Posted on 10/17/2025 4:02:17 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
In correct. This was civil lawsuit against the arresting police officers. The person arrested for filming was the plaintiff and the arresting police officers were the defendants. The jury in a civil action does not return a verdict of "guilty," which is a term specific to criminal trials. Rather, the jury found the defendants "not liable" because the plaintiff failed to prove his case by a ponderance of the evidence..
Ah, I see where you went with that. Is good. Thanks.
First point leads to my second point...there should have never been anything to resolve. The man was well with in his rights to be doing what he was doing. Cops have no business interfering with a citizen practicing his/her rights. Second, there is no right to privacy in public. If you expect privacy in public you have to create that privacy yourself. If a willing witness is present then the onus is on LEO's to isolate them prior to an interview for privacy.
Camera's in public are frigging everywhere. Stores, dash cams, iPhones...privacy in public is almost nonexistent. With facial recognition and AI, soon it will not exist at all.
Hypothetical situation: After murder known members of a gang are walking around filming anyone who speaks to the police. Now no witnesses will come forward. Is this first amendment press or witness intimidation?
Back to real situation: Witnesses are reluctant to talk because an unknown person is filming. It was perfectly reasonable to make contact with the person, find out who he is, and be able to reassure witnesses. The rest of the actions I will not defend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.