Posted on 09/07/2014 2:36:36 PM PDT by She_is_my_ hero
SAN JOSE -- A San Jose resident who was one of several people recording the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting in South San Jose last month is alleging he was intimidated and threatened with detainment for refusing to surrender his cellphone or delete the images he took.
The allegations are contained in an Aug. 21 internal-affairs complaint filed by Andrew Payne and comes as the issue of recording police performing their duties in public has gained national attention in light of the civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri...
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Felgercarb. The violent crime rate is at a multi-decade low.
'War zones' are in Obama's Land of Welfare Recipients and Constituency - and he, himself and his party are stoking a race and class war.
there is little doubt that ‘better hardware’ was needed to combat the growing violence and mayhem.
More felgercarb. A citizenry better armed and free to defend themselves is what is needed to combat any violence and mayhem.
From the trash service up to the President of the United States, there is massive corruption.
So you trust an institution that has been transformed into ENFORCERS for the same???
If so, our country deserves what is about to happen to it.
“That being said, it seems that the cops have no authority to require deletion of any photos.”
Seems? I guess you had better pick up a copy of the Bill of Rights and read them over.
*******
No need for me to have been so hesitant with “seems” — the police would be destroying evidence by confiscating and deleting the photos.
That seems really odd. Wouldn't those image be evidence in a criminal case? And the deletion of them be a crime?
The notion that cops need to be able to combat villains armed with high tech military hardware is almost entirely a myth. I've seen no real evidence that the bad guys are armed any more heavily than they were decades ago.
Uhh, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were and are, I believe, required to operate under rules of engagement considerably more restrictive than those applied to American cops when dealing with American civilians.
They keep showing video of that bank robbery in California back in 1997 as evidence that this is what they face very day on their beats and they need an MRAP and high powered semi-auto rifles and militarized equipment in order to stay alive to do their jobs.
If we think we need militarized police, then we have already lost our ability to be a free people and liberty in America is already dead and never coming back.
Ping
The response being to arm cops with light infantry weaponry designed to maintain a high volume of fire at intermediate ranges. To my mind this is perhaps the least appropriate of all categories of weaponry for use in an environment where the goal is to protect civilian life above all, not to destroy the enemy at all costs.
Great points.
That they are.
And at the same time, while The Federal Beast and His Heinous do not allow castigating Islamists as ‘terrorists’ and restrict ROE to the ridiculous, here at home the Beast is sending out terror assessments to Cops that depict returning vets, Conservatives and ‘right wing contitutionalists’ as ‘domestic terrorists’ to be treated with extreme prejudice, while nary a word about Jihadists.
My understanding is the native jihadists are classified as international terrorists, not ignored entirely. Although I agree classifying them that way is kind of stupid.
If memory serves, some court somewhere actually stated that police do not exist to protect a civilian at all, but rather to enforce the law.
Ah yes, here it is - from SCOTUS no less from 2005:
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
So there you go. The affirmation that cops are not there to protect you, but only themselves so they can enforce the law.
And some applaud cops being militarized while demanding no one record them ‘protecting themselves’ from us.
I think that decision was with regard to the fact that cops are not, and cannot be, responsible to protect individuals.
Their job is to protect the public, not individuals within that public. Or, at least, my belief is that should be their job.
My beef is that militarized equipment is not likely to be the best suited for accomplishing that goal.
That’s in Kaliphorniastan. In states with freedom to carry it’s not a problem.
Should also note that the “militarized equipment” people seem to obsess about most are the vehicles. No matter how armored, they aren’t armed, so they are purely defensive.
You can argue legitimately about whether they’re a good idea, but not that they’re armed military vehicles.
Educate yourself.
I usually read all articles on this site before I comment. I didn’t this time. I should have.
“No need for me to have been so hesitant with “seems” — the police would be destroying evidence by confiscating and deleting the photos.”
Thanks for the clarification.
I remember when they were sending cops over to Iraq to teach the troops how to disarm the terrorists without shooting them. Now they shoot people holding a rake or a drill or whatever with impunity, and they kill their little dogs, too.
My plan has always been to take care of business first and then call the cops when the situation is safe and it's time for a report to be filled out. I don't need their help for most situations.
Agree. I was responding to your note about the police are necessary to ‘protect civilians’ and I recalled a decision whereby the ASSUMPTION Police are there to protect and serve - is a misnomer at best.
Militarized law enforcement does not exist for a purpose of protecting either individuals or a citizenry in a public setting. Such exists for the sole purpose of enforcement of the State’s will upon a citizenry.
Confiscating evidence and video of their actions is yet another red flag to the fact we live in a police state, because such actions are done for the sole purpose of CONCEALING what agents of the state are doing from the citizenry they were supposed to serve.
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.