WaterfowlForum.Net

This isn't meant to bash on cops. It's about the hilarious attitude that New Yorkers have. Skip to the 5:00 mark. Everything before that is just a guy standing there with a camera watching a transit cop arrest somebody. But then it gets funny.

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

Two men in Champaign did this already. Martel Miller and Nate Carter...
They filmed a traffic stop to demonstrate that "profiling" is real.
They were arrested and their footage was destroyed.
The jist of the whole thing is they recorded audio. Video is ok but when you record what a cop says...ain't legal.
Double standard.

There are thousands of cameras in this fucked up city...put one up that views a police action, post the footage on YouTube, and wait...they will come.

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.

The camera man handled that better than I would have.

(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.

No shit?
The way things work in the cop world is...an officer who gets lots of complaints about what a dick he is gets promoted.

The logic: cops piss people off. A cop who never pisses someone off and gets complained about isn't doing his job right.

I have a buddy who's an SP at Guantanamo Bay. He gets complained on a LOT.
Been promoted several times. I think he's a Major now.

(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.

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.

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.

Martel, Nate, and the NAACP lost their court battle. Nate was found dead in the woods.

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.

Kinda hurts doing this but...does the 50/50 not apply here?

Of course it applies! It applies everywhere, every time!

The statement "I'll win every time" is either true or it is not. 50/50™.

(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.

this post is funnier when you read it out loud in a serious or businesslike voice

assateague wrote:

But that doesn't change the fact that New Yorkers are hilarious, which was the point.

that point requires the viewer to have a sense of humor

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.

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.

Times change. Nate n Martel did their thing ~15 years ago.
Things change so fast and if you don't watch every newscast and pay attention, take notes because something mixed in with the propaganda, fluff, spin, and ads...is an important message.
I never should of quit watching the news or I'd know it's ok to film and audio tape a police officer working.

Thanks for being you...Red.

Even Tracy Morgan comes in at the 9 minute mark

Where in the hell is MC Ren when you need him? Flint, that is extremely fucked up.

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.

you tried to go back to sleep to finish the concert huh

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.

Sure you can, well maybe not you, but most of us could. It's called an imagination. Or for some nuts it's called schizophrenia.

Betty calls it "Tuesday".

Redbeard wrote:

assateague wrote:

But that doesn't change the fact that New Yorkers are hilarious, which was the point.

that point requires the viewer to have a sense of humor

Well, this is true.

assateague wrote:Betty calls it "Tuesday".

I forget what day it is...just like you.
We're Twinkies.

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.

(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.

noooo that was a poor example! He was smug and condescending

Oh and I think you might be on the nation's law enforcement most watched list. That would explain the 100's of times you've been harassed

(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.

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?

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?

i was neither evasive or a smartass. i answered their questions, but i also asked why they showed up at my house so fast, and who reported it. They had no reason to question what i'm doing on private property, unless they have reason to believe a crime was committed. if they believed a crime was committed, they could have just run the plate number.

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

Redbeard wrote: once they get nice and frustrated with my answers

Why were they frustrated?
Were your answers to their question straight or laced with inuendo?