Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Black Man Brutally Beaten and Arrested for Filming Cops—But a Judge’s Ruling Turns the Tables
Inquisitr ^ | Oct 16, 2025 | Moupriya

Posted on 10/17/2025 4:02:17 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last
To: Skwor
Missing a lot of relevant facts, the jury literally found the guy guilty...

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..

41 posted on 10/17/2025 11:49:17 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
42 posted on 10/17/2025 11:49:59 AM PDT by TexasGator (11The 750 hp Florida Gnat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Ah, I see where you went with that. Is good. Thanks.


43 posted on 10/17/2025 12:01:44 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder
this could have been resolved with more patience and less “authoritaaaay” but I’m not wholly on board with filming witnesses as they give testimony.

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.

44 posted on 10/17/2025 1:40:24 PM PDT by BlackbirdSST (FTL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST

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.


45 posted on 10/17/2025 2:06:08 PM PDT by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson