|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
^ Ludicrous is right. How can filming public servants conducting public business in a public place be a crime?
I agree that perhaps it needs to be codified that filming the police is not only legal but is to be encouraged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers Within Departmental Policy.
| Quote: |
Police Chief Jim McDonnell has confirmed that detaining photographers for taking pictures "with no apparent esthetic value" is within Long Beach Police Department policy.
McDonnell spoke for a follow-up story on a June 30 incident in which Sander Roscoe Wolff, a Long Beach resident and regular contributor to Long Beach Post, was detained by Officer Asif Kahn for taking pictures of
a North Long Beach refinery.1
"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters.
McDonnell says that while there is no police training specific to determining whether a photographer's subject has "apparent esthetic value," officers make such judgments "based on their overall training and experience" and will generally approach photographers not engaging in "regular tourist behavior."
This policy apparently falls under the rubric of compiling Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) as outlined in the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order No. 11, a March 2008 statement of the LAPD's "policy � to make every effort to accurately and appropriately gather, record and analyze information, of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism."
Among the non-criminal behaviors "which shall be reported on a SAR" are the usage of binoculars and cameras (presumably when observing a building, although this is not specified), asking about an establishment's hours of operation, taking pictures or video footage "with no apparent esthetic value," and taking notes.
Also listed as behaviors to be documented are "Attempts to acquire illegal or illicit biological agent (anthrax, ricin, Eboli, smallpox, etc.)," "In possession, or utilizes, explosives (for illegal purposes)," and "Acquires or attempts to acquire uniforms without a legitimate cause (service personnel, government uniforms, etc.)." Special Order No. 11 does not distinguish between how these behaviors should be handled and how (e.g.) photography should be handled.
McDonnell says that LBPD policy is "on-line" with all instructions contained in Special Order No. 11, "as is everyone else [i.e., other police departments] around the country."
In response to Long Beach Post's coverage of the incident, the National Press Photographer's Association has written to Chief McDonnell expressing concern "about the misplaced beliefs that photography is in and of itself a suspicious activity."
Deputy City Attorney Gary Anderson says that the legal standard for a police officer's detaining an individual pivots on whether the officer has "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity"; and that whether taking photographs of a refinery meets that standard "depends on the circumstances the officer is confronted with." For that information, Anderson says, we must know what is in the officer's mind.
Officer Kahn did not reply to repeated attempts to contact him in order to determine what was in his mind when he allegedly detained Wolff; and the LBPD Public Information Office referred pertinent questions to Anderson.
According to Anderson, Kahn claims that Wolff complied with Kahn's request to see his license, and that it was unnecessary for him to compel Wolff to do so � a version of events Wolff flatly contradicts. "I absolutely asked him if showing him my license was necessary," Wolff says, "which is when he gave me his little spiel about Homeland Security [allowing Kahn to detain Wolff under the circumstances]."2
Anderson reports that Kahn asserts Wolff denied being a reporter, which Wolff says is untrue. "I never denied being a reporter," Wolff says. "He never asked me about being a reporter. He asked me why I was taking pictures, and I told him that I was an artist."
Regarding whether Kahn felt Wolff's behavior gave him "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity," Anderson initially replied, "I never asked [Kahn] that question." Agreeing that "we can't go any further in discussing [whether Kahn had 'reasonable suspicion of criminal activity'] without knowing what was in the officer's mind in this specific instance," Anderson agreed to follow up with Kahn on that matter.
However, when reached 10 days later, Anderson stated, "I'm not going to get into the officer's subjective state of mind at this point. � That's attorney-client privilege."
As to why Anderson failed to cite attorney-client privilege initially, Anderson says only that he has "been thinking about it more"; and, "We have no further comment. Seriously."
1 After running Wolff's driver's license, Kahn left the scene without ordering Wolff to desist.
2 Legally, a police detention has occurred when "a reasonable individual" in that circumstance would be believe he or she is not free to leave |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ Maybe police should have the power to detain and question anyone they see making a phone call. After all, they could be talking to a terrorist or planning some illegal activity, right?
If you oppose my proposed new law, you must be a terrorist.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angry Bird Rios
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Location: Flinging through the air
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:47 pm Post subject: Georgia executes Troy Davis |
|
|
Troy Davis finally lost all appeals and was executed Wednesday night.
Not only did seven if the nine witnesses recant their testimony, there was no evidence linking him to the crime. Even some members of the family of the policeman Davis was convicted of killing believed he was innocent.
When the state goes ahead with executions in the face of overwhelming doubt cast upon a conviction, that surely is evidence of a police state.
Georgia executes convict in high-profile case |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: Georgia executes Troy Davis |
|
|
| Angry Bird Rios wrote: |
Troy Davis finally lost all appeals and was executed Wednesday night.
Not only did seven if the nine witnesses recant their testimony, there was no evidence linking him to the crime. Even some members of the family of the policeman Davis was convicted of killing believed he was innocent.
When the state goes ahead with executions in the face of overwhelming doubt cast upon a conviction, that surely is evidence of a police state.
