We had one of those ladies and I had to go back to court three times as a witness because she kept fighting the smallest offense. She of course, lost every time.
She was fighting some sort of fire related offense or you were a witness to a police based legal dispute? Also, since those people don't recognize government and police especially, do they accept help from firefighters or just try to put their fires out themselves?
Such an absurdly long story, but she was obstructing justice. Her and her boyfriend would not allow us to take an older lady out of her home who was in horrible conditions. She could not walk and was covered in every bodily fluid/byproduct you can think of(okay, not semen to the one dude who is going to make that joke). This wacko lady and her boyfriend were the type who "befriended" older people out of no where to get in their wills and take their money from the old lady's family. Anyway, wacko lady laid on the bed and would not move(which is so gross if you saw this bed). Cops arrested her and hit her with an extremely small fine and she still fought it for two years. They'll accept help from us and usually aren't a problem for EMS, outside of weird conversations. They are an extreme pain in the balls to cops, and they are of course wrong almost every time.
Jack Parkman NoleNBlue G46 WC Can you guys try and explain the "I don't consent "shit they yell out? What gotcha moment do they think they have? Secondly, am I wrong in believing that if my glove box or trunk is locked and a cop doesn't have probable cause a warrant is needed to look in them if I don't give consent? TIA
Cant go into the glove box or trunk if its closed. Same for other closed compartments as well. I'm not sure where the I don't consent shit comes from. Now if police are asking to come into your house, you should probably say you don't consent. Then again, I've seen DEA agents surround a house a not let anyone enter or leave until they got a warrant, I'm not sure how legal that shit was, but I'm not an ausa.
This is some really disturbing shit. Like future serial killer disturbing. If even half of what that woman and other eyewitnesses are saying is true, fuck that guy
Sovereign citizens tend to believe that no search is legal unless there is a warrant (and even then they tend to disavow the legitimacy of the court issuing the warrant) or the individual to be searched gives consent.
Why was he out of line? He had every right to tape that. Now I don't agree with the attitude he gave the cop after the cop confronted him but the cop really had no right to confront him in the first place. A lot of cops seem to think it's illegal to film them but it's not as long as you don't get in their way. Hell just last year the NYP had to send this memo to all officers: “Members of the public are legally allowed to record police interactions,” the memo states. “Intentional interference such as blocking or obstructing cameras or ordering the person to cease constitutes censorship and also violates the First Amendment.”
No it's not. http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Subway_FAQ:_Photo_Permit_Information New York City Transit Rules of Conduct states: Section 1050.9. Restricted areas and activities. (3) Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part. However, the same regulations allow this rule to be overridden. For instance, 21 NYCRR 1050.6 ("Use of the transit system") prohibits commercial activity (paragraph b), and nontransit use of facilities (paragraph c); where nontransit use is broadly defined as "non commercial activities that are not directly related to the use of a facility or conveyance for transportation purposes". A police officer could also determine that the act of photography violates other statutes, like 1050.9g, "no person may carry or bring to any facility any item that constitutes a hazard to operation or interferes with passenger traffic". Based on the wording of the statutes, it is possible that photography could still be a violation. As long as you're not trespassing or constituting a hazard to operation, etc. you should be fine.
Dbl you should read the thread before responding (the illegal recording part). That was already covered and corrected.
Reading some background about sovereign citizens and black Moors. It's amazing how batshit insane people can be.
Or I could be glad they when they see someone recording them they thought, let's see why someone is so interested in recording what kind of security is available at a subway station. There is nothing wrong with asking a question, yes the cop was wrong to threaten him, he obviously took his respond personal, but at the end of the day asking was the right thing to do. Listening to the other officers and letting it go was also the right thing to do. This is a non issue considering the shit that has been going in this country between police and citizens. A human being losing his cool is not shocking, if he would've actually arrested the guy I'll be right there with you.
I tend to take a lot of VICE videos with a grain of salt because they're somewhat biased, but that one is upsetting. Drugs = money, for the actual distributors and the people "fighting" it. That sucks.
As someone who works with teenagers on a daily basis and has built up some great relationships with several of them, this really pisses me off for a number of reasons. 1. High school kids have almost zero perspective on their own lives, the world, or how they fit into it 2. They are gullible as fuck 3. They care about impressing their friends more than almost anything 4. One of the only things they care about more than number 3 is not looking like a wimp in front of their peers, trying to not seem uncool, etc. 5. Most of them have the best intentions 95% of the time, but they make dumb mistakes because they can't control their emotions and aren't nearly as smart as they think they are I mean if there's a 17 year old kid who's slinging drugs all over the school, fine, do a sting. But this tricking normal kids into doing what they see as a favor to their friend, trying to seem cool, and/or trying to avoid ridicule, and prosecuting them as drug dealers is just completely missing the (stupid and antiquated) point. And that holds true for adults that get busted on these types of things too. It's among the most vindictive, trust-breaking, bullshit thing that precincts do and seem to think is completely cool And yes, I get that the people they catch broke the law. But the world isn't black and white. Don't be simple. Talking big picture is far more interesting and educational than the bullshit small-minded "he broke the law so fuck him!" shit people are always bringing.
That's interesting, so was the cop who initially approached him and covered up his camera violating his first amendment rights? Based on this memo it seems that he was.
Yes, he was. It's perfectly legal to film a cop as long as you aren't in there way or interfering with their work. The guy was perfectly within his rights in filming them. No idea where the "It's not legal to film cops" narrative came from but unfortunately many cops believe it and act accordingly. Luckily in this case the other cops knew the actual law.
Just as a FYI those were not NYPD officers, so a memo sent from the NYPD is inconsequential in this situation. Now, as I stated I was wrong in assuming they cannot film, all the bridges and tunnels MTA does not allow people to film so I assumed it was a policy that extended to all MTA property.
True, but the memo to NYPD from NYPD was simply a reminder of the law. Nothing changed as a result of the memo and these cops and this citizen recording would still have to follow that law. According to NYPD what the guy did when he covered the camera up was a 1st amendment violation.
A memo from the NYPD does not cover every jurisdiction in NYC and as such it would not necessary apply to these guys, in this instance it is legal to film but like I said before a lot of the property covered by the MTA do not allow citizens to film. I have no problem with the guy asking, there is no what is someone's intent when filming security at a subway station.
the first amendment does not need a memo from NYPD to apply. It applies, to the entire united states, all the time. You don't need to know what someone's intent is. ok, fine, you want to ask him what his intent is, he doesn't have to answer, and he can tell you to fuck off. Threatening to throw him out, kick his ass, arrest him, etc. is crap and out of line. The police and citizens all must operate within the confines of the law. There is very little latitude for - I thought he might be doing something bad so I violated his right.
Without wading into this particular scenario, the First Amendment applies very differently depending upon where you are.
I'll agree with that, I was being a bit harsh. But the bottom line is that the transit authority, or whoever those guys were do not need to see the memo from the NYPD in order to not violate 1st amendment rights. everyone still has those rights, with or without a memo.
They don't have those rights in certain places that transit authority officers patrol. They can in the subway as was pointed out, but in other areas, you aren't allowed to record. I have no problem with cops asking why someone is filming security on a subway. But you ask politely and drop it when they aren't doing anything nefarious.
Bodycam footage of a SWAT raid... on the wrong house. Luckily, the elderly woman and two young girls inside weren't hurt despite a flashbang being tossed inside before entering. The raid was conducted because someone posted threats against police online and they "traced" the IP address to this house. Turns out, it was the guy two houses down with a history of such stuff who got access to their WiFi. Real solid investigation work.
And hopefully the police learned their lesson about doing a proper investigation and not just rushing to punish whomever they think might be responsible for threatening them.
12 Videos That Show The Difference Between What Cops Said And What Actually Happened http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-brutality-reports_55b65b79e4b0074ba5a53417? Some of these incidents and descriptions of the events (as told by the police on their reports) are absolutely disgusting.
You keep saying this. Do you have any proof? Here's what I found on the actual MTA website. It states the exact opposite of what you're saying. http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part.
How in the blue fuck does he still have a job? How can he be the least bit credible when dealing with a black civilian?
Maybe he means the Port Authority? They do have extensive rules and regulations about photography and video.
Any civilian, really? Encouraging members of the public to murder someone and manufacture evidence to make it look like self defense is not the type of thing I want the cops in my neighborhood doing.