*PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, June 7th, 2010 6:21pm PDT - promote requested by marinara.

The Jury has far more power that the courts or the Judge let on. Google the facts.
I think the old man would have gotten a lot more hassling of the video camera was not present.

*PROMOTE and learn your rights.

Invocations (promote) cannot be called by bobknight33 because bobknight33 is not privileged - sorry.

5 minutes of training for situations like this and the blockhead goons could have enjoyed the nice day they keep talking about.

So, guy in blue shirt that looks asian and was kind of alluding to him having the possibility of causing problems for them. Was he a bike cop or something?

And the guys in the T shirts at the beginning, did they call themselves marshals? Because black dude obviously had an attitude problem, but other guys in the shirts seemed OK. And dude taking pictures with his cell phone was...trying to turn it around on them? Or sending their pictures off to see if they could bust them with something to get rid of them?

It almost looks like the police were doing them a favor by staying around because the marshals and what not were looking for trouble.

If those guys can't identify themselves, just because they have a specific shirt on doesn't mean they automatically have the authority...and not identifying themselves seems sketchy.

Watching these videos makes me sick. I have to pause and do something else for a while, or I'll get too mad. Fortunately, only that one guy in the first half had the real attitude problem, and the rest were inquisitive without being too arrogant.

But really, at what point will the general public start demanding better police training? A police officer should never have a problem being filmed in public. If they follow procedures, and have a "peace officer" attitude, it can be nothing but good PR. As soon as I see that somebody has a problem being filmed, I immediately know it's because they abuse their authority on a regular basis, and don't trust themselves to behave properly.

Protest permit?

"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." Requiring a permit to protest is a de facto law against protests. The first amendment has already been applied to the states thus trumping any local laws by federal precedent. How common are these protest ordinances?

Learn how law works there sparky before you go spouting off.

The Supreme Court has time and time again ruled that law enforcement can put time & place restrictions on protests and exercise of free speech. Hence the Rovian Free Speech Pens and other nonsense.

In fact, I am surprised Philly doesn't have a law about showing ID when in front of a federal bldg or other "high value" locations. I thought it was a federal law, but it might be a state law.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Protest permit?
"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." Requiring a permit to protest is a de facto law against protests. The first amendment has already been applied to the states thus trumping any local laws by federal precedent. How common are these protest ordinances?

Goons need love too.

- "Terrorism" is just another tool used to assert "authority".
- Pricks make prick cops.
- Some people just need their windmills.

Like the *Heisenburg principle? Lol! That flew about 12 feet over the cops' head

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, June 7th, 2010 10:34pm PDT - promote requested by lavoll.

I've heard that one of the surest ways to get out of jury duty is to mention that you have read up on jury rights. Kinda pathetic.

^Joe, your reply missed the point. The system looks after itself. Of course the courts are going to rule with local law enforcement authorities, that has a long tradition. The courts also approved separate but equal facilities, then reversed their decision years later. Their decisions aren't always entirely based in legal precedent, but in the predominate social norms of the time. I was talking about the plain and simple fact that the intractable difference in the phrasing of the constitution and the foundation of these types of laws. Of course these laws exist, I already said that. What concerns me is the erosion of our base of freedom.

A man with a sign does nothing to impede movement on the sidewalks away way. This is a technicality, but a valid one. An ordinance that doesn't take that into consideration first thing sounds like a thing made to stop protests first, and keep the sidewalks clear second.

I think the security guy has been watching too much Running Man (at 2:09)

You know what, I think we've all been had. This is just footage from the latest asshat convention and it's been taken out of context. You see, it's really just a gathering of juvenile douchebags that haven't evolved enough to know how to cooperate.

Isn't there something about not recording people without their consent? Although I'd worry what the cops/security guys would do w/o the camera...and no one should. That sucks.

Do I really need to be the first to point out that there's no such quote in Animal Farm? It wouldn't make sense if they said pigs. Goddamnit people.

Bah. Changed it to the actual quote from Animal Farm. I liked the new quote which I copied and pasted from the site I got the video from.

Incredibly tepid. I did like the info on the jury rights, but overall the cops where pretty amiable.

Upvote for standing up for our rights. Jury nullification is thee reason we have juries.

Blankfist, why do you care about this? Because it's 'not virtuous'? The horror.

This has zero effect on most people's lives and on the arc of history in general.

>> ^Drax:

Incredibly tepid. I did like the info on the jury rights, but overall the cops where pretty amiable.


"I'm gonna shove that camera down your throat!" Completely amiable and the sort of thing you want to hear from a public servant.

As I said in general. What this recording seems to be is a squable between someone who seems to have the authority of a rent a cop, then everything else seems to go pretty amicably.

I love how that guy gets right in his face and says "If you get too close to me with that camera..." Somebody needs a time out.

What state are they in? That gentleman in the blue suit with the ball-cap on made a threat. Which is assault as I understand it.

>> ^littledragon_79:

You know what, I think we've all been had. This is just footage from the latest asshat convention and it's been taken out of context. You see, it's really just a gathering of juvenile douchebags that haven't evolved enough to know how to cooperate.
Isn't there something about not recording people without their consent? Although I'd worry what the cops/security guys would do w/o the camera...and no one should. That sucks.


I'm afraid you don't know jack shit about shit. Trolololololo, the previous sentence was because of your "asshat" remark. I thought you were trollin'.

As far as I understand it if a person is in the public domain you do not have to have consent to film them, or picture them; provided it does not constitute harassment or assault and any number of sexual offenses.

The general consensus that I've seen on Google is that if the video footage is for profit or inappropriate use (see my paragraph above) then it is a violation of law.

To video tape the amoral acts of police, and the assault of a citizen is not illegal. It is morally acceptable, and legal.

@NordlichReiter, I believe in this particular state (and many others) it's a violation of some "eavesdropping" law which makes it a felony to tape someone without their consent. It's ridiculous, but that's statism for ya. Taking away your rights one utopia-engineering step at a time.

>> ^acidSpine:

Like the Heisenburg principle? Lol! That flew about 12 feet over the cops' head
would it be funnier or more surprising if he got the reference?

LOL, loved the mention of Heisenberg.

Upvote for Heisenberg reference. Pure comedy gold.

Wow, a couple of guys stand with a camera and a sign that says "jury info" and it's a calling-all-cars terrorist alert. When your law enforcement is so easily distracted and confused, maybe it's time for a change.

I love how the Police always make the Feds look like saints.

More "goonery".

I wonder why state and federal servants hate being recorded. What do they have to hide?

It amazes me how stupid enforcement officials can be at times. Specifically when very large numbers of them focus on a very small number of individuals who won't submit to their whims. There was a video of a dozen TSA people following around a guy who was video taping at an airport. They always talk about "terrorism", all the while displaying massive tunnel vision by focusing on a harmless, but vaguely suspicious individual. So all eyes are on some goober with a camera, which leaves nobody watching the big picture.

terrorists are not going to make themselves conspicuous.

every time I wear a leather motorcycle jacket through the airport, I get "randomly" selected for extra screening. If I leave that jacket at home, I'm never selected for extra attention.

Here's a link to one of the guys involved: http://georgedonnelly.com/ Haven't found a copy of the pamphlet yet.

>> ^Truckchase:

Here's a link to one of the guys involved: http://georgedonnelly.com/ Haven't found a copy of the pamphlet yet.


They probably printed them from this site: http://fija.org/document-library/brochures/

HEY EVERYONE!!



TWO GUYS WERE DOUCHEBAGS>>> ALL GOVERNMENT MUST BE DESTROYED!!

>> ^volumptuous:

HEY EVERYONE!!

TWO GUYS WERE DOUCHEBAGS>>> ALL GOVERNMENT MUST BE DESTROYED!!


Is volumptuous just a troll now? Being that it was more than a dozen police, and no one is advocating the destruction of government but him? Should he be on a watch list?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^Joe, your reply missed the point. The system looks after itself. Of course the courts are going to rule with local law enforcement authorities, that has a long tradition. The courts also approved separate but equal facilities, then reversed their decision years later. Their decisions aren't always entirely based in legal precedent, but in the predominate social norms of the time. I was talking about the plain and simple fact that the intractable difference in the phrasing of the constitution and the foundation of these types of laws. Of course these laws exist, I already said that. What concerns me is the erosion of our base of freedom.
A man with a sign does nothing to impede movement on the sidewalks away way. This is a technicality, but a valid one. An ordinance that doesn't take that into consideration first thing sounds like a thing made to stop protests first, and keep the sidewalks clear second.



No, you are missing the point and in this rare circumstance, I agree with someone 100%. I know the example I am about to give will be extreme, however, even if extreme, by your reasoning, congress could make NO LAW every prohibiting it...

A man rapes a random woman/passerby because he wants to protest women's rights. Per the NO LAW, ever, clause you mention, this would be a lawful act. Even the laws on the books about rape could not prohibit this man from his wrong doing because, since he is protesting and using free speach, he is immune from prosecution.

Like I said, that example is extreme. However, the law, strictly read, is extreme as well. So there SHOULD be SOME leeway in there. You need a permit? The state cannot discriminate so apply for one and it will be granted. This does not, in anyway, stop a protest by a concerned, non-lazy citizen...

Also, who are these tards to ask for ID, say it is required, and not give their own info? Is it required? Because I don't think it is required of rent-a-cops or other private sectors... I know Florida's courtroom security is run by a private corporation...

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Drax:
Incredibly tepid. I did like the info on the jury rights, but overall the cops where pretty amiable.

"I'm gonna shove that camera down your throat!" Completely amiable and the sort of thing you want to hear from a public servant. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">


Actually, these look like private security. So if you blamed them for being cops and they are not cops, will you apologize for being a hat?

In addition, the black guy threatened the protester for a action. For example, if I threaten that you pull a gun out of your pants, I will shoot you, is that a threat? Is that assualt? Perhaps... Or a warning. If the protester puts the camera in his face litterally, (I.e. battery,) is the black man guilty of assualt? NO! Let me shove a camera into someone's face and see if I don't get arrested! Lolz.

In this case, the security guy worded his statements properly. Yes, this is a nuance, but this is the difference between assualt, as you say, and not being assualt.

Also, by your standard, when the old guy with the hat briefly touches the officer, the officer could have charged the old guy with Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer... I mean battery is touching anyone without their consent...

@Lawdeedaw, I don't think you and I watched the same video. First, if you pause the video @0:50 you will see another man with the same badge as his and his jacket flies open showing what appears to be a handgun. Whatever type of "security guard" they are, they're not the "I work at the mall" variety.

Second, if you actually watch the video you'll see the man didn't shove the camera in the guy's face, but instead the officer (or security guard) approached him and made a blatant threat. I'm curious why you feel the need to apologize for them when they're obviously in the wrong.

This objection is laughable. Rape isn't against he law because of speech, its against the law because of force. Freedom for all makes the idea that freedom at the cost of one non-permissible. Your example is so nonsensical that I can't even get my head around it and hope that you use another example, because I lost you completely. (when you use an example, no matter extreme or not, it at least has to address the same issue)

And, if you are just going to be given a permit anyway, why the hoops? I will tell you why, so cops like this can harass you. This is why the first amendment exists in the absolute form it does. Because when you start giving the state arbitrary standards to regulate speak, stuff like this is inevitable. Like the FCC regulating TV shows, radio, and soon the internet (I have no doubt they will try, look at Australia). Freedom is fragile. It isn't the natural condition. It is the natural condition of man to dominate others. It is why I get so reactionary to any violation of freedoms, no matter how small.

>> ^marinara:
PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS


Just like Teachers (Having sex with students,) and Preachers (Having sex with children,) and politicans (having sex with anything with a vagina) and children (Dope dealing disrespectul shits,) and fathers and mothers and civilians (Omg, don't make me list their actions...)

Maybe you have too high of a responsibilty level for humanity? Just a guess. But blame the cops, if that get's you off...

Woot, glad I am not a cop and the center of the hate of the world. In fact, the only ones hated more than cops are those who believe in god. Lolz.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^marinara:
PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS

Just like Teachers (Having sex with students,) and Preachers (Having sex with children,) and politicans (having sex with anything with a vagina) and children (Dope dealing disrespectul shits,) and fathers and mothers and civilians (Omg, don't make me list their actions...)
Maybe you have too high of a responsibilty level for humanity? Just a guess. But blame the cops, if that get's you off...
Woot, glad I am not a cop and the center of the hate of the world. In fact, the only ones hated more than cops are those who believe in god. Lolz.


You're forgetting obtuse apologetic wanks.

It's OK because everyone else does it wasn't an acceptable rationale when I was 6 years old.

I think that everyone would be surprised just how easy it is to become an Armed Security Officer (guard). 40 hour training which includes handgun qualification and shotgun qualification. I've seen a few of these classes, and they are pretty strict, but that is given the place that is providing the training. Zero Tolerance for itchy trigger fingers, and violating the fire line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_guard

Pennsylvania No licensing requirements to be an unarmed security guard. However, armed security guards must undergo and successfully complete a 40 hour training course (including shooting range time) in order to be certified to carry weapons and on watch while on duty under the Lethal Weapons Training Act (commonly referred to as Act 235 certification). Certification involves qualifying on a pistol range, with firing of 50 rounds of .38 cal. ammo. You are also required to qualify on a shotgun. The certification is good for five years at which time an eight hour refresher course must be taken or the certification is revoked.[28]

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^marinara:
PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS

Just like Teachers (Having sex with students,) and Preachers (Having sex with children,) and politicans (having sex with anything with a vagina) and children (Dope dealing disrespectul shits,) and fathers and mothers and civilians (Omg, don't make me list their actions...)
Maybe you have too high of a responsibilty level for humanity? Just a guess. But blame the cops, if that get's you off...
Woot, glad I am not a cop and the center of the hate of the world. In fact, the only ones hated more than cops are those who believe in god. Lolz.

You're forgetting obtuse apologetic wanks.
It's OK because everyone else does it wasn't an acceptable rationale when I was 6 years old.



IT IS NOT OKAY BECAUSE everyone does it. Who said that? Only a moron, idiot, or a douche would think that it's okay. Only someone looking to hate everything about my posts BEFORE they understand my posts would misunderstand my post because they have a vendetta against me and just wish to downvote everything I do...

I never said it was okay in any fashion. Did you read that? Point it out to me AFC... I will wait. The proof of your intellect will be nice to see.

I think cops who break the law should go to jail, be fired and that's that. I never professed anything different. Just like teachers and preachers. Throw them all in jail and hold the same accountability and rage towards them all! Hang em all equally!

You remind me, in a small manner, of George W. Bush... A left George Bush, but a Bush nevertheless... Never apologize! Down with all the insane people of religion! Down with police in general!

This is my pretend conversation with AFC. "Lawdeedaw, your arguments are *Making up lies about arguments* wrong on all accounts. How dare you say stuff that I pretend you speak." Me, "I am outta here. Have fun playing with just yourself man *Or girl, I am not really sure.*"

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This objection is laughable. Rape isn't against he law because of speech, its against the law because of force. Freedom for all makes the idea that freedom at the cost of one non-permissible. Your example is so nonsensical that I can't even get my head around it and hope that you use another example, because I lost you completely. (when you use an example, no matter extreme or not, it at least has to address the same issue)
And, if you are just going to be given a permit anyway, why the hoops? I will tell you why, so cops like this can harass you. This is why the first amendment exists in the absolute form it does. Because when you start giving the state arbitrary standards to regulate speak, stuff like this is inevitable. Like the FCC regulating TV shows, radio, and soon the internet (I have no doubt they will try, look at Australia). Freedom is fragile. It isn't the natural condition. It is the natural condition of man to dominate others. It is why I get so reactionary to any violation of freedoms, no matter how small.


Simple elementarty deer watsony...

There used to be a law against setting fire to an American flag. Now that law has been deemed void. However, arson can and is illegal if it is against property. You set your own house on fire as a statement and guess what? Arrested. You set a flag on fire? Nope, cannot touch you.

I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here.

You are the one being far too broad in your assumption that CONGRESS SHALL NEVER, EVER, EVER MAKE A LAW that infringes upon any form of protest whatsoever. I am pointing out that as incorrect.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^volumptuous:
HEY EVERYONE!!
TWO GUYS WERE DOUCHEBAGS>>> ALL GOVERNMENT MUST BE DESTROYED!!

Is volumptuous just a troll now? Being that it was more than a dozen police, and no one is advocating the destruction of government but him? Should he be on a watch list?


Actually, wrong again. Good grief! Two of the men in the vid go above and beyond. One of those douches makes a threat. All are rent-a-cops. The real cops just question harmlessly and realize they are beaten. If that makes them douches....good god we have high standards.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^volumptuous:
HEY EVERYONE!!

TWO GUYS WERE DOUCHEBAGS>>> ALL GOVERNMENT MUST BE DESTROYED!!

Is volumptuous just a troll now? Being that it was more than a dozen police, and no one is advocating the destruction of government but him? Should he be on a watch list?


I see two asshole cops out of about ten.

Two were being total assholes, and should probably be fired. The others were there as "backup" or probably because they were super bored.

But if you understood the sentiment behind my comment, you'd realize I'm just pointing out that using terms like "government goons" and "brownshirts" (Godwin's law in the tags of the video? This must be an alltime first for Videosift) is just way over-the-top ridiculous, but is once again used by BF to show how if two douchebag cops are douchebags, that must mean the entire system of governance in this country should be dismantled.

Duh.

I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).

"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."

This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.

You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.

I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)

The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.

You know, I can respect this reply very much. The analogy is just that, similiar but different. It is hyperbole, but along with the flag burning, as we both agree, it puts things in perpective.

The tree is a slippery slope. I find permits completely appropriate because of certain situations that may arise. Say, for example, two groups book one event. One is the skin heads, and they booked their protest to meet with the black panthers... Chances are, there will be blood...

Next is an anti-gay protest/march, right into a gay activist parade (Coupled with floats and driving drag queens in little punch buggies.) This protest by the anti-gays would be completely lawful if there were no permits yet would be disasterous.

Besides, these three proved you can hold a "protest" without a permit. Just deny it is a protest.

I respect your opinion and wish we had valid freedoms in all walks of life just like you do. However, freedom is sometimes our worst enemy. People will always f-things up to where laws have to be made...

See, freedom allows you to walk past a 15 year old girl being raped and do nothing about it (Has happened in America.) It allows you to take a picture with your cell phone of a man who has been shot while trying to protect his family (Has happened.) It allows motorists to yell at someone just run over and dying to, "Get this fucking trash off the god damn road!" Freedom is the antithesis to community, sadly... But would I live anywhere else but a "free" nation? No... I just wish we had more responsibilty towards one another.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).
"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."
This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.
You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.
I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)
The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.