Georgia executes convict in high-profile case |
As for the so-called recantations you might want to read the actual report
| Quote: |
Summary of the So-Called Recantations
According to Judge Moore's summary of the evidence:
Two of the recanting witnesses neither directly state that they lied at trial nor claim that their previous testimony was coerced.
Two other recantations were impossible to believe, with a host of intrinsic reasons why they could not be trusted, and the recantations were contradicted by credible, live testimony.
Two more recantations were intentionally and suspiciously offered in affidavit form rather than as live testimony, blocking any meaningful cross-examination by the state or credibility determination by this Court.
While these latter two recantations are not totally valueless, Judge Moore wrote, their import is greatly diminished by the suspicious way in which they were offered and the live, contrary testimony.
McQueen Wasn't Believable at Trial
Judge Moore did rule that one of the recantations was credible - that of jailhouse snitch Kevin McQueen, who admitted that his testimony at Davis' trial was "complete fabrication."
But Judge Moore said, McQueen's testimony at trial was so patently false and filled with inconsistencies with other witnesses in the case it is "hard to believe" his testimony was important to the conviction.
Therefore, Judge Moore said although McQueen's recantation was credible, it was of limited value. |
http://crime.about.com/b/2011/09/21/finally-justice-for-officer-mark-macphail.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angry Bird Rios
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Location: Flinging through the air
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who knows if the recantations are true? The problem with them is that we are sure of is that the witness lied one of two times, but which one?
Nevertheless, when there are seven of them simultaneously and there is no evidence directly linking the suspect to the crime, one must admit to a reasonable doubt about guilt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Angry Bird Rios wrote: |
Who knows if the recantations are true? The problem with them is that we are sure of is that the witness lied one of two times, but which one?
Nevertheless, when there are seven of them simultaneously and there is no evidence directly linking the suspect to the crime, one must admit to a reasonable doubt about guilt. |
Except that the judge looked at them and found that only one was credible...while two others did not directly admit they lied. Two more were totally unbelievable and contradicted by credible live testimony. As for the remaining two they offered their recantations in affidavit form meaning that they could not be cross-examined in order to establish their validity.
So two were lying.
Two did not actually recant as such
And the testimony of two could not be verified.
Only one was credible and only in limited form as his testimony contained inconsistencies.
Sorry but sheer numbers do not prove anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angry Bird Rios
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Location: Flinging through the air
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Angry Bird Rios wrote: |
Who knows if the recantations are true? The problem with them is that we are sure of is that the witness lied one of two times, but which one?
Nevertheless, when there are seven of them simultaneously and there is no evidence directly linking the suspect to the crime, one must admit to a reasonable doubt about guilt. |
Except that the judge looked at them and found that only one was credible...while two others did not directly admit they lied. Two more were totally unbelievable and contradicted by credible live testimony. As for the remaining two they offered their recantations in affidavit form meaning that they could not be cross-examined in order to establish their validity.
So two were lying.
Two did not actually recant as such
And the testimony of two could not be verified.
Only one was credible and only in limited form as his testimony contained inconsistencies.
Sorry but sheer numbers do not prove anything. |
Not sure what was your point in reposting the same information over again.
In any event, while
| Quote: |
| sheer numbers do not prove anything |
Joseph Stalin demonstrated in his treatise Dialectical and Historical Materialism, that an increase in quantity leads to an increase in quality. Also, if it does not prove anything, that is perfect because we are not seeking proof here, merely reasonable doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Angry Bird Rios wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Angry Bird Rios wrote: |
Who knows if the recantations are true? The problem with them is that we are sure of is that the witness lied one of two times, but which one?
Nevertheless, when there are seven of them simultaneously and there is no evidence directly linking the suspect to the crime, one must admit to a reasonable doubt about guilt. |
Except that the judge looked at them and found that only one was credible...while two others did not directly admit they lied. Two more were totally unbelievable and contradicted by credible live testimony. As for the remaining two they offered their recantations in affidavit form meaning that they could not be cross-examined in order to establish their validity.
So two were lying.
Two did not actually recant as such
And the testimony of two could not be verified.
Only one was credible and only in limited form as his testimony contained inconsistencies.
Sorry but sheer numbers do not prove anything. |
Not sure what was your point in reposting the same information over again.
In any event, while
| Quote: |
| sheer numbers do not prove anything |
Joseph Stalin demonstrated in his treatise Dialectical and Historical Materialism, that an increase in quantity leads to an increase in quality. Also, if it does not prove anything, that is perfect because we are not seeking proof here, merely reasonable doubt. |
And there was no reasonable doubt. None of the recanting witnesses had credible testimony. Even to the degree to create reasonable doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angry Bird Rios
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Location: Flinging through the air
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ OK, so seven recantations to you = doubtless. Got it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrcolin1
Joined: 21 May 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| def a police state |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| got my hands swiped for explosive residues at the san fran airport`s TSA. This is what happens when politicians can dispense favors to businesses like the TSA that to this day has not caught a single terrorist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Angry Bird Rios wrote: |
^ OK, so seven recantations to you = doubtless. Got it.
|
Not to me...to the judge. And not "doubtless". They were WORTHless and completely beyond credible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weebil
Joined: 24 May 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
