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.

 

Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Front Yard: (Wait till you see this tape!)

page: 48
143
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I never said that. Whatever.


Then what exactly is the point of posting that info in this thread if your intent was not to make a blanket statement / insinuation that because the cops left an AR on the trunk, all cops do it.




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by The_Phantom
 


Ya know what.. since you and oth4ers like to stereotype and insult me and recently receving a U2U that contained a threat, I think I will insult people who have no fricking clue as to whats going on. You guys are all over the place, and you refuse to follow anything but your opinion, subsituting it for law.

You guys ignore any law you fell is wrong, regardless of the fact whether you even understand ther law or not.

The charges were dismissed
The Cop did not violate the law, either Local state or FEderal
This lady has a history of baiting / behavior in order to force an encounter.

and even after all of that, you guys still come back with idiotic comments / situations that have nothing to do with whats going on, like equating an AR-15 on the trunk of a police car and saying thats why people hate the cops.

Or Spy who likes to make comments and accusations yet refuses to provide any sources to support his claims while he klings to whatever argument seems to be going on at the moment. Or Gps777 who is so lost when it comes to law and procedure its not even funny.

IF you guys want to hold the Police responsible thats fine.. However, you should learn what the laws are and how they work before opening your mouths.

Im not sure whats more ebarrasing.. Leaving an AR-15 on the trunk of a patrol car, or being ignorant on how laws and your civil rights work while reinforcing the fact the majorty of people in these types of threads dont even know how the government works.

I guess obfuscation is the choice defense by peolpe in these threads who make accusations they cant back up - Spy66 / Gps777 your at the top of that list. I am still waiting for you to provide sources t support your claims. Or would it be easier to jsut acknowledge you made the info up and that you have no sources to support your claims?


When have I insulted you? The only thing I have ever done in relation to you is make an accurate prediction of your behavior pattern. I did it in a calm way though, you on the other hand have called me a troll, a cry baby, ignorant and a donkey (but you used a naughty word, lulz) not to mention that in almost every single one of your posts you call people ignorant and stupid. But you claim that I and others insult you? You are the victim of personal attacks? So one person did something to you, and everybody else has to pay the price and get insulted, that's the way it works? That's exactly the police mentality that everybody is talking about. One person does something and that means everybody else must be treated badly in response. One person is a criminal so all must be treated like criminals. One person attacks a cop, all people must be treated as if they had or will. The woman didn't do anything at all but because somebody else has, she was treated like a potential criminal, no we understand that perfectly. Again I repeat, we know how our government works, we simply don't like it. It is every bit as good of an opinion as the individuals that created the laws with their opinions that you believe in so strongly.

My rights were given to me by God, therefore no man is above me so that he may establish law over me. I do not consent to give my rights and my liberty away in exchange for security. There is one law in America, the Constitution. Everything else blows in the wind and is up for grabs. The opinions that you see are in an attempt to spread that message and change what is in the present, your job is clearly to keep the status quo, or even up the ante. I and the others that have joined this site are here because we don't trust the government and don't wish to be told what to do. And so over and over we will explain to each person that enters the forum that you can list all of the laws you want until the cows come home and your face turns blue. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and we will take as many insults from you as needed in the process of doing so.

The cop was wrong to arrest her.

"In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous." -Tacitus

Have a nice day.
edit on 29-6-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Phantom
When have I insulted you?

Go back and read your posts not only in this thread, but others along the same topic and get back to me.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
The only thing I have ever done in relation to you is make an accurate prediction of your behavior pattern. I did it in a calm way though, you on the other hand have called me a troll, a cry baby, ignorant and a donkey (but you used a naughty word, lulz) not to mention that in almost every single one of your posts you call people ignorant and stupid.

Ive used the same terminaolgy people have directed at me, minus the person who sent me a pm suggesting I should be killed for my view in this thread. I use the term ignorant, which is not a bad word in the least.

Ignorant - A lack of information or understanding. It is appropriate when information is present, and people ignore it, basing their argument off not facts, but personal opinion thats not supported by law. That is problematic because viewing any situation in such manner can lead to incorrect answers. The goal would be to seek the truth and go from there, and instead people just ignore it, and the bulk of those people hate cops with such passion that they will never side with the police.

That view is problematic because those peope generally provide wrong information to support their argument, which can influence others, leading them to the wrong conclusions as well.

Like I said - lack of knowldge / understanding.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
But you claim that I and others insult you? You are the victim of personal attacks? So one person did something to you, and everybody else has to pay the price and get insulted, that's the way it works?

So its ok for you and other to stereotype the police and make blanket assertions, but you dont care for it when its done back to you. ok...


Originally posted by The_Phantom
That's exactly the police mentality that everybody is talking about.

Thank you for proving my point.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
One person is a criminal so all must be treated like criminals. One person attacks a cop, all people must be treated as if they had or will.

1 Cop makes the news and all cops are bad? A Police Officer is arrested for a crime and all police officers are criminal? An Officer goes to jail for violating a persons civil rights, and all cops violate civil rights?

So again, is it permissible in your mind to be hypocritical in making your argument here? Using my posts as an example, people have gone bonkers over my posts. When they dont agree with me, they accuse me of being just as crooked as the cop in the article.

I have offered up facts and cited my sources and explained the process. Again because people dont agree with it, and because they really are not as familiar or knowledgable about the law as they think, im at fault?


Originally posted by The_Phantom
Again I repeat, we know how our government works, we simply don't like it. It is every bit as good of an opinion as the individuals that created the laws with their opinions that you believe in so strongly.

Thats the answer im looking for. I can respect a person when they say they dont agree with the Government. As far as laws, they are not opinions in this incident.

Its an intresting choice of words, beause in your response here you are saying you dont agree with the laws, which essentially make them opinions of others and invalid. Your argument runs counter to your argument. You object to the laws being enforced because you dont like them, and are upset because they are enforced. So the viewpoint from the otherside of the fence is then invalid because of your view?

What your arguing, as an example, is if you dont agree with the laws when it comes to murder, you should not be subject to that law. If you decide to shoot your neighbor, because in your view its allowed, how are you not doing exactly what your stating is wrong? What if your neighbor doesnt agree with your view on murder?



Originally posted by The_Phantom
My rights were given to me by God, therefore no man is above me so that he may establish law over me.
So what you are saying then is you are above the law and answerable to no other authority but God? If thats the case, then why should people agree with your view on the laws in question you dont like? Are you somehow superior to everyone else in the sense no one can tell you what to do, but you can tell others what to do?


Originally posted by The_Phantom
I do not consent to give my rights and my liberty away in exchange for security. There is one law in America, the Constitution.

Which established the frame work for the Federal Government. However, since you are also a citizen of the State you reside in, and that State has a consitution, how do you reoncile that issue? If you wish to use the Constitution, and only the consitution, then we can easily arrest you. I wont have to mirandize you and can ask you guilt seeking questions. I can detain you indeifnitely until the court decides they want to have you appear.

What you and others fail to understand when you make the Constitutional argument is the amount of protections you are wiping out. How are you going to get around slavery? Are colored people going to be counted as 3/5th of a person for census and apporitonment? Are you going to dissolve the states?

As I said, view points are fine, but you guys are not seeing the bigger picture, and again, you guys do not understand how your government works. This is evident by stating you dont consent to men making laws and you being subject to them while making the argument the Constitution is the only one you follow.

If you read the Constitution you will see that we are a Representative Republic, and not a direct Democracy. You will see that under the Constitution, you vote for peolpe to represent you in that Federal Government. By electing those people, you have given consent for them to act on your behalf when it comes to laws.

So how exactly are you following the Constitution? To me it appears that what you are doing is cherrypicking in an effort to select the laws you like and will follow, while making a covert argument that you wont be following the laws in the constitution you dont like.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
Everything else blows in the wind and is up for grabs. The opinions that you see are in an attempt to spread that message and change what is in the present, your job is clearly to keep the status quo, or even up the ante.

Lol this comment is so far off base its not even funny. If my job is to keep the status quo or up the ante, I would not be in these forums presenting the other side of the argument you guys refuse to acknowledge, and apparently its because you just dont agree with it. I would not answer questions, nor would I cite the laws or case laws for people to research to understand not only how the law works, but how the government works and the best way to counter the argument. It also allows people to refine their argument to better present it.

Are you really that paranoid that you are incapable or unwilling to accept the concept of more than one idea? Are you that paranoid that you see all police as the problem? Where, out o curiosity, is your personal responsibility in this? What have you done to make changes? Or have you opted to just quit trying to make changes, instead opting to go out on your own and making the argument your way should trump the 300 million other citizens in this country?

I have provided a massive amoutn of information that people can use that does not push a pro police agenda. I have explained to people who to make a complaint about an officers actions.

As I said, people are so paranoid that no matter what the topic is, if it involves police you guys just shut down and see only what you want.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
I and the others that have joined this site are here because we don't trust the government and don't wish to be told what to do. And so over and over we will explain to each person that enters the forum that you can list all of the laws you want until the cows come home and your face turns blue. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and we will take as many insults from you as needed in the process of doing so.


There is a difference between not trusting the government, and being paranoid because the info you have about the Government is not understood, namely the Constitution in your case. The female in this case was not told what to do until she got close to the officers and was noticed.

Using examples outside of this article, If I am working a physical domestic, and the person I have detained suddenyl bolts from me, I give chase, taking the guy down in your front yard. The guy pulls a knife, and I tell you to get back inside out of the way.

Is your argument you dont have ti comply with that command? The reason I ask is you make it sound like all police do is randomly tell people what to do, while ignoring the over all situation of why the police are involved in the first place. If you feel you dont have to comply with police commands, why would you assume then that people should comply when you tell them what to do.

Based on your logic, if someone walks into your house, adn you tell them to leave, they can say no because no one can tell them what to do.

As for talking till im red or blue in the face, whcih again is another insult mired in a slag heep of sarcasm, I will continue to do so until you have a grasp of what it is we do and the laws that govern that. You most certainly would not allow a person to spread false information about you and your career, I wont allow it either with mine.

The difference betweem You and I - I know how to seperate my personal feeling and opinion from fact and laws. I know how the laws work, how they are enforced, the elements of those laws. I know that info is sent to the PA, and they decide if charges stay, go or get changed or if they will decline to prosecute. I know that I dont work for the Judicial branch, as well as knowing I dont determine guilt or innocence, nor fine or punishment. I dont make the laws, nor do Ireview them to see if they are constitutional. The Courts do.

And lastly I know what the Federal Constitution says, and understand the fact that you are a citizen of a State, and as such, per the Constittion, are bound by those state laws until you change them.

Respectfully, you need to stop cherrypicking your Constitutional argument. Everytime you do, you undermine your argument and prove my point all in the same breath.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
The cop was wrong to arrest her.

The law and the PA disagree with you hbere.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
"In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous." -Tacitus

Then might I suggest you learn how the government works, quit yelling at the police, and actually participate in the process where you elect a person to represent you in government, and have those laws reduced in numbers and changed? Or is that a no go because it involves doing something other than throwing rocks at the house and screaming at the sky because its raining?


Originally posted by The_Phantom
Have a nice day.
edit on 29-6-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)


You too man.. I look forward to your answers to my questions and obsrevations.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


"Go back and read your posts not only in this thread, but others along the same topic and get back to me."

Maybe you can help me out, when have I insulted you?

"Ive used the same terminaolgy people have directed at me"

Like when you call people stupid, or you called me a "donkey"?

"So its ok for you and other to stereotype the police and make blanket assertions"

When that happens there is usually a history of reasons for those assertions to exist.

"1 Cop makes the news and all cops are bad"

When did I say all cops are bad? As I said before I recently posted about a cop that was killed searching for truth and I'm not sure a cop has even posted on that thread. I said this individual cop was wrong, but it sounds like you are making broad sweeping allegations against the "ignorant" people on this forum.

"What your arguing, as an example, is if you dont agree with the laws when it comes to murder, you should not be subject to that law. If you decide to shoot your neighbor, because in your view its allowed, how are you not doing exactly what your stating is wrong? What if your neighbor doesnt agree with your view on murder?"

Incorrect, I have never hurt anybody in my life, why? It's not because of law, but because I believe it is wrong to do so. I believe law is a opinion, but I agree with some of those opinions such as not hurting or stealing from your fellow man. It was said in relation to religion but the principle applies to all things. “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Jefferson The point is that if somebody does something and it doesn't hurt me or take from me then who cares what they are doing. Many of the little rules that police enforce go well beyond that basic principle. On the other hand the police do hurt people and they do take money from people, so I find that interesting.

"So what you are saying then is you are above the law and answerable to no other authority but God?"

I'm saying that I'm an American, and as one that gives me the right to challenge laws that other men try to put in place over me, yes. You better believe that real Americans know that they have the right to have the laws they don't like changed.

"Which established the frame work for the Federal Government. However, since you are also a citizen of the State you reside in, and that State has a consitution, how do you reoncile that issue? If you wish to use the Constitution, and only the consitution, then we can easily arrest you. I wont have to mirandize you and can ask you guilt seeking questions. I can detain you indeifnitely until the court decides they want to have you appear."

If you don't want to play under all of the other laws that's fine with me...in that case you would see what would happen when police start doing that without the "laws" that they created to protect them don't exist. Without those rules nobody would accept your authority because the police aren't part of the Constitution. Without those laws that you love so much, people would just say, the military is kidnapping people in the country and I think you know what comes next. I'm not advocating that type of behavior, I'm just saying things wouldn't go as you suggest.

We do live in a Constitutional Republic, but it is also Republic through democracy (lowercase) also making it a Democratic Republic, meaning that when the people don't like something they make it know, and demand change.

"Are you really that paranoid that you are incapable or unwilling to accept the concept of more than one idea?"

I think their is a word in the conspiracy world when somebody that works for the government defends the government point of view all of the time while claiming that nobody else knows what they are talking about...hmmm, what is that word?

"And lastly I know what the Federal Constitution says, and understand the fact that you are a citizen of a State, and as such, per the Constittion, are bound by those state laws until you change them."

...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 of these ends, it is the Right of the People to ALTER or to abolish it

Who decides when it has become destructive? The people, its based on public perception, that's the real reason for our debate, you want public perception to be one thing, I wish for it to be another. But as an American, yes I have the right to demand that laws I don't like are altered or removed completely. I don't give my consent, so I give my opinion to have those things changed. With enough people in agreement they can be.

"The law and the PA disagree with you hbere"

Tell it to the Judge


Alright, time to get my day started.

edit on 29-6-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Phantom
 

Well said The_Phantom
 

reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Ya know what.. since you and oth4ers like to stereotype and insult me and recently receving a U2U that contained a threat, I think I will insult people who have no fricking clue as to whats going on. You guys are all over the place, and you refuse to follow anything but your opinion, subsituting it for law.

Insult you? heck it was you that made the empty appology was it not? and why not just name the person and be done with it or have it verified by a Moderater,not saying that it didn`t happen but do you really expect everyone to believe your word after what you have said to people throughout this thread and the other on "the result of the case" and your stance of the OP.


Or Gps777 who is so lost when it comes to law and procedure its not even funny.

Here is my answer to you from your question to me.......

Originally posted by gps777
I think I understand it clearly enough,the law in the US for a LEO is if he gives a command it is therefore lawful,whether or not its seen as a criminal offense by a judge is beside the point.Is that about right,in a nut shell?

This was your response..........

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Yes and no, and I answer that way based off examples others have given. In the op article, I feel the cop was within his autority to tell her to move away. We dont need to rehash that argument, since we both know where we stand on it. If an officer tells you to strip down and run around naked on the highway, then no, its not a lawful command.


Do you notice that you agreed with me in saying "YES",then rambled on with the rest of your dribble based "off examples others have given".in your own words,which was the "and NO"
Then say...


Or Gps777 who is so lost when it comes to law and procedure its not even funny.

I guess you`ve lost the plot or didn`t have one to begin with,are you just a government paid pit bull?


I guess obfuscation is the choice defense by peolpe in these threads who make accusations they cant back up - Spy66 / Gps777 your at the top of that list.

I`m honored then it must mean we`re doing something right based on your character and judgements throughout the topic.All we need to do is the opposite.
(though I must say Spy66 I`m a little jealous you got mentioned before me,in his hissy fit)

Obfuscation is the mamoth amount you write in trying to cover your rear,just so you dont have to hear what peoples complaints are toward bad officers or even toward yourself.

Here`s some laws for many states in America that everyone should learn lest you be called ignorant.

www.dumblaws.com...

Yeah just becasue its law it must be right, ignorance of law is bliss for the most part imo.

Edit
May contain graphic images of the assault and bubbly kind.



edit on 29-6-2011 by gps777 because: Lots of bubbles



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Phantom
Maybe you can help me out, when have I insulted you?

Pick any number of threds you have posted in that ive also been in. Hmmm.. I also wonder why my avatar is different.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
Like when you call people stupid, or you called me a "donkey"?

I said the comparison was stupid because the poster was attempting to compare apples to the moon. I never called you a donkey, I used the term ass.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
When that happens there is usually a history of reasons for those assertions to exist.

Lol.. Stereotype much?


Originally posted by The_Phantom
When did I say all cops are bad? As I said before I recently posted about a cop that was killed searching for truth and I'm not sure a cop has even posted on that thread. I said this individual cop was wrong, but it sounds like you are making broad sweeping allegations against the "ignorant" people on this forum.


Are you kidding?

Originally posted by The_Phantom
When that happens there is usually a history of reasons for those assertions to exist.

You just said the above.. You are making a blanket assertion, or in other terms, stereotyping. My comments to other posters, and my continued use of the word ignorant is what it is. Turns the tables for a moment.. If you work FEMA, and you come into a thread that involves FEMA, and you constantly see comments that are wrong, have no basis in law, making accusations that are not true while they say all cops are evil and bad, would you not engage in that conversation to clarify the information?

Would you not explain some of the finer points of why FEMA does what FEMA does? Would you not come to the conclusion that people who continued to ignore the right factual information as well as links to sources that explain it, while continuing to assert their claims and push false / wrong information, that those people are either pushing an agenda or just plain ignorant - lacking in knowledge?



Originally posted by The_Phantom
Incorrect, I have never hurt anybody in my life, why? It's not because of law, but because I believe it is wrong to do so. I believe law is a opinion, but I agree with some of those opinions such as not hurting or stealing from your fellow man. It was said in relation to religion but the principle applies to all things. “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Jefferson The point is that if somebody does something and it doesn't hurt me or take from me then who cares what they are doing. Many of the little rules that police enforce go well beyond that basic principle. On the other hand the police do hurt people and they do take money from people, so I find that interesting.


So not only are you ok with stereotyping, you continue to do it while quoting religious text. Pretty bold if not a bit hypocritical coupled with a disengenous portrayal of religious beliefs. Your comparison and assumption about not hurting anyone is based on a lack of understanding of how we do our job and waht we face on a daily basis. Add to that your last statement, and you have pretty much made your entire bias very clear.

I would normally say let he who is without sin cast the first stone, but I have a feeling it would be lost here.




Originally posted by The_Phantom
I'm saying that I'm an American, and as one that gives me the right to challenge laws that other men try to put in place over me, yes. You better believe that real Americans know that they have the right to have the laws they don't like changed.

Then change the law.. Until that time you are subject to it, regardless of your personal feelings towards it. Secondly, to challenge a law, contact your representative or if you have been charged, take your argument to the judge, via your lawyer, to have it dimissed because of whatever reason you think will work.

Police do not make the laws
Police do not determine innocene or guilt
Police do not prosecute those accused of violations

Again, based on the post so far, the blame is being laid squarely on law enforcement, when in fact the people to blame would be those who dont participate in the system / political process. When people dont vote, enage in the process, or jsut rubberstampt the incumbent, thats not making changes to the things you dont like.

I feel people comeafter cops in this regard because people are to lazy to make the effort on the political side. People seem to want the path of least resitance.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
If you don't want to play under all of the other laws that's fine with me...in that case you would see what would happen when police start doing that without the "laws" that they created to protect them don't exist. Without those rules nobody would accept your authority because the police aren't part of the Constitution. Without those laws that you love so much, people would just say, the military is kidnapping people in the country and I think you know what comes next. I'm not advocating that type of behavior, I'm just saying things wouldn't go as you suggest.


So its ok for you to not play by all the rules, yet the cops should? Is that your argument?

Secondly, learn how the government works would you pleaase - Police DO NOT create nor pass laws. Saying it over and over and over does not make your false claim suddenly true. If you truely understand the Constitution you would know this since it lays out the branches, seperation of power, checks and balances. Since you say there is no police authorized in the Constitution, and you know it so well, then how can you make the statement the Police make the laws?

Secondly, Police are in the Constitution. The problem you have here goes back to what ive been saying, learn how your governemnt works, at ALL levels. The state constitutions establish police departments, Sheriff Departments etc. Anything not clery reserved for the Federal Government or spelled out in the Constitution, is reserved for the States.

The states have their own Constitutions because they are a seperate entity from the FEderal Government.
Unless your arguing you dont recognize State Constitutons?

Maybe you should go back and read through the Constitutions again.



Originally posted by The_Phantom
We do live in a Constitutional Republic, but it is also Republic through democracy (lowercase) also making it a Democratic Republic, meaning that when the people don't like something they make it know, and demand change.

It also means that there will be laws that are passed by citizens or their elected representatives who dont share your viewpoints. Im all for people demanding change and taking part in the process. However, ignoring laws, or falsely portraying how a law works because you and others dont like it, is not making change at all.



Originally posted by The_Phantom
I think their is a word in the conspiracy world when somebody that works for the government defends the government point of view all of the time while claiming that nobody else knows what they are talking about...hmmm, what is that word?

Obfuscation comes to mind. When you decide to actually answer this question, let me know. Also, again you undermine your own argument and position. You recognize the Constitution, yet apparently not all of it.

The term for people who do that are called cherrypickers. It means you pick the laws you like, while ignoring any other law you dont like or agree with. Ironic for a person to invoke the Constitution, while ignoring it at the very same time.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
...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 of these ends, it is the Right of the People to ALTER or to abolish it

Through taking part in the process and doing your civic duty of voting and holding your elecetedd officals accountible, and firing them by not voting for them when they dont do their jobs to the satsifaction of the Majority.

Trying to make an argument using the Constitution, while ignoring partds of the constitution you dont like, then invoking that quote... Consent of the Governed means everyone else and not jsut you. If the majority of the people are happy with the government they have, are then in turn part of the problem as well since they dont agree with your views?



Originally posted by The_Phantom
Who decides when it has become destructive? The people, its based on public perception, that's the real reason for our debate, you want public perception to be one thing, I wish for it to be another. But as an American, yes I have the right to demand that laws I don't like are altered or removed completely. I don't give my consent, so I give my opinion to have those things changed. With enough people in agreement they can be.


I agree with this answer, however just because you dont agree with a law does not mean it should not be enforced nor does it mean you dont have to follow it. There are aspects of my job that I am required to comply with because of Federal Law, and some of those items I dont agree with at all. That does not give me the ability or right to just ignore those sections though.

In this thread, thats been my argument. Some people just dont see how the law was violated, and feel the actions of the officer were illegal. The laws say differently, yet people refuse to see this because they dont like it and dont recognize it. How can people then go after the officer with their claims, when the people making the claims are doing the exact same thing they accuse the officer of doing?


Originally posted by The_Phantom

Tell it to the Judge


Alright, time to get my day started.

edit on 29-6-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)


As I pointed out in another post, the Judge had nothing to do with this decision. The PA declined to prosecute, not the Judge. The Judges action was procedural to clear the case from the docket, thereby removing it from the Courts Calendar. This is, again, why I keep coming back for people to learn the law and undestand how it works.

Have a good day at work. I look forward to your repsonse.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



You have posted more than anyone else.
Are you really that insecure that you always have to feel you are in control? By having the last word on 'everything'?
A forum is a place to share ideas not be browbeaten by some closed minded individual with a God complex.
People are allowed to have viewpoints that are 'different' from your own. It is called an opinion and everyone has a right to have a different one.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ..5..
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



You have posted more than anyone else.
Are you really that insecure that you always have to feel you are in control? By having the last word on 'everything'?
A forum is a place to share ideas not be browbeaten by some closed minded individual with a God complex.
People are allowed to have viewpoints that are 'different' from your own. It is called an opinion and everyone has a right to have a different one.


Lol no I dont have to have the last word on everything, but nice setup question knowing I would answer, which will allow you to now claim I do have to have the last word.

Im not insecure at all. When I respond to posts that contain false / incorrect information, im going to point it out. Of course I am going to post more than anyone. When I am responding to multiple posters, that happens.

A forum is also a place to learn something you did not know before, which is ever present in threads that bash the police. Heck its present in threads that dont bash the police.

At no point have I browbeat anyone. What I have done is respond to their posts with information. For some reason, people find it easier to just ignore any information they dont agree with, and in this case the law used.

Im not close minded, nor do I have a God complex. The same claim can be used for you and others though. Funny how that works, and evn funnier that your addressing me. I wonder why that is, while you ignore other posts that are in the same category. Or is it simply because of my profession?

Whats intresting though is how you come after me for defending my point of view and debating others. Why would I stop just because you dont like it? Why would I let peeople go on to say its ok to bash the cops, stereotype them, call them names while making accusations they broke a law when they didnt, while making other claims that are just not true.

Why would I let that go and not respond to them? As you say the forums are for open debate and discussion, which we are doing. If even one person learns something new then its a good day.

Your post and comments leads me to beleive that you would prefer there be discussion and debate, provided its anti police and so long as their is no one to refute the false claims others make. Thats not a debate, thats a gossip fest.

Opinions are fine when they are just that. However, an opinion vs a fact is something else entirely. Based on your logic -

I say 2 + 2 = 4
You say 2+2 does not equal 4 because in your opinion, the 4 should be something else.

Anyways, no I am not going anywhere, and neither are the anti police / ant i governemt people. This thread, like tohers will end and new ones will start.
As you said, its a forum and debate. Any particular reason you want to make it out to be something its not? Thats my opinion by the way.

/end sarcasm.
edit on 29-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I would put you on ignore but you have hijacked the thread to the point that that would not be possible and still follow the context.
Every other post is yours. Will you stop and let someone else share their thoughts, opinions and ideas.
Stop trying to pound your opinion down everyone else s throat. It is the trademark of a bully.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Phantom
The point is that if somebody does something and it doesn't hurt me or take from me then who cares what they are doing. Many of the little rules that police enforce go well beyond that basic principle.


Just wanted to point out that 99% of the problems that people have with the police and vice-versa arise over the "little rules". Crap like an expired inspection sticker, parking violations, open containers, misdemeanor Class V possession can utterly and truly screw someone up yet none of these violations have any significant impact on either the safety of the public or the officers "enforcing" them.

The goal of a peace officer should be to interfere as little as possible in the lives of those who he is sworn to protect. That protection includes financial harm such as burglary and robbery but also in my mind financial harm from nonsensical citations for violations of the VTL and civil offenses which the town/city may put in place that harm nobody.

I'll also add that one can engage in enforcement activity (when necessary) without being a burro to those you interact with. Sure everyone has bad days but as a police officer I realized that almost every single time I interacted with people in an official capacity they either were already having one as well or were about to. That bit of realization made all the difference in the world.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Just for my own curiosity I looked up "failure to obey an order."
All I found referred to articles 91 and 92 of the UCMJ.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Emily Good was not in the US Military. Further I doubt that she was in the officers chain of command, nor did she ever swear an oath of allegiance* to the officer or the police force so was under no obligation to obey. She was well withing however rights the officer was not, by failing to stop him the other LEOs were just as guilty (I forget the statute but it went on the books after the Rodney King beating.)

Here are the codes.
She could have a heck of a counter suit against the officer

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -

They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.


§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

HEAD

Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

STATUTE

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death.




*And no saying the pledge of allegiance in school doesn't apply - since the children do not know what they are swearing allegiance to.
edit on 29-6-2011 by ..5.. because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437 The goal of a peace officer should be to interfere as little as possible in the lives of those who he is sworn to protect. That protection includes financial harm such as burglary and robbery but also in my mind financial harm from nonsensical citations for violations of the VTL and civil offenses which the town/city may put in place that harm nobody.


Well said we have a right not to be hassled or shaken down for money.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I never said that. Whatever.


Then what exactly is the point of posting that info in this thread if your intent was not to make a blanket statement / insinuation that because the cops left an AR on the trunk, all cops do it.


The clue is in the next sentence after the link
Point is that cops are mostly working in situations where there is a possibility of major screw ups. That might make them edgy about cameras.
Also another possibility for this camera shyness is that perhaps they know they are working for a broken and corrupt system and are embarrassed by that. This video would kind of give that feel. It's not police afaik? They are workers at a court house who have arrested someone. They claim that it is a federal law that you cant film them but when asked to produce that law they refuse saying they dont have to show anything.
edit on 29/6/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

"Lol no I dont have to have the last word on everything, but nice setup question knowing I would answer, which will allow you to now claim I do have to have the last word."

He can claim that, your correct, I finally agree with you about something.


Public perception...law is public perception. It blows in the wind and it is all up for grabs.

"Then change the law"

That's why these things are discussed, laws can only be changed by changing popular opinion of what is right and what is wrong.

The cop that arrested her was wrong.
edit on 29-6-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
*snip*
It's not police afaik? They are workers at a court house who have arrested someone. They claim that it is a federal law that you cant film them but when asked to produce that law they refuse saying they dont have to show anything.


Police officers and deputies typically do not walk around with the entire codified criminal statutes for their home states- considering lugging around 4-5 large hardbound textbooks to show every single person who might be interested which General Statute has been violated and the elements for that crime as well as any/all associated case law attached to that Statute. For them to be required to produce the law these books would need to be carried on their person at all times- which is rather silly.

In the case of videotaping in a federal courthouse AFAIK you may not videotape inside but you can as much as you want from the sidewalks. Again this is what I can remember offhand and is not definitive nor am I 100% sure on that- case law may have changed. I am not sure what the law was at the time of this video- there were cases of people being arrested for taping inside, some who were arrested for taping on sidewalks and other courthouses where the Marshal's Service did not interfere all happening concurrently across the country.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777

. . .


May contain graphic images of the assault and bubbly kind.



Wow. Never seen that one before. Now obviously she failed to follow a lawful order, and obstructed governmental administration.

