ABC Producer Arrested in Denver For Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors!

It appears the reporter was indeed trying to comply with the officer's orders. The problem is he's shoving the reporter while he's walking in the direction the officer asked. Then arrested and moved without being read his rights according to my view of the video.

Pure abuse. Maybe it was a mistake, but I don't see another officer trying to pull the officer in charge aside to speak about it. Note that they didn't harass the member of the press with the video camera trained on this gentleman while being arrested.

Everyone carrying guns is not a solution. Then when an officer goes for an arrest, you give him a reasonable excuse to use deadly force.

If I were this news crew, I'd rent a room at a hotel within visual line of site and stick a 2000mm lens on their butts with a tripod and a parabolic microphone. Two can play that game.

I think the cops probably had a bad taste in their mouths from an earlier brush with the producer. Notice they did not even move the camera man off the sidewalk. They did not care about the camera man. They knew just who the producer was and went straight for him and only him.


My theory says he was rude to them earlier, maybe waved the system in their faces, and they came back later and showed him how they use the system.

Looked mighty personal to me!

And it looks like the thugs from the Denver Po-Po just keep at their strong-arming and bullying the citizens:

Repression in Denver Highlights assault on Democratic Rights in Denver

On Wednesday, police raided the headquarters of a group—Unconventional Denver—protesting at the Democratic National Convention, arresting several people, destroying, and seizing property. The calculated effort to intimidate the protesters and suppress dissent has gone unnoted by the national media, let alone the Democratic Party politicians assembled in the Pepsi Center in Denver.

The police acted illegally, producing no warrant before raiding the small building and the area around it. A bulldozer plowed up sign-making material and deposited it in a dump truck. Two organizers were arrested and charged with disobeying a lawful order. Police claim one had a knife; a protester countered that it was a small pocketknife.

Full Story:

www.wsws.org...

Sounds like the Denver PD is leading the charge towards full blown Fascism...The irony of this taking place during the "Democratic" convention is both laughable and disturbing at the same time. Unreal...

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Why is it unreal? Obama is no different than McCain. they both want a NWO police state.

reply to post by crimvelvet


LOL...Quite true. Perhaps I should have said surreal instead of unreal...Just amazing how far our rights have eroded in just the past several years. Very sad.

Are you so naive as to believe that the candidates have any idea what the police are doing?

There is no relationship there. Just because you are having a convention in a city does not mean you have taken over control of the various departments of that city.


That is just absurd! The mayor of the city probably just gets occasional reports and updates from the field, I doubt they micromanage the police commissioners decisions. Get a grip.

reply to post by GrndLkNatv


Hoo, Lane is going to destroy them, hopefully. Censorship and abuse of power are too much these days.

reply to post by Cyberbian


If the mayor is running his city with just ocassional reports of his police officers actions, then he's not doing a very good job. It is after all his job to make sure that his city is running properly.

If his police officers are out of control, using excessive force, etc, then maybe he should be micro managing them, or appointing a police commisioner that can control his police force.


As far as the candidates, they should be aware of what's going on with the police force in this country. They are running for the office of the POTUS and as such one will run this country. The leader of this country has a responsibility to make sure that it's police force is not violating the constitutional rights of it's citizens.

Ungh...

The people are now the enemies of state... this is what a police state is all about.

What you need to do now is decide whether you can fix it, or get the heck out.

Once again, this is outlined and even predicted in Naomi Wolf's explanation of how to deliberately undermine and destroy a democratic society. They are beginning to lock up journalists and in PLAIN SIGHT of anyone who wants to watch. This is an intimidation tactic aimed at every single American who dares question their evergrowing totalitarian control.

We cannot stand for this, people.

Originally posted by loam
I'd be pretty surprised if that were the case.

We have a similar mapper in Las Vegas... the furthur out you zoom the 'sloppier" the lines are... If you can switch to map mode instead of aerial mode... that shows the parcel lines

[edit on 31-8-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


As a land surveyor I can tell you that it is rare to find parcels that include the sidewalk anymore. 9 times out of 10 the parcel includes everything up to the sidewalk. Back in the day they would give ownership to the CL of the road, but not very often anymore. Not to say this is the case, but I doubt it.

Not interested enough to do the legwork. It is a moot point. I don't care if he was in the lobby of the Hotel, his rights were violated.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
well why do the "people " keep letting this happen?
why do they just take it without fighting back?
im really confused...

Because we have hidden ourselves in our rooms and play video games, hang out and make dates in chat rooms and talk about the woes of the world in forums... You see kids plugged into Ipods and others talking to themselves on phone implants... all of it designed to tune out the world

There are very few social activities were people get together talk and plan things. Its easy to talk big in here... but I think we as a society have become apathetic...

The other thing is we get outraged at incidents like this... as well we should... but where is the follow up?

A while back cops kicked in a Mayors door and shot his dogs... by mistake... then defended their actions... what happened to that story?

In another threaad cops set up a marijauna smoker... a female... on a sting so she would serve less time... it backfired she is dead... they are blaming her

And on it goes... like moths to a flame we pounce on the next story and forget the previous

And nothing gets done...

No one writes letters to congress... but have time to spend hours posting

No one gets a protest going and calls the medis to say WE WON"T STAND FOR THIS... maybe afraid the cops will break it up?

ATS cannot get behind a cause, nor can they start petitions... That is up to each person

But apathy and the comfort of the computer age is taking over... and I bet THEY know this

wheres the panthers now?

In Jail or Dead

[edit on 31-8-2008 by zorgon]

No one writes letters to congress

Speak for youself. I write and I spend the weekends handing out information and trying to wake up the sheeple. I am about to get on the cases of several small newspapers too.

How about the rest of you?

reply to post by crimvelvet

"Don't talk about what you have done or what you are going to do." -- Thomas Jefferson

If you were to look up my past posts here on ATS, you'll find that I spread information...Because that's all I can do on ATS.

Further, this Ignorance Assassin sayeth not...

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


It varies too much on who owns a sidewalk to say for sure, from specific property, to city, county, and state (well, area, since nobody but Oklahoma has renounced the 14th amendment, yet).

Perhaps these will be helpful:
findarticles.com...
www.krages.com...

And this:
www.metnews.com...
the courts (all the way to supreme court) decided that yes, even though the side-walk was privately constructed, it STILL was considered a public space, and demonstrators had a right to have a permit for it. but even so, one person, taking photographs, doesn't need a permit to shoot unless there's some kind of regional law, county/city/district/etc... Go try to shoot somewhere in LA without a permit.

But yeah, not knowing what the charges are (hmm, me thinks they'll be released without charges, BIG surprise, heh)... not really much sense to speculate.

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Are you so naive as to believe that the candidates have any idea what the police are doing?

Considering that both candidates are going for the same Office that administrates law enforcement in government, they damn well better know what's going on! The real trick is that none of the candidates would actually be candidates at this point if they were not intending to follow the "party line" to let it continue...Because their real bosses are the banks (Fed Res, IMF, World Bank) who don't give a flying fudge about human rights (banks care only for money).

Originally posted by Loki
Hoo, Lane is going to destroy them, hopefully.

ABC really should destroy them in court...That would only be exercising Justice under the Supreme Law of the Land.

Originally posted by chise61
If the mayor is running his city with just ocassional reports of his police officers actions, then he's not doing a very good job. It is after all his job to make sure that his city is running properly.

"His" city? Strange...By Law, the city actually belongs to the People. Mayors are only responsible for management...Under proper obedience to the Supreme Law of the Land. Why else is the Office described as an "Office of Public Trust?" If he violates that Trust, he's no longer qualified to hold the job.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln
Hey, Abe was only paraphrasing part of the Preamble in the Declaration of Independence ya' know!

Every Office in government relies on the consent of the People...Every government throughout the whole of human history relies on the consent of the People. History itself shows what happens to governments when the Peoples' consent is revoked with violence...revolts, rebellions. America is the first to have a Supreme Law that contains peaceful means for the People to revoke consent, mostly described in the Bill of Rights.
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." -- Abraham Lincoln

Originally posted by johnsky
The people are now the enemies of state... this is what a police state is all about.

The actual "Declarations of War" were committed to paper & enactment with the Patriot Act & the Military Commissions Act & other such corraborative documents, such as many of Bush's "signing statements" & "Presidental Directives." Strange...I thought the Constitution delegated all powers of legislation to Congress...What's the President doing by enforcing that which is not Law, but only his own "word?" I smell dictatorship here.

Since government cannot operate without the consent of the People, then by proxy, the Police State is actually being invoked in the name of the People...In your name & mine. I don't know about you, but I'm used peaceful means to revoke my consent...But as long as more than a minority of People still gives their consent to government, the situation will only get worse.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I don't care if he was in the lobby of the Hotel, his rights were violated.

You got that right. The Right of Peaceful Assembly & the Right of a Free Press has no boundaries, as such. Since there were no specific boundaries written into the Supreme Law of the Land, then no such boundaries exist. Besides, isn't a "hotel" supposed to be "public access?" How could a commercial enterprise even operate & earn profits without access to the public anyway?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
...it STILL was considered a public space, and demonstrators had a right to have a permit for it.

I see inconsistency in that statement: Since the Supreme Court has declared that the exercise of Rights cannot be taxed, require any kind of licensing or permits, or any other restriction that doesn't involve the equal responsibility to not violate the equal Rights of others. Licenses/permits are only to regulate a privilege, so how could the Right to Peaceful Assembly require a permit that is only for regulating privileges?

Technically, asking for a "permit" means that the "peaceful assembly" is begging the government to regulate a Right as if it were a privilege instead...But no government agency can legally require the issue of a permit for people to exercise a fundamental Right. Do you see the inconsistency here?

Hey, I'm only talking common sense here, with the Law as my resource for background information...

[edit on 2-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Speak for youself. I write and I spend the weekends handing out information and trying to wake up the sheeple. I am about to get on the cases of several small newspapers too.
How about the rest of you?

Well I was speaking to the sheeple... speaking for myself I am very active in many fronts... stopped them three times drilling oil in the Arctic refuge... Shelly Berkley and Harry Reed are on first name basis and our group has literally Knighted them and ex Gov Kenny Guinn

Point being you CAN make a difference by being vocal and writing those letter, and collecting names on petitions

Either that or arm yourself to the teeth. And if all hell breaks loose, swords and crossbows don't need a store to reload

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer



I know that the city belongs to the people, i didn't mean "his city" literally. I was referring to it as his city in the terms of his job scope. Similar to the way that in my last job the departments that i was responsible for the inventory in were referred to as being "my departments" by upper management. They were not really my departments, belonged to the company not me, it's just a way of pointing out what people are responsible for.

Originally posted by chise61
I know that the city belongs to the people, i didn't mean "his city" literally.

If I offended you unintentionally with my remark, I apologize. It's my own way of pointing out some serious flaws in the language during "common usage" that can totally misconstrue the true meaning of a person's intent.

...Just like how the law-makers actually change or redefine the meanings of common-use words when they write the laws...If you're not sure what I'm talking about, compare the meaning of the word "person" in your own dictionary with the definition in a Law Dictionary.

Which is why ABC better have some good lawyers...But as a major media corporation, they sure should be able to afford 'em!