"Officer Rojas, back the FUCK up."
"That's 3 times you cursed"
"FOUR times."



huntall6 wrote:MT is right.
(MT)Montanafowler wrote:we the public have the right to film public officials in the course of their duties, it's covered under freedom of speech and freedom of the press. the officer is clearly in the wrong.
(MT)Montanafowler wrote:we the public have the right to film public officials in the course of their duties, it's covered under freedom of speech and freedom of the press. the officer is clearly in the wrong.
assateague wrote:(MT)Montanafowler wrote:we the public have the right to film public officials in the course of their duties, it's covered under freedom of speech and freedom of the press. the officer is clearly in the wrong.
Anybody has the right to film anyone, both audio and video, at any time they are in public. Or even if they are in their house, as long as you aren't trespassing, and they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Which means, if some guy's rubbing one out in front of his picture window which can clearly be seen from the street, and he doesn't even try to close the curtains, the videotape is perfectly fine, and is admissible in court to refute his disability claim. Had he even closed the curtains a little bit, or even just touched them, then that implies that he expected privacy, and it would have been thrown out. But alas, he didn't.
So of course you may record pretty much any damn thing you want, anywhere, especially in public.
But that doesn't change the fact that New Yorkers are hilarious, which was the point.
aunt betty wrote:assateague wrote:(MT)Montanafowler wrote:we the public have the right to film public officials in the course of their duties, it's covered under freedom of speech and freedom of the press. the officer is clearly in the wrong.
Anybody has the right to film anyone, both audio and video, at any time they are in public. Or even if they are in their house, as long as you aren't trespassing, and they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Which means, if some guy's rubbing one out in front of his picture window which can clearly be seen from the street, and he doesn't even try to close the curtains, the videotape is perfectly fine, and is admissible in court to refute his disability claim. Had he even closed the curtains a little bit, or even just touched them, then that implies that he expected privacy, and it would have been thrown out. But alas, he didn't.
So of course you may record pretty much any damn thing you want, anywhere, especially in public.
But that doesn't change the fact that New Yorkers are hilarious, which was the point.
Care to test your rights out on Maryland's finest?
I triple dog dare you.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.
By passing on the issue, the justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers.
A temporary injunction issued after that June ruling effectively bars Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez from prosecuting anyone under the current statute. On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit against Alvarez, asked a federal judge hearing the case to make the injunction permanent, said Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois.
The U.S. Justice Department says it is now “settled law” that anyone is allowed to record or photograph police officers in public. A statement of interest – a legal term for when an agency or organization has a stake in the outcome of a trial, but not direct involvement – filed by the Justice Department this week in the case of Mannie Garcia v. Montgomery County, Md., upholds the right of individuals to photograph police under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
assateague wrote:aunt betty wrote:assateague wrote:(MT)Montanafowler wrote:we the public have the right to film public officials in the course of their duties, it's covered under freedom of speech and freedom of the press. the officer is clearly in the wrong.
Anybody has the right to film anyone, both audio and video, at any time they are in public. Or even if they are in their house, as long as you aren't trespassing, and they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Which means, if some guy's rubbing one out in front of his picture window which can clearly be seen from the street, and he doesn't even try to close the curtains, the videotape is perfectly fine, and is admissible in court to refute his disability claim. Had he even closed the curtains a little bit, or even just touched them, then that implies that he expected privacy, and it would have been thrown out. But alas, he didn't.
So of course you may record pretty much any damn thing you want, anywhere, especially in public.
But that doesn't change the fact that New Yorkers are hilarious, which was the point.
Care to test your rights out on Maryland's finest?
I triple dog dare you.
Betty, even in Illinois it's legal to tape the police.The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.
By passing on the issue, the justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers.
A temporary injunction issued after that June ruling effectively bars Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez from prosecuting anyone under the current statute. On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit against Alvarez, asked a federal judge hearing the case to make the injunction permanent, said Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois.
And everywhere else, too.The U.S. Justice Department says it is now “settled law” that anyone is allowed to record or photograph police officers in public. A statement of interest – a legal term for when an agency or organization has a stake in the outcome of a trial, but not direct involvement – filed by the Justice Department this week in the case of Mannie Garcia v. Montgomery County, Md., upholds the right of individuals to photograph police under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
So by all means, go ahead and arrest me. But I'll win. Every time.
assateague wrote:aunt betty wrote:assateague wrote:(MT)Montanafowler wrote:we the public have the right to film public officials in the course of their duties, it's covered under freedom of speech and freedom of the press. the officer is clearly in the wrong.
Anybody has the right to film anyone, both audio and video, at any time they are in public. Or even if they are in their house, as long as you aren't trespassing, and they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Which means, if some guy's rubbing one out in front of his picture window which can clearly be seen from the street, and he doesn't even try to close the curtains, the videotape is perfectly fine, and is admissible in court to refute his disability claim. Had he even closed the curtains a little bit, or even just touched them, then that implies that he expected privacy, and it would have been thrown out. But alas, he didn't.
So of course you may record pretty much any damn thing you want, anywhere, especially in public.
But that doesn't change the fact that New Yorkers are hilarious, which was the point.
Care to test your rights out on Maryland's finest?
I triple dog dare you.
Betty, even in Illinois it's legal to tape the police.The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.
By passing on the issue, the justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers.
A temporary injunction issued after that June ruling effectively bars Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez from prosecuting anyone under the current statute. On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the lawsuit against Alvarez, asked a federal judge hearing the case to make the injunction permanent, said Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois.
And everywhere else, too.The U.S. Justice Department says it is now “settled law” that anyone is allowed to record or photograph police officers in public. A statement of interest – a legal term for when an agency or organization has a stake in the outcome of a trial, but not direct involvement – filed by the Justice Department this week in the case of Mannie Garcia v. Montgomery County, Md., upholds the right of individuals to photograph police under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
So by all means, go ahead and arrest me. But I'll win. Every time.
this post is funnier when you read it out loud in a serious or businesslike voice(MT)Montanafowler wrote:we the public have the right to film public officials in the course of their duties, it's covered under freedom of speech and freedom of the press. the officer is clearly in the wrong.
gila-river wrote:Great, now the cops want to install dishwashers to. Just do your job Red and stop encroaching on our rights to replace appliances. That is not the responsibility of police.:lol:
that point requires the viewer to have a sense of humorassateague wrote:
But that doesn't change the fact that New Yorkers are hilarious, which was the point.
gila-river wrote:Great, now the cops want to install dishwashers to. Just do your job Red and stop encroaching on our rights to replace appliances. That is not the responsibility of police.:lol:
gila-river wrote:Great, now the cops want to install dishwashers to. Just do your job Red and stop encroaching on our rights to replace appliances. That is not the responsibility of police.:lol:
you tried to go back to sleep to finish the concert huhFlintRiverFowler wrote:I recently had a dream where there was a zombie situation that wiped out most of the worlds population but still left a good bit of us alive. It was sad that most people you once knew were dead but once it was over there was no government or police force. Things were instantly better and We just governed ourselves based on the golden rule. Pretty awesome and realistic dream. FF will love this...At the end there was a Luke Bryan concert celebrating the end of the zombie apocalypse at the mall in Macon. Can't make that shit up.![]()
![]()
gila-river wrote:Great, now the cops want to install dishwashers to. Just do your job Red and stop encroaching on our rights to replace appliances. That is not the responsibility of police.:lol:
FlintRiverFowler wrote:I recently had a dream where there was a zombie situation that wiped out most of the worlds population but still left a good bit of us alive. It was sad that most people you once knew were dead but once it was over there was no government or police force. Things were instantly better and We just governed ourselves based on the golden rule. Pretty awesome and realistic dream. FF will love this...At the end there was a Luke Bryan concert celebrating the end of the zombie apocalypse at the mall in Macon. Can't make that shit up.![]()
![]()
Redbeard wrote:that point requires the viewer to have a sense of humorassateague wrote:
But that doesn't change the fact that New Yorkers are hilarious, which was the point.
assateague wrote:Betty calls it "Tuesday".
Redbeard wrote:MT...view this video at your own risk. It will cause your blood pressure to sky rocket. May even push you off the deep end after the many many many...many many many...many many negative contacts you've had with asshole cops. The officer is smug and condescending throughout the video. Not exactly a pillar of the community and a poor example of how a public servant should act. I'll bet he wears board shorts and nukes three meals a day in his microwave.
huntall6 wrote:MT is right.
noooo that was a poor example! He was smug and condescending(MT)Montanafowler wrote:Redbeard wrote:MT...view this video at your own risk. It will cause your blood pressure to sky rocket. May even push you off the deep end after the many many many...many many many...many many negative contacts you've had with asshole cops. The officer is smug and condescending throughout the video. Not exactly a pillar of the community and a poor example of how a public servant should act. I'll bet he wears board shorts and nukes three meals a day in his microwave.
That was a great example of a good cop. He gave the guys common courtesy and didn't treat them like criminals (even when they're wearing orange coveralls) he didn't interrogate them, impede them or "detain" them. I wish I had an officer treat me even half as well as that. Nice to see at least one officer who knows how to follow the law and the Constitution.
legally transferred my license plates from my old truck to my new truck when i was 18, three cops show up in my driveway while i'm putting it on, get out of their vehicles and tell me to stop what i'm doing immediately. Proceed to play twenty questions for a half hour, accusing me of trying to commit fraud or something to that extent. once they get nice and frustrated with my answers, they call DOT (or whoever is in charge of recording license transfers) to check my story, only to find that I was entirely legal. That IS harassment, and those cops were acting thuggish.
Funny how they knew exactly where to go and showed up so quickly, almost like someone had to have known them.
gila-river wrote:Great, now the cops want to install dishwashers to. Just do your job Red and stop encroaching on our rights to replace appliances. That is not the responsibility of police.:lol:
(MT)Montanafowler wrote:Redbeard wrote:MT...view this video at your own risk. It will cause your blood pressure to sky rocket. May even push you off the deep end after the many many many...many many many...many many negative contacts you've had with asshole cops. The officer is smug and condescending throughout the video. Not exactly a pillar of the community and a poor example of how a public servant should act. I'll bet he wears board shorts and nukes three meals a day in his microwave.
That was a great example of a good cop. He gave the guys common courtesy and didn't treat them like criminals (even when they're wearing orange coveralls) he didn't interrogate them, impede them or "detain" them. I wish I had an officer treat me even half as well as that. Nice to see at least one officer who knows how to follow the law and the Constitution.
legally transferred my license plates from my old truck to my new truck when i was 18, three cops show up in my driveway while i'm putting it on, get out of their vehicles and tell me to stop what i'm doing immediately. Proceed to play twenty questions for a half hour, accusing me of trying to commit fraud or something to that extent. once they get nice and frustrated with my answers, they call DOT (or whoever is in charge of recording license transfers) to check my story, only to find that I was entirely legal. That IS harassment, and those cops were acting thuggish.
Funny how they knew exactly where to go and showed up so quickly, almost like someone had to have known them.
aunt betty wrote:Your attitude in this post is why you have trouble with police.
You were evasive and gave nasty smartass answers to their questions.
Those guys are trained to give back what they get and you gave them shit. They get Shitty with you?
huntall6 wrote:MT is right.
(MT)Montanafowler wrote:Redbeard wrote: once they get nice and frustrated with my answers
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 156 guests