Video: Cops shove, choke, arrest ABC reporter taping Democratic senators meeting with top donors; Update: Edwards pal Fred Baron at meeting?
posted at 8:52 pm on August 27, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In fairness, his assignment might have had nothing to do with his treatment here. Supposedly it was hotel management that got annoyed and called the cops because they objected to him blocking a private sidewalk. The cops came, he wouldn’t leave, so naturally they had to … shove him across the street and grab him by the throat. According to the Denver Post, it wasn’t just Boulder County police involved; at least one officer there, probably the one doing the shoving in the clip, was a hotel security guard wearing a sheriff’s uniform for whatever reason. Smart thinkin’ roughing a guy up from a national news bureau with cameramen standing by.
Speculative exit question: Which senators, do you think? Click the image to watch.
Update: I can’t tell if the meeting referred to in this report is the same one that ABC was investigating when their producer got busted. But wherever there’s trouble a-brewin’, you’ll find Fred “The Best Friend Anyone’s Ever Had” Baron!
Fred Baron, a wealthy Texas trial lawyer and former finance chairman for Edwards’ presidential campaign, was seen Tuesday at a private luncheon for top party donors and key senators.
Baron, a longtime major contributor to Democratic candidates, would not answer questions from ABC News and walked away when he saw cameras.
The exclusive lunch was organized by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for its highest level donor group known at the Legacy Circle.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]
Step out of line
The man comes
And takes you away
We’d better STOP…
DfDeportation on August 28, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Do you work for the Religion of Peace website as a writer? It seems just a wee bit ironic (and unlikely) that someone who exposes the horrors of Islamofascism would take the cops side in the Denver incident.
Makes sense to me! If the incident had been in front of a bar or liquor store he could have had a few jiggers of his favorite cocktail down his “pie hole”.
Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 10:12 AM
There are daily reports of actual, documented, and often photographed police abuse. Are you saying this is not the case?
Right, and McCain’s bill wasn’t amnesty, because he said so. Ever heard the phrase, “If it looks like a duck, has feathers, waddles and quacks…”
Regardless of your protestations, this was clearly unnecessarily excessive force given the circumstances. So your defense of the “definition of choke” is irrelevant, and a straw man and red herring at the same time.
Small minded? Cop-hating? It’s “Blue Wall” mentalities like yours that cause ordinary citizens to distrust or even dislike LEO in general. You’ve undermined your own credibility by openly taking the comments personally. Methinketh thou dost protest too much.
You contradict yourself in the very same paragraph. First you say neither you nor anyone else can say who’s right or wrong, then you say this isn’t police abuse? I’m sorry, were you there?
“Submit to our will or get out.” You stay classy.
fossten on August 28, 2008 at 10:19 AM
First of all the is in Denver, not Boulder. Second, they don’t look like typical Denver cops. Did you notice that one had a credentials badge around his neck. I’d say the top tier Dems and their money men hired these cops to keep media and onlookers away. I’m not saying they aren’t Denver cops, but cops do moonlight. Plus, what’s with the one with the stogie, did he have a captains cap on?
There is a story on ABC-America This Morning, but I missed the beginning of it, and am trying to find it.
reshas1 on August 28, 2008 at 10:22 AM
He’s a writer, dontcha know!
Once again, this came from someone whose name links to one of the best websites around on the horrors of Islamofascism.
Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Wow. I’m flattered you spent all that time on that comment FOSSTEN, even though all of the quotes you used are out of context and none were in direct response to anything you had said in this thread. Save yourself some trouble and some embarrassment next time though, and back read before you butt into conversations you’re not involved in.
Be that as it may, you stay sassy!
SilverStar830 on August 28, 2008 at 10:26 AM
That it is my friend. That it is.
SilverStar830 on August 28, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I wonder what senator gave the cop the cigar to teach that punk reporter a lesson?
GatewayMac on August 28, 2008 at 10:28 AM
The bottom line is this… We do not have any idea what really happened to make the LEO’s come and ask this man to leave the area. We could be seeing the tail end of this guy making an ass of himself inside the hotel and refusing an order from the property owner to leave. Or maybe he did leave and set up on the PUBLIC (no such thing as a private sidewalk) sidewalk to wait for the people he was looking for to leave the hotel and re-enter public property. Some of the people here are correct to say that we don’t know everything that really happened because we were not there. Speaking from experience though, I have to say that the LEO’s probably could have handled this better, especially knowing that they were being filmed. Some of the officers were saying some pretty stupid things on the video, and pushing a person into a busy street is not a good idea no matter who you are. However, telling a cop “just a second” when he gives you a command is just asking for trouble. If you feel that the officer is outside the bounds of his authority or is giving you a command that you need not or should not follow, the time to argue that is not right then! That is what things like OPA boards and complaint processes are for. But again, the bottom line is this- unless you are a cop or are married to one, you don’t have the slightest idea what their job is like. I suggest a weekend ride-along during a swing or graveyard shift to help with that. The other side is that as somebody said earlier, cops are people too, and they come from the same pool we all do, so they can and do make mistakes. The vast majority of them see doing their jobs as a duty and and an honor, and want to serve and protect the people, much the same as soldiers, but there are a few here and there that get a kick out of abusing their power, and when they get caught doing it, it is not a pretty sight. Usually I would not care if a news person gets a beating, but from what I saw, both sides made mistakes. However, cops are held to a higher standard of job performance (not always rightly), and it looks like this performance fell short in a couple of spots… On a tangent, nobody has any expectation of privacy in a public space, so if the news crew wanted to set up outside a hotel and film people coming out, they have every right to do so, as long as they are not getting in anybody’s way or blocking people from going about their chosen activities.
virology76 on August 28, 2008 at 10:38 AM
The story isn’t about the cops, IMO, it’s about who the fat cats are who HIRED the cops. I want to see the video that this reporter got of the people entering the hotel. THAT is the story.
reshas1 on August 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM
This wouldn’t have happened if the Democrat protesters had met their responsibility and showed up in force. The cops were so looking forward to having something to do… so they did.
Greg Toombs on August 28, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I suspect all charges, even the trumped up ones, will be dropped. The officer who initially pushed the producer both assaulted (pushing/forcing) and endangered (off a curb and into a trafficked street) a credentialed reporter on public property. There is video evidence of those actions.
There may or may not be video of other action preceding the initial assault. And why is it an assault? The initial push had the officer physically move a person off a sidewalk and in to the middle of the street. The producer did not strike back but he did resist by trying to keep balanced - clearly understandable given he was being forced into traffic. He was not arrested at that point for resisting arrest or for interference or for trespassing. It was two hours later when his throat was grabbed/chocked when he was arrested for those charges. It appears he was still on the scene but across the street as originally ordered.
I think ABC and the producer has a decent case against the Denver Police and I think the police will readily drop the charges to avoid further embarrassment and because the hired officers accomplished their goal, namely, hiding from the public the scrutiny the ABC team wanted to provide. It will probably be up to ABC to decide if they want to press the issue.
AnonymousDrivel on August 28, 2008 at 11:01 AM
So do you write for them (writing is not “filling out forms”) or do you just link your name to them? Heck, I could like to the White House’s website if I wanted to.
Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Correction:
I could [link] to the White House’s website…
Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Out of context? According to you, all you have been saying is that it wasn’t a choke hold. So I shouldn’t need to back read, correct? See below:
Nevertheless, I did backread, and my quotations of your comments were completely in context. Nothing was omitted.
You lose, again.
fossten on August 28, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Being a career Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) myself, I rarely ever comment in threads on the net involving police actions and tactics unless it’s on a LEO website. It’s instantly a lost battle. The participants always lack the knowledge to make logical and fact based decisions, and they are usually immature. There are just too many cop haters that relish the opportunity to let the hate flow, and nothing any cop can say will change their perspective.
However, I feel compelled to post my very brief thoughts in this case.
First of all, I have to side with SilverStar830 and with what he has been trying to say here. That was not a choke hold. It was merely a control and compliance technique used by accessing mandibular pressure points. It is usually done from the rear of the subject, but the frontal mandibular pinch works too. Given that in anticipation of the DNC coming, the LEO’s, and even private security have been receiving MUCH training and equipment issuing in the last year or so. Long and intensive riot control and defensive tactics training usually results in “muscle memory”. It doesn’t look like the cop went beyond his training.
Second of all, it is quite true, albeit an uncomfortable fact, that if a LEO gives you direction, you follow said direction and you will avoid any and all unnecessary potential discomforts associated with ignoring said directions, especially when the LEO is tasked to conduct his sworn duties in the atmosphere of riots and mob mentality.
That being said, we have no inkling of what the precursor was for this incident. As SilverStar830 and a few others have pointed out, the video is surely not representative of the entire incident, and the LEO didn’t choke anyone. It surely does not show the entire actions of the subject of their interest and was obviously edited to reflect only the physical and “dramatic’ actions of the LEO’s. There’s almost no dialog to fill in the gaps. The reporter guy could have just walked away as he was initially instructed and this would have never happened.
I’m done. Thank you.
*p.s.- SilverStar830, just give up trying to help them “see the light”. There’s no shame in giving up in cases like these. They’ll never grasp it all. Stay safe out there.
FlatFoot on August 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Sheesh. Thank you for your input, but no matter how this incident is interpreted it was not an issue of someone who was part of a riot or engaged in mob mentality, and surely a police officer knows the difference and can act accordingly.
Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Har I guess the local Blue Knights were convinced he was “an army of one”.
Tell me officers do you enjoy doing local political hatchetwork?
sven10077 on August 28, 2008 at 1:31 PM
RE: FlatFoot [August 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM]
Yes, your elaboration on technique is insightful; however, I think it unfair to impugn so widely those who are making a critique here as “cop haters.” I think we all want justice, whether it be from inquisitive media to LEO’s who overstep their boundaries.
Two points:
1) While it’s true that you can avoid discomfort by following any order given by an LEO, a citizen is not required to do so. One takes a chance that one knows the situational law better than the enforcing officer when refusing an order, but every command from an LEO is not legal or justifiable. It’s dangerous for the public to accept at face value every utterance of LEOs, too, without some consideration.
2) In this particular case, there was no context of rioting or mob mentality in play. To introduce that as a justification here, even though Denver Police had been sensitized to the possibility of such escalation happening somewhere in Denver, is a bridge too far. The police were overreacting. They had 5+ officers two hours after the fact arrest a peaceful, professional citizen who was acting practically alone. This looked to me not like a routine procedure to arrest but a chance to inflict some sort of pain or, at a minimum, an attempt to publicly humiliate. Very unprofessional even if technically precise. Granted, I’ve not seen all the evidence, but were I on a jury and presented only what I’ve seen, the PD would be responsible for a hefty fine.
I believe in respecting the police, but not blindly. Citizens have rights that cannot be trampled and the press has a few special considerations. Overly stimulated LEOs are not entitled to disrespect either.
AnonymousDrivel on August 28, 2008 at 1:34 PM
WOW, talk a bout a police department screwing up big time. ABC Reporter Eslocker, has good grounds for a civil rights law suit. Plus, which political party now wears the brown shirts.
Just a preview of coming attractions if Oblahblah were to get elected!
byteshredder on August 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I hope that guy sues. But even more, I hope he finds out why they roughed him up in the first place and under who’s orders.
bloggless on August 28, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Is pushing people into traffic part of their training?
I’m all for cops doing their jobs. I thought the “Don’t tase me, bro!” thing was completely twisted around by the press, for example. And that guy in the UCLA library a couple years back, that was a huge overreaction. Those cops were doing their jobs and operating within their own guidelines. But I’ve never heard of the “Shove into Traffic” method before.
Yeah, this guy was being a snotty twerp, yakking into his cellphone and saying “Just a second” to a cop twice his size. But that’s no excuse to push him out into the street.
Jim Treacher on August 28, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Flat Foot:
I too am a career LEO and you are absolutely right on the technique that was applied on this individual, in regards to whatever action was taken WHEN the decision to arrest was made. I will respectfully disagree, however, in the actions by this Officer prior to making the decision to arrest.
As an old FTO once told me, first you ask them to do it, then you tell them, then, you hook ‘em up. End of story. Once you lay hands on them, you should have made the decision to arrest them. Pushing the guy into the street, shoving him for no apparent reason, is not only bad people handling skills, but it is also bad tactics.
IMHO, if he had enough to touch him, he had enough to arrest him. Then, whatever he did to effect that arrest was well within reason…
CapitalistPig on August 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Thank all three of you for your service. Sincerely. Can any of you elaborate on why the officer in question decided to try to play the videogame Frogger with the newsie?
