digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Man arrested for taking public photo of Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell

newhavenindependent.org — According to the police, the taking of this photograph in a public street constituted a criminal act.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -73/+17inaccurate. this guy wasnt arrested for taking a photo, he was arrested for his history of harassing the governor and being assessed as a potential security risk.
    • geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+98No. He was arrested for allegedly charging towards the governor on a bicycle, according to police. But one eyewitness account contradicts that claim. We may never know the full story, but I think it's a sad day when people are more trustworthy of the government than they are of themselves.
    • DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -10/+112Harassing? Fine I can deal with that. A potential security risk? That is no reason to be arrested. How can you arrest someone for what they MIGHT potentially do?
    • MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -7/+122they don't give Nobel prizes for "attempted" chemistry!
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -74/+8Holy *****. I don't want DDoSAttack, or anyone who dugg his comment up, to ever be a lifeguard around me or anyone I know. "I didn't know he was drowning until started floating on the surface". Proactive (as compared to reactive) decisions are often better. If I draw a gun, yet don't shoot, there's always a possibility I *could* shoot, so I'm a threat and it is fine to arrest me (but not shoot me, that's against the law). Same thing in this situation -- the guy had a history of harrasment, yet he kept "harrasing" the governor. Warrants an arrest, IMO.
    • godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42GawtMilk, laplacian: sounds like the era of precrime is here! you seen Minority report? when even you are unsure of your actions from minute to minute, or are debating doing something, isn't it good to know that at least your elected officials are certain enough about what you're going to do to arrest you for it? :)
    • iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40"... assessed as a potential security risk."

      To whom and why?

      We must be very careful about swallowing these kind of generalized and unverified statements.



    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -30/+13GOD fought long and hard to make AMERICA free from the English invaders - people like this guy are busy infiltrating our precious bodily fluids every day, disseminating communist propaganda and undermining what AMERICA stands for - FREEDOM!!!!!

      People like this guy should be arrested and interrogated until they confess - HE CANNOT GO FREE UNPUNISHED!

      Be goodthinkful of your neighbor, unless they're muslim, or a damned hippie peacenik - if they are, call the thought police.

      GOD, JESUS and IKE told me in a dream that AMERICA is the land of the free and the brave! Be brave enough to let your government look after you - safe under the watchful eyes!
    • jcembree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10site is down.
      Hartford Courant coverage- (much longer story) http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ctthreat0106.artjan06,0,6152580.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics-state

      the guy was working for these guys- http://www.punknews.org/article/22290
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Here's a little less biased article on the incident http://www.wfsb.com/newsarchive/10882194/detail.html

      It gives BOTH sides of the arguement on the arrest.
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3>How can you arrest someone for what they MIGHT potentially do?

      People who walk around with explosives and nails MIGHT NOT be suicide bombers or that someone with a history of harrasing the governor MIGHT NOT be an assassin but yeah sure I agree with your statement entirely.

      /sarcasm
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -17/+11Minority Report...heh. It is funny that you think Minority Report is a valid assesment of proactive defense.

      You guys probably didn't read the articles it linked to.

      "His lawyer says Krayeske apparently came to the attention of state police by heckling Rell during a campaign stop in Glastonbury last year over her refusal to debate his candidate, Clifford Thornton."

      "List or no list, if you rush off a bike and start charging toward the governor during a processional parade, you are going to be arrested," Mulroy said. "In this day and age, when security is a very serious matter, you cannot expect to act like that and not have to face the consequences. Our job was to protect the governor, and we took it seriously."

      "Krayeske, 34, of Hartford was charged with breach of peace and interfering with a police officer. He said he has a record of three previous arrests involving acts of civil disobedience protesting the war in Iraq and the launching of a nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter."

      "During the gubernatorial campaign, he confronted Rell's campaign staff at her headquarters and heatedly complained about her refusal to debate Thornton."

      "A state police detective intercepted Krayeske. When Antuna grabbed his arm, police said, Krayeske pulled away."

      http://ctnewsjunkie.com/media/Krayeske_1-3-7_HPD_Arrest-1_02.jpg
    • Spanktacular, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27Just how threatening is a pacifist, anyway? Will they glare at you harshly?
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Well he's heckled people three times before. Disturbing the peace...
    • rdotson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@DDoSAttack
      It's called "thought crime."
    • mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15OOH... A Scary HECKLER.

      Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, eh?

    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2OOH... A Scary JAIL.

      Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, eh?
    • WraithX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@geoboy: I think you meant "more trusting" rather than "more trustworthy" - trustworthy means worthy of trust, whereas trusting means to trust. You can't be trustworthy of something.
    • jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@imperium2000: If by "both sides of the story" you meant "they have a quote from the guy that got arrested in this article," then yes it does have both sides of the story. However, most people reading your post will probably be thinking that both sides of the story means that it has two different accounts of the same event, one from each point of view (which it does not).
    • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Stealing peoples souls *is* a crime.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2dammit, bury
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"Harassing? Fine I can deal with that. A potential security risk? That is no reason to be arrested. How can you arrest someone for what they MIGHT potentially do?"

      It's done in the US every day. Drunk driving laws are exactly like this. Drunk driving in and of itself doesn't harm anyone. People are arrested because, by driving drunk, they MIGHT potentially harm someone.
    • Konrad9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Take a look at the article, the police over-reacted.
      "After the arrest, Gov. M. Jodi Rell demanded state police submit a report on Krayekse's arrest to her office.

      Connecticut Public Safety Commissioner Leonard Boyle defended the actions of the state police, saying, "They were consistent with the Bill of Rights. The state police does not maintain lists of political enemies of any public officials."

      Some lawmakers said police went too far and that when troopers saw Krayeske, they overreacted.

      "It sends a chilling affect on the First Amendment of the Constitution, the right for people to protest," said Bridgeport Rep. Chris Caruso, D-District 126. "In this case, he wasn't protesting. He was taking pictures of the governor.""
    • Konrad9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also, oh what a shock!
      The article that was dugg requires for every comment to be screened before posting.
      Never going to see a comment that they don't like over there.
    • diggingaround, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4

      "Minority Report" anyone?
      Thank God, our pre-crime was operating flawlessly . >:] ... next step - Free vacation at Guantanamo Bay.

      Maybe the government thinks that we should get used to the idea of "Preemptive War" and I guess "Preemptive Arrest", against all potential "threats" against... against... damn what was that word.. I used to know it ...

      ah, I remember - "Democracy"


    • TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"Heckling" a politician is not only not "disturbing the peace" -- if you have any belief in the Constitution whatsoever, it's Constitionally-protected free speech.

      Moreover, he was clearly targeted for being a member of a political party opposed to the government. "Channel 3 Eyewitness News reporter Susan Raff reported police had pictures of Krayeske and information that he was a Green Party activist long before the parade. State police said Krayeske was mentioned at a security briefing before the parade."

      To the best of my recollection, the Green party has never assassinated any candidates, or attacked any candidates or committed any violence on anyone at all. Feel free to step in here if you have any counterexamples.

      So this means that people are being targeted by the police precisely for being in a peaceful political organization that happens to be in opposition to the government. Even the police aren't claiming he actually did anything wrong -- at least one reputable eyewitness is claiming the photographer never approached the politician and wasn't arrested till later.
    • laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sorry for any confusion with my original post. I am not condoning the officers actions, I'm just saying that the original submission is completely misleading to the point where it has little relevance to the truth.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This has absolutely nothing to do with Homeland Security. They were not invovled in any way. But this obviously biased newspaper doesn't care about the facts.
    • Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What ever happened to Innocent until proven guilty. R.I.P. U.S. Constitution.
      /tear
    • DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@GawtMilk

      So by your logic (using the lifeguard example) you would want me to jump in and "rescue" you each time your head went under water so that I could ensure that I was being proactive in saving your life because of the possibility of you drowning?

      Yeah ok!

      You talk a lot of freedom... where is the freedom when you are arrested for PROTESTING?
  • geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+65Taking a picture of a public political figure on public property, and getting arrested for it. If that doesn't describe a police state, nothing can. Now granted, only a few people know the full story...
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -41/+7BLARGH

      Only people with secluded, deluded views would think that America is a police state. Why don't you go to a country where people are *actually* being oppressed before you make such claims?
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4@GawtMilk - an example of one of these states of which you speak please. And don't just kneejerk 'Iran - we need to liberate them!' please.
    • truspark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+45Hey Gawtmilk by the time we are in a police state there will be nothing we can do. There is an old German phrase: "resist the beginnings". I think they know a little something about creeping fascism. Our public figures should not be shielded from their public. They should be accountable - and part of being accountable is having the public approach them - whether it is to take their picture or yell at them incessantly about their policies.
    • gilliz, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4you anti-American assholes
    • thripper, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@madaxe42


      Reading your previous post I am inclined to believe that you, sir, are a *****.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Hold up, madaxe, do you seriously think that America is a police state? Do you think it is the only police state in the world or in history?
    • MAdaXe42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9No, but I believe it is rapidly approaching becoming one, as is Britain. But you shouldn't worry. They're not after you. Just those bad guys. And no, nowhere did I state that there is no other police state has ever existed - they are innumerate, and have virtually all come to a sticky end. Those that haven't yet are already beginning to collapse internally.
    • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34GawtMilk - I am an American Citizen do live in the USA 50% of the time and Prague, Amsterdam and London the rest - and it is worse in the USA. Less hassle in Europe at every level. Airports are easier, food is better even going through passport control is a breeze and the women are friendly and hot. - Even Central Europe (former Eastern Block) are better. Enjoy your Big Gulps and fat women with nasty attitudes - I am happy to be a Global Citizen and sadly think the USA is going down the drain. Working on a UK passport cause I think that my be the way to go.
    • badbox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Yep, I agree with the dude above me.

      Anyone who thinks America isn't a police state has NOT been out of the country.

      Enjoy your isolated lives.
    • KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2How could a "police state" exist in the liberal paradise of CT?
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@cbi & badbox - I've been out of the US exactly once, for my honeymoon. I went to Scotland because my ancestors are from there. I greatly enjoyed the trip and will go back some day. However, saying you have more freedom in the UK than in the US is just asinine. You speak of a police state yet you forget that the UK is very much closer than basically any country on Earth. Remember that whole arms banning thing they did a few years ago? Yeah, that is the first step to the end of your freedoms.

      Even the simple act of getting an ambulance there was a pain in the ass. I had a diabetic attack our last night in Scotland. They wanted to know what was wrong before they would come.
    • philbloke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@cawpin -

      there are several very good reasons why they asked what is wrong before they send an ambulance :

      a) they prioritise calls - so a broken fingernail gets a lower priority than say a heart attack (which I am sure you agree with)
      b) they determine what to send to you, a normal ambulance, a paramedic on a motorbike, a doctor in a high response car or the Air Ambulance, again depending on the urgency and the circumstances

      Best off all it is free (unless it is a Road Traffic Accident in which case there is a nominal fee which the insurance company normally covers). If I recall correctly I think all emergency treatment in the hospital was free for you as well, was it?

      Not a bad deal for having to tell them why you want the free service first. Hardly a PIA I think.
    • philbloke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cawpin -

      I don't disagree that the UK is heading fast towards a police state - but I disagree with you supporting argument.

      Handguns and rifles were banned after a Dunblane when a madman when into a school and killed a bunch of 4 and 5 year olds. Here in the UK we hold the opinion (for the most part) that there is no need to be armed. Hunting with firearms (shotguns excepted, but these haven't been banned) was virtually unheard given the lack of 'outback' and large game, therefore there is no reason to have one. Just like knuckledusters, flick knifes, rocket propelled grenades etc are all banned.

      There is still gun crime, but this tends to be drugs gang on drugs gang.

      If you focused on the amount of CCTV, the size of the DNA database, the interconnection of databases, the planned introduction of ID cards etc then this would support your argument stronger.

      Quite frankly we in the UK just don't get the fascination with guns.
  • laterthandawn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Her coat is an act of terrorism.
  • SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Was the governor being bribed at the time, because if he was then it's kind of impolite.
  • spiritamx79, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1maybe it was because he wasted film on someone that is ugly....

    (holding breath as he gets dugg down...)
  • loker269, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3While this is definitely not something I would put past some government officials, I think there is more to this story than what we are being told....
  • natediggs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7If they seriously thought he was charging at the governor, they would have shot him. The government takes the lives of officials very seriously after 9/11, as they should. It is very unbelievable that they felt the governor was in any kind of danger. This is another obvious showing of government corruption and tax dollars misspent.
    • jowille, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1the police don't just shoot someone for charging the governor.... if he had a weapon, that may be a different story..... get a grip.
  • bobthebruce123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The pictures seem to prove at least part of his story that he was not "charging" the governor. If you follow the links, they make this argument.
  • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+47Cops hassling photographers is nothing new. I used to do a lot of night photography in the 80s and it always made them nervous. They couldn't imagine why someone would be out after midnight that wasn't illegal.

    Cops fear anything they don't understand.

    Like Mooninites.
  • srudes2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10America the land of the free!!!
    - This doesn't surprise me. America you're beginning to masquerade as the land of the free more and more.
  • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Hold up a sec. This was a parade, right? So it's likely there would have been other people, lots of people, taking pictures and shooting video. On cell phone cameras if nothing else. So if we haven't heard about mass arrests in the wake of a parade in Connecticut, or that the cops were randomly dashing into the crowd to make arrests, then it's safe to assume he was doing something that made him stand out from the crowd.

    Still, if it turns out he wasn't a terrorist charging the governor, they should have dropped the charges and let him go. Also if cops are distributing pictures of people who might pose a threat, then that would be worth some ACLU lawyer time. There's enough real crime out there that there's no need to circulate pictures of people who "might" be a problem.

    Pretty f'ing sad that few of the gutless posers calling themselves conservatives ever stick up for civil rights. It's always those "leftie" organizations like the ACLU. All the right wing does is sit back on their fat ass and throw rocks from the comfort of their Lazy Boy.
    • natediggs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3If he stood out that much that he was a threat, he would have been taken out. Your argument about him standing out is way off. It was reported in the article that he had gotten on a watch list. He was just a nuisance to the governor and they tried to deal with him in a way they thought would hurt him at a found opportunity.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Ugh, the ACLU...way too leftie, and absolutely way too necessary...I wish we didn't need them.
    • jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The ACLU is anything but left. If you even bothered to review some of their case load you wouldn't think they were lefties at all. You only think they're lefties because when one of their cases happens to involve a traditionally liberal cause the conservative media freak out and play it ad naseum. Bill O'Reilly doesn't freak out when the ACLU is in Texas defending the Klu Klux Klan's right to keep the government out of the membership database or anything like that.
    • missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ parent

      The point, as I understood it, was that the photographer was a known political activist.

      They're keeping databases of people who participate in protests. They're keeping a list of dissenters. That's scary.
  • iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7People with information (or seeking certain information) are prime targets for 'removal'.

    Most likely, there was a different motivating factor involved in the plucking up of this guy.
    Ridding certain journalists is quietly occurring on a regular basis, but ironically, this disturbing pattern isn't making much of a noise in media circles.

    Also, the death of journalists has risen exponentially. (Another topic.)
    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1wow...journalists die more often than us normal people? do they remember each time they die?
    • iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ randf

      I didn't realize that journalists are not 'normal people' in your world.

      Besides, I never said they die more than the rest of us.
      Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of 'exponentially'.
      You seem a wee bit confused.
  • mikeyeah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I wonder if they'll arrest me if I moon her highness?
  • Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Is this a National Enquirer headline?

    Once again we have a bunch of Diggers arguing back and forth over something where neither side has the whole story nor remembers to consider the consequences of the opposite side.

    If she is over-protected by the police, she is a fascist Nazi republican.
    If she gets attacked by some whack job, the government should have done more to protect her.
    So it's a no-win for her.

    You guys can be pretty stupid when your ideology gets in the way of real thought.
    • AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The way I see it, given a situation like that, one should always err on the side of NOT violating civil liberties.
    • randf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4i agree....what's this world coming to, when the death of a drugged out ex-stripper or the bad hair decision by a used up ex-pop star is so easily eclipsed by "news" like this.
    • mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6They have a plan of Succession, don't they?

      The price of Freedom is BEING BRAVE ENOUGH to accept the risk of OTHER PEOPLE being Free.

      Bunch of poorly trained cops reacted in an inappropriate way. Good think he was in the Nazi State of CT. In NY, he would have been shot 70 times.

  • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Living in Europe and the USA, 50% Split between the two places I am amazed how ***** up the USA is. I can tell you living in Prague a former Eastern Block country it has more respect for citizens than the USA - Just amazing. ***** this ***** Governor and the police! Can't print that in the newspaper but ya can on digg!!
    • YeahOK, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3You Europeans will believe any horse ***** you read. Buried for for misleading and inaccurate.
    • noisician, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0wow, real insightful and thought provoking
  • drytool, on 10/12/2007, -4/+101984 is here. A little late, but it's here.
  • randf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2yep, that's why the lines at the embassies of the world are jammed packed full of americans trying to leave this country--because of this horrendous (shudder) police state violating everyone's civil rights.

    former Eastern Bloc countries have been a beacon of light, standing up for their masses for the last 200 years or so, right? eastern bloc, what was that again? oh yea, a big group of happy, shiny democracies, always on the look out for the rights of their citizens.

    do the evil US police conspire against us before or after the donut stops? it must be hard being so stupid, so lazy, so corrupt, and so clever to pull off conspiracies to take over the country all at the same time. how do the police do it?

    yep, what a terrible place we live in...
    • jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Just because other countries don't have a slick marketing campaign doesn't mean that it's not possible for the political climate to be more tolerant of dissent.
  • tiolindo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Hey, first malware victim faces jail-time, now a man arrested for taking public photo of Governor Jodi Rell.
    What's next Connecticut?
    • staplebox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'll tell you whats next...
      A dinky town just North of me may soon have to remove their sound system from the local church. Some atheist from another town complained that having the town owned system (a CD player, timer, and speaker) in a church violate the separation of church and state. The system is in the church because it has the only steeple high point in town. No townspeople ever complained. I heard this will be on the Daily Show this month, at least their cameras were in town.

      And what happened in the past...
      Eminent Domain abuse in Fort Trumbull in New London, CT. He is a case where crooked local politicians, who have been in power for 30 plus years, and our former crooked Governor, who just got out of jail, formed a "Development Corp" and gave them the power to use eminent domain. They took an entire waterfront neighborhood made up of middle class families, leveled it, and gave the land away to private developers with long term leases and tax incentives. Seven families held out all the way to the Supreme Court, which eventually ***** on them and their homes.

      This ***** is getting intolerable here, somethings gotta give.
  • >mark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Click here and here and here and here and.........
  • bcpierce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I did the EXACT same thing in Berlin on September 7, 2005 with then 'candidate' Angela Merkel now Chancellor of Germany (Remember the world leader President Bush gave a back rub to?) The difference is that I wasn't detained by die Polizei. And which country has a longer history with terrorism?

    Governments can impose many things on citizens that are kept scared.
    • xXAzraelXx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I will not fear, fear is the mind killer, I will let it pass through me... Line from Children of dune. America runs on fear, and it's to the point that even thier leadership (except for the black guy running for pres) is terrified of themselves, of each other, of many things. Afraid of kids, afraid of people stealing thier wirless services etc. It's usurping of power america fears most, and thusly is the first thing it loses (power).
      But you know what, disasters at home could keep america worrying about america and not trying to run the world. Natural disasters from global warming are really keeping things simple and polite.
  • pmichaelson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There's nothing we can do to avoid a police state in this country. Too many people want big government, on both sides, and often without even realizing it. What do you think is the end result of wanting the government to take care of everything from security to healthcare? They get their Federal fingers into everything, and control every facet of your life. The paths both major parties are taking lead to the same place: big government. But people don't think about the eventualities; they're too concerned with today, and their immediate gratification. As individuals we can rationalize how this or that is good for everyone and can be controlled, but ultimately that's more of a mental exercise than an actual realistic discussion.

    It's become to much of a habit to look to the Federal Government for the solutions to our daily problems. The day that happened, is the day that we signed our lives away to them. It's inevitable now that someday, maybe soon, we will live in a perpetual socialist police state.
  • MrESaulved, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Worth repeating FTA:

    "Streim, a Hartford lawyer who was watching the parade with a colleague, said police did not intercept Krayeske as he ran into the parade route. On the contrary, Krayeske photographed the governor without incident and was detained by police only after Rell had passed by, Streim said."

    If he was a true threat, why wait? If his arrest was necessary, why lie about the facts of the incident? They waited, and lied. Why?
  • streetsim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Haha! I write for this website's sister site! http://hamdendailynews.com . They're real life brother-sister owned things.
  • uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Everyone's just too damned paranoid these days. The authorities see more value in breaking the law than letting someone get killed. I agree but they likely had ***** judgement in this case. Fear is a lose lose situation for everyone involved.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I can't tell exactly what went on. Not enough information. The fact that one side (the side of Krayeske) thinks enough of themselves to write a biased article and try to draw attention to it does kind of make me suspect they are bozos though.
    • jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Why do you assume "their side" is the one writing the biased articles? Is that based on some evidence you aren't sharing with us, or are you just trying to sneak your own bias against Krayeske in under the guise of neutrality ala Fox News?
  • mysticalmaven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Its a great pic. Police are out of control. This stuff is happening because our traitorous Democrat/Republic lawmakers passed the patriot act, which allows the police to get away with abuse of power. This duopoly needs to be turned out of office.
  • portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You cannot be both a activist and a journalist. Well not as long as you want to act like an activist and think you can do anything now cause your a journalist.
    Journalist, usually, behave themselves. Otherwise you're just asking to get in trouble and then cry wolf when you do all because you don't understand how to follow rules.


  • JK1150, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Completely inaccurate. This was a man with a history of disruptive activity (which is why he was flagged) who rushed the governor.
  • Aeaus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And by disruptive activity you mean...

    Hopefully not for disagreeing with the government and exercising his right to protest.
  • el_taco, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2did you ***** even read the article. It in no way had anything to do with the fact that he took a picture. He was arrested for allegedly charging towards the governor on a bicycle, according to police. Which he FTA he clearly admits himself. This guy is an idiot and got what he deserved for not paying attention to how his actions may be perceived by others. I say good job to the state police for doing what they were supposed to do. If someone is riding a bike, drops it and starts moving towards the governor you bet your ass I expect some type of action from those in place to protect. Also it says arrested.. does not say charged. He was put in handcuffs and brought to the police station..
    • TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"did you ***** even read the article."

      Why yes, I did read the article, and all the links from it. And I'll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head when you talk to adults.

      "He was arrested for allegedly charging towards the governor on a bicycle, according to police. Which he FTA he clearly admits himself."

      No such claim appears anywhere in the original article. One of the *linked* articles says this: "But a slightly built man who jumped off a mountain bike and ran into the parade route ahead of Rell..." and if you search Google you'll find variations on this. So your claim appears to be entirely fabricated -- a lie.

      Moreover a substantial witness says something different. "On the contrary, Krayeske photographed the governor without incident and was detained by police only after Rell had passed by, Streim said."

      The one piece of physical evidence we have is the photograph of the governor walking by. Clearly no interaction with the police had happened up until that point or the photo simply wouldn't exist. So at the point that the photo was taken, the photographer was standing still and the governor was walking by, which seems to contradict your claims rather absolutely.

      "got what he deserved for not paying attention to how his actions may be perceived by others." Again, in totalitarian states, you can be arrested for how your actions are perceived by others. In a free country, you can only be arrested for *committing crimes*. Until you Conservatives finally abolish the Bill of Rights, we shouldn't have to care how our law-abiding actions are perceived by you.

      "If someone is riding a bike, drops it and starts moving towards the governor you bet your ass I expect some type of action from those in place to protect." I don't think anyone denies that sometimes people protecting public figures are going to have to prevent free access to people who are law-abiding citizens -- that's what crowd control is. However, preventing tragedies from occuring does NOT give you the right to pre-emptively arrest people who have committed no crime and have no provable criminal intent. Again, the concept of preventative detention is characteristic of totalitarian states, not of free countries.

      In a free country, there is always some risk that the freedoms will be abused to commit crimes. This does not provide an excuse to remove those freedoms.

      I might add that it's been a very long time since a US politician of any stature was killed by the people -- but Americans are killed by the actions of their government every day. We the people have justifiably far more reason to be frightened of politicians than politicians have to be frightened of us.
  • TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5In the old Soviet Union, they'd arrest protestors for "disruptive behaviour" or "hooliganism". Until you Conservatives get yoru wait, this is still a free country, and you can't be arrested for "disruptive behavior".

    If you're a patriotic American and you feel that the government is corrupt and endangering the people, it's not just your right, it's your *duty* to dissent, while the Constitution and what's left of the Bill of Rights protects us for a little while longer.
  • IntellEJent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1video or not true
  • sk8ordiemofo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0 madaxe42 you worthless peice of scum, you said this

    "Be goodthinkful of your neighbor, unless they're muslim, or a damned hippie peacenik - if they are, call the thought police"

    now what do you think is wrong with the religion of islam?? you are most likely a evangelist christian that hates other religions, you ***** *****. How dare you. Hippies havent done anything bad either, they just support the protection of the earth, what is so wrong about that?

    I am shocked to see views like this in todays society, this is the 21st century ffs
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It looks like you (as did many other people) missed madaxe42's attempt at a joke in there. I know it's tough, because some people out there are so far gone that it's tough to tell when someone is trying to mock them, but in this case, I'm pretty sure madaxe42 is joking.

      Relax, deep breath. There you go...
  • MonsterMagnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Like buddy said

    a Hartford lawyer who was watching the parade with a colleague, said police did not intercept Krayeske as he ran into the parade route. On the contrary, Krayeske photographed the governor without incident and was detained by police only after Rell had passed by, Streim said.

    So he snapped the picture without incident and later they quietly arrested him and made up a story that he was a threat. Welcome to Nazi Germany.
  • indyct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"But a slightly built man who jumped off a mountain bike and ran into the parade route ahead of Rell..." and if you search Google you'll find variations on this. So your claim appears to be entirely fabricated -- a lie.
    "
    You just hit the nail on the head. He was arrested for "breaching the parade route". That's what was quoted by the police. Then detained for what I believe was "resisting arrest" (not sure about the second charge). Plain and simple, that's why he was arrested. It was the high rate of speed and dropping of the bike that attracted the attention of the one police officer.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.