Man Gets Arrested For Making Joke In New York City

reply to post by brindle


ok this I will have to check because it does very from state to state, how ever brindle as a person who has many family members in law enforcement you in most cases can deny to show ID, in this video simple because the man made a comment, he very well could have simple kept walking and not shown a single thing to the officers, in NY, I have two family members both detectives for NY will not mention what district, but you have the right to walk away from them when you are in the right as the person in this video.

He made a wrong choice by making a comment, how ever it should have never gotten to the point it did, and he did contribute to the escalation, this is becoming more and more common in NY and in other states were revenue is a problem and even the so called good cops are forced to make a quota no matter what or they will be laid off for so many days without pay. Even if the case gets dismissed and the ticket is bogus, they have to write X amount to keep their job.

In states that allow open carry of a weapon, you must no the law, and yes you can at any time as long you are not committing an offense refuse to show ID, and walk away they cant do a dang thing about it. Know the law in your area so you can better respond to situations you may face.

Originally posted by drmeola
reply to post by brindle

 

ok this I will have to check because it does very from state to state, how ever brindle as a person who has many family members in law enforcement you in most cases can deny to show ID, in this video simple because the man made a comment, he very well could have simple kept walking and not shown a single thing to the officers, in NY, I have two family members both detectives for NY will not mention what district, but you have the right to walk away from them when you are in the right as the person in this video.

He made a wrong choice by making a comment, how ever it should have never gotten to the point it did, and he did contribute to the escalation, this is becoming more and more common in NY and in other states were revenue is a problem and even the so called good cops are forced to make a quota no matter what or they will be laid off for so many days without pay. Even if the case gets dismissed and the ticket is bogus, they have to write X amount to keep their job.

In states that allow open carry of a weapon, you must no the law, and yes you can at any time as long you are not committing an offense refuse to show ID, and walk away they cant do a dang thing about it. Know the law in your area so you can better respond to situations you may face.

This is 100 incorrect.If a police officer requests to see identification,you must provide it,end of story.

reply to post by brindle


so basically america are overthrowing tyranical leaders around the world and becoming one itself? its nice to know i suppose, i use to think people had rights in america? silly me.

Originally posted by brindle
He is lucky he didnt get pepper sprayed for inciting a riot

He did not incite anything. He didn't even begin to incite anything.

The cops escalated that situation, period.

That statement alone shows your ignorance of the law and the precedent the Supreme Court has set for incitement of violence, and it simultaneously shows what is, at least to me, the erroneous implication and justification for police to *charge* people for something that has no basis is law.

Which is....finding a reason/excuse/charge that does NOT fit what actually happened.

And this is why video evidence is imperative for the rights of the citizens during these occurrences.

Of course, after reading your other replies, this does not surprise me in the least and reaffirms to many of us the precise problem we have with cops in general: looking for excuses/reason and *crimes* and categorizing behavior to fit a "crime" even when it is not, while ignoring real issues.

Good day.

ETA: Granted, he *could* have been more co-operative, but A) that's not the point and B) the cops should have just let him be instead of, once gain escalating the situation due to perceived superiority and authoritative egoism.

You are not free. Even the police are just taking orders. They are trained idiots. Who controls the police?

A twelve year old boy was arrested for spilling milk. Seriously. I live in Canada, we don't yet have a police force in all our school yet. But in 'Merica, the police are already being used as prison guards.

www.thesmokinggun.com...

Education is not about teaching anymore. It's about conditioning. The schools create the workers for the machinery of the corporations. We train our kids for careers at McDonalds. The police are just the mechanics, the plumbers. They keep the machine from clogging up due to misfit parts. You are only free to feed the machines of the owners.

There is no freedom of choice. Just the illusion. My Lord, George Carlin spoke of the owners.

Who really controls America?

www.youtube.com...

Join the Church of Carlin. Follow my name to find the thread that will lead you to the truth.

Make sure you have your papers ready when the police demand them.
Fascism won the war.

Originally posted by brindle
Drink what you can,drink what your able,but if your drinking with me,youll be under the table.

