Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

North Carolina deputy snatches 2 phones for recording her, fails to snatch the 3rd phone (tsk tsk)

page: 1
56
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+30 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

A North Carolina deputy with the Onslow County Sheriff’s Office was caught on video confiscating two different cellphones and detaining a former U.S. Marine after she claims he got “aggressive.” Her claims are now being called into question after video of the incident surfaced online. The deputy, identified as Natalie Barber by Photography Is Not a Crime, was responding to a dog-related dispute between Carlos Jaramillo and a neighbor on Saturday.



Barber is seen on video asking Jaramillo for identification for the police report, an order he complies with by giving her his government-issued Veterans Affairs card. When she demanded he give her his driver’s license instead, he refused and claimed he wasn’t operating a motor vehicle.


Source: www.theblaze.com... lls-a-different-story/

Even more detail here: photographyisnotacrime.com...





So, I can only say this. Woman, you are a disgrace to the public you serve and you do not deserve to wear the uniform and badge NOR do you deserve any respect. You must earn respect, not demand it!

About high times the police hire ups do something about these "Fearful Officers" that seem to have imploded in the police fields in recent years.

"I am in fear for my safety due to your camera!!!" get a life!!
edit on 4/23/2014 by anon72 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/23/2014 by anon72 because: (no reason given)



+11 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
From the comments section of the OP Link




Did anyone pick up on the new catch phrase of the year for NAZI thugs?

“Confiscating your phone for my Safety”


When Police are afraid of Phones........that is a Great day in America.

Not so great for Police Bravery though.................


+32 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

All cops should be required to wear cameras that record every stop and arrest


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: pavil

All cops should be required to wear cameras that record every stop and arrest


Has been said many many times before, however some ATS members will argue against it, perhaps they to are LEOs and have something to hide.

I'm not even a US citizen and I feel so angry about these abuses you guys in the US are putting up with. I feel like coming over there and protesting. Why our my American cousins allowing this to happen is beyond me.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

The same happens in Russia so everyone started putting camera on their cars. I think it would be a great idea for people in the US to start doing the same, just hit record once you get stopped and use it in court.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

If we here in America start putting cams in our cars....they'll create a law to stop it. We are a nation of laws, most of which are stupid and not enforced. Mark me words on that one.. LE nationwide is out of hand. And it's across the board, city police, sheriff's, highway patrol, park police, same mindset, same tatics. Everyone is a criminal these days...as per officer safety. The new mantra... Resist-Delay-Obstruct. Now a days you can get arrested for asking a damn question of a police officer. Handle it yourself..calling the law could be life & death situation you put yourself into.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

Has been said many many times before, however some ATS members will argue against it, perhaps they to are LEOs and have something to hide.

I'm not even a US citizen and I feel so angry about these abuses you guys in the US are putting up with. I feel like coming over there and protesting. Why our my American cousins allowing this to happen is beyond me.


I've said the same in the past too. They are using them in the UK, but it is still piecemeal. I don't see why that officer should have been allowed to take any cameras, regardless of what she said. Nor do I think she should have ignored a proper ID, (you could argue that action was to crank up the situation) when it didn't happen it was her who lost the rag...that is blindingly obvious.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: anon72

This is usually the point where I get angry...
...but for some reason after seeing this I'm just....sad...
the "officer" 's actions speak louder than anything I could ever write here...
edit on 23/4/14 by MadHatter364 because:



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
One more confirmation that everything is backwards, everything is upside down...

The Largest Street Gang in America ~ Playlist



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to: anon72

You become a cop because you truly want to PROTECT and SERVE. If you view them as a task force collectively working from coast to coast, then one cop acting out of line or above the law will only send a ripple effect across the country.

The In-Car Camera: Value and Impact


In the late 1990s, lawsuits alleging race-based traffic stops were being filed against state police and highway patrol agencies throughout the United States. In some instances, the courts ruled that racial profiling was occurring. These court findings strengthened the public perception that racial profiling by police did occur and weakened the public's confidence in the police.

