Winston-Salem police dept. Duchbaggery.

RatLabGuy said:
Ah yes but the point of all these is that there is *some kind* of reason for making the person vacate. E.g. potentially inciting a riot.
You said they didn't have to have a reason, which is what I'm calling bullshit on.
Click to expand...

The term "Hostile Reconnaissance" is becoming more and more prevalent in the news recently. It used to be that terrorism was just something that happened "over there" - the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, London, Dublin, Tripoli, etc., but we are seeing more and more "homegrown terrorism". Look at the news. Do you think that the Boston Marathon bombers didn't do some recon prior, or do you think they just woke up that morning, chucked some nails in a pressure cooker, shoved it in a backpack and started walking, dropping the packs where it was convenient? There again, this was on a public street. Recording the actual marathon wouldn't have appeared out of the ordinary at all, but whipping out a camera on the same street and focusing on where the crowds would be the heaviest in hopes of creating the most carnage would have been a little suspicious had someone had the where-with-all to inquire.

Questions CAN save lives.
 
Reid said:
Gonna turn the table a little. You must obey a lawful order. If an officer orders you to leave you must leave. Can you find a statute that says its illegal for an officer to give you an order to vacate?
Click to expand...

The order isnt lawful unless you are breaking a law. Officers do not MAKE rules they can only ENFORCE rules ALREADY ON THE BOOKS>

This is damn scary the faith so many are willing to place in the hands of the average LEO.

"Those who will sacrifice a little liberty in the name of safety deserve neither and will lose both"
 
Ron said:
"Those who will sacrifice a little liberty in the name of safety deserve neither and will lose both"
Click to expand...

That's a paraphrase of Ben Franklin. His actual quote is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Is the right to record the infrastructure of the police station on a public road an "essential liberty"? By the standards of 1773, an essential liberty was far different when they were fighting an Imperial tyranny (well, maybe it's not so different)
 
Another thing to think about here...I'd imagine it's not much of a stretch for the police officer to say there was suspicion of loitering and/or disorderly conduct...which is illegal. I think maybe we got too hung up on the cop being an asshole and personal comfort levels on videotaping to see the forest through the trees.
 
I'm done.

So many strawmen its a fire hazard in this thread


Yall carry on
 
UTfball68 said:
Another thing to think about here...I'd imagine it's not much of a stretch for the police officer to say there was suspicion of loitering and/or disorderly conduct...which is illegal. I think maybe we got too hung up on the cop being an asshole and personal comfort levels on videotaping to see the forest through the trees.
Click to expand...


Legal definition of Loiter (per Google):

Legal Dictionary. Law.com. v. to linger or hang around in a public place or business where one has no particular or legal purpose. In many states, cities and towns there are statutes or ordinances against loitering by which the police can arrest someone who refuses to "move along."
 
ManglerYJ said:
What people like this don't realize is that by standing "just inside the law" (doing something that appears suspicious for the express purpose of baiting the police into reacting in such a way that violates a right) and making a spectacle of it only serves to push lawmakers further toward the police state that you are trying to avoid. Now, the police and lawmakers are forced to review their policies and establish a safe limitation to avoid this from happening again. It may be to post signs around the police station of where you can stand and where you can't stand to video. Then, they have to take into account that someone may try to stand just inside THAT line and mount their camera on a pole which can then record inside the line, even though they are physically standing outside it. Or, better yet, a quad-copter with a GoPro mounted to it (a drone). So now, we have to make sure the rule is clear for all of these possible scenarios, so they paint the letter of the law with such a broad paint brush that they say, "No video recordings of any kind on any public accessway in any tax-funded municipality, blah blah blah". All because some dude wanted to be a jerk and a cop felt lead to be a bigger jerk.
Click to expand...

Hey look at that.... already happening.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/25/texas-cop-watcher-bill-under-fire-from-various-groups/
 
Ron said:
I'm done.

So many strawmen its a fire hazard in this thread


Yall carry on
Click to expand...
You see why I stopped indulging..
 
Ron said:
The order isnt lawful unless you are breaking a law. Officers do not MAKE rules they can only ENFORCE rules ALREADY ON THE BOOKS>

This is damn scary the faith so many are willing to place in the hands of the average LEO.

"Those who will sacrifice a little liberty in the name of safety deserve neither and will lose both"
Click to expand...

i think ive gone far enough to offer that the gentlemen was in jeopardy of violating any number of laws.

Move along was an lawful order in liu of arrest.
 
Ron said:
The order isnt lawful unless you are breaking a law. Officers do not MAKE rules they can only ENFORCE rules ALREADY ON THE BOOKS>

This is damn scary the faith so many are willing to place in the hands of the average LEO.

"Those who will sacrifice a little liberty in the name of safety deserve neither and will lose both"
Click to expand...

BINGO
 
Reid said:
i think ive gone far enough to offer that the gentlemen was in jeopardy of violating any number of laws.

Move along was an lawful order in liu of arrest.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't, b/c he wasn't actually breaking any laws. You haven't yet actually shown a single law he was breaking, or clearly in threat of breaking.
Once again, an LEO can't just tell you to move along unless he has a REASON.
 
RatLabGuy said:
No, it wasn't, b/c he wasn't actually breaking any laws. You haven't yet actually shown a single law he was breaking, or clearly in threat of breaking.
Once again, an LEO can't just tell you to move along unless he has a REASON.
Click to expand...


For your benefit:

Legal definition of Loiter (per Google):

Legal Dictionary. Law.com. v. to linger or hang around in a public place or business where one has no particular or legal purpose. In many states, cities and towns there are statutes or ordinances against loitering by which the police can arrest someone who refuses to "move along."


He was loitering. He was asked to move along. He didn't. The officer's questions were to determine if he had a particular or legal purpose for being there. Since he had none, he was asked to move along.


Further investigation into the Ben Franklin quote everyone seems to reference when placing liberty on a scale with security for those with nothing better to do (like I was earlier today):

"The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the Assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the Assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him. So to start matters, Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

What’s more the “purchase [of] a little temporary safety” of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin’s letter, the word “purchase” does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes–and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier–as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance–and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade."
 
So if I decide to walk down to a PUBLIC park to sit under a tree and read a book or stop to take a breather after a morning jog and it happens to be in a public place (for no reason that'll hold up in court obviously), I should be wrestled to the ground and arrested?
Sounds about right.
 
XJsavage said:
So if I decide to walk down to a PUBLIC park to sit under a tree and read a book or stop to take a breather after a morning jog and it happens to be in a public place (for no reason that'll hold up in court obviously), I should be wrestled to the ground and arrested?
Sounds about right.
Click to expand...


Not at all. And any number of those things:

-visiting a public park,
-sitting under a tree,
-reading a book,
-taking a breather,
-taking a morning jog

are all "particular" reasons and would be easily explained to an inquiring police officer if they aren't obviously apparent enough. None of them also would be attributed to "hostile reconnaissance" either. Now, sit at a public park and start taking wind readings near the most crowded part of the park with packets of white powder in your hands while Googling the airborne travel of Anthrax virus spores, and you may get Homeland security on your case. If you are taking wind readings for your science class - again... easy to explain.
 
RatLabGuy said:
No, it wasn't, b/c he wasn't actually breaking any laws. You haven't yet actually shown a single law he was breaking, or clearly in threat of breaking.
Once again, an LEO can't just tell you to move along unless he has a REASON.
Click to expand...

once the officer told him to leave, he was trespassing.

to that point....

i cant find a law neither granting nor denying the power of a law officer in north carolina to order a citizen off of public property.

which leaves open the charges of
failing to comply with a lawful order

This is has been tested in the court of law, and the woman was convicted. she has filed an appeal to the supreme court, but currently stands convicted of failing to comply.

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/watching-and-recording-the-police/
 
okay. got it. i suppose now we debate over who gets to define"nuisance" and at what point an activity by a citizen can be called a nuisance by a law officer.

§ 14-132. Disorderly conduct in and injuries to public buildings and facilities.
(a) It is a misdemeanor if any person shall: NC General Statutes - Chapter 14 Article 22 3
(1) Make any rude or riotous noise, or be guilty of any disorderly conduct, in or near any public building or facility; or
(2) Unlawfully write or scribble on, mark, deface, besmear, or injure the walls of any public building or facility, or any statue or monument situated in any public place; or
(3) Commit any nuisance in or near any public building or facility.
(b) Any person in charge of any public building or facility owned or controlled by the State, any subdivision of the State, or any other public agency shall have authority to arrest summarily and without warrant for a violation of this section.
(c) The term "public building or facility" as used in this section includes any building or facility which is:
(1) One to which the public or a portion of the public has access and is owned or controlled by the State, any subdivision of the State, any other public agency, or any private institution or agency of a charitable, educational, or eleemosynary nature; or (2) Dedicated to the use of the general public for a purpose which is primarily concerned with public recreation, cultural activities, and other events of a public nature or character.
(3) Designated by the Director of the State Bureau of Investigation in accordance with G.S. 143B-987. The term "building or facility" as used in this section also includes the surrounding grounds and premises of any building or facility used in connection with the operation or functioning of such building or facility.
(d) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

(1829, c. 29, ss. 1, 2; 1842, c. 47; R.C., c. 103, ss. 7, 8; Code, s. 2308; Rev., s. 3742; 1915, c. 269; C.S., s. 4303; 1969, c. 869, s. 7 1/2; c. 1224, s. 2; 1981, c. 499, s. 2; 1993, c. 539, s. 72; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2014-100, s. 17.1(w).)
 
There is no golden standard of nuisance though. What aggitates one person may not another. At the end of the day, its the officer who gets to decide this with his own judgment. Dickheads make dickhead judgments.
The authority to arrest for such things/judgements should be stripped from all officers.
 
Last edited:
XJsavage said:
There is golden standard of nuisance though. What aggitates one person may not another. At the end of the day, its the officer who gets to decide this with his own judgment. Dickheads make dickhead judgments.
The authority to arrest for such things/judgements should be stripped from all officers.
Click to expand...


That's absurd. OK.. we will only allow police officers to mindlessly enforce the letter of the law but place them in an environment where everybody goes "outside" it? At the time of the September 11th attacks, it was legal to transport a box cutter knife onto a plane. We all see how that ended up. The problem is that we live in a world where everyone looks for an angle to exploit. "The sign says X, but I'm doing Y"

And yes, we do empower the police officer with the ability to arrest. We do not, however empower him with the power to convict. That is still left up to the justice system to enforce.
 
Conviction or not is irrelevant. If I get harassed and ultimately arrested by a dickhead cop who "thinks" I'm doing something wrong but can't prove it, chances are I may lose my job. Employers hear encarcerated, they assume the worst. Lose job, livelihood suffers if I was lucky enough to not be beaten and shot over a dickhead judgment. I stand and fight for my rights when I know I'm in the clear instead of bow down and beg for my life. Our fate all rests in the hands of human beings who do make mistakes but like I said, don't fear punishment. If they misjudge someone and beat them to a bloody pulp over something pety they get to clean toilets in an air conditioned restroom.
 
ManglerYJ said:
That's absurd. OK.. we will only allow police officers to mindlessly enforce the letter of the law but place them in an environment where everybody goes "outside" it? At the time of the September 11th attacks, it was legal to transport a box cutter knife onto a plane. We all see how that ended up. The problem is that we live in a world where everyone looks for an angle to exploit. "The sign says X, but I'm doing Y"

And yes, we do empower the police officer with the ability to arrest. We do not, however empower him with the power to convict. That is still left up to the justice system to enforce.
Click to expand...

You see a world headed to hell because men were allowed to carry box cutters.
I see a world headed to hell because 100 other men werent willing to risk their safety to take those box cutters away.

Lets just hand in our guns as well they kill lots of folks.

Then again do us simple peasants even need to be allowed automobiles? The produce such toxic fumes and kill so many. I think only the gov't should have the right to drive and the benevolent dictators can take the peons wherever they need to go.
 
Last edited:
XJsavage said:
I stand and fight for my rights when I know I'm in the clear instead of bow down and beg for my life.
Click to expand...

And I think this is what's ultimately been lost in every single one of my posts. You absolutely 100% SHOULD fight for your rights. But that's a proactive activity, not a reactive activity. If you find yourself in a situation where you're having to fight something like this, you've already lost, and you're the guy bitching on some forum about how unfair life is. You can argue all day about what precedent has been set, you can argue all day how you'd handle this situation, you can argue all day about crooked cops. But...if you really, truly cared about this, you'd use this example to make sure nothing like this happened again. You'd be the flipping Rosa Parks of loitering. I'm not saying I think the original post is correct, but I am saying with current circumstances and laws, I don't see an issue with it. Again, everyone outraged by this incident, who has done anything on behalf of it? However, it can't be a convenience driven stance. One day, that camera guy, in a public setting, WILL make you uncomfortable...and whoever you call on, will say 'sorry, you fought for his right to do that'. Personally...that's why I've gotten in as many scuffles as I have and have my concealed carry. Don't impose rules, I can take care of myself.
 
Last edited:
 
Back
Top