added that he is ‘very confident’ that state police will investigate the June 5 arrest.
“I hoping that despite (the video being released) that whatever actions the city and the state’s attorney take aren’t compromised,” Gerard said.
We shouldn't be surprised that the Champaign Police Department "investigated" the incident and determined the cop did nothing wrong.
After all, pepper spraying a man for questioning why he is being detained is common police protocal, even if it is not lawful. And so is choking a handcuffed man in the back of the car who just won't stop proclaiming his innocence.
And we shouldn't expect much from the possible investigation by Illinois State Police. Cops will almost always protect their own.
And we shouldn't even be surprised that Champaign Mayor Don Gerard is "gravely disappointed" that somebody would have the gall to post the video online - no matter how cool he was before he took office.
All we're left with is the court of public opinion, which is why the video needed to be posted online.
An Illinois radio station, The Show 1045, posted edited the video to include the important segments at the very beginning.
The station also posted a petition demanding the creation of a citizen's review board because this is not an isolated issue with the Champaign Police Department.
I'm not a community member, but I signed the petition anyway, even though my experience with citizen review boards has been subpar. But any citizen oversight is better than no citizen oversight.
To Whom It May Concern,
After reviewing the video from the recent Champaign Police Officer pepper spray and choking incident, I was appalled with the conduct of the Police Officer. His actions sully the good name of all the hard working Police Officers across our great nation. To permit officers to act without impunity is a dangerous path and it has dire consequences for the community much less the trust that they instill in local law enforcement.
After the severe beating of Calvin Miller, murder of Kiwane Carrington and many other situations within the Champaign County community, it is clear that there is a systematic problem and that this is not the result of a singular 'rogue' officer. As such, we ask that you implement a Citizen's Review Board and hold these officers accountable for eggregious actions such as illustrated in this video.
Sincerely,
We The People
Please send stories, tips and videos to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com
Comments
Carlos, I agree with a lot of your sentiment, and this is a terrible incident, but ..
"Cops will always protect their own"
Is a gross generalization, and beneath you. If it's not the right view for police to take with photographers, it's not the right view for people to take with the police.
If you have counter-examples to "cops will always protect their own", this would be a good time to bring them forth. The exceptions I'm aware of are few and far between.
Any case where a police officer is arrested, an internal affairs office charges an officer, an officer is dismissed (or more likely shuffled to another district). Any of those would be a case where cops did not "always" protect their own.
[Citation needed]
http://www.policeone.com/officer-misconduct-internal-affairs/articles/41...
http://www.policeone.com/officer-misconduct-internal-affairs/articles/46...
http://www.policeone.com/officer-misconduct-internal-affairs/articles/45...
How bout that? Police get charged for misconduct therefore police don't "always" protect their own.
In the case of the Danziger Bridge, NOPD most certainly protected their own, complete with a cover up, false reports, false witnesses and a planted handgun. It wasn't until the Federal Government picked the case, was justice served.
In the case of the Danziger Bridge, NOPD most certainly protected their own, complete with a cover up, false reports, false witnesses and a planted handgun. It wasn't until the Federal Government picked the case, was justice served.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/retired-philly-cop-joins-occupy-wall-street...
http://www.pixiq.com/article/dashcam-video-shows-florida-state-trooper-p...
http://www.pixiq.com/article/at-least-one-fullerton-cop-charged-with-murder
http://www.pixiq.com/article/wiretapping-law-doesnt-apply-in-massachusetts
Again, there are a lot of bad cops out there, but "always" doesn't work when describing any group of people.