Police weaken their own image. When we record bad cop behavior, it helps identify who those officers are and in-turn are doing a service to the country as a whole.


In an effort to aid state police agencies confronted with allegations of racial profiling and other complaints, the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) created the In-Car Camera Incentive Program. The program provided financial aid to state police and highway patrol agencies for the sole purpose of purchasing and installing in-car camera systems. The first federal awards were dispersed in 2000, and, by the end of 2003, 47 states and the District of Columbia had received a total of more than 21 million dollars in federal assistance for the purchase of in-car cameras


Measuring the Impact of In-Car Cameras


This study is showing that the single greatest value of the in-car camera is the positive impact that it has on officer safety.

The written survey asked the officers and troopers to rate the impact the cameras have on their personal safety. The written survey results indicated that the officers perceived only a slight feeling of increased safety when the camera was present. This response contrasted significantly with the interview responses. Following the interview protocol, researchers ask the officers how they use their recorded videotapes; an overwhelming majority stated they review their videotapes as a means of self-critique of their actions.



Agency Leadership: Agency executives reported that the cameras are a welcome, unbiased tool to ensure the accountability and the integrity of the officers in the field. Years of community perception research have established that officers' attitude, demeanor, responsiveness, and attentiveness toward a citizen determine that citizen's satisfaction with the police service. In fact, the citizen's confidence in the police depends on their perceptions of a police officer's motives more than on whether the outcome of a contact with an officer was favorable to the citizen. The institutionalization of in-car cameras along with a regular supervisory review process ensures professional accountability in citizen contacts


Sounds like they want to be the only ones in control of any recording. God forbid we ever have the desire to protect OURSELVES.

GUILTY until proven innocent, you dirty freedom loving terrorists.

edit on 23-4-2014 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: pavil

All cops should be required to wear cameras that record every stop and arrest


Has been said many many times before, however some ATS members will argue against it, perhaps they to are LEOs and have something to hide.

I'm not even a US citizen and I feel so angry about these abuses you guys in the US are putting up with. I feel like coming over there and protesting. Why our my American cousins allowing this to happen is beyond me.



We aren't really allowing it to happen. They are changing laws against us.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Man first company like OnStar, that includes push button dvr on say the steering wheel, with an outside and inside feed.

Would make a mint.

We already have back up cams, throw a few more, with a small flash storage, add cloud storage to auto upload.

Might save a lot of money in lawsuits, Include a rolling 30 min HD, that when you hit the button it saves the previous.

Think of the Accident claims it would save.

OH and Corrupt cops it would get fired...


ETA:

Shoot, Tie it in with data from car, things like turn signals, and speed, as well as brake data.

Get in a fender bender, hit the button, last 60 minutes saves to the cloud...

Why does't this exist anyway?
edit on 23-4-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: anon72

Force should be met with force to defend yourself, which is legal in the U.S. When the officer for no reason grabbed (assaulted) him, he is justified to push her off. When they then strike the person, he shall strike back until the officer stops their assault, (which an officer wont once its on). Once the officer is under control, if they reach for their weapon as a last resort, the man inside or the subject being cuffed should have shot her in self defense.

When the other officers arrived, they should thank the man, walk back to their car, retrieve an application, and welcome this man to join the force for showing outstanding understanding of the law and use of force, welcoming them into the academy. Eventually every police force would then be full of "real" "peace officers".

I do not advocate violence whatsoever. I am pointing out THE LAW as it is written. I am pointing out SOP of exactly what an officer would and should have done if the situation were reversed.

As a side note, I have had probably one dozen encounters with law enforcement in my life. Each one treated me fairly and with respect. My concern is with the bad apples in law enforcement.

Also, wouldn't a government I.D. trump a state I.D. any day of the week?
Firepiston

edit on 23-4-2014 by FirePiston because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: anon72

When i watched the video shared by the op only one thing was going through my mind as i watched with no audio..



Why oh why with the vertical videos... what is this craze i am unfamiliar with??

Anyway back to point... Videos are making certain folks run a bit scared it seems...

So tell me Mr or Mrs Officer... What do you have to hide ?

Most of the general public are recorded hundreds of times a day, making our general movements... walking, driving, shopping, drinking coffee, and myself being in Scotland, part of the UK (for now) we are under extreme surveillance at all times for 'our safety'.

If we the people are allowed to be recorded without our consent.. then sure.. everybody can be recorded, including law enforcement, its certainly needed to provide for the general publics safety from the bad ones.

Peace !!



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: anon72

Hope they sue and get tons of cash. That B word never had reason to use a show of force.

She'd been as safe waiting for backup while the VA document of id was ran...which would have taken 1.2 minutes at most. Think my GA county does it in 15 seconds....just by name alone.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: FirePiston
a reply to: anon72


Also, wouldn't a government I.D. trump a state I.D. any day of the week?
Firepiston


I think the reason they ask for the license /state ID is because they want to run your ID looking for warrants and other things on your record. It is possible that the gov't issued ID doesn't always tie in to the state systems, at least not directly at the Law Enforcement level.

I know when I wrote some of the software for the DHS "State Fusion Centers" we found a lot of data interchange between the various agencies were lacking a lot of pieces. There is a data schema out in the global information side of the DOJ, DHS and department of Health & Human Services that is community driven called the National Information Exchange Model and my coding team was given instruction by DHS to use that as the framework for the data collection framework we were building. It was at this point about 4 years ago, that I realized how poorly connected the agencies were. The holes are getting filled and things are better but not perfect nowadays.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   




"I am in fear for my safety due to your camera!!!" get a life!!



"He was coming right for me" is the current go-to mantra for a cop doing anything he or she wants to do. I'm waiting for the one where the cop orders people to stop breathing for their safety and then shoots their dog when they don't.

eta: NC is not a stop and identify state. If he wasn't performing a licensed function, she cannot demand any identification from him unless she has some reason to arrest him. Offering a government ID card is more than enough for any Terry ID requirement, which in NC he doesn't have to meet anyway.

etaa: under what law may a LEO "confiscate a phone for her own safety"? When does that become "petit theft", "theft by taking", "strongarm theft", or "tampering with evidence"? Can she confiscate their car for her own safety? The parakeet? A piano? Perhaps the silverware and the family jewels? At what point do self-serving actions taken for "her safety" become crimes? In this case, I'm wondering if the safety she refers to is the safety of her employment rather than that of her person, and although some of the local LEOs will no doubt appear here and quibble, this seems to be pretty questionable. I know it was fashionable for a few months two years ago when FOP promulgated the theory that "any cell phone might be a secret firearm or IED" but I think even they had to drop that due to the sheer stupidity of it.
edit on 23-4-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reinforces the point that officers are being trained to use aggression and violence to take control of a situation, that any member of the public is the enemy and they are the only good guys.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: anon72

This woman winds me up.

She assaulted the adult, she assaulted the boy and she should be locked up. There was no need to cuff the adult. It was just because she wasn't getting her own way and felt a little threat to her authority when there wasn't even one there.

Don't get me wrong, in the correct situation, officers need to be authoritative and use force but this just wasn't one of those situations. She escalated a minor dog nuisance incident into something that could have been a public order incident within seconds. If the neighbours were a bit anti police, they could have ended up outside on the street, kicking off with the officer. And she would have deserved it, imo.

What an annoying, useless, power crazed b*tch.
edit on 24/4/2014 by iskander683 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Didn't watch the video, I've seen enough cop movies.

Here's a question, if an officer says they're confiscating your phone for their safety, what happens if you remove the memory card and then hand them the phone?





new topics

top topics



 
56
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join