Really? Rights most certainly can be taken away. Google Japanese Americans in 1942, you may recall around 110,000 Japanese of which 2/3 were American citizens, were taken in to internment camps, just because they were of Japanese descent. Just when they needed their right the most the government took them away.
Originally Posted by SkipA
What about the Smoking ban that is in place in New York and other places around the country? Banning smoking in a outside public place? I thought public meant public, and you had a right to do anything in a public place. Not anymore.
What about the the 2nd amendment, right to arms, even though they can control and ban guns. Also what about gay marriage, don't you think gays should have the same rights? Yet they do not. I think people should have a "right" to marry whom ever they want, but apparently the government does not see it that way.
Here is another, in Indiana the supreme court decided that it would be a crime to resist an unlawful entry of a police officer into your home. Police don't need a reason or warrant to enter. As i recall, the 4th amendment states that the people have a right against unreasonable search and seizures, they either need a reason or warrant. Now the Indiana Supreme Court overruled that? How could they just overrule a right that is in the Bill of Rights? Hmm, there goes more "rights" right out the window.
I thought I heard the woman say, right at the beginning of the video when the officer asked something like "you guys need something?", that she replied that the person being searched was "Gary, a friend of mine, and I'm just recording what you're doing".
If that's so, then the statement that the officer didn't feel safe is a bit of a red herring. He knew exactly what was going on and he didn't like the idea of his actions being recorded.
One might assume at the beginning of the video that the officer was just doing his job and the woman was being a bit provocative. By the end of the video I was left with the feeling that the woman was taking the video precisely because the police in her area have a history of abuse of process and misuse of power, and she wanted evidence of this. She sure got it!
Well I was bragging!
Originally Posted by M.A.Longmore
I do agree with everything you say here.
Originally Posted by nhemann
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
When I was born the midwife slapped me in the mouth
Originally Posted by Jeff Kubach
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by benjiboy
Ben, You should have waited a few years before getting married ...
In a situation like this, saying that the cop feels threatened is really hiding behind a finger. Either that particular cop doesn't want to be filmed because he perceives this as a lack of trust by a citizen in his correctness and he's a bastard enough to get pissed over that, or the local police boss instructed his men to use that (laughable) excuse to avoid being filmed while on duty, which also means they know they don't play by the rules.
I myself would have filmed the occurrence, if at all possible, without making myself evident. The guy might have been beaten or abused with calm after arrest in a secluded place. You would protect society (if not your friend) more by filming police behaviour while remaining unnoticed.
I can't understand how can a policeman arrest somebody claiming that her videocamera makes him feel insecure and not be sentenced himself quite fast. I'm pretty sure if something like that had happened to an Italian policeman he would escape prison but would be certainly either fired or transferred 1000 km away - which would be illegal anyway, "punitive transfer" I mean, typically to induce resignation - but it does happen within the police, an acquaintance of mine resigned from the police after having being transferred in a "punitive" way, he told me he made una cosa sporchetta, "a little dirty thing". There is hope for a country when the police itself understands the need to be punitive against bad behaviour in its own ranks.
The police will to avoid a scandal over this (minor, in the great scheme of things) incident, but I would be curious to know what happens to the idiot and to his career as a policeman.
Last edited by Diapositivo; 06-23-2011 at 06:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.
It is my understanding that you can only be arrested for (or on suspicion of) an arrestable offence (at least, that is the case here). Otherwise, it's wrongful arrest.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
In many jurisdictions peace officers may also detain someone if it is necessary to do so in order to:
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
1) protect the safety of individuals,
2) protect property from damage or destruction, or
3) protect and secure evidence of a serious offence.
There is a lot of overlap between the power to arrest and the power to detain, but they aren't exactly the same.
Ironically, this might mean that a police officer could detain someone for threatening to destroy photographs that might constitute evidence of an offence.
Please note that this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Perhaps the overriding question is this: As a nation, how do we define freedom?
The striking problem to me seems obvious: Why are there so many people in this country who continue to look past such attempts by police to create their own laws? And many of these same people, while waving the flag, would state openly and honestly that the police are PROTECTING our freedoms when they act in this way. Clearly, this woman was not wrong but was 'guilty' of committing that subliminal crime: tampering with police egos. The police 'make up' a crime to cover their desperate attempts to cover their crimes. There are some locales (in New York I saw this years ago) where police cover their badges in tin foil to prevent positive identification.
In the end it is up to us to decide just what 'freedom' stands for. I have already become a certified 'crackpot' for standing up for what is rationally (but not EMOTIONALLY) correct. - David Lyga.
Last edited by David Lyga; 06-23-2011 at 04:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.