Thanks in advance.
sven
sven10077 on August 28, 2008 at 2:52 PM
What happened before the tape started? What happened in the (obvious) lost minutes of that tape from the time it was merely hotel security to the time the other people (magically) arrived? Why does your screen cap appear to show the guy getting choked out but the video reveals he wasn’t choked at all? But rather just an unfortunate (momentary) hand placement. (Remember when Bobby Knight was “caught” on tape “choking” a player?)
srhoades on August 28, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I acknowledged and have used the nervehold in question. I am not kneejerk in disdain for LEOs. That said why did the cop in question try to play frogger with the newsie?
sven10077 on August 28, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Would you arrest me, if you saw me do to that reporter what the police officer did?
coldshot on August 28, 2008 at 3:03 PM
RE: srhoades [August 28, 2008 at 2:59 PM]
There are two scenes involved. The first was on the publicly accessible right-of-way sidewalk in front of the hotel. Burly, follicle-challenged LEO addresses and pushes ABC representative off sidewalk and into street. Cameraman/boom follow behind and then turns off camera once scene two is approximately reached. No arrest made. Reportedly, two hours elapse w/o incident.
ABC representatives remain at scene two, approximately directly across the street from hotel from where they were ordered earlier. Cameraman/boom resumes filming to catch multiple officers arrest producer from earlier incidents. Burly, follicle-challenged LEO is present and makes physical contact with assistance from several other LEO’s. At least two more remain indirectly involved as reinforcement and to create a peripheral barrier. Producer is restrained, handcuffed, and escorted away from scene two.
Why the missing sequences in between the scenes? Probably because nothing, if filmed, related to the actual arrest process. Either it didn’t exist because the ABC personnel were still waiting across the street for footage of the Democrat meeting and only turned on the camera when the LEO’s approached, or some unrelated, cutting room floor footage was excised because it would have been irrelevant.
All the facts are unavailable so far, but the important point was that there were two scenes to this episode, and the actual arrest was made at the second one well away from the initial point of “offense” and considerably after the fact.
Some speculation on my part, but I would suggest that some members of the meeting were about to leave and the LEOs, at the request of their employer (having seen that ABC was still ready to film from afar), were told to get rid of the nuisance across the street on another, different public right-of-way. I guess we’ll have to wait on an ABC follow-up.
AnonymousDrivel on August 28, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Questions for any LEOs still following:
Would the burly, follicle-challenged LEO, if serving as a private security officer for the hotel (ie. not actually on duty for the city), have the legal right to physically arrest a trespasser? Would it be that he is actually constrained by his “off-duty” work to a subset of law enforcement functions, and that explains the threats and the pushing w/o any actual arrest at that initial encounter? Would that explain why there was such a delay in the arrest for the trespass and other charges? Would they only be able to act upon an arrest once on-duty officers respond to a request for assistance?
That would seem to me to make sense of the significant delay, but I don’t know the technicalities of such an off-duty assignment when such a trivial offense is encountered.
AnonymousDrivel on August 28, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Bingo. Never saw an officer chomp on a cigar while on duty either.
Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Found it.
You fail to mention that you think everybody envies you. Im sure your department therapist has told you that your expressed frustrations are often a reflection of your own personal misgivings.
I get it now. You think that people envy your “power.” The flip side of that is that you believe your power is enviable.
You are a man who needs a badge as opposed to one who takes simple pride in wearing one. You summon imagery of the worst kind of ego-bruised, tough guy. Take it easy on your wife and kids too.
The Race Card on August 28, 2008 at 4:39 PM
AnonymousDrivel:
It depends on the department policy. In Texas, you are considered an LEO 24×7 and are obligated to act if you see something which demands your intervention. Now considering the obvious officer safety issues involved in such a policy, that intervention may include just dialing 911. Local police here are authorized to arrest, even if working in a pseudo “off-duty” capacity, where the person who hired the officer will pay for the officer’s time during processing, booking, etc. The caveat is that the officer must act within department policy, as the City is in effect, vouching for your actions. Last I heard, forcing a violator into a game of Frogger is not within most department policies.
CapitalistPig on August 28, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Thanks, CapitalistPig.
That makes sense. I was probably commingling the functions and responsibilities of, say, a security guard who actually isn’t a licensed, city/state officer and one who is but works part-time as a security guard. As you noted, jurisdiction and policy clearly would impose subtle differences, too, but the main point remains that arrests can be made should the situation arise.
AnonymousDrivel on August 28, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3]