It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dad's actions didn't warrant arrest

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


In light of your own recent events with the police FORCE, I would think you might be more tolerant and understanding of a citizens' right to not be manhandled.

Even if all the points made in favor of the cop behaving with force on behalf of the school were legitimate legally (and I don't agree that they are), jurors have the right and the responsibility to not just judge issues of law but to judge the intent of the law. In other words, it may be against the law to possess some specific herb and you will be busted if you're caught with said herb in your possession; however, a jury may still find you "not guilty" just because those 12 jurors think that possessing said herb is a stupid law.

We all need to start exercising that right and quit avoiding jury duty. If you get called to sit in on a case like this and you disagree with the REASON he was busted then vote your conscience whether it's "against the law" or not.

There was a time in Nazi Germany when it was against the law to harbor and give aid to Jews. Did that make the law right? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's lawful or right.




posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
There are a few issues, not one.

First, the only reason they did not allow the camera is because they sold rights to someone/company and they would produce a cd/dvd/videotape for "SALE" at some ridiculous price.

If "he" were allowed to tape it, people would just a copy of his tape--for the school, it was a money issue-strictly.

As for the cop, I doubt he handled that in a professional manner.

From what I read, it was not like the man had a gun or knife or baseball bat and said he was going to hurt someone.

At worst, he could have had the REAL reason he could not explained to him simply and nicely-politely.

Then inform him that he would seriously have to be bodily removed.

Agree that it is silly and then escorted him/assisted him out.

IMO, there was no need for the violence used, it all could have been avoided by a small use of tact (on both men/children’s sides).




posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


In light of your own recent events with the police FORCE, I would think you might be more tolerant and understanding of a citizens' right to not be manhandled.

Even if all the points made in favor of the cop behaving with force on behalf of the school were legitimate legally (and I don't agree that they are), jurors have the right and the responsibility to not just judge issues of law but to judge the intent of the law. In other words, it may be against the law to possess some specific herb and you will be busted if you're caught with said herb in your possession; however, a jury may still find you "not guilty" just because those 12 jurors think that possessing said herb is a stupid law.

We all need to start exercising that right and quit avoiding jury duty. If you get called to sit in on a case like this and you disagree with the REASON he was busted then vote your conscience whether it's "against the law" or not.

There was a time in Nazi Germany when it was against the law to harbor and give aid to Jews. Did that make the law right? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's lawful or right.



Thank goodness! It is so important that people understand and spread the knowledge you showed here.

Jury Nullification is the supreme law of the land. It supersedes all legal manipulation. The citizens rule this country in the courts - NOT the judge or the lawyers. That's why you don't hear about such cases, Judges have gone as far as to sanction lawyers for introducing this knowledge during trials. Judges don't want the juy to exercise their full power over their will.

I completely disagree with you about avoiding jury duty. While on grand jury duty I made quite a stir when I chastised my fellow jurors for buying into the 'rubber stamp' guilty mentality the prosecution had been allowed to create in them.

If thinking people don't perform jury duty, the system can and will be abused by those who know better. We are literally our own last line of defense!

Please don't skip out on jury duty, some innocent or persecuted person may need your help! You CAN make a difference. Think of the opportunity for at least one of your fellow jurors coming out of the experience with a new understanding of what 'the law' is meant to be.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Ummmm did he have the permission of the other performers to tape them as well?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I would like to remind you all that the topic of this thread is: Whether the father should have been able to videotape his daughter's program.

Please stick to the topic.

Thanks
gallopinghordes
Forum Mod



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


Star for your post. I don't agree at all with either the idiotic school policy, or how it was handled. It was my intention however, to point out just how bad things have become, that people can be treated this way. Not only can they be treated this way, but dissent has been criminalized. Do not resist. Follow orders. Dissent will not be tolerated. These are the laws of "freedom."



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Jury nullification is certainly something that every citizen should know about. I only learned of it at the end of last year. I started a thread on that topic over here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Such knowledge would be well applied in cases like these. This man may have in fact resisted arrest, and failed to comply with a lawful order, but then the jury could be expected to see through the facts of law to true justice by applying jury nullification.

For argument's sake, let's say the man is in fact guilty. What most people do not know, is that the jurors have the right not to convict even though the facts of the crime have been proven. Yes, the man may have been guilty, but the jury may render the judgement that any reasonable citizen might resist under such circumstances.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grafilthy
I have questions about the cop being OFF DUTY.

Does this have any type of implications of assault by grabbing this man???
Even if he did break a "rule"....not a law?

I would have knocked the guy on his a$$ if he did not have a visible badge and uniform.



Now there's a clue! An off duty cop paid by the school to enforce a non-law.
That should make for an interesting case.

We can go further an argue that even if he was taping, it was not unlawful. It could be considered a breech of contract law, but even that would be questionable since he was NOT party to the contract.

What we have here is a mess.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Did the father have to sign a permission slip or waiver/release allowing the school to film his child? Did any of the parents sign a release allowing the school permission to profit from the free labor/talents of their children?

It is considered a professional courtesy to provide a free copy of the "talents'" work to the one providing the talent; ie writers get at least one free copy of their published work, etc. Did the kids get a free video of their performance? Did they receive any compensation?

Since it was a "for profit" venture, the state child labor laws may be applicable. Did the school apply for the appropriate state licenses pertaining to profit-making ventures? Do they have a business license? Are they incorporated?

I say bury the bastards in beaurocracy.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by garyo1954
 



Now there's a clue! An off duty cop paid by the school to enforce a non-law.


You're barking up the wrong tree there. The janitor could have told the guy to leave and physically throw him out. Would have been completely legal, as an agent of the school. Which is different than a common citizen telling him to leave.



We can go further an argue that even if he was taping, it was not unlawful. It could be considered a breech of contract law, but even that would be questionable since he was NOT party to the contract.


Doesn't matter if the taping was lawful or not. If cameras were not allowed, then they could have taken the camera. If the guy made a fuss when he came in, and the officer had reasonable suspiscion that the guy was going to violate the rules, he had every legal right to toss the guy out.

In fact, I can make up a rule on the spot, even if it's not posted, and you will have to comply or leave under threat of further action by myself as an agent of the building/facility/property/company. As an agent, my words are the only notification required, and are as legally valid as any posted sign.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by gallopinghordes
 


Actually when I started the thread I had two topics merged into one thread as there are two mind bogglingly dumb things happening here.
1. (as you said) a father not being allowed to tape his own child because a public school cut a for-profit deal with a production company.
2. A cop way overstepped his bounds and should be called to task on it.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 




2. A cop way overstepped his bounds and should be called to task on it.


Not legally speaking. I doubt anyone will be held accountable. And as I said, I'm actually surprised that the charges were dropped against the father. Wether or not you agree with it, the man broke the rules, refused lawful orders, and resisted arrest. Those are the facts.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Unless we know exactly what the sign said, he didn't break the rules. I understand what your point was about the off duty cop moonlighting as security for the event. I also think his (the off-duty's) saving grace in all of this is that it wasn't the off-duty that slapped a headlock on the dad. If he'd done that he would have been acting in the capacity of a cop while also recieveing compensation for working as a private security guard, a clear conflict of interest. As for your point about bouncers and such, it was duly noted... however you're comparing apples and oranges in a way because this didn't occur in a private establishment. Rather it happened in a public school, paid for by tax payer dollars. Therefore, unless the man was posing a threat to someone or a was a danger, it is grossly out of line to physically manhandle him.

It does raise an interesting question, though. Let's say that the off-duty had been the one to muscle him around and the dad had hauled off and decked him. Obviously it's assault, but assault of what, exactly? It can't be considered assault of a police officer, even though I'm certain they'd have sought that charge, because the cop can't be recieveing compensation from one party and working in that party's direct interest while also wearing the badge UNLESS there's a clear public danger, felony, or gross misdemeanor. At absolute worst you've got an initial case of the dad committing a minor misdemeanor of being a public nuissance which was escalated not by him, but by the cops into a resisting situation.

Please don't misunderstand me, though. If this had happened in a privately held establishment, then yeah, they can lay down any rules they want and enforce them so long as they don't physically assault a man above and beyond what is deemed acceptable in the scenario. That's not the case here as it isn't a private establishment.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
This situation could've turned lethal from a medical standpoint as Larson was 52 years old. Senile calcium plaques start to form around in the lining of blood vessels in some individuals at an early age depending on their predisposition. The choke hold could've broken loose some these calcium deposits and lead to stroke.

All in all this situation could've been avoided by both parties, but the cop should have been better trained to handle this situation to not use force. If law enforcement continue to use physical force for such harmless even, they will continue to lose the trust of the public they "swore" to protect.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



Let's say that the off-duty had been the one to muscle him around and the dad had hauled off and decked him. Obviously it's assault, but assault of what, exactly? It can't be considered assault of a police officer, even though I'm certain they'd have sought that charge, because the cop can't be recieveing compensation from one party and working in that party's direct interest while also wearing the badge UNLESS there's a clear public danger, felony, or gross misdemeanor.


If you assault a cop, off duty or not, it's still assault of a police officer in most places. As long as the officer has identified themself, and sometimes not even.

Now let's dig a little deeper into the "moonlighting" aspect. Was the officer hired to work the event wearing his police uniform? If so, then he was posted at the event by request of the school, not actually hired by the school as stated in the article. A mistake that is often made here locally at Marist College, who use the local PD to buttress their own security staff. That means that he was indeed acting in the official capacity of a police officer. In such a capacity, he has the right to enforce both event rules and the law. Esentially, the word of a police officer IS LAW, regardless of statutes already in place. Failing to obey a police officer's commands is ILLEGAL even if the command itself may actually be unlawful. Your only recourse it to sue, but police officers are the only people in the country to be extended immunity from such prosecution.

Now as far as the actually off-duty who popped out of the crowd, he certainly should not have been the one to do the physical worl of removing the father, but so long as the primary officer concurs that the off-duty was assisting him, there is nothing illegal about it.

Sad but true.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 



If law enforcement continue to use physical force for such harmless even, they will continue to lose the trust of the public they "swore" to protect.


It's about time that the public wake up and smell the blood.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Damn man, when I read your description of cops word being "the law" only one thought came to my mind. If the system really does work that way, we're just a hop, skip, and short jump away from living out the concept of Judge Dredd, where the cop is basically nothing less than a "street judge."

I don't necessarily disagree that what you're saying is the way it is. I just don't believe that's the way it should be nor is it the way those who formed our justice system wanted it to be. Our system has become perverted and that's a tragedy.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Many issues with this story.

1. Schools should never sign deals like this. These exclusive coverage deals are generated to make money for the school, but parents should have the right to film the events if their child is in it. High schools are doing this in my town now with local football teams. It's ignorant of schools IMO.

2. Since when do we need security from an undercover cop to work a school music event? (Maybe because schools know there will be issues with parents wanting to film there kid?)

3. Breaking a "rule" is not the same thing as breaking a "law".

4. This is the problem with cops. They really do think they are above the law. They think there word is law, and all it takes is a citizen to mouth-off to a cop and that citizen is in trouble.

Here, we have disabled vet, being placed in a headlock, and dragged out of the auditorium, in front of parents and children, handcuffed and arrested, by some 26 year old kid. FOR WHAT? What crime had he committed? What law was broken.

And now he is out $11,000 in legal fees, because some punk cop got excited.

It's too bad more people don't stand up for there rights like this guy did, even is he does blow things out of proportion, because if they did, maybe we'd have a video of this incident and we can see how it went down.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Has it gotten to the point that you will not even be able to have a photo of your child at home??? What about ID's..Is it only the State that can have a photo of your child??? I suppose parents will not have any pictures for memory sake. What a sad world we live in. What about year books.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I just want to know when it became such a common practice to physically assault someone for disobeying a directive. Police officers should not be allowed to moonlight as bouncers.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join