Photographer Hassled by Police

cory1848 wrote in post #5868125
A lot to me is more than 1. I have been told by numerous cops that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So that better apply to the arresting officers as well.

Why yes, it sure does.......sigh.......

Southswede wrote in post #5867643
You will have to define "a lot" of false arrests for me. I guess I'm just a little slow. Of the tens of thousands of arrests annually, how many are "false arrests"?

Hmmm major lawsuits aside (Chicago, NewYork, Detoit)... how about:

As of 2001:

http://query.nytimes.c​om …631F932A25757C0​A9679C8B63

"federal statistics made available recently showing that since 1996, Detroit has arrested far more people in homicide cases than any other big-city police department, reporting an average of nearly three arrests per killing. Most cities average roughly one arrest per homicide case."

These guys were arresting witnesses by the boatload! LOL. How long did they get away with it before somebody finally listened?

It would be insane to think this only happens in Detroit and recent lawsuits support this (that's not to say that every lawsuit is a valid one).

I'm sure in your 20 years of being a cop you saw some "questionable" activity.

Hell in my 5 I know I did.

From the "magic typewriter" (you should definately know that one) to a fellow officer running drugs from New Orleans. Small town and all not a damn thing anyone could do about it, hell a recent DEA drug bust nailed the former mayor's son in law and the family member of a local afluent family (friends of the Chief - who has now been elected Sherrif) as well as the local county attorney in a cocaine supply ring. They got away with it for YEARS and we were under instructions not to "bother" them. Thank god for that anonymous tip to the DEA.

Funny though how the DEA refused to work with us as they felt we had some "leaks" in the department.

Anke wrote in post #5857142
Perfectly within his rights if he was on public ground and the Police have no rights at all to make him delete the images, unless they get approval from the high court or something. I think that Officer is going to be in hot water today.

Yes--he was perfectly within his rights. And yet, when the police tell you to do something at a crime or accident scene, you need to do it or face criminal charges. Yuo can try to sue them later, but if you don't obey at the time, you can get arrested.

[QUOTE=thebishopp;5868​487]Hmmm major lawsuits aside (Chicago, NewYork, Detoit)... how about:

As of 2001:

http://query.nytimes.c​om …631F932A25757C0​A9679C8B63

"federal statistics made available recently showing that since 1996, Detroit has arrested far more people in homicide cases than any other big-city police department, reporting an average of nearly three arrests per killing. Most cities average roughly one arrest per homicide case."

These guys were arresting witnesses by the boatload! LOL. How long did they get away with it before somebody finally listened?

QUOTE]

I won't bother trying to explaine it to you...you wouldn't understand.

[QUOTE=Southswede;5868​730]

thebishopp wrote in post #5868487
Hmmm major lawsuits aside (Chicago, NewYork, Detoit)... how about:

As of 2001:

http://query.nytimes.c​om …631F932A25757C0​A9679C8B63

"federal statistics made available recently showing that since 1996, Detroit has arrested far more people in homicide cases than any other big-city police department, reporting an average of nearly three arrests per killing. Most cities average roughly one arrest per homicide case."

These guys were arresting witnesses by the boatload! LOL. How long did they get away with it before somebody finally listened?

QUOTE]

I won't bother trying to explaine it to you...you wouldn't understand.

No... I probably wouldn't. I don't believe in excuses for incompetence. Nor do I believe in excuses for a lack of INTEGRITY.

Oh yeah, I was in New Orleans after Katrina when those two NO cops beat the crap out of that older school teacher. Remember that one? Even the statte police told us to watch out for them as most of them were corrupt. One of the places we were contracted to protect had most of their caddilacs SUVS stolen by NOPD (their wives and family members in other states were caught driving them after they were reported stolen). While there were looters we were told to wach out for NOPD especially.

Had a couple run ins with them when they they tried to check out one of our areas and we had to escort them from the property with the help of the NG unit stationed at the corner (as soon as they saw NOPD roll in they dispatched a squad to assist... of couse we were all heavily armed).

Those guys were out of control, not to mention the confiscating of weapons from law abiding citizens (hope you didn't miss the video of that old lady getting tackled in her own home when she was asked if she had any weapons).

First of all he wasn't at a crime scene, he was on his property. The crime didn't occur on his property so in no way would it be seen as such. That`s one of the benefits private property includes, the freedom to move about doing anything you want as long as it`s legal.

I think for sake of argument we can take the OP for his word unless you have an inherent mistrust of school teachers. I`ve never heard of gangs of 6th grade teachers spraying the streets with teflon coated ammunition flashing gang signs.

Southswede: How about you do explain rather than patronize. I`m sure you`ll find many people in the thread with more than enough life experience and post secondary education to grasp it.

Southswede wrote in post #5864120
What the cops should have done is taken both his scooter and camera as evidence..............​.I know it would have taken me MONTHS to figure out where the film was. Then another 2-3 months just to figure out what that pesky little card was all about. But I WOULD have been able to determine his scooter had no value to the investigation and returned it.

Camera? He might have gotten it back within the next year, give or take.........

Your statement validates everything that others have been saying about the need for the rest of us to be vigilant against dirty cops who have no qualms about violating the Constitution.

