Why I Was Arrested Yesterday at a D.C. Taxi Commission Meeting

On June 22, 2011, I attended a meeting of the D.C. Taxi Commission for a story I'm currently working on about a proposed medallion system in the district.

About 30 minutes into the meeting, I witnessed journalist Pete Tucker snap a still photo of the proceedings on his camera phone. A few minutes later, two police officers arrested Tucker. I filmed Tucker's arrest and the audience's subsequent outrage using my cell phone.

A few minutes later, as I was attempting to leave the building, I overheard the female officer who had arrested Tucker promise a woman, who I presumed to be an employee of the Taxi Commission, that she would confiscate my phone. Reason intern Kyle Blaine, overheard her say, "Do you want his phone? I can get his phone."

(The woman who was given assurances by the officer that she could have my phone can be seen at the end of the video telling me, "You do not have permission to record this!")

As I tried to leave, I was told by the same officer to "stay put." I told her I was leaving and attempted to exit the building. I was then surrounded by officers, and told to remain still or I would be arrested.

I didn't move, but I tried to get the attention of a group of cab drivers who were standing nearby. At this point I was arrested.

I spent the remainder of the day in a cell in the basement of the building. In the late afternoon, I was released.

We will be reporting more on this as it unfolds. Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of this video.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive notifications as new material goes live.

Related video: "The Government's War on Cameras"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sal Paradise||

    When the pig kept saying "last chance", did he mean last chance to leave or last chance to give me your phone?

  • ||

    State- All your speech are belong to us.

  • BoscoH||

    Maybe he meant, "Last chance, for romance, toooo-night."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • ||

    Jesus tapdancing Christ. Until public sector unions are torn limb from limb, this stuff will keep on happening.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Pigs are pigs. Whether they are unionized or not is almost beside the point.

  • ||

    They were instructed by some group to harass poeple during that meeting.

    My first guess as i suspect was also Tayna's first guess is that union cops were told by union taxi drivers that they did not want that meeting to be recorded.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    A conspiratorial theory of unions? Color me unpersuaded.

  • ||

    So the cops just randomly showed up to a public meeting and started arresting poeple for filming?

    Bullshit!
    Someone called them in to harass people...government officials or unions are the usual suspects.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Um, if it was like every other official gathering ever, the po-po was already there. And stop me if I'm wrong, but the D.C. Taxi Commission is a manifestation of the state, not the union of interest, so the "it's the unions colluding to beat everyone up" theory is just plain silly.

    It's as simple as someone in petty authority arrogating power, and toady cops giving it to them. One need not invoke silly conspiracies to explain something as simple, straightforward, and depressingly common as this.

  • Robert||

    What does "po-po" stand for? I gather one of the "po"s is "police", so what's the other "po"? "Popular"? "Postal"?

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Police. Round these parts, kids call 'em the po-po. When they're tailgating you , it's a 'pigtail'. When they are talking to one another while in different cruisers, they are in what is called "donut formation".

    I thought these were all pretty standard and widespread lingo.

  • ||

    You are so...so....so urban chic man. Let me guess you wear your baseball hat cocked at a jaunty angle.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    I fucking hate baseball caps.

  • ||

    As I loathe pretentious asswipes.

  • ||

    As yourself?

  • ||

    Oh, you mean like people who put Harvard as their screen name? Yeah, that is pretty pretentious.

  • ||

    Actually, "po po" is very common slang for cops, I've heard my 13 year old use it and we live in the country. it has even made its way into the hand clapping rhymes that girls do. I think it started in rap. I guess you didn't learn that in your Harvard culture class. Get with it, man.

  • ||

    Absolutely, more and more harassment.
    More and more rights being taken away.
    People stand up, fight for them, don't just hand them over.

  • Dave||

    Incorrect - unionization makes pigs worse. It superempowers them and corrupts them. It is absolute insanity to allow police or other public sector employees to unionize. They forget that taxpayers are their employers and bosses.

    Imagine police using their union power to the fullest and refusing to do their job or even worse, using their position to attack (or fail to protect) those who oppose them. Absolute fricking insanity.

  • Libertylover||

    So....you're saying that things are less corrupt in the "right to work" southern states? Spare me....unions are not the issue here.

  • Reality||

    I would say from experience, that yes - police in unions are more corrupt. As are any other group of people.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    The sovereign immunity protections for prosecutores and police are far more important than unions.

    Generally speaking, I'm tired of hearing the right of private citizens to assemble and enter in contracts demonised as the source of all government ills.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I've got no problem at all with private citizens assembling and entering into any contract at all. Knock yourselves out.
    Unless the contract involves money to be forcibly extracted from me.

  • hmm||

    Or a government built in bias to the contract like the NLRB.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Should any private parties (unions or otherwise) be allowed to enter into contracts with the government that are not 100% favourable to the government?

  • yofed2||

    which is exactly what collective bargaining in the public sector does. ultimately force an increase in taxes. in the private sector, both sides of the negotiation table have something important at stake, and therefore, negotiate in good faith. when the government negotiates with unions, the "management" side of the table has no personal stake, no real incentive to bargain in good faith on our, the taxpayers, behalf. management, in this case, is susceptible to giving in, because it is easier to say yes to a tax hike, than no at the bargaining table.

    lifetime pensions with zero contributions, lifetime free family healthcare, and lifetime accumulated paid sick time upon retirement (they call them "boat checks" in nj, because that is the check from the state that govt workers use to buy their retirement boats. no joke). not to mention, practically guaranteed jobs for life. hard to get rid of the unproductive government worker. these factors along with typical govt waste and corruption ARE the reasons why state governments are so financially strapped. so, yes, the unions are not going to look very favorable in the eyes of the average citizen. you may call it demonizing if you wish.

  • squarooticus||

    The sovereign immunity protections for prosecutores and police are far more important than unions


    This. So long as public employees are sheltered from prosecution or personal liability for their actions, they can do pretty much anything, claim they are just doing their job, and get away with it. This is IMO the single biggest reason why government is a steaming pile of fail.

  • ||

    Who is it that bargains on behalf of the police for immunity?

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • Chuck||

    The prosecutors, DAs, and attorneys general who argued for immunity in the courts? Qualified immunity (and absolute immunity, when it applies) aren't provisions in union contracts, they're ridiculous pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Immunity also arises from legislators going through "not soft on crime" whims when anything that looks pro-police is guaranteed to score votes with the police-state demographic (soccer moms? Republicans?)

  • ||

    Republicans...a police state demographic?

    I grew up in God-forsaken Illinois, a state only 2nd to California in resembling an actual police state (thanks to Cook Co. and Springfield). The entire state has been under Democrat control for decades now. So has California...another police state. So has NY state...another police state. Get your head out your ass.

  • ||

    You haven't seen nothing till you've been to Arizona!

    Just sayin'

  • ||

    Government employees are by definition not "private citizens". Government employment should entail a loss of rights. Just as a start, I would prohibit government employees from owning weapons of voting.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    So the janitor working at the State Department, he or she doesn't get 2nd amendment rights or the franchise?

    That's, uh...that's stupid.

  • ||

    A janitor at the state department should be not be a government employee.

    You should have used the military as your example...

    But of course military personnel do have their rights curtailed by law. So there is that.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    A janitor at the state department should be not be a government employee.

    Er, why not?

    You should have used the military as your example...

    Why? It's a bad example.

    But of course military personnel do have their rights curtailed by law. So there is that.

    And this is part of why. Of course, the other part is that the restrictions therein have everything to do with the nature of a military and nothing to do with their being government employees.

  • ||

    Er, why not?

    because contracted janitorial services are cheaper, better and more efficient. Furthermore it lightens the governments liability.

    Why? It's a bad example.

    The military is the best example for supporting the legitimacy of government and employment by the government. It is easy to say the government should not be in the janitor business...it is a little harder to say the government should not be in the defending us from foreign invasion business.

    have everything to do with the nature of a military and nothing to do with their being government employees.

    Of course the military is a legitimate service provided by the government because of the nature of it.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    because contracted janitorial services are cheaper, better and more efficient.

    I'm sure you've done studies. Or is this just an assumption based on how you think the world must work?

    Furthermore it lightens the governments liability.

    That may be (and probably not that much; if they were private contractor who were nonetheless injured on government property, part of the liability is going to devolve to the property owner). I don't see how that much matters; whoever employs the janitors is going to have liability and worker's comp insurance, and they all buy it from the same places.

    The military is the best example for supporting the legitimacy of government and employment by the government. It is easy to say the government should not be in the janitor business...it is a little harder to say the government should not be in the defending us from foreign invasion business.

    If the government is in the "having buildings" business, in pursuit of any of the other things that are its business, then having janitors one way or the other is the government's business. Whether they keep it in-house or go private is entirely a function of policy and preference.

    Of course the military is a legitimate service provided by the government because of the nature of it.

    But the restrictions on rights that inhere in cases of military service are not a function of whether the underlying task is a legitimate government enterprise, and is (for the second time) entirely a function of the specific nature of that task.

  • ||

    I'm sure you've done studies.

    I have read some of them...and read analysis of them, some of that analysis right here on this very web site.

    Ever hear of Sandy Springs Georgia?

    If the government is in the "having buildings" business

    Nothing prevents the government from renting.

    But the restrictions on rights that inhere in cases of military service are not a function of whether the underlying task is a legitimate government enterprise

    The specific nature of the military that requires the relinquishment of its members rights is the same specific nature that legitimizes the military.

    Anyway I know i am treading water on this one. My point was that Cheeseburger was not stupid with his suggestion.

    If government only employed for legitimate services then the curtailing of rights of government employees would not be much of a hindrance....and as demonstrated with military personnel not unprecedented.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    I have read some of them...and read analysis of them, some of that analysis right here on this very web site. Ever hear of Sandy Springs Georgia?

    Yes, an interesting and successful case of public/private partnership for services. Of course, it certainly helps that the median per capita income of Sandy Springs is $75,000, which allows the point-of-service customers to soak higher upfront costs in exchange for lower taxes off the back end. There haven't been many municipalities that have followed suit, and those that have haven't been nearly as successful as Sandy Springs.

    Nothing prevents the government from renting.

    Er, making the government beholden to specific property/landowners seems like a very poor plan. Besides, over the long term renting is far less efficient than buying.

    The specific nature of the military that requires the relinquishment of its members rights is the same specific nature that legitimizes the military.

    The nature of militaries such that they require a curtailment of rights are a need to maintain a strictly hierarchical structure and chain of command has nothing to do with their being a government institution, and everything to do with the idiosyncrasies of making war, itself.

    Anyway I know I am treading water on this one.

    A teensy bit. :)

    My point was that Cheeseburger was not stupid with his suggestion. If government only employed for legitimate services then the curtailing of rights of government employees would not be much of a hindrance....and as demonstrated with military personnel not unprecedented.

    Perhaps I was a bit strong with calling it "stupid", but I still certainly think it "wrong".

  • Joe Strummer||

    The American Military. Saving us from foreign invasions. Hahahhaha

  • Joe Strummer||

    The American Military. Saving us from foreign invasions. Hahahhaha

  • ||

    Actually, all contracted services are more expensive. That is why they are working under contracts to begin with. Contracts are for short term bargaining of services and labor. The contracted employee makes the average wage, then the company contracting him out adds its profit on top of that, including benefits and insurance. All of that is passed on to the state.

    When all is said and done, having a direct employee not only gives you someone who has morale, it will also save you two to three times more money.

  • ||

    Intersting that you call note it is 'the franchise.'

    Voting is not a right.

    Not to say or imply that I'm in favor of denying public employees the franchise. But I do think that they surrender some rights while actively engaged in their duties as a public employee.

  • ||

    weapons of voting

    That's weapons of mass voting.

  • Dave||

    Generally speaking, I'm tired of people defending or making excuses for thugs and terrorists. There is no RIGHT to form a public sector union which corrupts and even usurps government power. Public sector unions are essentially cabals which have usurped government power.

