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

[Geno]

What's Sauce for Goose

If "The Powers that Be" can place video cameras in public and say that "there is no such thing as the private public", and add to that that police are "public servants", they can go pound sand if they don't like their photo taken. Have they stood in front of a police car lately? Camera. Hello! And, as a citizne, I have the legal right to request copies of the video. Ergo, NO RIGHT OF PRIVACY! Period! Sounds like something else was really at play here.

Doc2005

 

[JBusch8899]

I'm going to stir the pot a bit.......

When one's right or rights are violated, it is an injury upon one's person. If one cannot take recourse against the government for injury, the right is essentially gutted and there is no point of having said right.

I could care less if there is a PA law against taking a cell phone photo of a scene which is accessible to view by the general public. Do you realize the press would eviscerate the police if he would have been a reporter or photojournalist?

 

[joab]

uhh, he was told at the time of arrest he was being taken into custody for illegally photographing the police with his camera phone

Uhh, where has that been established?
Just because the arrestee makes that claim it must be so?

 

[txgho1911]

If we were living in an actual, real police state, the cops would have arrested this guy, tortured him in custody, quietly killed him, and dumped his body in a garbage can.

Or they would have buried him in a grave in the woods that they made him dig first before shooting him in the back of the head.

Like the three NY/NJ cops arrested for family biz?

 

[Justin]

Do you know that the gist of the story is in fact true?

Do you know, for a fact, that it isn't?

I'm sorry, but a deliberate attempt to shift the burden of proof to a 3rd party who is aware of only the facts as presented in the news report is not a legitimate debating tactic.

If further evidence later comes to light that this student was, say, forcibly attempting to intervene in the police officers' actions then I'll admit that I was wrong.

But the facts as they have been presented to us are utterly damning.

 

[idahoemt]

Hmm. Seems like the kid, having the benefit of the press casting favorable light on him and his version of the story is innocent unless/until proven guilty. On the flip side, the LEOs,being agents of the evil/corrupt/power mad(insert adjective of choice here) government, are quite obviously guilty and will remain so even if they had legitimate cause to detain the kid.

While I can understand some folks' attitudes towards LEOs because of who and what they represent in a bigger sense, let's try to remember who and what our MSM tend to represent. They aren't typically known for looking out for your best interests.

Point is, sometimes the way things are initially reported isn't exactly "true". I'll reserve judgment until judgment is made where it belongs, in the courts not the press.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Do you know that the gist of the story is in fact true?

Let's review a few things.

First off, it is not illegal to record law enforcement officers doing their duties. Taking pictures, video, whatever, at least in Pennsylvania, and in Washington State too. Massachussetts is the only state where this is the case, AFAIK.

Second, there is a gun related issue here. Philadelphia PD has been known to abuse those who excercise their rights. For example, it's legal to open carry in Philadelphia if you have a PA LTCF or another recognized license to carry firearms. Given what Philadelphia PD does to people like this soon to be very wealthy guy, almost no one open carries in Philadelphia except the cops. It is the Philadelphia PD's attitude that killed open carry in the city with your LTCF under Title 18, Crimes Code, 6106, 6109, etc, because you will be falsely arrested.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Hmm. Seems like the kid, having the benefit of the press casting favorable light on him and his version of the story is innocent unless/until proven guilty. On the flip side, the LEOs,being agents of the evil/corrupt/power mad(insert adjective of choice here) government, are quite obviously guilty and will remain so even if they had legitimate cause to detain the kid.

They had no legitimate cause. That's the point. Philadelphia isn't commenting on it because they have no case. If they actually had a reason to arrest the guy, they would have said something. They have not, because this was an off the books arrest.

Cameras being in police stations nowadays, indicates that he was hauled in, and there's no booking information, heads will roll at Philadelphia PD.

 

[ilbob]

uhh, he was told at the time of arrest he was being taken into custody for illegally photographing the police with his camera phone.

Maybe it's just me, but when someone lies to me from the get-go, I generally don't put much faith in anything else that comes out of their mouth.

Thats what the detainee claims. The police have not admitted that was the case and we all now how reliable news reports are.

My guess is the higher ups are investigating (often a euphemism for concocting a plausible story to explain some behaviour by our officers).

But there is some chance there was some legitimate reason for what happened.

This story does have the ring of truth going for it though. I can't imagine that the reporter would not do at least some fact checking.

 

[1911 guy]

What we know now.

All we know for sure is that he was arrested and released. What we know from the PR generation we live in is that most PD's issue statements about such incidents to quell rumors that hit the street. The fact that this has gotten press and there is no Philly PD statement to the contrary or clarifying details is telling. I might be wrong, but I predict a lawsuit with the city and the officer responsible ponying up some cash to settle.

 

[joab]

But the facts as they have been presented to us are utterly damning.

And what facts would those be? The word of the family and friends of the guy arrested?
FACT:

Cruz, 21, told the NBC 10 Investigators that police arrested him last Wednesday for taking a picture of police activity with his cell phone.

UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMOR:

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. Cruz's family said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's Internal Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation. Philadelphia family said they are outraged over the arrest of one of their family members.

They had no legitimate cause. That's the point.

But what exactly was their cause, that's the point

This is ridiculous
A news blurb, from the same media can't get anything else right, gives two opposing sides to the same story and people here speak of damning facts against the police.
The only facts that we know for sure are that the guy was arrested and then later released.

If someone can show some other "fact" from that article please do. So far it's nothing more than both sides posturing

 

[progunner1957]

As I have said before...

only in America.

The police dont like knowing that citizens are watching them.

You are correct, sir.

BTW, The correct spelling is Amerika...

 

[Brett Bellmore]

If they had any legitimate cause to arrest him, if they even thought they did, they'd have been able to state it right away. So the fact that they weren't able to state a reason IS pretty damning.

 

[HankB]

IF the original story is true as written, the cops who did this need to be EX-cops, with a good part of their income garnished for the next decade, at least.

The EEEVVVVVIIILLLL Commie Traitors in the ACL *shudder* U are defending his rights. He must be doing something wrong like drowning cute baby kittens because a groups of liberals agrees with him.

A good analogy to the ACLU is a broken clock - usually wrong, but exactly right twice a day.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

one possible reason

there is a website out there that features pictures of police. in particular undercover cops. its purpose is to make them identifiable and possibly dead as a result. thats the only plausible reason i could fathom for the cops reacting. but given that its philly i'm inclined to think the worst.
thats why number on on my speed dial on my cell is my own number. if i have reason to think i need a record of what is happening cops or otherwise i dial myself record it on my voice mail. saved my bacon once. they hated being told it was recorded and even worse off site where they couldn't take it from me. about that time the state police showed up. sad when i hada call the stae\te police to protect me from manassas police but it worked.felt bad to put state guy in awkward spot but they got it straightened out. funny thing was? it started with one cop screwing up just a lil got worse as other cops tried to help/cover up.he coulda ended it early by saying he was sorry. he is now in another career field.and it didn't have to be that way. what he did was minor the rest made it major

 

[ilbob]

there is a website out there that features pictures of police. in particular undercover cops. its purpose is to make them identifiable and possibly dead as a result. thats the only plausible reason i could fathom for the cops reacting. but given that its philly i'm inclined to think the worst.

Is the reason for posting pictures of undercover cops to get them klled, or to protest undercover operations?

I am not a big fan of such operations.

If I was king of the world,I ban them unless a judge gave specific authority to engage in a specific operation.

I would also make all LEOs wear uniforms when on duty, and take away their LEO powers when not on duty.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

the folks that put up the website weren't too shy

you really opposed to undercover cops? why? some crimes its only way

 

[ilbob]

you really opposed to undercover cops? why? some crimes its only way

Because virtually all undercover operations are about victimless crime.

And it is unseemly for cops to encourage people to commit crimes so they can be arrested for primarily non-violent and victimless crimes. It is very, very close to entrapment, and often it really is, despite what the courts might rule.

It has gotten to the point where they even use unmarked squads for traffic enforcement.

I am not opposed to a focused effort to go after serious violent offenders using undercover means. Or to attack gangs or the mob this way.

But to bust people for selling a few joints? Or a hooker? Can't we come up with a better use of LE resources then this? I know the main reason it is done is because it is a simplistic solution to a perceived problem and they can look like they are doing "something". But having cops spend their time deceiving people just so they can be arrested does not seem right somehow.

 

[Mannlicher]

ilbob

Because virtually all undercover operations are about victimless crime.

And it is unseemly for cops to encourage people to commit crimes so they can be arrested for primarily non-violent and victimless crimes. It is very, very close to entrapment, and often it really is, despite what the courts might rule.

It has gotten to the point where they even use unmarked squads for traffic enforcement.

I am not opposed to a focused effort to go after serious violent offenders using undercover means. Or to attack gangs or the mob this way.

But to bust people for selling a few joints? Or a hooker? Can't we come up with a better use of LE resources then this? I know the main reason it is done is because it is a simplistic solution to a perceived problem and they can look like they are doing "something". But having cops spend their time deceiving people just so they can be arrested does not seem right somehow.

+1 , and absolutly spot on

 

[Working Man]

Because virtually all undercover operations are about victimless crime.

Clarify something for me.... what exactly is a victimless crime?
I would appreciate an explanation and some examples.

 

[Silver Bullet]

A good analogy to the ACLU is a broken clock - usually wrong, but exactly right twice a day.

Good one !

With these kinds of gestapo tactics, I'm guessing the mayor of Philadelphia is a Democrat.

 

[PCGS65]

Cruz said police told him that he broke a new law that prohibits people from taking pictures of police with cell phones.

"They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation. … They said, 'You were impeding this investigation.' (I asked,) "By doing what?' (The officer said,) 'By taking a picture of the police officers with a camera phone,'" Cruz said.

First, LEO's don't want the citizens watching. That way they don't have to worry when they break the law.
Second, I suppose a regular camera would have been ok huh?

 

[Silver Bullet]

Hey, I'm right ! First time this week, I think.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/mayor.bugged/index.html

 

[Justin]

This is ridiculous
A news blurb, from the same media can't get anything else right, gives two opposing sides to the same story and people here speak of damning facts against the police.

Don't forget about the neighbor that witnessed the event:

"A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw.

"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down, had Neffy on the car and was telling him, 'You should have just went in the house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures off your picture phone,'" said Gerrell Martin."

But hey, maybe they all conspired ahead of time such that if they ever witnessed a drug bust on their street, they would interfere with the cops and then deny any wrongdoing.

The only facts that we know for sure are that the guy was arrested and then later released.

If someone can show some other "fact" from that article please do. So far it's nothing more than both sides posturing

We also know that the reporter talked to the cops, and that they did not give an explanation for why he was arrested in the first place.

If Cruz is guilty of breaking a law, why was he released without being charged?
If he is guilty of breaking the law, why did the police fail to state in the story which law that he broke?

I'm sorry, but not even a sub-par reporter would deliberately leave out such an important fact for a story.

 

[Shield529]

It's not "victimless crime" it's certain people opinion of what should be a crime and what should not.
Those hookers or people selling a few joints are commit crimes. We work for the people of our jurisdiction. The same people griping on this board about us wasting resources on those things would throw the worlds largest hissy fit if those poor souls were plying thier trade in front of thier houses.
You see its not victimless, those prostitues are normally drug addicts who may or may not be engaged in this profession by thier own choise any longer. Those prostitues have pimps. Those pimps are often engaged in human trafficing and kidnapping, not to mention rape and abuse of minor runaways and the such. Those pimps often have bosses actively engaged in the drug trade.
Those nice enterprising young folks selling a few joints tend to sell other harder drugs, (before we say drug use is victimless I call BS). The users tend to break into your car and house to get money to get drugs. When they don't have enough money to pay for drugs, tempers tend to flair and people end up dead. The drug dealers tend to be killers and armed robbers to supplement thier income. The drug users end up not supprting thier family, so we the taxpayers do. The family violence also come with this victimless crime.
So spare me the hurts no one surface diagosis and look at the world you live it.

To get back on topic, the only way on earth an arrest would be acceptable is if the guy crossed the police line to get pictures or was pushing through the police. Otherwise those officers shall soon be eating Gubmint Cheese.