Ok, you guys win. I included the word "almost" in front of "always"
I side with Carlos on this one. Look at how the cops pepper-spraying non-resistant protesters at UC Davis are protecting each other. In my own home town, a drunk-driving cop crashed his patrol car into a group of motorcyclists sitting at a traffic light waiting for the light to change, killing one and maiming several, all in the middle of the day and in broad daylight. The cops went out of their way to protect their drunk colleague, including trying to blame the motorcyclists for the collision and by taking the drunk cop for a blood draw to a lab that they knew wasn't certified to draw blood for legal proceedings. His BAC was more than twice the legal limit, but that evidence got tossed out of court because of the lab's lack of a certification, just as the cops knew it would. Cops who maintain the so-called "wall of silence" contribute directly to the distrust and disrespect heaped on all cops. Until that changes, the public in general will continue to have a dim view of most LEOs.
A "gross generalization"?
You've been reading my blog way too long to really believe that.
I can list you countless examples except I'm a busy man with deadlines.
Yes, a gross generalization. You just can't say "always", if it were always, there would be no internal-affairs, no whistle blowers, no investigations, and we would all be living in a nazi-state.
I'm not saying that there are only a few bad apples, I'm not saying that there are just some isolated incidents. There are plenty of bad officers as you and others have well documented, and they're spread out all over the place.
Yes, I'm quite positive that you could list countless examples, but if there are even a handful of cases where an officer stepped in and did not protect their own (you've documented some of those as well) then your use of "always" is a generalization.
And here's the problem right here:
"Police department personnel investigated the case, and Chief R.T. Finney issued a finding that the officer's actions regarding 'use of force' were within police and training standards."
A symptom of the creeping authoritarianism of our society.
As, of course, is the notion that a leak showing official misconduct is "gravely disappointing."
The place seemed to have a lot of foot traffic. I wonder how fast things would change if people boycotted that town.
The area where the incident took place (westbound Green St. at 4th St.) is known as "campustown." Most of the nighttime foot traffic is comprised of college students from the University of Illinois. I live in Urbana, the city adjoining Champaign.
Last night Rachel Maddow hit it on the head.
Tasers and pepper spray (non lethal force)don't limit the
amount of force police use, they increase it
because cops are using it as a response
to any form of non-compliance, or just disagreement.
If you or I pepper sprayed a cop we'd be looking
at five years in jail. They'd call it "chemical weapons."
"The man had been walking on a sidewalk populated with pedestrians when the cop pulled up and ordered him to step up to his car.
The man kept walking which prompted the cop to chase after him and bring him towards the hood of the squad car."
Okay so the guy refused a legal order by an officer that had a legal detention on him. The guy then resisted putting him arm behind his back. I think the officer was a little quick to spray but the guy arrested wasn't in the right at all.
At 15:00 the man says that he refused to give the officer his ID because he "didn't do nothing". It's a legal stop and you don't have the right to refuse to ID yourself in that situation. It looks like the officer opened the door to double check for an ID and the guy says he wasn't going to let the officer touch him. This means the officer is going to have to use force (which is legal). The officer wasn't choking him. He grabbed him by the neck to restrain him. Heck, he only had a hold of the guy for a sec or two at the most.
As for asking for another officer, you don't get to demand the police officer of your choice when you are arrested.
Sorry, but the initial order was not lawful.
Crossing against a traffic control device is illegal. A detention for such a violation is legal. When the officer told him to stop, it was in order to initiate a detention for the violation.
Ergo, the order given was legal.
The officer did not tell him to stop, the officer yelled into a larger group of people, of which the subject was passing through, to get over to the hood of the car. It was an inspecific order to an inspecific target, that did not indicate a stop, detention, or specific and articulable reason for such action. The officer might as well have gotten out of the car (with pepper spray in hand) and yelled into the crowd "start doing jumping-jacks"
"you guys... step up to the car"
Sounds pretty clear to me. He doesn't have to say "pursuant to IL traffic code 10-4-5, you are being detained for failure to comply with a pedestrian control device" or any such nonsense like that.
there was NO way that man in a crowd could have known he was the one being talked too his back was to the officer.
Even if its illegal (it shouldn't be) its just a minor traffic incident and nobody was harmed. It should never get to the point where an officer can arrest them or choke them.
Just because an officer tells him to stop also doesn't make it lawful. The right to resist still exists.
What exactly was lawful about his order? Just that it came out of his mouth?
I often don't carry ID when I'm out in public, so if a cop asks for it and I can't provide it because I don't have it, does that constitute refusal? I'm not aware of any law anywhere that requires me to carry an ID at all times.
Nope but you are required to identify yourself when you are arrested or if the officer is going to write you a ticket. If you refuse to provide your ID, then the officer has more than enough justification to arrest you and haul your behind in for fingerprinting.
Also, once you are arrested, the officer has the legal right to search your person incidental to the arrest and to take your property off you prior to entering the jail.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072500050HArt.+10....
The relevant portion is this:
Sec. 107‑14. Temporary questioning without arrest.
A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102‑‑15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.
There are a few key words there that should be pointed out. We'll see if you can find them on your own.
It is also worth noting that that is specific to IL state law. In many other states, the officer would not even have that much of a shaky leg to stand on.
Important fact to consider, the supreme court has ruled that stop and identify are usually legal provided there is an articulable reasonable belief that the person has, is, or is about to commit a crime. And in those cases simply providing your real name will suffice. The bit about "an explanation of his actions" was ruled unconstitutional about 20+ YEARS ago and therefore lacks force of law.
The officer maced the guy WAAAAAAAAAAAY too fast and he had control of the guys arm, there was no need to mace him, YET. Quite frankly the officer escalated this situation by his aggressive behavior.
As for jay walking what does the statute say in IL, cus it does look like he crossed against the light but I didn't see any signs for the pedestrians. Like Walk/Don't Walk.. So it really comes down to what the statute says.
Short answer, why was this guy targeted for jaywalking? Really? Did he block, inhibit, or in ANY way affect traffic? Lets be real, jaywalking laws were written to prevent inhibitions to traffic but have morphed as a lazy charge, kind of like disorderly conduct.. As a simple point in a FREE society we are GUARANTEED the legal authority to act in an un orderly way..
and I will keep coming back to this but this is the kind of stuff that leads honest law abiding citizens to lose respect for cops. And they just don't get it..
The only key words I need to see is the title "Temporary questioning without arrest".
This incident involved a specific crime that the officer witnessed. The suspect was under arrest at the time the officer tried to stop him so the statute you linked is not relevant to this situation.
Please try again.
Not all states require someone who is arrested to identify themselves. It gets odd when they don't but it is still not required.
Also how is requiring one to identify themselves not a direct violation of the right to remain silent (after requesting legal counsel)?
Ever heard of the "Routine Booking Procedure" exception?
Police are allowed to ask questions such as name, DOB, and address to determine a person's identity. Research "Pennsylvania v. Muniz".
I have no idea what Pennsylvania v. Muniz has to do with it - that was about the admissibility of videotape of the booking procedure absent a prior Miranda warning.
The controlling precedents, as far as I'm aware, are Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) for the power to stop and question, and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) upholding the requirement that subjects of a Terry stop truthfully identify themselves.
The original question was "...how is requiring one to identify themselves not a direct violation of the right to remain silent (after requesting legal counsel)?"
This was not a Terry stop. This was an arrest. Any questions asked would be considered part of a custodial interrogation. PA v Muniz allowed certain questions to be asked without Miranda because they are for record-keeping purposes only. This has become known as the "routine booking question exception".
Biographical things such as name, dob, address, and SS# fall under this category.
Read the following quote from:
http://tinyurl.com/6w82sz2
"The majority disagreed with “the Commonwealth’s contention that Officer Hosterman’s first seven questions regarding Muniz’s name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age do not qualify as custodial interrogation as we defined the term in Innis, merely because the questions were not intended to elicit information for investigatory purposes.” To the contrary, the majority “concluded Muniz’s answers to these first seven questions are nonetheless admissible because the questions fall within a ‘routine booking question’ exception which exempts from Miranda’s coverage questions to secure the ‘biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services.’ ” Further, “the first seven questions asked at the booking center fall outside the protections of Miranda and the answers thereto need not be suppressed.”
In my experience, booking takes place at the jail, not on the street.
At any rate, my point was that there is no right to refuse to identify yourself to a police officer conducting an investigation, even if there has been no arrest.
It's not unheard of to prefill the booking sheet prior to arrival at jail. Attempting to get the ID in anticipation of having to fill out the booking paperwork is pretty common as well.
You don't have to carry ID except in specific instances such as driving. However, if you commit an offense, no matter how minor, and the officer cannot prove who you are and wants to cite you, he can arrest you and take you to jail to fingerprint you or otherwise verify your identity.
Then when you get off on the original charge because you actually didn't commit it, you get to sue..
You can sue for anything but it doesn't mean you are going to win. As long as the officer was following policy and acting without malice qualified immunity should apply.
Policy is not a shield, you can be within policy and still violate the law and in MANY cases you should know that. The argument that "I followed policy" is not available if it is a violation of the LAW, policy does not trump LAW. If you violate a clear law regardless of policy your qualified immunity is not a defense.
Case in point, just because a company does something doesn't mean we can assume what they are doing is legal. The only difference is that they don't have the possibility of qualified immunity but the point is the same.
And even if you can't hang the officer you can in many cases still hammer the department.
You guys don't see that at the 8:30 mark the guy and his group are having a confrontation with two other officers as they walk down the street? This obviously stems from that.
I agree... from reviewing the video:
8:10-- The group can be seen in the video, and there seems to be a commotion going on.
8:30--2 foot officers can be seen trying to get the group to move-along. Some girl seems to say something about 'I can fight her!'
9:23-- the 2 foot officers break contact and watch the group
9:30-- the 2 foot officers follow the group and make contact again.
10:25-- the 2 foot officers break contact again.
10:53-- 3 individuals in the group can be seen crossing the road against the light (as further evidenced by pedestrians crossing the other way on both sides of the street)
11:05-- Officer exits the vehicle and says 'you guys... step up to the car'... The individual in the plaid shirt starts walking away, while the other 2 individuals are outside the camera view, presumably standing in the same spot where they had been stopped.
11:18-- Officer brings the plaid shirt individaul back towards the car and says to the others 'you too' (indicating that all 3 are being detained.)
I am going to side with the officer in saying that the stop was legitimate. However, I think the use of pepper spray was unwarranted. First, he sprayed the plaid shirt guy, then he sprayed the other two standing nearby... He did not seem to be threatened by the other two, or he would have addressed them more directly, and let the other officer control the plaid shirt guy. Rather what he did was spray the plaid shirt guy, turn and spray the other two (for good measure), then re-directed his attention back to the plaid shirt guy. I think his use of pepper spray in this incident was pure chicken shit.
As far as choking the guy in the backseat, I am thinking the officer intended to cite the person for jay walking, and then release the guy. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the officer would have just taken him to be booked into jail... not sure if the officer was successful in getting the ID or not (no reason to watch the whole thing), but definitely think the officer could use some communications skills (he didn't really say a whole hell of alot), and definitely think the pepper spray usage was unwarranted.
Where to start...
The headline lists the man as non-resistant. Really? He starts being resistant from first contact. And once at the car he is told to put his hands on the car and he refuses and turns toward the officer with his hands moving about. Pepper spray was clearly called for here.
Bias.
The headline says the man was choked. Did you see any choking on this video? NO! None was seen. The man yelled he was being choked. Which is amazing he can yell if he IS being choked. But you also say, "At 13:28, the cop can be heard telling another cop that the man and his group stepped into oncoming traffic and blocked traffic, but the video doesn’t support his claims." As if this makes the cop a liar. Yet you accept the claim from the man that he is being choked when the video does not support him.
Bias.
You say, "But it is clear he knows his rights and that is what is pissing off the cop." Really? Like his "right" to immediately speak to another officer? When the officer starts to Miranda him the man yells that he didn't do that before he cuffed him. Yeah. That's a right, too, I guess. The man has no clue about his rights.
Bias.
This site lists Carlos as a multi-media journalist. If this is journalism then we are truly in trouble. This site has turned into the biased rantings of someone who just doesn't like police. When it used to be about photographer rights it was a great site. But it lost its original integrity. Too bad.
And those who say the order was not specific, then why did the man say no when the officer told him to come to his car? He knew who the officer was talking to.
Perhaps you should run for the local office of State's Attorney, since they are currently way too soft on crime, in your opinion. It's an open-and-shut case, right? I suppose that's why the resisting arrest charge was dropped.
The Illinois State Police agree with your determination that pepper spray was warranted. Their brief "independent review" of Champaign Police Department's Use of Force investigation said so. [This was not an investigation; merely a review of the Use of Force report from CPD.]
The mayor, however, doesn't agree with those findings, and is calling on the FBI to investigate the incident.
Just because a charge is dropped does NOT mean the charge was improper. Charges are often dropped as part of a plea bargain. You plead guilty to the lesser charge and we will drop the more serious charge.
Very true in most cases, but in this instance the State's Attorney chose to dismiss that charge after viewing the dashcam video. That indicates to me that the state did not think it had a winnable case. I agree.
And I will kindly remove the 'almost'. It is close, very close, to 100% true: Police will always protect Police. Period.
It's in the 'code'. It's in the 'Brotherhood'. It's in the genetic makeup.
Criminals always take care of other criminals.
( And what a waste of DNA they are )
As for this becoming an 'anti-police' website...
F**k off, you s**t-eating apologists. We're in an epidemic of police brutality here ( what's new about that, except for the emergence of video ? ) and it takes people like Carlos, who have the guts necessary to stand up to them and demand the right to photograph any damn thing they want to- without exception. Cops got their reputation by being stupid bullying thugs who only obey one rule: "Cops are always right".
It will take a HELL of lot of 'good' cops to ever overcome the reputation they have earned by years of violating, with impunity ( thanks to collusion against John Q. Public ) the rights of citizens.
To all the good cops, hang in there.
All four of you.
"And I will kindly remove the 'almost'. It is close, very close, to 100% true: Police will always protect Police. Period.
It's in the 'code'. It's in the 'Brotherhood'. It's in the genetic makeup.
Criminals always take care of other criminals."
And all lawyers are crooks. All priests are child molesters. All Vietnam vets are crazy. All homeless people are alcoholic drug users. All fast food workers are losers. All librarians are prudes. All Southerners are rednecks. All New Yorkers are rude.
It's in the genetic makeup right? What a bunch of nonsense. How about the next time you decide to post, you just don't?
"And all lawyers are crooks. All priests are child molesters. All Vietnam vets are crazy. All homeless people are alcoholic drug users. All fast food workers are losers. All librarians are prudes. All Southerners are rednecks. All New Yorkers are rude."
Well, as a matter of fact...
No, those are straw men. Deflections, actually.
You know that cops DO protect one another, the same as pedo-Priests. Those of us who live in the real world know this and would never think of trying for a millisecond about changing that. It is ugly but true.
Okay, I overstated it when I said it was 'genetic'. It MAY be, but I am not qualified to judge that. I am a scientist, but not a geneticist. If I had to say, I'd say it is definitely pathological though.
Priests, Librarians, New Yorkers and others do not usually carry guns, by the way. Cops carry guns and chemicals and handcuffs and all that, and their business is to put people in jail, despite the rhetoric that their job is to "prevent crime".
And how bout' the next time YOU think about posting, you go for a long walk and reflect on why YOU became a cop?
I'm sure it wasn't because you wanted to 'help' people.
Here you go. And a cop friend of mine was one who successfully sued his city for forcing racial profiling on the officers:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-03-31/news/0003310245_1_officers...
Interesting but what does a 1998 lawsuit have to do with this incident?
Post new comment