NO IT IS NOT. Specifically targeting a family causing emotional distress to an individual family is NOT what the 1st amendment is about. And frankly I dont know how they get away with this because it is doing harm to another. Much the same it is not OK to put peole in harms way by yelling fire in a theater......

Sir,

 

People protesting dead US soldiers funerals and saying god hates fags, are cowards hiding behind the constitution that soldier died protecting....Yes, hiding behind the constitution...

 

That was not what our forefathers had in mind when they drafted the 1st amendment..

 

Of course it was. Unpopular and distasteful speech is exactly and absolutely what our founding fathers were trying to protect, and hopefully so are you since you've sworn to uphold the constitution.

Of course it was. Unpopular and distasteful speech is exactly and absolutely what our founding fathers were trying to protect, and hopefully so are you since you've sworn to uphold the constitution.

 

Actually it was freedom to speak out against the government and practice any religion or express themselves as they saw fit. However I can almost bet, George Washington would have had every member of the WBC shot on site for treason...Unfortunately some time later, I am sworn to uphold and protect their rights to their skewed interpretation of the 1st amendment...

Sir,

 

People protesting dead US soldiers funerals and saying god hates fags, are cowards hiding behind the constitution that soldier died protecting....Yes, hiding behind the constitution...

 

That was not what our forefathers had in mind when they drafted the 1st amendment..

 

I believe our forefathers would not condone the police randomly stopping men on their horses to ensure their saddles were safe and properly attached to the horse. That is not what our forefathers had in mind when they drafted the 4th amendment.

Fortunately for the rest of us, this is where you lose your job, lose your immunity from civil action and get sued. This has happened so many times, even in NJ, lately that it's weird any cops would still try this stunt. You can take pictures of anything from public property. For a while cops were arresting people taking pictures of trains from public property, but at this point those cops have all spent enough time in court to learn their lessons.

 

Oh really? Please link me to those articles and cases, cause I have not seen or read about them. Can you factually back that up??

I, for one, would love to be arrested by you for filming an arrest in front of a chemical factory or bridge. I'd love for my mortgage to be paid off and maybe a new Porsche. It would be annoying having to fight off all the attorneys looking to defend me, but I could manage.

 

Yeah, figures your the Whiny "Ill sue you" type looking to instigate a public servant in hopes of a big payout so you can join the rest of the entitled population of America who dont work for a living but suck off the government tit...

I believe our forefathers would not condone the police randomly stopping men on their horses to ensure their saddles were safe and properly attached to the horse. That is not what our forefathers had in mind when they drafted the 4th amendment.

 

Our Forefathers OWNED HUMAN BEINGS....Nuff said.

Yeah, figures your the Whiny "Ill sue you" type looking to instigate a public servant in hopes of a big payout so you can join the rest of the entitled population of America who dont work for a living but suck off the government tit...

 

No, in fact I've never sued anyone because the cops I've dealt with haven't been overbearing power hungry guys with low understanding of legal principles. The ones who arrest people video taping arrests (and train stations) don't belong in law enforcement, aren't smart enough to read the paper to understand what the legal concepts behind freedom mean, and are being removed from service, thank goodness. Multiple cops in Boston just got removed last week for arresting a bystander videotaping an arrest, and it keeps happening.

 

But, make the mistake of violating my civil rights and you'll certainly be finding another career without a pension after 20 years.

No, in fact I've never sued anyone because the cops I've dealt with haven't been overbearing power hungry guys with low understanding of legal principles. The ones who arrest people video taping arrests (and train stations) don't belong in law enforcement, aren't smart enough to read the paper to understand what the legal concepts behind freedom mean, and are being removed from service, thank goodness. Multiple cops in Boston just got removed last week for arresting a bystander videotaping an arrest, and it keeps happening.

 

But, make the mistake of violating my civil rights and you'll certainly be finding another career without a pension after 20 years.

 

I would like to read the story, do you have a link to it? Only dumbass cops make those mistakes. I have been doing this for 15 years, Im no idiot. I know how and when to play the game and how to articulate myself properly and conduct myself properly. The problem is, people honestly "THINK" they know their rights in most situations, but dont know the "LAW" and wind up getting arrested and thinking their civil rights were violated. pick up a LE handbook and read over the section about search and seizure, youll have a working knowledge of what cops can and cant do and what you have the right to refuse and not refuse.

 

A person with a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than a person with none at all.

Is the LE handbook public knowledge or a secret SOP?

 

 

I have no problem being videotaped, but the problem I have is a concern for my own safety. If I stop a car full of thugs and his buddies start to show up on the corner and hanging around pointing objects at me Im going to start to fear for my safety. People have some absurd illusion they can interfere with a cop lawfully doing his job without any repercussions. Perfect example is the person reaching into their pocket when the cop tell them "keep your hands where I can see them".

 

A little bit different situation... I agree with you all the way on that one. I always wondered how my Lt friend was able to deal with punks without just plain shooting them. That is why I respect LEO so much..

 

 

Actually it was freedom to speak out against the government and practice any religion or express themselves as they saw fit. However I can almost bet, George Washington would have had every member of the WBC shot on site for treason...Unfortunately some time later, I am sworn to uphold and protect their rights to their skewed interpretation of the 1st amendment...

 

WBC protests the military (gov't) and their religious views towards gays. I'm glad we agree.

 

I DO NOT support the content or manner in which the WBC goes about thier business, nut nonetheless I, nor anyone else, have the right to prevent them from doing so.

Is the LE handbook public knowledge or a secret SOP?

 

You can walk into any book store that carries it and buy it. along with title 2C and title 39...

WBC protests the military (gov't) and their religious views towards gays. I'm glad we agree.

 

I DO NOT support the content or manner in which the WBC goes about thier business, nut nonetheless I, nor anyone else, have the right to prevent them from doing so.

Well, you dont have the "LEGAL" right to prevent them. I read somewhere where people from the town blocked all their cars in at the hotel they were staying at. Then allowed the ones that actually made it, to set up 2 blocks down, around a corner..

 

Well, you dont have the "LEGAL" right to prevent them. I read somewhere whe re people from the town blocked all their cars in at the hotel they were staying at. Then allowed the ones that actually made it, to set up 2 blocks down, around a corner..

 

If you do not have the 'legal' right, YOU DO NOR HAVE THE RIGHT. We do not get to pick and chose when we like the Constitution to apply and when we do not.

This thread is getting a little awesome.

 

I am hoping by saying this it doesn't jump the shark, but LE talking with civvies in such matters in such well reasoned discussion is undeniably educational.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you do not have the 'legal' right, YOU DO NOR HAVE THE RIGHT. We do not get to pick and chose when we like the Constitution to apply and when we do not.

 

Apparently we do, since the men that drafted it and signed it were slave owners...Is that not the very double standard you speak of ? Thou shall not infringe upon my civil rights, but you can infringe upon his cause he is my slave..Seriously...We are a country founded by white racist slave owners, who stole the land from the Indians and murdered people of color without remorse to make out great country...Perhaps Im the only one who sees the hypocrisy within the system and beliefs our country was founded on...But lets all whine about the police taking up our time and violating our rights by looking at us funny...

 

 

 

I find that most people dont know their rights if they came up and bit them in the azz...

And Ill say it again, Police dont make the laws, they just enforce them. The laws you have to abide by in the state of NJ are a result of the corrupt elected officials we have put in office over and over and over again. Next time you want to make an anti cop statement, think about this.Most cops are just like you, a guy going to work who hates his boss, hates his job and just wants to feed his family. you honestly think cops enjoy the nonsense they are forced to do?

 

Perfect example: years ago the ticket for not having your license in your possession was something like $40-$45 right? That was usually a ticket you would get if the cop was feeling like cutting you a break and not writing you the big speeding ticket right? Well guess what? The politicians caught on to that and lobbied to have the fine increased for not having you DL in your possession to $198.......Yes, $198.....

 

Another example: red light cameras...Politics making free money. Do they care about your safety honestly? Nope..

I would like to read the story, do you have a link to it?

 

I will try to find it and share it. I did a quick google search for "arrest videotaping cops" and found a ton of stories, but not the ones I've remember recently about cops getting dismissed. I won't log in again until tomorrow, but I'll try to find it. I wasn't making it up.

 

I have no interest in arguing with you, and you know what they say about arguing with people on the internet.

 

I am sure you are a good cop, and I apologize for riling you up, but your comment about arresting a photographer hit a button for me, because it reminds me of some of the sillier pointless restrictions to our freedoms made after 9/11 that didn't really improve security. They are largely being returned now, but it's still tough. Rail fans (those strange people who like taking pictures of trains) now have to carry with them printouts of the NJ Transit letter reminding police that it's not illegal to take pictures of trains from public places!

 

By the way, I understand the other side too, and some of the links I found are about cops trying to figure out what to do with random people standing 5' away from their arrests with video cameras or phones. They tell the people that they can keep videotaping but they need to give them more room to work. The video guy says "I'm peaceful and not bothering you" and the cop then has a real dilemma to which I am sympathetic.

 

 

Apparently we do, since the men that drafted it and signed it were slave owners...Is that not the very double standard you speak of ? Thou shall not infringe upon my civil rights, but you can infringe upon his cause he is my slave..Seriously...We are a country founded by white racist slave owners, who stole the land from the Indians and murdered people of color without remorse to make out great country...Perhaps Im the only one who sees the hypocrisy within the system and beliefs our country was founded on...But lets all whine about the police taking up our time and violating our rights by looking at us funny...

 

 

 

I find that most people dont know their rights if they came up and bit them in the azz...

 

Not entirely sure how that is relevant to the discussion at hand. Under 18th and early 19th century law, slavery was a legally recognized institution.

Most cops are just like you, a guy going to work who hates his boss, hates his job and just wants to feed his family. you honestly think cops enjoy the nonsense they are forced to do?

 

Serious? You actually hate your job and hate your boss but continue to do it? I hope not, that is no way to go through life.

Another example: red light cameras...Politics making free money. Do they care about your safety honestly? Nope..

 

A place where we agree 100%. But, I don't think red light cameras really have anything to do with cops, and while they drive me crazy (and I donate to the NMA which is helping to fight them), it doesn't make my perception of cops any different.

Not entirely sure how that is relevant to the discussion at hand. Under 18th and early 19th century law, slavery was a legally recognized institution.

An institution that was in direct contradiction to the plain language of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I believe that it was expedient to deal with our independence and fix the slavery issue (which was state-dependent) later. Hypocrisy--strictly speaking--yes. But the issue was corrected pretty quickly--and at great cost. But I also fail to see the relevance to this thread...

An institution that was in direct contradiction to the plain language of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I believe that it was expedient to deal with our independence and fix the slavery issue (which was state-dependent) later. Hypocrisy--strictly speaking--yes. But the issue was corrected pretty quickly--and at great cost. But I also fail to see the relevance to this thread...

 

Strictly speaking, slaves were considered property, not persons, and therefore they were not "men" as mentioned int he Declaration of Independence, nor citizens of the United States.

So, the Constitution is null and void because its writers were slave owners or condoned slavery? That's crazy talk.

Now I don't want to go sounding like I am calling everyone ignorant, cuz i'm not, but I have to point out a very specific point that is consistently overlooked.

 

Follow the bouncing ball

 

1. NJ has the highest insurance rates in the country.

2. Constituents complain to the politicians

3. Politicians ask insurance companies to lower the rates.

4. Insurance companies say hell no, you don't inspect cars, no effort is made to ticket for seat belts, people tailgate from the top of the state to the bottom and you do nothing about talking about cell phones.

Being the

Guys that pay out the claims they have ALL the data so it can't be argued.

 

5. Politicians tell law ENFORCEMENT to enforce the law.

 

6. LE does so and politicians hope to change the data and get lower insurance rates and claim it for re-election.

 

7. People get delayed at checkpoints and claim it is simply to generate revenue. Boo hoo

 

 

Personally, as an avid Motorcyclist, I would prefer they make their revenue ticketing tailgaters to the the point that all New Jersey finally sees it for the ridiculously unsafe stupidity that it is, but everyone would just blow it off as revenue generation and a violation of their rights.

 

The state would make a fortune though.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That is the wrong avenue of approach to solving what the politicians want to fix. That is why they are getting such flak. Such a measure is a knee-jerk reaction at best.

 

The best way to solve that particular issue is to tighten up the standards by which citizens are approved for licenses, as well as re-testing every so often for the entire population. Educate the public as to the proper methods of operating motor vehicles, and accidents simply must fall accordingly. Look at Germany as an example (though not to be applied directly to any State in the U.S.A.!). The testing procedures and fees associated with obtaining a driver's license is among the most strict in the world. Penalties for poor driving are also very high. The result is that German drivers are very capable at controlling their vehicles, so much so that Germany has had the Autobahn for decades, in which there are sections which have no speed limit whatsoever. You can only have such roads if the drivers on those roads are very well trained.

Our Forefathers OWNED HUMAN BEINGS....Nuff said.

So, the Constitution is null and void because its writers were slave owners or condoned slavery? That's crazy talk.

 

I don't think he means to nullify the constitution, but point out the hypocracy of a document that was written in a different era. It is a live document that needs to change and be revised with the world in which we live.

Do you even realize how many criminals are caught by simple motor vehicle stops? Do you? Did you know the Son of Sam murderer was caught because of a parking ticket?

 

I love how the OP said that police employing a check point is an abuse of their powers..Go to China, or Pakistan or Mexico and let me know about police abusing their powers.Your worried about a little mild inconvenience of sitting in some traffic while the PD does their job? Please....

 

The abusive powers of police in other nations is exactly part of my point. I don't want it here, and whether you care to admit it or not, or maybe you cannot see it, that type of abuse is already escalating here. It starts with these stops. But, where does this use of power and authority stop? At what point would law enforcement be crossing the line in an inconveniencing sort of way?

And if it is about generating revenue so what. If you take care of what needs to be taken care of than you won't be fined. But I guess enforcing anything you don't agree with is unconstitutional. I swear the saying unconstitutional gets used way too much. It diminishes its meaning when it is the basis for all arguments

 

Yes, I understand it keeps your kids in pizza. And, yes, I imagine the constitution gets in your way of doing your job way too much.

Yes of course it still applies, but your expectation of privacy is diminished outside of your dwelling. SCOTUS has ruled that your expectation of privacy is diminished in an autombile on public roads. Check out Pennsylvania vs. LaBron and United States vs Ludwig

 

Yes, a bunch of unelected lawyers that use a power not outlined in the Constitution (oops, there it is again), judicial review, to decide what they believe is constitutional often based on their own prejudices and agenda.... Comforting.

Strictly speaking, slaves were considered property, not persons, and therefore they were not "men" as mentioned int he Declaration of Independence, nor citizens of the United States.

Just because they were considered such does not make it so. The practice was rifhtly determined to be a violation of our Constitution and it was corrected.