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

[tube_ee]

Taking drugs is, of itself, essentially victimless. The only person being harmed is the user, and, since it's his own decision, he's not a victim. Not taking care of your family isn't illegal, there are plenty of folks who aren't addicts who are crappy parents / workers / citizens. We don't arrest them. And there are plenty of functioning addicts who manage to hold down jobs, not rob or assault innocents, and pretty much do OK, other than being addicts. They get arrested.

Robbing someone is, and should be a crime, whether the motivation is simple greed, or addiction. Adding drug use as an additional offence serves no good purpose that I can see.

The "War on Drugs" hasn't worked, and never will work, because it can't work. The 18th Ammendment showed that pretty clearly. The only people who benefit are drug dealers, law enforcement, and companies that build prisons. If you leagized all drugs tommorow, you wouldn't see a big jump in the number of users, since there simply isn't a large number of folks out there who aren't doing drugs simply because it's illegal. If they've got other reasons, and they do, those will still apply, and they won't magically become addicts. As a deterrent, prohibition simply hasn't worked. For that matter, niether has "education." Programs like DARE have produced no measurable change in drug use rates for those who have taken them. In other words, they don't work.

--Shannon

 

[Justin]

Clarify something for me.... what exactly is a victimless crime?

A crime in which there is no victim.

Like, say, having an unregistered machinegun that Grandpa brought back from WWII stashed in the attic.

Or smoking a joint in your own home.

Or buying a bottle of unpasteurized milk from an Amish farmer.

Or importing a bottle of Absinthe from another country.

Or broadcasting your political beliefs 90 days before an election.

Or getting together with a bunch of people and playing a round of poker.

Or, as a consenting adult, engaging in kinky sex with other consenting adult(s) in a state where such acts are outlawed.

Or gambling online.

Or carrying a handgun without a permit.

I could continue, but you probably get the point.

(Misguided accusations that I'm a pot-smoking, Absinthe-swilling, concealed machinegun-toting, kinky-sex-having, gambling fiend who pours unpasteurized milk on his Cheerios in 5...4...3..)

 

[Phenom]

I don't believe there's such a thing as a "victimless" crime. If you commit a crime where no one has been violated, then you are the victim if you get busted.

 

[Biker]

Well said, Justin. Well said...

Biker

 

[carebear]

Justin,

So you are saying that if your actions directly affect no one but yourself or others of legal consenting age who voluntarily participate there's no infringement on the rights or health of others and thus no actual criminal harm is done?

That's crazy talk. Why, if we all thought that way the many leather-bound law books would no longer have such a satisfying volume and heft.

 

[PCGS65]

by Phenom, I don't believe there's such a thing as a "victimless" crime. If you commit a crime where no one has been violated, then you are the victim if you get busted.

And if you don't get busted it's a victimless crime.

 

[Silver Bullet]

(Misguided accusations that I'm a pot-smoking, Absinthe-swilling, concealed machinegun-toting, kinky-sex-having, gambling fiend in 5...4...3..)

I'm pretty sure nobody here has accused you of Absinthe-swilling.

 

[Justin]

That's crazy talk.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

I'm pretty sure nobody here has accused you of Absinthe-swilling.

Well, not yet at least.

 

[Echo_Four]

I haven't read all the replies yet, just those on the first page. I had to stop to answer because I could feel my blood pressure rising by the second.

In this case, everyone is assuming that the suspect in question is a good guy. I'd bet my last dollar that is not the case. The police have to watch the BGs 24/7, not just when they're at work. They were not worried about a Rodney King situation. They were worried that the guy was taking pictures so they could later identify the officers present, and take action against them. I hope our country hasn't lost its mind to the point that we believe it is a good thing to put our law enforcement officers at risk, just so you don't scream it is a police state. If you're that worried about the police, you're doing something wrong. Live by the rules, and it will never be an issue for you.

And why is it that both times I have come here to post I find negative things I have to post about? There are so many great threads on this site, but a few really screwed up ones as well.

 

[carebear]

So should the police wear balaclavas 24/7, or should cameras be a controlled purchase item and sketch artists have to register their hands as deadly weapons?

Uniformed police are public figures, they have no more right to not be photographed than bystanders at an accident scene do.

"Officer safety" does not trump the rights of non-LEOs to do whatever the heck they want to that does not criminally intrude on the rights of others. Photography of persons in public, especially persons who are accountable to the public which hired them, does not come anywhere close to criminal intrusion.

 

[PCGS65]

by Echo_Four, If you're that worried about the police, you're doing something wrong. Live by the rules, and it will never be an issue for you.

Tell that to the people convicted,jailed,put on death row then cleared of the crime by DNA testing?

 

[tube_ee]

Ah, yes, the ever-popular "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" defense of authoritarianism.

When "they" get to define who is or is not "doing anything wrong," I submit you've got more than enough to fear. Or. better, distrust. I don't trust those with power. Yes, you need them in the real world, but they should be monitored more closely the more power they have. The police are the agents of state power that the average citizen is most likely to come into contact with. For that reason alone, they should be watched, and any attempt by them to resist such monitoring raises a red flag.

If you wouldn't give some unit of power to someone you don't like, don't give to someone you do. The wielders can change, but the power remains.

--Shannon

 

[Phenom]

Echo_Four,

Are you aware that everything in this country has atleast one law attached to it. Break wind around an Ego-Cop and you'll end up getting arrested for Disturbing the Peace. Before you go to court you'll end up with a felony assault charge for offending the Ego-Cop's sense of smell.

 

[fastbolt]

I've had any number of folks take my picture (or video) while I've been involved in performing my job. Media and ordinary folks. Lost track of how often it's happened ... and those were just the times I knew it was happening.

Sometimes it's been done in what I guess might be called an 'aggressive' manner, by which I mean that the person taking the pictures obviously wants to do it in an 'I'm-in-your-face-and-I-see-what-you're-doing' manner. Reminded me of the Paparazzi. Just don't actually interfere, delay or obstruct when it comes to necessary enforcement activities. Don't cause the situation to become any more dangerous than it may already have become ... for any of us. Other times I've barely noticed it, since it was being done in what seemed to be a deliberately low-profile manner, as if they didn't want me to realize what was happening.

Dunno. Didn't matter to me. I'm in public view for much of my work day, and if you can see me, you can certainly take my picture as far as I'm concerned. I would feel otherwise, for officer-safety reasons, if I were involved in undercover activities, though ... obviously.

Of course, whatever pictures or video are being taken by the public may well have importance at some later time from an evidentiary perspective ... for the benefit of The People, or even my benefit.

If the situation permits, I've even handed out my business cards so the picture taker(s) can attach a name to the subject of their efforts. It's not like I'm trying to hide. Of course, sometimes when I've approached picture takers and identified myself, asked questions to determine if they were useful witnesses and then offered them my business card, they've occasionally seemed as if they were genuinely perplexed or something. Some folks have almost acted as if they thought I'd duck, hide my face and try to run away. Like I would be afraid to be seen, or have my picture taken.

Naturally, when I was a young cop I was exposed to other cops who had some unspecified aversion to having their pictures taken. I eventually decided that it didn't matter to me, since I wasn't being employed to commit crimes or perform acts which I felt required anonymity. Hey, I was wearing a uniform ... with a badge number and name tag ... for reason, you know?

Just my personal thoughts.

What I want to know is where are all the picture takers whenever I've done something wonderful and heroic??

 

[joab]

"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."

I bet she would also describe him as a good boy that wouldn't do nothin wrong

Maybe the kid was arrested for taking pictures, maybe he was arrested for taking pictures and impeding the operation, at this point who really knows.

Oh, that right you do. A neighbor told you so and the police did not deem it necessary to inform you otherwise.
How could anyone argue with those "facts"

Here's a question
Why did the police not confiscate the camera
The article did not mention that it was. Since around here the absence of evidence is considered positive evidence, why would they let him keep the evidence?

 

[Deanimator]

why would they let him keep the evidence?

Because somebody realized that taking the camera would be a crime or evidence of a crime in itself?

Sometimes it takes somebody a while to admit to himself that he's speeding up a dead end, and that his story would sound creepy coming from an Art Bell caller.

Remember the Abner Louima case, when Officer Volpe swore the whole thing was just consensual sex... until he suddenly dropped that claim and pled guilty?

 

[joab]

Grasp them straws boys

Like I have said before
The media can only be trusted with stories of rogue cops and vicious Pits, the voracity of all other stories must be questioned

 

[Stiletto Null]

Nobody arrested me. But I was also wearing black and didn't use the flash.

 

[makarova]

AWRIGHT, YOU THERE, STILLETTO?

Assume the postition, feet back and spread em, make and model of that camera? I want one just like it.

 

[Stiletto Null]

Canon A75. See also: Canon A5xx and A6xx series cameras, the A75's old enough that it (and its immediate successors, the A8x/9x series) isn't even made anymore.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Apparently none of you gentle people were in Philadelphia when Frank Rizzo was police commissioner, and later mayor.

Talk about "police state"!

 

[American By Blood]

Isn't that the same PD that arrested tourists for asking directions?

Edit--apparently that was Baltimore. One east coast stink hole is very much like the other.

Yes, that was Baltimore. Our fair city is blessed with the finest cops in America. While other major East Coast cities just hand out affirmative action clerical jobs to folks who would otherwise be welfare mothers, we choose to give these same degenerates badges and authoritah.

Philly is a pretty special place as well. I had a run-in with Philadelphia's finest some years ago. Ended up charged with three felonies and six misdemeanors. Every last allegation was false. The entire incident was fabricated. It's not that they had a differing account from mine, there simply was no altercation. They were illegally sweeping the streets of pesky demonstrators and had to retroactively justify their 420 arrests.

I took the thing all the way to trial out of my bullheaded refusal to cop to even one single misdemeanor that I did not commit. My stubborness was rewarded, however, when I got to witness three sworn LEOs perjure themselves sloppily and thereby force the judge to dismiss all charges. Their story was so shoddily thrown together that they placed the alleged melee at an intersection that doesn't even exist.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

There's a reason

Some "cops" don't like picturephones......

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Stiletto, a care package of flashbangs and kevlar-clad window jumper-throughers are on your way! lol jk
fastbolt said:

Sometimes it's been done in what I guess might be called an 'aggressive' manner, by which I mean that the person taking the pictures obviously wants to do it in an 'I'm-in-your-face-and-I-see-what-you're-doing' manner. Reminded me of the Paparazzi. Just don't actually interfere, delay or obstruct when it comes to necessary enforcement activities. Don't cause the situation to become any more dangerous than it may already have become ... for any of us. Other times I've barely noticed it, since it was being done in what seemed to be a deliberately low-profile manner, as if they didn't want me to realize what was happening.

I see what you are saying and if I was in your shoes I'd feel the same way. However, have you ever gone out AFTER the fact and arrested someone at their home for violation of a law that doesn't exist? That's the fishy part. Obviously they just wanted to "teach him a lesson" by scaring him. Shoulda just sprayed him or tased him like SOP. LOL just kidding

 

[STAGE 2]

I don't see anything wrong with the pic other than a little bit more hair and makeup and maybe some better background lighting.

Care to give us some background carpetbagger