«

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:31:53 -0500, SEMI-Sane wrote:

> C J Campbell added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>> Well, not in a democracy.
>>
>> Free speech has nothing to do with form of government. A
>> democracy is just as capable of being tyrannical as any
>> totalitarian dictatorship.
>>
> I suppose you're right but history tells us that the most benign
> government forms wrt freedoms like speech, religion, peaceable
> assembly, and all the other things in our Bill of Rights

You still have one?

Oh yeah, that's right -- Obama reclaimed it pro bono.


> are FAR more
> likely in a democracy. Even a Socialist government like Canada, Great
> Britain, France, Germany

Say what?

Well, consistency is nice, even if it's consistent st00pidity.

The element of predictability is always so comforting.

I truly wish you were able to be aware of how you really know, Jer.

You'd be sadder, but much wiser.


Yer bud,


Clint




> and the like are more restrictive plus
> generally do not have a specific codification in a document that is
> above the meddling of the politicians.
>
> As to tyrannical governments such as Fascist dictatorships, basic
> freedoms like speech, travel, and all the usual things people expect
> are the FIRST to go.

In article <2009033120054622503-savageduck@savagenet>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
-:On 2009-03-31 18:54:23 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
-:
-:> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:10:20 -0400, "J. Clarke"
-:> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
-:>
-:>> Neil Jones wrote:
-:>>> Colin.D wrote:
-:>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
-:>>>>> nospam wrote:
-:>>>>>> In article <uY5Al.46468$(E-Mail Removed)>, Martin Brown
-:>>>>>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
-:>>>>>>
-:>>>>>>>>> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
-:>>>>>>>> As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least
-:>>>>>>>> in the UK
-:>>>>>>> Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which
-:>>>>>>> delete all seldom does.
-:>>>>>>
-:>>>>>> it rarely fails.
-:>>>>>>
-:>>>>>>> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could recover
-:>>>>>>> deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this
-:>>>>>>> respect.
-:>>>>>>
-:>>>>>> perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one
-:>>>>>> moment he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did
-:>>>>>> not. that's destruction.
-:>>>>> ONLY if the data were actually lost, which is NOT usually the case.
-:>>>>
-:>>>> But the cop *intended* the images to be lost. The fact that they
-:>>>> might
-:>>>> be recoverable was beyond the cop's knowledge; if not he might well
-:>>>> have physically damaged the card. In the cop's mind he *did*
-:>>>> destroy property.
-:>>>>
-:>>>
-:>>> I got to think a little bit but how much can they (law enforcement)
-:>>> delete. The newer devices that are coming out with bluetooth will
-:>>> transfer files to the neighboring devices. If your friends are with
-:>>> you and you transfer the files to them with bluetooth then the
-:>>> question becomes, how MANY can they delete? Are they going frisk
-:>>> everyone and delete all images on all cameras?
-:>>
-:>> The kid in me would want to deal with Officr Hostile by just letting him do
-:>> his deletion, going home, recovering the images, putting them up on
-:>> fotoomsk.ru or somewhere else that's going to laugh in Officer Hostile's
-:>> face when he complains, then emailing the police chief, the mayor, and the
-:>> local newspapers and TV stations with the story and the link, preferably
-:>> including HD video of Officer Hostile's little tirade.
-:>
-:> You're assuming that there's something in the photographs that would
-:> reflect badly on Robby (the officer in question). There's no
-:> indication of that.
-:>
-:> A person who was being arrested on a drug charge was manhandled and
-:> that was being photographed. There's no reason to assume that Robby
-:> was involved with that. According to our retired policeman in this
-:> newsgroup, Robby - as a member of a drug task force - would not have
-:> been the arresting officer.
-:>
-:> I used the word "manhandled", but this was an arrest of a druggie in
-:> the projects. There's no indication that the arrestee's demeanor did
-:> not require that. It wasn't mentioned if the guy was high, putting up
-:> a fight, or just not getting to the ground quickly enough.
-:>
-:> I related this incident as I heard it in a casual conversation. Had I
-:> known that it would have received this much attention, I would have
-:> asked Robby some questions and been able to present a more accurate
-:> picture.
-:>
-:> Questions like: Was the person with the camera a bystander who was
-:> just standing by quietly, or was the person pushing into the scene
-:> aggressively? Was the person warned sufficiently that he was not to
-:> take photographs? (Whether or not you think it a warning was
-:> deserved, this would make a difference in Bobby's reaction)
-:>
-:> What was the general nature of the situation, and were things getting
-:> out-of-hand or was it a fairly routine bust? Did Bobby, in
-:> retrospect, think he acted impetuously or improperly or did he feel
-:> that he had some sort of mandate to demonstrate his authority.
-:>
-:> I didn't ask any of those questions. The conversation was more on the
-:> subject of the difficulty of photographing basking alligators on the
-:> Econolatchee River banks. (They sense you coming and slide into the
-:> water). The arrest incident was a very minor part of the
-:> conversation.
-:>
-:> Robby's a big, kind of soft-spoken, guy who doesn't seem to me to be
-:> the cowboy type. However, I have no idea what he's like on the job on
-:> in stress situations.
-:>
-:>
-:>
-:
-:There are so many elements missing from this story.
-:I can accept that you are relaying it to us in good faith, in the
-:context of the OP. Now you are making hearsay assumptions

he made no assumptions, only poised questions.
you made the assumptions.

-: regarding the
-ossible scenario for the involvement of the photographer during this
-:arrest, to justify "Bobby's" actions and your trust in his character as
-:you know it.
-:
-:The issue is, the story as you originally told it does not indicate any
-bstruction of the officers performing their duty (the arrest) by the
-hotographer. What actually took place with the actual arrest, and the
-:behaviour of the arrestee is irrelevant.
-:This is about the photographer who was just taking photographs. He was
-:not arrested for obstruction, just accosted by an overzealous officer.
-:Therefore all of us in this NG have been led to understand "Bobby"
-:acted irrationally to destroy the photographs (files). This act,
-:whether, fact or fabrication is at the very least in a US Legal sense,
-:a violation of Due Process. At worst, if things happened as you
-:described, is illegal destruction of personal property and possibly
-:assault/battery by a Peace Officer under the color of authority (or
-:Law). The latter in California can be a misdemeanor or a felony
-:depending of the severity, and would provoke an Internal Affairs
-:investigation. I can't speak for Florida, but I believe he would have
-:similar problems there if a complaint was made.
-:
-:The bottom line is "bobby" was wrong in believing he had the "right"
-:because of his badge, to act to confiscate and destroy the
-hotographer's property.
-:

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:10:34 -0700, Savageduck <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On 2009-04-01 08:04:06 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:32:35 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My thoughts as well. You do not enforce the law by destroying evidence.
>>> Further, any lawyer representing the photographer is going to point out
>>> that the cop was obviously attempting to destroy evidence that he was
>>> committing a crime.
>>>
>>> If his actions were not police brutality, then he should have welcomed
>>> the photos, not destroyed them.
>>
>> You say "his actions". I understand that you don't have the complete
>> story (because I don't have it to relate), but what indication do you
>> have that he was involved in the arrest action at all?
>
>Agreed. None of us have the complete facts as the relate to this story.
>>
>> After all, you are the person who pointed out that he would *not* be
>> part of the arrest team. He, according you, would be restricted to
>> being an observer of the arrest.
>
>Here I think you have mixed up "C J Campbell's" opinion & response with
>mine.

You are probably right.

>"C J" did not make the assertion that "Robby" would not have been
>part of the arrest team if he was "undercover", I did. This still
>sounds less like an actual "undercover" operation than a drug
>enforcement unit arrest of a known, or surveilled suspect.

Now I'm getting more confused. I thought it was said that undercover
task force members don't make arrests. I don't know if this was an
undercover operation or a simple arrest. That didn't come up.

It's quite possible that I don't know the difference between
"undercover", "task force", "drug enforcement units", any other jargon
terms. Robby works drug cases. That's all I know for sure. Robby
did say that he didn't want his photograph circulated in the druggie
community, so that sounds like he works undercover. Police
terminology and procedures are not areas of familiarity to me.

>The story you told provoked a reaction in this NG because "Robby's"
>actions were patently wrong, regardless of his motivation, or your
>opinion and defense of his character.

I agree that he was wrong in that his actions violated the procedures
the police are supposed to follow. I am not greatly disturbed over
this, though.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:30:02 -0700, C J Campbell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2009-04-01 08:04:06 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:32:35 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My thoughts as well. You do not enforce the law by destroying evidence.
>>> Further, any lawyer representing the photographer is going to point out
>>> that the cop was obviously attempting to destroy evidence that he was
>>> committing a crime.
>>>
>>> If his actions were not police brutality, then he should have welcomed
>>> the photos, not destroyed them.
>>
>> You say "his actions". I understand that you don't have the complete
>> story (because I don't have it to relate), but what indication do you
>> have that he was involved in the arrest action at all?
>>
>> After all, you are the person who pointed out that he would *not* be
>> part of the arrest team. He, according you, would be restricted to
>> being an observer of the arrest.
>
>No, actually, I am not that person.

I apologize for confusing ducks and eagles.
>>
>> His reaction was allegedly based on not wanting the undercover drug
>> task force team's photographs available for distribution in the drug
>> community. Photographs would capture the faces of the observers as
>> well as the officers directly involved in the arrest actions.

>A photograph someone 'observing' the arrest would be no different than
>any other bystander. You are really grasping at straws here.

My comment had to do with the insinuation of police brutality on the
part of Robbie as the motivation for destroying the images. If he
was not directly involved in the arrest, there would be no reason for
him to object on these grounds. His objection was based on his
identity being recorded, not based on what he was doing at the time.

>> Your statement is akin to "If you were not beating your wife, you've
>> done nothing wrong". It plants the idea that the person is considered
>> one who would be violent.

>? I don't get this at all. You are raving here.

Your statement - "If his actions were not police brutality...then he
should have welcomed the photo" - plants the idea that police
brutality on his part was a motivation. His motivation was from an
entirely different reason.

Like the "beating your wife" cliche, saying "No, I wasn't" doesn't
remove the impression created when "If you were not beating your wife"
was made.

>> The kangaroo is the elephant in the room.
>
>And now you have crossed over into madness.

It's a reference to a kangaroo court where unrelated, unsubstantiated,
charges (police brutality on the part of Robbie) are introduced as a
part of a sham proceeding.

If you don't "get" what mean, just ask.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida