"If We Don't Have A RIGHT To Question A Police Officer Then We Are Living In A Police State!"

reply to post by Xcathdra


in the united states law enforcemret is twice as likely engage in criminal conduct that a normal citizen

fear of the police and suspision of misconduct before the fact are sane and valuable fears for the peaceful citizen in
the united states today

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Wrong
Reading all your comments is hilarious. None of you know anything about this woman yet you take her side. If you actually delved into the history of this woman, you will find that she's been arrested before at protests. Her whole sob story has been carefully crafted. It is all an act and you all unfortunately have fallen for it. Yay denying ignorance!

So a history of being wrong renders this action wrong? That's circular logic. By applying your reasoning (if you want to call what you said "reason"), Woodrow Wilson was wrong to bring women's suffrage, Hitler was a saint for making Germany strong, and Nero became a better fiddler.

Rational people can look at this incident on its own merit and judge it for what it is: an infringement by the LEO on the 1st and 4th Amendment. Upon further review, it could possibly even be a violation of the 5th:


"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

/TOA

edit on 4-7-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

There certainly is no First Amendment violation. The camera was still rolling after the cop arrested her. He wasn't restraining her speech. He may have reacted because of her, but that is not the reason she was arrested, nor did he prohibit the filming from continuing. He even tells her to film from inside.

The Fifth Amendments is absolutely not infringed here. The Due Process clause means that you are to be granted a hearing before you are actually sentenced to jail. I.e. in her case she would be entitled to a hearing to determine whether or not her being subject to further restrictions on liberty would be justified. She was not denied this, thus there was no denial of due process.

The Fourth Amendment is a restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is really the only thing at issue. As has been stated, you cannot just blindly throw out the Amendments without understanding how the law has been developed.

reply to post by NuroSlam


Police can detain you up to 12 hours without officially being arrested for either your saftey or thiers apparently. I was arrested in harrisburg pennsylvania by detective vogul of the penbroke police department for witnessing him dive tackle a drunk stranger for peeing on a bush. I thought the man was trying to rob or kill this kid i shared a cab with coming from a bar, i was in fear for his life as i did not see a badge or anything just a weapon i never heard anyone yell freeze or police just the violence. I went to intervene he said he was a cop so i went to call dispatch and confirm plain clothes cops in the area and the next thing I know Im in trouble for having a big mouth the only thing at that point that came out of my mouth was am i under arrest am I being detained i was shackled and nicely led around with wrist waist and foot shackles where they then took me to a tiny room and shackled me to the floor and bench. I was never presented a badge when I asked for one I was threatened to be electrocuted if I said one more thing and so much more. you do not rate phone calls or rights while you are being "protected" I got a bloody ear out of it though and a 500$ fine for recklessly endangering a police officer

reply to post by Throwback


when we make it that far to a police state that is there will no longer be an ats to gripe on anyways but you can always count on the non conformists making headlines if newspapers will still exist

Well, here goes my two cents. I believe the officers were in the right on the initial arrest. This is not about freedom of speech, private property or any breach of the constitution. Officers pulled over a vehicle with the expectation that the driver possessed a weapon. One of the attending officers notice her in her yard observing and requested that she go back into her home because of the nature of the stop they made and the officer made that lawful request to ensure her safety and she disobeyed an lawful request by an law enforcement officer. She was arrested for that exact reason. She endangered herself in the process of disobeying a simple request and possibly others. In my opinion she endangered everyone due to the obstruction of that officers attention. Her recording the situation was not an offense by any means I am glad that the prosecutors office made that choice.

I do believe that the arresting officers dropped the ball by not properly charging her since they decided to arrest her though. I also believe that many people are not viewing the entire facts in this incident.

As for the behavior by law enforcement after it was all said and done with the ticketing and whatever else, that was uncalled for and should be scrutinized in a major way by internal investigations. That type of retaliation behavior is one reason why so many people no longer trust law enforcement and fear them.

reply to post by Flint2011


I suspect you have a weapon and you are a danger to yourself and others, I am also under the understanding that you are mentally weak and may implode on a crime of passion and kill everyone around you. For this reason I suppose I will have to handcuff you and go through all of your things until I find something worthy of arresting you for maybe a kitchen knife or why not a sawzall yeah I heard you were going to kill your neighbor with a sawzall. Assume the position, obey! I dont agree with any of it I dont except to play by their rules I simply just want to live a holistic life outside of the bs it is a control thing it is a revenue thing it is a shame people dont see it.

Originally posted by Brotherman
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Police can detain you up to 12 hours without officially being arrested for either your saftey or thiers apparently. I was arrested in harrisburg pennsylvania by detective vogul of the penbroke police department for witnessing him dive tackle a drunk stranger for peeing on a bush. I thought the man was trying to rob or kill this kid i shared a cab with coming from a bar, i was in fear for his life as i did not see a badge or anything just a weapon i never heard anyone yell freeze or police just the violence. I went to intervene he said he was a cop so i went to call dispatch and confirm plain clothes cops in the area and the next thing I know Im in trouble for having a big mouth the only thing at that point that came out of my mouth was am i under arrest am I being detained i was shackled and nicely led around with wrist waist and foot shackles where they then took me to a tiny room and shackled me to the floor and bench. I was never presented a badge when I asked for one I was threatened to be electrocuted if I said one more thing and so much more. you do not rate phone calls or rights while you are being "protected" I got a bloody ear out of it though and a 500$ fine for recklessly endangering a police officer

Everything you said the cops did to your friend who pee'd in the bushes and to you was illegal. When are you going to grow some balls (or __________ if you're a woman) and challenge that kind of police misconduct properly? Your willingness to take it and not say a peep about it afterwards is what encourages them to keep on doing the same thing to others.

reply to post by Brotherman


I won't debate your stance but like you disagree with me, I disagree with your views. It's a two way street and by no means do I think that LEOS in this country are perfect. I am just sticking to the topic at hand.

i just want to ask one question in this thread, people keep argueing about what the law say's and this and that says, what i think is important is what is right, what would be the proper way to treat a human being.

but if people think it only matters what the law states then i'd like ask you this question.

were the nazi's breaking any laws in germany during ww2? or was what they were doing made a none-crime and justified? were laws changed to suit the mindset? what about iranian law is that all the right thing to do and the correct way to treat a human being?

my point here is law does not always mean something is right and should be accepted just because there is a law that has been made. if something is wrong people have a right to speak out about what they feel is wrong and why.
ah but it is law... does not cut it or matter.

Originally posted by lifeform11
i just want to ask one question in this thread, people keep argueing about what the law say's and this and that says, what i think is important is what is right, what would be the proper way to treat a human being.

but if people think it only matters what the law states then i'd like ask you this question.

were the nazi's breaking any laws in germany during ww2? or was what they were doing made a none-crime and justified? were laws changed to suit the mindset? what about iranian law is that all the right thing to do and the correct way to treat a human being?

my point here is law does not always mean something is right and should be accepted just because there is a law that has been made. if something is wrong people have a right to speak out about what they feel is wrong and why.
ah but it is law... does not cut it or matter.

edit on 4-7-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

Amen brother. This gets lost on so many. Laws are fallible. They are man-made, and laws can be made to protect evil acts. That does not make said acts okay, and certainly does not mean that people should just take it.

Every time there is one of these threads a resident cop comes in and starts yelling about how nobody knows the laws, and that the cops do. The problem is, these cops have been indoctrinated to the point where they think ALL laws are good, and that any questioning of those laws is wrong.

This is the type of mindset that eventually leads to violence.

Originally posted by lifeform11
i just want to ask one question in this thread, people keep argueing about what the law say's and this and that says, what i think is important is what is right, what would be the proper way to treat a human being.

but if people think it only matters what the law states then i'd like ask you this question.

were the nazi's breaking any laws in germany during ww2? or was what they were doing made a none-crime and justified? were laws changed to suit the mindset? what about iranian law is that all the right thing to do and the correct way to treat a human being?

my point here is law does not always mean something is right and should be accepted just because there is a law that has been made. if something is wrong people have a right to speak out about what they feel is wrong and why.
ah but it is law... does not cut it or matter.

edit on 4-7-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

Comparing United States Constitutional Law to the Nazi's or Iranian radical law is a bit extreme.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Yah for sure... The "resident cop" is now on the libertarian TSA florida thread, spouting the same crap about not knowing laws :/

Ah well ignorance is bliss(so ive been told)

reply to post by Ryanp5555


i am not comparing their laws, i am pointing out just because something IS law does not mean it is right and people cannot challenge it or must accept it.

reply to post by lifeform11


I agree with you for the most part, where my view differs is how people question such matters. There are proper venues and appropriate ways to do just that.

Originally posted by Flint2011
reply to post by lifeform11

 

I agree with you for the most part, where my view differs is how people question such matters. There are proper venues and appropriate ways to do just that.

i agree, but there is a debate here in this thread, and there are people screaming it is law or they are argueing about the interpretation of it, whilst it is nice to know what the law says, i think if this whole subject is based soley on what the law says then they are missing the point, there is more to it than just that. as there is with any of these subjects, TSA included. there is also what is right.

so i agree there are better places to do it and it can be done, but in this thread at least it just seems to me some people think what the laws says should end any debate and people should go on about their lives and stop complaining and accept it.

Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Yah for sure... The "resident cop" is now on the libertarian TSA florida thread, spouting the same crap about not knowing laws :/

Ah well ignorance is bliss(so ive been told)

thats his standard reply. I'd be willing to bet he's typed those exact words hundreds of times on this site.

reply to post by lifeform11


While I agree, I'd have to say I have been arguing about the law the entire time. Meanwhile, I have expressly stated that I make no comments as to whether I think the cop acted ethically or was actually acting right. I made that clear in the other thread. But, as I've stated, as the law is applied I think the officer may have effectuated a lawful arrest. If this thread was about the officers ethics or whether or not his actions were "right" this would be a totally different thread.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

i am not comparing their laws, i am pointing out just because something IS law does not mean it is right and people cannot challenge it or must accept it.

edit on 4-7-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

Oh okay. I agree, people should challenge unconstitutional laws, or laws that just seem off.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

There certainly is no First Amendment violation. The camera was still rolling after the cop arrested her. He wasn't restraining her speech. He may have reacted because of her, but that is not the reason she was arrested, nor did he prohibit the filming from continuing. He even tells her to film from inside.

At 0:47 she states what she is doing, which was "recording what is happening" and states that "it's my right", which it is, from her yard, or the street, or the roof...wherever. At 0:52 the LEO says, "Actually, not from the sidewalk." As a duly appointed officer of the law he just broke his oath to defend, as part of the Constitution, by abridging her right to free speech. Recordings have been covered under free speech since we've had the ability to record voices.

The Fifth Amendments is absolutely not infringed here. The Due Process clause means that you are to be granted a hearing before you are actually sentenced to jail. I.e. in her case she would be entitled to a hearing to determine whether or not her being subject to further restrictions on liberty would be justified. She was not denied this, thus there was no denial of due process.

I did include a qualifier, that it "could possibly" apply, but it is well within reason. In unlawfully detaining her he deprived her of "liberty". It would depend on the court's ruling that the 5th applies. If they ruled that the 5th didn't apply, that doesn't mean he didn't deprive her of liberty, it just means that other unlawful acts are sufficient to rule on guilt, and the 5th Amendment issue is not necessary.

The Fourth Amendment is a restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is really the only thing at issue.

She was unreasonably seized. This part of the 4th Amendment outlines that:

"and the persons or things to be seized."

He had no reasonable cause to detain her.

As has been stated, you cannot just blindly throw out the Amendments without understanding how the law has been developed.

I'm not blindly throwing out anything. I have laid the case out, quite frankly, much better than you have, and without any personal bias or assuming that someone has no idea of how law works.

/TOA

reply to post by lifeform11


I think that anytime someone feels something is wrong they should question it. We have a means and venue to question such matters as laws and whether they are right or wrong. We are a species who live by laws, standards etc to improve society and to civilize unrest. I got your point the first time and I get it now but it still doesn't excuse breaking the law just because you think it is wrong. Use the proper venues and options available as most nations have set in place for citizens to do. The world is not fair and sometimes there are places that have no means for people to question authority but that woman lives in a nation where she had the option to question matters in a more appropriate manner and she chose not to. She did what she felt was right. That does not make it right though either.