Slashdot Mirror
Photographing Police: Deletion Is Not Forever
Geoffrey.landis writes "The courts have now ruled that the public has the right to videotape the police in the performance of their duties. Of course, that doesn't stop the police from harassing people who do so — even journalists, who sometimes have their cameras confiscated. As it turns out, though, they're not always very knowledgeable about how deletion works. I would say that erasing, or attempting to erase, a video of police arresting somebody illegally (How can a journalist be charged with 'resisting arrest' when he was not being arrested for anything other than resisting arrest?) is a clear case of destruction of evidence by the officers. Destroying evidence is obstruction of justice. That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"
If you can't be above the law then why be a cop?
he wasn't arrested for filming the police, he was arrested for disobeying a dispersal order.
I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, and I am aware he is a member of the press (though with some claiming that ANYONE can be a member of the "press").
However, it's also possible for police to issue a lawful order to disperse that, if not obeyed, could result in arrest — alongside a charge of resisting arrest.
The individual was being arrested for failure to obey a dispersal order, which was exactly what the officer said, not for "resisting arrest".
Further, it's the submitter's OPINION that this person was being arrested "illegally". That's something the courts will now decide. The troubling part is that the video would probably be the key evidence in such a case, I agree.
Of course, it's pretty clear that he disobeyed a direct (and likely lawful) order to disperse, and whatever happens after that I sort of lose interest in. :-/
It appears app the American rage was exported to the Greeks and the people of Poland, who stood up to ACTA. American outrage has been downgraded to camping in public places or really really aggressive drum circles.
See Blade Runner.
The simple reason that police are not arrested for destruction of evidence is that the police enforce the law. And the police cover for each other when they break the law. Therefore the police are above the law.
I know you like to think you're living in a democratic republic where all are equal under the law, but that's just not the case. And the sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Obviously - if you need an explanation as to why authorities and Governments don't follow the laws they enforce, you're not living on Planet Earth. Laws are only intended for those who can't defend themselves, or can't enforce the law on those who don’t obey it.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
need to work together. That's why we don't see obstruction prosecutions.
Welcome to the former land of the free and the brave - should we ever again be worthy of that title, we'll let you know.
We know everything about you and where you live
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You must be new here? they're cops , everyone knows cops don't like to arrest other cops. And DA's don't like to charge cops unless there's a public outcry. And their sergeants usually give even the dirtiest of cops "their full support", even when there is public outcry. Most of the time they just get some paid vacation for their bad behavior. It's no wonder it just doesn't stop. When's the last time you saw a cop get suspended instead of "placed on administrative leave"?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"
Cops get let off all the time, some examples: http://bit.ly/dWV5ab
This cop is not suffering from dementia, they showed him on the TV afterwards walking, talking, and smiling. In addition, it is typical in VA to be held indefinitely if your are unable to stand trial, as VA has no insanity defense.
Remember the Katrina shootings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/mistrial-declared-in-katrina-shooting_n_1239525.html
After enough mistrials, the case will likely be quietly dropped as the public forgets. Shit it has been 7 years already.
Do I really need to mention the Rodney King riots?
Silence is a state of mime.
It is examples like this that reinforce my belief that the police are the most likely criminals that I will encounter. When I read in the paper about police shootings, I rejoice inside. If they break the law, they are criminals. If the law does not hold them accountable for their crimes, then vigilante justice is the only justice we can get.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Other than the basic tennents that we agree are fundamental crimes like theft, robbery, and murder a lot of the other behaviors that were criminalized were done in the interest of controlling the poor. The foundation of the anti-drug laws in America were all about fear of the poor, immigrant labor. Opium was originally outlawed simply because of the Chinese labor building the Union Pacific Railroad. Since more and more behavior is becoming criminalized and there is greater pressure on police to make arrests, we need ways of keeping government honest. The video as a standard of truth then becomes increasingly imporant in guarding a person's civil rights.
