Take a cop's picture, get arrested and go to jail...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone.


I guess LEO's word carries no weight around here anymore.

How stupid are some of you gonna feel if it turns out that the kid was actually impeding with the arrest or there was at least a legitimate reason to suppose that he was

__________________

i guess this leo quit talking when he saw how light his words were.
 
Ok, so why was he arrested then? If he really WAS impeding the investigation, why was he let go?



Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone.



I guess LEO's word carries no weight around here anymore.

How stupid are some of you gonna feel if it turns out that the kid was actually impeding with the arrest or there was at least a legitimate reason to suppose that he was
 
i guess this leo quit talking when he saw how light his words were.
I don't understand the comment, but since it is a response to a comment of mine I can suppose it is directed towards me. Care to explain

Ok, so why was he arrested then? If he really WAS impeding the investigation, why was he let go?
We don't know, do we?
But is it always safe to assume that the cop is in the wrong merely because the media has deemed it so.

People are arrested and released all the time. The level of his interference, if true, could determine whether any prosecution was warranted
 
But is it always safe to assume that the cop is in the wrong merely because the media has deemed it so.

Well, that's the way it would work in court, isn't it? A testifies B did wrong; B does not deny, or refuses to testify at all - the jury is entitled to assume B was wrong. Particularly if B acted in a area where justification/explanation is normally given.

And we do have useful facts:
It is a fact that the detainee made public statements giving his side;
It is a fact that the the police have NOT explained what happened;
It is a fact that this is VERY unusual behavior for the authorities, if they actually had good reason for the arrest. It is part of the job description to explain arrests; or at least, defend why you can't explain.
Reasonable people draw reasonable (if tentative) conclusions from the facts at hand.
 
Stiletto Null: thank you for the link, but it is to an MP3 player, not a tapeless (or not) video/audio recorder. In other words, a camcorder.

Does anyone else have a link where one might find such a thing?


Thanks,
BB62
 
If I remember right, didn't Philly PD deploy a bomb to a nest of bad guys, which ultimately leveled a city block with the resulting fire?

Philly PD is sure tough on its citizenry:uhoh:
 
From the Wiki article on MOVE:

Confrontation Leads Police to Bomb MOVE House

On May 13, 1985, in a failed attempt to serve arrest warrants on four members of the group, Philadelphia police became engaged in a gun battle at MOVE's communal residence. The mayor had, in response to pressure from the neighborhood that included a threat to use "vigilante justice," turned over the situation to Mayor Goode with the instructions to find a way to arrest the MOVE members. At this point it became a police matter and an entry plan was drawn up under the direction of Police Commissioner Sambor.

The plan called for a mixture of civilian and military explosives to be dropped on the fortification that had been built by MOVE on top of the house in order to destroy it. The satchel of explosives, alternately characterized as a "bomb" and an "entry device," was to be dropped on MOVE's rooftop structure. The fortification was also described as either a "gun turret" or a purely defensive fortification. The structure was unoccupied at the time the bomb was dropped, although there were a number of people living in the house.

The bomb did not significantly damage the rooftop structure, but did ignite several barrels of gasoline, clearly marked "fuel," starting a fire which destroyed the entire block and killed eleven people. City hoses, deployed as a part of the original entry plan, were not turned on until 40 minutes after the fire started burning. Ironically, the city's best firefighting equipment had been trained on the rooftop bunker all morning, but "the decision was made to let the fire burn" in the words of Sambor. About 10,000 rounds of ammunition were fired by the police in to the house. 62 houses burned to the ground; only Ramona Africa and Michael Ward (aka Birdie Africa) escaped alive. Six adults and five children in the MOVE house were killed.

Police initially said they had been fired upon first with automatic weapons, but only a small number of non-automatic weapons were found in the burned-out home. MOVE supporters have described the raid as a revenge attack for the 1978 shooting.
[edit]

Aftermath

In the aftermath of the catastrophe the city launched a special investigation which found, among other things, that "Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was unconscionable." The mayor was re-elected in the next election, and no police officer was fined, fired or suspended.

Philadelphia has paid over $32 million to the victims, including $840,000 to Michael Ward, $1.5 million to Ramona Africa and the relatives of John and Frank Africa, and has been ordered to pay $29 million to residents of Osage Avenue and Pine Street whose homes were destroyed by the fire. (The city of Philadelphia is appealing the latter award.)

On December 1, 2005, U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam cut the original jury verdict of $12.8 million in more than half, to $6 million.
 
BB62: Take a look at the item I linked to in post #20. That might fit your needs.
On December 1, 2005, U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam cut the original jury verdict of $12.8 million in more than half, to $6 million.
Man, that is just despicable. 20 year AFTER the fact and the folks who's homes were burned in that police freel-up are still waiting for compensation? To heck with the courts, fire MY house and I'll fire yours, hopefully with you still in it. :fire:
 
BB62 said:
Stiletto Null: thank you for the link, but it is to an MP3 player, not a tapeless (or not) video/audio recorder. In other words, a camcorder.
Oh. I missed that you wanted video too; I only looked for audio recording function.

Just about any modern digital camcorder will do it, but they're kind of bulky (being, you know, camcorders). My Mom just got a Canon Elura, it's pretty nice. You can use SD in lieu of MiniDV tapes.
 
"That would certainly explain the asinine conclusions drawn here."

An utterly useless post. So here's another one:

If you're going to insult people, you at least should use proper sentence structure and not split your verb tenses.

That CERTAINLY WOULD EXPLAIN........would explain being the verb phrase, certainly being the modifier.

If you think other people are silly and stupid, it's best to not appear silly and stupid when mocking them.
 
You are aware that CAPS are considered yelling, right?

I think you should leave the grammar Nazisms to the more able.

Now on with the show my 2A1 is here
 
BB62
If you look into digital cameras, you may find something to fit the bill.
I recently bought a HP MP22? digital camera. With a 1 gig SD card, it cost me ~$100.
It will take ~500 quality photos.
It also does video, not great quality, but better than a typical phone's still pictures by far.
It's very small and I keep it in the car to take snapshots of things I see and do. Maybe I'll start taking pictures of cops also.


PS How do you quote a post on this board, can't figger it out.
 
The "suspect" was jogging on a college campus, while dressed as a ninja. Two BATFE agents found that to be suspicious, so they stopped and questioned him.

Just a clarification. He wasn't just jogging across the campus. He had just come from a 'Pirates vs Ninjas' event sponsored by the Wesley Foundation, a national on-campus United Methodist organization.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top