........

He has a constitutional right to own a firearm, and he had a license to carry it concealed. I'm not going to judge and/or criticize someone for exercising their constitutionally protected rights. :2 cents:

There is no question that he went back over across the street, after being asked to leave, with the intention of being arrested. So yes, he wanted to get arrested.

Makes for great footage.

quote the whole sentence thanks...

He has the gun because of death threats due to his last story...

You don't know the reporter, maybe he has a reputation of doing harassing stories, which would give someone the reasonable belief that he is there to harass the students and/or faculty.

I hear all the stuff about rights and I agree, but I also agree that there may be times when a cops ask you to move for reasons that dont need to be explained in great detail.

Maybe the cop just wanted him to move because he is an adult and children are comming out and his policy is to keep all adults out of the area.
Who knows?

The reporter made a big deal about nothing since his camera man was able to zoom in quite fine from across the street when he had to.

And bottom line, the cop ultimately removed a person with a firearm from the school saftey zone so why should I give a fuck.

What the fuck was the reporter going to do, shoot a student for not answering his questions? He's doing a story about violence at the school so he brings a gun and argues with a cop to create some more. :1orglaugh

Good enough reason to tell him to leave.
The kids could get caught in the cross fire to kill him.
Don't stand next to a guy with a contract on his head.
:winkwink:

if they don't need to be explained its likely because there is no legal basis thus its a suggestion not a command.


maybe the reporters policy is to not move when theres no legitimate reason for him to move that couldnt be explained to him.

so if a cop tells you you cant stand on your sidewalk because you could "zoom" in to the sidewalk with your camera , you would be fine with that. ?


because he had a perfectly legal right to be there. normally people give a fuck when police break laws :) or else why have laws.

Try thinking outside the box, jesus.

Maybe just maybe this reporter has a reputation is all I am saying. Death threats don't generally come to reporters who do non-harassing stories.

You know absolutely nothing about the reporter nor his reputation, and neither do I. So I am saying that MAYBE he does have a reputation and the school knew of it. Which would give them REASONABLE BELIEF that he was there to harass people.

From what I saw in the video he could have cared less about his story, he just wanted to cause trouble once the opportunity to do so arrived, which also leads me to believe he has a reputation for causing trouble.

It's not fucking rocket science.

actually that is a good point. If it was known that he had a death threat to him, which I am sure he did a whole story about how there was cuz he seems like an attention whore, he was actually putting the students in danger.

I'll pick the safety of our children over nicely asking a guy to move across the street anytime.

What part about his legal right to carry a gun made the gun not capable of being used?

He packed heat near some kids while knowing he could be the target of a drive by shooting. Not smart.

The cops knew him and didn't want him near the school, that's why they didn't give a reason. They didn't want to say, "because you are scum with a target on your head". :1orglaugh

And you base your opinions without knowing all the facts, then ride your little mighty high horse all around in a gay little circle waiving your arms and screaming.

You got it all figured out.

Yep, he had all the right to be there, but when they asked him to go across the street it didn't affect what his goal was suposed to be...interview some kids. The kids walked across the same street so why not just do the interviews there?

Also, the cops have rule over anything within 500 feet of the school so if they ask you to leave you need to do that.

I have the right to drive down any public street, but if the cops block it off and say don't go down there then what do you think makes sense for me to do?

Did you make that up while you typed it, or did you have to think about it first?

i'm with you man that is spot on imho :2 cents:

I don't know what happened, or what people knew, as I have stated several times. I am saying that there is probably more to the story than the very one sided video.

But if you'll sleep easier thinking it all went down just the way you think, go for it. It's a pretty ignorant approach, however.

He wasn't just asked, he was forced. There's a difference.

You comment here is part of what I feel's wrong with America today. We seem to have no problem surrendering rights and freedoms for the illusion of security.

why not just let the cops tell us what to do and how to do things, then we wouldnt even need to think :winkwink:

he was a reporter he wanted to do a story on the school , obviously with the school in the background..


cops dont have or make rules.. they enforce laws we have asked them to enforce. if a cop "asks" you to do something , it's not a command , if he commands you to do something you must obey , the way to fight it is not by disobeying.

find out why the street is blocked, and if they were only blocking it because you wanted to go down it then the cop shouldnt be blocking it..

if you asked " why is the street blocked ?" do you think its reasonable for them to tell you ?

ya, you're right, saying "I kindly ask you to go the other side of the street" is such a shitty way to go about it.

Just a thought.
 

It's very easy for any rent a cop or city cop as to give orders to the general public, however it does not alway make it right... nor does it mean anything was done against the law... It should be known that a cop cannot utter that he or she is going to arrest someone as a threat... this is against the law... at least here in Canada... also if you resist against unlawful arrest you are entitled to use as much force as you see fit without overdoing it... however if you do so you should inform your attorney and or law office... and lay criminal charges against the individual(s) and or companies... for damages.

Later,


.

I never claimed the cop didn't have manners... but, then, I fail to see what social graces have to do with anything.

Yes.

And if they don't tell me and I start bitching about it and the cops snatch me out of the car and arrest me and the video is posted on youtube all the comments will be the following:

"smart mouth a-hole deserved it"
"Obey the cops and you won't have problems"
"you're an idiot"
"Next time maybe you'll STFU" :1orglaugh

And these people will be on my jury if I take the case to court.

So, tell me all about what's right and I already know that.
I'm telling you about what the end resut is going to be wether I'm right or not.

Not many parents are going to back up the reporters right to be there in front of the school. Nobody would even be discussing this if it was a bum that got arrested for not going across the street.

And I never claimed that his rights were not violated, I merely stated that maybe there is more to the story than what's on the video. This usually is the case.

I can agree with that, but then - I never argued the point.

My point was in the surrendering of rights and liberties for nothing more than to feel safer... even if it's "for the children"... and that it seems to a trend that people are accepting without much thought.

Oh dear.... Officer Plod and his rookie brigade are playing at law enforcement officers doing the school patrol in a no-win scenario.

It's too sad and pathetic - whatever the combination of laws and bullshit enable that stupidity, it sure is well screwed. It's a candidate for a comedy show for police officers worldwide :winkwink:

My guess is that it's not uncommon for a report to receive death threats when he does good reporting and exposes problems people are trying to hide. The video states that he started getting threats after reporting about restaurants with food safety violations. If this is the case, it's not "harassment" at all. Besides, a reporter who "harasses" people for no legitimate reason would probably get fired. There is no reason to believe that he was there to "harass" anybody. Even if he was there to do a "harassing-type" story (your words, not mine), he's in his right to do so.