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 33
    More: Scary, nullification, wiretaps, cafeterias, jury selection, Officer Darren Murphy, journalists, high schools  
•       •       •

16886 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2012 at 6:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-04 06:21:40 PM  
4 votes:

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 06:19:32 PM  
4 votes:
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 06:17:59 PM  
4 votes:
What's even more sad is that the DA chose to prosecute this. Or a judge agreed to hear it.
2012-08-04 07:50:25 PM  
3 votes:
"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 06:44:29 PM  
3 votes:

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 07:03:47 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:37:21 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:31:36 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:31:06 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:29:52 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:24:42 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:14:20 PM  
2 votes:
"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!
2012-08-06 09:05:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:59:08 AM  
1 votes:

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?
2012-08-05 07:21:56 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-08-04 09:05:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:22:29 PM  
1 votes:
consider this

wipe off your chin
2012-08-04 08:14:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:01:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:58:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:45:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:42:07 PM  
1 votes:
2012-08-04 07:40:51 PM  
1 votes:
and this is why im slowly becoming a parinoid lunitic and slowly turning my home into a medieval castle.
2012-08-04 07:26:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:25:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:25:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:16:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:01:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:40:11 PM  
1 votes:
And what makes him not a journalist? I suppose that John Jay and Thomas Paine were "not journalists" either?
2012-08-04 06:24:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:20:57 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:19:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:17:22 PM  
1 votes:
This should be interesting.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report