LAPD Unlawfully Detains Photographer

reply to post by richierich

Rights are NOT ' inalienable'..none of them. They are all conditional.

I will say this as plainly as possible: You have no legal basis by which to support your claim. Conversely, I have a number of legal documents and other authority to legally support my assertion that rights are indeed inalienable. I had all ready in this thread supplied one legal document asserting that rights are inalienable, and will provide that documentation once again.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

(Bold added for your convenience)

Since this matter is a California matter this documentation should have been enough, but given your wild claims sans any legal documentation to support those claims, I will continue with more documentation and other authority to make perfectly clear that rights are indeed inalienable. Consider the preamble to The Constitution for the United States of America:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(Once again bold was added for your convenience)

This is to establish from the beginning who in fact created the government, which is We the People. As a part of this Constitution, ordained by We the People, there is what is know as a Bill of Rights. Consider the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

www.usconstitution.net...

This particular Amendment makes clear in no uncertain terms that all rights enumerated before it are not some statutory rights granted by government but are inalienable rights, and all the Amendments contained within the Bill of Rights act as a prohibition on government, and not as a grant to the people. The 9th Amendment further makes clear that the people do not need any statutory grant of right and can simply rely upon what is self evident. What is self evident? Consider this authority, that being The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

www.earlyamerica.com...

The remainder of your rant about cops being "a special class" with "special rights" has nothing at all to do with what I have argued in this thread, and I have consistently maintained, including this post, that all people have inalienable rights. You on the other hand, have argued to the contrary with not one iota of evidence to support your claim.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Give what you have as authority and me being who i am, how well does your identity hold in an International Court of Law.

Originally posted by tristar
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Give what you have as authority and me being who i am, how well does your identity hold in an International Court of Law.

I am not understanding your question. I make no legal arguments regarding an international court of law, and given the nature of this thread do not see how an international court of law has any relevance.

lol grasping at straws now.

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
Well if the cop says no as a citizen then I agree with him.
If I was in his shoes I would have asked for no pics of me either so I agree with the cop.
The kid was being a jerk in my opinion and the cop was as well at certain moments.

I did find it interesting that as a citizen you might have the right not to have your picture taken(not sure of the laws) yet they have cameras watching the citizens on a daily basis.

If its true that as citizens we have that right then why is there cameras watching people against thier will??

I side with the cop on this one because I had an incident a while back where I asked for no pics to be taken of me and when I turned my back I saw the camera flash....I was absolutely livid.

Besides gross unprofessionalism, the officer is woefully uninformed, which for LAPD isn't surprising. His being a "citizen" has no bearing... Police officers (in Cali) who are "on duty" can't be legally offended or disturbed... and can't be subject to "trespass" (602PC) laws while on official business.

As an on-duty professional who dons the color of authority he has less of an expectation of privacy in public than you or I... media & public are expected to take interest in, record/document, police activities in public.

The officers only argument, a weak one, is that photo guy standing so close picture taking was a distraction, ergo causing the officer "delay" and or an "obstruction".. which is a misdemeanor 148PC.

The cop actually did issue a lawful order at first when he asked photo dude to "..move along..".... "you're making me nervous".. under 148PC failure to move denotes "willfully" making the officer nervous; ergo a misdemeanor committed in the officers presence. The other tactful move the officer made was to engage with photo dude in a consensual contact: "everything ok?"

Once picture dude re-located to a safer distance, the cops have no PC to detain him... calling photo guy a "fruitcake-ass".. lol, hilariously unprofessional.

Side note: besides his "class B" uniform, only traffic officers don shoulder patches with LAPD. Officer dufees unit was "11 cycle 2": Division "11" is LAPD Northeast Div (484.8375 digital for scanner buffs), "cycle 2" is his beat (aka 'RD' reporting district).. also note number 11 on the shop trunk and fruity bicycle shoulder patch... LAPD deploys bicycle officers who don't ride much and harbor illusions of grandeur about being "pro-active" / "broken window" type cops on a special quality of life mission... in reality they're infraction police in a felony world, scratching out j-walking, expired tags, and other chickenspackle cites that earn the city $$.

The tragedy of Canada is that they had the perfect opportunity to enjoy French cuisine, British culture and American technology, and instead they ended up with British cuisine, American culture and French technology.

Cops have NO RIGHT to claim that a citizen is ' making him nervous' and use that as an excuse to deny rights. NONSENSE. it was NOT a legal order.

Of COURSE the cop gets ' nervous' when being filmed, as he no doubt uses illegal and abusive means to get busts. Cops HATE to be recorded, because they always have something to hide.

Nervousness is NOT a legal condition. If a photographer is so close to the cop that it PHYSICALLY interferes with what the cop is doing, then OK...he can tell them to move away to a distance that cannot be said to be too close. But other than that, a cops ' orders' can ONLY be valid if they concern: SAFETY...or CUSTODY. There are NO OTHER lawful orders a cop can give legally.

A photogrpaher standing far enough away so that he is not directly interfering with the cop can legaly film all he wants to. If the cop has a guilty conscience or intends to act in ways he does not want others to witness and document, then TOO BAD!!

I WISH some cop would challenge ME like that; I photograph the buggers all the time, never so close that it could ever be seen as interfering, and if some cop said : " Hey, go away, you are making me nervous", I would laugh in his face and keep filming. Take a pill copper...use some prescription drug to deal with your bad nerves...you are NOT going to limit MY ability to observe and document your actions, and if you try you will get SUED, and fast.

Cops BLUFF, and LIE, and INTIMIDATE, and bluster, and use all sorts of crap illegally to try and stifle the rights of the People...and they sure as hell HATE being filmed because it limits the abuses they commit.

Any cop that does not want to be filmed and recorded is GUILTY of abusing rights, and they hate being caught and held to account for their crimes against the People, so they try and stop filming.

Every cop should be REQUIRED to film and record ALL they do while on duty. This proves in court what the cop would like to perjure himself about...cops hate the thought of a defense attorney playing a video in court that proves they lied and abused rights...they want to be able to coerce and badger and violate rights..and not be accoutable for it!!

If the People would stand up to the scum, and challenge them, we would see far less abuses by the coppers. If ALL citizens filmed and recorded the cops every time an opportunity came up, the cops would tow the line far more than they do now.

Cops want it all: They want the right to film and record US, while making it a crime to do the SAME to them!! What nerve!! Cops want to be special people, above us, not held to account, allowed to run rampant over us...with specuial protections and special rights no one else has.

It is sickening to think of some basically illterate cop, with a HS degree, trying to stop perfectly legal activity, just because it might document the cops' illegal activities. In the cops perfect world, they would have ALL rights, while we had NONE. Cops HATE bothering with warrants and protocols...they want to be able to do anything they want and not have to justify it later on...and they sure as hell do not want videotape showing their crimes.

Cops are notorious liars and criminals in their own right, and with a record of civil rights abuses and disregard for the law as bad as they have, we should demand they be watched carefully and fired and sued anytime they cross the line. Big ego's...big chip on their shoulders, and a total disregard for the People and their rights..thats a cop today for you.

reply to post by richierich


Nice rhetorical rant. Please explain to me that a police officer is not allowed to request that someone not film him.

Cops are notorious liars and criminals in their own right, and with a record of civil rights abuses and disregard for the law as bad as they have, we should demand they be watched carefully and fired and sued anytime they cross the line.

History of civil right abuses? Saying that cops are "notorious liars and criminals" with a history of civil rights abuse is the same as me saying that photographers are notorious child pornographers and peeping toms. Proove me wrong, show me at least one case of someone making child pornography or filming girls undress without their knowledge that was not at least an amateur photographer.

Big ego's...big chip on their shoulders, and a total disregard for the People and their rights..thats a cop today for you.

Typical spoiled child mentality. Having nothing major to protest these days people have to go pick fights with the police. Like i said earlier photographing people in public that do not want to be photographed is just another version of waving your hands infront of someone's face saying im not touching you.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by zaiger]

reply to post by richierich


Based upon the video of that police officer, and when compared against your writing, it is you who poses the greatest threat to the public. In spite of the fact that I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that inalienable rights are very much a part of American jurisprudence, you continue to insist that inalienable rights have no bearing, and instead publish your propaganda on "civil rights" which are nothing more than legal rights that can just as easily be repealed as they were legislated.

How ironic then, that you rant on about the abuses of police officers when it is perfectly clear that your agenda is not one of freedom. Whatever your agenda may be, your clear and present disregard for the equal rights of all is undeniable, and this is what makes you so damn dangerous.

Originally posted by Oldnslo
I'm working on my son-in- law's pc. He's 20 year veteran with LAPD CRASH & SWAT. I'll try and get the straight skinny from him. He's a good and honest oficer, but I would not want to meet him on his own terms!!! I know the gangs he had dealings with wanted absolutely nothing to do with him.

Here with LAPD, the objections to their officer's being photographs may go back to the out of context video of "Can't we all just get along" Rodney King. Doesn't mean they're right, but they have the power if they want to use it.

I'll let you know what he has to say.

After speaking with my son-in-law, he says there are a few reasons for the law regarding civilians photographing LEO's. I'm sure not many will be satisfied with his answer.

He responded that the main reason is for their safety and that of their families. He said that one week he may be in uniform in a patrol car and the next week be assigned to an undercover activity. For them to be recognized while in an undercover capacity could lead to his death, injury and in dealing with gangs, it would also put their families at risk. He said these days gangs have no limits as to what they might do.

He also explain that with the coming of age of the internet, these laws (law) have been brought to the forefront due to websites displaying LEO's names and the police force they work with. An example is ratemycop.com. He said he had been to sites where photographs were also posted. The sites were told to remove the photographs.

The law that keeps civilians from photographing LEO's is a Federal law, codified by State and local laws and the last time it was brought up before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ruled unanimously in favor of the law. For the 9th to be unanimous in its ruling says a lot!!! In the last 50 years there have been at least 30 appeals brought before the courts all over this country and each and every time, the courts have supported the right of the officer not to be photographed.

If you had been charged with a crime and wanted to submit into evidence, a personal video tape of the incident, it's existence unbeknownst to the court, the tape would be rejected and not submitted into evidence.

If you were arrested for videotaping a LEO against his wishes, your video camera would be booked into evidence and when the time came for the camera to be returned to you, it will be returned without the video tape.

I do not know the other reasons, but this is what I was told and I'm just relaying this piece of information to those following this thread. I'm and Distribution/Traffic Manager and not a lawyer, thankfully, so don't shoot the messenger.

Hopefully one of the LEO's here at ATS can chime in if they have any comments or questions that need to be answered.

My son-in-law is a good man, fair and honest and I'm proud to have him as a member of my family. I am more comfortable around him and the other LEO's in his family than I am around some of my younger friends. I heard many conversations between them about what they see on the streets and a lot of it is beyond bizarre. Some of it is pretty funny.

I would not want to make a traffic stop in South Central Los Angeles at midnight on a Friday night. You just never know what is awaiting you. These guys do it on a daily basis and you should give these guys a bit of slack.

I'll tell ya it's a crazy world out there and it isn't going to get any better.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Oldnslo]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Oldnslo]

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

Police officers do not voluntarily give up rights simply because they became police officers, and their inalienable rights are as valid as the next persons. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Every person has the right to contract, that is an inalienable right. Joining the army is a contract,

Here you explain it quite well. Joining the Army, is a contract. joining the police..is also a contract. Part of that contract is that you will accept certain forfeiture of your personal freedoms in order to accept said position. there are hundreds of examples I could cite, from overtime pay to personal use of vehicles...

I'm not against anyone having or keeping their rights, I'm against the Stalinist nature of the police force and the loss of the rights on a whim by those police that would do so.

Now since you mentioned "My" world, in My world the police don't beat hookers, tase grandma, plant drugs and weapons, steal at every opportunity and then laugh as they lie in court. Maybe some accountability of the police services would be really nice for a change. If that accountability comes from the end of a lens, then it is a small price to pay.

..Ex

Please read my post above.

It's contained within Federal, State and local laws, and supported by courts across the country - every time its appealed.

Contract? When I entered the military in 1968, I do not remember signing away my Constitutional Rights and submitting to the Uniform Code of Military Injustice. But it happened and there wasn't jack diddley I could do about it. When you have a drill instructor verbally eating you alive, in front of 100 guys, and then running your butt for 5 miles, the last thing you are thinking about is your Constitutional Rights.

In the end, it didn't matter. I had made it home, alive!!

reply to post by Oldnslo


NONSENSE!! please have your paranoid cop cite the court cases ...they do not exist. There has been NO federal law that forbids filming cops..nor any state law either....they all say PRIVACY is the main key, and cops have NO privacy rights when in public.

The lousy excuse that the cop MIGHT have to go undercover is a laugh...we should lose our rights because some cop MIGHT go undercover? Please...anyone that believes that..

If a cop wants to be anonymous, let him wear a mask, like the cowards in SWAT do....cops hide their identity so they cannot be singled out for the crimes they commit. Any cop that has to hide his identity is no better than a Nazi thug...wanting to be able to abuse at will without being seen.

You have gotten some rancid and silly advice from your cop....neither he nor you can point to any law that says that cops can record and film US, but we cannot do the same. Ridiculous.

No case like this has ever been brought to a Federal court, because the only ruling there could ever be is this: Cops have NO extra privacy rights when they are in public and on the job. Cops hate being filmed because they violate the law and the rules so much, and they hate being accountable for their illegal actions. Period. They are not afraid of being outed while undercover...and even if they were, that would never ever qualify as a valid reason to stop us from filming them.

Cops just want to be able to hide their words and actions from review because of their penchant for illegal and unscrupulous means of getting busts to peop up their records.

As soon as someone in a state that has these scummy cops arresting people for filming them in public gets to a Federal court, we will see the Feds stop it, and fast.

Cops HATE the Constitution and the 1st amendment, as well as all other protections we have against them, but no law can take away our right to observe and record events in public, and cops who falsely arrest people on these bogus charges should be SUED immediately...the ACLU will help..and soon we will see the cops slink back under whatever slimy rock they crawled out from under.

How DARE some donut munching flatfoot assume that he is so special and so exalted among men that only THEY are allowed to film US!! The nerve...cops have a lot of nerve...but no morals..and that will trip them up every time. The courts will never allow this to go on....and NO ONE can show any law that will stand up in a Federal court....cops are NOT in private when they are on duty, no matter how much they want to fool you.

It will get to the point soon in this nation when the cops will be so busy keeping alive that they would never thinkl of trying to stop peoples right to film...they will be lucky to get home alive every day...things are going to come to a head, and the cops have gone too far already...imagine a cop thinking he is above the rest of us...sickening.

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by richierich

 

Nice rhetorical rant. Please explain to me that a police officer is not allowed to request that someone not film him.

Cops are notorious liars and criminals in their own right, and with a record of civil rights abuses and disregard for the law as bad as they have, we should demand they be watched carefully and fired and sued anytime they cross the line.

History of civil right abuses? Saying that cops are "notorious liars and criminals" with a history of civil rights abuse is the same as me saying that photographers are notorious child pornographers and peeping toms. Proove me wrong, show me at least one case of someone making child pornography or filming girls undress without their knowledge that was not at least an amateur photographer.

Big ego's...big chip on their shoulders, and a total disregard for the People and their rights..thats a cop today for you.

Typical spoiled child mentality. Having nothing major to protest these days people have to go pick fights with the police. Like i said earlier photographing people in public that do not want to be photographed is just another version of waving your hands infront of someone's face saying im not touching you.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by zaiger]

A copper CAN ' request' anything he wants...he can request that we shine his shoes..but that does NOT mean that we have any LEGAL liability to do so!! You CANNOT show me a law that forbids the People from doing the same thing the cops do; Film and record. They do it, and so can we.

Cop CANNOT legally order someone to stop filming them just because they don't like it...if they are off duty and in private, then fine. But while IN PUBLIC a cop has NO extra rights, and you cannot find those extra rights anywhere in legal jurisprudence...they do not exist.

you really should stick to the facts and not insult people who are trying to teach you the facts of life...you cop groupies would allow them to rule over you and take all your rights away...but as for me, no thanks.

Originally posted by richierich
Cops have NO RIGHT to claim that a citizen is ' making him nervous' and use that as an excuse to deny rights. NONSENSE. it was NOT a legal order.

Of COURSE the cop gets ' nervous' when being filmed, as he no doubt uses illegal and abusive means to get busts. Cops HATE to be recorded, because they always have something to hide.

((snip))

You dont have to like it, but per 148(a)(1)of the California penal code.. officer Fruitcake-ass can lawfully order photo guy to cease behavior the officer articulates is causing "delay" or "obstruction" to his official duties. Refusal to comply = willful delay/obstruction: a misd committed in the officers presence, ergo an arrestable offense.

I agree the officer indicating he was 'nervous' is pathetic, a confusing way to articulate "delay" or "obstruction" of official duties. Training used to dictate being polite, something closer to "I need you to move farther away, for your safety and mine" or "wait over there if you need the police".. most (well trained) cops know to specifically state elements of the crime so the arrest report flows:"You're delaying and obstructing me, move now or face arrest"

..as conspiracy fodder goes, fwiw, rumor has it LAPD, plus other monolith big city PD's, have nefariously been sprinkled with active duty military training in the ways of civilian police work, people who don't want their picture taken... literally a rumor not based on any published info I know of.

www.leginfo.ca.gov
148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

reply to post by tristar


I really don't see anything wrong with this video really.

Why?

Well first of all This Cop obviously just got back from two years in Iraq. So walking up behind him and clicking on a large camera probably scared the living crap out of him resurfacing some PTS stuff.

These guys out of two or three tours in Iraq don't come back with out having been threw some crazy stuff, and it does affect them in their daily lives in America.

Now despite having the living crap scared out of him for a split second putting him in an extremely bad mood only to get into an argument with some self entitled kid this Cop only busted his chops a bit.

I don't mind a Cop busting some chops when people clearly go looking for it. No harm was done to anyone really.

I'd say under the circumstances this Cop was actually pretty cool to the kid.

No tasing, no beating, no arrest.....nothing really to complain about.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
You dont have to like it, but per 148(a)(1)of the California penal code.. officer Fruitcake-ass can lawfully order photo guy to cease behavior the officer articulates is causing "delay" or "obstruction" to his official duties. Refusal to comply = willful delay/obstruction: a misd committed in the officers presence, ergo an arrestable offense.

And if the officer had been able to phrase his request as such, I'm sure the photographer would have backed down. But he didn't. Instead he used an excuse that the photographer knew was bogus, and he stuck to that excuse. What's really the issue here, in my opinion, is a law enforcement officer's ignorance of the actual law.

reply to post by GovtFlu


Obstructing and delaying an officer CANNOt be upheld unless the photographer is PHYSICALLY interfering. A cop CANNOT charge you legally for that just because he CHOOSES to ignore his duties and instead focus on you. Get it?

It is SI simple: If a cop is doing his duty, he has NO right to STOP doing his duty and instead focus on LEGAL conduct that he simply dislikes.

There has never been a case prosecuted successfully for ' obstructing or delaying' that did not have the elements of actually interfering with the cop. If a cop CHOOSES to stop doing his duty he cannot say you gave him no choice. He HAD a choice: Ignore the filming and do the job!!

Unless a photographer is blocking a cop, or is so close to the action that he presents a real and actual danger, then the cop should ignore him. You seem to think that all a cop has to do is give any order they want to and we are supposed to obey....NOT!!

The ONLY orders a cop can legally give are for CUSTODY...or SAFETY.

NO OTHERS. Unless a cop is made unsafe or is resisting custody he cannot simply give an ' order' and then make it stick. No way.

If some cop told you to shine his shoes, would you? Why not? it is an ORDER, isn't it? The fact is that cops cannot ORDER us to do anything that is not concerned with the 2 items I listed above. Cops use BLUFF and crap to get their way, and it works with weak people.

If I was filming a cop from a safe distance,. not possibly interfering with him, and he told me to stop filming him, I would tell him to go to hell and keep filming. A cops REQUEST has NO authority under the law...none.

An ORDER from a cop does carry the weight of authority, but the cop is liable for his actions if the ORDER is illegal. For example, lets say Officer Piggie does not appreciate your filming him...for whatever reason. He can REQUEST that you stop, and if you do it is VOLUNTARY..but if he ORDERS you to stop, he is acting under ' color of authority ' and can be sued for his actions.

I KNOW what constitutes legal orders, and unless a cop has legal authority, I will ignore any and all orders from him . Cops get away with their crap because they INTMIDATE and BULLY and COERCE and THREATEN the People all the time. Most people are AFRAID of the cops..I am not.

Also, a cop CANNOT legally order you to speak to them or answer any questions...no matter how much they lie and bluff. We are under NO legal obligation to speak to them or answer anything. If a cop knows that you are likely setting him up for a lawsuit or other actions against him, he will back off. Cops HATE being filmed because they so often abuse their authority and do not want it witnesssed officially. They want to be able to LIE their way out of it, and with video they cannot.

There is NO GOOD REASON why any cop should resist being filmed, UNLESS they have something to hide. THEY can film and record US, and there is NO LAW anywhere in this nation that confers SPECIAL RIGHTS for cops. What the cops do is claim that they have privacy rights that WE DO NOT HAVE!! But that is not true...and such a law cannot be found in the law books anywhere.

The few states that try and make cops above the rest of us will lose it when a Federal court gets it. BUT STILL those laws say that' the cops must have an expectation of privacy' before it can be used. in other words, if you record a cop that is trying to have a private conversation ( radio traffic is NOT private and cannot be used against you ).

If a cop is in his car, with the windows rolled up, and he is talking to another cop or whatever, THEN he could insist on privacy. But if he is in the PUBLIC view and can be overheard, he has ZERO expectation of privacy. Cops CANNOT claim PRIVACY when they are in public, just as WE cannot.

It sickens the moral mind to even consider giving extra rights to cops that are denied to US, the People who pay their salaries...but then again, the cops always try and stretch the law to the breaking point to abuse us...typical.

Remember this: NO LAW is in force that prohibits the People from filming or recording cops when they are in public and on the job. They CANNOT stop filming just because they do not want their evil deeds seen. The day that law is passed the cops would go crazy...abusing people at will, knowing that they could arrest anyone witnessing it with a camera and destroying the evidence of their crimes.

Cops need to be on a very short leash, never trusted and never believed...only that way can we have a fair chance. cops are by their very nature devious, lying, blustering bullies that should be watched and filmed as often as possible so they are less likley to abuse their authority.

reply to post by richierich


I should have expected a response like yours. Reviewing your posts, it's quite obvious your nothing but a friggin' cop hater. Plain and simple.

My gut response to you would have cost me my account with ATS, and believe me when I say, it would almost be worth it.

Just to make sure your opinions are known, my son-in-law said he'd make sure my statement and your response gets posted on the boards at his station with LAPD, the Santa Monica PD, and LA County Sheriff's. I'm sure they will be entertained by your opinions and comments.

I'm sure they'll really appreciate:

Cops HATE the Constitution and the 1st amendment, as well as all other protections we have against them, but no law can take away our right to observe and record events in public, and cops who falsely arrest people on these bogus charges should be SUED immediately...the ACLU will help..and soon we will see the cops slink back under whatever slimy rock they crawled out from under.

How DARE some donut munching flatfoot assume that he is so special and so exalted among men that only THEY are allowed to film US!! The nerve...cops have a lot of nerve...but no morals..and that will trip them up every time. The courts will never allow this to go on....and NO ONE can show any law that will stand up in a Federal court....cops are NOT in private when they are on duty, no matter how much they want to fool you.

It's a dam shame that they have to risk their lives to protect the likes of you.

But that's their job, like it or not.






[edit on 26-6-2010 by Oldnslo]

Originally posted by Oldnslo
reply to post by richierich

 

Just to make sure your opinions are known, my son-in-law said he'd make sure my statement and your response gets posted on the boards at his station with LAPD, the Santa Monica PD, and LA County Sheriff's. I'm sure they will be entertained by your opinions and comments.

I'm sure they'll really appreciate:







[edit on 26-6-2010 by Oldnslo]

seems alittle imature to go rat him out to the police for some things he typed on the internet, feels like being told on in school when your caught doing something you shouldnt,

were not communicating or solving ANYTHING when your just spreading around the drama peice of the conversation,

your actualy encouraging the same seperation of us against them as the man your complaining to, your saying you dont want him to vilinize the cops so your gonna help the cops villinize him?!?! make sense?

shouldnt we be trying to come together right now, you know "UNITED we stand - divided we fall" that whole thing,

Originally posted by Oldnslo
I should have expected a response like yours. Reviewing your posts, it's quite obvious your nothing but a friggin' cop hater. Plain and simple.

My gut response to you would have cost me my account with ATS, and believe me when I say, it would almost be worth it.

Just to make sure your opinions are known, my son-in-law said he'd make sure my statement and your response gets posted on the boards at his station with LAPD, the Santa Monica PD, and LA County Sheriff's. I'm sure they will be entertained by your opinions and comments.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Oldnslo]

Your second paragraph illustrates that you can be pushed to break the rules, even at a cost to yourself..if the stakes are worth it. Given the petty attitude, I am not surprised.

Why is it that whenever a person is against the police trampling over the people and abusing their authority (being caught lying, bringing a gun to a snowball fight... tasing granny etc..)..those people are deemed a cop hater?

I have seen plenty of cops abuse their tenuous thread of authority in my life, and it's always the same. the police will lie, coerce, straight up twist the facts to obtain an arrest, they will lie in court and then shield each other for their crimes based on their perception of the common good.

So as a rule, I give cops the same trust and respect that they afford me when I'm approached by them. All cops need to be treated as suspiciously as they treat each of us, since we can't tell which of them are good or bad.

And of course there are the badge kissing cheering squads. You know, when the SHTF no amount of "My son in law the cop" is going to save you from the abuses they will gleefully hand out. (see aftermath of Katrina for visual aids)

..Ex