FloridaJetsFan Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I agree that nobody likes a smart a$$, but I really didn't see that from this video. Cop orders her to stop video taping and go inside her house, she replies that she's in her yard and within her right. In the end, the department agreed with the women, not the cop. Without the video and public outcry, I doubt they see it her way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Yes, they do have these rights. And, her rights were in fact violated. However, my point the whole time was I do not feel bad for someone who has their rights violated if they engage in behavior that makes it supremely more likely for those rights to be violated. You're thinking of privileges, not rights. Bad things happen when you put yourself in the position for bad things to happen. Call it social darwinism. I'm really hoping this is cheekiness or ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Yeah, I'm a sheep because it's not worth a night in jail and being targeted for tickets to get some low quality video of a cop. There are intelligent people and there are idiots. Intelligent people do cost benefit analysis of their actions and decide if the risk is worth the reward. Idiots do not. And you have made it abundantly clear which you belong to. Enjoy being harassed for unnecessary principles. There is a difference between cowardice and intelligence. I am sure you know the cost benefit analysis for standing up for your rights. And I would not be surprised if that analysis ends up with you cowering in the basement. Enjoy your life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 While I can kind of understand both sides of this, it's the extreme nature of reactions that leads to me tend much more towards EY's stance on this. It seems like in this day in age everyone thinks there should be no consequences for their actions, and if there are it's always a grave injustice that is somebody else's fault. Does that mean in the case of police it's ok for them to abusing their power? Absolutely not, but just like in every other profession in the world, it's a reality of humanity that some people are going to throw their weight around and get away with what they can. The difference is realizing its a small section of people. It's amazing how in my entire life in all of the times I've dealt with police I've never once encountered this unfathomable abuse of power and violation of civil rights. I've certainly dealt with some real assholes who were unnecessary dicks about the situation, but not at any higher rate than in my regular daily life. When you are intentionally putting yourself in a situation, you have to accept the fact that you're opening yourself up to a reaction and consequences of those actions, regardless of their legality. I could go on endlessly about the number of legal things you could do that are going to get you some seriously unpleasant reactions. What makes it so absurd is that the moment an incident like this occurs, the entire police force is a demonic liberty-crushing institute who only exists to **** over the common man and possesses no redeeming qualities whatsoever. There's no doubt individual cops act out of line, and that in this case an arrest shouldn't have occurred, but people have to learn the reality that in this world what should happen and does happen aren't always the same, and in the end you need to take some share of the responsibility for putting yourself in a situation. The idea that a cop making a simple request of someone is such a grave atrocity is a joke. And I'm sorry, but anyone who is incapable of submitting to a simple request of ANY other person, police or otherwise, are only doing it to make some sort of asinine point while really just being difficult assholes and putting themselves in a position to get a most unfavorable reaction. You could just as easily be walking down the street and have someone say "excuse me" and with the wrong response find yourself punched in the damn face. That doesn't make it right, but that doesn't mean you don't deserve a share of the blame for your unnecessarily douchey actions. Welcome to the real world kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 It's not like she was on her property filming a lunar eclipse and this just happened. She came out to the edge of her property with the intent of filming the cops. Legal, perhaps. Obnoxious, absolutely. So, back to my point about making yourself a target. Well she was not on the edge of her property as the video documents! But then again we all know edge of a property is not really part of the property. I guess intelligent analysis can always lead to such conclusions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 There is a difference between cowardice and intelligence. I am sure you know the cost benefit analysis for standing up for your rights. And I would not be surprised if that analysis ends up with you cowering in the basement. Enjoy your life! There's a difference between cowardice and intelligence. It just doesn't lie in the distinction you've made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 If you think the cop got annoyed and overreacted...I agree. And you are right. If you think the woman was arrested for video taping...you are wrong. Absolutely and unquestionably. Several posts say she has every right to video tape and the cop arrested her for excercising her right. One post even mentions that the cop "ordered her to stop recording". Huh? are we all watching the same video here? The video was not confiscated, she was never ordered to stop recording, there were no charges filed because of her recording and at no time was it mentioned that she should discontinue her recording for any reason. He asked her to go into her house. Never mentioned the video and din't take or tamper with the camera at any time. Get the facts straight, please. Man, as much as I debate this stuff with Villain, I respect that he keeps an open mind and backs up his points with facts and strong opinions--even if much of it is a little "out there". He has an inherent lack of respect for the police as a whole--which is his right, based on his beliefs (not some rediculous generalizations or stereotypes.) At least he'll anylize and question. All the anti-police rhetoric in this thread is just hateful spewing by folks who've never had to deal with the realities that lie just beneath the surface of our "rational, civilized" society. If half of you knew the sh*t that goes on behind closed doors you would'nt let your kids outside. This world is full of mean, crazy, violent, psychotic, predatory people. And they ain't just living in the ghetto, folks. Most of you wouldn't know that though. And shouldn't have to deal with it--because that's what the police are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Does that mean in the case of police it's ok for them to abusing their power? Absolutely not, but just like in every other profession in the world, it's a reality of humanity that some people are going to throw their weight around and get away with what they can. There's no doubt individual cops act out of line, and that in this case an arrest shouldn't have occurred, but people have to learn the reality that in this world what should happen and does happen aren't always the same, and in the end you need to take some share of the responsibility for putting yourself in a situation. "sh*t happens" has a lot of appeal when we're talking about some woman with a camcorder, but unless you're willing to apply it to mandatory arrests or entrapment or excessive force it really doesn't do us a whole lot of good as a normative proposition. When you are intentionally putting yourself in a situation, you have to accept the fact that you're opening yourself up to a reaction and consequences of those actions, regardless of their legality. lol @ "regardless of legality" in a discussion about police power and the First Amendment. And I'm sorry, but anyone who is incapable of submitting to a simple request of ANY other person, police or otherwise, are only doing it to make some sort of asinine point while really just being difficult assholes and putting themselves in a position to get a most unfavorable reaction. Not to rehash a tired joke, but constitutional protections for difficult assholes who make asinine points to get an unfavorable reaction are the only reason any of us here aren't being sold for cartons of cigarettes right now. You could just as easily be walking down the street and have someone say "excuse me" and with the wrong response find yourself punched in the damn face. Unless this is one of those non-metaphorical metaphors and "someone" is still an agent of the state, the only way this is relevant is in the fact that one private citizen punching another private citizen for no reason is also illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Not to rehash a tired joke, but constitutional protections for difficult assholes who make asinine points to get an unfavorable reaction are the only reason any of us here aren't being sold for cartons of cigarettes right now. Bit of a jump in the slope, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergen Jet Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 If anything, cops need to be better "humans" then the accountant picking his nose and surfing jetnation in the last cubicle on the left.. btw.. monitoring internet usage is pretty common these days.. Same thing as a citizen taping a cop.. we're being watched for violations of our side of the employment contract A company monitoring the usage of their resource is not the same as somebody randomly interfering with a person's ability to do their job... particularly when I am pretty sure that the web surfer isn't putting their life on the line with every routine stop.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergen Jet Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 There are sheeple and then there are people. And you have made it abundantly clear which you belong to. Enjoy your incident free life. I was just telling my wife how much I love the anonymity of the Internet due to how people react to each other here. What do you know about EY to make such a statement? I would guess that he is less of a "sheeple" than a vast majority of the people who post here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I was just telling my wife how much I love the anonymity of the Internet due to how people react to each other here. What do you know about EY to make such a statement? I would guess that he is less of a "sheeple" than a vast majority of the people who post here. Whatever queer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I was just telling my wife how much I love the anonymity of the Internet due to how people react to each other here. That's why I've always used my real name. Because I'm an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 There's a difference between cowardice and intelligence. It just doesn't lie in the distinction you've made. But what you allude to is cowardice. Its very easy to go with the "that person was asking for it" train of thought unless someday it happens to you. So inspite of your best efforts what if cops decide to be an obnoxious prick to you. What will do you then ? In this instance the woman was not interfering or being an obnoxious prick. She was not taunting the cops for the traffic stop (even though that is not illegal). The cop chose to deem this woman an interference. She was singled out for being a distraction on a whim. They did not have to and as is abundantly clear they were able to do their jobs, but still they had to single her out and unfairly prosecute her. And thats why even the DA decided to drop this case and there is an IA investigation into this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 I was just telling my wife how much I love the anonymity of the Internet due to how people react to each other here. What do you know about EY to make such a statement? I would guess that he is less of a "sheeple" than a vast majority of the people who post here. Why so douche ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted June 30, 2011 Author Share Posted June 30, 2011 A company monitoring the usage of their resource is not the same as somebody randomly interfering with a person's ability to do their job... particularly when I am pretty sure that the web surfer isn't putting their life on the line with every routine stop.. I could get a DVT in my leg and die if it shakes loose and travels up to lungs/heart... the cops putting thier life on the line stuff is soo exxagerrated, and certainly doens't give them the right to lord over innocent people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergen Jet Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Why so douche ? What a clever retort. The fact remains that your statement classifies an individual you do not know based on assumptions you are making due to a response on an Internet message board. Your response rates way higher on the douche scale than anything I have posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 If you think the cop got annoyed and overreacted...I agree. And you are right. If you think the woman was arrested for video taping...you are wrong. Absolutely and unquestionably. She was arrested for not following an order she was perfectly in her rights not too.. That's the issue.. No otehr line of work can do something like that if someone doesn't comply, they need to be held to a higher standard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 But what you allude to is cowardice. Its very easy to go with the "that person was asking for it" train of thought unless someday it happens to you. So inspite of your best efforts what if cops decide to be an obnoxious prick to you. What will do you then ? In this instance the woman was not interfering or being an obnoxious prick. She was not taunting the cops for the traffic stop (even though that is not illegal). The cop chose to deem this woman an interference. She was singled out for being a distraction on a whim. They did not have to and as is abundantly clear they were able to do their jobs, but still they had to single her out and unfairly prosecute her. And thats why even the DA decided to drop this case and there is an IA investigation into this matter. It's indifference.. not cowardice... if a similiar situation effected him or a loved one, he might think differently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergen Jet Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I could get a DVT in my leg and die if it shakes loose and travels up to lungs/heart... the cops putting thier life on the line stuff is soo exxagerrated, and certainly doens't give them the right to lord over innocent people No, they do not have the right to lord over innocent people but there is no exaggeration to the fact that they do put their lives on the line on a consistent basis. DVT... That is absolutely the same as having to approach unknown individuals in potentially hostile situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Bit of a jump in the slope, no? Objectively? Sure. Relative to this thread? ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 No, they do not have the right to lord over innocent people but there is no exaggeration to the fact that they do put their lives on the line on a consistent basis. DVT... That is absolutely the same as having to approach unknown individuals in potentially hostile situations. My point was cops do it countless times every single day without incident.. You act like they are in the front lines in a war. If i had more time I'd look it up, but I'm willing to bet the average citizen is the victim of violent crime at a similiar rates to cops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Objectively? Sure. Relative to this thread? ... Well yeah, I mean I agree there's certainly a chronological order in regulatory theory from slavery to McDonald's having their coffee supervised. But it's a little unfair. I also agree that a cop has the right to ask a gasbag to stop being a dick. Totally illegal arrest, but I really feel no pity for the lady. Going back to the allegory of getting punched in the face; it's most certainly illegal for me to deck you, but if you're egging me on or insulting my girlfriend, can't say you didn't get what you deserved. EDIT: Oy. Just got that joke, I'm a little slow today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Totally illegal arrest, but I really feel no pity for the lady. This thread went off the rails the second people started conflating one with the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 This thread went off the rails the second people started conflating one with the other. Yeah, see the edit. Been going braindead applying for funding the past week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbatesman Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Yeah, see the edit. Been going braindead applying for funding the past week. Oof. That was me in March. I don't envy you. Best of luck, obv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 But what you allude to is cowardice. Its very easy to go with the "that person was asking for it" train of thought unless someday it happens to you. So inspite of your best efforts what if cops decide to be an obnoxious prick to you. What will do you then ? In this instance the woman was not interfering or being an obnoxious prick. She was not taunting the cops for the traffic stop (even though that is not illegal). The cop chose to deem this woman an interference. She was singled out for being a distraction on a whim. They did not have to and as is abundantly clear they were able to do their jobs, but still they had to single her out and unfairly prosecute her. And thats why even the DA decided to drop this case and there is an IA investigation into this matter. No. What I allude to is picking my battles wisely. I'll be 'brave' when the situation necessitates it. If an officer asks me relatively politely to step back while he's doing his job, I'll do that, because some crappy videotape isn't worth a night in jail to me. If a cop is being an obnoxious prick to me, I'll work to diffuse the situation, and if that means swallowing my pride for a second to avoid spending a night in jail, I'll do that too. Bottom line, the less time a citizen spends associating with a cop, the better. If you engage, there's a good enough chance it wont work out in your best interest. As for this woman, we'll have to agree to disagree, in that video, she was clearly out there with the intent of being involved in the situation. She clearly said something to the officer before tape rolled. That's a given. She wanted to be involved, and then she was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 If a cop is being an obnoxious prick to me, I'll work to diffuse the situation, and if that means swallowing my pride for a second to avoid spending a night in jail, I'll do that too. so....out of curiosity, how many times has that happened ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 so....out of curiosity, how many times has that happened ? Off memory. Twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Off memory. Twice. guess those guys are lucky you didn't kick thier a$$. backing down was a solid call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 guess those guys are lucky you didn't kick thier a$$. backing down was a solid call. I realize you're trying to make fun of me now. It just that what you're saying doesn't actually make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 No. What I allude to is picking my battles wisely. I'll be 'brave' when the situation necessitates it. If an officer asks me relatively politely to step back while he's doing his job, I'll do that, because some crappy videotape isn't worth a night in jail to me. If a cop is being an obnoxious prick to me, I'll work to diffuse the situation, and if that means swallowing my pride for a second to avoid spending a night in jail, I'll do that too. Bottom line, the less time a citizen spends associating with a cop, the better. If you engage, there's a good enough chance it wont work out in your best interest. As for this woman, we'll have to agree to disagree, in that video, she was clearly out there with the intent of being involved in the situation. She clearly said something to the officer before tape rolled. That's a given. She wanted to be involved, and then she was. So if everyone gave inches everyday to people in power, how long before it's a mile? "Backing down" from your legal right only empowers him to continue pushing it with other people.. I backed down to a cop 1 time, when I was like 16 and he was questioning a group of us kids walking down the road to go play basketball. Apparently during his lecture he felt I was smirking and threatened to put me in the back of his car .. i caved and apologized.. i didn't get arrested, but I sure felt like sh*t about it for awhile. **** him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 No. What I allude to is picking my battles wisely. I'll be 'brave' when the situation necessitates it. If an officer asks me relatively politely to step back while he's doing his job, I'll do that, because some crappy videotape isn't worth a night in jail to me. If a cop is being an obnoxious prick to me, I'll work to diffuse the situation, and if that means swallowing my pride for a second to avoid spending a night in jail, I'll do that too. Bottom line, the less time a citizen spends associating with a cop, the better. If you engage, there's a good enough chance it wont work out in your best interest. As for this woman, we'll have to agree to disagree, in that video, she was clearly out there with the intent of being involved in the situation. She clearly said something to the officer before tape rolled. That's a given. She wanted to be involved, and then she was. You wouldn't behave like she did? Fine. Most people wouldn't. You want some dark karmic event to come crashing down on her for being an obnoxious bitch? Also fine. That's your business. But that event should not be a police officer abusing their power and placing this woman under arrest. None of this gives the cop the right to arrest her. The day you think you're being as courteous as humanly possible and still find yourself behind bars for no reason that you can understand, maybe you'll have a different attitude (not to imply that I have). But giving this sort of implicit permission to the police to go beyond the bounds of their legal and legitimate authority is a start down that path. I look forward to reading about this woman's lawsuit. You know that's coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 So if everyone gave inches everyday to people in power, how long before it's a mile? "Backing down" from your legal right only empowers him to continue pushing it with other people.. I backed down to a cop 1 time, when I was like 16 and he was questioning a group of us kids walking down the road to go play basketball. Apparently during his lecture he felt I was smirking and threatened to put me in the back of his car .. i caved and apologized.. i didn't get arrested, but I sure felt like sh*t about it for awhile. **** him. Ah, the slippery slope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 You wouldn't behave like she did? Fine. Most people wouldn't. You want some dark karmic event to come crashing down on her for being an obnoxious bitch? Also fine. That's your business. But that event should not be a police officer abusing their power and placing this woman under arrest. None of this gives the cop the right to arrest her. The day you think you're being as courteous as humanly possible and still find yourself behind bars for no reason that you can understand, maybe you'll have a different attitude (not to imply that I have). But giving this sort of implicit permission to the police to go beyond the bounds of their legal and legitimate authority is a start down that path. I look forward to reading about this woman's lawsuit. You know that's coming. The whole point is, most people who end up behind bars, end up there for a reason. Even if it's not the best legal reason, and even if it's unjust. It's not usually the guy who wasn't acting like a dickhead who gets arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.