Another Camera Seized

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:50:42 -0400, "jaf"
wrote:

Sorry for not following this thread, but under what circumstances
would one WANT to be booked? Doesn't that pretty much forever some
sort of criminal record even if you never go on trial? Or, are you
perhaps suggesting this as a way to provide the proof that the cops
at least had the opportunity to mess with the camera images for
later use in a civil suit? I'm neither a lawyer nor a LEO, but it
seems that simply being booked is hardly a definitive statement
about what one did or didn't do, and certainly little to do with a
camera.


Jerry,
In that situation I would insist the police officer arrest me.
Why?

Because you work for a newspaper, and "cop arrests reporter" is always
good for a front page story. Boosts circulation.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I think the point he was making is that by insisting on being arrested, cops
trying to bluff compliance from the reporter will either have to put up or
explain to a judge. If the cop's demands are based on shaky grounds,
chances are the officer will back down.

In the case of the original incident, that wouldn't have worked, since the
officer on scene had been taking directions (bad directions) from a senior
officer. Somebody didn't know proper procedures, so the photographer
(sorry, Tony, I almost wrote "reporter") would have been arrested.

Still, I like that route since the charges would have been dropped (if ever
filed), and the guy with the bad advice would have had to take
responsibility for an even bigger mess. Episode = more care by the involved
officers at subsequent crime scenes.

Take Care,
Dudley

jls wrote:
On 10 Apr 2009 03:08:29 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Not knowing anything about the case you reference, I am loathe to
consider any shooting by an officer to be 'murder'.

The victim was handcuffed, face down, and being controlled by at least
one other officer. The officer took out his gun and shot the victim
in the back.

Wow! It's difficult for me to imagine a reasonable action on the part
of the officer involved based on that description.

Which is why he's facing murder charges. Some people suggest that he
meant to take out a stun gun. Some people suggest that he pulled the
trigger by accident. I don't find either explanation to be a worthy
excuse. A man is dead, probably through callous negligence. This
time it was captured on video by several cell phones. I wonder how
many times it happened when not witnessed.

Just from
personal perspective, having some appreciation for the extreme
circumstances under which officers often find themselves, it is a
dangerous thing to expect perfection from them.

We expect that the police not be treated like gods, free to kill
people through arrogance or negligence, and above any punishment by
the law. To argue that the upholders of the law should be above the
law is irrational and dangerous.

Absolutely agree, and I hope that my response never came across that
way. I tried to keep my response somewhat balanced because I have a
pretty good set of concerns for both sides of this kind of situation.


--
Ray Fischer

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

In most states / provinces, anybody can get a licence who is not legally
blind. Legally blind is less than 10% normal vision, so that means that
people can legally drive with only 10% of normal vision. Or, if the state
/ province words their legislation so that legal blindness is 10% or less,
then 11% would be the lowest legal level of vision required, regardless of
what state or province you are from.

Check it out; it's scary.

It is indeed. It would certainly explain a lot!

I know here in Oz they did away with the compulsory eye test when renewing
licences many years ago. While it was there, I passed the test only by
cheating - you have to cover one eye and read with the other, and I'm
extremely short sighted in my left (with both, I have excellent vision,
including depth perception.) I peeked between my fingers!

I must be alright, I've gone 35 years without hitting anything!

Paul

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:10:40 +1000, "Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote:


I know here in Oz they did away with the compulsory eye test when renewing
licences many years ago. While it was there, I passed the test only by

Not in NSW. They test you at every renewal.

wrote

Not in NSW. They test you at every renewal.

Oops, I meant the other Oz - Queensland!

Paul

In message , Ray Fischer
writes
jls wrote:
On 10 Apr 2009 03:08:29 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Not knowing anything about the case you reference, I am loathe to
consider any shooting by an officer to be 'murder'.

The victim was handcuffed, face down, and being controlled by at least
one other officer. The officer took out his gun and shot the victim
in the back.

Wow! It's difficult for me to imagine a reasonable action on the part
of the officer involved based on that description.

Which is why he's facing murder charges. Some people suggest that he
meant to take out a stun gun. Some people suggest that he pulled the
trigger by accident.

Then it is manslaughter in my area if murder is not proved. Either way
it is incompetence.

