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: 49
143
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


As a police officer or deputy we are required to tell those we arrest what the relevant charge is. If I arrest someone for rape they are notified of this. If I arrest someone for robbery they are notified of this. If I arrest for disorderly conduct they are notified of this (not that dis-con was appropriate here or RDO).

We are not required to tell anyone/everyone who happens to wander by what the charges are, how the subject met the elements of the crime and how various courts have ruled on the particular charge in the past... the same way your doctor is not allowed to tell anyone who comes into his office what you were treated for and what his/her prognosis is.

For one- until the arrestee is brought before a magistrate and the arrest becomes public record there is an expectation of privacy. Sometimes people are handcuffed for detention purposes- so if the officer said "suspicion of XXX" that officer gets sued in civil court for slander (not sure of exact civil term). Sometimes a subject is arrested and then the officer decides to release the subject without charges and we're right back in civil court if the officer is telling everyone walking by what the subject is charged with or under suspicion of.

Secondly the officer wishes to process his arrest and get back to work, not spend his 12 hour shift answering the same question over and over on the side of the road as an endless parade of people who wish to know what the elements of shoplifting are and how the person in handcuffs met those requirements wander by. That is what press conferences are for.

Your desire to have the police officers explain every single enforcement action in great detail to anyone who happens to walk by to include General Statute number and associated case law is a little out there. I might not know the General Statute for rape offhand but I know what it is and if I see it I intend to stop it and take the offender into custody... not stop and check first to make sure I know the GS number and case law references so you can be informed.

Simply because you want to know something does not mean heaven and earth are going to realign themselves for your own personal convenience. Do you demand an individual explanation of your elected representatives votes on issues, as they are happening, on the House/Senate floor? Do you walk into operating rooms in hospitals and demand to know that the surgeon is doing? Do you walk into attorney's offices and demand to know everything that is happening between the lawyer and his/her client?

If you do not do the above then why single out cops? A politician can remove your freedom in far more reaching and binding fashion than a cop can. A surgeon can kill someone by mistake and their numbers of deaths via malpractice FAR outstrip those shot by police. An attorney has a better working knowledge of the law (in general) than a street officer and according to you this info MUST be given out at all costs...

I think you're focusing on the wrong end of the problem. If it weren't for politicians passing nonsensical bovine scatologically inspired laws the police wouldn't be enforcing them. Makes no sense to blame a private for the blunders of the general.
edit on 30-6-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


You mean like the leo who arrested the woman for videotaping?

I don't recall him citing a law, just his annoyance.

And I didn't mention random people coming up and asking for whatever.

What I did say is that when an leo claims authority to demand a citizen obey him, he must cite from where he derives that authority. Actually he should have to allow the citizen to actually see the text of the law he's citing, not just the code number.

And too freaking bad if it takes time...what's the rush?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by SFA437
 


You mean like the leo who arrested the woman for videotaping?

I don't recall him citing a law, just his annoyance.

And I didn't mention random people coming up and asking for whatever.

What I did say is that when an leo claims authority to demand a citizen obey him, he must cite from where he derives that authority. Actually he should have to allow the citizen to actually see the text of the law he's citing, not just the code number.

And too freaking bad if it takes time...what's the rush?


So if someone is shooting at me, or trying to cave my head in with a tire iron I should stop any/all of my actions to pull out a book and start citing statutes??

If someone were to draw a weapon or attack me I sure as hell would be demanding they drop the weapon but to suggest that my defense against that attack should be citing criminal statutes and elements of the offense is a bit silly



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


Please, no straw man arguments. Not every police encounter is life or death or imminent injury.

In obvious cases of imminent danger...deal with the situation first.

But in cases where an leo is merely trying to assert authority he may not have, different story. All arrests for videotaping and similar things would apply to what I mean.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


I think in a situation in which our rights are steadily being eroded and where there is concern about this and about abuses of power then you have to expect that more and more citizens are going to demand to know under what law they or others are being detained by Police, in order to make sure that they and their fellow citizens are not being mistreated.

Think about it, stopping someone, detaining them, laying hands on them, hancuffing them etc. are all things that are an affront, an indignity and generally a crime, if members of the public were to do them. For Police officers to be allowed to do these things then justification should be clearly given to any who ask, including stating the specific law they claim to be applying. Its not hard.

Police are not above the law and should always be willing and able to provide legal justification for their actions to any who ask, so that it is clear to all, including themselves, that they are not above the law and must operate within it.

The day when Police feel no need to explain or justify themselves in law to those they are supposed to serve and the day when fellow citizens are made to 'stay out of it' and not monitor or request justification from the Police is the day the public have lost control of their supposed public servants and escalating corruption will follow.

That day has already come IMO.



edit on 30-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by SFA437
 


Please, no straw man arguments. Not every police encounter is life or death or imminent injury.