  • ||

    Workers can get together and form unions or other associations to their hearts' delight. Nothing prevents that, in Wisconsin or elsewhere. What is being swept away nowadays is the privilege of exclusive contract negotiations with the government, and the forcible extraction of money via payroll deductions from employees who may not want to belong to any union. That is naked oppression, a form of slavery to the cigar-chomping mafiosos who run organized labor.

  • Trespassers W||

    Fight the power, Jim! We're all proud of you, although clearly I am only speaking for myself, standard libertarian disclaimers apply!

  • Sparky||

    You have permission to speak on my behalf in this regard but only as it pertains to claiming to be proud.

  • hazeeran||

    Same.

  • Barack Obama||

    I like where this is heading...

  • Patooey||

    95% of the sheeple in this country will never know this stuff happens. A week from now it'll be ancient history.

  • ||

    95% of the sheeple in this country will never know this stuff happens.

    Woot!!!

    We now have in the wild "sheeple" comments here at reason!!!

    I don't have to read nut job left wing and right wing blogs anymore.

  • Black Sheep Squadron||

    We are poor lil lambs,
    Who have lost our way.

    Baa Baa Baa

  • herve villachaize||

    ..."sheeple"? Really? Oh, wait... I mean, "Man, that's heavy... really profound comment on the state of AmeriKKKa!

  • Team Blue||

    Soon the troop withdrawl from Afghanistan will begin, and we can focus those resources on a more pressing issue, The War on Cameras.

  • ||

    Why yes and protecting the poor illegals and keeping Americans from the jobs.
    Helping Obama come up with a way to go around congress and the people to give Amnesty. So busy giving our rights to non citizens and stomping on ours.

  • ||

    Why yes and protecting the poor illegals and keeping Americans from the jobs.
    Helping Obama come up with a way to go around congress and the people to give Amnesty. So busy giving our rights to non citizens and stomping on ours.

  • ||

    Why yes and protecting the poor illegals and keeping Americans from the jobs.
    Helping Obama come up with a way to go around congress and the people to give Amnesty. So busy giving our rights to non citizens and stomping on ours.

  • ||

    Why yes and protecting the poor illegals and keeping Americans from the jobs.
    Helping Obama come up with a way to go around congress and the people to give Amnesty. So busy giving our rights to non citizens and stomping on ours.

  • KDN||

    It was such an insightful comment that it needed to be said 4 times. Hooray Insight!

  • Obama's DOJ||

    You never here a discouraging word from us about these incidents -- it's all part of the new national-security paradigm.

  • CoyoteBlue||

    Seems reasonable. [DRINK]

    He didn't have "permission".

  • Abdul||

    I would not want to be the person who pissed off a group of cabbies.

  • ||

    The cabbies seemed to be the most reasonable people there.

  • ||

    It was nice to see that the reaction from the crowd was so strongly on the side of the reporter.

  • ||

    Sue them until their eyes fucking bleed, Jim. Make it hurt.

  • Mike M.||

    Agree with the sentiment fully, but it won't work. The court system has no interest at all in reigning in the ever more out of control police state.

  • Ska||

    The system is all bout reigning in a controlled police state.

    The system seems to lack the desire to rein in the out of control police state.

  • 0x90||

    That was too perfect.

  • Reign Moose||

    Fuck yeah.

  • ||

    well said

  • Mnemone Jones||

    It's still a good idea to try. As the profile on these sorts of incidents gets raised, there is more opportunity (read: political cover) to reign it in. In some states with especially egregious anti-phone/camera incidents, the law is already being clarified to exclude the idea that law enforcement has any anti-recording rights/prerogatives while on duty.

  • hmm||

    Screw sewing them, I end up paying that price tag in one form or another. Destroy their individual lives through their own actions. At some point the institution is no longer the problem and the people within it are.

  • Virginia||

    So they were dumb enough to arrest you and seize your phone but smart enough not to tamper with evidence by erasing the video? Or were they too dumb to figure out how to wipe your phone? Or did you load your feed live to somewhere else?

  • Dan||

    maybe he was using Qwik and uploading in real time to internet.

  • Dan||

    Oops, meant "Qik Video"

  • Some Internet Guy||

    so fucking outrageous

  • Amy Alkon||

    Violations of our constitutional rights are getting to be a very ordinary, daily thing, from the TSA violations of our Fourth Amendment rights, to the woman being arrested for videotaping the police from her front lawn, to this. If you aren't terrified, you're really taking our rights for granted.

  • Otto||

    I am seriously trying to move to Canada. While they lack a lot of the "guaranteed" rights we ostensibly have here, given the routine violations of those rights we can scarcely be said to possess them anymore.

  • ||

    I think that will only, at best, delay the coming fascism. Canada just has different priorities for getting there.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And it involves sugar pucks.

  • ||

    Don't they have anything low-carb?

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Aspartame pucks.

  • Teh||

    lulz

  • ||

    Actually, Canada has made a bill of rights quite similar to the US, it was passed in the 1980s. Although it is a bit looser than the US bill of rights, its enforcement is for the most part actually more liberty-friendly.

    Except the notwithstanding clause. I hate the notwithstanding clause.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....d_Freedoms

  • Angus MacAskill||

    While the Charter may be broader than the US Bill of Rights, it's weaker. Take Section One, for example:

    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

    So right there is a concession that government may violate a Charter right as long as the violation is "reasonable", "demonstrably justified", and "prescribed by law". This section has been used to justify bans on "hate speech", among other things. Not exactly "Congress shall make no law", is it?

    Now of course de jure and de facto rights are different, and a piece of paper can't truly prevent the government from fucking you over, no matter how strongly worded. But Americans should understand that the absolutism of the Bill of Rights is something quite rare and important.

  • Scooby||

    In theory, that absolutism is important; in practice, not so much.

  • Angus MacAskill||

    Maybe, but it's still hard to imagine SCOTUS upholding legal penalties against speech that merely causes "injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect" but is not actually threatening or coercive.

  • ||

    You should really talk to some Canadians before you do that. Nowadays the difference is marginal, unless you're just looking for entitlements.

    They've pissed away most of their freedoms post 9/11 under Harper the same way we did under Bush and now Obama. Their last parliament election ensures it will only get worse.

  • Angus MacAskill||

    Our government is so fucking stupid they're dead set on following the US's lead re: locking up nonviolent drug offenders.

  • Nats357||

    Not quite true. Most of the loss of freedoms came from the Jean Chretien liberal regime. Harper has only just obtained a majority. He hasn't been able to make law without the approval of the opposition since before that.

    Now that he has a majority, one of the greatest obstacles to freedom, firearms ownership, can be dealt a blow in the favour of freedom.

    All that being said, the Cons up here are no more interested in giving the people their freedom than they are down south. And that's the shame.

  • Angus MacAskill||

    Now that he has a majority, one of the greatest obstacles to freedom, firearms ownership, can be dealt a blow in the favour of freedom.

    You're not cynical enough: Stephen Harper is just another statist. Governing Canada means placating regional bitching by handing out corporate welfare, government jobs and cabinet positions to the right people. Limited-government principles are bad for getting and holding power, which is why Harper chucked them a long time ago.

    That goes double for firearms. The Canadian public has a huge appetite for gun control no matter how little sense it makes. Why would Harper take that on— what does he stand to gain? The middle-class, suburban, new-immigrant voters that he's obsessed with appealing to don't give a damn about gun rights. Only rural Canadians do, and the odd libertarian. And politically, neither of those groups matter.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Otto should look up G20-Canada first. Prepare to hate.

  • Oh||

    Forget everything we said yesterday.

  • Almanian||

    So is the waterboarding as bad as "they" say it is? What was the dungeon like? Did they make you wear a uniform?

    Also, FUCK these dickheads and all the other overlords. Motherfucker it's getting out of hand these days.

    You say you want a revolution?

    (I know, DRINK!)

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Does this blog come with a drinking game?

  • DJF||

    This is a drinking game that comes with a blog.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Excellent.

  • goober1223||

  • Name Nomad||

    I don't see a mention of ROADS on there.

  • ||

    The H&R drinking game cannot be contained and explained by a mere wiki...FOOLS!

  • ||

    What rules has Urk set forth for us?

  • ||

    That's the beauty of it, no one person knows all of the rules. One minute you're fine, and the next you're plastered AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHY!

  • SFC B||

    You went on a date with Levi Johnston?

  • ||

    Yup, and all I got out of it was this stoopid mongoloid.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    we have to pass it before we can find out whats in it.

  • Obama's DOJ||

    We did make him wear women's panties over his head and put a leash on him. But no water-boarding.

  • Almanian||

    Attorney General Nuisance Holder has informed me that this is cool.

    Carry on.

  • ||

    A leash and panties on my head? Sounds like a normal weekend.

  • ||

    yeah, they say it like its a bad thing.

  • ||

    "Do you want his phone? I can get his phone."

    Maybe she just wanted to make a call, and her battery was dead.

  • Woman||

    "I axed him not to record me."

  • Ax me no questions||

    "Aks" comes from middle English and "ask" is modern English. The majority of slave plantations were owned by Americans with British roots.

  • Increase||

    But soft, shall we not return to the laws in force from the age in which they spake?

  • ||

    ACK ACK!!

  • Black Sheep Squadrom||

    I'm Hit! I'm Hit!

  • ||

    Lizzie Borden aske her black friend if it would be OK to come over for dinner, and she said, I don't know, why don't you go home and ax yo parents.

  • ||

    Is that intern the worst Reason has ever had? Has to be, right?

  • ||

    "Reason intern Kyle Blaine, overheard her say, "Do you want his phone? I can get his phone.""

  • db||

    It was only a matter of time before a Reason staffer got this kind of treatment. The best part is that this happened during a reporter's normal coverage of an event unrelated to the war on cameras. Many people look at videos taken by people who are trying to provoke a reaction, and say "well, duh." This clearly is an attempt to document an unplanned confiscation event. While most of us here understand that "provoked" vs. "unprovoked" violation of rights by gov't stooges is a distinction without a difference, it's important to get these types of incidents documented and added to the public discussion.

  • stephen||

    Were you ever told what you were arrested for - what codes you were violating? I'd sue for wrongful arrest in both your case and the journalist.

  • DJF||

    Code 34587 of the Patriot Act, Using a terrorist camera in the act of terrorism photography.
    Code 84372 of the Patriot Act, Terrorist Photography by using a terrorist cameras
    Code 12345 of the Patriot Act, Failure to register a terrorist camera
    Code 54321 of the Patriot Act, Terrorizing an armed police officer with an unarmed terrorist camera.
    Code 00001 of the Patriot Act, Spam with eggs with spam, spam and terrorist camera.

    These are the preliminary violations, more will be added as soon as someone is found who has a high enough security clearance to actually read the Patriot Act.

  • You missed some code sections||

    #774933 subsection 27R -- "Shut Up and Hand over the Camera Phone, Mother-Fucker."

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    rule #1 : RESPECT MY AUTHATEH!

    luckily, he didn't break:

    rule #3 : STOP RESISTING!

  • OO||

    more charges to be added...once the waterboarding washes away all his traitorous lies & subversion.

  • Abdul||

    yesterday, the Post said the charges were "disorderly and unlawful entry. Both are misdemeanors"

  • Phlogistan||

    Mr. Epstien, Congratulations on your release. Filming Mr. Tucker as he was apprehended reviled a polite and composed citizen protesting his treatment at the hands of authority.

    Mr. Tucker politely asked the reasons for his arrest, and even willing complied with the officers demands when he realized he would get no answers from the officers.

    I can see reasons to justify your arrest from the video at all.

    The manner in which the event filmed unfolded seemed more like Wedding Crashers being apprehended and removed while a Mother-In-Law directed hotel security.

  • WarrenT||

    I think you mean 'revealed'. I don't normally pick on errors but this one drastically changes the meaning of the sentence.

  • Phlogistan||

    Thanks WarrenT, cruising through my thesaurus for invective has consequences

  • Comical Indignation||

    The overreaction at the hearing is exceeded only by the overreaction here. This one incident hardly proves that no one is allowed to record any public activity at any time ever, that the Constitution has been ripped up and burned, that all cops are "pigs." A sense of proportion (not to mention reality) is a good thing to have. Any good flamers out there? Let 'em rip.

  • ||

    Please don't feed the troll.

