Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 98

Thread: Woman arrested for filming police in NY; on her property

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,865
    [QUOTE=32green;4052097]Thats why they have [I]Courts[/I], both Criminal and Civil, that in my experience, afford citizens a more than sufficient means of refuting any bogus enforcement.

    Bottom line is; SOme cops lie, some citizens lie.. in virtually all civilized societies.

    I think our courts do a pretty good job of sorting these things out, they certainly dont side with the cops as a rule.

    When humans, a few brief million years removed from knuckledragging through the Africa Savanna are involved, you will never achieve a perfect balance, no?[/QUOTE]

    All of that is after the fact. Giving anyone supposed 'authority' to order any citizen to perform any act on demand, regardless of their rights, is the essence of a police state. If you set up the infrastructure to demand compliance regardless of situation, you set up a system ripe for abuse.

    This officer violated this woman's rights. Doing so under color of law, he is in violation of [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001985----000-.html"]Title 42 USC, 1985,1986.[/URL]and [URL="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes"]18USC, 241, 242[/URL] Allowing this type of behavior in clear violation of the law, indicates that the officer in question has curiously little knowledge about the law he is sworn to uphold. Either his ignorance is a remarkable lack of understanding on his part alone, or it's systemic in the way he and his fellow officers are trained. I'd be willing to guess it's not the former.

    All the redress of grievances talk is nice, up until you're getting loaded into a cattle car.
    Last edited by freestater; 06-23-2011 at 02:19 PM.

  2. #22
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,320
    [QUOTE=freestater;4052128]All the redress of grievances talk is nice, up until you're getting loaded into a cattle car.[/QUOTE]


    Well at least we are not getting all melodramatic and all.


    Can we abide a system that allows a man to decide on the spot whether he is guilty or innocent and then disobey law enforcement?

    Where has this been effective?

    What is the alternative?

  3. #23
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,665
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4052116]Well for starters, if you use a bad experience or two to make "zero trust" statements for such a broad institutional presence like a police force then you are being, at the very least, completely irrational.

    It suggests that you are inherently right while something else much larger than you is inherently wrong. And when operating from that vantage point the "world owes me" mentality is merely a semantic stone's throw away.[/QUOTE]Irrational? So am I supposed to trust police that don't know me "a little bit" as opposed to "zero"? If so, how does that play out - do I trust every police "a little bit", or do I select a few (based on what criteria? their smile? their race? whether they 'look like good people'?) and trust them fully, and then have zero trust for the rest?

    You either trust in something, or you don't. If you trust someone a little bit, or distrust them a little bit, you [I]don't trust[/I] him/her. And I do trust in those police that know me. But if [I]they[/I] don't know [I]you[/I], you shouldn't trust them. Because I've heard stories... They wouldn't treat me the way they treat others, and they rationalize it, but you would fall into the 'others' category, because the only way to reliably define that category is "people I do not know".

    BTW, my distrust isn't based on a couple of personal experiences. I have had a few experiences, but it's more based on conversations with friends that are police, and on seeing people I've known suffer little to no repercussions for their actions because they were close to a police officer (a dad, a brother, etc.).

    I am generally considered the opposite of 'irrational' - I'm a [I]moderat[/I]or for crissakes! My personal issues with the police have come down to myself or others being treated irrationally and/or illogically. Speaking of which, I still don't understand how you logically infer societal debt from right vs. wrong. Seems like a more tangled web than can be explained away by 'semantics'. They're not on the same plane, really. I'm pretty sure I can feel I'm right about everything, always, without feeling that society owes me anything. In fact, if I felt that way, I doubt I'd want anything that anyone else has to give - inferior nonsense, all of it! Maybe we should consult SAR on this one ;)

    EDIT: Wanted to make something clear: I do not hate police. Far from it. I don't go out of my way to make their jobs harder. I am a regular, law-abiding citizen. I think speeding is probably the harshest crime I've committed in the last 20 years, and prior to that, 'assault' for glittering - OK, no, it was fighting - but only once, and I have no complaints with how that was handled, and most everything that has affected my trust in police happened after that. I think that they have a tough job on good days, an impossible one on bad days. But I've become cautious whenever police are involved, and I think that if you believe you must use caution when dealing with the police, then you do not trust the police.
    Last edited by isired; 06-23-2011 at 03:09 PM.

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,865
    [QUOTE=32green;4052143]Well at least we are not getting all melodramatic and all.[/quote]

    Trampling the rights of citizens has varying degrees, but to get to the extreme, one must first convince society that the minor infringements of their rights are beneficial (or for the more egregious, at least legal). Is it such a 'melodramatic' stance to guard against such abuses before they get to such a point? Or is it only OK to qualm when the actual doors are closing?


    [quote]Can we abide a system that allows a man to decide on the spot whether he is guilty or innocent and then disobey law enforcement?[/quote]

    How about we agree on a system where those sworn to enforce the law actually know the law, and the rights of the people they are 'protecting'?

    [QUOTE]Where has this been effective?
    [/QUOTE]

    America. Right up until Pres. Nixon declared war on Individual rights.
    [quote]What is the alternative?[/QUOTE]

    A nation of laws, not men.

  5. #25
    ......and to the REPUBLIC........

  6. #26
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,320
    [QUOTE=freestater;4052180]Trampling the rights of citizens has varying degrees, but to get to the extreme, one must first convince society that the minor infringements of their rights are beneficial (or for the more egregious, at least legal). Is it such a 'melodramatic' stance to guard against such abuses before they get to such a point? Or is it only OK to qualm when the actual doors are closing? [/QUOTE]

    QUalm all you want, I just think a comparison to Nazi's is a bit much.




    [QUOTE=freestater;4052180]How about we agree on a system where those sworn to enforce the law actually know the law, and the rights of the people they are 'protecting'? [/QUOTE]

    I have no problem with that; There's an obvious dearth of training in many depts., as well as a problem attracting qualified candidates. Virtually all testing for civil service has been watered down to placate the racial arsonists. Plenty of morons out there.

    But again, are we granting everyone the option of following a cops directions even if the cop is a walking lawbook?


    [QUOTE=freestater;4052180]America. Right up until Pres. Nixon declared war on Individual rights.[/QUOTE]

    So no individual rights issues prior to Nixon? Segregation? Jim Crow?


    [QUOTE=freestater;4052180]A nation of laws, not men.[/QUOTE]

    "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."

    - Alexander Hamilton



    We need some laws dude. Humans are ****holes.

    Finding the right balance, its a fluid thing.

    We cant all live in a cabin.

    :dunno:

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,865
    [QUOTE=32green;4052244]QUalm all you want, I just think a comparison to Nazi's is a bit much.[/quote]

    who were the enforcers the nazis used to maintain control throughout the Reich?






    [QUOTE]I have no problem with that; There's an obvious dearth of training in many depts., as well as a problem attracting qualified candidates. Virtually all testing for civil service has been watered down to placate the racial arsonists. Plenty of morons out there.

    But again, are we granting everyone the option of following a cops directions even if the cop is a walking lawbook? [/QUOTE]
    If they aren't exceeding their authority, there's no need.




    [QUOTE]So no individual rights issues prior to Nixon? Segregation? Jim Crow? [/QUOTE]
    It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the War on Drugs. Certainly, you're the last person I have to justify a tongue-in-cheek comment to, eh? ;)



    [QUOTE]
    "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."

    - Alexander Hamilton [/QUOTE]

    Interesting you would quote the one prominent founder who wanted to institute a new American Monarchy and nobility. Like I said, I prefer a nation of laws, not men.



    [quote]We need some laws dude. Humans are ****holes.[/quote]

    Right. That's my point. Do we have 'law' if those trusted to enforce it, are disregarding it?

    [QUOTE]Finding the right balance, its a fluid thing.[/QUOTE]
    The right balance was the Natural Rights of Man.
    [QUOTE]We cant all live in a cabin. [/QUOTE]

    ...but we can dream.

    :dunno:[/QUOTE]

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,960
    [QUOTE=isired;4051895]I think you're mostly right, [B]but it also comes down to a matter of faith and trust between the police and the community[/B]. I have zero trust in the police - if that was someone I know that they were pulling over, I'd do what I could to protect their safety and their rights. [/QUOTE]

    And therein lies the rub; there has to be trust and courtesy between both, which is why I said that the public has as much a civic responsibility as the police do a lawful one. Whether she is within her rights or not, from a civic PoV she made the situation antagonistic, which doesn't necessarily make the cops the protagonist, but you get what I'm saying.

    [QUOTE=Trades;4051868]No idea what she had said before the video started [B]but if 3 cops with guns are afraid of a woman[/B] standing on her property because she has a video camera then there is something wrong.

    Again, I think both cop and the woman were wrong in this instance. The cop was overly sensitive unless the woman threatened him before the video rolled and the woman should have backed up and given them some space.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=Trades;4051951]Speaking of over-reacting and being over-sensitive. [B]I never said "because they have guns"[/B] my point is 3 [B]trained and [U]armed[/U] officers[/B] couldn't do their job because a woman with a video camera was taping her seems like an over reaction. He looked like he was looking for an arguement. BUT like I said so did she.

    I made it a point to say they both look wrong and without knowing what happened before the recording then it is difficult to assess the situation.

    Look the woman was obviously an idiot and was not obeying orders though I question the need for the orders in the first place. So much of this depends of what was said/done before the tape.[/QUOTE]

    Not only did you, but you did it again in the same post where you said you didn't. Wait. I confused myself there.:D

    I get what you are saying. I don't think he was looking for an argument, but I do agree that his nose may have been out of joint about the whole situation, kind of like standing over the plumber's shoulder whilst he works on your terlet. Sure, it's you're right, you're paying him, but it makes for a cantankerous situation.

    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4052060]No doubt that the Police need to be held accountable for their behavior. They are paid public servants.[/QUOTE]

    And conversely you feel the public doesn't need to be accountable for theirs, just so long as they are lawfully correct? They have a civic responsibility to not interfere with public servants attempting to do their jobs.

    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4052060]The people have every right to film the police actions as long as they are not interfering. The distance seemed appropriate as she was on her property and clearly had no gun.[/QUOTE]

    I agree. Problem is in this example she was interfering. The cop felt she was an antagonistic party at the very least, a threat at the most. Her presence and repeated arguing of the point was making the situation less tenable for the police officer to safely do his job.

    I don't see how you can deem the distance appropriate as you were not there. Same for stating that she "clearly didn't have a gun".

    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4052060]She even mentioned that. Why would the LEO want her to go back into the house where she COULD get a gun anyway?[/QUOTE]

    Indeed, she did. And why not trust that she doesn't have a gun? People always tell the truth in those types of situations.:rolleyes: If she was in Philly she'd have it on display for all to see, removing any doubt. See the hopeless double standard you place on LEOs?

  9. #29
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,320
    [QUOTE=freestater;4052268]who were the enforcers the nazis used to maintain control throughout the Reich?







    If they aren't exceeding their authority, there's no need.





    It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the War on Drugs. Certainly, you're the last person I have to justify a tongue-in-cheek comment to, eh? ;)





    Interesting you would quote the one prominent founder who wanted to institute a new American Monarchy and nobility. Like I said, I prefer a nation of laws, not men.





    Right. That's my point. Do we have 'law' if those trusted to enforce it, are disregarding it?


    The right balance was the Natural Rights of Man.


    ...but we can dream.

    :dunno:[/QUOTE]

    Crap. You out-exhausted me.

    You win.

    :D


    btw, who are teh Nazi's directing the armies of zombie cops in our scenario?


    :dunno:

    :D

  10. #30
    @jetworks

    The police have the authority to arrest and kill if necessary. Most of the citizenship do not and are held accountable by the laws of the land.

    Just how was this woman interfering? Because the LEO said so? The other LEO's did not seem to mind her from the video. Since when is video taping the police actions from her personal property antagonistic behavior?

    What do the LEO's have to hide?

    As for the gun, I am quite sure that the LEO's would have had a different type of approach if she was with a pistol or rifle. I am sure that the police would have spotted a weapon if she was carrying.

    There were several of them.

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,960
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4052335]@jetworks

    The police have the authority to arrest and kill if necessary. Most of the citizenship do not and [B]are held accountable by the laws of the land.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Which the police officers are tasked with enforcing. They also have the right to conduct their job without interference from individuals who are not a part of the situation. The public has an obligation to respect and yes, defer to, the authority of a police officer. I'm not saying the citizenry has to subjugate itself, but standing around yelling you have the right to do what you want isn't conducive to a good relationship with the police.

    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4052335]Just how was this woman interfering? [B]Because the LEO said so?[/B] The other LEO's did not seem to mind her from the video. Since when is video taping the police actions from her personal property antagonistic behavior?[/QUOTE]

    Yes, that is why. It doesn't matter if [I]you think[/I] the others didn't mind. They most likely were more concerned about safely doing what they came there to do whilst letting the one LEO run point. The antagonistic behavior was arguing with the officer when he was stating that she was making him uncomfortable. Why is that marginalized? Because it was a woman?

    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4052335]What do the LEO's have to hide? [/QUOTE]

    They seemed pretty open and matter-of-fact about their business to me. :dunno:

    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4052335]As for the gun, I am quite sure that the LEO's would have had a different type of approach if she was with a pistol or rifle. I am sure that the police would have spotted a weapon if she was carrying.

    There were several of them.[/QUOTE]

    Why are you so sure she wasn't armed? Perhaps she had something other than a gun, like a knife? What if she was standing in a rock garden? What if she had a sharp stick? What if, what if? Maybe it shouldn't matter either way, people can pose a threat without any weapon at all.

    Look, here's my little anecdote, after that I'll bow out of the thread because I can see it isn't going to lead to any kind of productive discourse. Almost the entire population of Rikers Island is composed of detainees, all of whom are presumably innocent until proven guilty. I don't turn my back on a single one of them, ever. That's because I know they are inmates. Now imagine not knowing who the next inmate will be. That's the life of a cop.

  12. #32
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,665
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4052352]Which the police officers are tasked with enforcing. They also have the right to conduct their job without interference from individuals who are not a part of the situation. The public has an obligation to respect and yes, defer to, the authority of a police officer. I'm not saying the citizenry has to subjugate itself, but standing around yelling you have the right to do what you want isn't conducive to a good relationship with the police.



    Yes, that is why. It doesn't matter if [I]you think[/I] the others didn't mind. They most likely were more concerned about safely doing what they came there to do whilst letting the one LEO run point. The antagonistic behavior was arguing with the officer when he was stating that she was making him uncomfortable. Why is that marginalized? Because it was a woman?



    They seemed pretty open and matter-of-fact about their business to me. :dunno:



    Why are you so sure she wasn't armed? Perhaps she had something other than a gun, like a knife? What if she was standing in a rock garden? What if she had a sharp stick? What if, what if? Maybe it shouldn't matter either way, people can pose a threat without any weapon at all.

    Look, here's my little anecdote, after that I'll bow out of the thread because I can see it isn't going to lead to any kind of productive discourse. Almost the entire population of Rikers Island is composed of detainees, all of whom are presumably innocent until proven guilty. I don't turn my back on a single one of them, ever. That's because I know they are inmates. Now imagine not knowing who the next inmate will be. That's the life of a cop.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4052352]Now imagine not knowing who the next inmate will be. That's the life of a cop.[/QUOTE]Now imagine not knowing if the cop standing in front of you will be the next cop to mistreat a civilian, for which they may or may not be punished, and in fact you may be punished harshly simply for daring to speak out against him/her. And you're not armed. And if you stand up for your rights, or the rights of a fellow civilian, you may be restrained and taken to a place where dozens of armed men and women who will swear to that officer's story, without questioning it's truthfulness, will have physical control of your restrained person. That's the life of a civilian who comes into contact with the police.
    :p

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

  13. #33
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,320
    [QUOTE=isired;4052420]Now imagine not knowing if the cop standing in front of you will be the next cop to mistreat a civilian, for which they may or may not be punished, and in fact you may be punished harshly simply for daring to speak out against him/her. And you're not armed. And if you stand up for your rights, or the rights of a fellow civilian, you may be restrained and taken to a place where dozens of armed men and women who will swear to that officer's story, without questioning it's truthfulness, will have physical control of your restrained person.[/QUOTE]

    omg!

