No, we're not moving towards a police state

Mister_Beefy · 08-01-2011, 02:33

Not at all.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7e2_1312151128

**RussP** · 08-01-2011, 05:33

Is everything in that story truthful?

eracer · 08-01-2011, 05:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussP

Is everything in that story truthful?

What should be done if it is?

dvrdwn72 · 08-01-2011, 06:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by eracer

What should be done if it is?

I would like to know this too,,,

Donn57 · 08-01-2011, 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussP

Is everything in that story truthful?

I don't know about the story, but the video is evidence enough for me. This trend towards arresting people who are filming police is disturbing.

Brucev · 08-01-2011, 10:11

Normally I default to assume LEO's are in the right. In this case, I have not formed an opinion. My first impression is to say let the officer have to defend himself in court. I think unless he can show an extremely good reason, that the newsman should be vindicated. He should then sue for money damages the officer, agency and municipality. Only money speaks bluntly enough to get over to violators the message they need to hear. In this case, let the legal process move forward.

Agonizer · 08-01-2011, 10:17

I think we would need to know the entire story before making a judgement.

I am all for civil liberties, but it seems like there is more to this story.

And I am not a Cop.

.

**RussP** · 08-01-2011, 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by eracer

What should be done if it is?

What should be done if it isn't?

**RussP** · 08-01-2011, 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donn57

I don't know about the story, but the video is evidence enough for me. This trend towards arresting people who are filming police is disturbing.

There is a difference between the story and the video. Of course, with everyone focused on the cop's behavior, who'd notice?

**RussP** · 08-01-2011, 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brucev

Normally I default to assume LEO's are in the right. In this case, I have not formed an opinion. My first impression is to say let the officer have to defend himself in court. I think unless he can show an extremely good reason, that the newsman should be vindicated. He should then sue for money damages the officer, agency and municipality. Only money speaks bluntly enough to get over to violators the message they need to hear. In this case, let the legal process move forward.

I agree.

My first profession was photojournalism. I've been where this guy was. I had run-ins with cops beginning in the mid-'60s while photographing them in action, investigating, even when an officer was shot. Every incident resulted in my having a more solid relationship with the cops.

If there isn't more to this story than the video shows, the cop was probably wrong. As usual, I'll wait until everything is known before forming a final opinion.

Donn57 · 08-02-2011, 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussP

I agree.

My first profession was photojournalism. I've been where this guy was. I had run-ins with cops beginning in the mid-'60s while photographing them in action, investigating, even when an officer was shot. Every incident resulted in my having a more solid relationship with the cops.

If there isn't more to this story than the video shows, the cop was probably wrong. As usual, I'll wait until everything is known before forming a final opinion.

Arresting a journalist on a public street for videotaping a newsworthy event? I can't imagine what circumstances would make that okay.

eracer · 08-02-2011, 06:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussP

What should be done if it isn't?

You first.

**RussP** · 08-02-2011, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donn57

Arresting a journalist on a public street for videotaping a newsworthy event? I can't imagine what circumstances would make that okay.

Do you know what the videographer was doing prior to where the published video began? I don't.

Do you know why the officer wanted him to leave the scene? I don't.

Did the videographer move a block further away as stated in the story? No, he didn't.

**RussP** · 08-02-2011, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by eracer

You first.

The officer should suffer the consequences.

Now it's your turn.

Mister_Beefy · 08-02-2011, 17:23

funny how after this video the concensus is "I think we would need to know the entire story before making a judgement."

but after the OH CCW rant video it was "If he hadn't of been trolling for some pipe cleaning or drugs or both the whole incident wouldn't have happened."

nope, no double standards at all!

**RussP** · 08-02-2011, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

funny how after this video the concensus is "I think we would need to know the entire story before making a judgement."

but after the OH CCW rant video it was "If he hadn't of been trolling for some pipe cleaning or drugs or both the whole incident wouldn't have happened."

nope, no double standards at all!

That is true, isn't it? If he hadn't been there, it would not have happened?

Do you recall what Mr. Williams said in the video about his reason for being parked there?

Yet, while you cite an obvious fact, you ignore the unanimous condemnation of the officer's behavior by everyone commenting on that event.

