Black Man Brutally Beaten and Arrested for Filming Cops—But a Judge’s Ruling Turns the Tables

Inquisitr ^ | Oct 16, 2025 | Moupriya

[where's_the_Outrage?]

Chaos ensued when Dean Taylor, 65, a Black man, tried recording the Buffalo police across the street. The incident unfolded when the cops were investigating a drive-by shooting of a house in 2019. The officers approached Taylor and informed him that the neighbors did not want him to capture the investigation on camera.

However, the Black man exercised his First Amendment right that allows him to record the entire ordeal in public. He told the cops that he was mainly recording them, and not the other residents. The whole thing got intense within the blink of an eye when the officers punched Taylor in the face several times. According to the Atlanta Black Star, the officers shoved the man to the ground and piled on top of him. At one point, one cop even pressed his knee into Taylor’s neck.

Dean was then taken to jail on charges of harassment, obstructing governmental administration, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. In response, he filed a lawsuit against the Buffalo Police who arrested him. Initially, the jury sided with the cops.

However, a big twist came in the case when the judge who was overseeing the trial overturned the jury’s verdict. The rare legal move came after Blake Zaccagnino from the Shaw & Shaw law firm, one of the attorneys representing Taylor, filed a post-trial motion. He asked the judge to dismiss the jury’s decision for a new trial under the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

[Labyrinthos]

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..

[TexasGator]

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.

[GingisK]

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

[BlackbirdSST]

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.

[RightOnTheBorder]

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.