    [QUOTE=isired;4052420]That's the life of a civilian who comes into contact with the police.

    [/QUOTE]

    It is!

    omg


    o m g


    :rolleyes:

  14. #34
    The 4th amendment has been trashed over the last several decades. Another example.

  15. #35
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,865
    [QUOTE=32green;4052326]Crap. You out-exhausted me.

    You win.

    :D


    btw, who are teh Nazi's directing the armies of zombie cops in our scenario?


    :dunno:

    :D[/QUOTE]

    lol. I'm not trying to 'win', just open you up to a new way of looking at things. (and mebbee win just a little bit :D)

    But here's the issue: When a person's rights can be abrogated or suspended arbitrarily, they cease to be 'rights' at all, and are instead 'privileges'. Privileges are conferred and may be withdrawn at any time by the authority that conferred said privileges. Rights are intrinsic. They are yours simply through the nature of your own humanity. The Rights of Man all derive from the simple premise that each one of us owns our selves. Governments are instituted amongst men to preserve those rights, not abrogate them.

    I know the nazi reference may seem a bit internet-hysteria-kooky, but the real Nazis looked just as kooky to the residents of circa 1928 Germany, too. However, when the nut-jobs did come to power, they artfully used the structure that was already in place to achieve their ends. There are other examples I could have used, but none so well-documented as the nazi regime of the 1930's. If you consider that particular era and setting so unique, I suggest you look a little into the history of Russia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, The Baltics, Poland, Italy, Spain, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar... well you get the idea.

    The fact is that man has devised ingenious methods of turning the least little infringement upon the Rights of Man into the next step and the next step, right up to rolling out the cattle cars, throughout history. If you think it can't happen again, just consider the atmosphere that brought the German people into the hands of the nazis: High unemployment numbers, and an economy in freefall: the fractionalization of media (red and yellow journalism) with two sides each insistent on their own 'truth': out-of-control government debt, and the monetizing(printing money to cover debt) of that debt: worldwide political unrest: add in a little Reichstag fire, and we could have our very own little rabble-rousing community-organizer from the beer halls of Munich to make us all wonder; "Why'd we hire the funny lookin' wallpaper-hanger again?"

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=Revi$_I$l@nd;4052126]You hate cops. It's cool and all. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    When your house gets robbed, call the marines. Don't dial 911.[/QUOTE]

    When your house gets robbed call your insurance agent. If the Police are going to arrest you on your own front lawn for using a camera you might want to put your bail bondsmen on the speed dial ahead of the police.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,332
    How often do police actually recover your stolen property? All the police do is file a report that you can give to your insurance company.

  18. #38
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,475
    [LIST][*]It should be the right of every citizen to use camera lights and stand right behind the police while they are trying to focus on a car stop.
    [*]The possibility of the cop being distracted from the suspect or being concened with people standing in the immediate proximity shall be dismissed as Nazi hyperbole.
    [*]No citizen should be compelled to follow the repeated and reasonable instructions to back away.
    [*]The fact that tens of thousands of cops are assaulted on or adjacent to homeowner's property shall not be a reason for them to be concerned for their safety.
    [*]The cop should've known that her camera was incapable of shooting footage from her front porch.[/LIST]

  19. #39

    You're About To Witness A Crime By A Police Officer

    [url]http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15429[/url]

    Caught by the Police Cameras

  20. #40
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,865
    [QUOTE=PatriotReign;4052587]The law should be whatever the cop tells you the law is. [/QUOTE]

    There, I fixed that for you. For brevity's sake.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us