still think this is the USA you remember?

> Nate Nagel said in rec.autos.driving:
> So what was the reason, then? Surely enough time has passed that there
> should have been some sort of official word.

Probablly the one they don't want to admit to: Contempt Of Cop.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> 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 it wouldn't surprise me if it were hidden in some homeland
security act.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

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.

In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:11:14 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>> The victim gave the reason the cops told him why he was arrested. The cops
>>> haven't given any reason publically. If you're going to play this
>>> dumb.....
>>
>>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.
>
> I think it's questionable whether he was actually arrested or only
> taken into custody.
> If he was arrested, there will be a booking record, which must give
> the reason for the arrest.
> Since the police said the guy was lucky since a supervisor wasn't on
> duty (meaning no one could be arrested that night?), so he wasn't
> actually booked, meaning he wasn't actually arrested on any charges,
> it seems to me.

In big cities a common thing cops would do is say, grab a black guy they
want to hassle and then drop him off in a white racist neighborhood. For
a white guy, they would dump him in the middle of gang ridden projects
that were 99.999999999% black. Basically turn whomever they want to
hassle, want to teach a lesson to, into a target for criminals.

A softer version is bringing someone in to the police station then
kicking him out into the street.

A combination of the two had recently been done to a woman with a mental
illness. She ended up being raped and thrown from a window of a
high-rise project as I recall from the news story.

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?

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

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.

jaybird wrote:

>
> Of course not. A cop has to have a specific charge to arrest someone. The
> victim's story sounds like he was not minding his own business, went
> outside, and made an ass of himself and paid the price. You always hear:
> "The cops arrested me for no reason". Uh huh.... sure.
>

Yeah - sounds familiar. If only Ida Lee Delaney could speak, I'm sure
she would say the cops shot her to death for no reason.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>>
>
> So why did they arrest him, then?

The story doesn't say and I can't find anything other than the one-sided
story from Cruz. The only statement that was made by the cops in the story
was: "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 Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone."

Even with that statement, people are still believing the guy without any
official confirmation. If I had to take an experienced guess, I'd say it
was an obstruction charge. He may have even been taking pictures with his
cell phone, but it sounds like he was up in business he should've have been
and when the cops tried to run him off, he didn't listen. The story says
that there were several police cars on the street so they probably had quite
a large crowd starting to form. With the mob mentality that usually
creates, he was probaby one of the loudest and most active ones interfering
so they sacked him up. Granted, that's a lot of speculation, but that's the
way I've seen it unfold in most cases.

--
---
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

"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.

--
---
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

"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.

--
---
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

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:11:14 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>> The victim gave the reason the cops told him why he was arrested. The
>>> cops
>>> haven't given any reason publically. If you're going to play this
>>> dumb.....
>>
>>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.
>
> I think it's questionable whether he was actually arrested or only
> taken into custody.
> If he was arrested, there will be a booking record, which must give
> the reason for the arrest.
> Since the police said the guy was lucky since a supervisor wasn't on
> duty (meaning no one could be arrested that night?), so he wasn't
> actually booked, meaning he wasn't actually arrested on any charges,
> it seems to me.

But we don't know that for sure; that's just according to cell phone boy.
The only quoted statement made by the police in the story was:

"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."

--
---
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