  • A Liberal Hobgoblin||

    Trolls gotta eat, too, y'know!

  • sevo||

    They can eat their own offspring.

  • A Tasty Sauce||

    I would think yours would taste better. Why would they eat their own? You're not making any sense!

  • A Tasty Sauce||

    I would think yours would taste better. Why would they eat their own? You're not making any sense!

  • Trespassers W||

    Calm down, folks, everything's fine, it's just another isolated incident...

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Good band.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    If this were an isolated incident, then you'd have a point. It isn't, so you really don't.

  • ||

    Not a good point. Even an isolated incident is an injustice worth deriding. This should NEVER happen. The apologists are almost worse than the bad actors because they present their assholes to The Man like willing whores. Oddly enough, its the rest of us that get fucked.

  • Mnemone Jones||

    Well, OK, every incident matters at least to the person it is happening to, but my point (such as it was) was that it is legitimate to call out a systemic problem when it actually is systemic. If they were sporadic and isolated, and actually punished as being oversteps, then Mr. Comical Indignation would actually be totally right: we are overreacting. The thing that makes it not an overreaction is that it is but the latest of string of incidents that confirm that police act with impunity and prosecutors and judges are more than happy to cover for them.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    This one incident
    Newbies are so cute.

  • The Gobbler||

    You bore.

  • Yeah, well record THIS!||

  • ||

    WAAAH! The narcissists won't lick boots with me!!

    WAAAAH!

    Jeezuz dash, you are such a whiny bitch.

  • Pig||

    I was only following orders.

  • ||

    Squeal, you cum guzzling gutter slut.

  • ||

    Apparently we do not even need "terrorist threats" to advance the cause of the police state.

  • ||

    The police state keeps creeping closer and closer and I see nothing to demonstrate that it will abate any time soon. This is just one more of ten thousand cuts that will eventually kill what civil liberties that we have left. with a SCOTUS that is unconcerned about this growing authoritarianism, and in fact enables it, I don't see what will stop it, short of an armed resistance/uprising.

    I just hope that my kids can get as far away from it as possible before it becomes all consuming.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I think that the increase in gun owner's rights and impending collapse of the war on drugs and other police militarization programs due to a money crunch will help liberty prevail.

  • ||

    "This one incident hardly proves that no one is allowed to record any public activity at any time ever"

    How many incidents are needed to establish the existence of a problem? 35? 40? 50? 60?

  • Almanian Govt PWNER||

    That information is on a need to know basis. And you don't need to know.

    Move along before we roust you for loitering...

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    Apparently 60 incidents over 14 years is enough reason for the Consumer Protection Agency to require manufacturers to remove drawstrings from children's hoodies...

    I am pretty sure we passed the 60 mark on camera/police in the last year alone.

    I mean if it's good enough for Government work...

  • iamtheeviltwin||

    err make that 70...math is hard

  • RandomGermanDude||

    This is slightly OT but I always wanted to post this on one of the "pigs are pigs" threads.

    I can't fathom how fucked up the US police and justice system seems to be. As a libertarian-leaning (I still have a lot of slaver-opinions - being German after all ;)) fellow The US of A is on my list of places to migrate to in case things get too bad here in good ol' alemania. But having to cope with that police and the justice system also seems to be a high price to pay for having a more economic freedom and less taxiation. I mean here it's also not perfect and there are also examples of justice and police misconduct - but it seems to play in quite a different league.

    I guess it's different from place to place. But yeah, fix that shit or I'll be running low on options. And it's also annoying that I keep having to explain to some of my socialist-leaning friends that this is not what liberalism (european meaning) is about. Quite the opposite.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Think carefully. As the gov't here runs out of money and available revenues, I can guarantee they will come looking for every last red cent they can get. That is unless something remarkable happens, like a real budget deal, or a Ron Paul presidency, both of which are highly unlikely.

  • ||

    It's not so bad if you are white. It's a shitty fact to have to note, but it's true. And our women dig a guy with an accent.

    But we are on the skids economically. And we have a long history of taking that out on immigrants.

  • Almanian Nativist||

    YYYYY TUKKK RRRR JERRRRRBSSZ!!!!11!!

  • ||

    You know who else hated skids-I mean immigrants?

  • OO||

    st augustine?

  • H man||

    Native Americans?

  • cynical||

    I know nothing.

  • countertop||

    Someone someday needs to bring a civil monetary action under 42 USC 1983 for deprivation of rights.

  • ||

    I'm not a lawyer, but this looks like false imprisonment to me.

    It may not constitute false arrest, but my understanding of false imprisonment makes this look like false imprisonment.

    There was no law against anything Epstein did. And he was detained against his consent.

    The problem isn't that there was a crime committed--or that may have been committed. They weren't trying to investigate a crime to see whether he was involved.

    It appears to me that there was no crime. They knew there was no crime. And they held him against his will anyway.

    From my amateur perspective, that looks like false imprisonment to me.

    Whether it was false arrest is another question, but it at least looks like false imprisonment.

  • Thom||

    It appears to me that there was no crime. They knew there was no crime. And they held him against his will anyway.

    In DC everything is illegal.

  • ||

    that's only if you're black or hispanic

  • Almanian||

    There oughta be a law...

  • Jerry||

    We can't expect the cops to know all laws now do we.

  • ||

    Cops should know what's necessary to detain people.

    Cops should know they can't just arbitrarily detain people.

    Cops can't pull people over on the highway for no reason at all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

    I don't see how a reasonable person could believe that anything Epstein did constituted reasonable suspicion that there was a crime committed.

  • ||

    I know you were kidding there, but I don't think it can be overemphasized that the cops really can't--legally--detain you just because they don't like you or what you're doing.

    This is from a guy who was regularly hassled by the cops 'cause they didn't like my look when I was a kid. To the point that I still get really pissed off when I get pulled over for no reason.

    It usually happens now when I'm on a bike--especially a sport bike. They'll pull me over and then when I take my helmet off--and they see I'm not a 20 year old kid--then all of a sudden they just want to give me a warning for something that I didn't do!

    They have no goddamn right.

  • ||

    I get the same thing due to the cars I drive. Cop pulls over the pony car or the rice burner and find a 54 year old in a suit and tie behind the wheel. My pissed-off-ness is balanced by their obvious confusion.

  • another biker||

    Fuck, yeah. I got stopped this morning, still dark, for "speeding". The cop's right headlight was burned out. Told the fat fuck that he was operating defective equipment and that should make us even. Let me go this time...small town though, I'll get one soon

  • Appalachian Australian||

    My little brother used to get pulled over when he was 16 riding a nice sportbike and got the whole nine yards (hands where I can see them, etc.).

    The cops always assumed they were going to write a ticket for no license/no registration and impound the vehicle, and usually ended up pretty disappointed when he presented his completely legal motorcycle endorsement and registration/insurance valid and in his own name.

    Of course, they never had any actual traffic offences to cite in the first place.

    I can only imagine how awful driving must be if you're not white--I overhear my black friends talking about places to avoid driving through/times of night to avoid driving, sort of like how one might avoid bad traffic.

  • KDN||

    It's not just if you're black, profiling cuts both ways (though I would agree that darker folks have it worse). Small sample size, but both my brother and I have had to deal with "driving while white" on several occasions. Being a white kid in the ghetto elicits the same reaction from police that being a black kid in an affluent neighborhood does: the only reason you could possibly be there is to cause some kind of mischief.

    If you ever get a chance, watch the "Jersey Cop" episode of cops. In it there's a sequence where two white kids get pulled over after cruising through some projects in Patterson. The cop, in the course of his questioning tells him in no uncertain terms that there's only one reason for a guy like him to be cruising through that neighborhood (which was right in that case, but still a dick move).

    Cops can't pull people over on the highway for no reason at all.

    My sister's boyfriend was driving his friend's car around last week and got pulled over. The cop rolls up to the window, looks at him, says, "you're not Mike," turns around and walks away. This "Mike" has DUI's on record, one pending trial, umpteen moving violations, and is regarded by the police as the source of any and all havoc that happened for the past decade in the small town where he lives. Sometimes just being known is suspicion enough.

  • KDN||

    *2 DUI's.

  • hmm||

    Cops aren't experts people. Jesus what do you all want? Competent rulers or rulers to keep you safe. You aren't getting both so pick one.

  • hmm||

    I await the terry frisk discussion from our grand pubah of copdom.

  • david||

    a) Cops are not rulers. We did away with the ruler thing over 200 years ago.
    b) Cops should be expected to know the law that they are enforcing.
    c) There was no safety issue involved.

  • ||

    At first glance, this appears to be taken seriously

    D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan is investigating why two journalists were arrested, handcuffed and removed Wednesday from a "public" meeting of the city's taxicab commission.

    Also

    Ward 6 Council member Tommy Wells, who has oversight of the taxi commission, wrote a stern letter to the attorney general demanding that the incident be fully investigated.

    “I am troubled by actions taken by the (Commission),” Wells wrote. “I look forward to receiving your timely response.”

    Wells said he is dissatisfied with the overall operation of the taxi commission and is studying ways of eliminating it, perhaps letting the city’s transportation department oversee the cab industry.
  • Almanian||

    What they didn't report was what happened AFTER the reporters left:

    Guy#1: Pfffftt...bbbb.....pfff...baaahahahahahahahaha!!!

    Guy#2: I know, right! Baaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha! Oh boy, that was funny...

    Guy#1: Whew...OK...let's go get that drink.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Hey, now that's somewhat refreshing. A politician with some sense of public duty

  • ||

    As bad as I feel for this guy, his whiny voice was almost enough for me to not care that he was being arrested.

    Coffee, cigarettes, and a gallon of milk a day, sonny.

    It sounded like a dad scolding his two year old.

  • ||

    What's the appropriate way to sound when you're rights are being ignored and violated?!

    I don't understand how you can criticize someone for the way their voice sounds when they're complaining about being arrested for doing nothing illegal or wrong.

  • ||

    Damnn, Ken. Did you leave your sense of humor in Boston, too??

  • ||

    I don't know what Boston has to do with anything.

    I haven't been to Boston in years.

    And, no, try as I might, I can't figure out why criticizing how people sound as they're being arrested for nothing is in any way funny.

  • ||

    Jesus tittyfucking christ.

  • ||

    But FTR, I can understand what he's feeling which I would imagine to be a mix of shock, bewilderment, and slight belligerence in the face of some random jackbooted faggot taking away your civil liberties. So, yes, I too, have this.. what do you call it?

  • Bud Jamison||

    You shoot picture, we shoot you!

  • creech||

    Serious reforms to "sovereign immunity" laws would be a good project for state Libertarian Parties. Also, rules of engagements for SWAT.
    We have to stop whining about the "Balko nut kick" incidents and start trying to do something about them.

  • ||

    We are doing something about it. We post our indignation on the internet! Screw with us too much and we might even send a link to somebody - maybe with an angry note attached.

    Don't underestimate us. We can get really, really snarky if we have to.

  • B.P.||

    Remain still or you're under arrest?

  • Revenuer||

    Remain under the still or you're arrested!

  • Brendan Perez||

    Was going to post about just that.

    It's pretty reasonable to say that he was under arrest before he was "arrested".

  • Officer||

    I axed your child to stop drawing me!

  • ||

    This is nothing more than criminalizing the gathering of evidence and our courts let these pigs get away with it. Whether it is an open meeting or the cop on the street, all these videos are evidence.

    In in action, whether civil or criminal, there are societal and personal, and legal interests in accumulating and disseminating evidence.

    Courts are epistemologically incompetent.

  • Dello||

    Let's be clear: You WEREN'T "arrested", you were being "held" as a "material witness" to the OTHER guy's phone being taken, and YOUR phone just happened to have that evidence.

    Nothing improper here. Move along.

  • Eric Holder||

    I would say "person of interest," but your version will fly.

  • enhanced interrogator||

    he's only a few gallons of water fm "material witness" to "criminal scum" & lastly "bitch for sale cheap!"

  • ||

    Actually, that sounds remarkably similar to the serious commentariate over at PoliceOne. I'd love to see their take on this.

  • nigmalg||

    Phone has evidence? get a subpoena. They don't get to confiscate it.

  • Applederry||

    Who was the lady saying "we don't have to react this way"?

    She should've been saying that to the guys who arrested someone for taking a fucking picture.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Park Police.

    Again I point out that government parks should simply not exist.

  • ||

    "Park and lock it."

  • sevo||

    Besides the ridiculous claim that a "reporter" can't film a public meeting, why should anyone be barred from doing so?
    I'm paying the salaries of these jackasses; I have every right to monitor them in any manner I please.

  • An Important Caveat||

    I have every right to monitor them in any manner I please.

    I'm pretty sure they draw the line significantly before "rectally".

  • GILMORE||

    There is a point in the exercise of authority where it no longer is about any "violation" or "law" or even the context/substance of what it is people are in dispute about...

    Meaning - things devolve in a viscious cycle to where the original 'offense' is no longer the reason at all for why Authority decides to Exercise itself.

    It becomes a matter of "Acknowledge my Implicit Authority, or I will Use it Capriciously!"

    The question of whether using a camera/video IS or IS NOT legal or constitutional or whatever in the context of a public hearing is completely irrelevant; the issue becomes "We Told You to Stop; You Are Questioning Our Command; The Questioning of Our Authority Is A Greater Offence Than Camera Use"

    I mean, it reminds me of how some idiotic parents/babysitters will try and *demand* children do something that is semi unreasonable for a 2yr old to do ("Sit still and quiet for an hour!!"); and when they fail to comply, the parent/babysitter tries to FORCE them to sit still and quiet...which simply makes a child struggle and scream more...which makes the parent say "STOP SCREAMING!!!"..and now the kid is wailing and flailing and pissing themselves...

    ...when if all they had done was handed the kid his lollipop and turned on the TV, there never would have been an issue anyway.

    Ok, shitty analogy I know, but the essential illogic of the way these 'cameras in public places' issues play out is completely absurd. They no longer have anything to do with the right to document things in public spaces... It has become completely detatched from any real logic regarding that question. It's just about Authority escalating anything other than immediate and silient obedience to whatever random command they give into something resembling Criminal Resist of Arrest... even though there was no arrestable offense in the first place.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the cops who do shit like this are the same kind of people who shake their babies to death for crying too much.

  • GILMORE||

    ...oh, and to magnify just how absurb this whole viscious-cycle thing is...

    When would you want to suddenly videotape public officials the most? WHEN THEY'RE ARBITRARILY DETAINING YOU WITHOUT CAUSE

    When do cops most often arbitrarily detain people without cause? WHEN THEY'RE BEING FILMED

    Chicken, egg?

  • ||

    "We Told You to Stop; You Are Questioning Our Command; The Questioning of Our Authority Is A Greater Offence Than Camera Use"

    Used as facetious example here on H&R. Actual serious commentary over at PoliceOne.

  • david||

    URL? Can't find the commentary.

  • ||

    Generic observation, not particular to this incident. I doubt they have any notion that this incident exists. If it didn't involve an officer shooting or being shot or a threat to pay, overtime or pension, they aren't that worked up about it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Check this:

    Tucker reported back in May of interim DCTC chairman Dena Reed's aversion to having cameras record public meetings.

    "You cannot record the meeting unless the commission allows you to do so, it does not," Reed said back then. When asked to show where the commission's rules say that, Reed responded: "I can't show you anything because it's not written in there."

    ...

    [Reed said via a press statement]I understand that Mr. Tucker was detained by the Park Police for disorderly conduct (not for filming the meeting). I was still in my Commission meeting as the exchange between Mr. Tucker and the Park Police happened in the hallway. I was not aware that he was arrested until I was leaving; I thought he was simply escorted out. The Commission has no interest in having him arrested, but his conduct outside of the meeting with the U.S. Park Police resulted in his detention. I now understand that a second person was detained, but I have no idea who he is or why he was detained.

    So that arrest that occurred at the meeting was not at the behest of the Taxi Commission? Reed basically says "Who you gonna believe: me or your lyin' eyes?"

  • GILMORE||

    p.s.

    the other thing that I've seen many times before is that a cop will say "Dont move; wait here - 'Or Else' I will arrest you" ... so they stand still, but talk to someone while doing so... And the cop arrests them ANYWAY for *that*

    The idea being "Do what I tell you OR ELSE..." = an If A->B threat... "He refused a direct command"

    - but in the end, the implication is "I Can and Will Arrest You FOR ANYTHING I WANT If I So Choose" - and Goddammit, they *will* just to make the @#()$ point.

    Did the cop tell you to NOT 'get the attention of the cab drivers?' ; No - but apparently you broke the Spirit of the earlier order to stand still... the spirit of the order being...

    Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17 ESV)

  • ||

    The law takes a functional rather than a formalist position about arrest: a detention occurs whenever a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.

    Thus, if "stay put" is followed with an "or else I will arrest you" threat, then you are ALREADY under arrest regardless of what else the pig says or does, and you should immediately assert your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

  • ||

    I.e., shut up, other than to ask for a lawyer.

  • Paul||

    My question: Why does Tucker keep calling the officer "sir"?

    He should refer to him as "employee" or "subordinate" or some such thing.

  • CE||

    Sue them for false arrest and wrongful imprisonment.

  • Liberty||

    If we continue to act like sheep we will continue to be herded.

  • ||

    Jim you need to post the names of the arresting officers with a photo.
    Then a member of the Reason staff must locate their addresses then all should be posted on this website.
    This will make it easier for freedom fighters to protest in front of the officers homes.

  • Officer||

    You protest in front of my home and, so help me God, I will videotape you!

  • ||

    What is going on?

    Is this a union thing?

    Is it a government intimidation thing?

    Is it both?

  • ||

    In any event, it ain't no dessert topping.

  • ||

    "You do not have permission to record this!"

    Let me say this as politely as I know how: Fuck you!

  • COP||

    Stop. Resisting.
    (thud)
    Stop Resisting.
    (owww!!)
    Stop Resisting.
    (MY EYES!!!..AAYYYYYEEE)

  • gritsly||

    "I did not give you the right to record me."

    Where did this idea that you have to have permission to record or photo someone in public come from? Did a memo go out that I missed? The idea seems to be fairly widespread among the public in general and government workers in particular. It confuses me.

  • Jeff P.||

    "I was recording them because I thought they were terrorists."

  • Phlogistan||

    And you were arrested for creating Video images of US officials which could be used on the terrorist Hit List.

  • GILMORE||

    I'm beginning to think that people who work for Government bureaucracies understand the Bill of Rights more as the 'Bill of Things We Provide Permission For Contingent Upon Our Whim'

  • Robert||

    What I don't understand is why somebody cared that they were being photographed, yet didn't care that there were loads of witnesses present -- unless it really is as GILMORE wrote, i.e. that somebody decided to throw her weight around just to show that she was a person to be reckoned with.

  • Dena Reed||

    "I DO NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO MAKE THESE OBSERVATIONS!"

  • david||

    Go to trial. Take depositions. If they drop the charges, as I expect they will, sue them, then take depositions.

  • Cascadian||

    Taxi commissioners would be the very definition of "hack politicians."

  • Joshua||

    Jim,
    If you want to record surreptitiously, I recommend getting a lanyard for your phone & hang it around your neck. Cinch it up to just below your collar & it sees what you see. Also, there's an app for uploading real time video to the web. I think it's called Qik, but that way there's no concern of them erasing your.

  • ||

    +1

  • GILMORE||

    I used to use a pair of mini omnidirectional condenser mics plugged into an iRiver recorder/Ipod clone which could record ambient rooms at very low volumes with great clarity. You could use them for everything from bootlegging live music to recording lectures @ school or whatever. The key is that they have integral preamps (usually a 9v battery).... or something like the little MAudio portable recorders, which have integrated powered mics. e.g. http://www.amazon.com/M-Audio-.....B000ANQXKS

    video, I dont know... but simply mounting a freaking phone is hardly 'disruptive'

  • Hidden Camera||

  • ||

    That was outrageous.

  • ||

    So it is somewhat of a vague statute but these arrests for filming police need to start being prosecuted at the federal level. Press, speech and assembly are protected by the First Amendment. Deprivation of a constitutional right under the color of law violates the Civil Rights Act 18USC242. Conspiring with another to deprive an individual of constitutional rights violates 18USC241 with a much more severe punishment. People need to start pressuring their Congressmen for intervention by the Civil Rights Division of DOJ. Its the one Federal Law Enforcement enitity that is ostensibly charged with the protection of individual rights.

    I also hope Messrs. Epstein and Tucker will file Bivens claims against the Park Police.

    The Police and the police state mentality both need to be reigned back in.

  • ||

    Reason and you people are such pussies.
    I posted hours ago that the names, photos and addresses of the arresting officers should be posted on this website so freedom fighters know where to protest.
    And what has happened since?
    Nada, zilch, nothing.

    Guys if not libertarins, then who will start the revolution?

  • ||

    Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

    “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

    “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

    “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

    “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

    As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

  • ||

    Nazi cops fuck off!

  • non||

    John Adams, the SCOTUS case you mention is over 100 years old, and it says Indian cops don't have the same authority as real cops. By all means inform people of their rights, but I wouldn't count on the courts to back you up.

  • ||

    And how about the 15 other cases cited? Are they all also too old to matter?

  • ||

    My name is Larry Singleton. I was surrounded, intimidated and threatened by five cops, which included two captains, in Rialto CA They then extorted a hundred and fifty dollars from me in the form of a "jaywalking ticket" This was all courtesy of the Mayor, councilman Baca and Captain Farrar for having the audacity to complain about illegal immigration in what is a sancturary city.

  • ||

    My name is Larry Singleton. I was surrounded, intimidated and threatened by five cops, which included two captains, in Rialto CA They then extorted a hundred and fifty dollars from me in the form of a "jaywalking ticket" This was all courtesy of the Mayor, councilman Baca and Captain Farrar for having the audacity to complain about illegal immigration in what is a sancturary city.

  • ||

    What happens in the US crosses the Atlantic and comes to the UK. I remember when we used to laugh at the lunacy of political correctness, but that is no laughing matter in the UK now. Please sort this fascism out and eradicate it before it comes to us. In the UK we have a short reprieve with the ousting of the Blair Brown control freak administration, but our liberty is not secured. We do not need to be infected with this sort of thing, so please take whatever medicine you can find that will cure you and save you.

  • ||

    I'm looking through these comments, and I'm simply aghast. You people sound like you're chit-chatting over coffee! Does no act of tyranny rile your passions any more? Did it ever? Lock me up all you want, just let me have my soy milk latte and iPhone Twitter app? God help us.

  • tr0n||

    Those cab drivers are great. Walking out of a meeting like that was a smart move. I'm going to be more generous with tips from now on.

  • Arnold Williams||

    A suggestion for future phone recordings: ustream.com and youtube.com both accept realtime uploads from most phones. That way, if the phone is confiscated, the information has already "left the building".

  • ||

    Please!!!!file a billion $$$lawsuit...

  • ||

    This is a perfect example of how the left shuts down anything that gets in its way of squeezing more and more freedom and money and choice out of our pockets.

  • Dave||

    Both reporters should contact the ACLU and sue their asses off.

  • ||

    Jeez, don't any of you know that ALL of the Taxi Commission meetings are SECRET Public meetings? Get a grip!

  • ||

    Why does the man being arrested keep referring the the Cop as Sir., The Cop looked and acted like a pig to me and a pig does not deserve a Sir designation. This is the start of a police state. The good people of The United States are in real trouble.

  • ||

    Google "First Amendment Free Press"
    "Photographer's Rights"

    In California:
    O'Grady vs Superior Court of Santa Clara County
    False Arrest
    Kidnapping
    California Penal Code. 422.6 Intimidation against rights

  • ||

    I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff,BuzzSave. com

  • rense||

    Psychopathic people are in public office.

  • ||

    "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

    James Madison
    The Federalist No. 47
    January 30, 1788

  • زفات||

    thank you

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

  • Jamil||

    It really Doesn't get any better then this.

  • moncler women||

    thank you

  • Nike Dunk High||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement