Wednesday, August 28, 2013

NYPD Officer Charged with Multiple Felonies for Unlawful Arrest of New York Times Photographer

It appears there is still a hands off policy for establishment press, and one NYC copper didn't get the memo.

RT reports:
The New York City police officer that arrested a New York Times photographer has been indicted on three felony counts and five misdemeanor counts for fabricating the cause of the arrest.

Officer Michael Ackermann, 30, was charged with tampering with public records, falsifying business records, official misconduct and making a false written statement, police told CBS New York. If convicted, he faces termination from his job at the NYPD. If convicted of the most serious charge alone – tampering with evidence – he faces up to seven years in prison.

On August 4, 2012, Ackermann arrested 44-year-old Robert Stolarik, a New York Times photographer who was taking pictures of a police response to a fight in the Councourse neighborhood of the Bronx.

Police were arresting a teenage girl who was involved in the fight and asked Stolarik to stop taking photos. Stolarik identified himself as a Times journalist and continued snapping pictures. Suddenly another officer grabbed the camera and slammed it into his face, the photojournalist said at the time. He said he was assaulted, pushed forward and kicked in the back, which resulted in scrapes and bruises on his body and face. He was then handcuffed and thrown in jail, while his equipment – valued at $18,000 – was confiscated.

3 comments:

  1. Amazing that his charges were thrown out and even more amazing the officer is being charged. Courts seem to always believe that a lying pig squeal is the voice of an angel. I guess that's what happens when you work for a big media outlet. Hasn't worked that way for Adam Kokesh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Speaking of the gang of thugs that is known as the NYPD did you see this?

    http://www.heraldstandard.com/united_states_ap/nypd-designates-mosques-as-terrorism-organizations/article_49c734c3-8d45-5c84-bafd-568ad86afc9e.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here here... I second that notion entirely.

    ReplyDelete