Update: Read my article on this subject in the Miami New Times.
By Carlos Miller
Momoko Sudo, the Japanese artist who watched helplessly as a Coral Gables police officer deleted the photo she took of him as well as the other photos she had taken that day, was able to retrieve the photo using recovery software.
Here is Officer Friendly in all his glory.
The officer, whose last name is Rodriguez, not only deleted every image in her camera, he also removed the memory card and slammed it on the ground, according to Sudo, who has been keeping tabs of the incident on her own Website. He then ordered her to leave the area.
After lodging a complaint with the Coral Gables Police Department, Sudo learned that Officer Rodriguez will receive only a written reprimand which will remain in his file for a year.
This “slap on the wrist” prompted Coral Gables resident Douglas Clark to fire off a complaint to Coral Gables Mayor Don Slesnick, Police Chief Michael Hammerschmidt as well as city commissioners William Kerdyk Jr., Rafael Cabrera Jr., Maria Anderson and Wayne “Chip” Withers.
Clark, who had been following the story on Sudo’s Website, is a photographer who has a very interesting series of photos titled “Street Life”. He stated the following in an email:
I am an amateur photographer and I quite often take photos in and around the Coral Gables area.
I am fully aware of my rights as a photographer, and that include the right to refuse to turn over media or
cameras without a court order. To have the digital, intellectual property of this complainant destroyed,
and possibly the physical asset damaged by the actions of a representative of our police department
is unlawful, and completely outside the bounds of appropriate behavior.The punishment meted out to the officer is inadequate. To have a complaint lodged in a personnel file
for 1 year is a minor slap on the wrist, at best. Mandatory re-training in the rights of civilians, including
laws regarding unlawful search and seizure, and personal interactions with the public should be required
of this officer.Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.
Douglas Clark
The mayor was unaware of the incident because he replied to the Clark, Hammerschmidt as well as some of his staffers with the following message:
Can someone brief me on this matter? Thank you. Don
This morning, I contacted the Coral Gables public information officer who said he had not heard of the incident. However, he took the information down and assured me he would get back to me as soon as possible. He has not yet called.
Stay tuned because this is going to get interesting.
Popularity: 70% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a
81 responses so far ↓
1 tkmorris // Jun 26, 2008 at 11:12 pm
What, no comments yet? I am surprised your usual group of “fans” hasn’t shown up yet to call you a Communist or the like.
Keep fighting the good fight Carlos.
2 Carlos Miller // Jun 26, 2008 at 11:16 pm
No comments yet, but this is getting a huge amount of page views so far.
740 views since I posted it just over two hours ago.
As for my “fans”, I suspect they’ve run out of arguments.
3 needcaffeine // Jun 26, 2008 at 11:51 pm
keep fighting, if you hear nothing in a few days, take it to your local paper - politicians don’t like bad press about them on the front page
4 Ms Calabaza // Jun 27, 2008 at 7:20 am
This cop was probably embarrased to be chit-chatting with his girlfriend on his personal cell phone in a beautiful Coral Gables park instead of his doing his job. Easy, just delete the picture, huh?! Priceless!
5 Jorge // Jun 27, 2008 at 8:26 am
Everyone’s entitled to a break here and there.
6 Bill // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:23 am
Hey Jorge, if he was entitled to a break, then why did he delete the pic? Of course people are entitled to breaks, but if someone takes a pic of me while I’m on one, I wouldn’t freak out.
7 Carlos Miller // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:44 am
Ms C,
He was parked off to the side of Coral Way in a speed trap sort of way.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he was having an argument with his girlfriend which caused him to snap like that.
Jorge,
The picture itself doesn’t prove any wrongdoing. I doubt that cops are forbidden from using their cell phones.
His reaction is the issue here.
8 jorge // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:57 am
Go to her website. That’s not the only picture she took. She took a picture from the front, gawking at the officer. Why? What for? Why instigate? That’s my point. We don’t know if the officer asked her after the first photo to please not take anymore. She may have made a remark to the officer. So the photo’s were recovered, so what? I say we write a comendation for the officer’s file for showing restraint and not destroying the camera.
