Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hey, everyone remember this thread? Ahh.....hindsight.

[Osmosis Jones]

Hey, everyone remember this thread? Ahh.....hindsight.

I saw what you did there, mister ninja editor

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/daily-caller-reporter-videographer-assaulted-by-nypd-during-occupy-protests/#ixzz1dzG1g08a

So the NYPD has not only been beating protesters into compliance but clearly identified members of the press.

Now that's just moronic. Attack certified press and give OWS even more credibility... yup, I can see how that really helps the cops :I

[Truean]

Strictly speaking, willingly handing it on your own is not a violation of the fourth amendment, it's only if you refuse and they take it anyway (or so I think).

Speaking of which, here it is.

It's not exactly as I remembered it.  The guy was recording from in his garage, and did at first refuse to hand over the phone.  Just looking up this video, I saw dozens of other links for similar things happening.

And we've had a big debate over this in Indiana recently.  I've talked about this on this forum before, but it's too relevant not to repeat it anyway.  Judges here ruled that police basically have the power to enter your home and do anything they want, even if it's illegal.  You're not allowed to attempt to obstruct in any fashion whatsoever.  If you do, then YOU are breaking the law, and the officer becomes justified for whatever they're doing.  So the only way to have eventual legal recourse is to allow them to do whatever they want, and then take it to court after the fact.

Always been like that. You can say "I'm submitting to your authority officer," so there's no question you aren't "volunteering" jack shit. It's been the exclusionary rule as a remedy for decades. This is the challenging it in court thing. Otherwise, you can't resist the officer at all really.

[SalmonGod]

This is the challenging it in court thing. Otherwise, you can't resist the officer at all really.

I'm not quite sure I understand.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think the meaning is that you must acknowledge that you're doing it because the policeman is forcing you, not out of your free will, but you must comply, lest you get tazed and handcuffed for opposing the fist of JUSTICE!*

*for certain definitions of justice

[SalmonGod]

This one won't be major news, because he's not a veteran.

[Heron TSG]

It's all over the Occupy News here in Eastern Washington. I made sure of that.

We need to get the police to stop beating us so we can get back to the message. Seriously.

[Truean]

What Chairman said. Plainly, it is about what is admissible as evidence or excluded under the fourth amendment in court.

Also there are three types of police/citizen encounters in the United States.

Voluntary
Terry Stop {reasonable suspicion}
Probable Cause.

If at all possible, a prosecutor will try to say that you volunteered to let the officer do/see/search whatever he did, and thus it becomes easy for the state to get evidence into the record. If you say you are submitting to the officer's authority, then you are kinda ruling out that whole "voluntary" thing, which makes it harder to say you were resisting arrest or shove you into the evidence categories favoring the police.  Of course saying it and doing it ....

Unfortunately it's stupidly complex, the plain view rule applies (If the officer is in a place he is allowed to be and he sees a crime, it's in evidence, but if he's not supposed to be in that palce without probable cause/reasonable suspicion, then he should have it....)

Motion in Limine also motion to exclude evidence, etc.

[SalmonGod]

I've done a bit more reading on it, and I understand the arguments on both sides.

I guess my major question mark is just how much abuse are you supposed to tolerate before resistance becomes excusable?  Is there ever such a boundary?  Leaving it up to the courts to make things right after the fact, and resigning you to complete powerlessness in the meantime is just such an easy tool for a corrupt institution to abuse... and they do.  For instance, Occupy has been somewhat immune/exempt from this due to its broad scale and indefinite duration, but the single most common police tactic at other protest events is to simply mass arrest people on fake charges, hold them until the event is over, then drop the charges and release them.  Often, relevant parties will donate to the city in advance to cover the legal fees, so that those who choose to go to court over their treatment are simply paid their settlements.  Besides the implied absurd notion that prevention isn't a priority because any kind of wrongdoing a person might suffer can be made right by throwing money on it after the fact, it turns violating people's rights into an easily measured cost that can be managed like any other...

And I don't like the argument that it's to protect the police from irrationally violent responses, either.  Danger is their job.  They accept the risks when they accept the job, and get paid for them.  Why does the law put more effort into protecting them than into protecting citizens from potential abuses by them?  An ordinary citizen did not volunteer and does not benefit from being put in a dangerous position.  The burden should be on authorities to take the maximum amount of care to keep matters honest and civil, and I can't think of any more effective means than to make that a matter of their safety.


Edit:  This cheered me up a bit.  A reporter for the Daily Caller, a publication that has so far been demonizing the protesters, has apparently changed her mind about them after she and her cameraman were attacked by police for being obvious journalists and protesters moved in to help.

[Zangi]

Censorship versus Free Speech

[Nadaka]

I've done a bit more reading on it, and I understand the arguments on both sides.

I guess my major question mark is just how much abuse are you supposed to tolerate before resistance becomes excusable?  Is there ever such a boundary?

You have to let them kill you. Justice will be served when the police departments insurance pays your surviving loved ones a few million dollars and the officer is forced into an early retirement, if he is really unlucky he may not even get a full pension.

I am half kidding.

[SalmonGod]

I wasn't going to go quite that far, but yes...

In the interest of constructive discussion, I'll stick to examples that are of more common and widespread relevance.

[Zangi]

Wouldn't... you have to deal with the police trying to cover that up? They'd go to town on your arse trying to confiscate and misplace all possible evidence...

[SalmonGod]

Wouldn't... you have to deal with the police trying to cover that up? They'd go to town on your arse trying to confiscate and lose all possible evidence...

That's part of the issue.  There is the notion that evidence gained illegally becomes impermissible in court, but that doesn't do anything for evidence destroyed or altered illegally, planted illegally to be discovered later legally, or circumstances being twisted to portray the victim as having illegally resisted the officer's illegal actions, thus legalizing any further police action...


Edit:  This guy has an impressive Google photo album dedicated to Occupy  He has pretty much all of the well-known and important images related to the movement collected here, along with many I haven't seen.  425 in all

[mainiac]

It's sad that we live in a country where the question of whether or not you have your civil rights in an altercation is even complicated.