Slashdot Mirror
Photograph the Police, Get Arrested
Servo writes "Last month a man was arrested in New Hampshire after presenting evidence of a police officer being verbally abusive that he had captured on his home security camera system. Now just recently in Philadelphia a 21 year old student was arrested on his property after he took a photo of the police who were in the process of arresting a drug dealer down the street." From the article: "Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene. 'I opened (the phone) and took a shot,' Cruz said. Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate."
Theres good and bad in all, strip down the person and listen to just the words. After all the truth is the truth nude, in a bondage outfit or a nun's habbit and that's all that matters.
I like muppets.
Yes, Its your rights, Online.
"While I can understand that police are probably lairy of being photographed..."
Are you referring to a police officer's reluctance to allow himself(/herself) to photographed in his secret lair?
Not to rehash a dead horse, but bowing to the merit of your argument in the linked thread you still must maintain some minimal level of syntax in order for others to be able to evaluate your statements at the conceptual level. I believe that is achieved in your initial post above as it is in the others. Indeed it does no good to be intolerant of others' rhetorical/literary/linguistic/communicatorial quirks.
We've all seen (probably a hundred times over by now) the article that talks about how "mnixnig up lretets" in sentences doesn't destroy readability so long as the first and last letters remain in place. I've often enjoyed talking to people online that do not have much experience with English as the discussion defaults to the original intent of language: communication.
So the question becomes where to draw the line. Personally I dislike reading LOL or WTF in every other line. Over at digg you can find such terms in _article titles_ daily... but like you say it's the internet so it is best to get on with it and gloss over the imperfections...so long as the minimum of communication is maintained.
But it isn't always. There are a ton of people on public forums that disregard the notion of communication entirely and will simply troll; some have authentic looking prose that is meant to be taken seriously in an attempt to goad us, others will devolve into simplistic barrages of profanity. What to do?
Moderate? Maybe, but it seems like such a system should have been only temporary. Eventually you get to the point where unending moderation of the same boneheads is tiresome and you feel your time would be better spent ignoring them once and for all, then moving on. Of course, if enough people ignore a troll they'll go away, or create a second account.
Of course, all of this applies in other areas as well, so it is a worthy subject to consider. Spam, telemarketing, cult institutions that seek to transform you into a machine to watch cars go in circles or sell worthless products to your friends and family... there are lots of static-dumpers to deal with in a lifetime. We can even find them in positions where we aren't free to turn away, such as when your boss (or significant other, family member, child, the officer that just pulled you over for speeding, whatever) decides to hold a private meeting with you for two hours to try to sell you on Amway or some other pyramid scheme. Sure you could theoretically leave, but there would be consequences that would be (arguably) more painful than waiting it out.
Anyway, just wanted to thank you for the good look at the realities of communication. Sorry for the long post.
I see we have an NWA / Ice Cube fan.
http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/34
besides ignoring black votes, and hijacking the dumb christian heart lands, they totally faked the election result.
CHANEY admitted it pure and simple to the OIL BARRANS, ie ceos etc.. in russia.
http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/34
In Ohio, there were 153,237 ballots simply thrown away, more than the Bush "victory" margin. In New Mexico the uncounted vote was fives times the Bush alleged victory margin of 5,988. In Iowa, Bush's triumph of 13,498 was overwhelmed by 36,811 votes rejected. In all, over three million votes were cast but never counted in the 2004 presidential election. The official number is bad enough-1,855,827 ballots cast not counted, reported to the federal government's Election's Assistance Commission. But the feds are missing data from several cities and entire states too embarrassed to report the votes they failed to count. Correcting for the under-reporting of the undercount, the number of ballots cast but never counted goes to 3,600,380. And there are certainly more we couldn't locate to tote up.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.