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 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;"
/TOAedit on 4-7-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)
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
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.