still think this is the USA you remember?

In article >,
jaybird > wrote:
>
>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17667
>>>>
>>>> (via fark.com)
>>>>
>>>> STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>>>> Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
>>>>
>>>> A Penn State college senior was arrested after he pointed his camera
>>>> cell
>>>> phone at police activity in his neighborhood. A Philadelphia NBC News
>>>> Channel 10 report says the family of Neftaly Cruz, 21, is claiming the
>>>> cops had "no right to come onto their property and arrest their
>>>> 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera."
>>>>
>>>> Cruz had heard a commotion outside his parents' home and walked out the
>>>> door to investigate it. When he saw the street lined with police, he
>>>> flipped his phone open to take a picture. Within moments, an officer
>>>> came
>>>> to his back gate, put him into a police car, cuffed him and took him to
>>>> jail. According to a neighbor's report, the cop spoke only once during
>>>> this process, allegedly saying, "You should have just went [sic] in the
>>>> house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures
>>>> off
>>>> your picture phone."
>>>>
>>>> The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly prohibiting
>>>> people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones. Cruz is
>>>> quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy,
>>>> impeding
>>>> an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel of
>>>> the
>>>> local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>>>> people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>>>> adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could actually
>>>> be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell
>>>> phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST
>>>
>>> Oh come on Brent. I thought you were too smart to believe everything you
>>> read. We already hashed this one out last week:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they
>>> said
>>> Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied
>>> that
>>> they told Cruz he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's famly
>>> said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's
>>> Internal
>>> Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation."
>>>
>>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
>>
>> So they arrested him for walking out in public mere feet from his home
>> and he and the witnesses are lying.
>>
>> Sorry jaybird, the cops denial doesn't make sense. And if they did just
>> arrest him for no stated reason at all, then that's an even worse.
>
>You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and affidavit
>have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say before
>you start blindly believing this story.

As you well know, you can just use one of those catch-all charges.
"Disturbing the peace" is a typical one. Or "Failure to obey the
lawful orders of a law enforcement officer". Or, in this case,
"Interfering with a criminal investigation".

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"barking pumpkin" > wrote in message
news
> jaybird wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>> affidavit have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those
>> say before you start blindly believing this story.
>>
>
>
> Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start blindly
> defending the cops?

We have all of the facts that are currently available. There is a story
from the accused, and then two sentences quoted from the police. We're
working solely off of that.

>
> Oh, that's right, it's because you don't believe in justice, only in your
> badge.

Not necessarily my badge, but in all of the badges when the media reports a
defendant's story as fact when they have nothing other than his word to work
from.

>
> This is a very chilling story and if there is more to it, the cops should
> be all over the press explaining EXACTLY what the arrestee did.

It's not that chilling at all. The cops only have to explain exactly what
the arrestee did at his trial.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:
>>
>
>>STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>>Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
> [...]
>>
>>The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly prohibiting
>>people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones. Cruz is
>>quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding
>>an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel of the
>>local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>>people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>>adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could actually
>>be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell
>>phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST
>
> Only catch is, there's no such law. The cops (surprise) just made it
> up.

Actually, the defendant made it up. That came from his version of the story
and the cops said that the charge had nothing to do with a phone.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:16:54 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>Bill Funk > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>I think it's questionable whether he was actually arrested or only
>>taken into custody.
>
>What's the difference?

Strictly speaking, it can be little to nothing.
Different jurisdictions have their own definitions.
An arrest usually means a booking takes place, a formal procedure
where the person arrested is read his rights and told the charge
involved.
Beibng taken into custody, OTOH, may look the same, but no booking is
involved.
But this can vary by location.
An "arrest" usually leave an official record, while custody often only
involves an incident report.
But the actual difference is blurry.
In this case, no booking occurred, because no superintendant was on
duty(!).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge him
>>>>> with
>>>>> any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason publically,
>>>>> just
>>>>> in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what it
>>>>> sounds like from my experience.
>>>>
>>>> That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they can
>>>> arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops and
>>>> not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it won't be
>>>> too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.
>>>
>>> Again, incorrect. You can't arrest someone without a charge and the cops
>>> did say that he was arrested, just not for what he is claiming.
>>
>> Being taken away to the police station against one's will is arrest no
>> matter how you choose to redefine terms.
>
> Right, but no one knows what the actual charge was. The guy is claiming
> that it was cell phone related, but that's just his side.

A silent government is a suspicious government.

If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe you'd
have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
something they shouldn't have.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge him
>>>>> with
>>>>> any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason publically,
>>>>> just
>>>>> in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what it
>>>>> sounds like from my experience.
>>>>
>>>> That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they can
>>>> arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops and
>>>> not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it won't be
>>>> too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.
>>>
>>>Again, incorrect. You can't arrest someone without a charge and the cops
>>>did say that he was arrested, just not for what he is claiming.
>>
>> So why are the cops afraid to state publicly the reason for the
>> arrest? What are they hiding? I smell a coverup!
>
> They don't have to say anything to anybody unless it's the prosecutor or the
> judge.

I figured you were for secret government/police actions.

Secrecy of government is yet another bane of liberty.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>>>Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
>> [...]
>>>
>>>The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly prohibiting
>>>people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones. Cruz is
>>>quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding
>>>an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel of the
>>>local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>>>people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>>>adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could actually
>>>be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell
>>>phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST
>>
>> Only catch is, there's no such law. The cops (surprise) just made it
>> up.
>
> Actually, the defendant made it up. That came from his version of the story
> and the cops said that the charge had nothing to do with a phone.

While they think of something else....

jaybird wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, jaybird wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge him
> >>>> with
> >>>> any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason publically,
> >>>> just
> >>>> in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what it
> >>>> sounds like from my experience.
> >>>
> >>> That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they can
> >>> arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops and
> >>> not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it won't be
> >>> too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.
> >>
> >> Again, incorrect. You can't arrest someone without a charge and the cops
> >> did say that he was arrested, just not for what he is claiming.
> >
> > Being taken away to the police station against one's will is arrest no
> > matter how you choose to redefine terms.
>
> Right, but no one knows what the actual charge was.

exactly.

> The guy is claiming
> that it was cell phone related, but that's just his side.

exactly. If the police had presented their side then we'd be able to
evaluate the claims of each side on their own merits. But when they're
not so forthcoming, it's natural to be suspicious. I'm guessing that
the guy was a minority living in a minority neighborhood, so probably
all in the area are somewhat distrustful of the police anyway.

nate

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge
>>>>>> him
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason
>>>>>> publically,
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> sounds like from my experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they can
>>>>> arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops and
>>>>> not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it won't
>>>>> be
>>>>> too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.
>>>>
>>>> Again, incorrect. You can't arrest someone without a charge and the
>>>> cops
>>>> did say that he was arrested, just not for what he is claiming.
>>>
>>> Being taken away to the police station against one's will is arrest no
>>> matter how you choose to redefine terms.
>>
>> Right, but no one knows what the actual charge was. The guy is claiming
>> that it was cell phone related, but that's just his side.
>
> A silent government is a suspicious government.
>
> If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe you'd
> have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
> something they shouldn't have.

They're not silent, they just don't have to give you a phone call after
every arrest. The cover sheet listing the charges can be obtained through
an open records request and is done all the time by the media, attorneys,
etc. No one is dumbing anything up, and all of the court records can be
obtained after trial.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"N8N" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> jaybird wrote:
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, jaybird wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge
>> >>>> him
>> >>>> with
>> >>>> any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason
>> >>>> publically,
>> >>>> just
>> >>>> in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what
>> >>>> it
>> >>>> sounds like from my experience.
>> >>>
>> >>> That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they can
>> >>> arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops
>> >>> and
>> >>> not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it won't
>> >>> be
>> >>> too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.
>> >>
>> >> Again, incorrect. You can't arrest someone without a charge and the
>> >> cops
>> >> did say that he was arrested, just not for what he is claiming.
>> >
>> > Being taken away to the police station against one's will is arrest no
>> > matter how you choose to redefine terms.
>>
>> Right, but no one knows what the actual charge was.
>
> exactly.
>
>> The guy is claiming
>> that it was cell phone related, but that's just his side.
>
> exactly. If the police had presented their side then we'd be able to
> evaluate the claims of each side on their own merits. But when they're
> not so forthcoming, it's natural to be suspicious. I'm guessing that
> the guy was a minority living in a minority neighborhood, so probably
> all in the area are somewhat distrustful of the police anyway.

The police aren't required to present their side to you. Do an open records
request if it's bugging ya.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke