NEW Police Tactic To Stop Being Filmed

Police are now playing copyrighted music like Taylor Swift to trigger DMCA takedowns of protester videos. Cenk Uygur and Brett Erlich discuss on The Young Turks.

 

Read more HERE:  https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxa7… “Turns out that Beverly Hills PD isn’t just into Sublime—they also like the Beatles. In a new video that LA area activist Sennett Devermont says was taken on January 16th, we can see Devermont trying to ask Sergeant Billy Fair—now best known for blasting Sublime at BHPD HQ—a question. But suddenly, he is interrupted by the mournful voice of Paul McCartney:…”

 

  • The police officer had that song prepared, if there’s no consequence for this, it’s a dangerous precedent
  • Do the police have permission to play copyrighted music when they know they are being filmed? Seems to me they are the ones who are in violation of the law and not the people recording them.
  • No listening to music during operations on duty. It distracts the citizens attention and the officers attention. Cut the music and get down to serious business.
  • honestly, this is brilliant! you have the right to record the police – they are not taking that right away from you – you could still use that footage in a court of law. You do not have the right to post whatever you want online – that’s a privilege that can be revoked for any reason, including copyright  (???)
  • Pathetic
  • You can take the music out easily – you just need Audacity, reverse the music being recorded, add it back in, and WOILA! The music is canceled! This leaves whatever is being said STILL being said and would come in clearly. By the way Audacity is TOTALLY FREE!!!!!!
  • I think Taylor Swift has grounds for a lawsuit that her music was used to cover up a potential violation of civil rights/criminal activity by police officers. Therefore smearing her reputation.
  • I would yelling and pretending I can’t hear through the music. Then file a compliant that a cop is playing music while conducting police work against policy
  • People like Taylor Swift should Allowed the music to be played in these cases, to show how the police are trying to deceive rather than protect
  • The labels do what the artist tell them because they want to keep a good relationship with the artist. No label is going to pursue legal action against someone without consent from the artist in question That’s why Metallica and all those asshats can eat my bag of s*** f**** posers
  • If ur not doing any wrong why do u need the music?????
  • Until police start holding their own accountable for their actions, they need to be filmed.
  • Not amusing in the least. This an injustice and unprofessional.
  • This is not a problem. All the good cops will be disgusted by this and force the bad cops to stop. Oh wait, i’m being told there are no good cops. That there are literally zero total good cops.
  • Karens will be doing it next.
  • I’ve also seen in a couple videos where the cop shines light in camera phone.
  • It’s just evil anymore! A man becomes cop to have power over others…I have no wish for this power myself….anyone who wants power should not ever have it.
  • Lol they’re so desperate to get away with breaking the law that they’ll do whatever they can to avoid being recorded. They’re such garbage
  • The obvious next move here, is to tell the Cops that you cannot understand what they are saying, because they need to turn “their” music down. WHEN this one GOES TO COURT, the Judge will have some questions for them, about WHY they are playing tunes on the job, WHILE supposedly “communicating” with members of the public…
  • If they are not doing anything wrong why do they object to being recorded? Doing this should be considered an admission of GUILT.
  • This has happened before and the courts have been really pissed about it
  • The Alameda county sheriff’s webpage has a complaint page, but not a comment page. And they post all sorts of threatening notices about filing complaints. “Go ahead and complain about us, but you might go to jail if you do.”
  • As far as I’m concerned, when a cop pulls this stunt he/she is planning to commit a crime.
  • This is frustrating, not because of what the cops are doing, but because of people’s misunderstanding of copyright rules on youtube and other platforms. There’s no such thing as an automated copyright strike. If you were going to get an automatic copyright strike, youtube would just stop you from posting the video. To get a copyright strike, somebody has to manually make a copyright claim on one of your videos, asking youtube to take the video down.
  • Any cop caught doing this should be fired on the spot
  • I’m no lawyer, but this seems like tampering with evidence, or obstruction of justice, or maybe an infraction of civil rights. Someone contact @LegalEagle and ask him about this.
  • If they were not planning on committing illegal acts they would not be planning on preventing it from being recorded. This is prima facie evidence of pre-meditation to commit the crime.
  • Easy fix, tell the cops you can’t hear a single word he’s saying until he turns the music off
  • Hmmm.. evidence tampering if a criminal act happened
    Overruled. Youtube is not a court.
  • Just send it directly to the news channels, then.
  • Please explain how playing music while someone is recording video is going to prevent that video being used as evidence? Are you saying that if the cop who killed George Floyd had played music while cameras were recording the lethal actions of Officer Chauvin, those recordings wouldn’t or couldn’t be used at his trial. Listen, there is no intent to use the music of Taylor Swift in violation of copyright by the person recording. It is not going to pass the Constitutional Test. The Supreme Court has already ruled that citizens have the right to record video of the police as long as they don’t interfere. One more thing, appreciate the dramatics but you didn’t have to mute Taylor Swift in the video you played.