Also Carlos, I have been busy the last couple of days and could not post…but I have to call your bluff….I am not Larry. I am Jorge Luis Rodriguez, no relation to CGPD officer Rodriguez, who I comend and thank for keeping me safe.
9 Carlos Miller // Jun 27, 2008 at 10:07 am
Jorge,
Keeping you safe from Asian female photographers? Yes, we need more officers like Rodriguez.
How is taking a picture of a cop in public instigating? If cops don’t like it, they should just ignore it. Don’t they have enough issues to deal with than to waste their time on photographers?
And if you’re not Larry, who is this guy named Larry posting comments from your computer?
10 B // Jun 27, 2008 at 10:15 am
what i love is that what didn’t have to be a big deal is now a call to action for believers in the First Amendment — and an embarrassment for the bullying cop.
11 B // Jun 27, 2008 at 10:16 am
i mean that a cop chatting on a phone is not a big deal — but he just made it worse for himself
12 Jeremy Jojola // Jun 27, 2008 at 10:37 am
Interesting story Carlos….keep us updated and thanks for posting this. Stuff like this needs to be highlighted as much as possible.
JJ
Albuquerque, NM
13 mad hatter // Jun 27, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Listen, I actually have a job to do. So I can’t sit around all day “posting” on a blog. But I do find it cathartic, from time to time.
Anyway, every story has three sides, just like the angles of the pictures that Sudoku took. She didn’t just take one “in fraganti” shot, she seemed to be deliberately taking pictures of the police officer.
As you noted, Carlos, it appeared to be a “speed trap”, meaning that the officer was observing traffic to cite drivers who broke traffic laws. In one of the photos Sudoku appears to be directly in the officer’s line of sight, which may explain why he directed her to get out of the way. By continuing to photograph him she was deliberately antagonizing him.
Furthermore, based on what I’ve read from Sudoku, I think she’s Cuban, not Japanese; she sure has a talent for exagerrating. She’s like Burger King, “home of the Whopper!”
One hour to restore a few photos from a 1GB (it’s gotta be a GB, not a “MB” card as she writes) memory card? Please! I’ve done that restore process several times in the past and it rarely takes more than 20 minutes.
I also have a hard time believing that the officer singled her out because of her head gear and that he threw the memory card to the ground. Those convenient details were probably added to give the tale an emotional side and play up the “victim” angle.
I hope officer “Rodriguez” is reading this stuff because the next time he runs into an obnoxious citizen, he needs to delete the photos, then take random photos that exceed the number of pics that he deleted in order to overwrite the deleted images. Officer “Rodriguez” deserves the letter in his file for one year for exhibiting a complete lack of technological awareness. He should also be made to take a class on the topic of digital media so that he covers his tracks better the next time.
That being said, Sudoku is not some little, innocent angel who was acosted by some out of control, rogue cop; she shares in the blame for this incident and it’s a shame she’s getting off scott free.
14 mad hatter // Jun 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I forgot about a couple of other comments made by Sudoku in previous posts on her blog.
She went so far as to allege that her friends told her that she could’ve been killed by the police and and that she doesn’t feel like walking the streets anymore and she feels “creepy in general”.
Cry me a river.
Sudoku and her buddies have been watching a few too many episodes of The Shield.
15 Peat Bakke // Jun 27, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The officer is in a public space (in a park, on the sidewalk), and therefore may be photographed without limitation, even if the photographer is being a complete ass. Paparazzi are a pretty clear demonstration of the legal boundaries for photographers (public spaces, no physical contact, that’s pretty much it).
Of course, police officers also have reasonable boundaries for exercising their authority, including the ability to physically move, restrain, or arrest a person who interferes with their course of duty, or poses a threat to the officer or greater public.
Perhaps the situation escalated to the point where the officer was within his rights to exclude, restrain, or arrest Momoko. There obviously isn’t enough evidence here to say whether or not that is the case.
However, even in that circumstance, I don’t think there is justification for the specific response of deleting the photos, regardless of whether or not it’s during police action (say, a speed trap, or a local drug bust).
Everyone’s entitled to a break (Momoko and Officer Rodriguez alike), but we’re all subject to the law.