How is that a response to what I posted?

I guess that's all that's left to post when you're trying to argue with the self-obvious.

The wonderful police are just following orders. That slave on the bike, and the slave who commented should consider themselves lucky that they didn't get the gas chamber for their disgusting display.

reply to post by fordrew


The man who got arrested for nothing made a few mistakes:


(1) He identified himself (via his ID) as a corporate + Government created fiction:
-Of which the Police HAVE FULL jurisdiction over...

(2) Had he not presented the officers with an ID, he wasn't required to reveal his private identity with the police.
-Doing so relinquished his rights under law.

(3) All he had to do when asked about his ID:

-I am a peaceful man and I will not fight you nor impede your right to your duty
-Can you tell me where there is such a law that requires me to carry one?
-Am I being detained? No? Then am I free to go?

-Then he could have put them on notice that ANY false arrest will result in a
fee schedule being fully enforced and THEY will be held liable.

-If falsely arrested he should have said I will go under protest and duress and have everyone witness
to him saying that.

reply to post by Chinesis


The problem is that in real life, pigs are too stupid to know any of the technicalities of the law you describe. They would probably say, "Yes, you are being detained," and on top of that they would be likely to arrest you too. The OP demonstrates that they clearly don't need a real legal reason to arrest you. Just cracking a joke while they are arresting someone else on an equally ridiculous charge is enough.

Lets approach this with a level head for a second.

The NYPD stopped the man on the bicycle for riding on the sidewalk.

If you live in New York City, I can imagine that you could understand why this law is in place. Because of the dense population of the city and its sidewalks, a law was passed mandating that people travelling by bicycle use the street and follow all appropriate traffic laws while doing so. I am sure that the cause of passing this law is that several people were struck by bicycles while walking on the sidewalk or bicyclists transfering from using the sidewalk to using the street caused them to be struck by a vehicle.

This law is a matter of safety. It may be hard to relate to this line of thinking when you live in a suburban area or small town because the volume of people is no where near New York City.

The police are enforcing this law, not because they are trying to satisfy a quota but, because it is a problem for the city which needs enforcement to promote public safety.

The man walks by and yells several comments to the man stopped by the police.

This is not an argument of free speech. In the United States, you have the right to say anything you want. It was not what he said that got him in trouble.

Many states have many different laws reguarding disorderly conduct and hindering a police investigation.

When it comes to disorderly conduct, the man not only made his comments but he yelled them causing a scene. The man then persisted yelling his comments as he walked down the street causing more of a scene and drawing attention to himself and the situation.

Disorderly conduct laws promote the right of people to be able to walk down a public street or be in a public place in peace. There obviously is a fine line between a persons right to act a certain way and disorderly conduct. It is a police officer's responsibility to make that determination. It is the court's responsibility to find them guilty or innocent.

Laws reguarding hindering a police investigation are to promote an officer's ability to invest his or her efforts in dealing with the situation or investigation at hand in order to gather the neccessary facts and bring it to a conclusion. The man yelling his comments at the man on the bicycle not only drew the man on the bicycle's attention away from the stop but also the police officer's attention as well. This man's actions hindered the officer's ability, however slightly, to issue a citation and have the man on the bicycle on his way.

After the comments, you observed the officer go through a pretty conservative system of escalation. The officer first told the man to mind his business from inside the police van. The man had two choices, continue walking or yell back at the officer diverting more attetion to himself and away from the matter at hand. The man chose to yell back. The officer then stopped him and asked for identification clearly stating that he was going to issue a "summons" or criminal citation. The man had two choices, either provide identification so a citation could be issued or refuse. The man refused.

There are many different laws in many different states reguarding the police demanding identification. For the most part, a police officer can ASK for identification whenever he or she wants. For the most part, a police officer can only DEMAND identification when he or she is directly investigating a particular crime or suspicion of a particular crime.

In this situation, the officer was going to issue a criminal citation in leiu of arresting the man. A criminal citation requires the person to be positively identified. The man refused to provide identification so the only choice was to arrest him and positively identify him at the station.

If you pay attention to the video and know a minimal amount of the law you can clearly see that the man chose his own fate. There were several opportunities to make a decision that effected the outcome. The man made the wrong decision at every turn.

This gets worse and worse all the time and nothing is done about it. I just watched Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" on the police state and prison camps and I must say it was very disturbing. It was recently reported that they were lowering the IQ for police exams.

They want big, dumb tools to do as they are commanded and to get off on it. You actually can't even become a policeman if you have a decent IQ. If you can think they don't want you because you might be capable of realizing that you are a tool of evil.

There's only one way out of this situation and nobody is willing to face that so we are all prisoners waiting for the final clank of prison gate closing.

This is not an issue of race.

The man arrested was black and so was the officer who made the decision to arrest him. In fact, it appears the black officer had stripes on his uniform indicating that he was a supervisor.

Statements were made that police officers stopped working for the people back in the 60's and 70's under the Nixon administration.

Might I remind you that the police in that era would turn a firehose or two on a certain group of people just for walking on the sidewalk in the "White" part of town.

I would argue that the police force now is a good example of how people of all races can work together for a common goal. Actually, I would submit that the officers of different race that depend on each other everyday probably relate better to each other then some members of their own race.

reply to post by 0001391


To become a police officer they do not measure your IQ. You take a civil service test to make sure you have the basic comprehension skills to perform the job.

I have never once heard of anyone being turned down for a job with the police department for having "too high" an IQ.

Where is your source for lowering the standards of intelligence for police officers? What is the context of the article?

reply to post by Nobama


The blue line that protects idiots like this is called the New York Police Union. If the city tries to fire any of these dangerous goons, they have the Unions all over them. The Unions own politicians who can be called on to join the pig pile. One abuser sees another abuser get away with it and soon this kind of Nazi mentality spreads. Abusing citizens, no matter their color, has become the culture of the NYPD because abuse is protected.

This is why it is not wise to permit govenerment employees to unionize. They have inordinate power that comes with the government; then they have the additional power that comes with Union bought and paid for politicans.

Come on police apologists quit kidding yourselves. This wasn't about legalities this was about respect and/or a perceived lack thereof. The cop could have let it go just as easily as the joker could have. Pure spite, police and gangsters have lived hand in hand for too long. Now they emulate each other.

Oh you don't respect me? I'll have to take action to rectify that.

Trick Trap Rob Wreck

I don't see the big deal. If you don't know any jokes then you have nothing to fear.

/sarcasm 2nd

reply to post by sara123123


I would argue that a police union's primary goal is to protect the rights of its members. Yes police officers do have rights just like you.

If action is taken to reprimand a police officer or even terminate his or her employment, the police union steps in to make sure the officer is properly represented, policies are followed and proper jurisprudence is followed.

The police union has no say in whether or not the officer is punished.

It is funny, but it seems that more people think a criminal deserves his day in court but the police officers in this country should not be afforded the same luxury.

reply to post by FEDec


So then tell me why, if the guy arrested was clearly in the wrong, is it the police officer's fault he did not let it go?

For some reason some people find it unfathomable to be accountable for their own actions nowadays. "Its not my fault I was clearly acting like an idiot on the street that day." "It is the police officer's fault for making me act that way and get arrested." "It is the government's fault for passing the laws that I break."

I can understand that some of you are making the legitimate argument for the rights of people. I applaud your efforts. But, there is a certain element that uses the same argument as an excuse to act rediculously and push the blame on others.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
If you pay attention to the video and know a minimal amount of the law you can clearly see that the man chose his own fate. There were several opportunities to make a decision that effected the outcome. The man made the wrong decision at every turn.

You're wrong. The man broke no law, yet he was detained.

Problems like this exist because of weak and subservient people like you. You claim to know what you're talking about, but you absolutely do not. From a legal standpoint, you have absolutely no argumentation at all.

The man did not break the law. Period. Yet he was aggressively arrested. Period.

If this is the new America, it behooves anyone with any intelligence or knowledge of history as to how the U.S.A. can continue to call itself the beacon of hope for liberty in this world.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.