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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 .
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 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.
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.