- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ignorant BR PD Officer w/ FBI
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:18 pm to TOSOV
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:18 pm to TOSOV
quote:
no reason for the guy to be there other than baiting for yt hits.
obviously, people watch too much tv I guess, just don't be a dumbass, hell, use Red Flag as an example, gov't.(publicly owned property,) close proximity to Area-51(another "public" property,) guarantee you put as much as a wingtip in the area your arse will be hauled out of your debrief when you get back on the deck and you will be standing tall in front of the man
and they ain't nobody out there that doesn't have a need to be, and a pretty high level security clearance, dude in OP video is an attention whore and just D-U-M dum
0
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:19 pm to tygeray
quote:
The act of filming is suspicious, hence him questioning what exactly you are doing. Your response made it more suspicious.
The act of filiming a public building from a public place in the open is not suspicious. Suspicion by it’s self is not allow someone to be detained. There has to be some nexus to a potential crime.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:31 pm to mikelbr
quote:
The detective explains why he came talk to him. Camera Dudes a dick.
How would you have the camera dude act if he did not want to give his info
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:36 pm to Dizz
That’s your opinion. His filming imo is suspicious. In fact, the OP KNOWS it’s suspicious, which is why he’s doing that!
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:38 pm to TOSOV
It is his thing. He travels around and "baits" officers into infringing on his rights. Then, he contacts their superiors and presents the information, with hopes that they educate their officers. However, he does seem to file 1983 suits if the infringement is pretty bad.
I agree that he is a pain in the arse. How would you suggest that we stop the problem otherwise? Do you think that broke dick Gary or Jamal can afford to file federal suits against departments and officers with qualified immunity?
Why would a department intentionally make their jobs more difficult? If they frick up, you pay for it. If they frick up, they have immunity unless they were plainly incompetent. If they frick up, their superiors aren't vicariously liable for their actions.
Thus, there is no reason for chiefs or sheriffs to force their officers to constitutionally police the public unless the public raises hell, which it appears, based on this thread, that the public doesn't give a frick about their own rights.
Personally, I'm glad that this guy is willing to put himself at risk to spotlight a perceived infringement of people's rights, because we will eventually have to draw the line of what infringements we accept and do not accept.
In 2032, it might be your Christian grandma getting hassled by the police, bc the climate then might value the officer's safety over your religious rights too.
I agree that he is a pain in the arse. How would you suggest that we stop the problem otherwise? Do you think that broke dick Gary or Jamal can afford to file federal suits against departments and officers with qualified immunity?
Why would a department intentionally make their jobs more difficult? If they frick up, you pay for it. If they frick up, they have immunity unless they were plainly incompetent. If they frick up, their superiors aren't vicariously liable for their actions.
Thus, there is no reason for chiefs or sheriffs to force their officers to constitutionally police the public unless the public raises hell, which it appears, based on this thread, that the public doesn't give a frick about their own rights.
Personally, I'm glad that this guy is willing to put himself at risk to spotlight a perceived infringement of people's rights, because we will eventually have to draw the line of what infringements we accept and do not accept.
In 2032, it might be your Christian grandma getting hassled by the police, bc the climate then might value the officer's safety over your religious rights too.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:40 pm to tygeray
Homeland security has actually issued statements that filming from public is not to be considered suspicious. Even if you do think it’s suspious that by it’s self if not enough detain someone.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:43 pm to Dizz
quote:
Homeland security has actually issued statements that filming from public is not to be considered suspicious. Even if you do think it’s suspious that by it’s self if not enough detain someone.
and very much PC driven, we get the same disclaimers, with a yuge wink, prior to going through recurrent security training
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:50 pm to Dizz
That wasn’t why he was detained. He was detained because of not being cooperative, much many would consider suspicious behavior. Just curious, what’s your opinion of him bringing up the fallen officers a few times? That seems “weird” or as many would say suspicious.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 4:59 pm to tygeray
So the reason the police began the interaction was not a basis to detain him? There is no requirement that he had to be cooperative. Police can’t just say hey you are suspicious identify your self. Being weird or suspicious by it’s self does not equal reasonable susicpon to detain someone.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 5:24 pm to Dizz
Next, it will be our guns.
