OUTRAGE: NJ Cop Puts CBS 2 Cameraman in Chokehold

reply to post by ZindoDoone


news.bbc.co.uk...

Try that link - in the UK that is the case - or should be.

I agree with you that the principle doesn't seem to apply any longer; my point is that we should remember what the police really should be there for.

Thats just sad, why would they even hire people like that, to watch over a peacefull and meaningfull demonstration and display such anger in times of peril while familys morn the deaths of innocent children... that cops a psychopath...

There needs to be some sort of national declaration that people can't get you to stop filming or taking photos on public property even if an authority tells you to and that they cannot arrest you for that non-compliance.

These cops need to be reminded that they can't arrest someone who's not broken the law, just cos they feel like it. Especially considering how much civil unrest is on the way.

Did anyone see the 9/11 chronicles movie? It has a lot of this stuff.

[edit on 10/28/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by baughany


Heres the oath a constable takes in the UK.

"I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

Notice that it says first "to the Queen", and then to maintain the respect of the people. Then to protect the rights of the people. Queen and government always come first in all the oaths I have researched. Then protecting the rights of property and persons. ONLY if they do not conflict with government wishes. In all cases where police have been sued for lack of protection of citizens, the courts have ruled that the police are servants of the government first and the populace last.

Zindo





[edit on 10/28/2008 by ZindoDoone]

reply to post by Spock Shock


hes a cop who pimps himself out for private security 80$/hr minimum he should be fired charged thrown in jail and sued by that reporter

reply to post by ZindoDoone


...and do you believe this is just?

reply to post by The Parallelogram


No, I was mearly reinterating and trying to instruct. The misunderstanding that most people have that the police are there for them. They are there to protect the PTB and maintain the laws. Most laws are not to protect but to control. It has nothing to do with justice!
Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


That in itself is a thread topic which would get a lot of debate (not meaning of your accuracy)

IMHO, the crisis is always of the authority, never of the people. And by protecting authority, the police and others who do that, perpetuate the crisis.

Violence is logical for them, not for us.

People and authority are never the same.

People and authority cause each other to feel unsafe. And when tensions arise, sparkling begins. Since the system does not work properly, that is, the energy invested in it does not sustain the projected forms, it becomes free and tends to break through in an inarticulate form - violence.

Therefore, violence is not logical for those who believe in the system (us citizens). The system of authority tends to shrink (wearing away - the authorities are never capable of predicting future events because of their opportunistic nature (call it greed if you want) - they keep rotting.) and cannot contain all the energy populace produces. This surplus energy forms different modes for its sustenance, and the authority feels threatened because it cannot control it anymore (monopolize). Therefore, authorities tend to provoke conflict and destroy those who have started to act in parallel formations that are being created independently (black market, various organizations, not all of them criminal, semi political or economical, and this includes other states in this world, not just what happens in a given country - that's why there is speculation on One World Government).

Even freedom of an individual is a threat to them, because it is out of control.

The main characteristic of the authority is that it projects (itself) and therefore it tends to have all within its field of vision (like all those cameras placed just about everywhere). It is a semiconscious behavior, and it unfolds as a result of strong inertia which the elite cannot really control or suspend because it's unaware of it as such.


But to see everything in this fashion (instead of understanding how things work) means that they tend to freeze everything and make a still photography of the whole world which is, of course, impossible.

So, if you have a camera and want to shoot freely, you can't do that because you're a threat, but they cannot explain why and don't expect to get an explanation on this one. Yet, the explanation is very simple...

reply to post by Good Wolf


No argument there, The last thread I started on that subject got a bit out of hand!!

Zindo

well guys, having been arrested several times in more than one country. namely two. i can tell you that he got off lightly.

and people should not try to complain. for this is taking your eyes of the real issue, why is it legal for people to record people in public? cctv, and public recordings. are still gross violations of privacy.

Just because your in public, doesnt mean you can kick people. just because your in private doesnt mean you can film people without u knowing.

CCTV, people with cameras are just the same.

they inflict ont he universal law of free will. in this case, it would be the right not to be filmed.

ofcourse the officer is terrible, many officers are.

reply to post by baughany


also you can just search youtube for cbs 2 cameraman arrested. there are a few vids on there of it. this type of stuff is happening more and more getting us use to the idea that "because i said so" is a good enough reason. furthermore if they do it slowly enough sadly the majority of the public will allow it.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
No argument there, The last thread I started on that subject got a bit out of hand!!

Oh, I got ya. Love the avatar BTW

What`s the betting the cop gets off scot free. CBS should sue their a**.

Sounds like CBS and their cameraman have the basis for a pretty open and shut lawsuit if they care to pursue it. I wonder if they will?

I also wonder if the "special" officer involved is open to criminal prosecution?
It's all well and good for the Newark Police Dept. to say they will discipline the man but what exactly does that entail? Likely revoking of any credentials they have given him? I mean there is not exactly much the Dept. can do to him if he doesn't work directly for them

If I were the cameraman, I'd seek to prosecute criminally to the fullest extent allowable if any, and sue everyone involved. I guarantee you that if the situation were reversed, and the cameraman had assaulted this "special" officer without apparent provocation the police dept. or the firm the man worked for would not be mollified by CBS's assurances that they would discipline the cameraman themselves.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Resinveins]

reply to post by Resinveins


Absolutely right. Drag them to caught and make as much media noise as possible.

Anyone remember the scene from "V for Vendetta" where that "officer" shoots a girl for wearing the banned mask and the local population comes out into the streets with bats and shovels??

I'm just sayin'.

this is exactly why you dont give Dwight Schrute a badge.

as a videoographer i have been yelled at MANY times because i was standing in a place where i 'might not have needed to be', just to get a better shot.

the CBS guy didnt appear to be on Private property or on anybodies roof or anything, so i would say that this warrants him free reign of public space.

Cameras are your friend, unless your a villain.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Okay, Newark PD is saying the guy isn't with them, but referring to "discipline" for him? Is that refrerring to legal discipline? Because that terminology sounds an aweful lot like what they do to their own who get out of line...

The Newark police director told CBS 2 the investigation into the special police officer continues and that there could be other disciplinary action taken.

Special police officers also wear uniforms similar to city police and can radio in for help.

"Special Police Officer"? What the heck is that? LOL

Sorry if someone covered this, but I wanted to chime in and didn't feel like reading all the posts repeating each other.

There is such a thing as a "Rent-a-cop"

These are individuals that dress as police officers and have past certain tests or whatever, and are hired to work events etc.

They do not carry firearms, but are allowed mace, batons, what have you, non-lethal weapons.

So, this guy was probably a rent a cop to control the protest who let his temporary authority go to his head and made a very bad decision.

Most of these guys have Napolean syndrome as most cops do.

Hope that helped.

The "special" officer was working under full authority of the Newark Police Dept. He was wearing a lime green fluorescent vest with “Newark Police” in bold letters on front and he placed the cameraman in the back of a Newark Police cruiser.

It is sad to see how many members of this forum don't comprehend the most fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution and our society. Did you skip too many civics classes? Got an "F" in that subject? Didn't get your GED? Well, since you can read and use a computer, try doing a little self study before posting more sad displays of your deep ignorance and stupidity on ATS!

Back on topic: The cameraman was on public property, not trespassing, not obstructing, not posing a threat, but merely recording what was happening on the public street. Cop assaults him. Tells him to stop using the camera. Arrests him. Someone says "You can’t arrest him!" Cop says “I can do whatever I want!” Cop applies a choke hold and then puts the cameraman in a Newark Police cruiser.

The only way to curtail these abuses is to sue the bastards whenever they behave this way. The cameraman should personally sue the cop, the church, and the City of Newark for damages for the assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, false prosecution, and for the violation of his state and federal constitutional rights. His news organization should sue the cop, the church, and the City of Newark for damages and an injunction against this kind of police practice. It's highly doubtful that this cop did anything he was trained against doing. The Newark police department should be held liable for allowing this kind of practice and if it's a practice not condoned by the department, for failing to properly train the people to whom it grants the color of its authority.

The cop's statement that "I can do whatever I want" is disturbing, is it not?


[edit on 10/28/2008 by dubiousone]