Man arrested for videotaping cops at his door.

Stuff we should click on.  Be sure to state Not Work Safe, if applicable.  KTHX.
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65256
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

I hear about cops staking out bars all the time.


Yeah, I hear "expert" testimony all the time too like: "I wasn't doing anything and this cop just arrests me!!!"

Blah, blah, blah. As I told WSGrundy about sports, most people don't know the rules yet they bitch about them despite having no idea what they're talking about. Ditto for laws.

Nobody tells a story that paints them as the bad guy.

Being in IT I hear the same shit. "I swear I didn't do anything!" "No, I've never been on a porn site."

Not saying cops are always right, but you'd have to be pretty fucking naive to think someone is going to tell you all the facts about them getting arrested. Hell, if you ask them, you'll find that the vast majority of people in prison are innocent.

I remember a friend talking about how he got arrested for just walking down the street drunk. For years he stuck to that story until finally the truth came out that he actually was walking down the street, but what got him arrested was the fact that he was bombed and pissing on the side of the road. The cop gave him a drunk in public ticket and not a public exposure or urination as well.

JUST got a call from a cop, here's what I learned:
-It is not illegal for a cop to sit in a parking lot of a bar and bust drunks as they get in their car, however (I'm sure I lost some of you haters right there...I feel like I might as well be discussing the merits of Republican politics at the DCU...or discussing the MSM's honest coverage of Iraq HERE) the arrest will not stand up in court because the cop had no probable cause. A cop must observe you crossing lines, forgetting to turn on your lights, swerving, etc. before he pulls you over. Remember those dashboard cameras that you think cops love to have in their cars? That's what those are used for; to get proof of the drunk's swerving and such.
-That also means the roadblocks at the bridges can't get drunks on probable cause (IE: Following them and witnessing the crime) but instead having them come right to the cops. Look in the newspaper, you should see all roadblocks listed as to when and where they're occuring. Hell, I've heard them announced on the radio here. How much fucking easier can cops make it to avoid them?
-As for the San Diego thing, the men probably weren't cops, it's more likely they were liquor control agents. Their job is to bust BARS for the illegal sale of alcohol, not bust drunks. That's what the liquor control act is all about. They are undercover in bars and when they see underage people or people who are obviously drunk getting served they can make arrests and issues tickets.
-Not sure what the deal was with the camera shit, but the obstruction charge is easy. If the cop told them to disperse and they didn't, they could be arrested. Now you have to ask yourself, since the article was written based on facts from the guys who got arrested, do you think you're getting the whole story of what they were doing? Did they really film from the street or did they move in really close to the cops and the people they were arresting making the situation more dangerous for the cops and the people they were arresting?

But hey, safety first, I always say.


You are correct about this though. Fucking nazi pigs fucking with drunks. It's not like drunk drivers hurt anyone...

Fuck, I used to know a cop that did just that.


Then he sucked. See above. You should have found out what his conviction rate was like for that tactic. Or is it possible he meant he parked away from the building and would follow people until they proved they were drunk or sober.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

Much of what you say depends on the jurisdiction, too. Different places, different laws, and different legal precidents.

IMO, about 1/3rd of cops are trying to do the right thing and enforce the law and serve the public, about 1/3rd have had their soul crushed and are just doing what it takes to get their paychecks, and 1/3 are total fuckers that are worse than many of the criminals they face. That's all just my own personal experience, though.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53728
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

My wife never understands why I'm so surprised when I see a cop doing the "right thing" or something nice.
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

JUST got a call from a cop, here's what I learned:
-It is not illegal for a cop to sit in a parking lot of a bar and bust drunks as they get in their car, however (I'm sure I lost some of you haters right there...I feel like I might as well be discussing the merits of Republican politics at the DCU...or discussing the MSM's honest coverage of Iraq HERE) the arrest will not stand up in court because the cop had no probable cause. A cop must observe you crossing lines, forgetting to turn on your lights, swerving, etc. before he pulls you over. Remember those dashboard cameras that you think cops love to have in their cars? That's what those are used for; to get proof of the drunk's swerving and such.
-That also means the roadblocks at the bridges can't get drunks on probable cause (IE: Following them and witnessing the crime) but instead having them come right to the cops. Look in the newspaper, you should see all roadblocks listed as to when and where they're occuring. Hell, I've heard them announced on the radio here. How much fucking easier can cops make it to avoid them?
-As for the San Diego thing, the men probably weren't cops, it's more likely they were liquor control agents. Their job is to bust BARS for the illegal sale of alcohol, not bust drunks. That's what the liquor control act is all about. They are undercover in bars and when they see underage people or people who are obviously drunk getting served they can make arrests and issues tickets.
-Not sure what the deal was with the camera shit, but the obstruction charge is easy. If the cop told them to disperse and they didn't, they could be arrested. Now you have to ask yourself, since the article was written based on facts from the guys who got arrested, do you think you're getting the whole story of what they were doing? Did they really film from the street or did they move in really close to the cops and the people they were arresting making the situation more dangerous for the cops and the people they were arresting?

I notice you didn't comment in this thread about cops going into a hotel bar and arresting peeps in it for public intoxication.

http://www.dtman.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=4931

edit: I notice the article linked in that other thread used to be about the police action itself... and now it is about a bar that supports the program.

Yeah, right.




Edited By GORDON on 1152652365
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
thibodeaux
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm

Post by thibodeaux »

If the cop told them to disperse and they didn't, they could be arrested.
This is what I don't like. So if a cop tells us to jump, we have to say "how high, sir?" Screw that.
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

Fuck, I used to know a cop that did just that.
Then he sucked. See above. You should have found out what his conviction rate was like for that tactic. Or is it possible he meant he parked away from the building and would follow people until they proved they were drunk or sober.
Dunno what the conviction rate was. He did not park away from the bar. He sat right outside the goddamned parking lot. I swear to Christ almighty, he cited people for what he referred to as "excessive acceleration." How am I so sure of this? I've actually seen him first-hand do this shit. I don't mean "first-hand" coming out of the bar. I mean "first-hand" like I was in the fucking car w\ him.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65256
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

I notice you didn't comment in this thread about cops going into a hotel bar and arresting peeps in it for public intoxication.

http://www.dtman.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=4931

edit: I notice the article linked in that other thread used to be about the police action itself... and now it is about a bar that supports the program.

Yeah, right.


I never saw that thread, which you have to admit makes it difficult to comment on. Although, I could easily point the "you skipped over some items" finger right back at you in this debate.

've seen that thread now and I think it's bullshit. No fucking way should the cops in Texas be pulling shit like that. That's like arresting someone who buys a crowbar because they might use it in a crime someday.

Of course, that's Texas, not San Diego. Thus, I'm not sure why you're trying to get up in my face about it. I already pointed out that laws differ from place to place. How does an abuse of the law in Texas apply to something that occured in San Diego? Show me your proof that the same type of program is going on in San Diego and I'll condemn it too, but that doesn't mean the guys with the video camera are off the hook because we have no details on exactly what they did, just their lawyer saying they're innocent.

This is what I don't like. So if a cop tells us to jump, we have to say "how high, sir?" Screw that.


Thib, if you got into a scuffle with a random drunk at a bar and someone else came up behind you talking about how you were in the wrong, would you be ok with that? Would you just let them be behind you not knowing what their motives are or if they're willing to get physical with you or if they're armed? Unless you're an idiot, you would care and THAT is the situation we were talking about.

If a cop told you to dispurse in a different situation, then yes, I'm with you on the "screw that" sentiment.

Dunno what the conviction rate was. He did not park away from the bar. He sat right outside the goddamned parking lot. I swear to Christ almighty, he cited people for what he referred to as "excessive acceleration." How am I so sure of this? I've actually seen him first-hand do this shit. I don't mean "first-hand" coming out of the bar. I mean "first-hand" like I was in the fucking car w\ him.


Then he's a bad cop and most likely a bad person. However, excessive acceleration is different than DUIs...so I'm not following you. Did he use that as an excuse to hand out DUIs?

Much of what you say depends on the jurisdiction, too. Different places, different laws, and different legal precidents.

IMO, about 1/3rd of cops are trying to do the right thing and enforce the law and serve the public, about 1/3rd have had their soul crushed and are just doing what it takes to get their paychecks, and 1/3 are total fuckers that are worse than many of the criminals they face. That's all just my own personal experience, though.


You're close, but you're missing some groups like: rookies on power trips, the cowards collecting a check, the politicians, the equal opportunity hires (not a racist thing, well, it is, but by the hiring party not the other cops...ask and I'll explain), etc.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

Dunno what the conviction rate was. He did not park away from the bar. He sat right outside the goddamned parking lot. I swear to Christ almighty, he cited people for what he referred to as "excessive acceleration." How am I so sure of this? I've actually seen him first-hand do this shit. I don't mean "first-hand" coming out of the bar. I mean "first-hand" like I was in the fucking car w\ him.
Then he's a bad cop and most likely a bad person. However, excessive acceleration is different than DUIs...so I'm not following you. Did he use that as an excuse to hand out DUIs?
He wasn't the greatest cop ever. If he was on his way to pick up lunch, you'd've to go on a killing spree before he'd ever approach you. However, he cited people for that acceleration shit. After which point they usually hung themselves on the rope he provided.

If I ever saw a scenario for which the phrase "shooting ducks in a barrel" was invented, those were it.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Thus, I'm not sure why you're trying to get up in my face about it.
I aint trying to get up in your face, brother... I'm just saying that if the Marines in Iraq had half as many "isolated incidents" as bad cops in America have, I'd become anti-military.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65256
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

I aint trying to get up in your face, brother... I'm just saying that if the Marines in Iraq had half as many "isolated incidents" as bad cops in America have, I'd become anti-military.


I wasn't sure of the tone in your earlier message and I was ready to throw down. (I'm not having a good Tuesday or Wednesday)

I get what you're saying. Hell, I could tell you worse stories than what you're finding in the MSM. I'm just trying to keep everyone's head on straight.

I'll come back to this when I get back from golf to explain myself.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Man arrested for taking a picture of police with his cell phone camera.

Aparently there's even a new law against that.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

Man arrested for taking a picture of police with his cell phone camera.

Aparently there's even a new law against that.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
What in the fuck? I don't say this too often, but I hope there's some suing going on. Every goddamned day, I find myself more of the opinion that the police need to be eliminated and be replaced w\ private security companies hired by the city/county/whatever.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65256
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

Man arrested for taking a picture of police with his cell phone camera.

Aparently there's even a new law against that.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html[/quote]

While, I have heard rumors of a law making it illegal to take certain pictures (not police related), there currently is no law like the ACLU guy said.

That cop was simply fucking with that kid and he'll pay for it. If the kid doesn't sue it'll be a write up. If the kid sues, that cop is going to lose his job. Guaranteed.




Edited By GORDON on 1154368561
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Cops still arresting people for recording them in Massachusetts.

http://www.boston.com/news....ordings

Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager’s mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording

Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs.

“One of the officers asked me whether my phone had audio recording capabilities,’’ Glik, 33, said recently of the incident, which took place in October 2007. Glik acknowledged that it did, and then, he said, “my phone was seized, and I was arrested.’’

The charge? Illegal electronic surveillance.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

Who will watch the watchers? Because whoever that is, he's under arrest.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

In arresting people such as Glik and Surmacz, police are saying that they have not consented to being recorded, that their privacy rights have therefore been violated, and that the citizen action was criminal.

Perhaps this is correct in a legal sense, but I say bullshit. When on duty a cop is not an individual, he is the embodiment of the state. And we should be able to record the state in action any damn time we want.

The same goes for other civil servants and state embloyees. When on the job the regular rules don't apply, and they have to be upheld to a higher standard. Those with power over their fellow citizens should have to meet higher standards in order to justify that power.




Edited By TPRJones on 1263326831
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Man arrested for videotaping cops at his door.

Post by GORDON »

So Toledo, fighting against the state law about red-light/speed cameras, hasnt gotten anywhere with turning them back on. Apparently there was some appeal and they were to be turned back on in 2021, but then they weren't, and I lost track of why. But the cameras are still up there on poles.

Anyway, now Toledo wants to install cameras here and there to read every single license plate that goes by. That is to say.... a private company will do so, "at no cost to the city."

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/polic ... 0220204107

There's even a line in there about the TPD saying, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

Promises about how data wont be kept.

Yeah, it wont be kept. It'll be immediately sold to the federal government, because it's being done "at no cost to the city." They can sell the data, and erase the tapes, and say, "we aren't keeping your data."

The article confirms that plate readers are installed in "some" patrol cars, and there are rumors of cars just driving through parking lots, scanning every plate. Yay, police.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53728
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Man arrested for videotaping cops at his door.

Post by TheCatt »

1) I would be concerned about the private company, the data managements, and "no cost" aspects, those all seem wrong.

2) I have no fundamental objection. There is no reasonable right to privacy on streets, and fuck criminals.
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54399
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Man arrested for videotaping cops at his door.

Post by GORDON »

It's true, because if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Except when you do.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65256
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Man arrested for videotaping cops at his door.

Post by Leisher »

GORDON wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:36 amYay, police.
The Toledo police had nothing to do with the cameras. Former police chief Navarre even spoke out against them and refused to enforce them.

Now the new chief, I don't know, so the jury is out with these new cameras. What is the purpose of them if they're not saving the data? They're using it for something, and I assure you that it's going to be something that limits our freedoms or is the basis of new taxes. (I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall.)
GORDON wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:36 am there are rumors of cars just driving through parking lots, scanning every plate
Critical thinking skills want me to ask what the purpose would be for such activity. Almost every single American already carries a tracking device on them everywhere they go. It'd be far easier to spy on people with that over having random cars driving through lots scanning license plates and acting all creepy.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Post Reply