Posted on 04/21/2015 9:43:40 AM PDT by Drew68
That is not what I said. Please read what I said. I said nothing about attacking a photographer. The person photographed may bring a civil suit against the photographer. Taking a person’s photograph without his/her permission is an invasion of ones privacy.
No its not, maybe posting online it is in some specific cases, and that's the websites problem.
Regardless, that doesn't apply for police on duty. They have no right to that type of privacy. Common sense should tell you why.
Perhaps. But if in any way the photographer is obstructing justice, like distracting the officer(s), getting in the way or line of fire, etc, he/she can probably expect summary and perhaps violent chastisement, justifiably administered.
On the site of enforcing the written law, the sworn officer is the law personified. And though he has to answer for his actions, at that moment he is the bare naked law with authority to escalate to any degree that you wish to provoke.
Some people simply do not get this nor respect the bearer of the sword.
No, and its you and they who do not get it.
The world has changed.
They cant just beat citizens to death or shoot them in the back because they are running away.
More and more people have personal cams and their barbaric actions show up on the internet and then TV for all to see, they cant all just pull and lie together to get out of it.
When they attack us for using our cameras on them others like this will record those attacks. Notice that he missed the second one recording him.
I use waze on my phone everywhere I drive. I always report the police car positions on it and report when they are gone, and get the real time warnings of their traps.
Its new age where we can watch them too.
They did not even look like cops. What is with the long beard? Bully.
Sure. As someone has already pointed out, this is clearly a setup to provoke the U. S. Marshal into reaction and then film his response. This in itself is obstructing the carrying out his performance of his office.
Whose side are you on? Do you think the Marshal's Office is your enemy?
Any amateur close enough to the action being recorded to be easily reached by an officer on the scene is already in the way, distracting, and liable to be obstructing justice. Whatever he/she gets is probably deserved.
In the instance being discussed, it was a U. S. Marshal executing his duties, and most likely was justified in causing the citizen to cease. Can you prove otherwise?
+ 100
LOL
“Like I say: “The 90% of sh**head cops give the 10% that are decent a bad name.””
When I was young, it was the other way around. Sad
Yep. The shift from “peace officer” to “law enforcement officer” transformed the profession,
The Marshal who attacked that woman just to destroy her phone cam is just another criminal thug and he deserves to be behind bars.
They are entrusted with a huge amount of power and when they abuse it its sickening. Unfortunately Federal employees are exempt from most rules and laws, look at that DEA Drug Enforcement Agency hooker scandal, they all have job security that we could never dream of,
” The Marshal who attacked that woman just to destroy her phone cam is just another criminal thug and he deserves to be behind bars.
They are entrusted with a huge amount of power and when they abuse it its sickening.”
NAILED it SOL.
How many of you know that many police unions are now under the umbrella of SEIU ?
You obviously got lost somehow on the information highway and wound up in the wrong place. See the name of this site is FREE REPUBLIC, you were obviously looking for ENSLAVED REPUBLIC. You and your bootlicking ilk can go the way of the dodo bird and the world will not be worse off for it.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams
I think you're on to something there.
“...Do you think the Marshal’s Office is your enemy?”...”
In some cases there’s no difference between the thug with his pants hanging off his ass, and the one wearing a badge and a gun and having state-granted “immunity” to do to you whatever he pleases.
RE “....he is the bare naked law with authority to escalate to any degree that you wish to provoke....”
imardmd1... that sh*t goes out the window the moment it’s YOU on the other end of the nightstick.
They’re PUBLIC SERVANTS, and their ONLY job is to keep the peace. NOT generate revenue for “Der Staat”, NOT shoot people in the back, NOT flashbang infants in their cribs. (yeah, that actually happened); NOT shoot your dogs... Shall I go on?
Nazi Germany did this sh*t with their police forces - they unified all the local and state police forces into the Gestapo. And they got their whole society torn to shreds as a result.
When the day comes that people turn against the police, they’re truly f**ked.
Especially a population of Citizens armed to the teeth.
YDNRC
Entrapment went out the window when the judges said it was ok for the cops to lie to do their job.
If the cops got setup, the cops got set up and are criminal.
Thanks. It just makes sense.
100% agree!
G_ddamned right!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.