I don't find either explanation to be a worthy
excuse. A man is dead, probably through callous negligence. This
time it was captured on video by several cell phones. I wonder how
many times it happened when not witnessed.

Now that is a good question. This is why Israel did not want the worlds
press anywhere near Gaza whilst they murdered some 1500 civilians over
400 being women and children

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message DeTDl.21224$Db2.6809@edtnps83, Dudley Hanks dhanks@blind-
apertures.ca writes
I think the point he was making is that by insisting on being arrested, cops
trying to bluff compliance from the reporter will either have to put up or
explain to a judge. If the cop's demands are based on shaky grounds,
chances are the officer will back down.

Quite so. Also the moment you are arrested it all becomes evidence and
can not be deleted.

In the case of the original incident, that wouldn't have worked, since the
officer on scene had been taking directions (bad directions) from a senior
officer. Somebody didn't know proper procedures, so the photographer
(sorry, Tony, I almost wrote "reporter") would have been arrested.

Then the officer would have had to explain his actions. As would the
senior officer


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

jls wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:59:27 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

They now say there were no CCTV cameras in the vicinity. Hard to believe, in
the centre of London, the most surveilled place on the planet.
VERY hard to believe especially in the Square Mile Also I would expect
the police to have their own video of al the interface points between
the Police and the crowd.

Isn't it odd that in the commercial world, if you don't have the
records that we know you are supposed to keep just to run your
company, that lack of records can count against you in a lawsuit - to
the tune of $billions (USD ;-) due to the inference of guilt.

I'm wondering if/when our government agencies will be held to the same
standards.


I don't think they ever will be, because they write the laws, and
they're experts at writing in exceptions for themselves. We have the
best government money can buy.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

In most states / provinces, anybody can get a licence who is not legally
blind. Legally blind is less than 10% normal vision, so that means that
people can legally drive with only 10% of normal vision. Or, if the
state / province words their legislation so that legal blindness is 10%
or less, then 11% would be the lowest legal level of vision required,
regardless of what state or province you are from.

Check it out; it's scary.

It is indeed. It would certainly explain a lot!

I know here in Oz they did away with the compulsory eye test when renewing
licences many years ago. While it was there, I passed the test only by
cheating - you have to cover one eye and read with the other, and I'm
extremely short sighted in my left (with both, I have excellent vision,
including depth perception.) I peeked between my fingers!

I must be alright, I've gone 35 years without hitting anything!

Paul


Here in Alberta, you only have to pass the eye test when you apply, and
later when you hit a more advanced age -- 65 or 70, I'm not sure of the
exact age when compulsory checks kick back in.

But, in between, there are a number of eye conditions which can severely
restrict vision. I'm a proponent of compulsory checks every time a licence
is renewed...

Take Care,
Dudley

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:40:13 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"Paul Bartram" paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote

In most states / provinces, anybody can get a licence who is not legally
blind. Legally blind is less than 10% normal vision, so that means that
people can legally drive with only 10% of normal vision. Or, if the
state / province words their legislation so that legal blindness is 10%
or less, then 11% would be the lowest legal level of vision required,
regardless of what state or province you are from.

Check it out; it's scary.

It is indeed. It would certainly explain a lot!

I know here in Oz they did away with the compulsory eye test when renewing
licences many years ago. While it was there, I passed the test only by
cheating - you have to cover one eye and read with the other, and I'm
extremely short sighted in my left (with both, I have excellent vision,
including depth perception.) I peeked between my fingers!

I must be alright, I've gone 35 years without hitting anything!

Paul


Here in Alberta, you only have to pass the eye test when you apply, and
later when you hit a more advanced age -- 65 or 70, I'm not sure of the
exact age when compulsory checks kick back in.

But, in between, there are a number of eye conditions which can severely
restrict vision. I'm a proponent of compulsory checks every time a licence
is renewed...

I don't think this has been mentioned, but in the US a driver's
license may be restricted and bear the endorsement (that's what they
call it) that corrective lenses must be worn. In other words, they
don't care what my vision is as long as I wear lenses (glasses) that
correct it.

The eye test is administered with and without glasses. If you pass it
with, you're OK.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida