If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Freedom of the press still exists, as long as you're not a journalist reporting about a police officer beating up a handcuffed kid in a high school cafeteria   (ireport.cnn.com) divider line 206
    More: Scary, nullification, wiretaps, cafeterias, jury selection, Officer Darren Murphy, journalists, high schools  
•       •       •

16876 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2012 at 6:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-04 06:14:20 PM
"Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!
 
2012-08-04 06:17:22 PM
This should be interesting.
 
2012-08-04 06:17:59 PM
What's even more sad is that the DA chose to prosecute this. Or a judge agreed to hear it.
 
2012-08-04 06:19:32 PM
I hope he wins. I really don't see how it can be argued we don't live in an oppressive police state when you can go to prison for twenty years for filming the police in public.
 
2012-08-04 06:19:36 PM

ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!


Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing
 
2012-08-04 06:20:41 PM
Way to simplify things, Subby
 
2012-08-04 06:20:57 PM
Instead of the specifics of this story, can we talk about Vermont's jury nullification law? I love that the defense is allowed to inform the jury of their right to acquit if they think the law is unjust. I've heard of lawyers getting in trouble (contempt, sanctions?) for trying to tell a jury they can nullify. Prosecutors really don't like it when juries know it. I sort of think Vermont would be a good place to get out of a marijuana charge.
 
2012-08-04 06:21:40 PM

agos1247: ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!

Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing


WHOOSH
 
2012-08-04 06:22:12 PM

ubermensch: Way to simplify things, Subby


Subby didn't simplify it at all. It is what it is.
 
2012-08-04 06:24:13 PM

agos1247: ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!

Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing


I don't even know where that's from, but even I recognized it was a quote from a book/movie. >:\
 
2012-08-04 06:24:42 PM
Let's hear what the police have to say about this.

"I hope this cop hating creep gets life in prison at a supermax facility. It's idiots like Ademo that stir society up to make people think it is ok to assault and kill officers. This man needs to be silenced and put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and his stupid website should be erased for good."

Protecting and serving at its finest.
 
2012-08-04 06:28:05 PM

agos1247: ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!

Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing


Not sure, but I think ultraholland was being sarcastic.
 
2012-08-04 06:28:49 PM

WhyteRaven74: ubermensch: Way to simplify things, Subby

Subby didn't simplify it at all. It is what it is.


No. First, it's debatable if he's actually a journalist. I'm not going to argue that.

Secondly, he wasn't arrested for publishing, he was arrested under a stupid law for wiretapping. The press is still free, he broke a law (albeit a stupid one).
 
2012-08-04 06:29:06 PM

ubermensch: Way to simplify things, Subby


Yes, nothing distills a story down like linking to a CNN ireport post that's a complete copy of a press release issued by the supporters of the guy going on trial.


According to what little other reporting there is on the incident, the guy apparently called the cops for comment on something they did, recorded the conversations without their knowledge or permission, and used said recordings in an online posting. It's a no-no.
 
2012-08-04 06:29:52 PM

ubermensch: WhyteRaven74: ubermensch: Way to simplify things, Subby

Subby didn't simplify it at all. It is what it is.

No. First, it's debatable if he's actually a journalist. I'm not going to argue that.

Secondly, he wasn't arrested for publishing, he was arrested under a stupid law for wiretapping. The press is still free, he broke a law (albeit a stupid one).


He didn't break a law, the law is being inappropriately applied.
 
2012-08-04 06:30:17 PM
What we need is more government to keep things like this from happening.
 
2012-08-04 06:31:01 PM

agos1247: ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!

Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing


Yep, right over your head. Hilarious.
 
2012-08-04 06:31:06 PM
Police can get a warrant on us, I don't see why the people need a warrant to record calls with public officials.
 
2012-08-04 06:31:36 PM
I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.
 
2012-08-04 06:31:48 PM
Force is to be used to control a situation when an officer believes the suspect may harm themselves or others and must be stopped when the person is no longer a threat. The standard procedure is cops pull their weapons and failure to obey a command is sufficient cause for officers to act. Wiretapping laws were created before the widespread use of cellphones, video recorders, and digital cameras- the laws have not kept up with technology. Intent should be part of the law- someone taking a video of their families or tourists saving images of landmarks or transportation vehicles should not be automatically considered terrorism.
 
2012-08-04 06:33:31 PM
Not sure, but I think ultraholland was being sarcastic.

I don't even know where that's from, but even I recognized it was a quote from a book/movie. >:\


Then I rescind my statement. This shiat kinda pisses me off and have little room left for recognizing quotes or sarcasm
 
2012-08-04 06:34:55 PM

karilee183: Let's hear what the police have to say about this.

"I hope this cop hating creep gets life in prison at a supermax facility. It's idiots like Ademo that stir society up to make people think it is ok to assault and kill officers. This man needs to be silenced and put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and his stupid website should be erased for good."

Protecting and serving at its finest.


This guy isn't exactly a journalist, and this isn't as clear cut as his supporters want to make it out to be, but I'm pretty sure it's actually guys like the quoted saying things like this that stirs society up.
 
2012-08-04 06:37:21 PM

Girion47: What's even more sad is that the DA chose to prosecute this. Or a judge agreed to hear it.


To Protect and Serve

To Protect their jobs
To serve the Asshole that became the Police Chief.

Cops are never your friends. Good ones are automatically contemptible wastes of oxygen because they "close ranks" to protect the bad apples.
 
2012-08-04 06:38:00 PM

ongbok: I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.


You're being kind of a dick. I am a conservative, and I and all the conservatives I know think this is bullshiat, and in most places the police are out of control.

So stop being a dick. Stop listening to what the hippies in your echo chamber are telling you about conservatives.
 
2012-08-04 06:40:11 PM
And what makes him not a journalist? I suppose that John Jay and Thomas Paine were "not journalists" either?
 
2012-08-04 06:41:14 PM

Cataholic: <SNIP>
Yes, nothing distills a story down like linking to a CNN ireport post that's a complete copy of a press release issued by the supporters of the guy going on trial.


According to what little other reporting there is on the incident, the guy apparently called the cops for comment on something they did, recorded the conversations without their knowledge or permission, and used said recordings in an online posting. It's a no-no.


Yikes! If that's the case...yeah, wiretapping is very sternly prosecuted in states that have two-party consent. Now I personally think that one-party consent is the better system, but if you're interviewing some dude in a two-party state and taping him without his consent, you're going to get a smackdown, and should, police or otherwise. This isn't a distinction without a difference; the cops might not like this dude's investigation, but the kid's in the wrong. Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.
 
2012-08-04 06:44:29 PM

GORDON: ongbok: I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.

You're being kind of a dick. I am a conservative, and I and all the conservatives I know think this is bullshiat, and in most places the police are out of control.

So stop being a dick. Stop listening to what the hippies in your echo chamber are telling you about conservatives.


No, I'm not listen to what hippies and the echo chamber tell me. I'm going by what I have seen your fellow conservatives post here on Fark, and what I have seen with my own eyes. For example the collective orgasm that the right had when the police in Oakland decided to raid the OWS camp, or how the right stood up and defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting.

It may not be you, but most of your fellow right wingers love this kind of stuff and love it to see Liberals get it stuck to them. It's not the echo chamber, it is the truth.
 
2012-08-04 06:44:32 PM
Sass-O-Rev: agos1247: ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!

Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing

Not sure, but I think ultraholland was being sarcastic.


I'm as serious as a heart attack. He keeps pulling this thread and he'll unravel the whole sweater, revealing a naked truth he can't handle. He's in too deep, dammit!
 
2012-08-04 06:47:55 PM
Ahh yes, and people called me every nasty name in the book when I told them things like The Patriot Act were a slippery slope to a police state.

/Le-et freeee-dommm riiiiing
//USA!! USA!! USA!!
 
2012-08-04 06:48:25 PM
From TFA: "A public official who is on duty and in a public space has no expectation of privacy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled on this in Glik vs. Cunniff," said Ian Freeman, co-host of the nationally syndicated radio show Free Talk Live. "

If that's correct I don't see why it would ever make it to trial other than the intimidation factor.
Let this be a lesson to you "civilians." Keep walking, mind your own business and keep your trap SHUT.
 
2012-08-04 06:50:01 PM
This is just a sketchy press release put out by the defendant's friends. I can't find a detailed account of the whole story. He's charged with three counts. What are the circumstances surrounding each of them?

Here's the defendant's story, with three videos. IDK if they're the videos that got him charged.

Link
 
2012-08-04 06:50:12 PM

I_Hate_Iowa: I sort of think Vermont would be a good place to get out of a marijuana charge.


Unless you go all monster truck on their cruisers, yeah........
 
2012-08-04 06:50:56 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Ahh yes, and people called me every nasty name in the book when I told them things like The Patriot Act were a slippery slope to a police state.


The USA PATRIOT Act? Yeah, you probably had people calling you names about that. But you also had a ton of other people furrowing their brows at the blatant jingoism of the name, combined with the contents of the bill that would have been of no use in fighting Islamic terrorists.
 
2012-08-04 06:53:05 PM

GORDON: ongbok: I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.

You're being kind of a dick. I am a conservative, and I and all the conservatives I know think this is bullshiat, and in most places the police are out of control.

So stop being a dick. Stop listening to what the hippies in your echo chamber are telling you about conservatives.


There is a very interesting online book supporting what ongbok said: The Authoritarians. The author brings data that shows a clear correlation between being conservative and being an authoritarian in the sense of a person that likes bowing to authority. You can call the author a hippy liberal, but it's hard to argue with his data or methods.
 
2012-08-04 06:54:53 PM
Freedom of The Press may not be the same as freedom to post.
 
2012-08-04 06:57:13 PM

ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!


Exactly. Threatening your wife is one thing, threatening the system is another.
 
2012-08-04 06:57:30 PM
One day, the court system and police are going to go too far.
 
2012-08-04 06:57:32 PM

ongbok: defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting


Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk and causing a distruption that made it difficult for people to make it to class.

You forgot that part. If they had been sitting peacefully OFF the sidewalk, and got maced, then I'd agree with you.

Your other examples are just as shiatty.
 
2012-08-04 07:00:19 PM

Doc Ok: You can call the author a hippy liberal, but it's hard to argue with his data or methods.


The problem is, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" no longer have any meaning, predictive power, or general utility except as flamebait. Nancy Pelosi would rather see the kid go to jail. Ron Paul would rather see the cop fry.
 
2012-08-04 07:01:07 PM

SevenizGud: Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk


Oh, yes, that old, stupid line.

As someone who actually, you know, graduated from a university with a very similar courtyard/quad, I will politely tell you to go fark yourself and walk in the grass.

Also, the "distraction" was caused when the police showed up and started assaulting people. Until that, it's likely that students would have been walking around these people muttering "pricks" under their breath, at the VERY most.
 
2012-08-04 07:02:59 PM
Seriously, even the world's weakest wheelchair user would not have been slowed by these individuals sitting on the concrete in an area where the turf around them would allow for anyone to circle the group. Hell, an old lady in one of those walkers with the tennis balls on the front two legs would have had no problem in that grass.
 
2012-08-04 07:03:47 PM

stevarooni: Yikes! If that's the case...yeah, wiretapping is very sternly prosecuted in states that have two-party consent.


Sidestepping the question as to if all-party notification of recording is a good thing, the bigger issue here is the punishment. I could see a couple of months at most when not done in conjunction with blackmail and coercion, but 21 years sounds like the government attempting to silence its critics.
 
2012-08-04 07:10:43 PM

Man On Pink Corner: The problem is, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" no longer have any meaning, predictive power, or general utility except as flamebait. Nancy Pelosi would rather see the kid go to jail. Ron Paul would rather see the cop fry.


This is more of an authoritarian/totalitarian versus libertarian issue than being a liberal/progressive or conservative. They are totally different issues. Nothing prevents somebody from being an authoritarian progressive.
 
2012-08-04 07:12:34 PM

Plastic Trash Vortex: agos1247: ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!

Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing

WHOOSH


He missed it by *that* much.
 
2012-08-04 07:13:39 PM
I'm not even sure if he is found guilty if he'll get more than a year. NH only considers it a misdemeanor as long as one party to the conversation (himself) is aware of the recording.

Source: http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/new-hampshire

"It is a felony to intercept or disclose the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2-I.
It is punishable by imprisonment of one to seven years. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 625:9. However, it is only a misdemeanor if a party to a communication, or anyone who
has the consent of only one of the parties, intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 570-A:2-I. Misdemeanors are punishable by
imprisonment up to one year. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 625:9."
 
2012-08-04 07:14:22 PM

puffy999: SevenizGud: Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk

Oh, yes, that old, stupid line.

As someone who actually, you know, graduated from a university with a very similar courtyard/quad, I will politely tell you to go fark yourself and walk in the grass.

Also, the "distraction" was caused when the police showed up and started assaulting people. Until that, it's likely that students would have been walking around these people muttering "pricks" under their breath, at the VERY most.


If by assault you mean allowing a hand-cuffed perp to break free and stumble into a table (perspective), then probably guilty as charged. If this guy didn'y make a career of harassing cops and focusing on only the things they did wrong, i'd probably muster a little sympathy for him. The 21 year penalty they toss around is the maximum. Chances are they'll let this guy off pretty lightly (maybe a year for interferrence but more likely probation and a warning to leave the police alone). Defense is not seeking to repeal the wire tapping law, just apply the misapplication of the law for for the purpose of getting the case thrown out- as they should.
 
2012-08-04 07:15:39 PM
If the guy loses this case, I will take it to mean that yet another nail has been driven into the coffin lid of freedom. And there's enough of those in there already.
 
2012-08-04 07:16:04 PM

stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.


A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.
 
2012-08-04 07:23:15 PM
Calling all fark cop fluffers. To your knees and service the cop!!!!
 
2012-08-04 07:25:18 PM

ubermensch: WhyteRaven74: ubermensch: Way to simplify things, Subby

Subby didn't simplify it at all. It is what it is.

No. First, it's debatable if he's actually a journalist. I'm not going to argue that.

Secondly, he wasn't arrested for publishing, he was arrested under a stupid law for wiretapping. The press is still free, he broke a law (albeit a stupid one).


I know you did not argue that he is not a journalist, but for those that do:

With his website he is as much a journalist as someone using the Gutenberg press was in the decades after it's invention. The church and aristocracy decried that invention too, when one person, or a very few, could produce as much printed material in a day as it used to take a single scribe a year to do prior to that. While the rancor has died down, there are still many with political or economic power, especially in establishment journalism and publishing, that want nothing more than some sort of suppression or control of electronic media. This kind or 'wiretap' law is one small part of it.
 
2012-08-04 07:25:28 PM

James F. Campbell: A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.


If that's the case, then I agree with you whole-heartedly that the cops wouldn't have an expectation of privacy, but my thoughts pertained to Cataholic's earlier scribblings:

Cataholic: According to what little other reporting there is on the incident, the guy apparently called the cops for comment on something they did, recorded the conversations without their knowledge or permission, and used said recordings in an online posting. It's a no-no.


A telephone conversation is not a "public place", necessarily. Do you have a different opinion on that recording, or do you feel similarly about recorded telephone calls without all-party consent?
 
2012-08-04 07:25:37 PM

James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.


This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.
 
2012-08-04 07:26:32 PM

puffy999: One day, the court system and police are going to go too far.


How far is too far?

My years on Fark and sooo many articles that you cannot believe to be true but are.

We just keep shaking our heads and going on with our lives.
Indeed, when they come for us there will be no one to speak out.
 
2012-08-04 07:28:24 PM

puffy999: I will politely tell you to go fark yourself and walk in the grass.


Can't walk on the grass. There are signs stating that that is not allowed. The signs must be obeyed.
 
2012-08-04 07:28:26 PM

eggrolls: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.


Know how I know you didn't read the article and have no idea what you're talking about?
 
2012-08-04 07:29:04 PM

eggrolls: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.


He secretly recorded a conversation he had with a police officer over the phone. That is where the wiretapping charges come from. Also, the term "tapping" in wiretapping does mean what you think it means. It does not apply only to putting a tap on someone's line. It also includes recording any conversation over a phone line, including holding a microphone up to the phone while you are talking on it.
 
2012-08-04 07:30:30 PM

tomWright: With his website he is as much a journalist as someone using the Gutenberg press was in the decades after it's invention.


I wouldn't argue against that. Journalism is an act, not a licensed profession (or if it is, that licensing would be prone to censorship and cronyism of worrying levels).

tomWright: While the rancor has died down, there are still many with political or economic power, especially in establishment journalism and publishing, that want nothing more than some sort of suppression or control of electronic media. This kind or 'wiretap' law is one small part of it.


Which kind of wiretapping is that? If it's recording things in public, I agree that it shouldn't be subject to wiretapping laws. If it's (as may be) a telephone conversation...again, I prefer the single-party consent laws on wiretapping. If you say something to someone, you can't afford to be squeamish about how they're going to spread your words. But if there's two-party consent out there...well, whatever it would protect would be vulnerable if someone could just claim "Journalism!" and post one's words as if those laws didn't exist.
 
2012-08-04 07:30:44 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: karilee183: Let's hear what the police have to say about this.

"I hope this cop hating creep gets life in prison at a supermax facility. It's idiots like Ademo that stir society up to make people think it is ok to assault and kill officers. This man needs to be silenced and put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and his stupid website should be erased for good."

Protecting and serving at its finest.

This guy isn't exactly a journalist, and this isn't as clear cut as his supporters want to make it out to be, but I'm pretty sure it's actually guys like the quoted saying things like this that stirs society up.


Should journalists have special rights the rest of us do not? Are they special somehow?
 
2012-08-04 07:30:47 PM

karilee183: Let's hear what the police have to say about this.

"I hope this cop hating creep gets life in prison at a supermax facility. It's idiots like Ademo that stir society up to make people think it is ok to assault and kill officers. This man needs to be silenced and put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and his stupid website should be erased for good."

Protecting and serving at its finest.


Was this from an interview with an actual cop or just a written commentary submitted by someone claiming to be a cop?

All I could find on the linked page was an ex-cop's site where submitters offer commentary about movies and arrest ethics. I didn't dig to deep though so I can't really comment on what was or wasn't said. Care to point out the general location of this comment on the site?
 
2012-08-04 07:33:24 PM

James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.


I agree. So does the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District, which includes this guy's jurisdiction.

But I don't know if the defendant recorded public officials in public areas. TFA doesn't tell me, and I can't find anything more informative.

Can you?
 
2012-08-04 07:34:05 PM

clowncar on fire: If by assault you mean allowing a hand-cuffed perp to break free and stumble into a table (perspective)


Err... I was responding to the UC Davis incident.
 
2012-08-04 07:34:42 PM

BarkingUnicorn: But I don't know if the defendant recorded public officials in public areas. TFA doesn't tell me, and I can't find anything more informative.

Can you?


My law-worshiping senses tell me that this kid must have broken the law, or he wouldn't be in jail. I haven't read the phrenology report, though, so I don't know if his soul can be redeemed before he's burnt at the stake for heresy.
 
2012-08-04 07:35:17 PM

Resident Muslim: How far is too far?


*touches nose*

Resident Muslim: Indeed, when they come for us there will be no one to speak out.


*touches nose*
 
2012-08-04 07:36:29 PM

SevenizGud: ongbok: defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting

Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk and causing a distruption that made it difficult for people to make it to class.

You forgot that part. If they had been sitting peacefully OFF the sidewalk, and got maced, then I'd agree with you.

Your other examples are just as shiatty.


You say my examples are shiatty but you would used that argument to defend the cops that maced those students? See what I mean, these authoritarian types will do and say anything, even if it makes no sense and is ridiculous, to protect somebody who put a Liberal in their place. Like i said before, if the jury pool is from a heavily conservative area, this guy is toast.
 
2012-08-04 07:36:49 PM

BarkingUnicorn: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

I agree. So does the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District, which includes this guy's jurisdiction.

But I don't know if the defendant recorded public officials in public areas. TFA doesn't tell me, and I can't find anything more informative.

Can you?


From the article, sounds like the interviews he recorded were phone interviews with the police officials. So, I'm guessing most likely not in a public place.
 
2012-08-04 07:37:20 PM

agos1247: ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!

Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing


Facepalm.jpg
 
2012-08-04 07:40:51 PM
and this is why im slowly becoming a parinoid lunitic and slowly turning my home into a medieval castle.
 
2012-08-04 07:40:52 PM

Mock26: eggrolls: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.

He secretly recorded a conversation he had with a police officer over the phone. That is where the wiretapping charges come from. Also, the term "tapping" in wiretapping does mean what you think it means. It does not apply only to putting a tap on someone's line. It also includes recording any conversation over a phone line, including holding a microphone up to the phone while you are talking on it.


In a nutshell, lack of consent for use of a private conversation in a public forum. It would be awesome they applied this ruling to the former lovers who post pics on porn sites that were originally intended "for their eyes only".

Not worth 21 years but definitely a few hours in an orange vest "helping clean up society" along a public roadway.
 
2012-08-04 07:42:07 PM
 
2012-08-04 07:42:33 PM
The writer of the article press release included just enough information for no one to have any idea what the fark actually happened. That doesn't strike me as very credible. If I were truly innocent, I think that I would clearly lay out the details, not write some incredibly vague piece expressing vague sentiments about the law.

Also, his site repeatedly mentions things like "the arbitrary political boundaries that make up state X" and they put "senators" in quotes when talking about sitting Senators...among other nutty things.

I can't muster up too much outrage for this wing-nut. It's the cop bashing equivalent of Free Republic.
 
2012-08-04 07:44:09 PM

SevenizGud: ongbok: defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting

Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk and causing a distruption that made it difficult for people to make it to class.


I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.
 
2012-08-04 07:44:16 PM
www.myfacewhen.net

If people within the legal system decide you should be punished, you are screwed regardless of the strength of your beliefs or the validity of your points.


/Not a new concept, but still a sad one
 
2012-08-04 07:44:32 PM

puffy999: clowncar on fire: If by assault you mean allowing a hand-cuffed perp to break free and stumble into a table (perspective)

Err... I was responding to the UC Davis incident.


Ne'er mind then. As I were.
 
2012-08-04 07:45:16 PM

Dinjiin: Sidestepping the question as to if all-party notification of recording is a good thing, the bigger issue here is the punishment. I could see a couple of months at most when not done in conjunction with blackmail and coercion, but 21 years sounds like the government attempting to silence its critics.


That would be the maximum sentence he could get. In some grievous situations, probably no-party consent (IANAL), 21 years would be a harsh but possibly appropriate term. He hasn't received a 21-year sentence, he's just eligible for up to that much. I agree that...again, assuming that my ignorance is correct...they ought to have graduations of the crime with graduated sentence ranges, too.
 
2012-08-04 07:45:40 PM

Doc Ok: GORDON: ongbok: I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.

You're being kind of a dick. I am a conservative, and I and all the conservatives I know think this is bullshiat, and in most places the police are out of control.

So stop being a dick. Stop listening to what the hippies in your echo chamber are telling you about conservatives.

There is a very interesting online book supporting what ongbok said: The Authoritarians. The author brings data that shows a clear correlation between being conservative and being an authoritarian in the sense of a person that likes bowing to authority. You can call the author a hippy liberal, but it's hard to argue with his data or methods.


Authoritarianism is not exclusively a right wing problem. It is a Human problem regardless of ideology. Would call the regimes that sent tanks in Tienanmen Square, Hungary in 1956, Built the wall between East and West Germany, invaded and oppressed the sovereign nation of Tibet, right wing?

How about the U.S. college administrations that are suppressing free speech by setting up "free speech zones" where they corral those they do not like? Or expel students merely accused of improper behavior with right to review, hearing, trial or counsel? Storied about all of those have been linked to here on Fark. Those are not notoriously right wing folks.

I am not defending the right wing, they have their monsters too, usually associated with churches in recent decades. I am pointing out that claiming the right is more susceptible is wrong based on history, especially recent history.

All ideologies, religious or political, are susceptible to authoritarian actions.
 
2012-08-04 07:49:15 PM

tomWright: Authoritarianism is not exclusively a right wing problem.


That's what's usually meant by saying "there's a correlation between X and Y." It doesn't mean that X always implies Y, or vice versa, but that being X improves the probability of being Y, and vice versa. In this particular case, the data show that this increase in probability is surprisingly large. So there.
 
2012-08-04 07:50:25 PM
"Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?" Mueller told Judge Kenneth Brown in court last week. "I am confident I can show a jury, with facts and logic, that I shouldn't be caged for my actions. My mind is free and my conscience is clear. I haven't harmed anyone and I've done what I feel is right. I'll be an activist of freedom until the day I die," he later wrote in a blog posted to CopBlock.org.

/Because justice is arbitrary, and I've often seen many crimes that are lesser get stiffer time in jail than horrible crimes that should result in a life sentence. i usually side with the police, having served as one, but i have to say that as a officer, if i can film you and record your voice during a stop, you should have the right to film me and record my actions. This "wire tapping" is bullshiat, and all the cops know it, and any argument saying "letting the public film officers endangers the officers" is crap. And we all know it.
I don't personally believe that most cops violate peoples rights on purpose, but they don't want their farkups televised either. Sure, cops make mistakes, they let their emotions get the better of them, but they are, as we are, people. With the same faults and emotional reactions to different situations. Sure, there are bad cops who play the system, but there are bad people in every profession. But to make a long post short, if you can film me,and record my voice without a warrant in public, then i should be able to do the same to you, without fear of you grabbing my camera or arresting me on some bullshiat charge.
///my 2cents.
 
2012-08-04 07:51:06 PM

Doc Ok: SevenizGud: ongbok: defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting

Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk and causing a distruption that made it difficult for people to make it to class.

I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.


Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?
 
2012-08-04 07:53:55 PM

JerkyMeat: Calling all fark cop fluffers. To your knees and service the cop!!!!


Still mad about that mean police officer telling you not to skateboard in the bank parking lot?
 
2012-08-04 07:55:29 PM

tomWright: Doc Ok: GORDON: ongbok: I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.

You're being kind of a dick. I am a conservative, and I and all the conservatives I know think this is bullshiat, and in most places the police are out of control.

So stop being a dick. Stop listening to what the hippies in your echo chamber are telling you about conservatives.

There is a very interesting online book supporting what ongbok said: The Authoritarians. The author brings data that shows a clear correlation between being conservative and being an authoritarian in the sense of a person that likes bowing to authority. You can call the author a hippy liberal, but it's hard to argue with his data or methods.

Authoritarianism is not exclusively a right wing problem. It is a Human problem regardless of ideology. Would call the regimes that sent tanks in Tienanmen Square, Hungary in 1956, Built the wall between East and West Germany, invaded and oppressed the sovereign nation of Tibet, right wing?

How about the U.S. college administrations that are suppressing free speech by setting up "free speech zones" where they corral those they do not like? Or expel students merely accused of improper behavior with right to review, hearing, trial or counsel? Storied about all of those have been linked to here on Fark. Those are not notoriously right wing folks.

I am not defending the right wing, they have their monsters too, usually associated with churches in recent decades. I am pointing out that claiming the right is more susceptible is wrong based on history, especially recent history.

All ideologies, religious or polit ...


...So in other words, both sides are bad because history?

Also, you might get some traction arguing that college professors tend to be libs, but not the top administration and security folks. And they're the ones giving the orders to corral people.
 
2012-08-04 07:56:39 PM

Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?


It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.
 
2012-08-04 07:56:53 PM

stevarooni:
tomWright: While the rancor has died down, there are still many with political or economic power, especially in establishment journalism and publishing, that want nothing more than some sort of suppression or control of electronic media. This kind or 'wiretap' law is one small part of it.

Which kind of wiretapping is that? If it's recording things in public, I agree that it shouldn't be subject to wiretapping laws. If it's (as may be) a telephone conversation...again, I prefer the single-party consent laws on wiretapping. If you say something to someone, you can't afford to be squeamish about how they're going to spread your words. But if there's two-party consent out there...well, whatever it would protect would be vulnerable if someone could just claim "Journalism!" and post one's words as if those laws didn't exist.


Well, I do not know if there are Federal laws on recording in a public school, or what the state laws are here. I would consider a public school to be 'in public', though I do not think the law does in some, maybe many states.

So far as singe/multiple party consent laws, yeah, those can muddy the waters. What if there are 5 people involved and one is a corrupt cop?

This is a public official, with the authority to use deadly force. I think every action they take on duty, up to and including crapping on public time, should be on the record, regardless of consent of other parties. We have all seen the abuses. Just look at the work of Radley Balko, or the Innocence Project and other worthy groups for that evidence. Frankly, I think any public employee authorized to so much as issue a citation subject to a fine, let alone carry a gun, should be required to bolt a video camera to their head when on duty.
 
2012-08-04 07:57:09 PM
How people can sing and actually mean the words to the national anthem is beyond me.

We are no longer (and haven't been for a while) "the land of the free" (or the home of the brave).

My wife has a Chinese co-worker that said she is going to be moving back to China in the near future because China is becoming more free while the US is regressing.
 
2012-08-04 07:58:13 PM

Girion47: What's even more sad is that the DA chose to prosecute this. Or a judge agreed to hear it.


As a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that often times the assistant district attorney who prosecutes the case would rather dismiss it. Often the assistants have marching orders from the main district attorney prohibiting them from dismissing cases when the arresting officer object. So this creates a situation where the cases where officers are involved in misconduct (brutality) move to trail on false charges of resisting arrest or assault on police because if they can squeeze out a conviction then it limits the police officer's liability in a civil suit. Additionally, even if they cannot win they know that it will cost the defendant more money to take his case to trail than to settle it and they get joy in forcing the defendant to pay more case.

I have tried two cases this year and went through one suppressions hearing were the assistant district attorneys handling the cases said they wished they could dismiss the cases. I won, but it is BS that the assistant district attorneys are not allowed to use their discretion.
 
2012-08-04 07:59:42 PM

Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.


You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.
 
2012-08-04 07:59:44 PM
The authorities are going to realize that the right-to-privacy is a two-way street. You can't argue that citizens have no right to privacy when they are out in public but that the police have a right to privacy when they are out in public. The camera sees in many directions.
 
2012-08-04 08:01:07 PM

Doc Ok: People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it.


I need to amend that. People walk through the quad, which means they walk across the lawn. The protesters were blocking a paved walkway through the quad, which had only recently been dubbed the "centennial walk" due to UC Davis 100th anniversary. It's that walkway that's really unimportant.

What it all boils down to is that they were holding a protest in a very visible and central area, but they weren't disrupting anything. I'd call that a good protest, right up to the point when the police showed up. I had absolutely no problem walking by there on my way to and from lunch, again, before the cops came.
 
2012-08-04 08:01:47 PM

tomWright: Well, I do not know if there are Federal laws on recording in a public school, or what the state laws are here. I would consider a public school to be 'in public', though I do not think the law does in some, maybe many states.


At least for me, though, that's not what I was talking about. My impression is that the wiretapping isn't for taping what was going on in the school (as you said, public place), but that he recorded a telephone conversation with a cop about said beating. Now if you're talking about the same thing I'm talking about, yes, I'll disagree with you. I could see a reasonable prohibition against recording telephone conversations without the consent of both parties...though I disagree with such a prohibition.
 
2012-08-04 08:04:40 PM

consider this: Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.


It's not a sidewalk, it's a paved walkway through a big lawn. Here's an aerial photograph showing the protest in reaction to the pepperspraying a few days later. The walkway that was blocked is the one along the left edge of the picture; the protesters were sitting in the central circle. You'll notice that there is absolutely no obstruction on either side of the walkway, which is why it was not even an inconvenience to walk around them.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-04 08:04:42 PM

Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.


So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.
 
2012-08-04 08:07:40 PM

Silly Jesus: of a disruptive protest.


Except it wasn't disruptive.
 
2012-08-04 08:07:42 PM

Doc Ok: It's not a sidewalk, it's a paved walkway


Same thing and blocking either isn't allowed. Douchebag kids were being douchebags and got a taste of pepper for their douchiness.
 
2012-08-04 08:07:53 PM
JeffreyScott It is the judges responsibility to biatch slap DA's and po po's to bring them in line.......Alas, the judges are too imbued with their own agendas. Judges need to be the first to go.....

/Too many relatives in the judicial side of life to pretend to believe in justice.
 
2012-08-04 08:08:27 PM

Silly Jesus: Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.


Whether the original tents were disruptive was up for discussion then, and the independent investigation concluded that the tent people were not violating any university rules. So the police were sent in without cause, meaning that the sit-in protest that happened in response to the police action was a valid protest of an unjust action. The pepperspraying happened in response to the sit-in protest. This is not my opinion, but that of the external review panel. The bottom line is that the admins farked up, which is why the police chief, and the officer doing the pepper-spraying, are not with the police force anymore.
 
2012-08-04 08:08:28 PM

consider this: Douchebag kids were being douchebags and got a taste of pepper for their douchiness.


They weren't being douchebags.
 
2012-08-04 08:09:17 PM

consider this: Doc Ok: It's not a sidewalk, it's a paved walkway

Same thing and blocking either isn't allowed. Douchebag kids were being douchebags and got a taste of pepper for their douchiness.


Sure thing, dude.
 
2012-08-04 08:10:37 PM

Silly Jesus: Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.


See what I mean about conservatives. The police stuck it to Liberals, good for them, I don't care if they were college kids who weren't causing any type of disruption while exercising their second amendment rights, as long as they were put in their place.

You are not going to get anywhere with this guy so you may as well ignore him. His arguments are just going to get more and more asinine.
 
2012-08-04 08:11:34 PM

HeartlineTwist: BarkingUnicorn: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

I agree. So does the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District, which includes this guy's jurisdiction.

But I don't know if the defendant recorded public officials in public areas. TFA doesn't tell me, and I can't find anything more informative.

Can you?

From the article, sounds like the interviews he recorded were phone interviews with the police officials. So, I'm guessing most likely not in a public place.


Not sure which article you mean. The CNN article refers only to "recordings of public officials," without specifying who they are or where they were or what kind of recording.

The defendant's article includes a video that shows him recording two phone conversations: first with a police captain, and then the school's principal. Those are the "public officials."

He called both people at their offices. He did not tell them he was recording or obtain their permission. At least, he did not video himself doing either of those things. A phone call carries an expectation of privacy, even if any of the parties is a public official. One's office is not a public area, even if it's in a building that has areas open to the public. You can't just stroll into the office of a cop or a principal without permission.

That's two counts that I can see. IDK where the third comes from. It can't be the video that the student provided to him. He didn't intercept or record that.

He won't get 21 years, of course. But he seems to be convicted by his own camera on two counts.
 
2012-08-04 08:12:54 PM

Doc Ok: consider this: Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.

It's not a sidewalk, it's a paved walkway through a big lawn. Here's an aerial photograph showing the protest in reaction to the pepperspraying a few days later. The walkway that was blocked is the one along the left edge of the picture; the protesters were sitting in the central circle. You'll notice that there is absolutely no obstruction on either side of the walkway, which is why it was not even an inconvenience to walk around them.

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]


The following comment is mostly serious...

I parked my car on a 3 lane road the other day. It was not an inconvenience because people could just use the other two lanes. My taxes were too high, so I protested. But take no notice, everyone can just go around.

The sidewalk is for people to walk on...not for people to sit on and block. They could have just as easily sat in the grass beside the sidewalk, but they wanted to make a point, so they decided to no longer allow people to use the sidewalk. Fark you, get off the damn sidewalk. I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.
 
2012-08-04 08:13:16 PM

BarkingUnicorn: He did not tell them he was recording or obtain their permission


There are states where that's not a problem.
 
2012-08-04 08:13:20 PM

WhyteRaven74: They weren't being douchebags


Politely breaking a law is still breaking a law.
 
2012-08-04 08:14:21 PM

HeartlineTwist: Video of the wiretapping


He calls up and asks if the officer had seen the video or was aware of the charges being leveled by a site the cop had never heard of. The officer says he couldn't comment as he had not seen the video but does offer to check both the video and the site before hanging up (as there probably wasn't much else to add to the conversation).

Commentator goes on a rant about how the police are refusing to discuss the issue then attempts a call to the school, who in my opinion, allowed the conversation with this guy to last about 1 minute too long. Did he actually believe being an identified caller with an attitude get him an online confession. Would it be possible that the school had instructions not to discuss the issue until resolved- especially with unidentified callers?

He actually violated the wire tapping law several times as he probably did not get consent to use their voices in a public forum. It is for this very reason that many businesses that record phone calls warn you up front that your call may be used as "training" (in a public format) and that you have the option to not have the call recorded.

For someone who seems to know what the police can and can't legally do, he certainly overlooked a few of the details when airing this interview.

Some would argue he was talking to public officials so anything they say would be public information. This does not negate the fact that he used their personal opinions and voice with permission in a public forum. Freedome of speech? He has the right to say as he pleases, just not the right to use others voices without their consent first.

Had he have just read a transcript of the conversation instead of using recordings, he probably would not be in that courtroom facing the charges of wiretapping.

Even after several repeats and blowing up the accompanying video of the arrest, it was hard to make out exactly what was going on. I tend to be a bit of a skeptic when a poster tells me what I'm supposed to be seeing.

Still not swayed about why this kid with authority issues should not be prosecuted for violating wire tapping violations.
 
2012-08-04 08:14:28 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: of a disruptive protest.

Except it wasn't disruptive.


It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

IIRC they were near a building with classes being held and it was a disruption to those as well.
 
2012-08-04 08:16:41 PM
Silly Jesus: It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

oh your tortured life!
 
2012-08-04 08:16:58 PM

Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.

Whether the original tents were disruptive was up for discussion then, and the independent investigation concluded that the tent people were not violating any university rules. So the police were sent in without cause, meaning that the sit-in protest that happened in response to the police action was a valid protest of an unjust action. The pepperspraying happened in response to the sit-in protest. This is not my opinion, but that of the external review panel. The bottom line is that the admins farked up, which is why the police chief, and the officer doing the pepper-spraying, are not with the police force anymore.


It's not against any sort of university policy for people to block thoroughfares? Strange.

Also, as to your last sentence...not necessarily the case. Officials resign all the time when they did nothing wrong. Create enough of an uproar over something and the heads at the top will roll just to save face...whether the did anything wrong or not.
 
2012-08-04 08:21:08 PM

ultraholland: Silly Jesus: It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

oh your tortured life!


Oh the tortured lives of the protesters who could move over two feet and sit in the grass instead of annoying everyone around them with their self absorbed douchbaggery.

See how that works?

Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.
 
2012-08-04 08:21:50 PM

consider this: WhyteRaven74: They weren't being douchebags

Politely breaking a law is still breaking a law.


So that justifies any maximal Use of Force response? I was at Seattle in 99. I watched cops using pepper spray through the windows of passing cars just driving through the area. I watched them throw CS gas grenades into restaurants full of people. I watched them issue an order of dispersal and leaving no way for the people to disperse, and anyone who approached a cop was beaten down and arrested.

You authoritarian submissives are all the same. As long as it is someone you can sneer at for their political position on something you take great joy in seeing those people abused by the people you roll over and show your belly to. You should move to Russia or Syria, the authorities there have banned all forms of protest. Even the quiet forms of literature and music.
 
2012-08-04 08:22:25 PM

BarkingUnicorn: HeartlineTwist: BarkingUnicorn: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

I agree. So does the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District, which includes this guy's jurisdiction.

But I don't know if the defendant recorded public officials in public areas. TFA doesn't tell me, and I can't find anything more informative.

Can you?

From the article, sounds like the interviews he recorded were phone interviews with the police officials. So, I'm guessing most likely not in a public place.

Not sure which article you mean. The CNN article refers only to "recordings of public officials," without specifying who they are or where they were or what kind of recording.

The defendant's article includes a video that shows him recording two phone conversations: first with a police captain, and then the school's principal. Those are the "public officials."

He called both people at their offices. He did not tell them he was recording or obtain their permission. At least, he did not video himself doing either of those things. A phone call carries an expectation of privacy, even if any of the parties is a public official. One's office is not a public area, even if it's in a building that has areas open to the public. You can't just stroll into the office of a cop or a principal without permission.

That's two counts that I can see. IDK where the third comes from. It can't be the video that the student provided to him. He didn't intercept or record that.

He won't get 21 years, of course. But he seems to be convicted by his own camera on two counts.


You are forgetting the voice of the receptionist at the police station- i don't think she wanted her voice in the interview either.
 
2012-08-04 08:22:29 PM
consider this

wipe off your chin
 
2012-08-04 08:23:35 PM

stevarooni: tomWright: Well, I do not know if there are Federal laws on recording in a public school, or what the state laws are here. I would consider a public school to be 'in public', though I do not think the law does in some, maybe many states.

At least for me, though, that's not what I was talking about. My impression is that the wiretapping isn't for taping what was going on in the school (as you said, public place), but that he recorded a telephone conversation with a cop about said beating. Now if you're talking about the same thing I'm talking about, yes, I'll disagree with you. I could see a reasonable prohibition against recording telephone conversations without the consent of both parties...though I disagree with such a prohibition.


agreed
 
2012-08-04 08:24:19 PM
This douche is just digging his hole deeper by representing himself and being a smart ass towards the judge. Here's his last court appearance.

Link
 
2012-08-04 08:25:07 PM

WhyteRaven74: BarkingUnicorn: He did not tell them he was recording or obtain their permission

There are states where that's not a problem.


New Hampshire is not one of them. NH's wiretapping law is quoted somewhere upthread.

Defendant was a party to the recorded conversations, so he can't be convicted of a felony under NH's law. But unless all parties consent to the recording, it's a misdemeanor. Like I said, he won't get 21 years, but he sure seems guilty based on his own evidence.
 
2012-08-04 08:35:03 PM

tomWright: stevarooni: tomWright: Well, I do not know if there are Federal laws on recording in a public school, or what the state laws are here. I would consider a public school to be 'in public', though I do not think the law does in some, maybe many states.

At least for me, though, that's not what I was talking about. My impression is that the wiretapping isn't for taping what was going on in the school (as you said, public place), but that he recorded a telephone conversation with a cop about said beating. Now if you're talking about the same thing I'm talking about, yes, I'll disagree with you. I could see a reasonable prohibition against recording telephone conversations without the consent of both parties...though I disagree with such a prohibition.

agreed


A public school is no more a "public place" than a state prison is. No one is free to come and go as they please.
 
2012-08-04 08:35:19 PM
Silly Jesus: Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.

now say that like Patsy Kline
 
2012-08-04 08:36:45 PM

Deathfrogg: consider this: WhyteRaven74: They weren't being douchebags

Politely breaking a law is still breaking a law.

So that justifies any maximal Use of Force response? I was at Seattle in 99. I watched cops using pepper spray through the windows of passing cars just driving through the area. I watched them throw CS gas grenades into restaurants full of people. I watched them issue an order of dispersal and leaving no way for the people to disperse, and anyone who approached a cop was beaten down and arrested.

You authoritarian submissives are all the same. As long as it is someone you can sneer at for their political position on something you take great joy in seeing those people abused by the people you roll over and show your belly to. You should move to Russia or Syria, the authorities there have banned all forms of protest. Even the quiet forms of literature and music.


Care to elaborate why cops were randomly pepper spraying innocent passerbys through their car windows or tossing CS grenades into resturants full of people? I'm sure there's more telling to the tale than "that's just what cops do out in our neck of the woods".

By the way, you lost my interest as soon as you starting bleating out "You authoritarian submissives". Not that it would matter much to you what the rest of the sheeple here on fark think, but now may be a chance to redeem your good name by filling in the blanks of your Summer of '99 in Seattle.

" I saw my first real beating
outside the Five and Dime.
Cops tossing grenades at diners
they have hurt a friend of mine"

Excerpt from from "The Summer of 99"
 
2012-08-04 08:39:09 PM

consider this: This douche is just digging his hole deeper by representing himself and being a smart ass towards the judge. Here's his last court appearance.

Link


Jesus...godspeed to him....He's not doing himself any favors. My favorite part was around the 9:30 mark through the end. I'd love to hear his excuse for not showing up to his first "trial". I also love the fact that Ademo and the camera man(?) both find it laughable that someone representing themselves is bound by the rules that attorneys are.
 
2012-08-04 08:40:05 PM

clowncar on fire: Deathfrogg: consider this: WhyteRaven74:

You authoritarian submissives are all the same. As long as it is someone you can sneer at for their political position on something you take great joy in seeing those people abused by the people you roll over and show your belly to. You should move to Russia or Syria, the authorities there have banned all forms of protest. Even the quiet forms of literature and music.

Care to elaborate why cops were randomly pepper spraying innocent passerbys through their car windows or tossing CS grenades into resturants full of people? I'm sure there's more telling to the tale than "that's just what cops do out in our neck of the woods".

By the way, you lost my interest as soon as you starting bleating out "You authoritarian submissives". Not that it would matter much to you what the rest of the sheeple here on fark think, but now may be a chance to redeem your good name by filling in the blanks of your Summer of '99 in Seattle.

" I saw my first real beating
outside the Five and Dime.
Cops tossing grenades at diners
and pepper sprayed friend of mine"

Excerpt from from "The Summer of 99"


FTFM
 
2012-08-04 08:42:51 PM

consider this: WhyteRaven74: They weren't being douchebags

Politely breaking a law is still breaking a law.


Should have gone all Bull Connor on them! Fire hoses! Dogs! Long rifles! Massive over reaction! Flame throwers! WP!
 
2012-08-04 08:44:11 PM
Teach those dirty hippies a lesson they'll never forget.
 
2012-08-04 08:44:27 PM

BarkingUnicorn: WhyteRaven74: BarkingUnicorn: He did not tell them he was recording or obtain their permission

There are states where that's not a problem.

New Hampshire is not one of them. NH's wiretapping law is quoted somewhere upthread.

Defendant was a party to the recorded conversations, so he can't be convicted of a felony under NH's law. But unless all parties consent to the recording, it's a misdemeanor. Like I said, he won't get 21 years, but he sure seems guilty based on his own evidence.


The Prosecutor says in the video that they are Class B Felonies. The Judge acknowledges this. Is there something that you know that they don't?
 
2012-08-04 08:45:46 PM

HeartlineTwist: . I'd love to hear his excuse for not showing up to his first "trial".


The court sent the court material (the date, etc) to an address that does not exist. He did not submit a change of address. He's had previous mail from the court to his address (which IS on file). When he was arraigned and brought in the proof that he was not informed of the court date, they refused to look at it. The state attorney even brought up case precedence that there is NO requirement for the state to inform you of a changed court date!

So they can change your court date at their whim, send it to a made up address and put you jail...
 
2012-08-04 08:57:30 PM
I'm not one for violent protests, but if he is found guilty, the people of New Hampshire needs to riot LA style.
 
2012-08-04 08:57:39 PM

Silly Jesus: BarkingUnicorn: WhyteRaven74: BarkingUnicorn: He did not tell them he was recording or obtain their permission

There are states where that's not a problem.

New Hampshire is not one of them. NH's wiretapping law is quoted somewhere upthread.

Defendant was a party to the recorded conversations, so he can't be convicted of a felony under NH's law. But unless all parties consent to the recording, it's a misdemeanor. Like I said, he won't get 21 years, but he sure seems guilty based on his own evidence.

The Prosecutor says in the video that they are Class B Felonies. The Judge acknowledges this. Is there something that you know that they don't?


All I know is what the law quoted upthread says, and what I saw on the video. I'm sure the prosecutor knows much more than I do. Maybe the charges stem from incidents that aren't even displayed on CopBlock.org. I just don't know.
 
2012-08-04 09:04:04 PM

ongbok: You are not going to get anywhere with this guy so you may as well ignore him.


Judging by what happened after I left for a bit -- you called it!
 
2012-08-04 09:05:42 PM

netmasta10bt: HeartlineTwist: . I'd love to hear his excuse for not showing up to his first "trial".

The court sent the court material (the date, etc) to an address that does not exist. He did not submit a change of address. He's had previous mail from the court to his address (which IS on file). When he was arraigned and brought in the proof that he was not informed of the court date, they refused to look at it. The state attorney even brought up case precedence that there is NO requirement for the state to inform you of a changed court date!

So they can change your court date at their whim, send it to a made up address and put you jail...


You know, I think I heard this story before and it ended up with a dead woman and several government settlements.
 
2012-08-04 09:12:57 PM

Silly Jesus: IIRC they were near a building with classes being held and it was a disruption to those as well.


They weren't.
 
2012-08-04 09:13:25 PM
FYI - they are talking about this now on the radio at lrn.fm

Also, here is the video explaining the returned envelope sent to the wrong address, with the letter inside addressed to the correct one. Video
 
2012-08-04 09:13:44 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?" Mueller told Judge Kenneth Brown in court last week. "I am confident I can show a jury, with facts and logic, that I shouldn't be caged for my actions. My mind is free and my conscience is clear. I haven't harmed anyone and I've done what I feel is right. I'll be an activist of freedom until the day I die," he later wrote in a blog posted to CopBlock.org.

/Because justice is arbitrary, and I've often seen many crimes that are lesser get stiffer time in jail than horrible crimes that should result in a life sentence. i usually side with the police, having served as one, but i have to say that as a officer, if i can film you and record your voice during a stop, you should have the right to film me and record my actions. This "wire tapping" is bullshiat, and all the cops know it, and any argument saying "letting the public film officers endangers the officers" is crap. And we all know it.
I don't personally believe that most cops violate peoples rights on purpose, but they don't want their farkups televised either. Sure, cops make mistakes, they let their emotions get the better of them, but they are, as we are, people. With the same faults and emotional reactions to different situations. Sure, there are bad cops who play the system, but there are bad people in every profession. But to make a long post short, if you can film me,and record my voice without a warrant in public, then i should be able to do the same to you, without fear of you grabbing my camera or arresting me on some bullshiat charge.
///my 2cents.


I got pulled over last year and the first thing the officer said to me was that he was video and audio recording the encounter.

Umm, OK?

He proceeded to give me some grief, run my license, etc and let me go with a warning. He also took time to pet my dogs. Irrelevant but whatever.

The issue here(TFA) may be that they are recording without consent but the fine line is being in a public place with no real expectations of privacy.
This case will set a precedent for others.
Also, if the police aren't being abusive dicks why would they care if they are being filmed?
 
2012-08-04 09:14:46 PM
This is one of the reasons that 2nd amendment supporters are so passionate about their rights. A police state can only be combated by an armed opposition. Hopefully the realization that the population has the ability to repel unwarranted assaults is enough to dissuade certain behavior. Few actually want to have it come down to a real battle but all should be ready.
 
2012-08-04 09:34:20 PM

AbbeySomeone: This should be interesting.


What will be interesting is how cops will cope with Google and the g+ app for their phones since you have an option to automatically upload pics instantly. They can delete all they want but its too late since its already online for the world to see and you know Google will not take anything down until they have a warrant.
 
2012-08-04 09:37:11 PM

tomWright: LowbrowDeluxe: karilee183: Let's hear what the police have to say about this.

"I hope this cop hating creep gets life in prison at a supermax facility. It's idiots like Ademo that stir society up to make people think it is ok to assault and kill officers. This man needs to be silenced and put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life and his stupid website should be erased for good."

Protecting and serving at its finest.

This guy isn't exactly a journalist, and this isn't as clear cut as his supporters want to make it out to be, but I'm pretty sure it's actually guys like the quoted saying things like this that stirs society up.

Should journalists have special rights the rest of us do not? Are they special somehow?


They're not 'special rights' but they do receive certain legal protections almost specifically designed to prevent the government from stifling unpopular opinion. I'm going to assume you're trolling, since it's not very difficult at all to figure out why someone felt the need to set the system up that way, nor why it would be troubling although not completely germane to the issue at hand if he was just slightly less of a wingnut about his cause. As it is, he crossed over the line from 'gotcha' journalism to wiretapping, whether he understood that or meant to or not.
 
2012-08-04 09:37:18 PM

Cpl.D: If the guy loses this case, I will take it to mean that yet another nail has been driven into the coffin lid of freedom. And there's enough of those in there already.


Yes we have already passed a law forcing people to get health insurance which will do nothing towards lowering health costs or making people healthier. They should mandate gym memberships and force people to attend 3 days a week.
 
2012-08-04 09:48:57 PM

AbbeySomeone: Bit'O'Gristle: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?" Mueller told Judge Kenneth Brown in court last week. "I am confident I can show a jury, with facts and logic, that I shouldn't be caged for my actions. My mind is free and my conscience is clear. I haven't harmed anyone and I've done what I feel is right. I'll be an activist of freedom until the day I die," he later wrote in a blog posted to CopBlock.org.

/Because justice is arbitrary, and I've often seen many crimes that are lesser get stiffer time in jail than horrible crimes that should result in a life sentence. i usually side with the police, having served as one, but i have to say that as a officer, if i can film you and record your voice during a stop, you should have the right to film me and record my actions. This "wire tapping" is bullshiat, and all the cops know it, and any argument saying "letting the public film officers endangers the officers" is crap. And we all know it.
I don't personally believe that most cops violate peoples rights on purpose, but they don't want their farkups televised either. Sure, cops make mistakes, they let their emotions get the better of them, but they are, as we are, people. With the same faults and emotional reactions to different situations. Sure, there are bad cops who play the system, but there are bad people in every profession. But to make a long post short, if you can film me,and record my voice without a warrant in public, then i should be able to do the same to you, without fear of you grabbing my camera or arresting me on some bullshiat charge.
///my 2cents.

I got pulled over last year and the first thing the officer said to me was that he was video and audio recording the encounter.

Umm, OK?

He proceeded to give me some grief, run my license, etc and let me go with a warning. He also took time to pet my dogs. Irrelevant but whatever.

The issue here ...


He recorded you without consent but did this video show up on an episode of cops without your consent?

The issue here was not that the interviewer recorded the conversation but that he chose to broadcast it without consent of the recorded parties.
 
2012-08-04 09:57:32 PM
Good Grief!

I just read the decision in Glik v Cunniff. Not only is there NO LEGAL BASIS for charging this guy, but both the police officers who arrested and the DA who charged are both going to quite possibly find themselves subject to lawsuit, without the ability to resort to a defense claim of immunity.

This DA must be the dumbest farking DA this side of Mike Nifong (of duke lacrosse rape fame). Even a first year law student reading Glik would understand that this guy was completely within his first amendment rights and the principle is so clear that any police officer who arrests him is blatantly breaking the law in doing so and that conduct is so egregious that they lose their right to claim immunity. Likewise, the DA would seem to be in the same pickle. If a public official (Police Officer, DA, etc.) arrests a citizen for actions which they reasonably know are protected by the Constitution, they cannot assert "immunity" as a defense in reaction to a civil suit brought against them.

Glik involved exactly the same situation; a citizen photographing police officers doing their jobs in public. The cops arrested defendant Glik, who was recording police on his cell phone camera arresting someone, and then charged him with various crimes. Glik turned around and sued the City of Boston and the Police Officers individually. The 1st Circuit, reviewing the cops appeal from their civil trial (where they had been refused the benefit of qualified immunity, based on their jobs as police officers) stated quite clearly that the cops: 1. should have known that what they did was illegal; 2. that there was a long line of case law clearly on point; and 3. that they had so overstepped their authority that they could NOT possibly assert immunity as a defense. The case couldn't be any clearer on these points than it is.

I hope this guy sues the pants off the city, the police officers who arrested individually and the DA. I would also hope that he turns the DA into the State Bar Association and the US Attorney's office (Dept of Justice) for an investigation into the attempt to deprive him of his civil rights. Nifong ended up in prison for doing something no worse than what this DA is doing in this case.

I can't believe that the DA and the Judge who is allowing this case to move forward has not read, or apparently are too stupid to understand the very clear ruling in Glik. Perhaps the Judge can get his ass handed to him at some point as well, for his role in allowing what is clearly an illegal prosecution as outlined in Glik (The 1st Circuit is the Court of Appeals for NH and is the final say in all criminal and civil suits therein, unless appealed to SCOTUS) this is really farking unbelievable!

As an attorney, I am sitting here absolutely stunned after reading the Glik case. All involved here in his prosecution should lose their licenses to practice law and the cops should be fired for gross violations of a citizen's 1st amendment and 4th amendment rights.
 
2012-08-04 10:09:36 PM

lawboy87: Good Grief!

I just read the decision in Glik v Cunniff. Not only is there NO LEGAL BASIS for charging this guy, but both the police officers who arrested and the DA who charged are both going to quite possibly find themselves subject to lawsuit, without the ability to resort to a defense claim of immunity.

This DA must be the dumbest farking DA this side of Mike Nifong (of duke lacrosse rape fame). Even a first year law student reading Glik would understand that this guy was completely within his first amendment rights and the principle is so clear that any police officer who arrests him is blatantly breaking the law in doing so and that conduct is so egregious that they lose their right to claim immunity. Likewise, the DA would seem to be in the same pickle. If a public official (Police Officer, DA, etc.) arrests a citizen for actions which they reasonably know are protected by the Constitution, they cannot assert "immunity" as a defense in reaction to a civil suit brought against them.

Glik involved exactly the same situation; a citizen photographing police officers doing their jobs in public. The cops arrested defendant Glik, who was recording police on his cell phone camera arresting someone, and then charged him with various crimes. Glik turned around and sued the City of Boston and the Police Officers individually. The 1st Circuit, reviewing the cops appeal from their civil trial (where they had been refused the benefit of qualified immunity, based on their jobs as police officers) stated quite clearly that the cops: 1. should have known that what they did was illegal; 2. that there was a long line of case law clearly on point; and 3. that they had so overstepped their authority that they could NOT possibly assert immunity as a defense. The case couldn't be any clearer on these points than it is.

I hope this guy sues the pants off the city, the police officers who arrested individually and the DA. I would also hope that he turns the DA into t ...


Research this story beyond the article linked to. The guy arrested was not the guy who filmed the police. It was a high school student who filmed the police. The guy who was arrested is some blogger who decided to make an issue of this incident. So, he called up the police and recorded his conversation without the consent of the police. And in the state he lives in that is a crime (both parties being recorded must consent to being recorded). That is why he was arrested. So, Glik v Cunniff does not apply in this case.
 
2012-08-04 10:20:21 PM
I feel like I just watched Emily Litella.
 
2012-08-04 10:25:04 PM
Never talk to a cop; nothing good will ever come of it. And, always, spit in their food.
 
2012-08-04 10:26:59 PM

lawboy87: Good Grief!

Glik involved exactly the same situation; a citizen photographing police officers doing their jobs in public.


You're an attorney? BWAHAHAHAHA!

Ademo didn't photograph anyone but himself. He's not charged with photographing anyone. He's charged with making audio recordings of phone conversations with three people, without their knowledge or consent.

All of that information is available through links that I and others have dropped in this thread.

You fail, counselor.
 
2012-08-04 10:37:05 PM
www.lostrepublic.us

/That is all
 
2012-08-04 10:39:17 PM

BarkingUnicorn: lawboy87: Good Grief!

Glik involved exactly the same situation; a citizen photographing police officers doing their jobs in public.

You're an attorney? BWAHAHAHAHA!

Ademo didn't photograph anyone but himself. He's not charged with photographing anyone. He's charged with making audio recordings of phone conversations with three people, without their knowledge or consent.

All of that information is available through links that I and others have dropped in this thread.

You fail, counselor.


"Oh snap" x10!
 
2012-08-04 10:43:09 PM

Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.


This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.
 
2012-08-04 10:47:07 PM
Another 'not a lawyer' here, but the video shown leads me to believe he was using a speakerphone. I know there was a guy that was arrested for wiretapping because he recorded his arrest on a motorcycle (Anthony Graber, Garber, something like that? Too lazy to look it up). In any case the judge ruled something to the effect of "anywhere you can ordinarily hear a conversation isn't covered by wiretap laws". This was in response to an objecting talking about gang violence and police questioning subjects.


It seems a stretch, but could the fact that he used a speakerphone be seen as putting it into the "could ordinarily be heard" category?
 
2012-08-04 10:48:02 PM

INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.


It's a really petty thing to sit on the sidewalk and refuse to move because you're special.
 
2012-08-04 10:49:44 PM

lawboy87: Good Grief!

I just read the decision in Glik v Cunniff. Not only is there NO LEGAL BASIS for charging this guy, but both the police officers who arrested and the DA who charged are both going to quite possibly find themselves subject to lawsuit, without the ability to resort to a defense claim of immunity.

This DA must be the dumbest farking DA this side of Mike Nifong (of duke lacrosse rape fame). Even a first year law student reading Glik would understand that this guy was completely within his first amendment rights and the principle is so clear that any police officer who arrests him is blatantly breaking the law in doing so and that conduct is so egregious that they lose their right to claim immunity. Likewise, the DA would seem to be in the same pickle. If a public official (Police Officer, DA, etc.) arrests a citizen for actions which they reasonably know are protected by the Constitution, they cannot assert "immunity" as a defense in reaction to a civil suit brought against them.

Glik involved exactly the same situation; a citizen photographing police officers doing their jobs in public. The cops arrested defendant Glik, who was recording police on his cell phone camera arresting someone, and then charged him with various crimes. Glik turned around and sued the City of Boston and the Police Officers individually. The 1st Circuit, reviewing the cops appeal from their civil trial (where they had been refused the benefit of qualified immunity, based on their jobs as police officers) stated quite clearly that the cops: 1. should have known that what they did was illegal; 2. that there was a long line of case law clearly on point; and 3. that they had so overstepped their authority that they could NOT possibly assert immunity as a defense. The case couldn't be any clearer on these points than it is.

I hope this guy sues the pants off the city, the police officers who arrested individually and the DA. I would also hope that he turns the DA into t ...


Wow, that's an awful lot of typing just to prove that you didn't read the article.
 
2012-08-04 10:52:31 PM

consider this: Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.


Because the quads are 100% concrete and have no sidewalks...
 
2012-08-04 10:53:53 PM

Rug Doctor: tomWright: Doc Ok: GORDON: ongbok: I think me may be going to jail. Even though I don't think he should, if the jury pool is from an conservative area he is going to jail. Remember these are authoritarian type people that believe the police should have the power to do anything, and applaud and cheer when the police bust the heads of "Liberals" like him that protest. A jury from a conservative area would send him to jail just to send a message to Liberals.

You're being kind of a dick. I am a conservative, and I and all the conservatives I know think this is bullshiat, and in most places the police are out of control.

So stop being a dick. Stop listening to what the hippies in your echo chamber are telling you about conservatives.

There is a very interesting online book supporting what ongbok said: The Authoritarians. The author brings data that shows a clear correlation between being conservative and being an authoritarian in the sense of a person that likes bowing to authority. You can call the author a hippy liberal, but it's hard to argue with his data or methods.

Authoritarianism is not exclusively a right wing problem. It is a Human problem regardless of ideology. Would call the regimes that sent tanks in Tienanmen Square, Hungary in 1956, Built the wall between East and West Germany, invaded and oppressed the sovereign nation of Tibet, right wing?

How about the U.S. college administrations that are suppressing free speech by setting up "free speech zones" where they corral those they do not like? Or expel students merely accused of improper behavior with right to review, hearing, trial or counsel? Storied about all of those have been linked to here on Fark. Those are not notoriously right wing folks.

I am not defending the right wing, they have their monsters too, usually associated with churches in recent decades. I am pointing out that claiming the right is more susceptible is wrong based on history, especially recent history.

All ideologies, religious or polit ...

...So in other words, both sides are bad because history?

Also, you might get some traction arguing that college professors tend to be libs, but not the top administration and security folks. And they're the ones giving the orders to corral people.


No, in other words, both "sides" have acted in an authoritarian manner in the past.
 
2012-08-04 10:57:57 PM

ongbok: Silly Jesus: Doc Ok: Silly Jesus: Sincere question...if it was a random out-of-the-way location that would cause no disruption, why did the protesters choose to sit in that particular location?

It's a fair question. The quad is neither random nor out-of-the-way, it's the "central park," so to speak, of UC Davis. And just like the central park in New York, it's not a major thoroughfare. People walk by there a whole lot, but they don't actually walk through it. Also, it's where the fee hike protesters had set up their tents, and because this whole incident started when the police were sent in to tear down the tents, that's where the sit-down protest happened.

So the police were trying to clear the quad then? So the issue of them blocking something isn't really the point...they were trying to clear out the participants of a disruptive protest.

See what I mean about conservatives. The police stuck it to Liberals, good for them, I don't care if they were college kids who weren't causing any type of disruption while exercising their second amendment rights, as long as they were put in their place.

You are not going to get anywhere with this guy so you may as well ignore him. His arguments are just going to get more and more asinine.


Um, excuse me, I'm a conservative, and I don't believe in that guy's derp, nor the use of force against protesters or whatever, so don't lump all conservatives in with people who are just plain idiots.
 
2012-08-04 10:58:12 PM

ThoughtSpy: Another 'not a lawyer' here, but the video shown leads me to believe he was using a speakerphone. I know there was a guy that was arrested for wiretapping because he recorded his arrest on a motorcycle (Anthony Graber, Garber, something like that? Too lazy to look it up). In any case the judge ruled something to the effect of "anywhere you can ordinarily hear a conversation isn't covered by wiretap laws". This was in response to an objecting talking about gang violence and police questioning subjects.


It seems a stretch, but could the fact that he used a speakerphone be seen as putting it into the "could ordinarily be heard" category?


That's more of a blind fumbling than a stretch, lad. Come back when you're not feeling so lazy.
 
2012-08-04 11:05:19 PM

Kit Fister: consider this: Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.

Because the quads are 100% concrete and have no sidewalks...


digitaljournal.com
 
2012-08-04 11:06:53 PM
I don't get it. Do DAs have to press charges when a cop places an arrest? Don't they get some sort of discretion? State attorneys deserve just as much hate for this, as well as state congressmen, who are unwilling to change a law that was meant to protect the people from being wiretapped by the government.
 
2012-08-04 11:08:16 PM
They should have just let the protesters sit there as long as they wanted. It's their campus, right? They own it. Why not let them set up permanent encampments on the sidewalks and do whatever else they felt like? Rules are only for conservative boot lickers.

/amidoinitright?
 
2012-08-04 11:18:40 PM

SevenizGud: ongbok: defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting

Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk and causing a distruption that made it difficult for people to make it to class.

You forgot that part. If they had been sitting peacefully OFF the sidewalk, and got maced, then I'd agree with you.

Your other examples are just as shiatty.


So they were sitting peacefully on the sidewalk. If they were off, then nothing would have happened. Are you saying that the fact that they were obstructing people from using the sidewalk justifies spraying them? If not, what you said isn't relevant is it?
 
2012-08-04 11:27:36 PM

evilboyevil: I don't get it. Do DAs have to press charges when a cop places an arrest? Don't they get some sort of discretion? State attorneys deserve just as much hate for this, as well as state congressmen, who are unwilling to change a law that was meant to protect the people from being wiretapped by the government.


This law is meant to protect citizens from each other, not from the government. I'm sure it contains exemptions for law enforcement agents who have proper warrants for wiretapping.

Why should the DA refuse to press charges in this case? There is excellent evidence that the defendant did break the law.
 
2012-08-04 11:45:22 PM

Silly Jesus: They should have just let the protesters sit there as long as they wanted. It's their campus, right? They own it. Why not let them set up permanent encampments on the sidewalks and do whatever else they felt like? Rules are only for conservative boot lickers.

/amidoinitright?


5/10. Needs more "death to cops" and "loss of freedom." Add in some of that and they you will be doing it right.

:-D
 
2012-08-04 11:51:45 PM

andyfromfl: SevenizGud: ongbok: defended the cop who maced the college kids that were peacefully sitting and protesting

Peacefully sitting and blocking the sidewalk and causing a distruption that made it difficult for people to make it to class.

You forgot that part. If they had been sitting peacefully OFF the sidewalk, and got maced, then I'd agree with you.

Your other examples are just as shiatty.

So they were sitting peacefully on the sidewalk. If they were off, then nothing would have happened. Are you saying that the fact that they were obstructing people from using the sidewalk justifies spraying them? If not, what you said isn't relevant is it?


Not defending the cop (who was fired, if I remember correctly), but if they were lawfully ordered to clear the sidewalk then what would you have the cops do if they refuse to leave? Just let them sit there? Pepper spray is some pretty nasty stuff, but it is effective and it does not cause serious injury to the people. With all of the protesters locking arms it would be pretty hard to start trying to pry everyone apart without manhandling them and thus risking physical injury to the protestors. And pepper spray is certainly kinder than clubbing them.

Also, their sitting their peacefully is not an issue. The issue is whether or not they were breaking the law. While we do have the right of free association (and by extension the right to protest) that does not grant people the right to break the law while protesting. I do not know the legality of the situation at that particular event (as in whether or not they violated any statutes with their protest), however, so I cannot comment on whether or not the protesters were in the right or the police in ordering them to disperse.
 
2012-08-04 11:55:09 PM

evilboyevil: I don't get it. Do DAs have to press charges when a cop places an arrest? Don't they get some sort of discretion? State attorneys deserve just as much hate for this, as well as state congressmen, who are unwilling to change a law that was meant to protect the people from being wiretapped by the government.


I think it depends on the "crime" in question. From what I know (and I am far from being a lawyer) if the "crime" is not directly witnessed by law enforcement agents then the District Attorney's office has to press charges, which then leads to warrants being issued. A police officer who happens to see the video lacks the legal authority to go out at his own discretion and simply arrest this guy for some crime.
 
2012-08-05 12:04:09 AM

Silly Jesus: Doc Ok: consider this: Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.

It's not a sidewalk, it's a paved walkway through a big lawn. Here's an aerial photograph showing the protest in reaction to the pepperspraying a few days later. The walkway that was blocked is the one along the left edge of the picture; the protesters were sitting in the central circle. You'll notice that there is absolutely no obstruction on either side of the walkway, which is why it was not even an inconvenience to walk around them.

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]

The following comment is mostly serious...

I parked my car on a 3 lane road the other day. It was not an inconvenience because people could just use the other two lanes. My taxes were too high, so I protested. But take no notice, everyone can just go around.

The sidewalk is for people to walk on...not for people to sit on and block. They could have just as easily sat in the grass beside the sidewalk, but they wanted to make a point, so they decided to no longer allow people to use the sidewalk. Fark you, get off the damn sidewalk. I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.


I agree, protests are so annoying. We should just do whatever we're told to make things easier for everyone.


/retard
//was trying to make it through the thread before posting but your horrible opinion outderped everyone so far. Congrats on standing out.
 
2012-08-05 12:11:31 AM

ThoughtSpy: It seems a stretch, but could the fact that he used a speakerphone be seen as putting it into the "could ordinarily be heard" category?


I seriously doubt it. Unless he clearly announces to the other party that a) He's using a speakerphone and b) He's got it loud enough that it can be heard even outside the room. In which case they'd probably hang up just because he's a d-bag, but that's a different matter. Even if he did that, I wouldn't want my liberty to hang in the balance on such a facetious bit of legal pedantry.
 
2012-08-05 12:24:08 AM

inclemency: Silly Jesus: Doc Ok: consider this: Doc Ok: I was there. They were not sitting anywhere close to anywhere where someone would have had to walk around them. Universities typically have so-called "quads" where people sit around or play frisbee. That's where they were sitting.

You're obviously lying for attention since they were clearly sitting on a sidewalk and there's video to prove it.

It's not a sidewalk, it's a paved walkway through a big lawn. Here's an aerial photograph showing the protest in reaction to the pepperspraying a few days later. The walkway that was blocked is the one along the left edge of the picture; the protesters were sitting in the central circle. You'll notice that there is absolutely no obstruction on either side of the walkway, which is why it was not even an inconvenience to walk around them.

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]

The following comment is mostly serious...

I parked my car on a 3 lane road the other day. It was not an inconvenience because people could just use the other two lanes. My taxes were too high, so I protested. But take no notice, everyone can just go around.

The sidewalk is for people to walk on...not for people to sit on and block. They could have just as easily sat in the grass beside the sidewalk, but they wanted to make a point, so they decided to no longer allow people to use the sidewalk. Fark you, get off the damn sidewalk. I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

I agree, protests are so annoying. We should just do whatever we're told to make things easier for everyone.


/retard
//was trying to make it through the thread before posting but your horrible opinion outderped everyone so far. Congrats on standing out.


Yes, because doing whatever we're told and sitting on the sidewalk are the only two options.

Do you always herp when you derp?
 
2012-08-05 12:30:19 AM

inclemency: I agree, protests are so annoying. We should just do whatever we're told to make things easier for everyone.


Because acting like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum gets shiat done, right?
 
2012-08-05 12:58:54 AM

consider this: inclemency: I agree, protests are so annoying. We should just do whatever we're told to make things easier for everyone.

Because acting like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum gets shiat done, right?


Do you feel there is a more appropriate way? This sort of 60's style protesters have other avenues? We're bought and sold long ago and those who own us are getting greedier every day. What other realistic solution can you provide? None I'm sure, frustration boils over and then we eat cake.
 
2012-08-05 01:14:35 AM

inclemency: Do you feel there is a more appropriate way? This sort of 60's style protesters have other avenues? We're bought and sold long ago and those who own us are getting greedier every day. What other realistic solution can you provide? None I'm sure, frustration boils over and then we eat cake.


Explain how refusing an officers orders to clear a sidewalk does anything to solve the issue with rising tuition rates?
 
2012-08-05 01:18:16 AM

consider this: inclemency: Do you feel there is a more appropriate way? This sort of 60's style protesters have other avenues? We're bought and sold long ago and those who own us are getting greedier every day. What other realistic solution can you provide? None I'm sure, frustration boils over and then we eat cake.

Explain how refusing an officers orders to clear a sidewalk does anything to solve the issue with rising tuition rates?


Explain how refusing an officer's lawful order to clear the bridge does anything to solve the issue of racism?

\Protesters deserve what they got, right?
 
2012-08-05 01:40:49 AM

agos1247: Not sure, but I think ultraholland was being sarcastic.

I don't even know where that's from, but even I recognized it was a quote from a book/movie. >:\

Then I rescind my statement. This shiat kinda pisses me off and have little room left for recognizing quotes or sarcasm


You might just be on the wrong site if any topic is SRS BSNS and you can't see the sarcasm that infests Fark through your blind rage.

/Even when they do seem serious, half the people that disagree with you are trolling you for lulz and just working you up on purpose.
 
2012-08-05 02:33:22 AM

Silly Jesus: ultraholland: Silly Jesus: It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

oh your tortured life!

Oh the tortured lives of the protesters who could move over two feet and sit in the grass instead of annoying everyone around them with their self absorbed douchbaggery.

See how that works?

Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.


Diners are for dining. Buses are for riding.

See how that works, you feckless pinhead?
 
2012-08-05 02:59:25 AM

knobmaker: Silly Jesus: ultraholland: Silly Jesus: It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

oh your tortured life!

Oh the tortured lives of the protesters who could move over two feet and sit in the grass instead of annoying everyone around them with their self absorbed douchbaggery.

See how that works?

Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.

Diners are for dining. Buses are for riding.

See how that works, you feckless pinhead?


Please tell me you did not just compare the Whatever-the-hell-they-called-themselves-Wallstreet-protesters to the Civil Rights Protesters.
 
2012-08-05 04:16:34 AM

agos1247: ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!

Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing


There are ways to provide constructive critisism without being a dick about it.
 
2012-08-05 04:38:14 AM

Mock26: With all of the protesters locking arms it would be pretty hard to start trying to pry everyone apart without manhandling them and thus risking physical injury to the protestors. And pepper spray is certainly kinder than clubbing them.


Why didn't they just tickle the protesters?

You could likely get many individuals to move on their own based on the immediate discomfort of being tickled. As far as I'm aware, most people are ticklish and those who are usually can't ignore the sensation. As they were all facing the same direction with locked arms, seems like they'd have been easy to tickle from behind (sides or armpits).
 
2012-08-05 04:58:52 AM

Squik2: Mock26: With all of the protesters locking arms it would be pretty hard to start trying to pry everyone apart without manhandling them and thus risking physical injury to the protestors. And pepper spray is certainly kinder than clubbing them.

Why didn't they just tickle the protesters?

You could likely get many individuals to move on their own based on the immediate discomfort of being tickled. As far as I'm aware, most people are ticklish and those who are usually can't ignore the sensation. As they were all facing the same direction with locked arms, seems like they'd have been easy to tickle from behind (sides or armpits).


You should pass this along to the Police. It sounds like it could actually work. Until, of course, you come up against someone who was not ticklish.
 
2012-08-05 05:02:23 AM

miniflea: I hope he wins. I really don't see how it can be argued we don't live in an oppressive police state when you can go to prison for twenty years for filming the police in public.


It wasn't in public.

And I'm getting sick and tired of photographers thinking they can just stick their cameras in where they're not welcome.
 
2012-08-05 05:09:32 AM

Mock26: knobmaker: Silly Jesus: ultraholland: Silly Jesus: It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

oh your tortured life!

Oh the tortured lives of the protesters who could move over two feet and sit in the grass instead of annoying everyone around them with their self absorbed douchbaggery.

See how that works?

Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.

Diners are for dining. Buses are for riding.

See how that works, you feckless pinhead?

Please tell me you did not just compare the Whatever-the-hell-they-called-themselves-Wallstreet-protesters to the Civil Rights Protesters.


Oh, I know what you mean. The Wall Street protesters are only trying to save the middle class, and who gives a shiat about them, right?

Civil disobedience is civil disobedience, whether or not you have sympathy for the cause. Plenty of white bigots thought the same about the civil rights protesters as you do about the Wall Street protesters. Plenty of them cheered on the dogs and firehoses, just as the pinhead upthread cheers on the cop with pepper spray.

Nice company you keep.
 
Xai
2012-08-05 06:23:59 AM
In the land of the free?
 
2012-08-05 06:55:46 AM

knobmaker: Civil disobedience is civil disobedience, whether or not you have sympathy for the cause. Plenty of white bigots thought the same about the civil rights protesters as you do about the Wall Street protesters. Plenty of them cheered on the dogs and firehoses, just as the pinhead upthread cheers on the cop with pepper spray.


Civil disobedience also means you are willing to go to the wall for your cause. Ask any real veteran of the Civil Rights movement.
 
2012-08-05 08:46:07 AM
This is disturbing...

This criminal will do some time, maybe not the full twenty one years however even a six month stay at Con College will very quickly reshape his conditioning and by the time he gets out, watch and see if ever decides to disobey a direct order from a superior.

The bigger problem I see here though has nothing to do with this case, it's all of you citizens who seem to think you have special rights against law enforcement, and that you somehow really do live in a world where everything is supposed to be fair and honest. Wake up, you are causing problems here in America, obstructing Law Enforcement from doing our job. You also are causing some of the good people in this country to fear cops, the very people put in place to protect you. And yet you still can't get it through your head why Law Enforcement wins every time.

Yes, cops will do what they need to when it comes to protecting themselves. Unlike regular rank and file debt slaves, Cops actually stick together and back eachother, we do not turn on each other like animals, which is how you are viewed on a whole, and that explains why you are treated like such for the most part.

Save me your 'shock and awe', you fully understand that the ones in power in this world will never give it up freely and will kill as many of you, lock up as many of you or beat the living shiat out of as many of you as required to keep things moving along. These 'cop hatred' threads are a source of comedy for law enforcement, seeing a scared bunch of faceless pussies congregating in some comments section of a satirical news site? C'mon, herding you cattle has never been easier, most of you are afraid of your own shadow at this point.

So you can keep pretending to have a voice, that someone in power (and if you don't have the power, you don't matter) is going to give a shiat about you. Nothing is going to change, you will only condemn more of your fellow cop haters to death by raising the stakes in a battle designed to always, and I mean always, defeat you.

How any of you think you are going to stop this when you are so cowardly you won't even stand up together against what you claim is 'criminal behaviour from the police' is beyond me, but don't let me stop you, as I said it's a source of comedy to see you guys come in here and act tough. You'd all piss your pants in public if you ran into one of us and decided to show your true colours. You won't, because you have no say in this system, and the beat will continue to drum on.

The faster we have a fully operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week surveillance America, I will not be happy. Way too many of you bottom feeders squeak past, and the time has finally come to remove that last barrier or protection from you. You are going to love what America is going to become, and you'll love it even more when you see what she has in store for you.
 
2012-08-05 09:40:56 AM

consider this: Same thing and blocking either isn't allowed. Douchebag kids were being douchebags and got a taste of pepper for their douchiness.


so . . . . that's like a law, or something?
 
2012-08-05 09:54:37 AM

knobmaker: Silly Jesus: ultraholland: Silly Jesus: It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

oh your tortured life!

Oh the tortured lives of the protesters who could move over two feet and sit in the grass instead of annoying everyone around them with their self absorbed douchbaggery.

See how that works?

Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.

Diners are for dining. Buses are for riding.

See how that works, you feckless pinhead?


So they were trying to gain the right for white people to sit on sidewalks?

Try again moran.
 
2012-08-05 12:08:09 PM

Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.

It's a really petty thing to sit on the sidewalk and refuse to move because you're special.


Bolded part still applies.
 
2012-08-05 12:14:02 PM

INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.

It's a really petty thing to sit on the sidewalk and refuse to move because you're special.

Bolded part still applies.


Eh, the effects of the pepper extract only last for hours. They'll get over it. And maybe next time they'll throw their tantrums a few feet over in the grass.
 
2012-08-05 12:41:57 PM

HeartlineTwist: Video of the wiretapping


The call to the police station likely had no expectation of privacy in the first place. Aren't all such calls recorded by the police themselves as a matter of routine?
 
2012-08-05 12:49:57 PM

Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.

It's a really petty thing to sit on the sidewalk and refuse to move because you're special.

Bolded part still applies.

Eh, the effects of the pepper extract only last for hours. They'll get over it. And maybe next time they'll throw their tantrums a few feet over in the grass.


Too bad the police officer won't be there. Meanwhile, the department's acknowledgement that the police were in the wrong means the students will be throwing tantrums all the way to the bank.

lol.
 
2012-08-05 01:14:59 PM

INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.

It's a really petty thing to sit on the sidewalk and refuse to move because you're special.

Bolded part still applies.

Eh, the effects of the pepper extract only last for hours. They'll get over it. And maybe next time they'll throw their tantrums a few feet over in the grass.

Too bad the police officer won't be there. Meanwhile, the department's acknowledgement that the police were in the wrong means the students will be throwing tantrums all the way to the bank.

lol.


"For reasons detailed in this report, we conclude that Lieutenant Pike's use of pepper spray was reasonable under the circumstances," the report states. The firing was a PR move. Nothing more. All levels of investigation, both inside the department and out, concluded that his actions were reasonable.

Your second link is to something unrelated.

LOL
 
2012-08-05 03:12:05 PM

knobmaker: Mock26: knobmaker: Silly Jesus: ultraholland: Silly Jesus: It would disrupt my walk. Sit in the farking grass.

oh your tortured life!

Oh the tortured lives of the protesters who could move over two feet and sit in the grass instead of annoying everyone around them with their self absorbed douchbaggery.

See how that works?

Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.

Diners are for dining. Buses are for riding.

See how that works, you feckless pinhead?

Please tell me you did not just compare the Whatever-the-hell-they-called-themselves-Wallstreet-protesters to the Civil Rights Protesters.

Oh, I know what you mean. The Wall Street protesters are only trying to save the middle class, and who gives a shiat about them, right?

Civil disobedience is civil disobedience, whether or not you have sympathy for the cause. Plenty of white bigots thought the same about the civil rights protesters as you do about the Wall Street protesters. Plenty of them cheered on the dogs and firehoses, just as the pinhead upthread cheers on the cop with pepper spray.

Nice company you keep.


Please tell me what basic Constitutionally granted rights are the middle class being denied that minorities we denied back then? Go on, list them.

I never said that the plight of the middle class is something not to not give a shiat about them (or rather, about "Us" as the case may be). But, the Civil Rights movement was fighting for something far more important than what the Wallstreet protesters are fighting for. No comparison at all.
 
2012-08-05 03:15:56 PM

fireclown: so . . . . that's like a law, or something?


Yes, blocking public walkways is illegal.
 
2012-08-05 03:38:56 PM

AndreMA: HeartlineTwist: Video of the wiretapping

The call to the police station likely had no expectation of privacy in the first place. Aren't all such calls recorded by the police themselves as a matter of routine?


Didn't you know? The police are above the law. Better not let them catch you thinking those things.
 
2012-08-05 04:19:12 PM
Pitabred: Didn't you know? The police are above the law. Better not let them catch you thinking those things.

Well except for the fact the law specifically has a provision that allows certain functions, such as police, to record phone calls.
 
2012-08-05 04:37:28 PM
agos1247: ultraholland: "Why am I in jail with a guy who beats up his wife and gets a one-year sentence from the state, but I'm facing 21 years for filming somebody?"

Because you don't know when to stop digging. You're a renegade and a liability!

Your statement means nothing. Whats he digging? What cause is he a renegade from? Who is he a liability to? Comeback with some substance, thanks for playing


You are asking too many questions. Someone will be over shortly to educate you.
 
2012-08-05 04:51:44 PM
Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.

It's a really petty thing to sit on the sidewalk and refuse to move because you're special.

Bolded part still applies.

Eh, the effects of the pepper extract only last for hours. They'll get over it. And maybe next time they'll throw their tantrums a few feet over in the grass.

Too bad the police officer won't be there. Meanwhile, the department's acknowledgement that the police were in the wrong means the students will be throwing tantrums all the way to the bank.

lol.

"For reasons detailed in this report, we conclude that Lieutenant Pike's use of pepper spray was reasonable under the circumstances," the report states. The firing was a PR move. Nothing more. All levels of investigation, both inside the department and out, concluded that his actions were reasonable.

Your second link is to something unrelated.

LOL


UC Davis Police Chief Matthew Carmichael rejected the findings and wrote in a letter to Pike that "the needs of the department do not justify your continued employment".

Maybe with his talents he can get a job as a middle school gym teacher, since he won't be finding another job as an officer. Do middle schools employ people with sub-middle school education?

lol.
 
2012-08-05 04:56:21 PM
consider this: Pitabred: Didn't you know? The police are above the law. Better not let them catch you thinking those things.

Well except for the fact the law specifically has a provision that allows certain functions, such as police, to record phone calls.


Exactly. The police are exempt from the laws that everyone else has to follow. Not with a warrant, not with oversight, just straight-up exempt. That is the problem.
 
2012-08-05 05:12:13 PM
Pitabred: Exactly. The police are exempt from the laws that everyone else has to follow. Not with a warrant, not with oversight, just straight-up exempt. That is the problem.

Yes, it's a problem that phone calls to a police station or emergency services can be recorded since we all know there's no good reason for it.
 
2012-08-05 05:38:29 PM
consider this: Pitabred: Exactly. The police are exempt from the laws that everyone else has to follow. Not with a warrant, not with oversight, just straight-up exempt. That is the problem.

Yes, it's a problem that phone calls to a police station or emergency services can be recorded since we all know there's no good reason for it.


Don't be deliberately obtuse. I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm saying that the police having rights that the citizens do not for no reason other than for authoritarian procedures, it's a problem. I have no issues with the police recording conversations. I just want the same right. Fortunately, Colorado is one of those sane states that has a one-party consent law, so I can record any conversation I want, as long as I'm involved in it.
 
2012-08-05 06:02:04 PM

Pitabred: consider this: Pitabred: Exactly. The police are exempt from the laws that everyone else has to follow. Not with a warrant, not with oversight, just straight-up exempt. That is the problem.

Yes, it's a problem that phone calls to a police station or emergency services can be recorded since we all know there's no good reason for it.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm saying that the police having rights that the citizens do not for no reason other than for authoritarian procedures, it's a problem. I have no issues with the police recording conversations. I just want the same right. Fortunately, Colorado is one of those sane states that has a one-party consent law, so I can record any conversation I want, as long as I'm involved in it.


If those "extra rights" allow them to enforce the laws, then what is the problem? For example, police has the "right" to run red lights and stop signs under certain circumstances. Now, let us say that there is a massive shooting someplace. By your reasoning police should have to stop at each and every stop sign and red light and obey the speed limit because having the extra "right" to ignore traffic laws is a problem, right?
 
2012-08-05 06:24:46 PM

ultraholland: Silly Jesus: Sidewalks are for walking, not whiny sit-ins.

now say that like Patsy Kline


Sidewalks are made for walkin',
That's just what they'll do.
If ya sit and start yore whining,
Ya'll get cs all over you?
 
2012-08-05 06:31:09 PM

INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: INTERTRON: Silly Jesus: I don't care if I can "easily walk around you", you can just as easily not sit in the middle of the farking sidewalk. It's not my obligation to change my route so that you can have a useless protest about some horrible grievance.

This is a really petty thing to get angry about, or to mace somebody for. You'll get over it.

It's a really petty thing to sit on the sidewalk and refuse to move because you're special.

Bolded part still applies.

Eh, the effects of the pepper extract only last for hours. They'll get over it. And maybe next time they'll throw their tantrums a few feet over in the grass.

Too bad the police officer won't be there. Meanwhile, the department's acknowledgement that the police were in the wrong means the students will be throwing tantrums all the way to the bank.

lol.

"For reasons detailed in this report, we conclude that Lieutenant Pike's use of pepper spray was reasonable under the circumstances," the report states. The firing was a PR move. Nothing more. All levels of investigation, both inside the department and out, concluded that his actions were reasonable.

Your second link is to something unrelated.

LOL

UC Davis Police Chief Matthew Carmichael rejected the findings and wrote in a letter to Pike that "the needs of the department do not justify your continued employment".

Maybe with his talents he can get a job as a middle school gym teacher, since he won't be finding another job as an officer. Do middle schools employ people with sub-middle school education?

lol.


Meh, you're too childish to fool with...
 
2012-08-05 07:21:56 PM

Mock26: Pitabred: consider this: Pitabred: Exactly. The police are exempt from the laws that everyone else has to follow. Not with a warrant, not with oversight, just straight-up exempt. That is the problem.

Yes, it's a problem that phone calls to a police station or emergency services can be recorded since we all know there's no good reason for it.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm saying that the police having rights that the citizens do not for no reason other than for authoritarian procedures, it's a problem. I have no issues with the police recording conversations. I just want the same right. Fortunately, Colorado is one of those sane states that has a one-party consent law, so I can record any conversation I want, as long as I'm involved in it.

If those "extra rights" allow them to enforce the laws, then what is the problem? For example, police has the "right" to run red lights and stop signs under certain circumstances. Now, let us say that there is a massive shooting someplace. By your reasoning police should have to stop at each and every stop sign and red light and obey the speed limit because having the extra "right" to ignore traffic laws is a problem, right?


Are you just ignoring what I say, or are you just stupid? Look up above at the bolded part. This does not help them enforce the law, it is purely a law allowing extrajudicial behavior and exemption from accountability. Go ahead... tell me one good reason that the police should be able to record conversations at will, but the general public should NOT be allowed to record conversations they're part of, especially when they're with an officer acting in the officer's official capacity.

Police have a good reason to run stop signs UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Not carte blanche to do so. The wiretapping laws give them carte blanche to a right that has no relevance to their job except for protecting the police force from scrutiny.

I'm not saying the law doesn't say what it does, or that the police are acting legally. I'm saying that it's WRONG. Law is not morality, and the sooner you stop conflating the two, the better.
 
2012-08-05 09:11:57 PM

PrinceofFark: This is disturbing...

This criminal will do some time, maybe not the full twenty one years however even a six month stay at Con College will very quickly reshape his conditioning and by the time he gets out, watch and see if ever decides to disobey a direct order from a superior.

The bigger problem I see here though has nothing to do with this case, it's all of you citizens who seem to think you have special rights against law enforcement, and that you somehow really do live in a world where everything is supposed to be fair and honest. Wake up, you are causing problems here in America, obstructing Law Enforcement from doing our job. You also are causing some of the good people in this country to fear cops, the very people put in place to protect you. And yet you still can't get it through your head why Law Enforcement wins every time.

Yes, cops will do what they need to when it comes to protecting themselves. Unlike regular rank and file debt slaves, Cops actually stick together and back eachother, we do not turn on each other like animals, which is how you are viewed on a whole, and that explains why you are treated like such for the most part.

Save me your 'shock and awe', you fully understand that the ones in power in this world will never give it up freely and will kill as many of you, lock up as many of you or beat the living shiat out of as many of you as required to keep things moving along. These 'cop hatred' threads are a source of comedy for law enforcement, seeing a scared bunch of faceless pussies congregating in some comments section of a satirical news site? C'mon, herding you cattle has never been easier, most of you are afraid of your own shadow at this point.

So you can keep pretending to have a voice, that someone in power (and if you don't have the power, you don't matter) is going to give a shiat about you. Nothing is going to change, you will only condemn more of your fellow cop haters to death by raising the stakes in a battle designed to always, and I mean always, defeat you.

How any of you think you are going to stop this when you are so cowardly you won't even stand up together against what you claim is 'criminal behaviour from the police' is beyond me, but don't let me stop you, as I said it's a source of comedy to see you guys come in here and act tough. You'd all piss your pants in public if you ran into one of us and decided to show your true colours. You won't, because you have no say in this system, and the beat will continue to drum on.

The faster we have a fully operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week surveillance America, I will not be happy. Way too many of you bottom feeders squeak past, and the time has finally come to remove that last barrier or protection from you. You are going to love what America is going to become, and you'll love it even more when you see what she has in store for you.


Slowclap.jpg

10/10, bravo.

Though you did make one mistake: the police have no duty to protect individuals. They only have a duty to enforce the law and thereby protect the community. The individual is farked if he expects that the cops are there to prevent crime from happening to him, or harm, etc. Even the supreme court says so.

Otherwise, magnificent.
 
2012-08-05 09:29:51 PM
Protesters deserve to be pepper sprayed for subjecting everyone else to the minor inconvenience of taking two more steps to get to class.
Cops deserve special privileges that have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to enforce the law, and everything to do with avoiding accountability.
People should just suck it up and follow unjust laws. If they really wanted it changed, why don't they contribute a few million dollars to someone's campaign like everyone else?

Authoritarians actually believe this.
 
2012-08-05 10:19:22 PM

ubermensch:
Secondly, he wasn't arrested for publishing, he was arrested under a stupid law for wiretapping. The press is still free, he broke a law (albeit a stupid one).


According to New Hampshire state statues, in order to be guilty of wiretapping another party must have a reasonable expectation that their communications are not subject to interception. How can you have an reasonable expectation that you aren't being watched by a member of the public in a public place?
 
2012-08-05 10:53:10 PM

Pitabred: Mock26: Pitabred: consider this: Pitabred: Exactly. The police are exempt from the laws that everyone else has to follow. Not with a warrant, not with oversight, just straight-up exempt. That is the problem.

Yes, it's a problem that phone calls to a police station or emergency services can be recorded since we all know there's no good reason for it.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm saying that the police having rights that the citizens do not for no reason other than for authoritarian procedures, it's a problem. I have no issues with the police recording conversations. I just want the same right. Fortunately, Colorado is one of those sane states that has a one-party consent law, so I can record any conversation I want, as long as I'm involved in it.

If those "extra rights" allow them to enforce the laws, then what is the problem? For example, police has the "right" to run red lights and stop signs under certain circumstances. Now, let us say that there is a massive shooting someplace. By your reasoning police should have to stop at each and every stop sign and red light and obey the speed limit because having the extra "right" to ignore traffic laws is a problem, right?

Are you just ignoring what I say, or are you just stupid? Look up above at the bolded part. This does not help them enforce the law, it is purely a law allowing extrajudicial behavior and exemption from accountability. Go ahead... tell me one good reason that the police should be able to record conversations at will, but the general public should NOT be allowed to record conversations they're part of, especially when they're with an officer acting in the officer's official capacity.

Police have a good reason to run stop signs UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Not carte blanche to do so. The wiretapping laws give them carte blanche to a right that has no relevance to their job except for protecting the police force from scrutiny.

I'm not saying the law doesn't say w ...


I was deliberately ignoring what you said because it was so monumentally derpy.
 
2012-08-06 12:23:53 AM

ubermensch: Secondly, he wasn't arrested for publishing, he was arrested under a stupid law for wiretapping. The press is still free, he broke a law (albeit a stupid one).


What wires did he tap? Who did those belong to? As I understand it, one of the kids in school where it happened took the video on his phone, gave it to the guy in the press who told the story. That's what the press is supposed to do, tell the story. Taking a video of something happening in front of you while in a public space surely isn't "wiretapping". Broadcasting a video that was legal taken and given to you isn't "wiretapping". So where is the wiretapping?
 
2012-08-06 12:47:10 AM
Jesus. Late to the party and didn't read the article to boot.

This isn't about the cellphone video the student recorded. This is about Ademo calling the police station and the school and recording those phone calls and them publishing them via a youtube video. The secretary/receptionist at the police station, the chief of police (or another officer), and the principal of the school were all recorded without consent. Therefore, wiretapping.
 
2012-08-06 03:25:33 AM

JuggleGeek: ubermensch: Secondly, he wasn't arrested for publishing, he was arrested under a stupid law for wiretapping. The press is still free, he broke a law (albeit a stupid one).

What wires did he tap? Who did those belong to? As I understand it, one of the kids in school where it happened took the video on his phone, gave it to the guy in the press who told the story. That's what the press is supposed to do, tell the story. Taking a video of something happening in front of you while in a public space surely isn't "wiretapping". Broadcasting a video that was legal taken and given to you isn't "wiretapping". So where is the wiretapping?


The reporter called the police and recorded his conversation with them. That is the wiretapping.
 
2012-08-06 03:46:30 AM
Recording your own phone call is wiretapping? That wouldn't be true in my state, and it makes no logical sense.
 
2012-08-06 04:23:22 AM

JuggleGeek: Recording your own phone call is wiretapping? That wouldn't be true in my state, and it makes no logical sense.


In the state in question both parties being recorded have to give consent. And considering that this guy did not even tell them he was recording the conversation it constitutes wiretapping.
 
2012-08-06 08:59:08 AM

Mock26: eggrolls: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.

He secretly recorded a conversation he had with a police officer over the phone. That is where the wiretapping charges come from. Also, the term "tapping" in wiretapping does mean what you think it means. It does not apply only to putting a tap on someone's line. It also includes recording any conversation over a phone line, including holding a microphone up to the phone while you are talking on it.


He said "I am doing an interview about..."

If a reporter calls and asks for an interview, don't you HOPE that he's taking a recording, rather than taking your quotes from memory?
 
2012-08-06 09:05:03 AM

HeartlineTwist: Jesus. Late to the party and didn't read the article to boot.

This isn't about the cellphone video the student recorded. This is about Ademo calling the police station and the school and recording those phone calls and them publishing them via a youtube video. The secretary/receptionist at the police station, the chief of police (or another officer), and the principal of the school were all recorded without consent. Therefore, wiretapping.


(1) They were informed that it was an interview for a news article. Therefore they consented to being on the record by continuing the conversation.

(2) Wiretapping laws only apply when you have an expectation of privacy. As these were all public officials acting in their public capacity and having a phone conversation with a member of the public they they 'serve,' there was no expectation of privacy.

(3) The employees of the police station should have had actual notice of the Glick decision in their Federal Circuit Court that determined that police have no expectation of privacy, and can be recorded whenever they act in their public capacity.
 
2012-08-06 01:10:10 PM

iawai: Mock26: eggrolls: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.

He secretly recorded a conversation he had with a police officer over the phone. That is where the wiretapping charges come from. Also, the term "tapping" in wiretapping does mean what you think it means. It does not apply only to putting a tap on someone's line. It also includes recording any conversation over a phone line, including holding a microphone up to the phone while you are talking on it.

He said "I am doing an interview about..."

If a reporter calls and asks for an interview, don't you HOPE that he's taking a recording, rather than taking your quotes from memory?


Irrelevant. He could have been using a pen and paper to take notes. The law is very clear in that state that both parties have to consent to being recorded. He did not get their consent.
 
Displayed 206 of 206 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report