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.

 

Man Gets Arrested For Making Joke In New York City

page: 19
142
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Actually it's not the cops who determine that. It's the court and since we have pretty clear evidence that there was no interference this charge will either be dropped by cops or by the DA. Or feel free to show me a court case where speaking to a cop was considered interference. Fyi, you can even flip them off and that's not illegal. We've seen 'interference' charges thrown at people alot. Especially those who film/photo them. That never sticks. Protip: just because a cop says you're commiting a crime that doesn't make it so.


It will stick if the person can't afford a real lawyer and gets a public funded railroader and there's no evidence like this to help them out. When it comes to even a single cop's word versus a defendant there's no weight given to the defendant - get more than one cop to trump up or totally fabricate the charges & report and you're going to require evidence like this and a good lawyer, and the cops being criminals will get nothing more than the loss of a conviction on their record.

As for filming being a crime, it is sticking. In Illinois they are successfully prosecuting those who film cops in public with felonies having completely molested wiretap laws, and yet it's perfectly legal for them to film you without your permission.

www.foxillinois.com...


If you're thinking about recording police or other law authorities working in Illinois, you better think twice. It could cost you 15 years in prison.

Take the case of Sekiera Fitzpatrick. She was taken into custody for hiding a fugitive in her Danville home when she found out the hard way that taking a video or making a sound recording of an on-duty law enforcement official without permission is illegal.
...
Illinois’ penalty for knowingly recording audio of anyone without their consent is Class 4 felony. It is punishable by up to three years in prison. When someone like Fitzpatrick decides to record law enforcement performing their job, the charge gets ratchet up to a Class 1 felony and carries with it a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. A Class 1 felony is the same class as someone who is charged with for having more than 11 pounds of marijuana.


When you have people like Brindle who think the law should be written by the police on the whim things like this will only get far worse absent some tall standing citizens and lawyers to prove them wrong.

And what's all this "screaming" bs? The guy is hollering back at a higher volume but that's not what I would consider screaming. Nothing wrong with letting your voice be heard when you have bad cops coming down on you. If America followed the law the cops would be fired, not condoned by fascists who love being in a position of authority with only their own rules to follow.

edit on 17-4-2011 by Nefarious because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
They say that but the wiretapping charge wont stick. Noone has expectation of privacy in public.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
They say that but the wiretapping charge wont stick. Noone has expectation of privacy in public.


Illinois thugs disagree.


reason.com...

Last week, an Illinois judge rejected Chicago artist Christopher Drew's motion to dismiss the Class I felony charge against him. Drew is charged with violating the state's eavesdropping statute when he recorded his encounter with a police officer last December on the streets of Chicago. A Class I felony in Illinois is punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison. It's in the same class of crimes as sexual assault. Drew will be back in court in June to request a jury trial.

I'm currently working on a feature for Reason about man in a more rural part of the state charged with six violations of the same statute, all of them for making audio recordings of on-duty public officials. For several of the counts in that case, the police were actually on the man's property. He started recording his conversations with police because he felt he was being unjustly harassed for violating a town ordinance he thought was unconstitutional.



www.illinoisfelony.com...

Man is found guilty of Class 4 felony eavesdropping. Lewis Gainor gets conviction reversed and case dismissed. Download the court records

Lake County felony attorney Lewis Gainor recently defended a man who had been found guilty of a felony. The man was found guilty of the Class 3 felony of eavesdropping for illegally recording the police. He was found guilty before Lewis Gainor took over the case, and was facing sentencing of 2 to 5 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (state prison).

The man was arrested on November 19, 2006 by officers from the Lake Zurich Police Department for illegal use of a sound recording device used to eavesdrop on the police. The officers handcuffed him and took him to jail. While waiting in his jail cell, the man was charged with a Class 3 felony for the incident.


Only dropped on appeal with a private attorney - initially convicted and could have easily been forced to carry out his sentence.

There mere fact that cops, prosecutors, and judges are "in on this" type of behavior should be beyond concerning.


www.findgreatlawyers.com...

