Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/17/2025 4:02:17 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
However, a judge overturing a jury verdict is worth noting.
There is only enough in this story to create racial tensions, which was probably the intent, LSM is evil.
Missing a lot of relevant facts, the jury literally found the guy guilty which would indicate he did more than just film.
The judge override the jury decision, makes me ask the question, is this yet another two tier law structure with racial favoritism?
I wonder how many of the cops were illegal aliens. We have them in Chicago and Maine.
If I ever get a traffic citation, my first question will be to ask the cop if he is an American citizen.
People in general and police in particular hate being videoed and routinely ignore the right to video from public spaces. They also seem to carry around an authority power trip chip on their shoulder. In this case the policeman said, “he raised his arm, which I interpreted as an attempted elbow jab to my face...” And the beat down commenced.
I thought most cops in big cities had body cameras now.
” ...charges of ‘harassment’, obstructing governmental administration, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. “
Riiiiight.
Real charge was NOT OBEYING
A more comprehensive write-up is over here, along with a copy of the trial judge’s 25 page decision.
https://www.investigativepost.org/2025/10/02/524070/
You may be right, all I am saying is the article is written with a racial bias and odd a jury found him guilty.
Last time I was pulled over the Trooper informed me that I was being filmed. I said “That’s OK, so are you.”
We both laughed and went on with our interaction.
That is not what the First Amendment does. The First Amendment allows him to speak out against the government without repercussion.
“If I ever get a traffic citation, my first question will be to ask the cop if he is an American citizen.”
Shouldn’t they need to PROVE that they are NOT illegal aliens?
the Black man exercised his First Amendment right that allows him to record the entire ordeal in public
That is not what the First Amendment does. The First Amendment allows him to speak out against the government without repercussion.
“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Courts have ruled freedom of the press includes the right to record things which happen in public. Today, that includes taking pictures and video recording. It includes recording the actions of public officials doing what they do in public.
The courts have proven to be so helpful. Sigh.
Reverse it.
A MAGA hat-wearing citizen filming police on Jan 6 gets punched and arrested. The jury favors the police and the judge overrules the jury.
Are you still sighing?
Thanks for the link. I didn’t read the judge’s decision but nowhere did I see the victim’s race mentioned.
Also there was no mention on police bodycams, so assume they weren’t wearing any.
It appears to me the police violented his civil rights and should be liable.
The judge isn’t supposed to overrule a jury. The jury trial is an enumerated right.
“Real charge was NOT OBEYING.”
Exactly right. You WILL immediately obey your overlords or be immediately punished by force up to and including possible extermination. These are the current rules of engagement against civilian enemy combatants.
The judge is so empowered when the situation arises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict
I presume you wouldn’t sigh when our MAGA guy has a verdict go against him and the judge sits on his hands.
It’s been ruled as precedent; there’s no expectation of privacy in public. Anything you can see you can record, you do not require permission.
I believe it has been ruled under 1A rights.
Sorry hard to trust MSM and judges.
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.