16 mad hatter // Jun 27, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Wow! Someone who’s actually reasonable posting on this blog? I’m going to go out and play the Lotto.
I encourage every visit Peat’s blog, there’s a great jonnycake receipie.
17 Maz // Jun 27, 2008 at 3:06 pm
mad hatter: epic troll
18 TranceMist // Jun 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Despicable!
19 jorge // Jun 27, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Maz,
What is a troll in your language?
Trancemist,
Please don’t express your thoughts in so many words, this blog is not your term paper to write.
Carlos,
I have you pegged, tomorrow your story will be about the officer who claimed he was with Homeland Security after a man was seen taking photos and he took the camera. I skimmed through that story and it’s got your blog written all over it.
20 Carlos Miller // Jun 27, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Jorge,
Actually I was saving that one for Monday. Readership takes a dip on weekends.
21 Carlos Miller // Jun 27, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Jorge,
Trancemist has saved his words for the Coral Gables police chief, mayor and commissioners.
Read the email he sent them:
The actions of Coral Gables officer Rodriguez with regard to Momoko Sudo are despicable and clearly violated her rights.
The seizure and destruction of her property (photos) without a court order should be punished more severely than merely a letter that goes into the officer’s file for only a year.
What would you have done to Momoko Sudo if she had done that to the officer. arrest and formal charges I am sure.
Your officer should be reprimanded more severely. He should apologize to Momoko Sudo.
He should be suspended and trained in the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution (photography is a freedom of speech, including photography of police officers) as well as proper search and seizure protocol.
He should understand what he can and cannot do without a court order.
22 mad hatter // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I love how everyone assumes that Sudoku’s story is true.
She claims that the officer was harrassing her from a the minute that he saw her with the straw hat, yet Sudoku got within a few feet of the officer to take that profile shot and the officer is simply sitting back on his motorcycle; he’s not getting up, he’s not glaring at her. He obviously had seen Sudoku because she took pictures of him from several angles. Where’s the picture of the officer coming towards Sudoku????
Then, he deletes the entire contents of the 1GB card (over 100 pics) in no time flat and he throws the card to the ground, but hands her the camera.
Oh, and let’s not forget that he makes ethically insensitive remarks toward her.
Now, Sudoku is afraid to walk on the sidewalk and she feels that the officer would have even killed her. Yeeeaaaahhhh, right!
Here’s the letter that I wrote to Chief Hammerschmidt and cc’d to Mayor Slesnick:
Dear Chief Hammerschmidt:
I write to call your attention to the unjust persecution of a member of the CGPD’s Traffic Enforcement Unit who allegedly deleted images from the digital camera of a pedestrian.
I have witnessed firsthand the rush to judgment that the alleged victim in the case has engaged in. Her allegations cannot even be corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
While the pedestrian alleges that she was harrassed by an Officer “Rodriguez”, with whom she had an extended interaction, she is not even able to state the officer’s name with certainty. While it may be difficult to discern an officer’s badge number, it is quite easy to read their name tag. The pedestrian couldn’t do this.
The pedestrian claims that the officer was harrassing her for an extended period of time, yet the only evidence that she can produce are several photos, from varying angles, showing an officer sitting calmly on his motorcycle, apparently during a break from his regular duties. If the officer engaged in harrassment of the pedestrian, it stands to reason that there would at least be one photo showing the officer doing something more menacing than talking on the telephone.
It is unfortunate that unsubstantiated allegations may have a detrimental effect on an officer’s personnel record. I trust that you will direct your department’s Internal Affairs Division to investigate this matter fully and to withhold judgment until all of the facts, including the officer’s testimony, have been properly evaluated.
23 Carlos Miller // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm
mad hatter,
The only issue here that really matters is whether or not the officer deleted the images on her card.
He is not legally entitled to do this unless he has a court order.
If it is true that he received a written reprimand, then that tells me he probably admitted to it.
Because if he would have denied the allegation, then there would have been further investigation into the matter.
I only met Sodu for the first time yesterday and it was at the Investigative Review Panel regarding another photographer who was harassed by a Miami-Dade cop (yes, there is a clear pattern here).