"This is a legal carry state. Why are you investigating me?"
"Well, you might legally be carrying that gun, however, you might not be too. You stand right the frick there until I figure it out, bc guns are suspicious and you're in a suspicious area, so you might be breaking the law."
Eventually, those law abiding citizens are going to say frick their own rights, bc it's not worth the hassle to stand up for them. Then, we'll just start losing them without a peep from the beat down sheep.
I liken this camera bit to the gun case in Indiana a while back. If i remember correctly, Indiana's SC said that just having the gun, which might be legal, wasn't enough, and the officers would have needed something else for reasonable suspicion for their stop.
I feel sorry for the criminal attorneys that have to deal with jury trials. :(
"This is a legal carry state. Why are you investigating me?"
"Well, you might legally be carrying that gun, however, you might not be too. You stand right the frick there until I figure it out, bc guns are suspicious and you're in a suspicious area, so you might be breaking the law."
Eventually, those law abiding citizens are going to say frick their own rights, bc it's not worth the hassle to stand up for them. Then, we'll just start losing them without a peep from the beat down sheep.
I liken this camera bit to the gun case in Indiana a while back. If i remember correctly, Indiana's SC said that just having the gun, which might be legal, wasn't enough, and the officers would have needed something else for reasonable suspicion for their stop.
I feel sorry for the criminal attorneys that have to deal with jury trials. :(
Posted on 12/31/18 at 5:28 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
and very much PC driven, we get the same disclaimers, with a yuge wink, prior to going through recurrent security training
That wink wink shite is the problem, and it happens WAY too much in both the private and public sectors.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 5:58 pm to LSURussian
quote:A cop CAN ask anything they desire. They may not demand everything by force of law though. Anything they ask CAN be used as a perjury trap though. Lie about your identity/address/activity? You just gave false info to the police: committed a crime.
My question: the video guy says police officers do not have the right to ask a person for his name. I thought an officer has the right to ask a person for his name. Does anybody here know what's correct?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 6:00 pm to Sidicous
I thought it was only a crime to lie to the FBI.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 6:53 pm to RougeDawg
quote:
Trying to provoke law enforcement and get something "wrong" on tape.
And they gave him exactly what he was looking for, didn't they?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 6:54 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Jackass is annoying but the cop totally violated his rights.
It's 2018. How does law enforcement not know how to handle situations like this?
This is Louisiana. They don't know it's 2018. This is Louisiana, it's more like 1918.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 7:00 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So, he got a response and then acts like a prick about it.
In what way did he act like a prick about it? By correctly stating that the officers had no reasonable suspicion to detain him? Should officers be able to detain anybody just based on a hunch or should they have articulable facts? Because I can tell you, it's already been ruled on several occasions.
If there are no specific facts that the officer can point to that a crime is being committed, then their reasonable suspicion doesn't meet the threshold necessary for the detainment. In this case, the officer couldn't even point to what specific law had been broken.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 7:05 pm to cyarrr
quote:
He even has a go fund me link under the video to support his endeavors harassing law enforcement.
How in the ever-living frick was he harassing law enforcement? Law enforcement came out and contacted him not the other way around. They then proceeded to blatantly violate his constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.
quote:
On a side note, is there really a huge devide between the citizens and police here? I
No, because the citizenry here are as ignorant of the law and their rights as law enforcement is. Anybody can and should be able to walk around and videotape public property. There's absolutely zero illegal about it.
I wonder how y'all feel about Lee Zurich? Friend or foe? Did he get one of your "people" in trouble?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 7:15 pm to Catman88
quote:
In Louisiana you are required to identify yourself to police. You can be arrested if you refuse to identify yourself.
Incorrect.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 7:21 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Cops can stop, question, ask for a name for almost any reason.
LOL. No they can't. Jesus Christ! Where do you think you live?
quote:
You’re a dumbass.
Always get a kick out of dumbasses calling other people dumbasses.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 7:23 pm to TSLG
I guarantee that a lawsuit has been or will be filed for violation of the 4th amendment of the United States.
Ignorantia juris non excusat applies to all, even law enforcement.
Ignorantia juris non excusat applies to all, even law enforcement.
Page 12 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News