The Balancing Act: Policy, Power, and Individual Rights

A well-functioning government relies on its ability to enact policies that guide society and protect its citizens. Yet, these policies must exist in a delicate balance with individual rights. This article delves into the principles governing legitimate policy creation and enforcement, highlighting the pitfalls of arbitrary rules imposed by individual officials.

Effective government policies address a demonstrably necessary government need. This need could be public safety, environmental protection, or economic stability. For instance, traffic laws serve the need for safe and orderly roads. Simply wanting to regulate behavior isn't enough justification. Policies must be demonstrably linked to a legitimate government objective.However, need alone doesn't justify any policy. The chosen policy must be "narrowly tailored" to address the identified need. Here, precision is key. Broad regulations can inadvertently restrict behavior unrelated to the issue at hand. Imagine a policy restricting park access after dark to curb vandalism. While addressing vandalism is a legitimate need, a blanket ban might restrict legitimate uses like peaceful walks. A more targeted policy, like increased park patrols after dark, could achieve the goal without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Furthermore, the principle of least-restrictive means dictates that a chosen policy should be the least intrusive option available. For example, a noise ordinance might prioritize setting decibel limits before resorting to complete nighttime bans on outdoor gatherings. This ensures that rights are curtailed only to the minimum extent necessary.

Beyond crafting well-defined policies, enforcing them fairly is equally crucial. When public agency officials, such as police officers, create and impose ad hoc policies on the spot ("by fiat"), these become arbitrary rules. These rules lack the transparency and public vetting that formal policymaking processes provide. Additionally, such rules often target specific individuals or groups, raising concerns about discriminatory application.

Arbitrary rules also lack legal force. Police officers, for instance, derive their authority from the state's power to arrest. This empowers them to enforce established laws, not personal whims. Using the threat of arrest to coerce compliance with arbitrary rules violates a citizen's due process rights. Due process guarantees fair legal proceedings, which wouldn't apply to an officer acting on their own, unestablished rule.

In essence, citizens have the right to know the laws they are expected to follow and the right to challenge the application of those laws in court. Arbitrary rules usurp this right by creating opaque and potentially unfair regulations.

The tension between effective policymaking and individual rights is inherent in any democracy. By demanding demonstrably necessary policies, narrowly tailored to achieve specific goals, and implemented in a uniform and least-restrictive manner, governments can fulfill their obligations while upholding the rights of their citizens. Conversely, allowing individual officials to create and enforce arbitrary rules undermines the rule of law and jeopardizes fundamental rights.

We live in a caste society

We live in a global caste system. An aristocracy wrapped in corporate fascism. No matter from whence it's derived, once the malignant advantaged class gets hold of a little special privilege, it locks it away in walled gardens and offers it up in small measures for temporary lease to the lesser classes in consideration for disfavored labor at a disparitive rate. Currency is a human-invented device to horde privilege to the exclusion of others. Parasitic taxes, fees and surcharges are devices to ensure wealth always leeches back to the privileged.

Wealth is a function of production. Full stop. As you produce goods and provide material services in fair measure for the good of society, you earn your keep. If a man dutifully and faithfully dedicates and pledges his working years to the betterment of society, he has earned a lifetime of privilege.

The man who digs wells and builds homes does so in service to the community so he and others may drink and have shelter. The man who treats sickness & injury and cultivates the land for food does so that he and others may enjoy health and wellbeing.

The undeniable moral imperative of the áristos ("the best") -- through its krátos (strength and power) -- is to see that all people flourish. The stench of societal decay is strong evidence of a fundamental failure of the áristos.

 

Americans are being catalogged like livestock to be fleeced or led to slaughter

 Face it. All advertising is propaganda. We can be wiser, better informed consumers if we can understand that. It's in a corporation's best interest to advance sales and maximize profit for its stakeholders. A business model driven exclusively by the balance sheet isn't concerned about what's in society's best interests.

With every generation government and corporate marketers have honed their ability to gain advantages over the commoners. The fact is, there are people who want to catalog Americans like cattle so they can be fleeced for their value or led to slaughter. Sometimes both.

And make no mistake. The demarcation between corporate American and the government is a shaky one.

Take Facebook advertiser "flock safety" as an example of intrusive marketing for a product that might just be the ultimate cataloging tool: neighborhood surveillance. The pitch is simple and scary: it's not safe to live without it. And they use compelling endorsements and testimonials to convince you to buy their system, which is targeting people who live in, or make buying decisions for, home owners associations.

When you click on a display ad, you're revealing several facts about your online behavior and the specifics about their campaign that got you to click on it. In addition, they receive whatever distinguishing details about you that Facebook knows about you, based on its years of interactions with you, and which it's willing to share with advertisers for a small additional fee.

Web address: 'www.flocksafety.com/book-a-demo'
Referal Source: Facebook
Referal Medium: Online Advertising
Campaign Name: rta_flock_prospecting_20230131_na_community
Campaign Content: flock_fbig_lal1-cs-hoa-customers-plus-lal1-cs-alltimeopps_na_us_a016_all_c007_na_na_copy24_display_lp001_static_single
Campaign Term: rta_flock_prospecting_lal1-cs-hoa-customers-plus-lal1-cs-alltimeopps

Once you wind up on their landing page, you're invited to book a demo of Flock Safety's surveillance products. If you're not immediately convinced, you can scroll down for more info. There you'll see a smattering of statements purportedly given by H.O.A. board members and agents of cities and law enforcement:

Why people reach their breaking point and engage in mass shootings

Mass shootings are complex and tragic events with no single cause. While there's no simple explanation for why someone commits such an act, understanding the contributing factors can help us prevent future tragedies. Here are some key areas to consider:

Individual factors:

• Mental health: While not all mass shooters have diagnosed mental illnesses, some may experience conditions like depression, anxiety, or psychosis. These can exacerbate existing problems and impair judgment.

• Personal experiences: Traumatic experiences like abuse, neglect, or violence can leave lasting scars and contribute to feelings of hopelessness and rage.

• Social isolation: Feeling disconnected from others and lacking a support system can increase feelings of alienation and despair.

• Ideological extremism: Exposure to extremist ideologies that promote violence or hatred can fuel harmful beliefs and justifications for violence.

Social and environmental factors:

• Access to firearms: The easy availability of firearms, particularly high-powered weapons, makes it easier for someone in crisis to carry out a violent act.

• Gun violence culture: A culture that glorifies or normalizes gun violence can desensitize people to its consequences and make it seem like a viable solution to problems.

• Social media: Online spaces can echo chambers for extremist views and provide platforms for individuals to radicalize each other.

• Economic inequality and lack of opportunity: Feelings of hopelessness and a lack of prospects for the future can contribute to feelings of despair and anger.

It's important to remember that these factors often interact and contribute to a complex web of motivations. Attributing mass shootings to any single factor risks oversimplifying the issue and potentially overlooking other important contributing elements.

Instead of focusing solely on the perpetrators, it's crucial to address the broader societal issues that contribute to gun violence. This includes promoting mental health awareness and support, fostering social connection, addressing economic disparities, and enacting stricter gun control measures.

By understanding the multifaceted nature of mass shootings, we can work towards creating a safer and more supportive society for everyone.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or would like to discuss specific aspects in more detail, please feel free to ask.

 

How it got easier for cops to shake down minorities

 In the old days, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required police to establish "probable cause" to lawfully conduct certain searches and seizures or perform arrests.

As of 1968, police may stop you even without probable cause to believe you committed a crime. In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio, justices formulated from whole cloth the less-than-probable-cause standard they called “reasonable suspicion,” aka "RS", which was comically and pedantically defined as the totality of specific and articulable facts and circumstances, taken together, that leads an officer to reasonably suspect a person may be engaged in criminal activity.

Cops never even need to name a specific law they think has been broken, nor do they even have to tell the “subject” the basis for the stop, unless he’s arrested or cited. The court pretended to establish some boundaries by requiring that an officer’s suspicion must be “particularized” and not generalized, that it has to be more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.”

The Terry case all but eviscerated the Fourth Amendment in stop-and-frisk cases. We see countless viral videos that depict cops stopping people just because "we got a call" or because they're opting to make an arbitrary investigation of some sort. That's fairly telling of officers' lack of understanding of the current state of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and their own state laws.

Once an officer has established reasonable suspicion, he may briefly detain a person to investigate whether there is probable cause to make an arrest, or until his suspicions are dispelled, at which time the person would be free to go. If there’s additional “reasonable suspicion” to suspect the “subject” might be armed and dangerous, the officer can now do what’s called a “pat down” or frisk of exterior clothing for weapons, which is supposedly less intrusive than a regular search, which could entail digging into a person’s pockets.

Thank you, SCOTUS, for making it easier for opportunistic bullies to shake down people of lesser privilege just for kicks. This is, of course, a much easier job than conducting complex criminal investigations that are less likely to produce arrests and citations than these high-yielding stop & frisks.

All this is my own opinion, based on pertinent laws and relevant court cases I've read, as well as a healthy dose of videos showing cops behaving badly. Do your own work! Read laws and court cases for your jurisdiction, and subscribe to attorneys who have studied the law. Do not educate yourself by watching videos produced by people who speak as authoritative sources of knowledge. Good lawyers and journalists cite sources and show their work. Learn the difference!

Teenage migrant worker held for months following questionable police stop in Florida

We as Americans tend to turn the other cheek on undocumented migrants because they contribute significantly to our local economies by depressing labor costs, but the migrants are often mistreated. Back in May, an 18-year-old Guatemalan migrant, gainfully employed by St. Augustine, Florida area agricultural producers, was being detained by a St. Johns County Sheriff's deputy for unknown reasons. Sgt. Michael Kunovich rolled up on Vergilio Aguilar-Mendez, who doesn't speak English, in front of Super 8 Motel, and began questioning him. Kunovich quickly escalated the encounter and began applying physical force against Aguilar-Mendez. During a struggle, Kunovich, a 25-year veteran of SJSO, tased Aguilar-Mendez 4 times. After backup officers arrived and while Aguilar-Mendez was being handcuffed, Kunovich suffered a medical event and was pronounced dead a short time later. Aguilar-Mendez is being charged for his death and has been locked up ever since, even though he had not committed a crime leading up to the questionable stop. There are now calls to free Vergilio Aguilar-Mendez.

 

Google's AI agent on Iowa law

 

This morning I received an email from Google advising me that I had been welcomed into the Bard research project, so I started asking questions.

Here's one question I asked, followed by Bard's response.

Question: "In the Iowa Supreme Court case STATE V. SMITHSON, the court ruled that Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts only applies in the case of active interference, and not for merely refusing to cooperate. Based on that ruling, would refusing to identify to a police officer be considered active interference?"

Answer: "No, refusing to identify to a police officer would not be considered active interference under the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Smithson. In that case, the court ruled that Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts only applies in the case of active interference, and not for merely refusing to cooperate. The court defined active interference as "an act that obstructs or impedes the officer's ability to carry out his or her duties." Refusing to identify oneself to a police officer does not meet this definition, as it does not obstruct or impede the officer's ability to carry out his or her duties."

"The court also noted that the purpose of Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts is to protect police officers from harm and to ensure that they can carry out their duties effectively. Refusing to identify oneself to a police officer does not pose a threat to the officer's safety or interfere with the officer's ability to carry out his or her duties."

"Therefore, the court concluded that refusing to identify oneself to a police officer is not a crime under Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts."

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think the answer nails the answer perfectly. First, and most importantly, Bard doesn't purport to give any legal advise, and I'm sure anyone would be well advised not to use its responses in court without running them by an attorney as a minimum.

Secondly, in the referenced the Smithson case, Larry Smithson failed to turn down music when told to do so by a police officer. for which he was charged with a violation of Iowa Code Section 719.1, interference with official acts. As far as I know, Smithson was not charged for refusing to identify himself, as Bard is suggesting above, and therefore the fact pattern is inaccurate, but conceivably right on the point that interference does not mean refusing any demand a police officer wants to make.

Perhaps Bard provided a cogent argument that could be used in court, but it's only an example, and the court is free to disagree if it find the argument without merit. But is it a start? An idea starter? Possibly!

Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

City pays $125,000 to settle Robbins v. Des Moines/Youngblut/Leo/Curtis

If I can boil it down to the brass tax, my wrongful-arrest case against Des Moines officers is a case where city hall would rather go to extraordinary lengths to put one of its residents in the dangerous predator bucket than to admit its own wrongdoing.

Quick background. I grew up in a small, rural town in Iowa. I earned an AAs in broadcasting and broadcast engineering and have since been a member of the broadcast media in this state for four decades. I worked as a radio news director, meeting regularly with community & civic leaders. I volunteered as a board member, as well as 2-term president, for my neighborhood association. I’ve been a communications volunteer for the county’s Emergency Management, and the state, as a member of the A.R.R.L. (Amateur Radio Relay League). I served as a communications N.C.O. in the Iowa National Guard, 194^th Field Artillery, with an honorable discharge.

I was raised around people who honorably served in the police profession. My grand dad was chief of police and I spent many family Christmases and Thanksgivings, and vacations with officers … Hawkeye games, Indianapolis 500, Knoxville races, boating at Sailorville, a skiing trip to Winter Park, etc. I’ve always lived and worked around law enforcement, have respected the institution, and have never had a beef with officers, even after getting pulled over for speeding or a citation for an expired registration.

It's easy for certain people to casually accuse me of disliking cops in general, but it’s without an honest basis. Similarly, a suggestion that I’ve ever created, dedicated or maintained any online space to illegally parked cars or government misconduct is also fabricated from whole cloth. As a broadcast professional I shot and produced hundreds of videos of a wide variety, many of which I posted on YouTube. I’ve shown videos of bands performing, celebrity and political interviews, events and newsworthy incidents, like a neighborhood monument dedication, National Night Out, a school bus crash, and structure fires at apartment buildings, a funeral home and houses.

And, yes, in the public-interest vein, I’ve also posted unfortunate incidents involving former police sergeant Greg Wessels and Ofc. Ryan Garrett, for instance, whose conduct people have viewed as less than professional at best. But I also have great photos and video of officers doing their jobs proudly. One of my favorite photos of all time shows one beaming DMPD Sgt. Dave Mulford introducing his horse to kids at one of our National Night Out gatherings.

I take pictures. A lot of them. I enjoy capturing the state of our city for posterity, and posting the changes to the Lost Des Moines Facebook group. At least I used to. That leads us to the wrongful-arrest lawsuit.

One area of the city that drew my interest, because of the city’s promotion of new impending development, is what’s known as the Market District, which is south of the East Village. I left the house that day to go on a photo tour of the area and document the state it was in at that time. I was aware that the historic marble foundry had been torn down and was being replaced by an apartment complex. The old railroad depot had been acquired by the Des Moines Historic Society and was about to be renovated. These are images that interested me and people seemed to enjoy seeing them. But I never got that far.

The Market District is essentially anchored by the police headquarters building. After I parked my car, I walked westerly along the south sidewalk of Court Avenue in front of the Salvation Army building. I spotted a white SUV parked under a no-parking sign across the street, along East 2^nd Street, between Salvation Army and police HQ, which I began filming or photographing. And then I saw “Angie” climbing in and driving away. That’s what drew me in for a close look.

According to city attorney Shelly Mackel in her oral arguments in front of the 8th Circuit federal court, employee “Angie” said it "was weird and uncomfortable" that "this guy is taking pictures of me getting into my car." I felt that would-be jurors could easily surmise that it was probably awkward for Angie that she – a uniformed employee of the Des Moines Police Department – had been noticed getting into the driver's seat of a car that was parked in front of a no-parking sign at police headquarters.

Following local news and reading the city’s court filings, one might think that event was the impetus for the police reaction that day.

Angie will be familiar to local TV viewers because she’s been mulling around crime scenes in front of television news cameras for years. Her uniform is black or dark blue with police patches on the shoulders. She’s practically indistinguishable from the officers wandering around crime scenes, investigating murders, house fires, and car accidents. In body-cam video, Officer Michele Strawser referred to her as “Ident Angie” because she’s part of the Identification Unit, DMPD’s name for the crime scene investigation unit, or CSI. She’s hardly a stranger to the public eye.

It might have been significant to a jury that this man with a camera saw Angie and believed she was just another cop violating a city ordinance. The fact that she happened to be female seems to be a distinction the city did its damndest to exploit, as evidence by Mackel’s remarks to the court, as well as DMPD Public Information Officer Sgt. Paul Parizek’s in television news interviews.

The narrative here was obviously crafted to dirty up the photographer-adversary, to bolster favorable court/public perception of the police action against him, with total disregard for their ethical responsibilities to the residents they serve.

After Angie drove off, I walked across the street to the west, near the rear parking lot of the police station. As I walked south, I encountered a plain-clothed gentleman watching Ofc. Michelle Strawser park her cruiser on East 2^nd Street, exit and walk to the officer standing near me on the sidewalk. The two exchanged words before she returned to her squad car and left the immediate area.

As the plainclothes officer walked north toward the station and I proceeded southward down the sidewalk, videotaping maybe a dozen cars parked along no-parking zones. When I was approximately a half-block south of the station, I noticed a pickup parked on the sidewalk, close to railroad tracks with crossbucks, a stop sign, and a fire hydrant. It was faced north on the southbound side of the street. I squatted ahead of the pickup to frame it in a way that showed the front tag.

About that time, Det. Brad Youngblut pulled his car up next to the pickup and began questioning me through his passenger-side window, and across the pickup bed. He asked what I was doing and I explained I was just taking pictures. When he asked of what, I began to describe my intentions to get some shots of the Market District and asked where Market Street was. Without really answering, Youngblut began escalating with what I felt were interrogation-style inquiries, so I wanted to establish whether he thought what I was doing was, or was not, okay. He eventually answered in the negative. “Not really,” he said. After a few fruitless verbal volleys, I decided that’s where any small talk has to end, because at that time, I felt I was under criminal investigation.

Sgt. Christopher Curtis and Ofc. Strawser then came walking south along the sidewalk where I was standing. Curtis yelled, “What are you doing leaning on my pickup?”  or words to that effect. In his deposition, Curtis admitted that wasn’t even his truck, so I inferred he was feigning an affront to his pride in order to sensationalize the encounter, just to fuck with me. He criticized me for coming down there and refusing to ID and explain what I was doing there. At one point he told me to “just leave then.” I said no, and that this is a public sidewalk, indicating I had every right to be there.

Lt. Joseph Leo appeared behind me and began asking questions. He first got my attention by saying, “I’m talking here.” He then went hands on, grabbing onto my arm and forcing it over my head, then lifting my shirt and digging his hand into my back pockets, pulling out my cellphone at one point. I told him not to touch me and made it very clear I didn’t consent to any searches. He said he didn’t need it, and asked if I had a driver’s license, to which I responded by asking why I needed a driver’s license to be a pedestrian, and that I didn’t have to give my name.

Lt. Josh Rhamy joined the group by announcing that I did have to identify myself because I was loitering. He threatened to arrest me if I didn’t. Det. Youngblut asked me if I knew what “interference with officials acts” was. I had remembered that local club owner Larry Smithson had fought to the Iowa Supreme Court an “interference” charge, and won. I was also acutely aware that ACLU Iowa had asserted on its website that there was no state law requiring anyone to provide their details, short of being stopped for a crime or traffic offence.

Considering the circumstances, I felt I was being coerced from several fronts, each making demands for things they had no authority to demand, but I decided I’d better capitulate to avoid being locked up. At the same time, I felt the need to establish for the record whether I was detained or arrested, thereby being compelled to obey their requests, just in case it became an issue at a later time. So, I asked. And Youngblut responded in the affirmative to both statuses; arrested and detained.

Then a plainclothes officer, standing off-camera, between Youngblut’s car and the pickup, said, “He’s a John Doe.” I inferred from that remark that he thought I ought to be charged and held as an unidentified person, which I regarded as another coercive tactic to gain compliance with their demands. I responded to that remark by repeating “John Doe?” in protest, then immediately providing my information to Youngblut.

City attorney Shellie Mackel tried to argue in front of the federal court that my utterance amounted to lying to the officers, and that was the proximate reason for the arrest. That might have worked, except that all indications were that I was already under arrest by that point. Officers had already surrounded me, dug their hands into my pockets, made me stand up against a truck, and confirmed an arrest. Thankfully the court wasn’t buying what Mackel was peddling in her oral arguments.

After a short lecture, accusing me of being difficult and challenging authority, Youngblut released me with a belated introduction. He said his name as he handed me his calling card, along with a trespass warning. He informed me that he was confiscating my camera and phone, saying he’d return them “at some point,” and that he hoped there was no evidence of crime on my devices.

As I turned and began walking away, Youngblut told me not to forget my readers. He then asked where I parked, if I got a ride, that he hoped I could get a ride, and whether anyone on scene ran my name. None had.

In my view, Youngblut's attitude was, "if you're just going to make this difficult for me by daring to challenge my authority, well then I'm just going to make this difficult for you by relieving you of your little camera ... and, oh yeah, your phone, too!" Rhamy warned that I better study the loitering laws better or next time, or I’d talk myself into jail. That was a group power trip if I’ve ever seen one!

It's been shown in many classroom exercises that tyrannical behaviors like these develop quickly among certain kinds of people who are adorned with symbols of authority. As we watch the interaction, we see Youngblut's snide & condescending attitude on display for the world to see – in fact he exhibited immense disdain toward me. "So, you think you can challenge me, huh? We'll just see about that!" The same can be said about Lt. Joseph Leo and Lt. Josh Rhamy's conduct, digging into pockets and threatening trumped-up charges for loitering, interference with official acts and trespassing.

Thankfully, after the final analysis, we can now ask Youngblut, Leo and Rhamy how crow tasted when they were forced to sit for their depositions and finally face the music for overstepping their authority that day, for the permanent record. We can now ask them how they feel about exposing our tax payers to the $125,000 payout, all because professionalism took a back seat to their egos that day in May, and throughout a considerable window of opportunity thereafter to avoid litigation.

Judge Andrew Napolitano said it well with his book title: IT IS DANGEROUS TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG. It's true here. Having to wait four and-a-half years for something resembling justice in this case was punishment for being right when the police were dead wrong.

Interestingly, I wasn't even looking for a confrontation that day. My sole mission at the police station that day was to document the parking violations and walk away. I don’t know what, if anything, I’d have ever done with photos of illegally parked cars. Probably nothing. But what if I give it to Youngblut, that I was only there “to challenge authority” and “be difficult?” What if I was only there to bait police and instigate a negative response for social media clicks, on behalf of some well-organized group of 1^st-Amendment activists? On whose authority does he punish anyone in this manner, abusing his state-imbued police power to create a government taking, as if by a king’s prerogative?

As for City Manager Scott Sanders siding with the unlawful actions of his subordinates, anyone in his position that lacks the integrity stand up for the rights of the residents he serves doesn’t deserve to lead a city in a song, much less as its chief executive. The city council should start a search for a new city manager at the next meeting.

My advice to all law enforcement officers is this: maintain your composure and professionalism, and don’t let your ego cause you to take the bait. Let public opinion eviscerate the instigator, not your tender ego and your role in the public trust!

My overall message is that government officials are on notice that “we the people” won’t sit still for officers who would abuse their powers and use excessive force against our communities. If we -- members of the media and the citizenry at large -- can't investigate wrongdoing by government actors, without fear of being arrested and having our property seized, then the constitution is powerless to protect the public from tyranny.

Fatherlessness and violence are connected

 The laws & institutions that are insensitive to or cause of fatherlessness can do more to address violent outcomes than all the mental health programs and gun laws on the planet. 

What Representing Men in Divorce Taught Me About Fatherhood

The Crisis of Fatherless Shooters

Mike Lee Wonders If ‘Fatherlessness’ Is Behind Mass Shootings

Five quick ideas to make better videos

If you want to know in as few words as possible how to avoid common mistakes when shooting video, try these 5 quick & dirty ideas.

Buy a $50 mic/recorder and learn how to use it

Terrible sounding audio will destroy an otherwise amazing video. On-camera (built-in) microphones are almost always too far from the subjects you’re recording and end up “hearing” too much environmental noise and “room bounce” reverberating throughout a speech. For the kind of up-close presence heard from radio & television presenters, you’ll need your microphone set a few inches from the mouth. Because it’s just not that feasible to hold your camera 3-10 inches from subjects’ mouths, I recommend lavalier and handheld microphones priced between $30 and $50 as a starting point. Budget mic reviews are plastered all over the internet, so you shouldn’t have too much trouble identifying a few suitable candidates for your purpose. Also, use headphones (or earbuds if you must) to identify & mitigate wind noise and other audio problems in real time (rather than struggling to correct them in post).

Avoid the zoom!

Video is all about steady, well framed shots. Zooming in and out is frustrating for the viewer, and zoom generally amplifies jittery effects of camera movement. Use zoom very sparingly, erring on the side of not using it at all! It’s nearly always better to stand closer to your subjects than to compensate for distant shots with zoom. Even with great image stabilization the results are often not as good as being closer. Of course, there are exceptions, but consider getting some tight shots after the main shoot. It’s fine to supplement your package with a few close-ups that can be stitched into the package as b-roll.

Hold shots steady; don't pan or bounce around scene excessively

It’s instinctive to point the camera where you’re looking, but it makes for annoying movement for the audience. When you frame a great shot that helps tell a story, allow your viewer to take in the composition. Us photographers might be hyper-active, but that should not inform our shooting style because it’ll drive people crazy!

Use a tripod, stick or stabilizer

Cellphones – or mobiles – make great camcorders, but the form factor is hard to keep steady; it takes purposeful effort to tuck elbows and stand very still, particularly if you’re multi-tasking. Using neck straps, selfie sticks, monopods and tripods will help you produce stable scenes, like having a third hand.

One final thought before I leave you to your work. I’ve noticed that too much space between the top of the frame and the top of a subject’s head makes them appear sinking or downing in the frame, and leaves little or no room for lower thirds – or titles. Try framing so that the tops of subjects’ heads are at, or near, the top of the frame.

Now go out there and practice shooting the kind of footage you enjoy watching & crafting into beautiful stories!

Upcoming article ideas:

One great reason for buying higher resolution cameras than your final packages will be affords you more flexibility to pan & zoom in post.

Cheap gear generally can’t handle challenging environments and make for cheap looking videos, but if you can control the circumstances by using a solid tripod, ideal lighting and external audio devices, you might be able to overcome some the weaknesses of discount equipment.