DISQUS

Joe Mama · 1 year ago

Total abuse of police authority (and an excellent pro bono opportunity for anyone barred in TN).

jnolan · 1 year ago

Did the police officer have a video camera in his cruiser? If so this fact absolutely negates any assertion of privilege by the officer, as having his picture taken would now be considered a normal part of his job.

Max · 1 year ago

We just had this whole go around over the right to bear arms. Now the next battle is the right to bear witness. So it goes.

Daniel · 1 year ago

I would hope this gets more circulation.
This cannot be tolerated in our society.

Scott · 1 year ago

Does anyone know his name? If a citizen does this isn't his name plastered all over the place.

Doug · 1 year ago

Isn't it time that all pro-Constitutional Americans begin photographing/videoing ALL observed instances of public officials performing their duties in public? Sure, lots of useless images will be acquired, but they're just pixels, and pixels are free---99% of such images can be (independently) deleted by the photographer within the next half hour. The 1% worth keeping are the ones we all must see and use to safeguard our vanishing civil liberties. If the State insists on photographing and sniffing me in public spaces, by God I too demand the right to peaceably and unobstrusively surveil State actors in public spaces.

dcl · 1 year ago

My option, the man should call the DA and demand that the officer be arrested for kidnapping, assault, and false imprisonment. If the local DA won't do it, call the Feds. If the feds won't do it, take him to civil court and also sue the ever loving crap out of the county and demand the officer be fired and (if he fails to file charges) the DA be impeached for failure to defend protect and uphold the Constitution. I know I know, I'm going over board, but this kind of bullshit really really pisses me off.

SomeJew · 1 year ago

Your right, but unfortunately most states give immunity to officers for most crimes committed against the citizenry. That probably includes the kidnapping, the assault, and false imprisonment. Luckily though he can file civil suit against the officer and city and go for as much as he wants since his liberties are priceless and most judges award in the minimum millions of dollars for unlawful losses of civil liberties.

willc2 · 1 year ago

If you would rather be happy than be right; delete the photos in front of the authority figure and use a file recovery program once you get home. As long as you don't take more shots on that card, you will get the images back. I know you shouldn't have to but it is VERY difficult to win an argument with a cop. Once you get taken to jail, it's probably going to cost money and irreplaceable time and you are not likely to get real satisfaction.

dcl · 1 year ago

Brendan, just to reiterate in regards to the point "examples need to be made" the cop should not just be fired for his illegal act, he should go to jail. I'm not necessarily saying he should get life without parole (which would be what an ordinary citizen would get if they used a gun in the course of kidnapping if I recall correctly) but he should be charged for all crimes he committed in the course of his illegal act and he needs to go to jail. The only way cops won't abuse their power is if they know their feet will be held to the fire and they do. While recognizing that an officer must not fear serious reprisal for carrying out their duty in good faith if things turn out not to be as they thought they were. When lack of good faith is clear, the penalty should be severe, and it should be equal to what would happen to a person that did what they did, that didn't happen to be carrying around a badge.

frissell · 1 year ago

Or he could delete the photo and later use software to undelete it. This might be harder on an IPhone but any memory card can easily be undeleted. http://www.cardrecovery.com offers one of several utilities.

realist · 1 year ago

Some of you are missing the point - you say it can't be tolerated; well, it ISN'T being tolerated. The citizen involved is exercising his rights, and he will win. The systems IS WORKING.

Relax - we aren't in a "police state" yet, in spite of what the moonbats would have you think.....

it's the LAW · 1 year ago

Simple solution: envoke TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

JND · 1 year ago

Stinkinig pig cops.

Dreadnaught · 1 year ago

Sickening. This man should never have been allowed to become a police officer. What was he trying to hide. Thanks for the post. I only hope I would not back down. I hope I do not have to find out.

JO · 1 year ago

While I do agree that the cop did go a little (well, maybe a lot) overboard in this situation one does have to question why the dude decided to photograph the cop in the first place.

Use some common sense here. It's reasonable to think that in this day and age, snapping photos of a cop doing his job is DEFINITELY going to create a controversial situation that could easily escalate to what happened here.

irishtrojan · 1 year ago

Wait, wait, wait. So, let me get this straight. Citizens shouldn't exercise their rights to: 1) police the police (who watches the watchers??), and 2) take pictures of public events occurring in public places (which any police activity on a public street certainly qualifies as), because, if they do, it will "create a controversial situation"?!?!

You are dead wrong, JO. Dead wrong. One does NOT "have to question why the dude decided to photograph the cop in the first place." One may feel free to ask that question if one wishes, but one doesn't "have" to -- and the "dude" certainly doesn't "have to" answer. On the contrary, if someone asks why he's taking the picture, he may feel free to not answer, because he has every right to take the picture, and no one has the right to demand an explanation as to why he's doing so.

Taking a picture in a public place, of an individual who is not within any zone of privacy, is not an illegal, or even a suspicious, activity. It's even LESS so (not MORE so) when the individual in question is an officer of the law, whose activities are inherently and properly subject to public scrutiny. (Police officers work for the citizenry, not the other way around!)

Engaging in perfectly legal, non-threatening, non-disruptive activity does not (legitimately) subject an individual to interrogation from the police. You know why? Because we don't live in a police state. We live in a nation of laws. The police only get to interrogate you if you BREAK THE LAW, or at least appear to be doing so.

Citizens don't have to justify their clearly-legal activities (like taking pictures in public places) to all askers. They only have to explain themselves if they're doing something that constitutes, or could reasonably be interpreted as constituting, breaking the law. If they're just standing there, doing something they have every right on God's green earth to do, nobody gets to demand that they explain themselves.

That said, I agree with you that, as a factual statement, "snapping photos of a cop doing his job" will often "create a controversial situation that could easily escalate to what happened here." And that is a huge, huge problem. It's precisely what I am objecting to. Because that should not be true, and to the extent it is true, it is an affront to our freedom and liberty.

What you call "common sense," I call authoritarianism, my friend.

(Aaaand, there goes 12 minutes of my blogging/commenting time for the week...)

Alastor · 1 year ago

Brendan

Is there a prize for whomever as an individual causes you to use the highest number of your weekly 'billable' blog minutes ?

Perhaps an entry on one of the side-bars ?

(grin)

pthread · 1 year ago

It worries me that you actually had to explain yourself further. I can't believe anyone would even remotely defend this cop.

JO · 1 year ago

I'm am in no way defending the cop in this situation. I understand the whole freedom, rights and liberty thing and how they should be upheld, protected and whatnot without having to succumb to authoritarian regulation.

The big , however, comes in when we ask what prompted this individual to take the picture. If he was simply out taking photos of the birds, bees and happened to snap a picture of the cop for no other reason than the cop happened to be in the frame, then yes this individual had his rights trampled on by an abusive authoritarian cop-thug. However, if the individual reasonably knew that by taking this picture, it would instigate a confrontation and took the picture simply for that reason, then a case could be made that this individual is not so innocent and by his actions caused the confrontation to occur.

Engaging in perfectly legal, non-threatening, non-disruptive activity does not (legitimately) subject an individual to interrogation from the police

You only have the word of the individual here that he was acting simply in a lawful, non-threatening, non-disruptive manner. I personally believe there is more to this story than that.

irishtrojan · 1 year ago

if the individual reasonably knew that by taking this picture, it would instigate a confrontation and took the picture simply for that reason, then a case could be made that this individual is not so innocent

Morally, perhaps.

Legally, he's still completely innocent.

If he knew that "it would instigate a confrontation" because he correctly suspected that the cop would unlawfully tell him he can't take pictures of cops ... how does that, in any way, reduce the cop's culpability, or increase the citizen's, or really change the parameters of this story in any meaningful way?

If that's all your "more to this story" entails, the cop should still be fired and go to jail.

irishtrojan · 1 year ago

P.S. When anti-segregation protesters did sit-ins and such, they did them "knowing it would instigate a confrontation." They did them PRECISELY BECAUSE it would instigate a confrontation, because the confrontation itself would illustrate the justice of their cause.

I'm not equating the gravity of the causes, but in principle, how is the scenario you've painted any different? If he "instigated" this confrontation to prove that he has the right to take the picture... HE'S STILL RIGHT, and the cop is still wrong!

Furthermore, if he "instigated" not in the service of any high-minded cause, but just to be a jerk... well, fine, he's a jerk... but again, HE IS STILL 100 PERCENT CORRECT, and the cop should still be fired and go to jail for making a false, illegal arrest.

As my new post point out, jerks have rights too; if they don't, then none of us do. So, "maybe he was being a jerk" is simply not a defense at all. The officer's job is to enforce the law, and by his own admission, he made an illegal order (telling the guy to delete a photo). That's all you need to know about the case. There's really no room for interpretation.

You ARE defending the cop, in a sneaky sort of way, and you're dead wrong.

JsubD · 1 year ago

Oh, yeah. We know cops act like imperious jerks who are above the law so we should NEVER do anything that might take them off their self erected pedestal. The cop should pay any subsequent lawsuit out of his own damned pocket. Of course that will never happen.

cliffclaus · 1 year ago

Some years back i worked as a deputy and i was exposed to deputies that were illiterate and some that were dangerous! One
in particuler was a killer looking for an opertunity! Back then they
could remain in Law enforcement because of the Grandfather era!
This Deputy though had to have been a Rookie or he had been through Academy training. The training, however, does not teach
logic! The way he handled the situation seems to indicate he is another loose cannon! He is in trouble and so is the Sheriff and several other county administrators!

Scy · 1 year ago

A dumbass thug cop . . . which is the norm. Most police should not receive any respect as they are not entitled to any.

innocent citron · 1 year ago

Congratulations for this text.
Can you keep me informed of what happens in court ? An dwhether this cop got punished for such an unlawful conduct ?

Citron.innocent@gmail.com

x1101 · 1 year ago

As a fellow blogger on citizens rights/free speech I commend you for posting this. We all need to band together to help spread the word. Keep the faith and keep up the good work

Anthony · 1 year ago

This is typical behavior for these Johnson City cops. I'm a paraplegic, who has been repeatedly targeted by them. The have beaten, maced, burned, and even cut with a knife by these hideously abusive gangsters. I'll have to grin and bear it, because nobody will take them on.

enhager · 1 year ago

UPDATE: Conover explains the whole story and talks about his other brushes with the local law at http://www.photographyisnotacrime.org/

Exclusive photos taken of the arresting officer by Conover's 12-year-old daughter.

Lauren · 1 year ago

Very Interesting post. I am an American ex-pat living in Australia. One of the things I noticed within a couple of months of moving here is what a different attitude towards the police Aussies and Kiwis have. The police here are not trained by the military and people are not generally afraid of them. They're civil servants helping keep communities safe. "COPS" TV show here depicts videos of police officers reasonably speaking to members of the public, not bashing them up with sticks and tasers. Granted, we have a much smaller population than America, and civilians are not permitted to carry guns, but still, I like that police here aren't generally allowed to bully people.

Drew · 8 months ago

I live in Tennessee, granted on the outskirts of Nashville but i grew up in the tri-cities area and I'm sad to say that with the backwoods attitude of most of the judges around here Conover will probably not get off without at least a fine. It is bullshit, but that's how they do it around here, and also one of the main reasons I'm off to California in June.