Deuce 1 #26 November 1, 2004 Quoteall every cop I have ever met hate to deal with a person who is not scared of them. How the heck do you presume to get into a cop's head? Being psychic as you are, I would suggest your use your power to read people's minds, discover what they love, and make millions as a marketer. Much more profit in love than hate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #27 November 1, 2004 QuoteIf I had to make a guess I would say this is bullshit and the cops are trying to cover themselves by using the media to put a spin on it. I am very happy to read this guy is a lawyer himself and he did probably ask a few specific questions before the cop started his tactics.....after all every cop I have ever met hate to deal with a person who is not scared of them. Most cops I have ever met returned respect if it was given to them. As has been already pointed out, cops don't make laws, they just enforce them. You don't like the law, change it. Don't piss and moan about it being "unfair" to a cop. I'm not saying that sometimes, some cops don't step over the line, but I'd bet most of the time somebody has trouble with a cop being aggressive, it is of their own doing. Have you ever considered going on one of the "ride-along" programs many communities offer? I bet it would give you a different perspective of the BS cops have to put up with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 November 1, 2004 I have a lot of respect for cops and believe the majority are as you describe. However, there in a non-insubstantial minority of them who do perceive "civilians" as guilty until proven innocent. It's probably because most of the people that they deal with, are indeed guilty of something, but a lot of them get their perceptions skewed along the way. And I'd say a good portion of those who are generally good, fair cops, still on occasion employ strong arm tactics when they aren't necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 November 2, 2004 QuoteQuote A sheriff's spokesman said later the deputy was enforcing a new county rule prohibiting reporters from interviewing or photographing voters lined up outside the polls, the Palm Beach Post said. There's one that's not going to hold up in court. If it's public space . . . it's fair game. There are many restrictions on activities immediately adjacent to polling places. They certainly do hold up in court. Public need for a fair election trumps assembly rights in the same place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #30 November 2, 2004 Quote There are many restrictions on activities immediately adjacent to polling places. They certainly do hold up in court. Public need for a fair election trumps assembly rights in the same place. Yep. But that's not what I'm talking about. This would be a First Amendment issue. It is -well- established that the press can cover elections. Right up until the voter enters the polling booth and has a reasonable expectation of privacy -- anyone at the polling place is fair game to have their photograph taken.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #31 November 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteall every cop I have ever met hate to deal with a person who is not scared of them. How the heck do you presume to get into a cop's head? Being psychic as you are, I would suggest your use your power to read people's minds, discover what they love, and make millions as a marketer. Much more profit in love than hate. Good idea! Already moving on it too! I said nothing about hate in your context and just because a person is not afraid of a cop does not mean one is psychic or in a cops head. Cops must make decisions and a person can do/say things to alter those decisions......right? I have experience in harassing cops and most are very predictable. You must have missed what I was saying.....The reporter was a lawyer and I think he may have challenged the cops knowledge of the law and I suspect that the cop got frustrated and resorted to force........Besides the cop is usually the babysitter and the real power is the DA. Unless the cop resorts to something unethical.....what are the chances of that? "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #32 November 2, 2004 QuoteBesides the cop is usually the babysitter and the real power is the DA. OK, good. You have some knowledge. The DA, however, never has to kill people or do the habeus grabbus herself. I never, ever lost a battle, cause when a lawyer (my favorite!) threatened me, I grinned even bigger and stuck to my knowledge of code (penal, education, election, whatever). Everything is illegal. Everything is also legal. It's a matter of context and relevance, and that's why most cops are underpaid. I wasn't. http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=california+code&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3De906ea26d14cd897%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dcalifornia%2Bcode%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.leginfo.ca.gov%252Fcalaw.html%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leginfo.ca.gov%2Fcalaw.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #33 November 2, 2004 QuoteAnd as an alternative, suppose the photog thought to himself, "Well gee, that's a first. There aren't any rules like this anywhere else and if he's saying this is a local thing, maybe he's just bullshitting me so I'll go away, but in either case, why isn't he asking anyone else to leave. Why is he singling ME out?" While I don't agree with the rule, and think that it's probably both unenforceable, and illegal, the photog fucked up when he didn't obey the cop. It's all well and good to stand up for what you beleive in but you gotta take your lumps. Dis the po-po, and they are gonna git' ya. He was arrested for resisting arrest, which I believe is EXACTLY what he did. Don't like the rules? Take it to the court. Wanna break em' cause you don't like em'? Get taken to jail.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #34 November 2, 2004 It should be noted that reporters -do- occasionally intentionally break the law or disobey court orders intentionally for any one of a number of reasons.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #35 November 2, 2004 I'm sure they do. I've done it. Protestors do it. But you gotta be kidding be when they say they were "shocked and surprised" by the cop's reaction. "Wait, whadda you mean you're arresting me?"---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #36 November 2, 2004 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/quotes Quote Rick : How can you close me up? On what grounds? Captain Renault : I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money] Croupier : Your winnings, sir. Captain Renault : [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much. [aloud] Captain Renault : Everybody out at once! quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #37 November 2, 2004 Oh. Yes. Dang, I hate it when you play the fictitious French Cop card. I always fold when you throw that on the table. Edit: QuoteHolden : If the buzz is any indicator, that movie's gonna make some huge bank. Jay : What buzz? Holden : The Internet buzz. Jay : What the fuck is the Internet? ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #38 November 2, 2004 QuoteNot for nothing, but as far as laws go ingnorance is not an excuse. I understand that this is the "law of the land," but I have never agreed with it. There are WAY LOT of laws that you have never heard of, and not of the common-sense "everybody-knows-this-act-is-wrong" kind like the laws against murder and stealing. There is no way for the average citizen to keep abreast of what laws are in the statute books, and what laws are added. And don't forget that the applicable laws can change wildly from town to town, county to county, state to state. It is inconceivable to be mindful of them all. Therefore it is NOT fair to hold someone to obey arcane laws that are passed in obscurity and enacted without widespread publication, public notice or fanfare. The more difficult-to-believe a law is -- especially when it seems clearly to run afoul of the First Amendment -- the more I feel people should not be prosecuted under it. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #39 November 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteI am not saying it will hold up, but it is true that ignorance is not an excuse.... That is all I said. Chris, Are you honestly defending this action? To impose a new law, to be irresponsbile and inform no one, and then to enforce it with aggressive behavior? I am pointing blame at the lawmakers and enforcers in this instance. The burden of letting the community know about this law was on them. They apparently found it important enough to let the cops know, they should have let the people know. First off, I am not sure this is a new "law" or just a rule made by the elections supervisor. You know, sort of how Clinton banned import of semi-auto rifles by "executive order," and Congress did not have to make a law to accomplish it. Second, I don't think that this guy would have fallen, or been tackled or punched, if he had not run from the police. I am in his favor regarding being allowed to take the photographs. I am not in his favor in that he seems to think he should be able to disobey a law enforcement officer's order. He could have stood there, stopped photographing for a few minutes, requested the cop's supervisor to clarify the cop's assertions, and the story would probably have ended in his favor, i.e. someone would have been threatened with a civil-rights-abuse lawsuit and they would have relented. The "reporter" took the wrong course. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #40 November 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteNot for nothing, but as far as laws go ingnorance is not an excuse. I understand that this is the "law of the land," but I have never agreed with it. There are WAY LOT of laws that you have never heard of, and not of the common-sense "everybody-knows-this-act-is-wrong" kind like the laws against murder and stealing. There is no way for the average citizen to keep abreast of what laws are in the statute books, and what laws are added. And don't forget that the applicable laws can change wildly from town to town, county to county, state to state. It is inconceivable to be mindful of them all. Therefore it is NOT fair to hold someone to obey arcane laws that are passed in obscurity and enacted without widespread publication, public notice or fanfare. The more difficult-to-believe a law is -- especially when it seems clearly to run afoul of the First Amendment -- the more I feel people should not be prosecuted under it. -Jeffrey Throughout history the hallmark of totalitarian regimes has been to have unknown and arcane laws on the books, so that if they wanted to arrest and imprison anyone they could always find some law that could be used to make it look legitimate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #41 November 2, 2004 Quote Throughout history the hallmark of totalitarian regimes has been to have unknown and arcane laws on the books, so that if they wanted to arrest and imprison anyone they could always find some law that could be used to make it look legitimate. Thank you. Someone understands what the hell is happening right now. It's not that bad yet, but we're in a downward spiral. The next 10-20 years will be very interesting for the history of the US.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 November 2, 2004 QuoteQuote Throughout history the hallmark of totalitarian regimes has been to have unknown and arcane laws on the books, so that if they wanted to arrest and imprison anyone they could always find some law that could be used to make it look legitimate. Thank you. Someone understands what the hell is happening right now. It's not that bad yet, but we're in a downward spiral. The next 10-20 years will be very interesting for the history of the US. Shoot, you think this is something new? I'd venture to say that there has not been a time in any government where there wasn't something that everybody could be busted for. I.e., there is not a car on the road that cannot be ticketed for something. My thoughts on this? I don't think it is "clearly" a violation of the First Amendment. Why not? There is also implicated within a right to privacy (you know, that one that isn't in the Constitution, but everybody knows it's there) with your vote. Which, ironically, creates a situation where you are exercising free speech in your right to vote, but expect privacy at the same time. One way or another, you don't run from cops. If this guy wanted to use civil disobedience to challenge the law, then he should not have run. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #43 November 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Throughout history the hallmark of totalitarian regimes has been to have unknown and arcane laws on the books, so that if they wanted to arrest and imprison anyone they could always find some law that could be used to make it look legitimate. Thank you. Someone understands what the hell is happening right now. It's not that bad yet, but we're in a downward spiral. The next 10-20 years will be very interesting for the history of the US. Shoot, you think this is something new? I'd venture to say that there has not been a time in any government where there wasn't something that everybody could be busted for. I.e., there is not a car on the road that cannot be ticketed for something. My thoughts on this? I don't think it is "clearly" a violation of the First Amendment. Why not? There is also implicated within a right to privacy (you know, that one that isn't in the Constitution, but everybody knows it's there) with your vote. Which, ironically, creates a situation where you are exercising free speech in your right to vote, but expect privacy at the same time. One way or another, you don't run from cops. If this guy wanted to use civil disobedience to challenge the law, then he should not have run. What makes you think he wanted to challenge the law with civil disobedience? I got the impression he just wanted to do his job in a way that was legal except for some secret law. This IS scary - in a Star Chamber kind of a way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #44 November 3, 2004 QuoteWhat makes you think he wanted to challenge the law with civil disobedience? I got the impression he just wanted to do his job in a way that was legal except for some secret law. According to some reports, the guy DID know about the law, and refused to stop taking the pictures. Ignorance of a law is no excuse, unless there was no notice. Here, there is argument that he had notice, either constructive or actual, of the law, yet did it anyway... Is the law scary? Yeah. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #45 November 3, 2004 Them Floridians don't fuck around. Next time they'll probably beat you senseless for voting for the wrong candidate. Sieg heil y'all, life is good in the Sunshine State ! Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #46 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat makes you think he wanted to challenge the law with civil disobedience? I got the impression he just wanted to do his job in a way that was legal except for some secret law. According to some reports, the guy DID know about the law, and refused to stop taking the pictures. Ignorance of a law is no excuse, unless there was no notice. Here, there is argument that he had notice, either constructive or actual, of the law, yet did it anyway... Is the law scary? Yeah. Hi Rocket Belated congrats on being a DAD.From what I'm reading in SC the incident in florida is all hear say. IMO as long as you got deep pockets or don't mind doing the time the law isn't anything to be scared of. Maybe the PR, photo's $$$$ were worth a little ass kicking to the alleged bad guy. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