Is someone on ATS Officer Bubbles?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


Yeah I understand the point about not having all federal laws with the guys. That's no excuse to come up with stuff however. If they claim that there is a law they can look it up easily. Also afaik there isn't any law or statue that would stop a person from recording inside a court house.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 

You could be right Lemon.Fresh.

That video is one of a few that someone posted recently,Ive tried to find their post and darned if I can,so I had to go and search YouTube to find those that I remembered....

All lawful commands in their minds based on their opinions which is the topic.


I used to be a firefighter,this is distugisting.Power tripping idiot.

This is beyond absurd,there`s a patient in the back.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72

A woman was arrested for videotaping police from her front yard in Rochester, New York




The woman, who is unidentified at this point, was recording a traffic stop where police had a man handcuffed on May 12th. The video was uploaded to Blip TV today. The cops noticed her recording and started hassling her with absurd notions. “I don’t feel safe with you standing behind me, so I’m going to ask you to go into your house,” the cop said. “You seem very anti-police … due to what you said to me before you started taping me.”

She ended up getting handcuffed and taken away after she refused to walk into her house, even though she was clearly on her own property. Meanwhile, the man they had originally handcuffed was released
She was charged with obstructing government administration.
Source: www.pixiq.com...


What the hell is our country come to? Honestly? You can't videotape a police officer doing his job from your own front yard? WHY?

If you look at all of the stories about similar incidents you should see am alarming pattern emerging. YOU DON'T HAVE PERSONAL RIGHTS anymore-when a cop decides you don't just because you are video taping.

We have to get a grip on this as a country. The SCOTUS needs to hear a case and make a decision on this. Our country is officially in the toliet, IMO.

This cop was totally in the wrong. Notice how he stopped paying attention to the traffic stop activity to focus on a citizen holding a camera. There were at least 3 police officers there and no mobs/riots etc. That cop decided to violate the citizens rights purely on COP EGOMANIA and/or oppression. I hope she enjoys her money that she will be getting from the city.




edit on 6/22/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/22/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)


This is more common than you would think. Many new rookies overstep their authority.

It usually starts with an officer trying to bully someone who knows the law, followed by an unlawful arrest.

Who wins? Well the lady in the video will go to the precinct for processing at which time the desk officer, usually a Sergeant or Lieutenant, will hear circumstances behind the arrest (from the officer) and then void the arrest.

The lady loses 30-90 minutes of her time and in 1-2 years time collects 10-30000 dollars in damages. More if its on tape
.

This event cost the people of Rochester more than it will cost the subject officer.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


Uhhh...we live in what is known as the "digital age", aka "wireless".

It seems that an leo doesn't need to lug around the entire criminal database to find out if a person has a record and see that record in detail.

Seems to me that when a citizen demands to see the law under which an leo is claiming authority, the leo should be able to produce it just as readily.

So why doesn't it work that way?

Some possible answers:

"It would be too time consuming."

Hmmm, you have another appointment to keep? Or perhaps you value looking for potential crime higher than dealing with the consequences of stopping someone?

"It would make my job too hard."

Tough. It's your job, and it isn't supposed to be easy.

The only other possible answers that I can think of are:

"What I want to do is illegal, and I know it."

"What I want to do MAY be illegal, and I don't want to risk it."

"It undermines my authority."

Not if you're right.

"I actually don't know what law I'm using to bother you over, and don't want to expose my ignorance."

I'd like to see/hear from leos as to why they can't or won't produce the relevant law upon demand. It seems a simple thing to produce in this day and age, and would seem to be a requirement prior to arresting or intimidating a citizen. In any case, it should be a requirement.

It isn't enough toclaim authority, it should be explicitly required to prove authority prior to pulling crap like arresting videotapers.

To XCathdra: what you can't seem to understand is that many, if not most of us, do indeed understand how law enforcement and the justice systems work, and as the folks paying the bills, we don't agree with what our employees are doing and how they are twisting it.

We are NOT ignorant.

You can smugly cite your rules and regs, but that doesn't make them RIGHT. Once upon a time, the LAW said it was okay to own people, and to beat and kill the people you owned. Just because it was a law didn't make it right. People like you enforced that law and returned those who tried to escape from their kidnappers and tormentors. No doubt just as smugly citing the law.

Not all cops are bad. Not all cops are good. But all of them are employees of the people and their first duty is to the people who pay their salaries. Unfortunately, most cops seem to feel their first duty is to protect each other, not the public.
edit on 30-6-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
143
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join