To legally record conversations, Illinois law requires that all parties consent to the recording. This applies even to conversations that are not private. Illinois law does not require that one or more parties reasonably expect the conversation to be private, thus If a conversation is recorded without the consent of one of the participating parties, that party's right to privacy may have been violated and they may be able to sue, both criminally for eavesdropping, and civilly for invasion of privacy.

Under Illinois law, eavesdropping is defined as the use of "an eavesdropping device to hear or record all or any part of any conversation" without obtaining the consent of all parties to the conversation.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
As I said it wont stick. It is being constested atm. and it might go all the way to supreme court. It won't hold. Or by that law all police who have dash cams would be in violation of that same law



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I would love that to be true, but I'm not so confident. This is not a new issue, and the ACLU has been making zero ground in getting this problem resolved.

SIU Student's Recording Confiscated

Can I record police...

ACLU Suit Seeks to allow citizen recording of police in action (8-2010)


ACLU can’t challenge Illinois law forbidding recording police in public places without permission



edit on 17-4-2011 by Nefarious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 


I never said Mexico has our constitution. I said Mexico does in fact have it's own constitution.

Mexico and the United States have a very similar set of basic laws, just like all other democratic countries. The difference between the police force of the United States and Mexico is the economic status of the population. On one side of the boarder we have a well funded, well trained, police force that, on average, makes enough money to survive. On the other side of the boarder you have a police force that, on average, is not very well trained, not held accountable for their actions and probably is not making enough to survive on a day to day basis. This makes them more susceptible to corruption on all levels and when you have a lucrative business like the drug trade waiving money at them, some police are willing to shed their morals for cash.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Yes, a police officer can ASK anyone for their identification at anytime, and if they are nice about it they will probably be granted the request.

Most of the time, officers have a reason to ASK and are not doing it just for fun.

You are correct that people may refuse on these occasions.

A police officer can REQUIRE someone to show identification if they suspect them of a crime or are making an investigative detention because a specific crime is being investigated in the area and they suspect they are involved. It is called a "Terry Stop."

Or unless there is a local law that requires someone to produce identification when requested by police. These laws are few and far between.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


Sir, please refer to my previous post on an officer asking for identification and demanding identification.

All of your babble about oath of office and the like is absolutely absurd and you are distracting people from the real matter at hand.

If you are arrested and charged with a crime by a police officer, this defense will get you no where.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
The guy should have just walked away once the cop in the van starting piping off to him. Willy Wiseass didn't know his role. You have to know when to STFU or you will get an "Obstruction of Justice" charge.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
People are failing to realize that unless a crime is committed you cannot be arrested, end of story. It doesn't matter how stupid, rude or belligerent you are. While these escalations can lead to a crime, that is clearly not the case here.
edit on 17-4-2011 by TheKnave because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheKnave
People are failing to realize that unless a crime is committed you cannot be arrested, end of story. It doesn't matter how stupid, rude or belligerent you are.


It is a crime to be rude to a law enforcement officer. Don't believe me? Go try it.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by TheKnave
People are failing to realize that unless a crime is committed you cannot be arrested, end of story. It doesn't matter how stupid, rude or belligerent you are.


It is a crime to be rude to a law enforcement officer. Don't believe me? Go try it.


It's not a crime, they just aren't police officers. They're pigs. That's the difference. It is actually legal to be in a bad mood with a police officer (even though the OP doesn't show this), or even crack jokes around them.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
It is a crime to be rude to a law enforcement officer. Don't believe me? Go try it.


Show me even one conviction of 'being rude'. Protip: Just cause they arrest you doesn't mean you have done anything criminal.

reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


Yeah anyone can ask anyones ID. I can ask your ID for the hell of it. That has just as much authority than any law enforcement person asking.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by ararisq
It is a crime to be rude to a law enforcement officer. Don't believe me? Go try it.


Show me even one conviction of 'being rude'. Protip: Just cause they arrest you doesn't mean you have done anything criminal.

reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


Yeah anyone can ask anyones ID. I can ask your ID for the hell of it. That has just as much authority than any law enforcement person asking.


You are correct sir, there attitude is, Ill arrest you for being a wise ass even though you have done nothing wrong, label it as a disturbance of the peace, obstructing justing or whatever, you get to spend the night in jail, pay a 500 dollar bail and then spend another 1500 on a lawyer to get the unjust charges dropped. All the while, there is no recourse towards the cop when the charges are dropped.

There isn't any incentive for them to NOT arrest you because there is no punishment when you are found not guilty or the charges are dropped. Perhaps, after every case that the defendant is found not guilty by a jury, the arresting officer should receive a formal investigation and be either demoted, fined or suspended and after three such cases, terminated, bet that would cut down on the bull#.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
And, by the way to make my position completely clear. After watching that video from start to finish a dozen times, it is obvious, although trivial the man on the bike, was in violation and had a ticket coming.

It is also obvious and clear that the man walking past, realized that it was not a dangerous or volatile situation as it was for a ticket from biking on the side walk and was talking to the other citizen on the bike who by the way WAS NOT UNDER ARREST.

We have this this thing in America, it's called the first Amendment, silly thing written on old paper but it seems to say we can crack a joke as we walk by harmlessly, doesn't say anywhere on that old piece of paper that we give up that right if there are dickhead cops that don't like it close by.

Those "officers" violated that mans civil rights and they should now be charged with multiple crimes for violating his civil rights and for false arrest, if you want to play by there rules, you could actually throw a kidnapping charge on top of that because..... They would.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Oh my god, this is utter BS....those muthafkers think they've through Police Academy, wearing "the law" uniform, so they deserve respect and to have power to do what the f ever they want ? WRONG, muthafker, respect is earn and the power to do whatever you want is only belong to one muthafker in this world that is God; guess what you are not him/her.
This is the fk-tard mentality that I hate the most......the one phrase that they teach you in the Academy is "You have to BE IN CONTROL of the situation" and so this is one of many typical situations that they show us -the people- they are in control. I wish one day I will be in control and they are my situation......Ats members, please, tell me what I should do to these mofos!?
In my opinion, J-walking is the most ridiculous law in America....why arrest people for that; if they got the gut to cross the street regardless of their own safety then so be it....if they got hit by a car, that their problem.....I've come from a third world country, it's common sense even back there.
By the way, I will look into some of my old newspaper, there is an article about a retired policeman sueing the his own PD for stressful working condition (something of that nature) because during the course of his work, he's had to collect 16 (or 25, I dont remember clearly) tickets a day.......This is mess up, folks, police officers are supposed to serve and protect us -the people- NOT to intimidate us, arrest us for ridiculous claims, try to meet the daily standard by mean of writing tickets, or BEING A D1CK.

I've met a few policemen in my youth, they are all professional and nice, but the VAST MAJORITY of them are -sigh- I believe I've said enough.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mossme89
Anybody else find it sad that while the police are harassing this guy, you have a high & drunk jaywalker and they're paying no attention to him?


It's not sad, it's the hypocricy of the entire situation..

Instead of "protecting and serving" the jaywalking crackhead who poses a danger to himself by crossing the street like that, and a small danger to others in getting money for his addiction, by booking him and maybe taking him in for a short jail stay and a hot meal, they are "serving" the corporation by booking people for stupid minor misdemeanors that bring money IN, instead of costing money (don't you pay taxes for that?)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by brindle
 


I love people that think they no the law, here is a perfect example of a cop telling lies to get his way but the person new better you do not need to show ID period.







anouther video proving you do not need to show ID, know the laws in your area, you DO NOT have to show law enforcement any thing, and they are allowed to lie, so you better know the law.
edit on 18-4-2011 by drmeola because: to add second video

edit on 18-4-2011 by drmeola because: to add a third video



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
The criminal in new york who got arrested was required to show i.d. because he was instigating a fight,which falls under the category of disorderly conduct.A misdemeanor crime was committed in this case.At this point the officer said I am going to give you a citation(obviously disorderly conduct),for continuing to be a nuisance after being warned not to scream and provoke a fight.The criminal refused to show i.d.,therefore ,the police officer was left with no choice but to handcuff and book this moron.This is the real law,not your make pretend kindergarten law.Case closed.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
You know these cops were resisting giving this little punk a bitchslap.Good work officers on showing restraint and doing a very professional job.



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join