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.

 

Twins allegedly arrested for recording police shooting

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Several odd or perplexing things about this story.


Twins living in the Colony Park Apartments say they were unlawfully arrested by Pearl Police Tuesday after watching and recording the shooting investigation at their apartment complex.

The twins' mother believes they were arrested because she moved her truck after she saw Pearl Police using it as a shield during the shooting.

"I moved my vehicle, and I'm pretty sure that upset him and when my kids came out they were on the balcony and my son taking the picture, filming or whatever he was doing with the phone probably upset him," said Karen


So, the question here for me is "She moved her truck in a shootout? What sort of shootout is that? Is this woman like a superhero, impervious to bullets?

And then there was this part...



They were released on their own recognizance around seven o'clock and Madison said she learned at that time they were charged with disorderly conduct.


Disorderly conduct in their own home? For taking a video FROM YOUR OWN PROPERTY? Wow.

And then gem


Madison said the police department returned her son's phone but kept the SIM card.


Clearly there's more to this story, and the family's story doesnt entirely make sense. But since when can the cops confiscate a sim card under these kinds of circumstances? I suppose I should remember this is in Mississippi


www.wlbt.com...




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I don't know the law, but could the sim card be considered evidence? Just a thought.

And who would move their car during a potentially lethal situation? Why risk your life to do so?

I, too, find this story....,strange.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
I don't know the law, but could the sim card be considered evidence? Just a thought.

And who would move their car during a potentially lethal situation? Why risk your life to do so?

I, too, find this story....,strange.


Yeah, I agree. Who the heck does that during a 'shootout'? I mean, I'm not a big fan of the cops, but that seems like going out of your way to piss them off. I have to kind of assume the neighbors who were doing the shooting maybe knew her and gave her time to move her truck?

and the twins may very well have been doing a lot more than just standing there taping.

I just think the whole story is wacky.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
...I suppose I should remember this is in Mississippi




Mississippi SIGH.


Yes its important to keep in mind that we are talking about Mississippi indeed. They are lucky that they didnt get 'burned at the stake' or publicly 'stoned'.

Most folks there still live in the dark ages, so there should be little surprise over anything going on there. I think that most folks there still believe that the earth is flat!

edit on 5-5-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Logical guessing would tell you cops positioned them self's behind the car before the incident, the lady saw this and moved her car. Ps cops wouldn't pay for any damage to her car so why would she let them use it as a shield.I mean police have their own vehicles why use hers? Number 2 forced entry without warrant=illegal. Confiscation of privet property=illegal. unjust detainment=illegal. Disorderly conduct is a trumped up charge they use when they cant arrest someone but want to



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Logical guessing would tell you cops positioned them self's behind the car before the incident, the lady saw this and moved her car.


Perhaps, except the article says she did it DURING the shoot out.





Ps cops wouldn't pay for any damage to her car so why would she let them use it as a shield.I mean police have their own vehicles why use hers?


Again, my only contention is that she apparent did so DURING a shootout. Kinda ballsy Or crazy.



Number 2 forced entry without warrant=illegal.


No. Cops can enter a home without a warrant if they witness a crime happening. I'm not saying they witnessed a crime here. I'm just correcting your stetement.


Confiscation of privet property=illegal.


Uh, no. Confiscation of evidence is not illegal. If the phone was evidence, it can certainly be confiscated.



unjust detainment=illegal.


Certainly. It's probably a BS charge because they were mad at the mom. But we reallly have no idea what they were ACTUALLY doing. If there were just arrested for taping, that's highly questionable. Of course, they may have been doing far more. You'll have to wait to see if there is a followup on the story to find out what evidence, if any is presented. AS yu say, you're just guessing.


Disorderly conduct is a trumped up charge they use when they cant arrest someone but want to


Agreed.. I'm hardly making excuses for the cops. I just think its a funny story. I agree them taking the sim card seems pretty odd.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Confiscation of privet property=illegal.


Uh, no. Confiscation of evidence is not illegal. If the phone was evidence, it can certainly be confiscated.


With a warrant. So there's that.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Confiscation of privet property=illegal.


Uh, no. Confiscation of evidence is not illegal. If the phone was evidence, it can certainly be confiscated.


With a warrant. So there's that.


No. Police need a warrant to confiscate evidence that is part of an investigation. But they dont need a warrant if the 'evidence' is confiscated in the process of a crime.

I'm not saying that necessarily applies to the case. I'm just pointing out your claim that police wlays need a warrant is just not true. This is all VERY basic US legal precedent.


In certain cases a search warrant is not required, such as where consent is given by a person in control of the object or property to be searched. Some commonly cited exigent circumstances are: hot pursuit of a felon (to prevent a felon's escape or ability to harm others); imminent destruction of evidence before a warrant can be properly obtained; emergency searches (such as where someone is heard screaming for help inside a dwelling); or a search incident to arrest (to mitigate the risk of harm to the arresting officers specifically).


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Yes but since video taping police from your balcany is not a crime they would've needed a warrant to keep the SIM card. Police can take something as evidence if it's used for a crime without a warrant.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yes but since video taping police from your balcany is not a crime they would've needed a warrant to keep the SIM card. Police can take something as evidence if it's used for a crime without a warrant.


Right. But the police did not charge them with filming. You get that part, right? They charged them with disorderly conduct, which very well could be documented in the video, justifying the holding of evidence. I mean, at least get the info in the article straight if you are going to formulate an argument. You've already stated several false claims in this thread about procedure and law, which you still have failed to acknowledge.

Again, it may be a bogus charge. But your claims are not supported by the information we have at this point AT ALL.
edit on 5-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Just because that might hold evidence doesn't automatically give police the right to seize it without a warrant. If it was used in a crime, like peeping then they can take it.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Just because that might hold evidence doesn't automatically give police the right to seize it without a warrant. If it was used in a crime, like peeping then they can take it.


Sigh. Big. Big Sigh.

Yes, police can hold evidence that is confiscated in the process of an arrest.

I just proved that to you a few posts up.

That's twice. Shall we rehash that point a third time?
edit on 5-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
In process if it's used in the alledged crime. There's no crime with the cell phone involved.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
In process if it's used in the alledged crime. There's no crime with the cell phone involved.


How do you now there is no crime with the cell phone involved?

If they were indeed engaging in 'disorderly conduct', as they were charged, then the phone might very well hold the evidence of that

For example, lets say I'm standing on my porch, screaming obscenities at the cops, maybe throwing rocks, or engaging in some other 'disturbance', and I'm filming myself doing it. The device used to record the event is evidence, and may be held. WITHOUT A Warrant.

Again, I'm not saying that is what happened. I suspect it's a bogus charge and it will be dismissed, which the will definitely bring into question the issues you discuss. But at this point, your claims are not consistent with the facts available.

Thats 3. Shall we argue the same point a 4 time? You seem rather determined to repeat the same disproven point over and over.

ETA: I do agree, though, that them holding the SIM card is odd. Unless I am mistaken, that doesnt hold any video info on it, but is what makes the phone usable.
edit on 5-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join