Does this Scare you or Make you Feel Safer?

Question

No mud slinging. I see a mention of the word 'leftist', 'liberal', 'redneck', 'neo con' or any variation thereof you will be flamed and called names.

This is an attempt at a non-partison inquiry. Please don't destroy it.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html

Big Rich Guy....Yes, I am a...righ wing....liberal??? lol
rock on

Answer 1

I think the police were wrong in this instance. I can see why they wouldn't want people taking pictures of them in action because of the way many such photos and videos get used against them out of context. However, to answer your question: It kind of scares me.

Oh yeah (just gotta do it) WHAT ARE YOU? SOME KIND OF RIGHT-WING LIBERAL OR SOMETHING?

Answer 2

Legally speaking, I would have to agree with the ACLU. What was the state's interest in supressing photo taking of something that was in plain view of the public?

What was "the clear and present danger" that the police was trying to pevent? He was not taking pictures of nude people without their consent through a bedroom window, for example. Nor does the article suggest that he was trying to incite a riot.

It would seem that the photographer was taking a picture of something that was in the public interest, and was in plain veiw. The government cannot suppress publication of a photo of a public figure (I.E.: famous & newsworthy -- like a criminal) who is in public view, nor can the government claim that arrresting a drug dealer was a matter of national security.

Something is missing from the story. Why would police act that way over just a photo? The guy must have been running his mouth, or getting in the way.

.........................................
A prior restraint is an official restriction of speech prior to publication. Prior restraints are viewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Since 1931, the Court repeatedly has found that such attempts to censor the media are presumed unconstitutional....

...To determine whether the prior restraint order was justified, the Court applied a form of the "clear and present danger" test, examining whether "the gravity of the `evil,' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger." In applying this test, the Court articulated a three-part analytical framework, which imposed a heavy burden on the party seeking to restrain the press. First, the Court examined "the nature and extent of the pretrial news coverage." Second, the Court considered whether other less restrictive measures would have alleviated the effects of pretrial publicity. Finally, the Court considered the effectiveness of a restraining order in preventing the threatened danger...

...Law enforcement officials often tell reporters not to publish certain information about crimes — for example, the names of victims or witnesses, or the place where the crime occurred. Reporters should be skeptical about admonitions not to publish, particularly when such officials have made the information readily available. Unless these restrictions are authorized by a judge who has found a "clear and present danger" to the administration of justice, officials cannot order reporters not to publish lawfully obtained information. The decision to publish in such contexts is a matter of ethical considerations, not legal restraints

Answer 3

I would need more information to make any real judgment call. The article sounded pretty one sided, and there was some discrepancies as well. If I had to make a judgment call based solely from the article, I would say the whole thing went down wrong. How can taking one picture from a cell phone impede on an investigation? I bookmarked the channel's website so I can keep track of the outcome. Something is not being disclosed about the incident.

Answer 4

Can one be a leftist redneck? A liberal neo con?

Regardless, it looks like a police f*** up to me. There can be lots of confusion during a raid or what not. I almost got shot one night by moving in close to get a better picture. After awhile you learn what to do and not to do at a police scene like the one described. Cop just overreacted, 'cause no one is released 'because they're a good guy.'

Answer 5

This is not new. The police in some locations are very sensitive to having their pictures taken while in the course of their activities. It is a part of the "bunker mentality" that accompanies the job. If Cruz wants he can fight this in court successfully. However, I think that th public opinion outrage will be sufficient to make the police Chief have a chat with the officers involved and the charges will probably be dropped. Baring that it will depend of the judge once it goes to trial. I very much doubt if they will get a conviction.

Answer 6

2 sides to every issue, I believe. And this is one such case.

Every government official/Law enforcement from the lowest level and up, should be policed, we cannot allow for these peoples and occupations to get out of control.

But, I have seen too many police caught on camera for such silly things... This one officer was badly accused of endangerment of a civilian, when her husband (the perp) was being arrested after the cops followed him to his home on a warrant for murder, the wife kept on getting involved and getting in between the cops and her husband while they were fighting and refused to move, so a cop cuffed her and put her in the back of his cruiser.

She was let go right after with a stern warning. It was so stupid that the guy who shot the piece said "Well we can see (and he starts counting) that the officer hit the man 7 times when he refused to go quietly, but the man only hits the officer 5 times!!"

That was the stupidest comment I've heard on TV.

Answer 7

uh... it sounds like a HUGE police screw up... by cops that don't know the law...

probably cause a law suit that will cost the citizens of that town several million dollars when it's settled out of court, because they obviously can't win in court...

good job spending a few million... if I was in that town, I would want the chiefs head on a platter for hiring officers that wasted more money than they will make in all their lives...

I mean they let him go and didn't charge him because they were like "OH SH*T... IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW!"

Answer 8

Honestly that is infuriating! Police have way too much authority. It gives them too much power which they ABUSE regularly. It scares me. Perhaps next time he should pull out a sketch pad and draw a picture of the situation. That way what he is doing could clearly be defined as ART! I sympathize with that man, and if I could speak directly to him I would suggest that he prosecute to the full extent that our laws allow. We must start holding these people accountable.

Answer 9

Scares me. He obviously wasn't interfering w/ police business, he didn't appear to be even trying to document police brutality. He was merely taking a picture of something exciting happening in his neighborhood. If this doesn't get thrown out or a massive suit against the city, I'll be very disturbed.

Answer 10

THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY!!!, it is a violation of that man's right to take a picture of whatever he damn well pleases, and simply proves the police were doing something wrong, and the amount of security cameras around these days even in residential neighborhoods.

Answer 11

Be reassuring. tell her that there is not any longer something to be petrified of, its only a movie. And reassure her that she isn't in harms way with you round. attempt to make the action picture sound a touch humorous besides that you'll save her spirit up. wish this helps.