- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 12:28 pm to jmorr34
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:28 pm to jmorr34
quote:
They can if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.
Correct.
And I could make an argument that videotaping federal buildings rises to the level of reasonable suspicion.
0
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:30 pm to TSLG
quote:
Cops can stop, question, ask for a name for almost any reason. This isn’t some trampling of citizens rights.
You're wrong.
No I'm not.
Are you the one throwing around the term ignorant? Might outta make sure you know what you're talking about before throwing that one around.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:32 pm to Dizz
quote:
I don’t expect every officer to know a Supreme Court decision. I would expect that someone of rank in the department would be aware of court decisions that affect policing and adjust policy and provide info to rest of department based on it.
I am sure if a decision came down which allowed police easier avenues to search a vehicle it would be quickly put into practice ny police.
The whole issue is that a lot of them don't give a shite. The higher ups know how it is supposed to work, but there are few consequences, so they allow their rank and file to walk all over the public's rights. When faced with the choice between cheap and easy policing or following the constitution while policing, they choose the former 9 times out of 10.
However, their written policies appear to leave a lot of room between their actions and infringement of the constitution.
Just wait till the release of an audio recording of a South La Sheriff stating that he prefers to hire stupid people, bc they are easier to control, don't think for themselves, and don't know anything more than what they are told.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:32 pm to PearlJam
quote:
. Stopping him and asking who he is and what he is doing is not against anyones rights.
That's wrong so far as the stopping means he isn't free to just go about his business.
No it's not wrong. Not wrong at all.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:34 pm to TSLG
Only thing worse than this idiot filming is you making a thread about it... get a fricking life
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:35 pm to RougeDawg
quote:
Trying to provoke law enforcement and get something "wrong" on tape.
Not what I saw. He expected them to come out and confront him. He wanted to see if they were going to do it legally or illegally. Cops do this, so why is it wrong for this guy to do it?
Cops should be ok with citizens exercising their rights, they should have no concern until a crime is broken.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:36 pm to cyarrr
quote:
harassing law enforcement.
How does he do that? It was LE that engaged him and forcefully violated his right to privacy. It was the LE doing the harassing.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:38 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
yep, both are douches, imo
but only one violated another citizens rights
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:38 pm to Dizz
This was not a SCOTUS case.
It was a settlement in a district court in NY. Im not aware of a SCOTUS ruling. You expect to drive to podunctville USA and expect officers to know settlements of district courts?
It was a settlement in a district court in NY. Im not aware of a SCOTUS ruling. You expect to drive to podunctville USA and expect officers to know settlements of district courts?
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:40 pm to TSLG
The guy filming is probably a giant douche but I am glad he is highlighting this.
I had an instance where a police officer harassed me when I did nothing wrong. All I did was leave work really late at night and being out late meant I must have been coming home from a party and drinking and driving.
Yes, the guy instigated it but these things need to be documented because everyday people who do not instigate it end up being harassed by the police.
I had an instance where a police officer harassed me when I did nothing wrong. All I did was leave work really late at night and being out late meant I must have been coming home from a party and drinking and driving.
Yes, the guy instigated it but these things need to be documented because everyday people who do not instigate it end up being harassed by the police.
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:40 pm to OweO
quote:
Look, I understand having the right to do this, but if you are videoing a FBI building... Looking suspect (which taking videos of a building of the Federal Bureau of Investigation can make you look suspect), you will be confronted. It's one of those things that you have the right to do, but you should realize that doing so could create some type of conflict.
This will be the first time I've ever responded to you without my troll hat.
You're absolutely right. The officer and the feds had every right to approach the guy, make contact, and ask questions. They could have stood there for 2 months asking the guy questions if the guy was willing to stand around with them. Further, they could have followed this guy around all afternoon doing their investigation.
In fact, it would be stupid for them not to go make contact with the guy.
However, they couldn't legally detain him, and they couldn't legally take his wallet out of his pocket to get his id.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:40 pm to novabill
quote:
but only one violated another citizens rights
didn't watch the entire thing but sort of guessed where it was heading, cop was definitely a douche, and I dislike cops in general, and think most are assholes, this is kind of reverse entrapment though
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:41 pm to The Torch
quote:
How About - don't act like a freaking d-bag creeper, then refuse to cooperate with the police.
How about dont take pictures where cops dont want you to take pictures and give them more information than you feel comfortable giving and are required to give because the man with the badge wants it.
We should not cooperate with the police in any way other than the way that we are required to by law. It is an adversarial relationship. Their careers are made off of the people they can put in jail, they are not there to help they are there to deprive you of your liberty.
That power corrupts most of them.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:42 pm to Supermoto Tiger
quote:
f you go around shooting legal video of FEDERAL buildings, you piece of shite, you deserve whatever happens to you. Because a guy one time blew up a federal building and you no longer have your rights because of it.
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:43 pm to TSLG
A police officer investigating suspicious behavior. Imagine that! 
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:46 pm to Catman88
Think I have said twice I don’t expect every officer to know court rulings. I would expect the department to have knowledge of issues relating to the law and their jobs. That is not to much to ask.
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:46 pm to cyarrr
quote:No
your refusal could lead to reasonable suspicion
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:47 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Cops can stop, question, ask for a name for almost any reason. This isn’t some trampling of citizens rights.
quote:
You're wrong.
quote:
No I'm not.
Are you the one throwing around the term ignorant? Might outta make sure you know what you're talking about before throwing that one around.
Ok. You might technically be somewhat correct. I didn't read it like you were arguing semantics.
Are we arguing semantics and technicalities in your wording?
I could be wrong about you being wrong, or you could just be wrong. I'm kind of leaning towards the latter, but you could prove me wrong by explaining your statement more fully.
However, if you weren't arguing semantics or technicalities...
Well, you'd be wrong.
This post was edited on 12/31/18 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 12/31/18 at 12:47 pm to HeadSlash
quote:
Remember Timothy McVeigh?
Snowflake is triggered?
Page 5 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News