Watch This Cop Try to Destroy Video Evidence of Police Brutality

| |


Last year, students from the University of Massachusetts were celebrating their annual pre-St. Patrick’s day holiday known as “Blarney Blowout.” As you might expect, when thousands of kids gather to get drunk before spring break and St. Patricks’s day, they can get pretty rowdy. What most people didn’t expect at the time, was that the police would respond with a cadre of riot cops to disperse the crowd.

A total of 73 people were arrested for disorderly conduct, violating liquor laws, and inciting a riot. However, there was one student among them who didn’t appear to be doing any of those things. His “crime” was merely filming the police arrest one of the revelers. For this, he was knocked down, pepper sprayed, and arrested, which led to his suspension from the university.

What’s most chilling, is the fact that one of police officers attempted to destroy the evidence of the encounter, by stomping on his cell phone. Fortunately, the cell phone was protected by a shock resistant case, and the video managed to survive.

After being held for several hours, the student was eventually released and relieved of all criminal charges, and after the video surfaced the student was exonerated by the school board, on the grounds that:

“Defendants knew that it was wrong to stop a civilian from filming police officers in public when the civilian did not interfere with police activity.

Defendants knew that it was wrong to use force against a civilian for filming police officers in public when the civilian did not interfere with police activity.

Defendants knew that it was wrong to arrest a civilian for filming police officers in public when the civilian did not interfere with police activity.

Defendants knew that it was wrong to try to destroy a civilian’s phone merely because it contained video of police officers performing their duties in public.” the complaint asserts.

He is now suing the Amherst police officers who illegally detained him, and the video will most likely be featured prominently in court. It just goes to show you, every encounter with the police should be filmed. It could be the only thing standing between you and serious jail time.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Steven S

    Can we stop calling citizens “civilians”? This implies the police are something other than civilians themselves, when in fact they are just government employees – they are not military.


      Bingo. This point needs to be continuously reiterated.

    • cuntsuella

      No, they are not citizens, they are sheep!

      • John Mccord

        Then I assume you to be a goat. Just what have you done or are doing to stop these brown shirts?

        • cuntsuella

          Hey John, unlike bleating sheep, I do not kiss and tell! However, I will say that my tactics involve milk and cookies, while we all sit around singing kumbaya!


      you’re rite, they should have their own title, like, useless ckskrs~

  • mirageseekr

    Of course no mention of what happened to the cop who did this because at most all he would have had a few paid days off.

  • Kevin G.

    Everyone needs to keep a camera in their car and on their person at all times! If the Authorities are becoming like this, then the people have to AND WILL eventually stand up and take action against these NaziKopZ” Not all are like this, these kreeps are making it more dangerous for the good cops!

  • Guest

    when are police held accountable for their auctions? When will people stand up to them I have done this in my state Why not others? This isn’t a black or white issue. This is purely a constitutional issue

  • cuntsuella

    Just need to start dealing with cops the way they deal with the people they are sworn to protect. Any large gathering of people will result in the presence of cops. Treat them with respect, but be prepared to return unwarranted brutality. The only real weapon the thugs have is the cowardice of the sheep they are corraling.

  • Kansas Bright

    Guess what? It is our duty to remove dishonest judges for using “bad behavior” or misbehavior”. they are only ALLOWED to keep their position as long as they use “Good Behaviour” while in office.

    US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: The
    judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts (state), shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    James Madison, Federalist 39, 250 – 53: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the
    subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

    The US Constitution assigns what all judges, state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position, they are:
    — Required to take, and keep an Oath(s), or a
    combined Oath.

    — Required to “support and defend” the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it before the duties of the office they occupy.
    — Required to carry out the enumerated duties assigned to the judicial branch by the US Constitution in a constitutional manner.

    That is “Good Behaviour” for judges.

    This is backed up historically by a debate John
    Adams had with William Brattle about the ‘tenure
    of judges’. At the end of the debate both men agreed that if a judge was appointed during good behavior, then he could also be removed by using “bad behavior”. But this removal was only after
    receiving a “hearing and trial, and an opportunity to defend himself before a fuller board, knowing his accuser and accusation”.

    The judge(s) whose behavior was in question would get a trial by jury made up of the people making that decision. Accountability through
    the “Good Behaviour” standard is critical to the continued freedom and independence of the USA; and keeping judges to the US Constitution instead of to factions, lobbyists, or to the different branches of government. It is the people as the jury who makes that decision of guilt or innocence of the judge regarding their behavior after being presented with the facts, not those who are serving within the 3 branches of the federal government or
    those serving within the state governments.

    Then there is the 1790 Crimes Act which provided that a judge convicted of taking a bribe would, by virtue of the conviction, be “forever . . . disqualified to hold any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States.” That conviction would deprive the judge of life tenure of the office being occupied. This falls under the “Good Behaviour”

    Justice Antonin Scalia: “Thus, citizens have the
    unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including
    judges, criminally violate the law.” (Good Behaviour” tenure)

    Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) – To understand just how those serving within our governments have “distorted what the Grand Jury is, and what it does can only be appreciated by reading the full quote. It is just one of our constitutional ways to hold those who serve within our governments accountable for their actions:

    Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
    jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
    taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    Justice Antonin Scalia: “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body
    of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

    “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the
    people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.”

    “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

    “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the
    judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand
    jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal
    wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

    “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the
    precise nature of the offense” it is investigating.
    The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in
    total secrecy.”

    “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

    “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s
    evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” End quote by Justice Antonin Scalia (Plus it would be unlawful since the Grand Jury is NOT under any of the three branches or state governments.)

    But how do we get a Grand Jury, or Grand jury investigation when most Americans do not even know what those who serve within our governments are allowed to do, forbidden to do, can do ONLY under certain circumstances and in a specific way meeting requirements laid out by the US Constitution? See how much harm has been done by the “dumbing down” process?

    The Preamble to the US Constitution says, “We
    the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure
    the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    This means that the people themselves are the last word on all of those who serve within the branches of our governments, though that “last word” must also be “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution.

  • CharlesH

    I remember the time when a police officer received respect because they showed respect – not a problem. Today – they (the cops) demand respect and show NO respect. Fuck ’em. And they have to ask why things happen.


      well, if I can remember some of what you state, that time would have been about 50yrs ago~

      • CharlesH

        Your memory is excellent – I guess it was that long ago now that I’m thinking back. Sounds like eons ago – but not really. “My the times are achanging”

        • BIGOTIST

          Times have changed and none for the better- 40yrs past it took me and the ACLU 2yrs to prove harassment against 6 POS cops- As cameras are so useful today, we had a tape recorder and we won hands down-ALL COPS SUCK~

          • cuntsuella

            They are heroes, my ass!! They show up AFTER a crime has been committed, and the rest of the time they are attempting to ANTICIPATE criminal behavior by harassing or impeding the daily activities of law abiding citizens.

            They knowingly AND willingly sign up for the job, they need NO special recognition! Like I said, treat them the way THEY treat an encounter. If they show up in overwhelming force and proceed to cause harm, the sheep flock should bare fangs and give it right back to them.

          • BIGOTIST

            Nope, their as far away from a hero imaginable. The first thing I taught my kids was to NEVER trust a POS cop. Today they appreciate what they were told. I’ve carried a weapon most of my life, although tempted, I’ve not used my weapon to aid, assist or defend a POS cop. And wont!!!!
            They have NO skills and LOW intelligence, therefore the only employment available for a POS is a cop. scary huh~

  • rhondareichel

    Did that thug lose his job?

  • rhondareichel

    Hee hee…..not too forthcoming with his badge # was he?

  • Sooriamoorthy

    They should be exterminated. ALL of them!
    Bloody shitty cops!