Winston-Salem police dept. Duchbaggery.

Judging from tales I have heard, this sort of behavior from the entire Winston-Salem justice system (top to bottom) is about normal. The black cop is clearly an arrogant type and the white one rekindled memories of good ole Barny Fife. :shaking:

As for the picture taker... never got a look at him, but, to me, he sounded like an intelligent guy who simply was not going to tolerate bullshit. :confused:
 
ManglerYJ said:
None of his First Amendment rights were violated.
Click to expand...
ManglerYJ said:
I agree, the cop was being a dick. But the dude was instigating. He was told at least once before to stop.
Click to expand...

But that's kind of irrelevant, since there actually was no legal grounds for them to tell him to stop. He may be a dick, but he's perfectly within his rights to be there doing exactly what he's doing.
Part of the beauty of this country, and the freedom we hold so dearly, is that you can't just make somebody stop doing something just b/c it makes you uncomfortable or you don't like it. They have to actually be breaking the law.
 
Because I am recording something does not give probable cause for a Terry stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

Is't none of their business what I am doing. I am hurting nobody. Maybe I am in school making a documentary. Maybe I am scouting for Hollywood. Maybe I don't want to talk to a cop EVER..
 
Jeff B said:
Because I am recording something does not give probable cause for a Terry stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

Is't none of their business what I am doing. I am hurting nobody. Maybe I am in school making a documentary. Maybe I am scouting for Hollywood. Maybe I don't want to talk to a cop EVER..
Click to expand...


So, OK... let's say maybe he was making a documentary for school. Wouldn't it have been much easier and waste less of the officer's time to simply say so? I bet if that were really the case, the officer would have happily escorted him around the building to show him other potentially less volatile areas that would not draw safety concern.

Referencing the Wikipedia that you tagged, "To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed." A reasonable person would argue that recording the emergency backup generator, the gas pump and the prisoner loading sections of the Police Department does constitute specific and articulable facts that would indicate that a crime is about to be committed. It isn't a huge logical jump to assume that the purposes of recording the proximity of the gas pump, backup generator and loading dock may be to plan for a car bombing to take out the gas pumps, electrical system and secure the release of prisoners at the same time. It could be that he is doing recon work for a prisoner escape or a potential terrorist act. Who knows. No matter what, it's sketchy and without a halfways decent reason, it shouldn't be a surprise when the officer takes it as a serious threat.

The recording that he is putting out there as his "1st Amendment Audit" begins when he is recording the flag and almost immediately the officer is on the scene. There is no telling how long he has been recording and what he was recording prior to this.

Now, for those who wave the flag of "I'm on public property, I can record what I want to." Try sitting under the stairs at the mall or wherever and recording up women's skirts and see how long THAT lasts. The old, "I'm hurting nobody with my recording on public property" won't fly when.

Again, there is a HUGE difference between knowing your rights and alerting people when they have been violated. In this case, he is the one picking the fight in an attempt for his rights to be violated so that he can record it and make an internet sensation of himself and incite even more hatred of the police. I'm all for civil rights, but I'm even more for common sense.

In this case, common sense doesn't seem to be common.

And the whole, "He's just an upstanding citizen defending the rights of the people" crap doesn't fly with me either.

Here's his rap sheet:

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi...turl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1

And here's a list of current charges (none of them stem from this altercation, btw)

http://www1.aoc.state.nc.us/www/cal...ichard&start=0&navindex=0&submit=Submit+Query
 
Last edited:
When initially approaching this man, that cop did not know any of that until he detained him.

Still, it's not that cops business, he was breaking no law.

Are you an officer of the law?
 
Now if the guy filming was wearing a rag on his head then I would support interrogating him without further evidence.

But hey, I believe in profiling.
 
Jeff B said:
When initially approaching this man, that cop did not know any of that until he detained him.

Still, it's not that cops business, he was breaking no law.

Are you an officer of the law?
Click to expand...


In the first couple seconds of the video, the officer asks him if his name is Goins. He had already been made aware of Goins in a memo prior to this incident. He mentions the memo when the white officer approaches. For this guy to be enough of a pain in the butt for someone to actually put his name on a memo, you know there's history.


Let me ask you this.... this is a situational questions that are real events (I have removed references to individuals to preserve their privacy). Let's see how you would have responded.


Gentleman comes into our church. Handsome middle aged guy - single no kids. I see him wandering around our kids' wing looking at the pictures, paying particularly close attention to the pictures with girls in them. There is nothing illegal or even immoral about looking at pictures of girls in a church hallway, but seeing as how two of the girls are mine, I am cautious. I go about my business and he goes about his. I mention the incident to my pastor at a board meeting in the context of setting up "Safe Place" guidelines. He mentions that he had it on his list to introduce himself to this gentleman and loosely inquire about him. Not long after, this man is never seen again at church. Now, did I wrongly "judge" someone and potentially cause a rift? Or did I potentially stave off a sexual predator away from our kids?

The only reason there is a correlation between this story and the instance we are talking about is that in both instances, the "victim" of the accusation didn't break any laws. There was a perceived threat, however, and it was dealt with accordingly. My approach and the officer's approaches were way different as he was direct in his approach (and a total jerk in the process) where I was passive.
 
The church is private property. You have every right to ask him to put the camera away.

The sidewalk is public property, you have NO RIGHT to question anybody with a camera.


Again, are you an officer of the law?
 
Jeff B said:
When initially approaching this man, that cop did not know any of that until he detained him.

Still, it's not that cops business, he was breaking no law.



Are you an officer of the law?
Click to expand...

That is sorta the point, the LEO did not know what his intention was. As stated above if the man recording would have simply explained his actions there probably would not have been an issue. If the actions seem suspicious then yes the LEO has every right to ask questions to determine what the intent is. If you walked out side and a man was on the side walk filming your house, would go ask him what he is doing?? The man could have walked away, the LEO was out of line! No argument there. But it is the same old story, say you have to daughters and they are in the back yard swimming and a man is across the street filming them (for a school project) I am sure you would be happy if a LEO pulled up and asked what he was doing, because why the hell do you need to film girls in a pool, or the back of a police department...I really don't want to start a big fight about this, I understand everyone has different opinions about a LEO, but unless you put on that belt and kiss your wife good bye for maybe the last time; you just can't understand.
 
krehel24 said:
That is sorta the point, the LEO did not know what his intention was. As stated above if the man recording would have simply explained his actions there probably would not have been an issue. If the actions seem suspicious then yes the LEO has every right to ask questions to determine what the intent is. If you walked out side and a man was on the side walk filming your house, would go ask him what he is doing?? The man could have walked away, the LEO was out of line! No argument there. But it is the same old story, say you have to daughters and they are in the back yard swimming and a man is across the street filming them (for a school project) I am sure you would be happy if a LEO pulled up and asked what he was doing, because why the hell do you need to film girls in a pool, or the back of a police department...I really don't want to start a big fight about this, I understand everyone has different opinions about a LEO, but unless you put on that belt and kiss your wife good bye for maybe the last time; you just can't understand.
Click to expand...


This leaves to much interruption, If you see a guy walking with a towel on his head do you immediately think he is Islamic? Radical?

He could be Hindi, his head could be cold.


This is exactly why we have these laws so asshole don't profile & start killing kids because they are black.
 
Jeff B said:
This leaves to much interruption, If you see a guy walking with a towel on his head do you immediately think he is Islamic? Radical?

He could be Hindi, his head could be cold.

I get what you are saying, I really do!! But It is a fine line. A LEO'S job and the oath he and I took is to protect the public, you can not do this if you don't ask questions! I am not saying the man had to answer them, he could have walked away. I am not saying the LEO could force him to answer the questions, but I am saying in order to protect the public, if you see something the appears suspicious (filming the back of a police department, especially with all the cop killings) it is your duties to investigate. Again the LEO can ask a question! You don't have to answer, you could walk away but he can ask! Hell anyone can ask a question. again not trying to fight


This is exactly why we have these laws so asshole don't profile & start killing kids because they are black.
Click to expand...
 
Profiling works, sorry it hurts peoples feelings. And If you can't differentiate between a Muslim rag helmet and a Hindu practitioner, maybe you aren't trained well enough to be doing so. Also who the fuck said anything about black kids?

Making the TSA cavity search old ladies because we want to appear to be fairly treating everyone is a waste of time.
 
But profiling works. Regardless of how big of a jerk the cop was. I'd be happy if a cop did the same thing if the guy were in front of my house. As a matter of fact, my neighbor called the cops about a car that circled the neighborhood a couple times. They're on a public road, it's not illegal to drive around my neighborhood. Turns out this car full of gentlemen was casing our neighborhood and were later busted with 175k of goods stolen in surrounding neighborhoods. Should the cops have said they weren't doing anything illegal? Is it better to be reactive, let the houses get robbed, maybe a couple innocent people get killed? Maybe one of the guys gets shot, and now I'm tied up in civil law suits? You can run the hypotheticals all you want, but one thing I've learned is, I've never had an issue with a cop unless I had it coming.
 
I am ok with asking questions, The cop had no right to detain him.
 
Be sure to realize, I am not saying the cop should not have engaged the person, talked to him, been nice, worked him a bit tactfully pumped him for information, one catches more bees with a sweet colorful flower than a piece of shit..

But not until he had a suspicion of breaking an actual law, the officer should have not detained him.


There is a big difference in being aware & protecting one's own property & family & being a public servant.

In this case, the cop was confused and I believe he broke the law he is sworn to uphold.
 
Again, it is a double edge sword! ! tell you do the job you will never understand, I am not being a dick about it, that is just fact!
 
Jeff B said:
I am ok with asking questions, The cop had no right to detain him.
Click to expand...
The ENTIRE video is 22 minutes long and he is never once handcuffed, made to sit in a police car or brought to the police station. Is that your definition of "detained"? The only time he was not free to leave is the short time when the officer had his license. This is hardly a civil rights violation a la Selma that everyone seems to be making it out to be.

I don't think the officer in this case needs to lose his job but I bet he will. The United states of the offended will surely demand it if not his head on a platter.
 
ManglerYJ said:
The ENTIRE video is 22 minutes long and he is never once handcuffed, made to sit in a police car or brought to the police station. Is that your definition of "detained"? The only time he was not free to leave is the short time when the officer had his license. This is hardly a civil rights violation a la Selma that everyone seems to be making it out to be.

I don't think the officer in this case needs to lose his job but I bet he will. The United states of the offended will surely demand it if not his head on a platter.
Click to expand...


If you are not free to leave, how is that not being detained?


and you have still not answered my question.
 
Ok that twice!!! I am a dumb ass! !!!! Your right AFTER the LEO told him to leave twice and the man kept on, then he told him he was suspicious and needed some ID at that point , yes he was being detained. He can do that "for a reasonable amount of time " in this case the LEO went a little past "a reasonable amount of time " but you know this thread could go on all day! Let's just agree to disagree and we can go find someone to talk trash to in a thread, Hell the dam John Fuller is back shiting all in a thread!!
 
krehel24 said:
He never said he was being detained,
Click to expand...
Jeff B said:
Yes he did, The guy asked if he was being detained & the cop said yes.
Click to expand...
bingo.
krehel24, surely you understand that your lack factual evidence backing up your arguments isn't helping your credibility in this discussion.

And sometimes "being free to leave" is exactly the opposite of the point - if what you want to do is STAY WHERE YOU ARE.
The LEO is harassing him just as much as we complain about him being the harasser.
Based on your definition of being "free to leave", an LEO doesn't need to have the power to detain and remove somebody if they are free/allowed to just harass them until they "go on their own will", functionally run them off and effectively still removing them. That sounds like a pretty shitty world to live in.
 
Last edited:
krehel24 said:
Ok that twice!!! I am a dumb ass! !!!! Your right AFTER the LEO told him to leave twice and the man kept on, then he told him he was suspicious and needed some ID at that point , yes he was being detained. He can do that "for a reasonable amount of time " in this case the LEO went a little past "a reasonable amount of time " but you know this thread could go on all day! Let's just agree to disagree and we can go find someone to talk trash to in a thread, Hell the dam John Fuller is back shiting all in a thread!!
Click to expand...

Had no right to tell him to leave. He was breaking no law.

Had no right to detain him, no matter a few seconds, minutes or hours. He broke no law.
 
Back
Top