Quote :

"Is this nobrainer(filming the police) legal?"

Yeah, it's "spend 23 hours in jail and be released without charges" legal.

[Edited on April 3, 2011 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2011 5:18:21 PM

The cameras are legal for citizens, which is really good. We need that to balance all of the government cameras going up all over the place, scanning people's faces. The government monitoring cameras at traffic lights are a risky idea, ripe for government oppressive use.

4/5/2011 8:52:06 PM

Cameras are not ubiquitously legal for citizens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bFl4H-toyU

4/22/2011 6:13:15 PM

Interestingly, police take advantage of North Carolina being a 1 party recording consent state all the time. It's a safe bet that any time you talk to a detective on the telephone the call is being recorded without your knowledge or consent, as it is legal to do so. No big deal, of course, since every word you say to an officer is often scribbled in their little notebook and will be repeated more or less verbatim at trial and essentially given the moral weight of a recording anyway.

And I've always heard that jail telephones are 0-party consent. Remember that embarrassing recording of Hulk Hogan talking to his son in jail recently?

[Edited on April 22, 2011 at 9:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2011 9:14:32 PM

I think it's a particularly iffy situation when a dude in an unmarked vehicle not wearing anything showing he is a cop hops out with a gun drawn. For all the rider knows, he pissed some guy off for riding like a douche and that guy wants to make a point. Seriously fucked up.

4/23/2011 8:41:38 AM

Nevermind that they called in the SWAT team to raid his house a week later just to seize a video camera and "teach him a lesson".

4/23/2011 10:49:02 AM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/23/1148579/speeding-bike-dodged-copswas-ill.html

Quote :

"To look at Bernadette Brown, standing 5-foot-2, weighing roughly 200 pounds, living through chronic neck pain, you'd never figure her for the type to barrel down the highway on a Suzuki Katana motorcycle - blowing past lawmen with her wheels on fire. But Wayne County deputies did arrest and handcuff the then-62-year-old Goldsboro woman, and a federal lawsuit says they did it knowing that her age and condition made the crime impossible. The suit, filed April 12 in U.S. District Court, accuses Wayne Sheriff Carey Winders and Deputy Eric Pierce of violating the constitutional rights of Brown, who was briefly jailed in 2009 on charges of reckless driving and fleeing to elude arrest. The charges were dropped last year after officers could not identify the driver of a speeding Suzuki Katana, who was wearing a helmet and escaped the pursuing deputy. But according to the lawsuit, deputies knew Brown hadn't committed any crime and arrested her only to exact information about her son, the suspected culprit. Being overweight, and receiving disability benefits for a cervical neck injury, Brown couldn't possibly have operated a sport bike, said Greenville attorney David Sutton. "It's a crotch rocket," Sutton said. "She couldn't have thrown her legs over it. There is no way she could get on it without a stool." Reached at home Friday, Winders declined comment, saying attorneys were handling the case. Pierce could not be reached. Sutton said he included a third defendant in the case, "Deputy John Doe," because he thinks unknown others were involved. Pierce tried to stop the Suzuki on Nov. 4, 2009, the suit says. Brown's arrest report specifies only that it was traveling more than 15 mph above the speed limit, but Sutton said he heard deputies report that it was moving at about 100 mph and darting around cars. Brown owned the bike but had never driven it, Sutton said. The suit says she had never before been accused of criminal activity. Pierce came to her house twice asking whether her son had been driving the bike on Nov. 4, and she replied that she hadn't been home and didn't know, according to the suit. Eight days after the speeding incident, Brown got a call from the Wayne County jail telling her that her son had been arrested and had her laptop computer. If she wanted it, the suit says, she would have to come and sign for it. When she arrived at the jail, she was told to go into an interview room and was asked again to name the motorcycle driver, according to the lawsuit. When she said she couldn't answer his questions, Pierce slammed down his notebook, left Brown alone for about 15 minutes, then told her she was free to leave, the suit says. As she walked down the stairs, he ordered her to return, then told her she was under arrest, the suit says. Brown was handcuffed, placed under a $1,500 bond and taken to a holding cell with other arrestees. "Plaintiff was terrified!" according to the suit. At least twice, the suit says, Pierce told Brown he knew she hadn't been driving the motorcycle. She spent several hours in the cell until she could reach a relative in Ohio who wired money for her bail. At the time, the suit says, Brown's pet was stuck in her car outside the jail. Sutton said he has never spoken to Brown's son and does not know whether he was the driver. Because Friday was a court holiday, it was unclear the status of the laptop or her son's arrest. Sutton said he did not know. The interview room where Brown was taken is very near the sheriff's office, and he thinks that Pierce acted with the approval of higher-ranking officers. Sutton delayed filing a lawsuit for several months, he said, at the request of the Wayne County attorney. But a settlement agreement could not be reached. Brown is suffering from post-traumatic stress and does not want to talk about her arrest, Sutton said. He is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages."

4/23/2011 10:00:10 PM

Maybe I should have titled this Police State and Crony Capitalism, because this post is the latter...i see we have a Crony Capitalism thread but I am too lazy to get it bumped

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/after-approving-comcastnbc-deal-fcc-commish-becomes-comcast-lobbyist.ars

5/11/2011 5:17:08 PM

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-long-con/Content?oid=7989613

5/14/2011 12:37:21 PM

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/05/13/indiana-court-you-have-no-right-to-keep-cops-out-of-your-house/

Truly horrifying stuff here.

5/16/2011 11:43:13 AM

I think the original editorial writer and the one that you linked are misinterpreting the decision. It's simply stating that the 4th Amendment doesn't support the resistance of police entry; not that unwarranted police entry is ok. Independent of the legality of the police entry, fighting them is not protected by the Constitution. My panties remain unwadded.

5/16/2011 12:36:48 PM

Yeah, the right to resist that has only been around for 800 years or so. No reason to keep it around.

5/16/2011 12:50:58 PM

In NC, its legal to resist an unlawful arrest, not sure about entry.

5/16/2011 12:56:35 PM

It won't be upheld anyway. It violates SC precedent.

5/16/2011 12:58:18 PM

SC themselves just shat all over the 4th amendment. Nice reasoning... so now the police have yet another tool to utilize pretty much any time they don't feel like going to the trouble of you know, investigating or compiling evidence or really anything. All they have to do now is say that it sounded like evidence was being destroyed (whatever the fuck that sounds like!).

http://www.latimes.com/news/sc-dc-0517-court-search-20110516,0,6820148.story

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/05/16/warrant-we-dont-need-no-stinkin-warrant/

5/17/2011 6:49:24 AM

If you resist an unlawful arrest or entry, you will be shot dead.

5/17/2011 12:39:06 PM

^^only one dissenting opinion, thats some weak shit. It just seems like it should be a little more controversial

5/17/2011 1:56:22 PM

Marine Survives Two Tours in Iraq, SWAT Kills Him

http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/marine-survives-two-tours-in-i

http://www.kgun9.com/story/14621212/marine-killed-by-swat-was-acting-in-defense-says-family?clienttype=printable

Shouldn't have had drugs, bro. Oh, no drugs found? Whoops. Shouldn't have acted in self defense, bro. Oh, the gun was still on safety? Well, shit.

5/17/2011 5:06:51 PM

yeah, pointing an assault rifle at police is a completely reasonable thing to do that no one should expect to be shot for doing.

I'm sure the authorities could be to blame, but I wouldn't ever suggest that pointing a firearm at police officers is a good idea

[Edited on May 17, 2011 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2011 5:26:05 PM

He didn't know they were police officers. They didn't announce that they were police officers before they busted in. He was shot over 60 times.

[Edited on May 17, 2011 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2011 5:35:47 PM

Quote :

"They didn't announce that they were police officers before they busted in."

The Pima County Sheriff's Office denies that officers failed to identify themselves. Lt. Michael O'Connor told KGUN9's Joel Waldman that the SWAT team has a standard procedure when serving high-risk search warrants of this nature designed to prevent the suspect from confusing officers with criminal home invaders. "We will have a lot police vehicles there, with their lights and their sirens on. In this case... because it was a narcotics high risk type of a search warrant, we had our large armored vehicle there with the markings on it. It also has lights and sirens, it was going. So we do everything we can to portray the image that we are law enforcement, we are not home invaders."

O'Connor also said emphatically that this was not a "no knock" raid. "This case was, we came in very high profile, lights and sirens. We go to the door, we pound on the door. We wait approximately 15 seconds. If no one answers the door, we breach the door with a heavy tool and open the door."

The officer said that when the SWAT team got the door open, they found Guerena crouched in the hall pointing an assault rifle at them. According to O'Connor, Guerena said, ""I have something for you!" He said that Guerena "brought this all on himself by presenting himself the way he did."

That seems to still be undetermined.

Quote :

"He was shot over 60 times."

In 7 seconds.

[Edited on May 17, 2011 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2011 5:42:45 PM

As a matter of policy, all public peace officers should be required to have working recording devices on their person and in any instances of this type of serving of a warrant those devices should be verified working before executing the warrant.

That would settle any and all questions pretty quickly.

5/17/2011 7:04:40 PM

Clearly, that would be an invasion of the officer's privacy...or so the argument goes. I think you waive your right to privacy when you're given the power to kill your fellow citizens.

5/17/2011 7:08:10 PM

Quote :

"As a matter of policy, all public peace officers should be required to have working recording devices on their person and in any instances of this type"

I agree, I might even go a step further and require them to have them on at any time they are on duty.

5/17/2011 7:22:28 PM

Someone help me out on understanding police tactics:

what are the advantages to a home raid (either knock or no knock) as compared to arresting someone when they are leaving the house. For instance, suprising them as they walk from their house to their car and then serving the search warrant?

5/17/2011 7:32:07 PM

It's more badass and you get to buy and use lots of cool assault rifles. Duh.

5/17/2011 8:38:29 PM

Quote :

"He was shot over 60 times"

60 times or 6 times...whats the difference? Deadly force by nature cannot be unreasonable.

5/17/2011 8:43:59 PM

it's incredibly silly to me when people mention the number of shots as some type of proof that someone overreacted.

5/17/2011 9:46:34 PM

OMG SOMEONE'S SHOOTING I SHOULD BE SHOOTING TOO HEY GUYS WHY ARE WE SHOOTING TOO LATE I'M ALREADY SHOOTING TOO

5/17/2011 9:48:36 PM

Quote :

"it's incredibly silly to me when people mention the number of shots as some type of proof that someone overreacted."

I think it does a better job denoting how little discipline was used during the raid. Every extra round fired increases the chance of collateral damage and there were (obviously) many extra rounds fired.

5/18/2011 11:42:07 AM

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=481_1305659194

5/18/2011 7:59:29 PM

^ahahaha

5/18/2011 8:19:27 PM

My favorite part is at the end when the white cops and the black cops are fighting over who gets to take the money they stole from that mexican.

5/18/2011 9:15:51 PM

More about the Pima, AZ shooting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

5/26/2011 4:44:45 AM

Arrested for dancing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI

5/28/2011 6:03:20 PM

DEATH TO AMERI...it's already dead.

5/28/2011 6:50:22 PM

I thought that was going to be a clip from Footloose.

5/28/2011 7:28:14 PM

And at the Jefferson memorial, of all places. Appropriate.

5/28/2011 8:47:16 PM

Pima, AZ shooting video.

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/05/26/video-of-the-pima-county-swat-raid/

I never heard them announce. I saw and heard a very brief knock, then they breached, then lots of firing.

I also find it interesting that they then felt the need to breach AND SEARCH 2 other homes because they were worried that they might have accidentally shot someone else. Breaching to check on the safety of the occupants, ok I can see that. Tossing the homes without a warrant or any reasonable suspicion seems waaaaaay unconstitutional.

5/29/2011 12:09:49 PM

Quote :

"The Tactical Emergency Medical Support element provides emergency medical support to the entire SWAT team and suspects or victims requiring emergency medical services. TEMS is staffed by paramedics from the Pima County Sheriff's Department. The paramedics are fully integrated into the Tactical element and respond to all missions where SWAT is involved."

They can't be too integrated if it takes an hour to respond to a shooting.

Quote :

"The goal was to create one of the largest, most capable tactical team in the Country; this goal has been accomplished."

Why is being the largest a goal? Being capable? Sure, everyone wants to be good at what they do, but what does being large have to do with it?



Real professional guys.

http://pimasheriff.org/about-us/organization-charts/operations-bureau/support-operations-division/tactical-response-section/s-w-a-t/

5/29/2011 12:51:54 PM

Not sure whether to laugh or cry at the "offense description".

5/31/2011 9:51:38 AM

[Edited on May 31, 2011 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

5/31/2011 9:59:19 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/31/warrantless.phone.searches/index.html?hpt=Sbin#0_undefined,0_

make sure you lock your cell phones, kids!

5/31/2011 10:02:45 AM

^^^

Quote :

" (g) Demonstrations and special events(1) Definitions. (i) The term demonstrations includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers. (ii) The term special events includes sports events, pageants, celebrations, historical reenactments, regattas, entertainments, exhibitions, parades, fairs, festivals and similar events (including such events presented by the National Park Service), which are not demonstrations under paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section, and which are engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. This term also does not include casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers."

correct?

5/31/2011 10:32:40 AM

There are really two things to argue here, due to the absurdity of the situation. And that's just on the "legal"/philosophical side of things (clearly there was more with what actually happened, like the officer refusing to say what they would be arrested for, or bodyslamming someone who didn't pose a threat to them).

1) Dancing in the manner that anyone there was certainly does not constitute "intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers", thus shouldn't have been an offense. I can prove this because THERE WAS NO FUCKING CROWD OR ONLOOKERS prior to the arrests.

2) It shouldn't even be a law in the first place. Proactive laws with jail time for a "crime" that has no victim is so ridiculous. Something might happen if someone "expresses their views", so we may as well lock their ass up!

5/31/2011 10:58:55 AM

Were you cited because you were dancing or because you were in a restricted area?

5/31/2011 11:13:44 AM

It would seem that the cited law makes no mention of restricted area. So how does that work in court? Can they just say "no, now you're on trial for law xxx, being in a restricted area"?

5/31/2011 11:22:30 AM

They can do whatever they want. Who is going to stop them?

6/1/2011 12:17:43 AM

^^^^

He didn't bodyslam him because he was dancing, he bodyslammed him because he was resisting arrest. And they arrested them because he wouldn't stop dancing when they told him to.

I'd wager they told them to leave several times before the arrest (despite what the dancing couple say) that were edited out of the video. There were like 20 park cops there, you think they were all just hanging out in the memorial chamber when this happened?

And why do you think there will be jail time for that?

[Edited on June 1, 2011 at 11:42 AM. Reason : ]

6/1/2011 11:42:24 AM

It was an illegal arrest. Any commands given by those officers were illegal.

6/1/2011 12:32:01 PM