What similarities do you find between the two events? Yes, both involve encounters with a LEO. The rest of the circumstances are very different.

Mister_Beefy · 08-02-2011, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussP

That is true, isn't it? If he hadn't been there, it would not have happened?

Do you recall what Mr. Williams said in the video about his reason for being parked there?

Yet, while you cite an obvious fact, you ignore the unanimous condemnation of the officer's behavior by everyone commenting on that event.

What similarities do you find between the two events? Yes, both involve encounters with a LEO. The rest of the circumstances are very different.

Read the title of this thread, and then watch the video again. My position on this could not be more clear.

I will not elaborate further about things like police action, lawful orders, disorderly conduct, probable cause, and double standards, as it could be construed by the hyper sensitive as cop bashing, a cardinal sin.

**RussP** · 08-02-2011, 20:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

funny how after this video the concensus is "I think we would need to know the entire story before making a judgement."

Consensus? Agonizer and I, we are the consensus? I do believe we are outnumbered. You exaggerate and misstate fact, again.

**RussP** · 08-02-2011, 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

Read the title of this thread

"No, we're not moving towards a police state"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

and then watch the video again.

Done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

My position on this could not be more clear.

You have not stated a position. Is it the "Not at all" in the first post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

I will not elaborate further about things like police action, lawful orders, disorderly conduct, probable cause, and double standards, as it could be construed by the hyper sensitive as cop bashing, a cardinal sin.

That is a sorry, pitiful excuse for avoiding a discussion.

Don't want to talk about inappropriate behavior by the cop, then if you were the videographer in this incident, what would you have done when confronted?

Mister_Beefy · 08-03-2011, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussP

"No, we're not moving towards a police state"Done.You have not stated a position. Is it the "Not at all" in the first post?That is a sorry, pitiful excuse for avoiding a discussion.

Don't want to talk about inappropriate behavior by the cop, then if you were the videographer in this incident, what would you have done when confronted?

whatever you say, pal.

**RussP** · 08-03-2011, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

whatever you say, pal.

Good, glad you finally understand.

Mister_Beefy · 08-03-2011, 23:02

4th amendment goes right out the window if the police need "evidence"

and they arrest you if you do not comply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_4ig...layer_embedded

Electrikkoolaid · 08-03-2011, 23:51

It is OK for the gub'mint to film, profile, detain, and obtain forceable carnal knowledge of YOU, but taking pictures is VERBOTEN!

This is because Oceana is at war with Eastasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia.

eracer · 08-04-2011, 05:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussP

The officer should suffer the consequences.

Now it's your turn.

I'll answer, but the question is: "What are the consequences?" Should he be laughed at? Receive a reprimand? Made to conduct LEO training classes on the legality of citizens videotaping a police action when it is not interfering with said action?

I agree that without seeing the actions of the videographer leading up to the beginning of the clip we saw, it's hard to determine the officer's motivation. But really, it's only his motivation that's in question. If the guy filming the stop was indeed interfering, and the cop had to repeat instructions to back off, and the clip starts at the point where the officer's patience had run out, then the videographer should have been arrested when he was breaking the law, and not when he was no longer breaking it.

Or, like a cop pulling me over when I'm traveling the speed limit and giving me a ticket for going 20 over a mile back, that officer should have stated that he was arresting the guy for interfering, and not because he was disobeying a command - a command that at that point in the confrontation was personal, and not lawful.

And as a side note, we need to get our act together regarding the legality of filming the police. As long as we are not interfering with their jobs they must not be held to a different 4th Amendment standard. Losing that right could have terrible consequences - consequences that reach far beyond the 'man in the street' videos that are becoming for prevalent.

***Sam Spade*** · 08-04-2011, 08:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

4th amendment goes right out the window if the police need "evidence"

and they arrest you if you do not comply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_4ig...layer_embedded

Two separate issues. First, whether or not cops get to take evidence from you, you just mindin your own bidness and filming to make sure the po-lice don't shoot no one. Yes, we do. Squawk all you want, but that's the way it is and always has been.

Second, the steps to do that. I personally doubt that the cop in your video dotted the i and crossed the t, but the real answer to that depends on things not posted to YouTube.