Man arrested for shooting photo of police activity in Philly

oftheherd said:
I don't have a big problem with enforcing some and ingoring others. Unless it is one I wanted ignored or didn't want ignored. It happens all the time. Nobody complains when the cops give them ten miles an hour over the speed limit before writing a ticket.

What is wrong here, if the victim, friendly witness and ACLU lawyer are to be believed, is that there was no law against what was being done, so no law to enforce or ignore.

But as dcsang said, often there are at least three sides to a story. Saying a man is being released because there is no supervisor on duty does sound a little suspicious though.
Click to expand...

The point I was attempting to make -- let's see if I can express it more clearly -- is that in the Executive Branch, there seems to be this attitude that they (meaning everybody from the rookie patrolman on the beat to Dubya himself) can arbitrarily enforce/ignore/expand/invent the law as they see fit.

One manifestation of this attitude is the War On Photographers<tm>.

Using the extenuation of the War On Terror, Joe Public is less likely to object to such actions. Those who assert their rights are branded as unpatriotic.

If the War On Terror shoe does not fit, as in the Philadelphia incident, an equivalent almost-as-important excuse, such as the Holy War On Drugs, can be used.
 
Who knows what the facts will show if and when this man sues the police, but I can take an educated guess about why the officers (apparently) overreacted.

If in fact they were arresting a drug dealer, there were probably one or more undercover officers on the job at the time. And the police tend to get very nervous about blowing their cover.

In NY, there's a long string of court cases about when it's appropriate to close criminal trials to the public (even though the Constitution guarantees the right to a public trial) in order to protect the identity of undercover officers. The issue almost always arose in drug cases, where undercover officers in "buy and bust" operations would have to testify.
 
That "My supervisor said..." stuff is always bs. Don't believe it when you hear it from a cop anymore than you would from a car salesman.

I hope that guy sues.
 
interesting stuff

interesting stuff

a little OT, but I just read this mini blurb yesterday and it echos some of your similar sentiments:

http://www.dailynews.com/music/ci_4093812


dmr said:
The point I was attempting to make -- let's see if I can express it more clearly -- is that in the Executive Branch, there seems to be this attitude that they (meaning everybody from the rookie patrolman on the beat to Dubya himself) can arbitrarily enforce/ignore/expand/invent the law as they see fit.

One manifestation of this attitude is the War On Photographers<tm>.

Using the extenuation of the War On Terror, Joe Public is less likely to object to such actions. Those who assert their rights are branded as unpatriotic.

If the War On Terror shoe does not fit, as in the Philadelphia incident, an equivalent almost-as-important excuse, such as the Holy War On Drugs, can be used.
Click to expand...
 
I think this whole article is a "joke/put on". Check the names... Harry Hairston, I mean c’mon gimme a break what more obvious alias could there be?

How about this quote

Cruz, a Penn State University senior, said that after about an hour police told him he was lucky because there was no supervisor on duty, so they released him.
"They said if the supervisor was there I wouldn't be a free man and that he is letting me go because he felt that I was a good person," Cruz said.

Police arrest someone and then let them go because they “feel they are a good person”? No Supervisor on duty for an hour?? … really?? Okey dokey!

This whole piece sounds like a joke or a cointelpro operation to stifle street photography.

;- )
 
Anyone who is interested in the phenomenon of how dealing with internal security can occasionally (and perhaps even unintentionally) slide into authoritarianism should study the Fujimori presidencies of the 90s-2000s in Peru.

It is a fine line case study of how once you resolve to fight your enemies on their terms, in the dark, the dark eventually exerts an equal hold on you.
 
jan normandale said:
I think this whole article is a "joke/put on". Check the names... Harry Hairston, I mean c’mon gimme a break what more obvious alias could there be?
Click to expand...

Googling Harry Hairston shows many references to an investigative reporter with that name, or at least that professional/stage name.

LOL! That brought back some long-suppressed memories of a WMCA Good Guy named Harry Harrison! 🙂
 
dmr said:
Googling Harry Hairston shows many references to an investigative reporter with that name, or at least that professional/stage name.

LOL! That brought back some long-suppressed memories of a WMCA Good Guy named Harry Harrison! 🙂
Click to expand...

I thought about googling Harry Hairston but thought I might get an answer I didn't like and which didn't fit. As you wrote in your first post, there was an executive precedent so I just manufactured an answer that I liked.. ;- )

I know it's a serious problem, sometimes I just like to momentarily shift focus on these news items.
 
The problem as I see it as there have always been a small number of police who think that the gun and badge allow them to decide what the law is, constitution and other laws be damned.

Had the police arrested the gentleman in question, the following link shows what would have happened when his case went before a competant judge.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/541.asp
 
Have you heard about Peter Lueders? He was arrested in an Amtrac train because a woman has heard him speaking the word "bomb" on his cellphone. He wanted to "shoot" the New York City Ballet in Saratoga Springs.
 
Great link, Al. Somebody in our government evidently still remembers the constitution.
In my personal experience, in my smallish hometown 15 years ago, I was arrested for "obstruction of justice" for standing 20 feet away from two policemen writing a ticket to friends of mine. I was saying nothing, doing nothing but listening to the conversation between the officers and my friends. For this I was cuffed, thrown into the car, and then released. I was told they were being "nice" in spite of the fact that I was on my own front lawn!
If that happened today, I would pusue legal action. At the time I let it slide.
 
anselwannab said:
I agree that we aren't getting the full story. Even a total @sshole cop isn't just going to grab someone standing there taking a pic with a phone. Not saying the guy deserved it, but invariably with something like this the victim isn't as pure as they seem. I have to think it takes two to tangle here, too bad he didn't have the video going, that would be definative.

The guy is going to get his Penn State education paid for, and probably rightly so.

Where's Bill Mattock when you need him?

Mark
Click to expand...
No offense but I've seen police officers in my community (Harnett County, North Carolina) do exactly that. Not someone using a phone but people using digital and film compacts multiple times. I'm a lifelong citizen and I still have the flag that my father was buried under after spending a lifetime defending this country. I'm not foolish though and don't assume "constitutional" rights that really don't exist any longer unless you can afford a good attorney.
 
Al Patterson said:
The problem as I see it as there have always been a small number of police who think that the gun and badge allow them to decide what the law is, constitution and other laws be damned.

Had the police arrested the gentleman in question, the following link shows what would have happened when his case went before a competant judge.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/541.asp
Click to expand...
No offense but I tend to disagree with this line of thinking. I think the problem is giving people a gun, a badge, and unbelievable huge amounts of authority that have little or no understanding of the law.
 
Bryce said:
For this I was cuffed, thrown into the car, and then released. I was told they were being "nice" in spite of the fact that I was on my own front lawn!
Click to expand...

In a conversation a while back on a related subject, an attorney friend of mine remarked of a saying in the law enforcement and legal community:

"You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

This meaning, that if a LEO arrests you, even for a trumped-up catch-all charge such as Disorderly Conduct, they can, legally, restrain you using the force necessary, take you downtown, book you, fingerprint you, photograph you, throw you in a holding cell with all kinds of hookers, drug users, and civil disobedients for a few hours while they do the administriva, even if the City Prosecutor (or whoever) does not pursue the charges.

"The ride" is considered to be a deterrent in itself.

He said that yes, you could file charges for false arrest and the like, but remedies would be limited, plus, you don't ever want to get on a cop's sh*t list.
 
I've just gone a step beyond your position

I've just gone a step beyond your position

James Brannan said:
No offense but I tend to disagree with this line of thinking. I think the problem is giving people a gun, a badge, and unbelievable huge amounts of authority that have little or no understanding of the law.
Click to expand...


.. IMHO, what I said follows directly upon what you said. Since we give them the authority, and they don't know the law anyway, they then think that they can make it up as they go along. Now, I'm sure that the vast majority of cops don't go way overboard, but how many cowboys in a police department does it take to give the department a bad name?

Do you think that all LA cops are racists looking for the next Rodney King?
Now I don't think that, but I'm sure we can find at least one person somewhere who draws that conclusion about the LA police from the media coverage the incident received.
 
Al Patterson said:
.. IMHO, what I said follows directly upon what you said. Since we give them the authority, and they don't know the law anyway, they then think that they can make it up as they go along. Now, I'm sure that the vast majority of cops don't go way overboard, but how many cowboys in a police department does it take to give the department a bad name?

Do you think that all LA cops are racists looking for the next Rodney King?
Now I don't think that, but I'm sure we can find at least one person somewhere who draws that conclusion about the LA police from the media coverage the incident received.
Click to expand...
I agree. We are following the same line it seems. Your point about LA is in fact an excellent one. I assume most LA cops are honest, hardworking, decent humans doing a thankless job for little money. The fact remains that I will always get that image of Rodney King in my head when someone mentions that force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom