If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
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 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
"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 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
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. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
wrote Not in NSW. They test you at every renewal. Oops, I meant the other Oz - Queensland! Paul |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
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 /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
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 /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
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' |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
"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 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Another Camera Seized
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Nikon SLR Camera Kit - Lenses, Camera Body, Camera Bag etc. | Dave | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | February 24th 05 11:34 PM |