Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 21
60
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Flint2011
 


where the woman is concerned i am certain if she was treated with respect and in a proper manner, she would not of felt angry enough to take the route she did, even if she was arrested still but treated and spoken to in a better manner and man handled with care she would not of felt so outraged as to take that route.

i am not saying you are, but many others go on like the police hate comes from nowhere, they cannot see it is not just about members of the public acting correctly and in a proper manner, but the police must to. if the police do not then expect people to complain and go to the media.

if i felt i was treated in an inproper manner even by a shop assistant i would broadcast it to, untill i got an apology or knew something had been done about it.




posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

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.


First amendment is not about speech only. If it were like that you wouldn't have that protection on writing or expressing yourself. It most definately was a 1st amendment violation since filming and photography fall under it's protection.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

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.


First amendment is not about speech only. If it were like that you wouldn't have that protection on writing or expressing yourself. It most definately was a 1st amendment violation since filming and photography fall under it's protection.


Photography and writing are considered speech. There is also symbolic speech. Everything under the first amendment is considered speech in one form or another. And it wasn't a violation because neither her filming nor her photography were the reason she was arrested. It may have been the reason she was singled out, but it wasn't the reason she was arrested. The filming continued AFTER her arrest.
edit on 4-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

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.


Okay, lets try this again. So, your contention is honestly that he violated her first amendment right by telling her she couldn't film from the side walk? He did NOT arrest her for filming from the sidewalk. She did NOT have to listen to that order. She chose to listen to that order. She could have very well continued to film from the sidewalk. If he had put a restraint on that speech by ARRESTING her for filming from the sidewalk then maybe you'd have an argument. BUT HE DID NOT! And even if he did arrest for filming on the sidewalk, the only way it becomes an issue is if she was far enough away that there was no officer safety justification.



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.


No, there is now way this issue would reach the court. As I stated, the Fifth Amendment would only apply here if she didn't get due process of law. You cannot take away someone's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. What does this mean? She would be entitled to a hearing before she could be sent to jail. It's that simple. So, it could not apply in this situation.




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.


Actually he did. He felt threatened, thus he had the right to ask her to back up. She refused to comply with those orders. By failing to comply with a lawful police order she was in VIOLATION of the law. So, the Officer had more than the probable cause required to effectuate an Arrest. It doesn't matter that it was possible for him to ask nicer. The Fourth Amendment does NOT require an officer to act in the best possible way, just a REASONABLE way.






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


You are blindly throwing out Amendments yelling violation. Your First Amendment violation is based on absolutely no governmental restriction of Free Speech. Your possible Fifth Amendment violation is not based on any failure to give her due process of law. And your Fourth Amendment reading is what you see on its face. You may think you've laid out the case better than me, but that's because you lack a clear understanding of the law. I too am arguing without any bias. Again, I am NOT a COP!

You seem so adamant that the officers cannot do this. So, lets delve a bit deeper into officer safety. Here are some places where your freedoms are allowed to be violated by the Officers in the name of officer safety:

1) A cop can have you in a custodial interrogation situation where Miranda is required before asking questions and ask questions if they pretain to the officers safety AND get those statements admitted against you in Court.

2) A cop has to knock and announce his presence before executing a valid search warrant on someone's house unless doing so would be dangerous for the officer.

3) And officer can commence a terry stop and frisk if they have reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Meaning, they can stop to ask them questions and pat them down to look for weapons for the purposes of officer safety.

4) An officer can make a traffic stop and if they have reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity they can ask the person to get out of the car pat them down for weapons and then search the car for weapons, and this includes opening containers and the trunk, or anywhere else a weapon may be reasonably located, again for officer safety.

5) An officer, while executing a valid arrest warrant in someone's house can search the persons entire person AND the reasonable grabbing area surrounding the person, even if it includes opening up drawers and moving around stuff in those drawers. Again, officer safety.

6) An officer, while executing a valid search warrant, can place everyone that is in the house in handcuffs, even if they are naked and not the people suspected of a crime, while they search the house pursuant to officer safety. For instance, in one case, the officers got a warrant for the address, where they believed a black suspect lived, and entered the house, where they found two white people having sex. They had no reason to suspect them of the crime. However, the officers than placed them in handcuffs, completely naked, and moved them. The United States Supreme Court said that this was ALLOWED. Why? Because the officers had enough probable cause to support a warrant, and thus in executing the warrant they acted REASONABLY in detaining these people for OFFICER SAFETY!

So, if we look at number 6, and say well if Officers can do that merely because they fear for officer safety (and being forced into handcuffs naked despite not having probable cause to arrest these individuals is a HUGE infringement on an individuals rights) don't you think its reasonable that an officer be allowed to arrest someone who is standing behind the officers, refusing to comply with an order, despite the officer essentially pleading with her to move back?
edit on 4-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-7-2011 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I wouldn't want to be a Rochester Cop right now. I lived in that city for 8 years and it can get very dicey. I personally know 2 people who were murdered there, one a fairly good friend, the other a coworker. At one point in recent memory Rochester had the highest murder rate in the country. When I lived there, though, cops wouldn't even look at you unless you were shooting someone or got in an accident. They really didn't care much about traffic infractions. Apparently the city needs the revenue these days. Glad I moved.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


Of course the charge wont be "filming the police" since such doesn't excist. However filming was the reason behind the arrest.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I disagree, and I'll leave it at that.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


No you got it wrong, she was not arrested because she wouldn't move back, she was arrested because she was filming the police and the officer didnt feel "comfortable" with her watching over them/recording them. That's all it is a cop being a bully, and we dont care how the system works its the exact reason people suffer everyday

Reminds me of one day me and my friends got pulled over for speeding and my friend (driver) told the cops he didnt care that he was speeding...so the cops got mad and one went up to this old cop which had been in the force a long time most likely high ranking... "we should write him all kind of citations busted headlight, no seatbelt etc to try and get his licenses suspended" But to the point a cop might say he wants to arrest you for a certain reason, that doesnt mean its the real reason.
edit on 4-7-2011 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-7-2011 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by morder1
 


Here is more evidence of their arrogance from a story out of Az not letting a person speak who has the floor at a town meeting here is a link to the video.
______beforeitsnews/story/780/267/Rogue_Cops_Seize_Control_Of_AZ_Town.html



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
1-C’mon people…learn the law. Your opinions mean squat in the court of law. Your lawyers opinion does count however.

2-Stop with the hate for bejezuz sake.

3-Put yourself in the Police Officers shoes and having to deal with the likes of you …and your opinions. All the while having to think about, “Is this person breaking the law?”

4-Get a life. There are more important things to worry about than this woman. Let her sink beneath the slime from which she arose.


1-yes it is obvious that the citizenry's opinions don't mean squat to the courts
or the cops, or the government.

2- hate what hate? oh,that's just disinfo being put out by leos:

The Anti-Cop Trend That Isn't reason.com...
More on the Non-Existent "War on Cops" reason.com...


In my Monday column debunking the "war on cops" meme currently working its way through the media, I noted that fatal attacks on police officer deaths have dropped pretty dramatically over the last 25-30 years. Yesterday a reader sent me a link to this mostly unfortunate discussion of the column at an online forum for police officers. The thread itself gets pretty vicious. But one poster in that thread points out that if you look at numbers from the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted database, non-fatal assaults on police officers are in decline as well.
***
Overall, though, non-fatal assaults against law enforcement officers are in decline. Which means the downward trend in fatalities isn't necessarily due to better body armor, bulletproof vests or other police equipment.

The Internet, cell phone cameras, and video have made police more accountable and brought more exposure to bad cops. I don't doubt that this has fostered more skepticism of police authority, and even resentment at how infrequently bad actors held accountable. But there's just no evidence that more criticism of law enforcement, less respect for authority, or rising anti-government sentiment are manifesting as increased violence against police officers.




link to this mostly unfortunate discussion of the column at an online forum for police officers. www.glocktalk.com...

Cops Shoot, Kill Man For Betting On Football


WTF! 'Police War on Cameras' - When Fascism becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty!


3- ooooooh!!! so we have to put ourselves in your... sorry, cop's shoes. weird how it's never the other way around, isn't it?

4- see 3. [talk about a double standard]
"slime" LOL
so much for: "Stop with the hate for bejezuz sake."

yeah, let's forget about her,and her vid's, and move on to something else.

so that your criminal-leo friends can pay her a 4am visit and deal out some "blue justice" knowing that they aren't being filmed. is that what you meant?

if so a big F-bomb for you

learn the law?

learn this:
common law trumps state fed and constitutional law

Natural Law trumps all the above.

any authoritarian trying to "teach me" anything through force or breaking onto my property,
will be "Taught the Superman "

oh and speaking of laws:


Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
Your Rights as a U.S. Citizen Against Unlawful Arrest ..........

“Citizens may resist Unlawful arrest to the point of taking an officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S., 529. The court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense was commited.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh V. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. 1; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260.


“Each Person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, ther person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self defense.” State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100.

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910.

“The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.”
Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol. 2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197.

I am sure some Police Officers in this Country are Unaware about these Court Decisions when Overstepping their Authority . People who know the Law should Remind them about it from Time to Time for the sake of their Own Safety . The Woman in this Video was Intimidated by that Police Officer because she was just Not Aware of her Rights and Cow Downed to his Intimidation of her Ignorance . She should take this matter to a Lawyer Immediately and press charges against him IMO .



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 


It's definitely a two way street. I don't have issue with what she has done post the incident but I think she just dealt with it all wrong and perhaps the officers treatment was a valid issue. I am not in the knowing. I just think she should have adhered per the officers request. It was for her own safety.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree to the point of proper place and time, like after they are done, which then they won't tell you anything anyways. This all around gives police a bad name, could this have been handled differently, absolutely, but Evelyn Woods is not on the Criminal Justice training guide.

As for the lady's record, well protesting foreclosures is not the same as throwing a fire bomb is it?

The cop was upset, she failed to obey an order while he was doing his job, and it escalated. At least he didn't club her.

So in the future boys and girls know your rights and have a great attorney on retainer.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I submitted a letter to my local news outlet about some despicable police behavior and cited some examples of juicing by local police as possible causes, I haven't heard back and I don't expect to - juicing by athletes is to important to divert attention from.
edit on 6-7-2011 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Please show me, in US law, where it says a person has a right to argue and queston the police. Since people say its a right, please point it out.


It's called the Constitution, Freedom of Speech...maybe you heard of it? The video clearly shows she was well out of range to be interfering with the traffic stop. You stop someone in front of my house, I will do the same. You are there to serve the public, and as such you are subject to scrutiny by any citizen. Just because you think you are GOD and when you tell someone to jump, they should ask how high only shows your blatant disregard for our Constitution and the public's freedoms!



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Please show me, in US law, where it says a person has a right to argue and queston the police. Since people say its a right, please point it out.


Please show me, in the constitution, where it says that cops have a right to abuse people. Where it says cops are above the law. Where it says, when dealing with cops, that freedom of speech is null and void.



Oops, dug yourself a hole there, didnt ya.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
America is turning more and more into a police state with every day that passes... Its time people stood up!



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Youmakemewonder
reply to post by Fury1984
 


Your entire argument, well written out as it may be, is that she was rightfully arrested because she had an attitude? America sounds fun.


Negative. I said she said stupid things and she should have backed up. I never said she was rightfully arrested for having an attitude.

Twisting other people's words sounds fun.






top topics



 
60
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join