    Read more

    You’re right…they probably didn’t have to mute it because the video would have just been demonitized in all likelihood. There is a less likely chance it would have been removed completely.
    It’s not about using it as evidence. It’s about preventing the clip from going viral. We’re saying if the clip of George Floyd had had blank space by Taylor Swift playing and had to be muted the world wouldn’t have heard people pleading for the cop remove his knee, or for Floyd pleading for his mother. Has nothing to do with court and everything to do with it even getting to court as these viral videos of abuse of power are what is holding police accountable.
  • Wow, I thought police were for the people! ? Gee, I guess 1st amendment rights are only for Trumper Thumpers ! Stuff like that should at least cost that cop a hefty fine at very least!
  • Sick and tired of entitled police officers who think they have a right to behave any way they please with no accountability. “Law and order” my a$$. They’re like bullies on the playground except with guns. A fast food worker making less than $10/hour is expected to have better customer service skills.
  • So it seems the officers cannot give clear and precise instructions while playing music. That is why most officers ask to turn automobile or music off… So would the person be liable for anything?
  • Sneaky per USUAL
  • Easy fix… keep repeating, I can’t hear you, can you turn the music off… until they do and keep recording and repeating on camera…
  • If you have seen a few videos of all the dimwitted frauditors, or “auditors” as they like to call themselves while running around filming and harassing any public official they can find, who follow cops, even when cops are investigating a crime scene, it is actually quite understandable that the police use this trick. I agree that they should be held accountable, but I get the feeling you overestimate the seriousness of all the various people, morons or not, who film their every step, usually only to get some clips for a YouTube channel.

    Show less

  •  @John Doe  So citizens have a right to record because its legal right? Whats the law against playing music from your phone? If you don’t like music being played, walk away. Your right to record should not infringe my right to play music? (I ain’t even a damn cop)
  •  @John Doe  “it’s in a form to be readily distributed” That sounds like a you problem, if I was a cop I’d ask for a press card? Freedom of press? You mean any wally with a camera?

The tactics police are using to prevent bystander video

Marianne Williamson: DOJ CAUGHT Trying To COVER UP War Crime With Charges Against Julian Assange

Activist and former Democratic presidential candidate, Marianne Williamson, discusses the latest updates in the Julian Assange case.

Saudi Operatives Who Killed Khashoggi Received Paramilitary Training in U.S.

WASHINGTON — Four Saudis who participated in the 2018 killing of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi received paramilitary training in the United States the previous year under a contract approved by the State Department, according to documents and people familiar with the arrangement.

The instruction occurred as the secret unit responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s killing was beginning an extensive campaign of kidnapping, detention and torture of Saudi citizens ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, to crush dissent inside the kingdom.

The training was provided by the Arkansas-based security company Tier 1 Group, which is owned by the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. The company says the training — including “safe marksmanship” and “countering an attack” — was defensive in nature and devised to better protect Saudi leaders. One person familiar with the training said it also included work in surveillance and close-quarters battle.

There is no evidence that the American officials who approved the training or Tier 1 Group executives knew that the Saudis were involved in the crackdown inside Saudi Arabia. But the fact that the government approved high-level military training for operatives who went on to carry out the grisly killing of a journalist shows how intensely intertwined the United States has become with an autocratic nation even as its agents committed horrific human rights abuses.

It also underscores the perils of military partnerships with repressive governments and demonstrates how little oversight exists for those forces after they return home.

Such issues are likely to continue as American private military contractors increasingly look to foreign clients to shore up their business as the United States scales back overseas deployments after two decades of war.

The State Department initially granted a license for the paramilitary training of the Saudi Royal Guard to Tier 1 Group starting in 2014, during the Obama administration. The training continued during at least the first year of former President Donald J. Trump’s term.

Louis Bremer, a senior executive of Cerberus, Tier 1 Group’s parent company, confirmed his company’s role in the training last year in written answers to questions from lawmakers as part of his nomination for a top Pentagon job during the Trump administration.

The administration does not appear to have sent the document to Congress before withdrawing Mr. Bremer’s nomination; lawmakers never received answers to their questions.

In the document, which Mr. Bremer provided to The New York Times, he said that four members of the Khashoggi kill team had received Tier 1 Group training in 2017, and two of them had participated in a previous iteration of the training, which went from October 2014 until January 2015.

“The training provided was unrelated to their subsequent heinous acts,” Mr. Bremer said in his responses.

He said that a March 2019 review by Tier 1 Group “uncovered no wrongdoing by the company and confirmed that the established curriculum training was unrelated to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.”

 

Credit…Rod Lamkey/Sipa

Mr. Bremer said that the State Department, “in collaboration with other U.S. departments and agencies,” is responsible for vetting the foreign forces trained on U.S. soil. “All foreign personnel trained by T1G are cleared by the U.S. government for entry into the United States before commencement of training.”

In a statement, Mr. Bremer said that the training was “protective in nature” and that the company conducted no further training of Saudis after December 2017.

“T1G management, the board and I stand firmly with the U.S. government, the American people and the international community in condemning the horrific murder of Jamal Khashoggi,” he said.

A 2019 column by David Ignatius of The Washington Post first reported that members of the Khashoggi kill team had received training in the United States. He wrote that the C.I.A. had “cautioned other government agencies” that some special-operations training may have been conducted by Tier 1 Group under a State Department license.

The issue was central to Mr. Bremer’s contentious confirmation hearing and the written questions from senators, asking him what role, if any, Tier 1 Group had in training Saudis who had participated in the Khashoggi operation.

A State Department spokesman declined to confirm whether it awarded licenses to Tier 1 Group for the Saudi training.

“This administration insists on responsible use of U.S. origin defense equipment and training by our allies and partners, and considers appropriate responses if violations occur,” said the spokesman, Ned Price. “Saudi Arabia faces significant threats to its territory, and we are committed to working together to help Riyadh strengthen its defenses.”

A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington did not comment.

Mr. Trump weighed installing the head of Cerberus, Stephen A. Feinberg, in a top intelligence post last year, but the appointment was never made. While the Trump administration had appointed Mr. Feinberg to lead the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board in 2018, questions emerged about potential conflicts of interest. Cerberus formerly owned the military contractor DynCorp, which among other things provides intelligence advice to the United States and other clients.

It is unclear which members of the Khashoggi kill team participated in the Tier 1 Group training. Seven members of the team belonged to an elite unit charged with protecting Prince Mohammed, according to an American intelligence report about the assassination declassified in February.

The role of operatives from the so-called Rapid Intervention Force in the Khashoggi killing helped bolster the American intelligence case that Prince Mohammed approved the operation.

“Members of the R.I.F. would not have participated” in the killing without his consent, according to the report. The group “exists to defend the crown prince” and “answers only to him,” the document said.

Members of the team that killed Mr. Khashoggi were involved in at least a dozen operations starting in 2017, according to officials who have read classified intelligence reports about the campaign.

Mr. Khashoggi, a columnist for The Post, was killed inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in October 2018, his body dismembered using a bone saw. The assassination brought widespread condemnation on Prince Mohammed, who has publicly denied any knowledge of the operation.

The instruction occurred as the secret unit responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s killing was beginning a campaign ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to crush dissent inside the kingdom.
Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Eight defendants were sentenced to up to two decades in prison last year, but human rights advocates criticized the punishments as aimed at lower-level agents while sparing their leaders.

The C.I.A. concluded that the prince directed the operation, but Mr. Trump said that the evidence was inconclusive and that America’s diplomatic and economic relationship with the kingdom took priority. After President Biden took office and debated the issue with his advisers before the release of the declassified intelligence report, his administration announced sanctions on Saudis involved in the killing, including members of the elite unit who protect Prince Mohammed, but chose not to directly punish the crown prince.

The earlier iteration of the training, which took place during the Obama administration, occurred before Prince Mohammed consolidated power in the kingdom. His predecessor as crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, was a close ally of the United States and in particular John O. Brennan, who served as C.I.A. director under President Barack Obama.

Prince bin Nayef was the Saudi counterterrorism chief and collaborated closely with Obama administration officials in working to dismantle Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terrorist group’s affiliate based in Yemen.

In 2017, Prince bin Salman pushed Prince bin Nayef from power and executed a broader campaign to wrest power from his rivals — including a notorious episode of imprisoning Saudi royals and businessmen at the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh.

The Trump administration considered him a valuable partner in the Middle East — especially for the administration’s strategy to isolate Iran — and Prince bin Salman developed a close relationship with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump.

Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and President Barack Obama in the White House in 2015. In 2017, Prince bin Nayef was pushed from power and remains under house arrest.
Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

Prince bin Salman, the son of King Salman, is the next in line to the Saudi throne. Prince bin Nayef remains under house arrest in the kingdom.

The Tier 1 Group website lists numerous American special operations and intelligence units as clients, along with “specialty units that do not require recognition.” It said it also trains “OGA special operator teams” — one pseudonym for C.I.A. paramilitary units — as well as “international allied forces.”

Under federal rules that restrict foreign sales of American arms and military expertise, Tier 1 Group was required to apply for licenses to train the foreign operatives. Those license applications were examined by State Department officials — who were processing tens of thousands of licenses per year — and approved.

The approval would have allowed members of the Saudi Royal Guard to enter the United States on visas processed by the American Embassy in Riyadh. The path is similar to the one followed by Second Lt. Mohammed Alshamrani, a Royal Saudi Air Force officer who opened fire in 2019 at a naval air station in Pensacola, Fla., where he was receiving military flight training. The attack killed three people and wounded eight.

Tier 1 Group was founded to train U.S. military personnel, taking advantage of an expanded Pentagon budget for military personnel training in basic counterinsurgency skills, according to former American officials familiar with its operations.

One of the company’s founders, Steve Reichert, a former Marine, was working as an instructor for the security contractor then known as Blackwater when he met Mr. Feinberg. With Mr. Feinberg’s backing, Mr. Reichert set up Tier 1 Group, according to Mr. Reichert’s 2020 account of the company’s founding and former intelligence officials familiar with the efforts.

But as U.S. military training budgets began to shrink, the company, like other private security firms, began searching for new clients. By 2014, it was beginning to train foreign military units, including Saudis.

Decisions about granting licenses to American firms to train foreign nationals are usually made after getting input from numerous government agencies, said R. Clarke Cooper, the assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs during the Trump administration. The Pentagon and intelligence agencies often play a role, he said.

“These things don’t just come out of the ether,” he said.

Mr. Cooper said he could not recall any discussion about the Tier 1 Group training of Saudis, even after Mr. Khashoggi’s killing. He said there were intense deliberations inside the Trump administration about how to respond to the killing after the government concluded that Prince Mohammed most likely approved it.

In the end, he said, administration officials did not want to squander America’s relationship with the kingdom — and the strategy of isolating Iran — khashoggi

“No government is going to flush a significant bilateral relationship over this murder, no matter how horrific it was,” he said.

Adam Goldman contributed reporting.

Correction: 

An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to Louis Bremer’s nomination for a Pentagon position. Mr. Bremer’s nomination never received a Senate vote and expired at the end of President Donald J. Trump’s term; it was not withdrawn. The error was repeated in a photo caption.

DOJ Asks Judge to Dismiss Lawsuit Against Trump & Barr for Clearing Protestors from Lafayette Square

Protesters gathered on May 29 – June 7 to protest the killing of George Floyd

Last year, Bill Barr and others directed that Lafayette Square be cleared of protestors who were exercising their 1st Amendment rights so then-President Donald Trump could walk across the street to stand in front of a church for a political photo-op. The ACLU filed suit on behalf of protestors and journalists that were assaulted by law enforcement officers while they cleared the way for Trump’s political stunt.

In a troubling move, the Department of Justice has now urged the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that Trump, Barr and other government officials have immunity from this particular lawsuit. This video presents an argument for why the suit should not be dismissed but instead should proceed to the discovery phase to, at a minimum, determine if Trump and Barr were acting within the scope of their official governmental duties when they ordered the area cleared – shutting down the protestors’ exercise of their 1st Amendment rights, for a presidential photo op.

Let’s talk about a cop asking me for training….

Transcript

00:00
well how do you their internet people
00:02
it’s Bo again if you know me you’re
00:05
already laughing waiting for the story
00:09
if you don’t know me you need to know I
00:12
used to train law enforcement one day I
00:15
was given a class and had a cop asked
00:18
about hitting a suspect in the knee with
00:20
a baton saying that it was probably more
00:23
effective I explained you know you’ve
00:26
got legal tactical of medical liability
00:28
the legal and medical liability on that
00:30
is gonna eat you alive you don’t want to
00:33
do anything that could be permanently
00:35
disabling like hit a joint unless your
00:38
wife is truly in danger and he says well
we write the report if you don’t know
what that phrase means it means that the
cops can pretty much say whatever they
want and the police report and it will
be believed
even if they are lying it
00:56
bothered me that he said it it bothered
00:59
me more that I got a room full of cops
01:01
and nobody said anything against it and
01:05
in fact most of them laughed I never
01:08
taught another class for law enforcement
01:10
again that was 12 years ago in that time
01:16
I have had a number of officers ask me
01:19
for training and they normally get
01:21
pretty colorful responses this is a
01:26
little bit different cop watch that
01:29
police militarization video and he I
01:33
don’t want to put his details out there
01:35
he he’s been a cop for more than five in
01:38
less than ten years he said he’d never
01:40
heard the phrase time distance and cover
01:42
and I guess in the comment section I
01:44
talked about auditory exclusion he’d
01:47
never heard of that either he googled it
01:49
and said that now he feels a little bad
01:52
now what that means is that over the
01:56
course of his career he has treated
01:57
someone more roughly than he should have
01:59
simply because he did not know he ends
02:04
his
02:05
is this message by saying Bo you’re
02:08
wrong
02:08
we do need militarized training just not
02:12
the kind we’re getting