In obvious cases of imminent danger...deal with the situation first.

But in cases where an leo is merely trying to assert authority he may not have, different story. All arrests for videotaping and similar things would apply to what I mean.


It wasn't intended to be- I was simply pointing out that where is the line drawn on when an officer needs to break out the textbook or Kindle and show the subject the written law that they are being accused of breaking?

In each state there are several thousand criminal and civil laws an officer is responsible for having a working knowledge of. Now we add in that the officer needs to know which one of those need a Kindle review by the suspect prior to arrest... All that would do is lead to 1000 more threads like

"Police Officer Arrests Man Without Showing Him Kindle... KILL ALL FACIST PIGS" and whatnot



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
For Police officers to be allowed to do these things then justification should be clearly given to any who ask, including stating the specific law they claim to be applying. Its not hard.


So you support the waste of taxpayer money by having to assign one officer to stand on the side of the road and explain the legalities and nuances of criminal law to any passerby that wish to know what is going on- essentially roadside press conferences.

Then you support the violation of the suspect's right to privacy in regards to his charges prior to being seen by a Magistrate?

Odd considering the rest of your post...



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


Oh come on, be reasonable.

This would be easy to implement and you know it. Why take things to silly hypothetical extremes, as if there aren't appropriate ptotocols for different situations?

The point is that generally Police should be required to point to the specific law they are applying for those who ask, either directly involved or bystanders, unless the circumstances make that impossible.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


What waste of taxpayers money? This would save taxpayers money, because the lawsuits and damages against wrongful Police action would drop dramatically, because fewer Police would act fast and loose with the law knowing they would have to cite the law.

Anyway, I see huge groups of Police gathered round arguing with (or talking/bellowing at, as is more often the case) the public or standing round laughing and chatting with one another at relatively minor events all the time. It hardly cost any money for then to stop chatting for five minutes and make sure they are actually within the law and demonstrate that to those who ask.


edit on 30-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
It wasn't intended to be- I was simply pointing out that where is the line drawn on when an officer needs to break out the textbook or Kindle and show the subject the written law that they are being accused of breaking?

In each state there are several thousand criminal and civil laws an officer is responsible for having a working knowledge of. Now we add in that the officer needs to know which one of those need a Kindle review by the suspect prior to arrest... All that would do is lead to 1000 more threads like

"Police Officer Arrests Man Without Showing Him Kindle... KILL ALL FACIST PIGS" and whatnot


If a cop does not know what law you are breaking then how can he be detaining you for it to begin with?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I take it to extremes because EVERYTHING implemented by government goes there eventually. Actually I think that's the reason for this site and this thread in particular.

"Law Enforcement Officers" were once called peace officers. They are in fact governmental employees who have taken certain things to extremes.

Granted there have been drastic changes in society, police culture and government since then which has led to the "Law Enforcement" culture as well as the disdain for police in the citizenry. This change was not one sided by any means either- all parties had a hand in turning coexistence and enforcement only for the common good into what we have today.

reply to post by Malcram
 


That is called common courtesy and being a normal human being.

If there were no exigent circumstances or open hostility I would explain the proceedings if I had time to. Tends to keep agitation down and quell any emerging rumors that surround any arrest and/or detention.

reply to post by Kitilani
 


There is a difference between knowing that rape, for example, is a crime which needs intervention by police and knowing the statue number and on which page in the codified criminal statutes it can be found on.

For example- in NC if you steal a dog there is a separate statute that raises that larceny to a felony no matter the original purchase price of the dog (if there was a cost to start with). It is rarely used and usually applies to hunting hounds (people use these dogs to put a winters worth of food on the table) but it is there and I have charged this offense twice in my 12 years on the job. Because I do not know the GS number does not mean it does not exist, nor does it mean I do not know the law and it does not mean I cannot arrest for the offense.

If you are saying that if I am unsure of whether or not an action is criminal or not to start with and the correct course of action to take in that circumstance is to take no action then yes you are 100% correct



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
There is a difference between knowing that rape, for example, is a crime which needs intervention by police and knowing the statue number and on which page in the codified criminal statutes it can be found on.


That only furthers my point. I would not want you to spit a bunch of code numbers at me. I want to hear what crime I am being charged with and what law that breaks. Rape is pretty easy to explain. You know what rape is so go back to your squad car and punch it in google if you need to find out what the law says about rape.


For example- in NC if you steal a dog there is a separate statute that raises that larceny to a felony no matter the original purchase price of the dog (if there was a cost to start with). It is rarely used and usually applies to hunting hounds (people use these dogs to put a winters worth of food on the table) but it is there and I have charged this offense twice in my 12 years on the job. Because I do not know the GS number does not mean it does not exist, nor does it mean I do not know the law and it does not mean I cannot arrest for the offense.


Stealing is stealing and that is pretty easy to explain. If they ask how they are stealing, would you be at a loss to explain how?



If you are saying that if I am unsure of whether or not an action is criminal or not to start with and the correct course of action to take in that circumstance is to take no action then yes you are 100% correct


Too bad that is not what happened in this video and likewise, if you do not know what you are about to charge someone with then you probably have no business charging them.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
That only furthers my point. I would not want you to spit a bunch of code numbers at me. I want to hear what crime I am being charged with and what law that breaks. Rape is pretty easy to explain. You know what rape is so go back to your squad car and punch it in google if you need to find out what the law says about rape.


Disorderly conduct is easy to explain. Resisting arrest is easy to explain. Rape is easy to explain. Murder is easy to explain. Just about every criminal act is easy to explain. The original point of the discussion we were having was should the officer be able to show written, codified law to anyone who happens to walk by- not explain.


Originally posted by Kitilani
Stealing is stealing and that is pretty easy to explain. If they ask how they are stealing, would you be at a loss to explain how?


No, however that was not the point of the discussion. The original point of the discussion we were having was should the officer be able to show written, codified law to anyone who happens to walk by- not explain.

Also stealing is not just stealing. There is petit larcent, grand larceny, larceny of a motor vehicle, larceny of pine straw (I kid you not), robbery, strong arm robbery, aggravated robbery, felony robbery; the variations are essentially endless and each is a separate and distinct criminal charge.


Originally posted by Kitilani
Too bad that is not what happened in this video and likewise, if you do not know what you are about to charge someone with then you probably have no business charging them.


So if an officer is unsure of whether or not to charge with 2nd degree forcible rape versus 1st degree statutory rape (both are VERY close as far as elements are concerned) I should just let the subject loose?
Obviously that is NOT what you are saying and I get the gist of your position.

What I am saying is that the criminal law side of police work is insanely complex and while a criminal act can be recognized (stealing or rape for example) the exact charge may not immediately spring to mind. The fact that the officer might not know exactly what statute is being violated should not preclude arrest.

If the officer is not sure of whether or not a crime is being committed at all- then there should be no action taken whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
Disorderly conduct is easy to explain. Resisting arrest is easy to explain. Rape is easy to explain. Murder is easy to explain. Just about every criminal act is easy to explain. The original point of the discussion we were having was should the officer be able to show written, codified law to anyone who happens to walk by- not explain.


Did you leave out the part about going back and looking up what law you are charging them with because you did not notice it or because it kills your argument?


No, however that was not the point of the discussion. The original point of the discussion we were having was should the officer be able to show written, codified law to anyone who happens to walk by- not explain.


And if I am stealing something, you can still hit up that google to find the exact law I am breaking just like I said.


Also stealing is not just stealing. There is petit larcent, grand larceny, larceny of a motor vehicle, larceny of pine straw (I kid you not), robbery, strong arm robbery, aggravated robbery, felony robbery; the variations are essentially endless and each is a separate and distinct criminal charge.


And if the google cannot help you figure out just how much stealing happened and how then you should probably not be allowed to use a computer, or car, or gun, or badge.



So if an officer is unsure of whether or not to charge with 2nd degree forcible rape versus 1st degree statutory rape (both are VERY close as far as elements are concerned) I should just let the subject loose?
Obviously that is NOT what you are saying and I get the gist of your position.


Obviously not but you argued against what I was not saying anyway for no good reason. Feel better?


What I am saying is that the criminal law side of police work is insanely complex and while a criminal act can be recognized (stealing or rape for example) the exact charge may not immediately spring to mind. The fact that the officer might not know exactly what statute is being violated should not preclude arrest.


Google it. Hey, if you get the degree of rape wrong, that will be worked out. As long as you were correct in that a crime was committed you will be ok. When you tell some woman she is going to jail for failing to listen to your orders, then you might have to dig a little deeper to explain what law that is. If you cannot google it, then do not harass her about being in her own yard.


If the officer is not sure of whether or not a crime is being committed at all- then there should be no action taken whatsoever.


Which is exactly what I said.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
Did you leave out the part about going back and looking up what law you are charging them with because you did not notice it or because it kills your argument?


Neither. It is enough to know that an offense is being committed without knowing the specific subdivision of the criminal code is being violated. Stealing is stealing and should be acted upon by the police. What degree is not important at the time of the offense.


Originally posted by Kitilani
And if I am stealing something, you can still hit up that google to find the exact law I am breaking just like I said.


Again- the discussion was should action be deferred until an exact statute is found and then explained in great detail while the subject is free to do whatever he/she wishes versus an arrest be made for violation of common law (theft, rape... whatever) and the exact statute applied afterwards.


Originally posted by Kitilani
And if the google cannot help you figure out just how much stealing happened and how then you should probably not be allowed to use a computer, or car, or gun, or badge.


One does not "google" anything in police work. Every state has codified criminal law that is referred to. Also I will reiterate that the discussion was should action be deferred until an exact statute is found and then explained in great detail while the subject is free to do whatever he/she wishes versus an arrest be made for violation of common law (theft, rape... whatever) and the exact statute applied afterwards.


Originally posted by Kitilani
Obviously not but you argued against what I was not saying anyway for no good reason. Feel better?


Obviously when dealing with criminal law and the Constitutional applicability of those laws, precision is required and one should say what they mean.


Originally posted by Kitilani
Google it. Hey, if you get the degree of rape wrong, that will be worked out. As long as you were correct in that a crime was committed you will be ok.


According to the original discussion I was having with someone else the point was you would not be alright.


Originally posted by Kitilani
When you tell some woman she is going to jail for failing to listen to your orders, then you might have to dig a little deeper to explain what law that is. If you cannot google it, then do not harass her about being in her own yard.


Subjective arrests should not be made. Unless the violation is clear cut and meets every single element of the criminal act (which is necessary for the arrest to be legal) then no enforcement action can be taken.


Originally posted by Kitilani
Which is exactly what I said.


And I agreed.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I think this is much simpler that it is being made out to be.

People - whether the person involved or bystanders - tend to ask under what law the Police are acting when it is NOT clear that anything unlawful has happened, not when a rape, murder or theft etc. has occurred, when its clear there has been a crime.

In cases like the one discussed in this thread there was clearly no wrongdoing, no law broken by the woman arrested. In such cases its natural for anyone to ask 'under what law?' Now if the Police were OBLIGED to make the specific law clear when asked (and lets face it, they are generally only asked this when its not clear) then they would likely back off in these instances, knowing that they had no lawful backing, DEMONSTRATED by their inability to state the law justifying their intended actions.

Simple.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I think this is much simpler that it is being made out to be.

People - whether the person involved or bystanders - tend to ask under what law the Police are acting when it is NOT clear that anything unlawful has happened, not when a rape, murder or theft etc. has occurred, when its clear there has been a crime.

In cases like the one discussed in this thread there was clearly no wrongdoing, no law broken by the woman arrested. In such cases its natural for anyone to ask 'under what law?' Now if the Police were OBLIGED to make the specific law clear when asked (and lets face, it they are only asked when its not clear) then they would back off in these instances, knowing that they had no lawful backing, DEMONSTRATED by their inability to state the law justifying their intended actions.

Simple. I don't know why some are trying to obfuscate things, except perhaps that they dont want the Police to be held accountable for their actions towards the public and forced to act completely lawfully..
edit on 30-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)


Explaining things is usually a good idea. Actually it's a centerpiece of community oriented policing because it calms people down to know that the person arrested actually is a bad guy.

I'll also add that there is an institutional mindset of law enforcement not backing down or admitting mistakes. Until that mindset is broken and replaced, forcing the issue only leads to more threads like this.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 


I dont agree with everything you've said in this thread, obviously, but you seem like the proverbial 'good cop' to me. I actually edited out the judgemental comment in the last sentence before you replied, although your reply still caught it. Truth is, I dont know peoples motivations, obviously.

I do agree that a radical change needs to come about in the Police mind set. I imagine that being a 'good cop' may feel like a rather lonely role sometimes. Not that the majority of cops are 'bad' as such. But there is a rather unhealthy culture and dominant attitude that has developed. How it is to be changed, I dont know. But it must or it will end badly. The public will only take so much.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by SFA437
 


I dont agree with everything you've said in this thread, obviously, but you seem like the proverbial 'good cop' to me. I actually edited out the judgemental comment in the last sentence before you replied, although your reply still caught it. Truth is, I dont know peoples motivations, obviously.

I do agree that a radical change needs to come about in the Police mind set. I imagine that being a 'good cop' may feel like a rather lonely role sometimes. Not that the majority of cops are 'bad' as such. But there is a rather unhealthy culture and dominant attitude that has developed. How it is to be changed, I dont know. But it must or it will end badly. The public will only take so much.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)


You hit the nail on the head with police culture. It's gone from Andy Griffith and Dragnet to SWAT and Training Day.

Posted a couple ideas over here Just some thoughts

I agree on the trend needing to be reversed. Between badge heavy officers, the TSA, incremental government intrusion into our lives... the lines are being drawn in the sand and nobody really wants to see what happens when it gets crossed.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SFA437
 





the trend needing to be reversed


That, my friend, won't be happening. Once you they get power like this, they don't give it up.

Like the Patroit Act. Now it is used against the US citizens instead of enemy combatants....




top topics



 
143
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join