She doesn’t strike me as a compulsive liar. She strikes me as a pissed off citizen. And trust me, I can relate on that level.
We shouldn’t judge books by their covers, but just one look at Officer Rodriguez tells me he is a ticking time bomb.
As far as her not being able to read his name tag, she was probably scared that if she even glanced at his name tag, she would get arrested.
24 jorge // Jun 27, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“We shouldn’t judge books by their covers, but just one look at Officer Rodriguez tells me he is a ticking time bomb”.
You just did wow, can you say hypocrite?
I think Sudoko is a liar just trying to get publicity ala Carlos Miller style.
Drop dead….both of you.
25 Carlos Miller // Jun 27, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Drop dead….both of you.
Speaking of ticking time bombs.
26 mad hatter // Jun 27, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Carlos, this is the second time in the last few days that I’ve seen your hypocrisy first hand.
Come on, man.
I won’t make you admit it here and ruin your street cred, but you seem like a halfway reasonable person. Deep down you know that Sudoku’s quite the Whopper flopper.
27 Carlos Miller // Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32 pm
mad hatter,
Trust me, if I thought she was lying, I would call her on it. I have no problems doing that.
I believe she is telling the truth.
28 The picture that drove a Coral Gables police officer over the edge - MAeX Artblog // Jun 28, 2008 at 12:09 am
[...] The picture that drove a Coral Gables police officer over the edge: By Carlos Miller “Momoko Sudo, the Japanese artist who watched helplessly as a Coral Gables police officer deleted the photo she took of him as well as the other photos she had taken that day, was able to retrieve the photo using recovery software. [...]
29 Magic City Mama // Jun 28, 2008 at 10:30 am
Jorge:
I’m not a photog, a cop or trying to write a term paper, but I do know how to spell ‘commend.’
I commend you on proving, yet again, through your baseless rants, that you have no idea WTF you are talking about.
A shiny badge doesn’t give anyone the right to take my property (illegal items not withstanding)- be it forever or for two seconds. What’s mine is mine; a basic principle I learned in preschool.
Had that been me, you’d see a blog about how I fought back claiming I was attacked by the officer. I’m sure officer Rodriguez can tell you that battery is when someone else TOUCHES you without your permission. I bet you if Sudo would have tried to grab his phone, she’d be in jail. Why the double standard?
I don’t know Sudo but I do know enough about shady cops in SoFla to know that the truth NEVER matters. Only testimony from a uniform has weight whether it’s a lie or not. For that simple reason, I never open my mouth. I know I’m never going to be in ‘the right.’
As proof, I only need to use Officer non-friendly, AKA Rodriguez- he got away with usurping his authority for his own personal gain while stripping a citizen of her rights.
Who is supposed to protect us from the cops?
30 Larry // Jun 28, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Magic City Man,
I have to give it to you as being a smart person for adding the extra “m” to commendation. You da man, I guis i don now how to spell.
As for you’re little tirade, you are acting as if Sudoko’s story is the ultimate factual explanation. Like Mad Hatter says, how do know Sudoko isn’t making it all up for publicity?
At least you know to keep your mouth shut when approached by a policeman.
You were one of those kids who never shared, What’s mine is mine! Lose
31 Larry // Jun 28, 2008 at 1:06 pm
r
32 Carlos Miller // Jun 28, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Larry aka Jorge,
You not only not know how to spell, you also don’t know how to read.
It’s Magic City Mama, not Magic City Man.
It’s a chick, not a dude.
33 Jorge // Jun 28, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Carlos,
I have a split personality and sometimes I am Larry frm Overtown. I can’t help it, I am getting help from a santeria priest in Hialeah. I just don’t understand why I have to take naked sponge baths, but Oh well.
BTW, This only confirms my thoery, If it wasn’t for me, Larry, and the Mad Hatter, this site would be officially flatlined. Spell that papa. _______________________.
34 The Truth 101 // Jun 28, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Carlos, You must admit without Jorge this site would be dead. All you would have is a bunch of losers agreeing with each other. Just look what happened a couple days ago when Jorge was not on. You had 2 comments the whole day. And another thing tell Sudo if she doesn’t like it here and does not feel safe to move back to China and take pics of police men there.
35 Carlos Miller // Jun 28, 2008 at 3:14 pm
101,
What is it with you guys and accuracy? It’s Japan, not China.
36 Jorge // Jun 28, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Truth 101 did it on purpose to prove a point. You guys have no argument so you make references to grammer, accuracy, etc. It’s the easy way out when you lose a debate.
Carlos,
What would you do if you were a policeman,…..disregard you have to have cojones to do that job. I was about to present an analogy but I realize you would probably come back at me with the same stupid argument about your 1st amendment rights.
Drop dead.
37 torgeaux // Jun 28, 2008 at 7:20 pm
If the story is true, the cop is wrong. Period. Even if the story is basically true, but slanted to the photographer, that is, she was being an ass, confrontational.
I’m not sure what she could do to warrant having her camera seized and pictures erased. The reprimand makes me believe that the police similarly agree.
Jorge and Mad think if a cop says jump, you should do so. I agree, generally, but not in the specifics. When you are in the right, and you know you are, never be afraid to stand up for that.
38 Carlos Miller // Jun 28, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Jorge,
The argument has been stated very clear in both of my posts as well as in many of my comments.
If I were a cop and someone came up to me and photographed me, I would do either one or the other, depending on the mood I’m in.
I would smile and give a thumbs up, if I were in a good mood.
Or I would scowl and ignore the photographer, if I were in a shitty mood.
But never would I demand her camera and delete her photos. Never.
39 Maz // Jun 29, 2008 at 12:25 am
jorge,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
First and second definitions pretty much cover the bases in this case…
Dunno how many people are gamers, but I’ve been on the World of Warcraft forums, so I’m pretty familiar with the behavior. Antagonistic posting, mangling of names to show disrespect, ad hominem attacks, etc. Really just disagreeing for the sake of it.
I might concede that Sudo may have drawn the wrong conclusions as to why the officer picked on her, such as her race. However, I have little doubt that the events occurred as she described them.
Carlos,
While I appreciate your attempts to maintain civil debate with the naysayers, the only one who seemed to maintain any modicum of civility with Peat. I know you would prefer to not censor them, but why continue to provide them the attention they apparently desperately crave.
40 Jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 9:30 am
Carlos,
Maztoball just proved my point, you’re site is full of loser kids. I mean this guy plays warlord games on the internet. You don’t have the right readers on this site that represent the hard working majority of America. I may fall under the definition of “troll” but only because I feel the need to disrupt people who should otherwise be more usefull in society. If everyone was a hard working republican, we would not have things like welfare, poverty, warlord players, etc. These are the things that I want to instill in my kids so they don’t become the Carlos Millers or Maztoballs of society.
Also Maztoball, Carlos may wish to censor me, this is correct, but I think he doesn’t for two reasons:
1. It would only affirm that he is a hypocrite
2. The site would be BORING!
41 Magic City Mama // Jun 29, 2008 at 9:32 am
Larry and Jorge-
You call me names and say that the arguments presented (by Carlos, me or anyone else offering an intellectual point which you can’t seem to argue) have no base other than brownie points for grammar yet I love how neither one of you actually answered or debated my commentary.
BTW Larry- you’re right, I didn’t share…just like Rodriguez!
The sad truth is that it’s more probable/believable that Sudo is being truthful, albeit somewhat or completely, vs Rodriguez.
Say she was acting shitty- can you just walk up to an obnoxious person taking pictures of you without your permission and snatch their camera? If you think that’s legal, do you mind if I call you next week to come bail me out after I’m arrested for assault at a nightclub for grabbing the camera of one of those club website photog guys?
You see celebs chastised/PROSECUTED all the time for similar behavior and they’re scoffed at and forced to accept ‘oh well, you’re in the public eye,’ why should the police be any different?
42 Jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:01 am
Magic City Man,
We don’t even know that he took the camera! Lets just take Sudoko’s word for it. Just because the officer doesn’t post his side of the story on a blog doesn’t mean his side is untrue!
Your argument is pointless, that’s why no one responded.
As for the clubs and celebrities, they chose the lifestyle. Cops are the “chosen ones”, they have to worry about protecting and serving. We should COMMEND them more, they may one be your knight in shining armor.
Magic City Man,
drop dead.
43 Jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:03 am
Sorry,
before you liberals chastize my grammer, I forgot to insert “day” in the sentence, “they may one be your knight in shining armor.”
OUT
44 The Truth 101 // Jun 29, 2008 at 11:07 am
Larry,
Indulge me…who will you be voting for in the next presidential election?…Or better said, who U be going vote 4 prez?
Carlos,
You said, “If I were a cop….” carlos only in your wildest dreams could you ever be a cop. It takes a courageous, astute, and valiant person to wear the badge. You are a spineless, gutless, poor excuse of a man.
45 mad hatter // Jun 29, 2008 at 11:15 am
Carlos,
I think Matzoball is right regading all of the antagonistic posts here. Are you sure that you’re not the one creating all of these characters. I mean, you use all the stereotypcial ethnic names: Jorge for the Hispanic and Larry for the African American. The language and grammatical errors are priceless! You really pay attention to detail.
Matzo,
Come on, World of Warcraft? I’m proud to say that I haven’t the foggiest when it comes to that. Get out of the house and enjoy all that South Florida has to offer unless, of course, like Sudoku, you think that a police officer is going to kidnap you and kill you.
Carlos, you deserve a lot more credit than I give you. You’re running quite a production here. Your use of Larry and Jorge, and whatever other characters you may interject from time to time, is masterful. That line regarding the ip addresses was fantastic! Too bad the rest of us arent’ privy to the ip addresses from which these posts are coming.
46 mad hatter // Jun 29, 2008 at 11:20 am
Sorry, I committed a couple of typos in my previous post:
regading=regarding
arent’=aren’t
47 Jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Mad Hatter,
Carlos is not that smart to assume characters like that.
Also I think Larry is a troll.
48 Carlos Miller // Jun 29, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Jorgito,
Rag on me all you want, but if you’re going to make racist derogatory comments, they will be deleted, as they just were.
49 Carlos Miller // Jun 29, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Jorge and Larry have been banned. As I mentioned before, you can rag on me all you want but I draw the line on racist comments.
He continued to leave those comments even after I warned him. Those comments have been deleted, the first time I’ve deleted any comment on this blog.
I’ve banned the four IP addresses that Jorge used, but knowing him, he will take his laptop to another location to continue posting.
When he does, I will ban those IP addresses as well.
50 The Truth 101 // Jun 29, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Wow, banning people!! For what?? HE never made a racist comment. I read what he wrote before u deleted his post there were no racist comments. All he did was mention who he was going to vote for and why!! I guess freedom of speech only applies to what you agree with. As i said before you are a spineless leftist piece of crap. This WILL BE THE LAST TIME I POST ON THIS LIBERAL SITE.
51 Carlos Miller // Jun 29, 2008 at 3:13 pm
This WILL BE THE LAST TIME I POST ON THIS LIBERAL SITE.
Is that a promise?
52 Reagan // Jun 29, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Larry, please give your reasons for voting Obama.
53 mad hatter // Jun 29, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Truth,
Rome wasn’t built in a day and you’re not going to undo a lifetime’s worth of leftist propaganda in a couple of posts.
We just have to keep chipping away, one post at a time, to point these wayward souls toward the path of righteousness.
We are the way, the truth, and the light. No one will get to the promised land but through us.
Truth, we have been entrusted with a great responsibility, we cannot abandon these heathons. We must persevere in the face of insurmountable odds and unending personal attacks in order to save these souls.
Don’t abandon your mission and keep posting on this liberal wasteland.
54 Carlos Miller // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I have to say I am honored to have motivated such passion in you guys.
And Jorgito, I’m impressed by your tenacity.
55 jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:15 pm
It’s not my tenacity,
it’s your lack of computer knowledge…or knowledge alltogether.
56 Carlos Miller // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Actually, I haven’t banned your last IP address because you kind of entertain me.
57 jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:23 pm
That doesn’t work, do you actually think that I have moved to another location? You need to do some research.
I DONT HAVE A STATIC IP ADDRESS MAMALON
58 jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:34 pm
This is getting to be fun! Now I am entertained!
59 jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Just for all our bloggers, Carlos has attempted to censor me now appoximately 6 times. My first amendment rights are being trampled. Maybe I will use this site to cry and whine about it. What a Hypocrite.
60 Carlos Miller // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Jorge,
Why should you care if I censor you? You’ve already given up your First Amendment rights a long time ago when you started drinking the Kool-Aid.
61 Carlos Miller // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I would eventually get bored of restarting my computer just to leave a comment on a blog I don’t agree with, only for that blogger to delete my comment, but you’re a Kool-Aid drinking Neocon, so you think differently than I do.
62 jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Let me guess, from George Bush? So that’s what this is about. Someone has posted a few things contrary to what you believe in and now I am a Kool-Aid drinker. Because my views do not conform to yours? Far from a Kool-Aid drinker my friend.
I hope all you readers (all three of them) can see this little censorship tirade that you have displayed and see you for what you are, a manipultive SOB. Your readers (all three of them) are Kool-Aid drinkers to believe your BS.
Also, as I said before, do some research… don’t have to restart my computer. Do you know anything about computers?
63 jorge // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Also, the only thing you are doing by banning all the IP addresses, is eventually banning one of your idiot followers that uses the same web provider….mamalon!
64 Carlos Miller // Jun 29, 2008 at 10:51 pm
jorge,
Not even my republican readers agree with your gibberish. And trust me, they disagree with me on many things.
And who is really the mamalon?
The guy running the site that is averaging 3,500 views a day or the guy leaving racist and ignorant remarks that nobody agrees with?
65 EMcKeresk // Jun 30, 2008 at 8:07 am
Hey Jorge -
Surely you know that your First Amendment rights can not be violated in a privately held environment? Don’t you?
See, this blog is owned and operated by Carlos. You do NOT have First Amendment rights here.
It’s the same as if you were to go into someones home and begin yelling gibberish and racial slurs at them, if they kick you out of their house, they haven’t violated your rights, they’ve protected their own.
66 Joe Dirte // Jul 3, 2008 at 1:13 am
I hoep she sues the pants off him! If he does that to a small petite women he WILL do it to others! If he is not stopped and or sued it wil show the cops that they can get away with this radical behavior!
67 Dazed // Jul 16, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Jorge et al. is obviously a disgruntled cop, probably got suspended for violating someone’s rights.
While the subject of the story is relatively minor, and maybe not worth the big deal made of it, and all these words about it, its necessary that it doesn’t get swept under the rug. If cops can get away with small violations of your rights like this, they’ll gladly take more next time.
68 Darque // Jul 17, 2008 at 9:16 am
Jorge, Mad Hatter, whatever other pseudonyms you use, do you know Carlos offline? Is that why you decide to come to this relatively obscure and harmless blog to harass him and his fans and vandalize his site with your worthless comments?
There is no reason to assume that Sudoku’s story is false. The fact that the officer was given a slap on the wrist is tacit acknowledgment that something was done wrong - the issue isn’t that he’s at fault, because that was admitted. The issue is the severity of the punishment. Somehow, you’re turning an obvious vendetta against Carlos into an excuse to twist this story into something it clearly isn’t, and making an ass of yourself, too.
Go ahead and flame away if you want, for all the good it will do you. I’m just some random passerby that likes blogs like Carlos’s, and hates the trolls that invariably show up just to piss on everyone else’s parade.
If this stuff is so important to you, go make your own damned blog… and then learn to deal with trolls of your own.
69 gluefish // Aug 4, 2008 at 11:59 am
I’m glad THAT’s over with
70 Such a Bastard // Aug 18, 2008 at 7:57 am
In my opinion, the officer should be terminated and not allowed any position in law enforcement for the duration of his life.
71 Randy // Aug 18, 2008 at 11:09 am
So can I assume the photog won’t be doing anymore freelance pix of cops? I take pix too, and I ALWAYS ASK someone if I can take their picture. What about the cop’s RIGHT TO PRIVACY? Even though he was in a public place, what right does a photog have to just do it?
72 bj // Aug 18, 2008 at 11:15 am
Randy: “what right does a photog have to just do it?”