EORI wrote in post #5868928
Your statement validates everything that others have been saying about the need for the rest of us to be vigilant against dirty cops who have no qualms about violating the Constitution.

Now what Constitutional rights were violated? By who/whom, when and where?

EORI wrote in post #5868928
Your statement validates everything that others have been saying about the need for the rest of us to be vigilant against dirty cops who have no qualms about violating the Constitution.

You are right. With that one statement he merely identified himself as being one of the corrupt or at least supporting of them (the same as far as I'm concerned).

I was hoping that it was made "tongue in cheek" but if not then hopefully he is retired and not out on the streets practicing his Judge Dred impersonation.

SlowBlink wrote in post #5868906
First of all he wasn't at a crime scene, he was on his property. The crime didn't occur on his property so in no way would it be seen as such. That`s one of the benefits private property includes, the freedom to move about doing anything you want as long as it`s legal.

I think for sake of argument we can take the OP for his word unless you have an inherent mistrust of school teachers. I`ve never heard of gangs of 6th grade teachers spraying the streets with teflon coated ammunition flashing gang signs.

Southswede: How about you do explain rather than patronize. I`m sure you`ll find many people in the thread with more than enough life experience and post secondary education to grasp it.

"Teflon coated ammunition"? LOL! No, I'm afraid I won't. At least not in your case.....

But for the sake of argument, you seem to have an "inherent mistrust" of LEO's.

[QUOTE=thebishopp;5868​787]

Southswede wrote in post #5868730
No... I probably wouldn't. I don't believe in excuses for incompetence. Nor do I believe in excuses for a lack of INTEGRITY.

Oh yeah, I was in New Orleans after Katrina when those two NO cops beat the crap out of that older school teacher. Remember that one?

No, all I saw was a 15 second sound-bite, that was shown. Maybe you can tell all of us r FIRST-HAND account of what you SAW.....

thebishopp wrote in post #5866654
A lesson from my days on the street (as well as a PI) is I always carry a tape recorder to document the situation. If you have a cell phone with video that is handy too but less "covert".

Anyone considering this should probably check their state laws first. Even if you are party to the conversation some states require consent from all parties involved to legally tape the conversation. No sense making matters worse for yourself if you can avoid it.

Patriotic1 wrote in post #5869082
Anyone considering this should probably check their state laws first. Even if you are party to the conversation some states require consent from all parties involved to legally tape the conversation. No sense making matters worse for yourself if you can avoid it.

But "we" have rights!!!

[QUOTE=Southswede;5869​008]

thebishopp wrote in post #5868787
No, all I saw was a 15 second sound-bite, that was shown. Maybe you can tell all of us r FIRST-HAND account of what you SAW.....

LOL... no I didn't see it first hand.

But those boys that rolled into our area mentioned they could see to it we were beat like that "boy" if we didn't "mind" them. At the time I didn't know what happened and asked what exactly they were referring to. They never answered and then I heard about it a few days later.

Didn't much faze us.... not bravado on our part, just that we had them outnumbered and outgunned, as well as the assistance of the state police if we needed them.

You see people yelling and cussing at me doesn't rile me up. As long as they left nicely I didn't have a problem.

And leave they did... in fact they never came back despite their threats to the contrary.

Again, I don't make excuses for incompetence... and especially not for a lack of integrity/honor. People who do usually lack the later two and are usually the former.

Arguing with such people is pointless.

I notice that rather then comment on the point of his statement and focused on his lack of knowledge concerning weaponry.

You should instead of addressed his issue and maybe informed him of his error regarding the "teflon coated ammunition".

Nothing in his post strikes me as mistrustful of law enforcement. If anything my posts do. Ironic since I am actualy pretty trusting of LEOs, especially the one's I still count as my friends, however I am not blind to the bad apples out there (and I believe there are quite a few).

It is sad that we put up the blue wall and protect them when we should have been cleaning house.

That's refreshing, is that supposed to be intimidating?

Not at all. I`d consider myself as someone who grew up in a political family with two retired attorneys, an appeals court judge and two cousins who were RCMP.
My Father was Vice President of the PSAC in 1967, the union federal police and security services/prison guards belong to. I grew up hearing first hand the bad and the good. But then we're not discussing all police here, just the one who left a crime scene and entered private property to intimidate a citizen.

How about instead of slinging ridicule you offer a valid opinion. I may be missing something about this particular scenario and would gladly be corrected if you're offering.

And an answer other than "I would but you wouldn't understand" would be helpful.
edit|: Paul Kopsch (an Ohio coroner), Daniel Turcos (a police sergeant), and Donald Ward (Kopsch's special investigator), began experimenting with special purpose handgun ammunition. Their objective was to develop a law enforcement round capable of improved penetration against hard targets, such as windshield glass and automobile doors. After some experimentation with steel rounds, the officers settled on a brass core with a lubricating jacket of Teflon. These bullets wore-out barrels far more quickly than normal jacketed rounds, as unlike lead the immalleable brass did not deform to fit the rifling. For this reason, the bullets were then coated with a layer of Teflon to reduce barrel wear.