It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cops record themselves allegedly fabricating charges with suspect’s camera

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 07:03 PM
Cops record themselves allegedly fabricating charges with suspect’s camera

Oops. Police take man's camera then leave it on as it sets on car. It records them fabricating charges against him. Appears they didn't know it was recording audio. Gonna be hard to talk their way out of this one.

In a US federal civil rights lawsuit, a Connecticut man has shared footage to bolster his claims that police illegally confronted the pedestrian because he was filming one of them. Authorities seized Michael Picard's camera and his permitted pistol, and the officers involved then accidentally recorded themselves allegedly fabricating charges against the man.

According to the lawsuit, trooper John Barone walked up to Picard and said "someone called in" a complaint about a man "waving a gun and pointing it at people." It's a claim the lawsuit alleges is fabricated. The lawsuit also states that Barone "swatted" the digital camera out of Picard's hands and onto the ground, at which point the battery dislodged. Barone seized Picard's pistol and "took the handgun permit out of Picard's pants pocket," according to the suit.

The officer briefly walked away to a patrol car, and Picard picked up his camera, inserted the battery and began filming again, according to the suit.


posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 07:04 PM
So we are dead?

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 07:17 PM
I hope the lawsuit is accepted, they´ll loose their job and pensions. Oh wait, not in this universe.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 07:25 PM
a reply to: roadgravel

They were some bright sparks there in that vid....

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 07:32 PM
Short tour of the inside of a police car.

Sounded like this wasn't the first for this type of activity.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:26 PM
Discussing what they can "get him on" for protesting...

Disturbance, trespassing, reckless use of road?

Loved the part (forget the time stamp) when they say (for backup), they had a bunch of witnesses to all this but they left so "we had to take our own action".

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:38 PM
The usual folks will come in and say this is an isolated case and it may very well be. The point is: Who do we trust? Just because the majority of L.E. are not like these 2, does in no way mean I should trust the one that pulls me over. How do I know he's ok? I don't. So, I treat cops the way they treat us, Guilty till proven innocent. I assume every cop out there is one of those cops. Just looking for any reason to give me a hard time and flaunt his petty authority.
If cops wonder why we don't trust them, let them take a look at any one of hundreds of videos out there, that prove we can't. You want us to trust you? Clean your own house.

Oh and before someone comes along and says I'm a cop hater or I hate cops because I'm a criminal or some other stupid sh**, I am anti abuse of authority. I don't care if it's the local dog catcher, right on up to the President. Cowards and bullies abuse their power and it sickens me.
edit on 20-9-2016 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:43 PM
a reply to: DAVID64

The problem isn't a few bad cops.

The problem is the culture within law enforcement where they cover for and support the few bad cops. And that in turn means there aren't a few bad cops.

The corrupt culture inside law enforcement wouldn't exist without the majority accepting such behavior. That doesn't mean most cops will shoot someone with their hands up or falsify charges against them, but rather they approve enough of that behavior they won't turn them in, and the superiors approve enough to not do much about it.

What doesn't help is that many cops just aren't all that intelligent. Their testing targets lower IQ individuals than you'll see in more prominent fields. I had two family members who were actually turned away for scoring too high. I also know four people who became cops from my HS years. You would never align the words 'intelligent' or 'honorable' with them. They were more the types to push a Freshman into the lockers and say "what are you gonna do about it?" or get too drunk at a party and go around grabbing girls asses.

edit on 20-9-2016 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:48 PM
a reply to: DAVID64

Im sure when you get a group, that is not out of the norm..individuals officer one on one maybe a different story. Together as a group, you have a gang, even if one was uncomfortable with it..what is he going to do.
edit on 20-9-2016 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 09:46 PM
Ok, David . . . I guess I'm your guy today. No, the vast majority of LEOs are not like that.

That being said, these guys need to have an example made of them. Will it happen? I can hope, but it really depends upon the political aspects of where they are at. They will probably get a token suspension, slap on the wrist, and lose some rank (which they would get back rather quickly). The government would probably feel that such actions would appease any backlash and consider it better than training replacements which costs more money.

I quit being a cop over the BS politics involved, but none-the-less . . . I hate cops like this because they make all cops look bad. And yes, the vast majority of experiences a person will have with cops in their lives will be either positive or neutral, but it will be the negative ones they remember and tell about over and over.

But for someone to expect a bad encounter with a cop before the cop even talks to them, is setting themselves up for failure. By doing so, the cop can already tell that you are hostile and immediately puts up his guard. This formula leads to bad encounters quite often. Many times your bad attitude with a cop will turn a warning situation into a citation or even arrest.

Back to the topic . . . this guy did nothing wrong. The LEOs in question have no justifiable excuse for what they did, although I'm sure they'll come up with many. And they should be fired.

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 10:35 PM
a reply to: JDeLattre89

I would agree with most of what you said except for this part here..

By doing so, the cop can already tell that you are hostile and immediately puts up his guard. This formula leads to bad encounters quite often. Many times your bad attitude with a cop will turn a warning situation into a citation or even arrest.
We are seeing more and more that cops approach people with a hostile attitude, even when the person is completely complying and have their hands up, and it does appear that they are even more apprehensive when dealing with colored people....

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 07:51 AM
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It is a bit a of catch-22 situation. A person needs to prepared for a situation but in doing so the officer might sense and question why. He doesn't understand or want to accept what current events are doing to the way many people think so uneasiness is a sign of guilt.

The idea of "you must be guilty of sometime" now includes survival in some situations. Nervous - some are for no reason other than being in the conversation. It shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Sadly, I feel it's only going to become worse.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:32 AM
systemic problem affecting our way of life.

Enemies of state.

Cause for reprisals growing.

culture of criminal mentalities.


To be demoralized and demoted socially to a form of security. Like a form of private security we see at shopping areas.

Actual policing to be done by military police.

Law enforcement to be charged with protecting the property of the corporation of their city and nothing else.

No contact with regular citizens allowed.

Only reporting /relaying information via radio to MPs.

edit on 9 21 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:08 PM
a reply to: roadgravel

Seems to me that the officer is both correct and wrong in this instance.

According to an April 23, 2012, article at,

The Connecticut Senate passed a bill last week that allows citizens to record police officers, so long as the police officers in question don’t object to being recorded.

Bill 245, which passed 24-11 last Thursday in Connecticut’s Democrat-controlled senate, has two distinct parts: Section 1(b) lays out protections and recourse for citizens who want to record police; Section 1(c) gives police several excuses to interfere with citizen photographers without penalty.

Section 1(b) reads:

“A peace officer who interferes with any person taking a photographic or digital still or video image of such peace officer or another peace officer acting in the performance of such peace officer's duties shall, subject to sections 5-141d, 7-465 and 29-8a of the general statutes, be liable to such person in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceeding for redress.”

Section 1(c) reads:

“A peace officer shall not be liable under subsection (b) of this section if the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the peace officer was interfering with the taking of such image in order to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law of this state or a municipal ordinance, (2) protect the public safety, (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation, (4) safeguard the privacy interests of any person, including a victim of a crime, or (5) lawfully enforce court rules and policies of the Judicial Branch with respect to taking a photograph, videotaping or otherwise recording an image in facilities of the Judicial Branch.”

While Republicans who voted against the bill said it would expose Connecticut cops to frivolous lawsuits, this legislation couldn’t be more protective of police if it was written by the cops themselves.

As you should note, Section 1(c) is WAY overly vague about why an officer can interfere with recording a police officer who is on duty. I think that the officer would be protected under this section of the 2012 law (assuming that there have been zero amendments to the law since then), although I think that the law gives them way too much leeway to do whatever is necessary to stop someone from recording. As the article goes on to say:

Because the bill doesn't exclude police, it's conceivable that a cop could stop a recording to protect his or her own privacy.

I don't think that the guy who was recording has much legal ground on which to stand in Connecticut when it comes to an officer telling you to stop recording him or her, and that's pretty GD disappointing.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:36 PM
a reply to: roadgravel

I agree definitely a catch 22 situation....the only thing i am sure of is i would never become a cop, too many difficult situations and then being on the front line creating a barrier between the rich and poor does not seem all that appealing either....

top topics


log in