Every right!
73 Dan // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:07 pm
My god some of the comments in here are insane. What kind of fool would take issue with someone *LEGALLY* taking photographs and try to blame the person rather than the idiot cop who was clearly operating outside what the law permits? Oh, that’s right, we live in a police state now. Or at least its a matter of time with attitudes like that.
74 Victor Henry // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hey, I would have booked her in the slammer…
I would not like some idiot running around
and takeing pictures of me, if they ask first
ok, but to just out and out take a picture of someone, especially a cop, what is she get off
on that??? Lock her up..I would have dumped
her in the bay..dump broad.
75 sevens7777 // Aug 19, 2008 at 2:10 am
No problem, at least he is not talking on the cell phone while he is driving the motorcycle. How many have us seen Police cars with the officer talking on a cell phone, I have and in the state of Texas you are supposed to be using hands free devices. I am curious as to what was said to this officer to really get him upset. Remember ya’ll, there are two sides to every story, or did you forget that?
76 Jerry // Aug 19, 2008 at 8:00 am
Its not the fact that he was doing anything wrong while chatting on his cell phone, its that he over stepped his authority in taking the camera away and destroying what wasn’t his. What would have happened if someone came up to him and snatched the cell phone and threw it on the floor? Many of these police officer’s believe they can do whatever they want, just because they have a badge and a gun. Abusing the rights of others is wrong, no matter the circumstance. God only knows what else he does on or off duty just because he is a police officer.
77 Dana Dotson // Oct 24, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Your an idiot taking pictures of people you dont know, who do you think you are? I would of done the same and probly even worse. He had every reason to get upset. And people saying hes destroying what isnt his this woman shouldnt have been taking pictures without his consent in the first place people have fu**** nerves!!
78 justus // Oct 26, 2008 at 2:39 am
Dana you have the fuckn nerve!!! Go eat a fat cock. People have the right to take pictures of whatever they like including the filth that you are and surrounds you…………..
Dumbass!
79 Scott // Oct 26, 2008 at 10:42 am
Wow, that was kind of harsh…
80 Nathaniel // Oct 28, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Not to get into the name calling and the lovely banter back and forth that belies the true nature of this type of story. The simple fact of the matter is that this shows just another example of the corruption of duty that has infected every level of public service in America today. Was the young lady within her rights to take pictures of the officer? Yes, regardless of him being on break or working a speed trap or any other situation the officer could have been involved in whilst perched atop his shiny bike chatting on his tele. Was the officers actions appropriate or even legal? No, even if all the other information in the story just filler and fluff the simple fact of the matter is that with the current laws we have in this country regarding intellectual property rights pertaining to digital media at the very least the officer should have received a misdemeanor destruction of private property for deleting the images. As for the people that want to side with the officer in as much as the photog should have asked before snapping his mug in a public place, be serious please. Do you ask everyone in the foreground and background for their permission before snapping your vacation photos? No? I thought not. Back to the original issue. After working with several police agencies in several different states over the past 15 years it has come to my attention that most police departments have standing orders to their officers to not allow themselves to be photograph in anything that can be construed as a compromising position, and that if this does take place that they are to retrieve or destroy the media in question. Years ago an officer would rip the film from your camera. Now it would seem that they think they can merely delete the images from the drive. Don’t believe me? Then I challenge you this, get yourself a disposable camera and start snapping photos of police where ever you find them. Make sure that they see you doing it and see how quickly you are detained and questioned and your camera confiscated. It will make your head spin I assure you. Although I would suggest you make sure not to do it when you have anywhere else to be in a hurry as it is going to take a while. Thank you to Carlos for posting this and to everyone else that reads my comment for putting up with my wordy long winded rant to say the same thing as 15 other people before me on this blog. And remember Aristotle said “Criticism is something we can avoid easily by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing.” Do not remain silent.
81 Jenni 7 // Nov 8, 2008 at 7:45 pm
This post is great, but the trolls populating the comments section really drag it down.
Seriously, guys? You have nothing better to do than sit there hitting refresh all day so that you can rant more about how police have every right to ignore the constitutional rights of someone who is annoying them?
Get a job.
Leave a Comment