Winston-Salem police dept. Duchbaggery.

I'm not equating it to Selma at all.
I agree it pales in comparison.

Still doesn't make it legal.

Let me try your analogy game.

Rape is illegal and horrific. But since it isnt rape, you would be ok with a LEO groping your wife and daughter for fun, right?

It's not rape, but it is battery (and depending on the location of the battery, possible sexual battery) I hate it when people call it sexual assault, because it's often a misnomer. Sexual Assault only needs the threat to be there, but it is harder to prove. Battery or Sexual battery is where the physical contact takes place. Illegal no matter who does it.
 
You damn right I am and so are you.
But guess what, we aren't LEOs. We aren't wardends of the state and aren't held to the same code.

Exactly.

Like said before - LEOs actually have fewer rights than the rest of us. They get held to a higher standard.

this is how it works in any field where you are considered the authority.
 
It's not rape, but it is battery (and depending on the location of the battery, possible sexual battery) I hate it when people call it sexual assault, because it's often a misnomer. Sexual Assault only needs the threat to be there, but it is harder to prove. Battery or Sexual battery is where the physical contact takes place. Illegal no matter who does it.


Cool so you are ok with sexual battery taking place as long as they aren't raped, right?
 
Cool so you are ok with sexual battery taking place as long as they aren't raped, right?


What part of "ILLEGAL NO MATTER WHO DOES IT" did you not get? I'm not cool with anything illegal no matter who does it and to whom.
 
Actually, there are 3 laws being broken.
1) trespassing. he was told to leave and didnt. not only on this occasion but on past occasions as well, hence the officer knowing his name.
2) Delaying an officer from his duties. This man knew that we was going to be asked to leave, as that was the result of his previous attempts and provoking an officer. He knew he would draw an officer out from his regular duties. The fact that his goal was to PROVOKE and officer leads into...
3) misuse of the emergency services system.

We could go into the world of grey areas and say that he was hosting a protest without a permit, or filming a documentary without a permit.

if a DA wanted to throw these 5 charges at him, chances are atleast one is going to stick.

The trespassing at the federal building would be a felony.

So i wouldnt go so far as to say he wasnt committing a crime.

the average american goes to bed at night having committed atleast 3 felonies that day.

Reid in general we agree, however I'm not clear on your claims here.
How is it trespassing if he's on public property? Just b/c he is asked to leave and doesn't?... if it is not a lawful command, he is not obliged to obey. And there is no evidence it was a lawful command, b/c there is no reason for why he would have to leave in the first place.
Delaying an officer... this is a stretch IMO. He isn't actually preventing the LEO from leaving and doing something else. Now clearly one might surmise that it was his goal to engage the LEO, but it was clearly the LEO's choice to engage, and continue engagement. No DA or judge worth their salt would let that stand.
 
What part of "ILLEGAL NO MATTER WHO DOES IT" did you not get? I'm not cool with anything illegal no matter who does it and to whom.


Ok good. We agree. I am not ok with police harassment and civil injustice regardless of the level of travesty.

Your argument was "this isnt as bad as Selma" why is everyone up in arms.
 
Reid in general we agree, however I'm not clear on your claims here.
How is it trespassing if he's on public property? Just b/c he is asked to leave and doesn't?... if it is not a lawful command, he is not obliged to obey. And there is no evidence it was a lawful command, b/c there is no reason for why he would have to leave in the first place.
Delaying an officer... this is a stretch IMO. He isn't actually preventing the LEO from leaving and doing something else. Now clearly one might surmise that it was his goal to engage the LEO, but it was clearly the LEO's choice to engage, and continue engagement. No DA or judge worth their salt would let that stand.

A DA would try it. even if its a loss leader. might get a plea deal to drop one if he admits guilt to another.

if you are told to leave, from public property or otherwise, you are required to leave. There doesnt have to be a reason. The occupy Winston-Salem movement had members arrested for failing to comply with orders to vacate.

http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/14-criminal-law/14-288.5.html

he doesnt quit fit this since there was only 1 person, but there are laws giving an officer the power to vacate a citizen from an area.
 
Yep he was instigating them. They foolishly took the bait.
 
Hmm, I don't remember that thread.


Hurt my feelings, na not really. right is right & wrong is wrong.. Bet you voted for Obama too..

Nah...but it's absolutely asinine to get pannies wadded over this. This forum is the first one to bash on someone feeling offended. And now you're agreeing with the actions...you just don't like how he went about doing it. Come the F**k on. You're splitting hairs now. You're right, right is right and wrong is wrong...you feel the cop is in the wrong, there's a right way and wrong way about rectifying the situation. Personally, I wanna be hasseled as little as possible...let the cop say what he has to, if I feel he's in violation, get his badge, make a formal complaint, call up channel 12, whatever you damn well please. Don't be a little twat waffle causing trouble.

Edit...and really 'Obama voter'...holy fawk 2008 called, they want their insult back. The irony is sweet though, because I'm not the one offended painting the world in rainbows and unicorns so no one ever has to have their feelers hurt.

Start with reading the 5th Amendment.

Seriously, that's the extreme you're going to choose. Little over the top, don't you think. I get it, slippery slope, blah blah blah. But again...if this same damn thing was going on in front of your house or in your neighborhood, don't pretend you wouldn't be thankful. Everyone of us would be, and those of us that wouldn't be, are liars.

You damn right I am and so are you.
But guess what, we aren't LEOs. We aren't wardends of the state and aren't held to the same code.

You're damn skippy, I was asking the ones offended by these actions, I'm not. But what we're arguing about is whether the guy was an asshole or not...if that was criteria for losing your job, we'd all be unemployed.
 
Last edited:
A DA would try it. even if its a loss leader. might get a plea deal to drop one if he admits guilt to another.

if you are told to leave, from public property or otherwise, you are required to leave. There doesnt have to be a reason. The occupy Winston-Salem movement had members arrested for failing to comply with orders to vacate.

http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/14-criminal-law/14-288.5.html

he doesnt quit fit this since there was only 1 person, but there are laws giving an officer the power to vacate a citizen from an area.

Come on Reid that dosn't apply here at all
NCGS said:
"in accordance with this section if he reasonably believes that a riot, or disorderly conduct by an assemblage of three or more persons, is occurring. "

it would be a serious stretch that this guy is inciting a riot.

an LEO can not just walk up to anybody they want to on public land and tell them to leave for no reason. Please find me a GS that proves me wrong.
 
i think most of you guys have been arguing the big picture and forget the context of this incident.

This conversation is starting to look like ferguson did. Most folks see a cop being a dick and are criticizing him for it.

you guys are the mobs that saw mike brown laying in the street. but didnt see him robbing the bank.

this gentleman has been doing this for weeks. he is known to the police. W-S is a high value target for Terrorists. We have arrested terrorist filming in our town. We found a bomb 2 blocks from where this incident took place. The federal building (this guys previous target) has been at the center of several bomb threats.

This gentlemen has had several encounters with officers.
Soft talk and kid gloves has failed to work. this officer escalated the tone of the conversation. i wont debate his word choices. the fact that this guy wasnt detained and turned over to DHS i thinks speaks volumes to the patience of the WSPD.

but you guys just see mike brown laying in the street. you guys just think eff the poleese.
 
Nah Mike Brown assaulted an officer after "robbing" a convenience store and got justice served swiftly.

This man BROKE NO US LAW.

Soveit Russia called. They said god work keep it up.
 
Come on Reid that dosn't apply here at all


it would be a serious stretch that this guy is inciting a riot.

an LEO can not just walk up to anybody they want to on public land and tell them to leave for no reason. Please find me a GS that proves me wrong.

lol. i'll see the professional standards division tonight at work. i'll ask about the laws regarding being ordered to vacate.
 
lol. i'll see the professional standards division tonight at work. i'll ask about the laws regarding being ordered to vacate.
Anxious to hear. B/c the way you stated sounds to me like the exact opposite of the right to assembly.
 
This man BROKE NO US LAW.

Soveit Russia called. They said god work keep it up.

Happens all the time. Copper says "GTFO". You say "meh, I don't feel like it". Copper throws you in jail for the night on obstruction/resisting/disobeying a lawful order/etc. Drops the charges in the morning.
 
I dont like "certain people" driving in my neighborhood. Think the LEO will come and stop and question those folks just for driving through my neighborhood where they dont belong?

I live in the sticks on a road full of potholes. A man driving a Donk is suspicious.

Damn dude, i was just gonna drop by and have :beer: with ya!
Hater.....
 
Anxious to hear. B/c the way you stated sounds to me like the exact opposite of the right to assembly.

in winston-salem you have to have a permit to assembly. this guy had none. also, if an officer has a reasonable suspicion that said assembly may take a turn for the worse, he may issue an order to dispurse.
 
4900 pine hall road walkertown. lol. can we all go video tape him?
 
I'm free for a couple of hours.
 
I bet he wouldn't think it was so nice if the cops/fbi showed up and started recording the happenings at his house. N
 
I bet he wouldn't think it was so nice if the cops/fbi showed up and started recording the happenings at his house. N
I'm sure they already do. And your house and my house too.
 
Im not sure if this applies, but surely could be considered. i think it may have to be directed at a specific officer though.


§ 14-277.3A. Stalking.

(a) Legislative Intent. - The General Assembly finds that stalking is a serious problem in this State and nationwide. Stalking involves severe intrusions on the victim's personal privacy and autonomy. It is a crime that causes a long-lasting impact on the victim's quality of life and creates risks to the security and safety of the victim and others, even in the absence of express threats of physical harm. Stalking conduct often becomes increasingly violent over time.

The General Assembly recognizes the dangerous nature of stalking as well as the strong connections between stalking and domestic violence and between stalking and sexual assault. Therefore, the General Assembly enacts this law to encourage effective intervention by the criminal justice system before stalking escalates into behavior that has serious or lethal consequences. The General Assembly intends to enact a stalking statute that permits the criminal justice system to hold stalkers accountable for a wide range of acts, communications, and conduct. The General Assembly recognizes that stalking includes, but is not limited to, a pattern of following, observing, or monitoring the victim, or committing violent or intimidating acts against the victim, regardless of the means.

(b) Definitions. - The following definitions apply in this section:

(1) Course of conduct. - Two or more acts, including, but not limited to, acts in which the stalker directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, is in the presence of, or follows, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about a person, or interferes with a person's property.

(2) Harasses or harassment. - Knowing conduct, including written or printed communication or transmission, telephone, cellular, or other wireless telephonic communication, facsimile transmission, pager messages or transmissions, answering machine or voice mail messages or transmissions, and electronic mail messages or other computerized or electronic transmissions directed at a specific person that torments, terrorizes, or terrifies that person and that serves no legitimate purpose.

(3) Reasonable person. - A reasonable person in the victim's circumstances.

(4) Substantial emotional distress. - Significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling.

(c) Offense. - A defendant is guilty of stalking if the defendant willfully on more than one occasion harasses another person without legal purpose or willfully engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person without legal purpose and the defendant knows or should know that the harassment or the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to do any of the following:

(1) Fear for the person's safety or the safety of the person's immediate family or close personal associates.

(2) Suffer substantial emotional distress by placing that person in fear of death, bodily injury, or continued harassment.

(d) Classification. - A violation of this section is a Class A1 misdemeanor. A defendant convicted of a Class A1 misdemeanor under this section, who is sentenced to a community punishment, shall be placed on supervised probation in addition to any other punishment imposed by the court. A defendant who commits the offense of stalking after having been previously convicted of a stalking offense is guilty of a Class F felony. A defendant who commits the offense of stalking when there is a court order in effect prohibiting the conduct described under this section by the defendant against the victim is guilty of a Class H felony.

(e) Jurisdiction. - Pursuant to G.S. 15A-134, if any part of the offense occurred within North Carolina, including the defendant's course of conduct or the effect on the victim, then the defendant may be prosecuted in this State. (2008-167, s. 2.)
 
Nah...but it's absolutely asinine to get pannies wadded over this. This forum is the first one to bash on someone feeling offended. And now you're agreeing with the actions...you just don't like how he went about doing it. Come the F**k on. You're splitting hairs now. You're right, right is right and wrong is wrong...you feel the cop is in the wrong, there's a right way and wrong way about rectifying the situation. Personally, I wanna be hasseled as little as possible...let the cop say what he has to, if I feel he's in violation, get his badge, make a formal complaint, call up channel 12, whatever you damn well please. Don't be a little twat waffle causing trouble.

Edit...and really 'Obama voter'...holy fawk 2008 called, they want their insult back. The irony is sweet though, because I'm not the one offended painting the world in rainbows and unicorns so no one ever has to have their feelers hurt.


In no way have I changed my stance on this asshole cop. I never once said he should not engage the person, question him. I said he should not detain this person as he broke no law. My problem with the cop is he did not uphold the law, he broke the law as if he is above the law.

right is right, wrong is wrong. That;s not splitting hairs, that's being obvious. You're bringing your programmed fear into this, if you want to be a walking zombie listening to everybody around you that's fine. We have a constitution, when we give a little they take a lot. Who is to keep these folks in check if not "we the people"?

What the fuck is a twat waffle? Pic please, I want to see one :)

No the world is not rainbows & unicorns, in fact I have been told that unicorns fart rainbows.. I guess that's why these folks are keeping the cops in check with actions like this. Hell if they didn't we may all be a walking zombie...
 
Back
Top