confessing to exercising a right.......yep. that's gonna go over well with a judge.
attempting to exercise a right by taping the police.........i'd like to hear the explanation of the police on that one.

judge: officers, why did you order the surrender of a video recording device?
officers: your honor, we had a right not to be videotaped.
judge: no you didn't. You are civil servants who have no expectation of privacy in a public setting while performing your authorized duties.

my guess is that if this guy has ANY witnesses, the city will settle any lawsuit before it gets in front of a judge just to avoid any embarrasment.

Strange, If you think a local prosecutor in the U.S. would take up this case to court then you missed the ride on the Durham (NC) Railroad.
Most prosecutors here are gun shy now (pun intended) over getting involved in some police fiasco they can get run over with.
This is likely: IF the cops took this to the prosecutor, the first thing he is going to do is want to talk to and read statements from the state troopers. That would be a problem because their supervisor is going to tell them to steer clear of this and not get drawn into this and thus that department. The prosecutor is going to go back to these guys and say apologize and make this go away, now!

You did understand it was in America and not Britain? Think about it the next time yo go to vote for your local prosecutor. (Or does the Crown doesn't extend you that privilege?)

I was wondering how long it would take before Mike Nifong's name came up ;)

So StrangeFamous, should the guy in the following story also have just said 'yes sir', and done what the nice officers told him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/ny...bout.html?_r=2

or were disorderly conduct charges necessary to ensure that the guy stops backtalking officers enforcing laws that don't exist?

we could fill this thread up with about 1,000 different stories every day. It happens every day in every city.

I'm not saying that the police are all bad, I mean let's face it they have a shitty job, but, that doesn't give them the right to bully and trample on the rights of others.

this is another case that will never even make it to the court room. DA's are ruthless but in most cases, I would say they most certainly aren't stupid.

If he'd just said "sorry about that" and deleted the picture... he wouldnt have any hassle at all.

Why on earth wouldnt any sane person follow that course of action?

have you read any of the other posts? I thought we explained why a person wouldn't do that.

A police officer is not the law..yet they act like they are. Anything they do or say is supposed to be taken as fact and as law and it's not even close in many instances. That's why a normal person wouldn't just bow down to anything they were told by a uniform.

No, you not explained anything covinvingly to me whatsoever.

You talk about what you feel is moral.

I speak of facts. The guy who says "sorry about that" and delete's the picture loses - what? a digital picture, and he's on his way and has no bother.

The guy who starts making a fuss and demanding his rights be recognised gets a trip to the station, a whole lot of hassle and misery, and if he does complain and gets a compensation claim through - his card will be marked.

Which is the best option? To defend a right and suffer for it, or to turn the other cheek, and be at your girls house getting head and drinking a brew while Mr Self Righteous is in a cell & getting his fingers inked?

__

If youre gonna fight The Man, you ought to pick something worth fighting for, rather than the write to photograph a train station, or having to button your lip and let the police give the gun back in his own sweet time just so he can prove to himself he has the power, do you really not agree?

ok. I'm not quite understanding why you have no concept of rights and liberties. Is this the norm for the UK?

It's a Brit thing.. they were never too good at that fighting stuff.. ;)

SF: Hassle or not, rights don't exist for nothing. Rights are put in place to make sure that everyone has a life to live. If those rights are abused, then your quality of life is worsened. That's why it is important to make sure that people who try to abuse those rights are made aware of their actions. To simply cower and walk away for the sake of hassle, has never in any action, served a man well. What's the point of living if you can't live with some pride? What's the point in "making it worth fighting for" if you aren't allowed to have all of your rights? To avoid hassle? That's just plain weak.

You keep feeding that machine SF.. someday you might understand..

you call it weakness, I would say excessive pride is weakness.

If something is worth fighting for, a sensible man fights.

If its for the sake of asking nicely for your gun back rather than whipping out a video camara and asking them coppers why they are violating your rights on tape, or wiping your picture and saying sorry -a sensible man turns the other cheek. Whether the cop has the right to tell you take a picture or not doesnt matter. An adult simply follows the course of least resistance and most favourable result; and adolescent kind of attitude is the one which cant except standing down when you feel youre in the right, even though doing it hurts you.

And if I want a pictue of the train station, I simply take one when the police arent around, not under his nose to wind the copper up.

Back to the original post - I wonder if this gun fanatic is glad of the way he behaved now that he is facing two cases. Bet he wished he smiled at the copper and just asked nicely if he could have his piece back or when he could collect it. Then he woulnt be facing a case would he? Simply saying a few words and not being ruled by his pride and he would have an easy life rather than a hard one.

Its nothint to do with being a coward. People who commit the most crimes dont tend to go out of their way to antagonise police, same as any sensible man.

um, not even no, but hell no. I cannot agree with this mindset at all. My rights are mine. You will not infringe upon them, for they are mine. Just as I will not infringe upon yours, because they are yours. You say it's sensible to let others with badges order you around as you decide whether it's 'worth it' to stand up for yourself, but I beg to differ. I see it as letting anyone with any sort of power rule over you. I simply cannot understand that mindset.

I'm guessing that once he's awarded money in the tens of thousands, plus his legal fees being paid for, he'll be quite happy.

Or once he gets a 50 hours community service order, a years probation, or even worse a month's worth of grey days... perhaps not so much.

One guys word against two police... and a guy who is gonna be seen as a "gun nut" by the court and the CPS (or whatever the equivalent of Prosecution Service is in the US)

Maybe if more people would stand up and "demand" their rights we wouldn't have a system that erodes our rights. I do wonder when enough will be enough with regard to the whole thing.

I am not a gun owner. However, I have no problem with people owning guns and most of you would call me a bleeding-heart liberal. Most bleeding-heart liberals wouldn't agree.

This dude in the OP had a choice. In my opinion, he chose wisely. We need more people to be vocal about our rights in the US. Would I do the same? I don't know. I haven't been in that situation. I do own a video camera though and I wouldn't think twice about using it to record a cop if I had it on me at the right time.

Yes, guns are designed for one purpose ... to kill. That doesn't mean everyone who owns guns uses them for their potential. Heck, I have a good friend who has a shot-glass collection and SHE DOESN'T DRINK.

I, too, question the judgment of someone working on a car while wearing a gun ... but dk is right: It's moot. Doesn't matter what I think or even what the COPS think. The law is very clear in this scenario.

and all of that is possible. The cops could certainly embellish their stories. But I guess we should just let it go and let the cops get worse.

again, all of that could indeed happen. but i can tell you that it would only happen to me once. the next time would get seriously violent if the police decided they could ramrod over my rights with impunity.

Beter than the US, at least the Brits don't show up to the fight late then try to take all the credit.;) That was a joke, before someone gets their knickers in a twist.

I see your point SF, it's the same here in Canada, I see no need to carry a gun and get a kick out of yanks that feel the need to. To me a guy carrying a gun while fixing his car is just well almost laughable. I have nothing against guns, I've shot them plenty of times, I enjoy shooting them, I just don't get the need to carry a gun while I'm planting a tree or fixing my car.

QFT


And really...even if two cops *say* something and even *embelish* what happened, they still have to hand over the patrol car's tape. Even without audio, they cannot say that they had any right in asking the man to put the video camera down. Again, it's a moot point because the man would be out of the jail as soon as a magistrate saw it, or as soon as the DA tried to take it to indictment panel.

To sit and say that's it unreasonable to stand up for your rights.. *any* right is laughable.

depends what rights you want to fight for.

The right to take pictures of train stations and carry around foriegn shooters?

Or the right to universal access to health care, to not be the victim of racist behaviour, the right to work for a living, the right to be able to feed your family?

Like I said, in my view part of being a grown up is knowing what battles are worth fighting.

Of all that you mentioned, I see only ONE that is guaranteed by our constitution. One other has been made solid through our supreme court decisions. The others not only are not mentioned in the constitution but have been explicitly denied via our court systems. Now, to not be the victim of racist behavior.,.....we added that in the 14th amendment.

so your viewpoint and position is really non-sensical and is almost totally opposite of what rights we really have in this country.

If you have such violent thoughts, maybe gun ownership isnt the best option for you?

After all, putting away a police officer means a lifetime of grey days, or worse if they have a hangman in your state.

Thats pretty serious stuff. For your own sake you have to another when to roll over or keep your head down.

therein lies your problematic thinking. Rights are only good if they can be preserved. If your government agents aren't going to do that, even though that is their assigned primary duty, then it's up to you. If you're forced in to preserving them yourself, those who attempt to deny them need to be met with appropriate force. If that means having to use deadly force against the bully down the street or the thug with the badge, so be it. Let it me known also, that here in the US, a police officer who is denying rights under color of law or is operating outside of their assigned duties and policies are not protected by the law anymore, are no different than the average criminal on the street.

The only value of a right is the thing it entitles you to - nothing more.

The right to take a photograph of a station is worth no more than the photo of a station.

Your problem is you seem to ascribe some kind of mystical other worth to the thing.

If we get back to the original post - this guy could have saved every bit of trouble he is in simply by being meek and keeping his head down. But this fantastic believe that his right to have a gun has some other mystic worth beyond the use he might of made of the gun at that time (which was none, since he hardly needs to protect himself when two police are right there) caused him to act in an offensive and aggressive way and catch a case because of it.

.. at least you admit that a right is worth something..


It doesn't really matter how small that right is, it is still worth fighting for. Now that doesn't mean you should shoot someone up because that's pretty much an infringement of that persons rights but anyway..

If people quit standing up for even small rights, then eventually the machine will have complete control and there will be no rights for anyone. Rights are rights and they are designated that way for a reason. They should be enforced the correct way.

A police officer is a public servant....they seem to forget that.

Anyway, all this fucking hassle talk.. really.. was it any less hassle for the cop to just walk away? was it any less hassle for the cop to not put the man in handcuffs? was it any less hassle for them to ignore the man completely because they've already ruled a suicide?? Was it any less hassle for the cop to just let the man keep his picture?

So this hassle bit is carried on by the police. They caused the struggle and the hassle, which is against the right of a fellow being, and hence the person should stand up for themselves and in court and make sure that a right is upheld. Big fucking deal if you catch a case for it. A small right is still a right.

Strange Famous: in the United States we have a ton of little rights that all add up to one big one: FREEDOM. Start taking away all of those little rights (such as the right to take a picture in a train station or of a train station) then eventually the erosion undermines the entire concept.

Despite what the media and the police force would have you believe, cops (in the U.S.) are not the law. They don't know the law. That is not what they are there for. Judges and courts represent the law (more so the latter). Cops are there to keep civil peace. Somewhere along the way too much "power" has been given ... cops call it discretion.

EDIT: I may elucidate further on this. I'm at work and keep getting interrupted again. Curses!

we're going round and round in circles mate.

Freedom to take pictures or freedom from the oppression of the master class?

A man floating on a raft in the middle of the ocean is the most free thing there is, completely unfettered and not subject to a single prohibition. Thing is, it isnt much of a life is it?

apples and oranges mate.

Freedom is not singular. It is comprised of many small things. What kind of life is it if you are not able to enjoy the rights that the courts have given you?

If a cop told you that you couldn't wear your norwich city jersey just because he didn't like them.. then it's a similar situation. The cop just wants to spout of something that isn't true.. but would you take it off meekly or would you point out that there is no such law? Most would tell him to piss off.. while you seem to be of the persuasion that since a cop said it that it is the law..

to repeat vanblah, cops are not the law, they are not above the law, they are as I said before *public* servants.. yet they always seem to forget these facts because most people do as you and meekly comply with whatever a badge tells them to do..right or wrong. This type of thinking only leads to more abuse of the system.

False, you do not have the right to determine what your rights are or are not. It is not your place or the place of any individual.

You may have a thing called a constitution, and the common law, but the fact is that the rights affording to the people of any land are decided by the state and enforced by the state. The state decides what the constitution is and may amend it at any time. They also decide entirely how it should be interpreted and applied.

The police are the armed forces and the agents of the state, it is for the state to determine what your rights are and how the rights they offer you are to be interpretated in every facet and every moment of your life and existence. It is even for the state to decide the rules which govern what may be done with our bodies when we die.

Whatever room there is in the margins is merely a matter of the present and temporary weakness of the state. Of course, in this margin exists all crime and most human misery. True happiness will come when each individual is ruled completely by a compassionate state. Although Huxley couldnt quite make his mind up about it you might call that a brave new world.

As an aside, the disarmement of the people will be a necessary and obvious step taken in this process.
-----Added 20/2/2009 at 04 : 56 : 41-----
And of course that has happened and happens all the time - certainly round here. Most pubs dont allow people in with soccer jerseys and definitely not on Friday and Saturday nights. Ive been told I cant walk down a certain street wearing a Norwich shirt and instead herded along with the Away Fans many times.

At least once a week you hear about someone being forced to take off a tee shirt with Arabic writing on an air plane.

so are you saying that they aren't infringing upon a person's right to wear a shirt? There's a big difference between pubs saying you can't wear a football jersey and a cop telling you you can't wear it when you're on your step or just walking down the street.

The police are servants of the people and to the state. They do not have any bearing on what rights we have. They are supposed to ensure public safety and civil order. Taking away a right is not giving due civil order. If, the law, or the state in your example sets a boundary and declares that something is a right, then why would anyone not use that right just because a servant of the state instructed something differently? If the state hands down that it is lawful for a person to carry a 'metal' in their yard, properly holstered and secured, then why would someone not take advantage of their right because two cops did not want to uphold this right to an individual?

Just because an individual is an agent of the state does not mean they have full and just jurisdiction to waive the rights of the people.

and since nothing he did was against any laws at all, he apparently needed protection FROM those very police who didn't seem to know what the laws were.
-----Added 20/2/2009 at 05 : 50 : 47-----
You have obviously forgotten the reason we broke away from your rule and made our own. My rights are natural, mine because i'm alive. They are not granted by the state nor determined by the state what they are. That may be how you and yours like to view them, but fuck the government agent who tries to tell me I don't have a right to free speech or the right to carry a gun on my own property.

Broke away from my rule?

The war of independance was between German mercenaries and english settlers mostly and I think it happened too long ago for me to take it personally

Anyway, the rule of the state will become stronger and stronger in every nation: it has nothing to do with European colonialism.

If the government decides you do not have the right to carry a gun on your property then you do not. An amendment will be made to the constitution will be abolished at a stroke. If you carry a gun you become an outlaw. Thats simply the way it works. The right to carry guns is not some come of inalienable condition of humanity, it is merely the legal state of your country and is entirely changeable. You do not own any property other than that which is given to you by the state. If the state wants to build a highway through your house they will knock it down and give you compensation and whether you like it or not wont make a difference. Even whether you shoot at the people who evict you or not wont make a difference.
-----Added 20/2/2009 at 06 : 09 : 06-----
And the police have the right to subdue someone they feel is a threat. They were probably shaken up by the first death - even if they suspect a suicide they arent really sure of something, and the guy has a tool and and acting very aggressive and provoking them... in the specfic case that started this its no wonder they handcuffed the guy and then took him down the station afterwards

thus the viewpoint of the police state advocate. I'd rather kill them all first. I will not have my rights denied. end of story.

so, working on a car is aggressive? huh.. I'll make sure to inform the police that there is aggressive actions going on down at the garage.

:rolleyes:

I'm pretty much done with this thread.. keep feeding that machine SF.. keep feeding it..I'm sure that you'll just hang your head meekly and take whatever fate the state decides to give you..because after all you will just do what they say..

The way the guy responded was aggressive and provocative and you know it. What do you call demanding to know the police didnt respect his rights and filming their response, rather than just asking when he could collect his piece?

I would assume that at your local garage all the mechanics arent carrying metals.

do you have reading comprehension problems? The victim didn't get demanding and aggressive until AFTER they uncuffed him the first time. I'd be totally pissed if I got roughed up and taken down by cops for simply doing something I had every damned right to do.

here in TX? probably half, although they have to be concealed.

If you can't read then I'm going to keep responding..

plus.. all garages have mechanics that carry metals.. they're called tools :p

Strange,

Are you playing the devil's advocate here or just the devil of it? It sounds as if you're just pulling text from the Joe Goebbels. Are you ready for sharia law or just any tyranny that comes along?
It's hard to believe you aren't acting. Are you?

I understand the point you're making, but I believe it's a fairly cynical view towards the idea of freedom. The basis of our system is that the government only has the power that we allow it to have. We the people empower the government.

Now, the seeming paradox comes when the government as an entity seeks to grab more power than the people allow and then in turn remove the rights of the people. The paradox is that this wouldn't happen if the people did not allow it and by their inaction, we allow the government to do what it does.

But make no mistake that the instant we the people decided to no longer accept the actions of our government, we'd stop it.

The worst part of all that is that this is not just an American notion. Every society on earth could easily operate the same way if only the people could believe that they have the power to decide who governs them.

Our biggest problem is laziness and apathy and selective defense of rights. We only defend the rights of those with whom we agree.

It is a side point to the main topic - which is about the police were unreasonable or the armed car mechanic was - but in general I believe that society will progress to a more collective form, and individual freedoms are generally damaging to that and to individuals themselves. Absolute freedom from control is the law of the jungle, and any protection you give one person restricts the freedom of another. If I should be free from the threat of violence, then you must the lose the freedom to beat me up (for example)

If you do look at the analogy of Brave New World - the people there were reduced to the state of children, but werent they happier? With all the sex and drugs and games and feelies, no pain of love no fear of death no God to judge - for all the things they lost they did not remember and were replaced by sensual delight. By what standard should it be judged if that is a better way to live or not than floating on the raft in the middle of the ocean?

---------- Post added at 10:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------


You are getting confused here. You use the term "victim". I am not talking about the victim here, I am talking about the accused. He wasnt roughed up, he was secured because a man nearby was shot dead and he openly had a firearm. This is completely reasonable. Whether or not it is a suicie and whatever the police suspected, you cannot really expect that they were 100% sure of what had happened at that point, therefore they had reasonable course to at very least disarm and secure the accused while the situation was assessed.

Once released he behaved in an aggressive manner to the police, and they had no choice but to arrest him.

It is interesting that all of the people talking about the right to carry guns and so on do not seem to take any thought to lament the fate of the real victim here - the man who;s life is ended by firearm wound. Should a man considering suicide be allowed to own a gun? Sure - theyre are other ways to end it, but when someone is in deep trouble sitting there with a gun in their lap cant exactly help can it. He was failed by the US constitution and law, he was not protected, and this lapse in duty of care cost him his life.

I've been following this for several days and while I'm still not sure what the "right response" would be I think this would be mine

put my hands on the hood and spread my legs

then I'd call a good lawyer and by good I mean ACLU so not really top notch but certainly willing to represent me and having a legion of interns willing to find the minutia about my case

-threatening me with grievous bodily harm (pacemaker)
-trespassing
-theft
-intimidating a witness
-destruction of evidence in a capital case
-wearing painfully ugly clothes(jk)

somethings concerning the gun

the police could want to take it back to the station and check the serial numbers as well as run ballistics on it

as far as their treatment of "me" is concerned once they took the cuffs off it is absolutely unacceptable for them to behave that way

I'm wondering if the "me" in the story has had any prior run ins with any of the LEOs
I know that some of the police in my neighborhood know me simply because my neighbor is constantly calling them/getting them called on her because she/her boyfriend is beating her/shes beating him coupled with atrocious taste in LOUD music

so I question whether the police have heard complaints about "me" from the suicide
"victim", why are they called that, victim, if its a crime and you call the criminal the perpetrator

the fact that this person had a gun is negligible when you take into account the fact that they took the cuffs off if they believed there was the possibility of any further threat they should have left them on,

as far as the whole authority is the law question and guns pro/anti
the reason why people "need" access to firearms is to protect themselves including from their own government, South America (as a whole) is one small example of what we don't want to have happen here

What the problem in general with the police is that the people who should know just meekly do what they're told and the people who don't have a clue are belligerent to the point of foolishness

if we in America want to have the kind of "coppers" the British have then the American populace as a whole needs to get informed of WHAT rights they have specifically, enough with the BS I have Freedom, learn that yes they can search your backpack no they can't search your backpack w/o a warrant if you have a 50 cent lock on the zippers etc

I don't think the ACLU is big on defending gun owners, even if there is a separate civil liberty violation.