GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   75 years for taping Police?!? WTF? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1036290)

MetaMan 08-31-2011 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 18392711)
Prosecutors order arrests all of the time. This guy may or may not have been arrested on the spot. If he wasn't, a prosecutor very likely had him arrested afterwards. So it still goes back to the law and the prosecutor.

Be mad at the police, nothing wrong with that, I'm with you there. Simply saying being mad at them alone isn't going to do much good. There are people above them pulling strings.

the police are meant to serve the people. my anger is on them. in a democratic society they are supposed to serve the people above government. not the other way around.

it does not matter what prosecutors order, if there is no one enforcing it then it does not happen.

the police enforce it so they are to blame. i am not to sure what the world has become but just because you receive orders does not mean you have to act on it. end of the day the police have personal choice in what they enforce. and they have every option to quit the force on the spot or deny all orders.

i do not find it an adequate excuse doing anything just because someone order you to.

MetaMan 08-31-2011 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 18392715)
Apparently its law in 12 states. You think every officer in every one of those 12 states is going to choose to not enforce that law? It's not going to happen. The law needs to go.

yes the law should go and no i dont think all officers would not choose to not enforce that law. it is because they are corrupt. that is why the anger at them is not mis guided.

they admittedly accept a paycheck enforcing laws they do not fully believe in.

so how can my anger not be directed or mis guided at a group of people like that?

Spudstr 08-31-2011 02:23 PM

This was found not to be illegal the other day by a federal appeals court. It was your first and 4th amendment rights.

If it goes to the superior court and is held up, federal > state so state laws are not "legal" and will get smacked down.

bronco67 08-31-2011 02:27 PM

Has anyone else said this to a cop that has pulled them over? "Stop acting abusive, because you're my employee, not the other way around"

I have, and it didn't help the situation.

It's sad, but most police officers forget this simple fact -- politicians also.

HOT/ICE 08-31-2011 02:28 PM

wow thats crazy

digitaldivas 08-31-2011 02:43 PM

I have agree with meta, it is this level of abject stupidity of the government that pisses me off even more! Common sense anyone? And IT IS the pawns that carry out these unconstitutional duties every single day that are to blame. whether by purpose or by ignorance, this bullshit just needs to stop.

And people will eventually wake up to this over reaching and over broad laws passed in the guise of "protecting" the populace, but I fear that when this happens, it will be too late.

How long before they come after us, as an industry again because of what we do? something to think about. Defend ALL LIBERTIES imho, because what comes around, most def goes around.

Quentin 08-31-2011 03:26 PM

A little more on the Glik decision, from respected First Amendment scholar and UCLA law prof. Eugene Volokh:


Quote:

The decision is correct, I think: Just as the right to speak can be unconstitutionally burdened by restrictions on spending money to speak, or associating in order to speak, it can also be unconstitutionally burdened by restrictions on the gathering of information that is needed to credibly speak.

And the decision is also important. It?s just the latest in a line of circuit court cases, but it?s likely to get a lot of publicity, encourage police departments to respect the public?s rights to openly record police officers in public, and encourage lawyers to challenge violations of these rights. This is especially so because the court held that the right was clearly established, so that the officers won?t have qualified immunity. This means that if the plaintiff proves to the jury that his account of the facts is right, he can recover damages and attorney?s fees.

Note, though, that the decision is quite limited in its scope. It doesn?t, for instance, deal with whether state laws that bar surreptitious recordings ? including of police officers in public ? are constitutional (the argument would be that they are permissible ?manner restrictions?).

The First Circuit decision also doesn?t deal with whether the First Amendment right extends to the recording not just of government officials but of others (whether employees of a business or a nonprofit, or private citizens acting outside of any scope of employment). It doesn?t deal with whether state laws that bar surreptitious recordings of supposedly ?private conversations? are constitutional. And it doesn?t discuss the permissible scope of restrictions on videotaping on government property (outside traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks, and parks).

The logic of the opinion is broad enough to strengthen the hand of people who challenge some of these restrictions, and may ultimately lead to some of these restrictions being struck down. But which ones will indeed ultimately be struck down, and which will be upheld, is not clear.
The rough part for Michael Allison (the guy facing 75 years in Illinois) is that based on my understanding of the facts of his case, all of the recordings he made would fall under the list of things that Prof. Volokh noted as questions not dealt with in the First Circuit's ruling in the Glik case. (I believe all of his recordings were made surreptitiously, and I believe at least one of them was made in a context that would not be considered a "public space.")

Here's one thing that strikes me as particularly odd, and particularly unfair, in Michael Allison's case: he was arrested in large part for recording a hearing in his own misdemeanor case (he was charged with violating a zoning ordinance) after being denied his request that a court recorder be present for the hearing.

True, there was a technical/procedural reason that he was denied his request for a court recorder (misdemeanor charges don't entitle you to a court recorder being present; had he been charged with a felony there would have been a recorder present for sure), but it just seems manifestly unjust to refuse a defendant the opportunity to document a hearing in his own case. It seems particularly unjust when that same defendant has filed a lawsuit against the city to challenge the very zoning ordinance that he was charged with violating, and only started recording the police in the first place because he believed he was being harassed in response to his civil suit!

I sure hope that at the end of day, the relevant portion of the Illinois eavesdropping law at question here ends up subject to a permanent injunction against enforcement. If the Illinois state legislature is determined to have a law on the books making it a criminal act to record the police, that law should at least be clearly defined, very narrow in scope, and structured so that it can only be applied very, very infrequently, and only when the circumstances truly call for that manner of restraint.

And to top it all off... 75 years for this sort of "crime" is just excessive to the point of absurdity. There's no way in hell he will receive the max if he's convicted, of course, but for it to even be possible is way the hell out of line.

Quentin 08-31-2011 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spudstr (Post 18392731)
This was found not to be illegal the other day by a federal appeals court. It was your first and 4th amendment rights.

If it goes to the superior court and is held up, federal > state so state laws are not "legal" and will get smacked down.

Sadly, it is nowhere near that clear cut, even in light of the First Circuit's decision the other day.

thickcash_amo 08-31-2011 04:07 PM

This is crazy. Seems like with a shitty economy and now crazy ass laws like this, we americans are doomed!

alias 08-31-2011 04:13 PM

This guy pissed off the cops so they are flexing.

http://pics.alientrollscience.com/re..._authority.jpg

The guy charged seems like a decent guy, hope he doesn't get fucked over.

My Pimp 08-31-2011 05:12 PM

I am shocked .

glamourmodels 09-01-2011 06:52 PM

LOL! I am shocked that all you guys seem so shocked. Really? This suprises you? Seriously? You really did not see shit like this coming for 10+ years now??? But I bet you all can tell me who won the last 10 world series, super bowls and nba championships and who won on american idol for the last several years or who kim kardashian is fucking this week.

You get the government you deserve and Americans deserve the police state that is coming to them pure and simple. It's your own fault for being so stupid, lazy, shallow and apathetic.

BTW, I am American.


Quote:

Originally Posted by My Pimp (Post 18393066)
I am shocked .


brassmonkey 09-01-2011 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glamourmodels (Post 18398249)
LOL! I am shocked that all you guys seem so shocked. Really? This suprises you? Seriously? You really did not see shit like this coming for 10+ years now??? But I bet you all can tell me who won the last 10 world series, super bowls and nba championships and who won on american idol for the last several years or who kim kardashian is fucking this week.

You get the government you deserve and Americans deserve the police state that is coming to them pure and simple. It's your own fault for being so stupid, lazy, shallow and apathetic.

BTW, I am American.

if a cop is pissed he can ruin your day maybe even kill u. no surprise here

georgeyw 09-01-2011 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 18392653)
I'm not happy with the current state of the police, but the anger in this thread is sort of misguided. The police did not create that law, they may have influenced, but they did not create. Anger should be focused on those that created this law and also the prosecutor.

Did you watch the entire video? The only reason this law was enforced against this man is BECAUSE he had the recordings that showed he had done no wrong in the first place.

The police in this particular scenario are using a law to aide their getaway from their own misconduct. A smokescreen if you will.

Redrob 09-01-2011 07:30 PM

The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

glamourmodels 09-01-2011 08:17 PM

My point is that to anyone that has been paying attention for the last decade this should come as no suprise and the only ones that are suprised are those that have willfully chosen not to look whether out of stupidity or apathy so the American public has no one to blame but themselves for their fate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey (Post 18398259)
if a cop is pissed he can ruin your day maybe even kill u. no surprise here


D Ghost 09-02-2011 12:29 AM

Unbelievable... anyone who is ok with this man going to jail for 75 yrs for "eavesdropping" realizes it will cost taxpayers approximately $3,000,000 over those years right?

I think most people think this IS ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is that this law will not change anytime soon, even though most people think it's crazy.

twistyneck 09-02-2011 01:21 AM

HE BROKE THE LAW. Fuck him, let him rot.

glamourmodels 09-02-2011 09:25 AM

You almost certainly committed 3 felonies today alone as evidenced by this particular author and several other studies that show there are so many vague laws in America that even your sweet grandma is technically a fucking criminal whether you like it or not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...830760842.html

Amusing to consider that when it's your turn and they are dragging you off to the gulag, you will be crying like a little bitch whining about how they are violating your civil liberties.

Of course, none of us will give a shit about you, any more than you care about this guy.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistyneck (Post 18398644)
HE BROKE THE LAW. Fuck him, let him rot.


Bryan G 09-02-2011 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 18392420)
Those damn Republican law makers!!!


Oh....


Wait.....



Illinois is the most Democrat-dominated state in the union, measured by the party?s control over state government and its votes for U.S. Senate and president.

The Democrats have controlled the governor?s mansion and both houses of the legislature since January 2003. They stayed in power even after their two-time governor was impeached following one of the biggest corruption scandals in the state?s history.

The only place Democrats have been running state government longer? West Virginia.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...#ixzz1WdYAgTOF


No matter WHO votes in this kind of law, they need to be voted out, but for all those who think that this kind of crap only comes from one political party, think again.



.

figured it would be you or Vendzilla that would have to cherp in with your republican bullshit

digitaldivas 09-02-2011 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistyneck (Post 18398644)
HE BROKE THE LAW. Fuck him, let him rot.

really?!? your a fucking idiot!

digitaldivas 09-02-2011 11:15 AM

say by some miracle, bachmann gets elected and immediately Porn becomes illegal. Even though we are protected by free speech. Because we "broke the law", which is in itself illegal, we should all rot? Imho it's people like you that are the problem... Just brainwashed fucking morons that can see nothing but your own wasteful selfishness.

HomerSimpson 09-02-2011 02:56 PM

and US is a "free contry" ? :Oh crap:Oh crap:Oh crap


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123