What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
84 Comments
- MonkeyOverlord, on 11/09/2009, -2/+45The only solution, and I mean **only** solution that **will work** is to go back to the 19th century law enforcement system where...
1) The police were not immune for anything they did.
2) Their arrest authority was tied directly to statutes and maintaining the peace only.
3) False arrest was kidnapping.
4) Victims of false arrest could violently resist arrest, even to the point of shooting the officer dead and any officer who came to his defense in a violent manner (aside merely trying to pull you off of him as opposed to trying to help him "arrest" you).
5) Anyone with knowledge of the law could make an arrest and bring a criminal to the courts. Imagine your lawyer being able to hire a bounty hunter team to bring an abusive, violent cop into the court, "fully arrested," without having to get a "by your leave, master" from the government. (The check-and-balance here was that private citizens who didn't know the law, but enforced it, were 100% accountable for all deprivation of liberty and property they caused, criminally and civilly, without excuse for their ignorance).
The courts have showed time and against that they will not work for the citizen here. It's up to the people to demand that the law change in their favor so that the courts literally cannot protect these punks.
Until we have that, and stand-your-ground laws, the citizenry will always be second class to the criminals and police on the streets. - thomashawk, on 11/09/2009, -2/+41Please take a minute to watch this video and then get mad. Really mad.
- pimpofpixels, on 11/09/2009, -2/+35The really sad thing is, if that sheriff wanted to, he could have called the kid an 'enemy combatant' and the kid could have been swept away to Gitmo and held without trial or means of communication for an indefinite amount of time according to the provisions of the patriot act.
With that in mind, it's awfully creepy to hear an officer throwing around terrorist allegations so carelessly, and one imagines that it's only a matter of time until there's a story like this that doesn't have a happy ending. Also, since we'd never have found out about it, it's entirely possible it already has. The kid would simply go down as a missing person.
The Patriot Act must be annulled, and this officer should be suspended without pay for an indefinite period of time. - NewsHunterk, on 11/09/2009, -1/+34This kind of bullying sucks
People like him don't deserve to wear a badge - pimpofpixels, on 11/09/2009, -1/+29Innocent until proven guilty, punished until proven innocent.
- yellowsnowcone, on 11/09/2009, -0/+25Nice hidden camera work.
- gluon, on 11/09/2009, -0/+23the police officer did not have a reasonable suspicion grounds for stopping the photographer. you cannot hold the entire population under suspicion for performing ordinary tasks. this is how terrorism wins... by changing our way of life and fundamental freedoms. the police officer doesn't understand that it is he who has fallen into their trap.
- jeffdabates, on 11/09/2009, -0/+18Wow , at one point he even says he doesnt know if he's commiting a crime or not. Besides what they don't realize it is it is very easy to conceal a camera, a real terromist, woulda tried to hide themselves!
- ammundsen, on 11/09/2009, -0/+17You shouldn't have to suck up to cops. They are not our betters.
If the cop had not taken the BS route of having suspicion about the guy being a terrorist then I'd agree with you, just be polite. Terrorism is the vehicle by which our rights are being severely eroded. Would the cop have had any reason to stop the photographer without the terrorist suspicion? Normally to stop a person you need to suspect they are attempting to commit a crime in the moment. You can stop someone with a tool to break in cars if the guy is walking through a parking lot looking into cars. But you cant stop that same person in a grocery store. The suspicion has to be tied to a somewhat imminent act. The cop has to have reasonable suspicion. If simply taking pictures of infrastructure is reasonable suspicion that you are about to commit a terrorist act then anyone with a cell phone can be stopped at any moment. - quisph, on 11/09/2009, -0/+15@spworm
The only thing that is different on private property is that they can make you leave and/or refuse to do business with you if you don't want to follow their rules. But that still does not give them the right to search or detain you without your consent. - newes, on 11/09/2009, -0/+13We shouldn't have to pander to people hired to serve the public. Any other Customer service job you would get fired for sucking so bad.
- Ne007, on 11/09/2009, -0/+13You don't get it. Cops are not your god. They are there to serve and protect and to uphold the law only.
"no grounds to stop and detain him in any way for questioning"
You have to be breaking a law to be detained, not just because you are being "suspicious". - jmac9, on 11/09/2009, -3/+15Through the excuse of 9/11 and the fraudulent "war on terror".
America has fully become a fascist police state.
Through the excuse of the "war on drugs" another fraud and fiasco --- www.leap.cc
American police have been given unConstitutional excessive search and seizure statutes that remain unchallenged by spineless, whimpy politicians...and because of such unconstitutional excesses...Bush-Cheney used the same things to add to the "war on terror" fraud ---illegal warrant-less wiretaps, illegal internet searches, illegal denial of access to an attorney, illegal indefinite detaining of people -even American citizens -- without trial...secret illegal torture prisons...
But like all rich, Republicans not one of the real creators of the torture --- Bush-Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Rice -- faces any legal reprimand.
And the illegal, excessive fraud of the "war on drugs" and "war on every civil liberty you thought you had" goes on in a fearful foolish America. - daveydudely, on 11/09/2009, -0/+11Really, it's been a ridiculous enough police state for decades, when men with guns want to come between you and the planet. But now that taking a picture of a building is enough to get your ass hauled into jail, it's become a tragicomedy. You can practically see how Germany slowly turned into a Nazi nightmare when you live in the USA right now.
- hacker52404, on 11/09/2009, -0/+11But, but, but... The terrorists! They want our freedoms!
- Gonthim, on 11/09/2009, -1/+12There is no way to investigate the allegations. The cop is accusing him of selling photos to terrorists. If he says he isn't, what can the cop do, in the subway station, to prove otherwise? Not only is it a completely baseless allegation, but neither the cop or the photographer can prove either side of the argument.
- skipvt, on 11/09/2009, -1/+11How was he being a dick? He was there to prove a point and the sheriffs officer obliged.
- MonkeyOverlord, on 11/09/2009, -0/+10None of those lynchings were legal, even back then. It was simply a matter of the government being in collusion with the violent racists and ignoring the actual letter of the law.
And if you believe that video cameras are stronger than guns, you're just kidding yourself. Put yourself in the perspective of the victim. Cop beats him up, takes away the camera and smashes it. Replace the camera with a gun, and you have a victim, a dead cop and probably no witnesses to contradict his story that it was self-defense.
Lastly, if the cop sees you recording his behavior, you sure as ***** better be able to get away or be willing to beat the tar out of him to keep him from getting you and your evidence. Oh and under our current system, the latter will result in the following charges unless the media so thoroughly embarasses the system that it just wants to brush it under the rug:
1) Obstruction of justice.
2) Felony assault and battery.
3) Assault on a police officer.
4) Resisting arrest.
In other words, they can screw you up so bad you'll not sit down comfortably for 5-10 years at least.... even though violently resisting arrest to keep the evidence safe should be considered an act of civic virtue, not criminality. - BeowulfCode3, on 11/09/2009, -0/+10it doesn't matter "how you were talking to the cop" or your "tone of voice" or anything else.
the fact of the matter is that we all have Constitutional rights.
i reject all notions of compromising any constitutional rights in return for the emotions of the cop. - rickythepilot, on 11/09/2009, -3/+12That cop must watch Fox News all the time.
- RealmDown, on 11/09/2009, -2/+11And that is a major problem. Sure, being a dick to a cop is wrong, but it's not the cops job to punish the kid for doing it.
- 13att13, on 11/09/2009, -0/+9The cop wanted proof of his innocence before he was willing to release the suspect from custody. It's clear the officer was unhappy that his turnstile was being photographed by the al qaeda. I mean who wouldn't? It makes sense to me though, not only is one guilty until proven innocent, but one is in 'cahoots' with al qaeda until they have been proven not to be. That's what we all wanted right? A state of fear and suspicion where detainment without having committed a crime is an everyday occurrence. That'll teach those pesky terrorists to mess with us.
While the cop was playing with this poor photographers expensive camera equipment, 3 people probably got raped around the corner and they escaped because the cop was too busy dealing with these heinous threats to our national security. - c0mputar, on 11/09/2009, -1/+9There is a difference between taking a picture of a public employee accessing a secure location by keypad which is visible to the public (hypothetical scenario that doesn't exist), and taking a picture of the twin towers when they were still standing. These protocols became much more prevalent after 9/11, but would this protocol avert the horrific event that got it streamlined in the first place? Most governments began acting like parents after something bad happens to someone's kid. Like the parents, the government made a mistake which effected our freedoms, but we are now long overdue with undoing those mistakes. But in places where this is not even protocol, and so it's actually just an abuse of authority, then I say it's time we criminalized the act of an official who questions, harasses, or even makes an arrest based off a nonexistent criminal offense. Am I allowed to decide that 2 minutes, instead of 3 minutes, is enough frying for the fries? No one decides that unless they have malicious intent.
- skipvt, on 11/09/2009, -0/+8Cop: "Why are you taking pictures of *MY* turnstile?"
- adam1378, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8I don't any amount of smooth talking would have helped. That cop probably saw him taking photos and decided that it was for "terroristic" acts before he spoke with him. "Stock Photography, What are you going to stock up on, photos for Al Qaeda"?
- andyp7, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8The problem is the police officer in the video did not want to back down to this guy and lose face. Even if he thought the kid was probably right (which I think he did) there is no way he is going to let "some kid" get the better of him in a confrontation. The police officer wasn't aggressive or rude but he was a bully with an insecurity complex.
Therefore the officer should be punished for his abuse of power. Having said all that and been in the position of the photographer before, he could have easily got rid of the cop had he just told him some bs about why he was taking the photos.
It's good the kid recorded this and is complaining, ignorant cops need to be educated - but it is also blatant to me that he could have saved all that hastle by telling the cop what he wanted to hear. - discarted, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6if you wanna know what the video captured before the encounter just go to his website, discarted.com, and watch the footage leading up to his detainment. it starts off at another station for crying out loud, so yes, he was apparently on his way home from doing something. and as far as i know, discarted has his camera on non-stop every time he goes out to shoot. you should do some research for commenting.
- raisputin3, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6Sorry, I will take pictures of whatever the ***** I want to and if they don't like it, that is just too ***** bad.
- Trublmakr, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6Doh!! You got me officer,.. I am indeed here to take pictures in support of my terrorist bombing objective.. foiled again!! I might have succeeded if it weren't for your really good questions.
- Travelsonic, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6@spworm
Private business still has to follow the laws of the land - that includes the laws on illegal detention.
@mweather: no you don't.
Again, they have to follow the law like everybody else and PROBABLE CAUSE is the key word here. Don't have this when making your move and you are just asking to get rammed up the ass in court. - GamerXR72, on 11/09/2009, -8/+14The cop was a dick for sure, but the guy in question seem to have rubbed him the wrong way. If you're a smooth talker, you don't have to deal with half the ***** people get from cops.
"Why are you taking photos?"
"Its for stock photography. I take all kinds of pictures. Never know when you need a turnstyle or even just a good floor texture." - Travelsonic, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5"Anyone over the age of 5 knows that lying to authority figures and just telling them what they want to hear is the best way to get along in the moment"
Keyword is in the moment if that at all. I can tell you from experience that is not practical in the long run very oftten. - RealmDown, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5Except at Walmart and similar places where exveryone is automatically guilty until you show your receipt.
- ammundsen, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5I'd be careful there. Lying to police or government agents is a crime. Lying to federal agents was the crime Martha Stewart went to jail for. She was not convicted for criminal actions regarding stock trades but for lying during an investigation. In other words had she said nothing she would not have gone to jail.
I'm not saying you cant stretch the truth. But your safer option, legally, is just to say nothing to police rather than lie. - deanc, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4someone should put his (Gilfie) ass on the 'aaaahh' TLO watch list
- catxors, on 11/09/2009, -2/+6Anyone over the age of 5 knows that lying to authority figures and just telling them what they want to hear is the best way to get along in the moment. But some people are hoping that actual communication with police is possible. Sadly, that doesn't include me, but I applaud those who are willing to take the risk to try.
- sharp357, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4Your not serious! Did you like being stopped for no reason back in the day? If terrorists wanted pictures of anything you can be damn sure no one would know they took them. Prime example is the cops didn't know they were being video taped. Almost everyone has a cell phone with a camera now days. You see anyone confiscating cell phones at the subway?
This was a complete waste of time based on the near complete ignorance of these two officers. I am ashamed to have to pay for such incompetence. I want and demand REAL police doing REAL police work, not Barney Fife's screwing with my rights either because they don't know better or worse because they think they are the LAW instead of upholders of it. - PopcornDave, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4Haven't you seen the latest dispatch from Homeland Security? Al Queda is planning to bankrupt the Los Angeles subway system by circumventing their turnstyles thereby causing financial chaos to the city.
- cr0m300, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4I think this cop got a boner every time he said "Al Qaeda" or "terrorist target." Get over yourself, man!
- PopcornDave, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3I don't care if he's tired of dealing with them or not. That sheriff is PAID to act responsibly and professionally. Yes the kid was pushing the construct but there's no excuse for the sheriff to come off with the threats that he did.
That sheriff should be arrested for threatening to submit the kid's name to the terrorist watch list just "because he could". When law enforcement starts to act like they're above the law, why should anyone have any sympathy for them? - ChloeMS, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3You can not disobey a unlawful order. That is why the law is always written to the effect, "...it shall be a violation of... to disobey a lawful order by the police..."
The reason that the word "lawful" is ALWAYS used is because the Supreme Court has already ruled that a person does not have to obey an unlawful order, civilian OR military. It is the reason that every resident be aware of the laws in there community.
Unfortunately, most police officers never pickup the law books again once they graduate from the academy. The only way to stop these abuses is to sue not only the officers who break the law, but their respective police organizations and the state. And the amount of restitution has to be large enough (actual and punitive damages, as well as all legal fees) to make all the parties stand up and take notice.
But don't just sue them. Use the very laws they are supposed to enforce against them. (When any person breaks the law, they are obliged to face the consequences!) File a criminal complaint. Wait for the criminal complaint to complete before starting a civil complaint. If any of the criminal charges against them result in a guilty verdict, that can be used as evidence in the civil complaint, as a guilty verdict in a criminal case is more than the the level of proof needed (preponderance of evidence) to win a civil case. - Trublmakr, on 11/09/2009, -1/+4What's the punishment for being a dick cop?
- scottpigeon, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3Someone needs to let these cops know about http://oathkeepers.org
- Travelsonic, on 11/09/2009, -1/+4Yeah, and cost LA millions in legal feess and settlement... good idea jackass.
- bonmot5, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2You are missing the whole point! This officer is a hired thug. He did not have probable cause. To insinuate that the photographer was going to somehow give these photo's to terrorists, is that probable cause? Then none of us are safe from the worst terrorists currently operating in the United States. And that is the U.S. Federal Government! You are doing a grave injustice to the already broken and left for dead Constitution of the United States. Read the Bill of Rights! The first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, particularly the 4th- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I really despise people like you, because this quote is being authenticated by your foolishness,
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas
American socialist, 1948 - crashingechelon, on 11/09/2009, -3/+5I feel really indifferent about this video. I'm a photographer to and I know where I'm allowed to take pictures and where I can't. I agree with the guy that taking photos down there is completely legal and there shouldn't have been a conflict. However, as crappy as it was for the cop to treat him the way he did, I really felt that the photographer was asking for it.
I don't the proper way to word this but I felt both parties were being a dick and they were both in their right for what they were doing. - ammundsen, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2@GamerXR72 I agree with you that often being friendly can help stop a situation from becoming a problem. And by being polite from the start you have the opportunity to lose the politeness as a tactic for asserting yourself. At the same time sometimes police just want to be pricks and being nice to them wont change their attitude.
You do have to be careful when dealing with police. Politeness in the form of honesty is not always wise. Police rely on their presumed authority and your willingness to comply in order to get you to make incriminating statements or to give them permission to do things. For instance, dont ever be 'polite' and consent to a search. Of course the worst thing to be would be rude and talkative. You might say something that gives a cop a legitimate reason to detain or arrest you. - jeffgentry, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1@nmarrone - Your casual attitude about your own Constitutional rights, and mine, scares me more than the police officer in the video.
BTW, the officer told him he was detained. At that point, it was no longer "just speaking." - bonmot5, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1That was the part of the video that was the most offensive. The officer kept saying that the photographer would be put on a watch list, and be detained and harassed every time he tried to take public transportation and at the airports. He was simply being bullied. It is a system, and, not only do they know it, they are proud of it.
- PopcornDave, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1Frankly I'm glad you feel that way. I wish I did too. I just find myself worrying about everyone else's paranioa when I take a picture of something anymore.
And I wasn't asking the OP to do that, I was curious if it ever crossed their mind in this day and age. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is