open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked More time in jail for recording police than raping someone? What?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.09.04 01:31:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer




Rule of Law is vacated






Not to get off topic here, but the "Rule of Law" specifically refers to the government having to obey it's own laws. I.E. the king/queen of a monarchy can't make it illegal to smoke weed, and then go and do it themselves.

It has nothing to do with governments making stupid or unfair laws, so long as those laws are obeyed by those who govern.

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2011.09.04 01:41:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer




Rule of Law is vacated





Not to get off topic here, but the "Rule of Law" specifically refers to the government having to obey it's own laws. I.E. the king/queen of a monarchy can't make it illegal to smoke weed, and then go and do it themselves.

It has nothing to do with governments making stupid or unfair laws, so long as those laws are obeyed by those who govern.


Rule of law is just that: law rules. Everyone. Not just the leaders, everyone.

I think you missed the point? It has nothing to do with stupid laws, it has to do with some laws being selectively enforced on some groups while other laws are not enforced at all.

It makes justice everything but. As policy it effectively undermines if not invalidates the authority of the Justice Department and makes a mockery of the entire system.

Just business as usual for the United Corporations of America.

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.09.04 02:14:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer




Rule of Law is vacated





Not to get off topic here, but the "Rule of Law" specifically refers to the government having to obey it's own laws. I.E. the king/queen of a monarchy can't make it illegal to smoke weed, and then go and do it themselves.

It has nothing to do with governments making stupid or unfair laws, so long as those laws are obeyed by those who govern.


Rule of law is just that: law rules. Everyone. Not just the leaders, everyone.

I think you missed the point? It has nothing to do with stupid laws, it has to do with some laws being selectively enforced on some groups while other laws are not enforced at all.

It makes justice everything but. As policy it effectively undermines if not invalidates the authority of the Justice Department and makes a mockery of the entire system.

Just business as usual for the United Corporations of America.


Actually, I see your point now. There is virtually no difference between a monarch believing that the law does not apply to him, and a government which simply ignores the law/looks the other way selectively.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.09.04 03:16:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 04/09/2011 03:23:52
Originally by: Blacksquirrel

He could be convicted because well he did break the law...(which is video taping or recording police is a felony)


We've articulated our points just fine and I'm not interested in beating a dead horse, but this is a pretty bold snippet.

Are you using the logic, that because he was wrongfully arrested by a cop and charged with eavesdropping in a case they haven't won and aren't likely to win to send him to jail for 75 years... that this makes it 'illegal' in your mind?

Or is there an actual law you can cite that makes it illegal to videotape or record police?

You do realize if it were illegal they would not need to try and charge him with something abstract like eavesdropping, right? They would just charge him with the actual offense of breaking that law... Though of course you might mean it's illegal somewhere else...

I'd love to know where there's a law directly against this and not some other pending court case you're assuming will result in tyranny and the end of all freedom.

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2011.09.04 03:45:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 04/09/2011 03:23:52
Originally by: Blacksquirrel

He could be convicted because well he did break the law...(which is video taping or recording police is a felony)


We've articulated our points just fine and I'm not interested in beating a dead horse, but this is a pretty bold snippet.

Are you using the logic, that because he was wrongfully arrested by a cop and charged with eavesdropping in a case they haven't won and aren't likely to win to send him to jail for 75 years... that this makes it 'illegal' in your mind?

Or is there an actual law you can cite that makes it illegal to videotape or record police?

You do realize if it were illegal they would not need to try and charge him with something abstract like eavesdropping, right? They would just charge him with the actual offense of breaking that law... Though of course you might mean it's illegal somewhere else...

I'd love to know where there's a law directly against this and not some other pending court case you're assuming will result in tyranny and the end of all freedom.


That the man can get arrested under our laws for this is what's absurd and outrageous.

The problem isn't that the arrest was illegal.
It's that the arrest was legal.

Dorian Tormak
M0N0LITH
Posted - 2011.09.04 03:53:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer on 03/09/2011 03:19:26
Originally by: Sader Rykane
Way to blow **** out of proportion.

They key phrase here is

"IF CONVICTED"

No judge will convict him of all counts; if anything he'll get some lesser sentence for like 6 months community service or something.


Back in 2005 I was on a clearly marked and legal hiking trail in upstate New York, and while standing right next to the sign that showed the park cop was wrong, his reply to my denial of wrongdoing was:

"well, then just fight it in court".

He did that on the premise that nobody is going to come all the way back up from Florida to fight a 60 dollar ticket.

Not only did I drive up, beat the ticket (because the coward pig knew I had a picture of him right next to the sign while he was having a temper tantrum because the 12 NYC firefighters I was with didn't avert their eyes and grovel before his badge), I went after his job and made sure a nice big fat stain hit his record.

Getting charged with a crime means a lot of time lost and hassle. If you are poor, you will get a public defender who gets his paycheck from the same source as the judge and the cops - and that defense will want to plea you out. The cops will heap on every little charge they can think of too. If you bounce too hard when they pin you they call that "resisting arrest".

Funny though that in all cases where cops are caught beating people up for no reason, it was on video, and that was the ONLY defense the person had. How many people are languishing in prison because someone did not have a camera?

It's criminal at this point. We have thug cops. Period. And if you shoot them, they get a state funeral complete with all the pomp and circumstance laced with disgusting cop worship.

Catch them on camera, and put it on the internet, and the thug cop will wish you shot at him instead. They are no longer victims when you catch them in the act of being thugs.

Victimism plays a key role in America today. We have an entire generation raised on the notion that if you are the victim, you can do anything you want, even break the law. So the concept of "cops as victims" is important. Catch them having tantrums and acting like bullies and this notion is gone.

Keep in mind that if you are poor and still manage to hire a lawyer and get a good defense, you are bankrupt anyway. But if you are rich, they "system" will get a boatload of money out of you . This is why the police invented this DUI thing. If you so much as admit to having ANY alcohol that day, even if one glass of wine with dinner that was hours ago, they can stick you with DUI and will. They do this because from a poor person they are still going to get around 1000 dollars. From people who have money, up to 30000, for the same crime.

They do this because the fat cop is going to have health problems by the time he retires, and his fat wife already has diabetes and bad knees. His fat kids, one autistic because like a good little citizen the cop had his kids vaccinated, already have health problems. The majority of police and government jobs come with full health coverage. So a cop can make from 40 to 80 thousand a year depending on where he works, but suck up hundreds of thousands more in health care cost, benefits, and then pension and retirement where they keep going on raking in a lot of money long after they stop working. It's called "P&R" and few cops will disobey unlawful orders because it will risk their P&R.

So the state is going to milk every last dollar it can out of the milk cows (that's us). Honest people cannot work in a job like that. I know a lot of good people, many of them were once cops.


Definately this.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.09.04 04:08:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 04/09/2011 04:12:53

Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
That the man can get arrested under our laws for this is what's absurd and outrageous.

The problem isn't that the arrest was illegal.
It's that the arrest was legal.


1) This has nothing to do with what you quoted. Please edit out my comment asking about a specific statement made by someone else.

2) We haven't established that he can be arrested for it or not yet. It's entirely possible the police officer did something he's NOT allowed to do, not the defendant who recorded him. That's the point of the system. If he's not convicted you move on to things like wrongful arrest and suing for damages.

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2011.09.04 04:17:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 04/09/2011 04:10:50
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 04/09/2011 04:09:50
Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
That the man can get arrested under our laws for this is what's absurd and outrageous.

The problem isn't that the arrest was illegal.
It's that the arrest was legal.


1) This has nothing to do with what you quoted. Please edit out my comment asking about a specific statement made by someone else.

2) We haven't established that he can be arrested for it or not yet. That's the point of the system. If he's not convicted you move on to things like wrongful arrest and suing for damages. It's entirely possible the police officer did something he's not allowed to do, not the defendant who recorded him.


I'm just going to go ahead and ask...

Are you trolling or does your brain actually run this way?

If I was you, even if I was serious I'd say I was trolling, just to save face.

"Quote:Nothing in EVE will ever require real life money, as long as players are selling PLEX for ISK. Not even the monocle!
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/currencyCycle.jpg "


wow omg I just saw your sig. Another one of these 'either the worst troll ever or the dumbest man on earth'

You and Forum Worrier should hook up, get some drinks, get in a ball game.

Azelor Delaria
Caldari
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming
Posted - 2011.09.04 04:57:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 02/09/2011 06:14:36
Another ******ed anti-police thread based on nothing.

WATCH YOUR OWN GOD DAMNED VIDEO

This guy is not in jail, and the prosecution has no case. The guy is going to end up winning a law suit. No system is perfect because no system is made up of perfect people. The cops did something stupid. Their friends are trying to cover. It's not going to fly. When he's in jail THEN you can make a thread throwing around ideas like constitutional or freedom of the press. Until then this is no different from any other court case.

I say the person who made this thread is a moron.
He hasn't had his say back yet or a trial so I must be correct.
Thats how this works right?


You would be surprised. Recently, Justice Kagan has said that when the Obamacare issue reaches the Supreme Court, she will not recuse herself despite having overseen much of it's defense in the lower courts. There is a clear conflict-of-interest, and sadly no one can make her recuse herself. Of course, that doesn't sotp her from saying Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself because of his wife being part of the Heritage Foundation or something like that.

Second, a Massachusetts District Court recently ruled that the police can not be granted immunity from press or videotaping. However, that only applies in Massachusetts. Other states can do as they please.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.09.04 09:28:00 - [40]
 

The next time you hear a policeman complaining about being filmed/recorded, just advise that that since they're innocent, they won't have anything to hide.


Then sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.09.04 15:32:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 04/09/2011 03:23:52
Originally by: Blacksquirrel

He could be convicted because well he did break the law...(which is video taping or recording police is a felony)


We've articulated our points just fine and I'm not interested in beating a dead horse, but this is a pretty bold snippet.

Are you using the logic, that because he was wrongfully arrested by a cop and charged with eavesdropping in a case they haven't won and aren't likely to win to send him to jail for 75 years... that this makes it 'illegal' in your mind?

Or is there an actual law you can cite that makes it illegal to videotape or record police?

You do realize if it were illegal they would not need to try and charge him with something abstract like eavesdropping, right? They would just charge him with the actual offense of breaking that law... Though of course you might mean it's illegal somewhere else...

I'd love to know where there's a law directly against this and not some other pending court case you're assuming will result in tyranny and the end of all freedom.


You do know the eavesdropping law now includes videotaping/recording police without their consent...right? They haven't thought up some abstract legal plot because they couldn't get him for something else. (He hasnt done anything else.) He was arrested for videotaping police...which is ILLEGAL. It just falls under the "eavesdropping" law which they ratified a few months ago. Like they stated in the video he has 5 counts of illegally recording police without their consent...Which btw was done in a public place.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.09.05 08:43:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 05/09/2011 09:40:56
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 05/09/2011 09:39:53


Originally by: Blacksquirrel
He was arrested for videotaping police...which is ILLEGAL. It just falls under the "eavesdropping" law which they ratified a few months ago.

B U L L S H I T


This is from your own video and article that you're too ****ing afraid of badges to properly read and interpret...

Quote:
41-year old Illinois mechanic Michael Allison faces life in jail for recording police officers after authorities hit him with eavesdropping charges based on the hoax that it is illegal to film cops, a misnomer that has been disproved by every other case against people filming police officers being thrown out of court.





You posted this article and video buddy, maybe you should have read and watched them first.

Quote:
The notion that it is illegal to film police officers is a mass hoax that is being promulgated by authorities, the media, and police officers themselves.





You have circumvented the entire point of your own post's video.

It is NOT illegal to video tape the police, and he is NOT charged with that.

He was wrongfully arrested by cops for video taping them, and they didn't do the right thing and let him go. Now it's a court case where they are trying to spin it as EAVESDROPPING which is a normal law not related to police on it's own.

The outcome of the case decides if it's legal or illegal... the outcome of the case decides if it 'falls under' eavesdropping not the police or the prosecution, only the judge and jury. Then Your own video says THE POLICE HAVE NO CASE.



If someone robs you...
does that mean robbing people is legal?
No.


If someone murders you...
does that mean murder is legal?
No.


If a cop arrests you for something that's not illegal.
does that mean wrongful arrest is legal?
No.


Stop being so thick.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.09.05 09:23:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 05/09/2011 09:24:39

Oops, double post while editing.
That's what I get for posting and working at the same time...

Jon Engel
Intaki Security and Intelligence
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2011.09.05 17:01:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
Edited by: Jada Maroo on 01/09/2011 23:32:26

The people of Illinois need to overturn this law. And should the government resist or this man actually be sent to prison, frankly I'd cheer on any Illinois citizen who applies a "Second Amendment solution" to any official involved.

They *know* what they're doing is wrong. They *know* this is unconstitional and unjust. But because of pride and fear of public shame they refuse to apologize and instead push forward to imprison an innocent man.

This is the very definition of tyranny.


As an Illinois resident, who lives down state where we resent the overbearing control of the upstate crooks who control our lives. I'll tell you straight up, we don't give a **** anymore about anything. Voter turnout for the State legislature goes down every year. Nobody even votes for Senator or their representatives anymore. City and County elections are even more of a joke.

Throughout the state from northern tip to the Kentucky border we are just tired of pretending to believe we have a say in how we are taxed, or even treated by police. 5 families from Chicago control the State Legislature, and they always will and Cook County is full of morons who flock to the ballots and blindly check off whichever one of our Governors goes to prison periodically.

I am tired, we are tired. Illinois is just a damn cesspool of corruption, crime, and totalitarian laws which most of em would be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on our rights as American citizens. But, the lobbyists and "community organizer groups" from blessed Cook county fight us everytime an Illinois Citizen attempts to take his rights back because some fast talking Democrat who just got out of prison for fraud tells them how to think.

**** it, **** this and **** people who don't live in Illinois and want to tell us what to do. There is no way for an Illinois Citizen to fight anything.

Marchocias
Posted - 2011.09.05 17:52:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Marchocias on 05/09/2011 17:52:35
This really is astonishing.

The fact that in a western democracy, anyone might even THINK its reasonable to arrest someone for recording cops is amazing.
The fact that enough people agree, that its actually possible prosecute for it, beggars belief.

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.09.06 01:58:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Blacksquirrel on 06/09/2011 01:59:51
It's still technically illegal because of the audio portion of taping someone. Essentially you and I would argue over legal interpretation of http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=094-0183 So I dont see the point of arguing who's technically right in some forum **** wagging contest. You wanna be right... ok you're right...

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

As of now if they ask you to stop (And you dont) or say you didnt tell them to begin with they can arrest you.

But you can still be arrested and go to trial... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/tiawanda-moore-acquitted-_n_936313.html

Yes she was acquitted... but she shouldnt have been arrested or gone to trial.

I dont care if I didnt originally state that in the first post... Oh well you got me for not elaborating... And if I am over reacting then the wise thing to do would have ignored the post in the first place no?

And for the hundredth time... It's BS that people are getting arrested and awaiting trial even if they can get off. People should not be arrested and have to go through months of nonsense for this.

Olleybear
Minmatar
I R' Carebear
Posted - 2011.09.06 03:42:00 - [47]
 

The reason for laws like these:

You can't control and innocent man.
You can however control a criminal.

By creating so many laws that noone has any idea how many there are, you create a nation full of criminals.

You can then control anyone in the nation that gets out of line, including someone else in power.

This is the reason laws like this exist. It is deliberate and has been happening for thousands of years.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.09.06 06:17:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer




Rule of Law is vacated





Not to get off topic here, but the "Rule of Law" specifically refers to the government having to obey it's own laws. I.E. the king/queen of a monarchy can't make it illegal to smoke weed, and then go and do it themselves.

It has nothing to do with governments making stupid or unfair laws, so long as those laws are obeyed by those who govern.


Rule of law is just that: law rules. Everyone. Not just the leaders, everyone.

I think you missed the point? It has nothing to do with stupid laws, it has to do with some laws being selectively enforced on some groups while other laws are not enforced at all.

It makes justice everything but. As policy it effectively undermines if not invalidates the authority of the Justice Department and makes a mockery of the entire system.

Just business as usual for the United Corporations of America.


Actually, I see your point now. There is virtually no difference between a monarch believing that the law does not apply to him, and a government which simply ignores the law/looks the other way selectively.



Try this angle:

The letter of a law kills.
The spirit of a law saves.

Apply this to any of your favorite legal sub-topic (land rights, self defense, drugs use, etc).



VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.09.08 02:46:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer

The letter of a law kills.
The spirit of a law saves.



Nice.
I'm going to use that.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2011.09.08 20:09:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Olleybear
The reason for laws like these:

You can't control and innocent man.
You can however control a criminal.

By creating so many laws that noone has any idea how many there are, you create a nation full of criminals.

You can then control anyone in the nation that gets out of line, including someone else in power.

This is the reason laws like this exist. It is deliberate and has been happening for thousands of years.


Those private prisons won't make any money is they got no prisoners after all.

Eolithic WithaTwist
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.09.09 05:44:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
Did not a US court just rule that filming police was in the OK?

Regardless, it just goes to show what kind of police state US has become, or is trying to be.


yes a judge did rule that it is perfectly fine to record cops. to prevent it is a blatant violation of the first amendment.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only