I don't envy the person who'd try this, but American citizens do have the power to arrest lawbreakers. So who's got the balls to arrest a cop, and what would it take to do it?
If the photographer/journalist committed a crime, then the photos/video shouldn't be deleted as it is evidence.
If they didn't commit a crime, then the photos/videos shouldn't be deleted since the they were engaging in a legal activity.
If a police officer (or worse, security guard) orders you to or seizes your camera to delete a photo/video you've taken, they are either destroying evidence, infringing on your civil liberties, or both.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
American outrage has been downgraded to camping in public places or really really aggressive drum circles.
Because here in the USA, if you do much more than that without really covering your ass, you become a "terrorist" and a guest of the government down in Gitmo. Dissenting speech is only "free" in theory here .. for all practical purposes, it might as well be illegal for all that you get to exercise it.
And never underestimate the teaching power of a public (and clearly nonviolent) drum circle in certain places at certain times .. ;)
"How can a journalist be charged with 'resisting arrest' when he was not being arrested for anything other than resisting arrest?"
I believe that resisting arrest is an umbrella term that can apply by itself.
If a cop is legally pulling you over to simply check if you are intoxicated (etc) or just asking to talk to you on the street and you run away then legally you are resisting arrest even though you where not being arrested in the first place.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You'd think in this day and age, someone would have a memory card that's really a 3G or whatever tether - as you take photos, the photos are sent to a server somewhere wirelessly
It doesn't even have to be "real" time at 10fps or anything like that - it could be done while the camera is idle or even a grip type of product with it's own processor and buffer and whatever to send it to a designated online "cloud" or whatever.
Anyone who says it can't be done has no imagination.
With most cellphones now having a video camera, it'll be more likely that police will be recorded during an incident. I'm sure most feel that this is legitimate and the courts say the same thing. Cops are going to have to learn to live with it. Hopefully it'll cut down on abusive police practices.
1 "You're under arrest"
2 "For what?"
3 "For resisting arrest"
4 "Arrest on what charge?"
5 "Resisting arrest." GOTO 1
?@#! Calls for an xkcd.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Most decent photojournalists know every slight of hand and trick in the book when it comes to keeping the material, especially those who are used to working in corrupt countries. A little sleight-of-hand and the cop is smashing a blank tape, confiscating a blank hard drive on a different camera, or ignoring the memory stick the report has under his tongue.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Ya right because our police are sooo much better!! Good ol' RCMP never gets their hands dirty right?
Oh wait...
You cannot arrest a cop. You can try, but he'll hit you with his billy club, or taser you, or shoot you, because he feels he's in the right and you're the perp, and nothing you do will change that. The more you try and arrest him, the angrier he'll get.
So, it comes down to numbers. He'll call for backup to take you down. You then need to have enough backup to take him and his backup down. So, they'll call for more backup, and it will simply escalate until it's a full-blown shooting war and the national guard is involved.
Ever see 5 police cars to pull over 1 guy? Ever see 30 cops questioning one dude in the subway?
Cops use overwhelming force to take down a perp. So unless you have a significant army at your disposal that can outgun, essentially, the entire police force, and possibly even the SWAT teams, the National Guard, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, you can't arrest a cop.
How'd that work out for those Branch Dividians?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Remember the Katrina shootings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/mistrial-declared-in-katrina-shooting_n_1239525.html After enough mistrials, the case will likely be quietly dropped as the public forgets. Shit it has been 7 years already.
Please don't make comments if you don't know what you are talking about! (oh, wait, this is slashdot...) And forget?? Where you live 'people' might forget but here in New Orleans we forget very, very little of Katrina. Officers that did the shooting have been convicted and sentenced. The mistrial you point out is for one officer who was on the cover up side. Dugue was not even involved in the shooting. Please don't spread ignorance. (and don't back-peddle saying it was the cover-up dude getting off. He's not off, there's just been a mistrial)
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Arresting arguments, that is why the police is above the law
Am I the only one who thinks, in this day and age of easy video & audio recording, that ANY interaction police have with ANYONE for ANY reason (in an official capacity or as "an off duty police officer" responding to something) should be required to be recorded by the police themselves or "it didn't happen"?
Traffic stops, parking tickets, entering homes - ANYTHING - get it all on video and audio and require that said videos be made available for all parties privy to that.
Were I in charge of the world, that's one of the first things I would do - require all law enforcement people to wear video and audio recording devices at all times, even inside of their offices etc.
It should be a no brainer that civilians should be able to record any interaction they have with police, of course. I can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't be.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
All judges make rulings on law. If the ruling take precedence, then it is in effect a new law. It is the basis of our judicial system. I.e. trial court, to intermediate appellate court, to highest appellate court.
It doesn't matter if a Judge is good or bad; new law through judicial interpretation is going to happen in our system. If the legislature doesn't like the ruling, they have the power to change the law.
Learn about our legal system; don't just think that only 'bad' judges make new law through rulings.
Disclaimer: I AM a lawyer; but I'm NOT your lawyer.
create a smallish video camera that includes a cell/wifi transceiver so that when it records the recording goes both to the local storage and N different "Cloud" services.
a LEO wants to try to prevent something from being seen?? OOPS its already on Youtube and N other services so now he needs to get a court order.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Destroying evidence is obstruction of justice. That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Dude, these are the police in the United States. Plenty of cases where we have police literally beating an unarmed, on the ground, man to death -- and on video -- and the killers aren't even charged. In the very rare instances when they have been charged, the juries let them off (which may explain why they're not charged.) In cases where a cop actually got fired, odds are very good that he'll be reinstated after his union or the other cops bring pressure to bear.
Don't forget: if a prosecutor is proven to actually fabricate evidence and destroy open-and-shut proof that you were innocent, he's totally immune from prosecution himself. Even if you're executed as a result of his malfeasance.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
It starts as a state of MIND.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I'm just guessing, but I think "resisting arrest" is english, whereas being "arrested" is jargon. Being "arrested" is being detained by police on charges. Where as "resisting arrest" is simply resisting being stopped by police. Just a thought.
One way to get around the ability of the police to destroy evidence would be to have a low quality stream of the video saved in real-time to a remote device and have a person holding the remote storage device be out of sight. Either that or save a low-quality stream to a cloud service.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Funny, John Stossel reported on this issue and noted all the BS bullying tactics the police use to sidestep the law, including the "dispersal", but it did not negate the fact they arrested someone on their own front lawn and property recording a police activity. This issue at hand is that they are public employees and on that basis they cannot be conducting "secret police" activities. This is prohibited in the Bill of Rights. When the press is involved, the police are most definitely compromising the Bill of Rights because the 4th estate is granted rights under from being censored and incarcerated illegally while reporting a public event. If videotaping or recording the police is illegal, then the recording is to be submitted as evidence in court and the police are committing the crime of destruction of evidence. Link to the Stossel video below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ
It's a question of what constitutes "evidence". In an instance like this, we're pretty close to the dividing line.
Suppose, for example, that a heinous murder has been committed. The murderer has left his fingerprints on a ceramic coffee cup. Someone puts the coffee cup in the dishwasher, and the fingerprints are destroyed.
Is the coffee cup evidence or not?
It comes down to who gets to decide whether or not a specific item is evidence. In the first pass, that task usually falls to the police. Secondarily, it falls to the courts. Dozens of Perry Mason episodes notwithstanding, you can't usually just walk into the courthouse with a coffee cup and say, "This proves that the murderer was at the scene of the crime."
But interesting and significant exceptions do arise. In the case of Robert Dziekanski, a man who died after repeated Tasering while detained by police at Vancouver International Airport, a video shot by a bystander was confiscated by police and only reluctantly returned to its owner after intense media pressure. That video was treated as evidence by the inquiry, as were police emails that eventually surfaced. On the basis of this evidence, the inquiry concluded that officers deliberately misrepresented their actions during investigations into the incident and at the inquiry.
The authenticity of the video was not challenged. Ironically, this may have had something to do with the police having had it for some time in their custody.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
You are not a lawyer. If you were, you'd know the difference between jurisprudence and "is in effect a new law".
A key fact is that the Police are Public Servants. Their salaries are paid by the Public. So, if the Public wants to record the activities of the Police, a very simple reason why is, "to ensure that they are actually Serving the Public". It is quite logical that if it can be proved that certain members of the Police are actually only serving themselves (thereby misusing their Power and Responsibility), they should be fired.
One could argue that all Congresscritters should always be on-camera, a separate video channel for each. Then we will see how many of those "Public Servants" are actually doing their jobs, Serving the Public, instead of working for their own selfish interests.
Could it be that Torts are now cosidered before Civil Law? But what is a valid legal definition of what a News Reporter is?
...what if someone *secretly* videotapes a police officer arresting somebody illegally?
Can it be used as evidence in a court?
It's always the 95% of the police that are bad that ruin it for the 5% that are good! :P
Hes not creating, hes breaking the law in question against the rock of the Constitution.
Good-bye
No police officer should ever be anything but OK when someone tapes their arrest. If they are not then it is a complete and absolute validation that they did not follow procedure. I am a 2 time convicted felon and not once did I dispute what they did unless it was illegal and they did not have proof that what they did was ok. 2 Convictions have been thrown out because they did not have proof not because I was innocent. Of course that was 19 years ago,
Because here in the USA, if you do much more than that without really covering your ass, you become a "terrorist" and a guest of the government down in Gitmo.
Really? Can you give some examples? The only one I can actually think of is the Yemini-American cleric Obama had killed. I believe that all they had on him publicly was that he was basically the propaganda arm of AQ (i.e. lots of hateful speech, but no action). Of course, the government is saying they have evidence he was an actor too, but I don't think there's been any evidence to that made publicly available.
I mean, I think it's criminal what they did to the kids at UC Davis, and what happened in Oakland, if not criminal, was certainly a shame. But I didn't hear of any Occupy protesters being sent to Gitmo, or even being indefinitely detained.
I agree that we are travelling down a perilous road and our liberties are being eroded, but your hyperbole doesn't help make that case.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
If a law is unconstitutional, it never legitimately existed in the first place. (And "always existed"? Laws are temporary creations of humans, not eternal artifacts.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If you can't be above the law then why be a cop?
There are a bunch of similar stories here (as well as several other atrocities like selling lemonade, Girl Scout cookies, felony ditch cleaning, and holding illegal prayer meetings).
Cops on tape, breaking the law, and nothing is done about it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Always film your cameraman, preferably from a distance.
Beautiful evidence.
Every comment I have seen has been on the social aspects of this incident. Let's talk about the software aspect of it
(from TFA)
"I used Stellar Phoenix recovery software for the first recovery, which has proven to be unable to recover large files in its entirety. I used PhotoRec for the second recovery, which did the job. PhotoRec has a steeper learning curve than Stellar Phoenix, but it’s free, unlike the former."
Score one for open source software. Better than the proprietary alternative in this case.
friends don't let friends teleport drunk
It seems the only reason to become a police officer now is to legally be allowed to be a thug. "Protect and Serve" is a Joke.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/i-recovered-the-full-uninterrupted-video-police-deleted
Check your premises.
If the 'law' was unconstitutional, it was NEVER actually a law. The Judge is simply clarifying the state of affairs that always existed.
In which case a judge would not be able to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional, but this has happened./quote?
It has?
Can you please cite your source.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In which case a judge would not be able to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional, but this has happened.
But, and get this, only if it violates other parts of the constitution.
As far as I understand it -- and I am neither a lawyer nor a US-American -- amendments to the US constitution can only be made ineffective by the Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional (i.e. it violating either a prior or a later, other amendment), but only repealed by the legislative branch (Senate/House of Repr.) by introducing a new amendment; which has happened with the 18th amendment (prohibition) that was repealed by the 21st after the Supreme Court ruled it violated the 4th and 5th amendment.
To put it in CompSci terms: The judicative (courts) only did a sanity check on the input, whereas the legislative (parliament) took measures to actually clean up the input. So the former only prevented bad input from producing bad output, which caused the former to make sure that that brand of bad input is not possible at all anymore.
You could say that in these cases, the courts can only negate or affirm, but not ask a new question. They might state their opinion that a new question should be asked, but can't ask it themselves.
Although many officers seem to get away with some outrages and possibly illegal behavior there are ways to counter this.
At the City level you have the following options:
1. Most large Cities have an internal affairs office which is works as a peer review and is only accountable to a police commissioner or possibly the chief of police.
But they are also sill accountable to the Mayor and city council.
2. Some large cities also have a citizen review board that reviews any suspicious behavior conducted by the police.
3. Some large cities have both an internal investigation and citizen review board.
4. Also the state police agencies usually have some kind of mandate to investigate police departments with a history of misbehavior.
5. Small departments are usually monitored by the mayors and city council.
Bottom line you have avenues to lodge a complaint, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row first, and have solid evidence to back it up.
At the State level:
Many State Law enforcement Agencies are accountable to the Governor, the State Attorney General, and State Legislators.
They will also have some kind of internal review process.
At the Federal level:
All Federal Law Enforcement Agencies are accountable to the Office of the President, and Congress.
They will also have some kind of internal review process.
So my story:
I once got harassed and ticketed illegally while my car was parked at a park on the street swapping a flasher solenoid for my blinkers, and I was an Air force Security Police but not in uniform.
After running up the city chain of command I resorted to writing to my congressman Leon Panetta.
The charges were dropped, and the officers involved were suspended without pay. (Circa 1979)
Thank god or I would have had a really awkward meeting with my commander.
TeTalon
You are either a part of the problem, or a part of the solution, which are you.
A lie is a lie, and people in a position of authority over us do not have any authority to lie to the courts convicting us. I only was trying to say, cops lie. I probably should of worded it better though you are right.
The Golden Rule
The one with the gold makes the rules.
This thug mentality on the part a few bad police officers reflects poorly on the many honest men and women who serve their community, yet those same good people turn a blind eye to this behavior. Is it no wonder that public confidence and support for law enforcement officers continues to erode?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Here locally a friend who is an attorney was telling me about a case the state has taken to court 4 times. Always a mistrial. Basically a guy killed another guy, and admits it. However he claims, though there is no evidence to support, that the guy he killed was a child molester after his kids. As I said, no hard evidence, but it has been enough to convince at least one juror to vote not guilty, and as such hang the jury and result in a mistrial.
It is a result of our jury trial system. You have people with differing opinions sitting on that jury and if even one of them doesn't agree with a guilty verdict, then it doesn't happen.
So some definitions of marriage should never be changed because it is an ANCIENT construct given legitimacy by legal rulings?
I'm more inclined to believe that one or both of you are unable to determine distance perfectly without a measuring instrument, than that the officer was purposely lying about a couple of hundred feet, especially when it does not affect the illegality of the situation.
tl;dr "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.
The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.
An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.
The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known. Thus, a defendant's presence at a police station by consent does not become an arrest solely by virtue of an officer's subjective view that the defendant is not free to leave, absent an act indicating an intention to take the defendant into custody.
I have highlighted the important points. One can be arrested on the scene of a possible crime and let go with no charges. One can be arrested by the officer(s) telling one not to leave because he wants to question one. Then, by attempting to leave, one can be arrested for resisting arrest, but this time taken into custody, transported to jail, booked, etc. It wasn't that long ago that one might be arrested for being drunk, dropped in the drunk tank, then let go without charges when one sobered up.
This is yet another problem with the ambiguity of the English language especially in the case of legal or professional jargon as opposed to general usage.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Im so tired of hearing about homosexual marriage already. Just stop. Marriage is a religious ceremony recognized by the state and federal governments.
Personally I dont think state and federal government should recognize ANY marriage. Only the joining of domestic partners for tax purposes. Let organized religion worry about marriage.
Funny. "Fucking iPhone" doesn't show up on store.apple.com. Is that a special "OEM model" or something?
Homosexuals are incapable of producing children therefore aren't given the protection of Marriage.
The roots of marriage are economic; not religious. Children only come into play as the means to pass on wealth and power from one generation to the other. While I can see the argument procreation as a core component of marriage, the emphasis on "bloodlines" does not exist in modern society today, the way it did in the past.
invariably those in favor of Homosexual Marriages are simultaneously opposed to Polygamy and often use the same arguments against Polygamy that Opponents of Homosexual Marriage use against Homosexual Marriage.
As a supporter of gay marriage, my argument against polygamy is that it will lead to the hoarding of women by wealthy men, which would result in a shortage or marriage partners for men, which would lead to social unrest.
That said, I personally don't see a problem with men having one legal wife and other non-legal wives, which seems to be the common practice among fundamentalist Mormons. This arrangement allows free association, while preventing powerful men (or women) from legally monopolizing partners.
The state has no legal or moral imperative to define marriage
That would be true if you think that the state should have no role in fostering a healthy and peaceful society, but I would disagree since the state is itself a manifestation of society.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Homosexual Marriage has NEVER existed in history until very recently. Marriage was for the purposes of a man an woman(women/polygamy) having a family and defining the rights and responsibilities thereof. Homosexuals are incapable of producing children therefore aren't given the protection of Marriage.
By that argument, heterosexual marriages should end at death of either spouse ("'til death do you part"), when the wife enters menopause, when the husband becomes impotent, or when either suffers an injury or illness that renders them infertile.
In that scenario, marriage licenses would also require signed notification from a medical practitioner certifying the fertility of each spouse, which would require one of:
* the prospective wife currently being pregnant and the prospective husband being the father as determined by DNA testing
* the prospective husband providing a sample for testing with his own hands and the prospective wife undergoing medical testing to ensure her fertility
* a medical practitioner performing testing on both prospective spouses to ensure their fertility
None of those options seem particularly palatable to me. Taking that one step further, you would also need to show that same evidence to an IRS auditor if you filed a joint tax return and were audited. If you wanted to visit your spouse in the hospital after a serious accident and the hospital had a "relatives only" visiting policy, you wouldn't be allowed to visit until the doctors were certain their reproductive capabilities had not been damaged. And don't adoption agencies favor married couples when deciding who is allowed to adopt? Then people who had one of the best reason for wanting to adopt would no longer be favored.
The only way that a constitutional amendment could be declared unconstitutional is if the process through which it became a part of that constitution was done in an unconstitutional manner. That is a very small loophole, and usually is something that is almost never tried (and has thus far always failed so far as amendments recognized by the U.S. Secretary of State and/or the National Archives).
That said, there are some rather vague parts of the U.S. Constitution that are open to interpretation, such as the Interstate Commerce Clause and finding "new rights" not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights (such as what Roe v. Wade attempted to do in terms of a "right to an abortion").
The main thing that happens in terms of constitutional review though is that statutory law can be "set aside" because it conflicts with the constitution. New law isn't created, but instead the law is treated as if that law never existed in the first place.
Where American courts do create "new law" is with case law and "common law", when a legal question comes up that statutory law and constitutional law simply don't cover the situation. Most states also recognized earlier English "Common Law" precedence, at least the "Common Law" that existed prior to July 4th, 1776. It is rare that somebody cites legal precedence from the 15th Century to win a legal argument any more, but it is still a possibility in 49 of the 50 American states (Louisiana excepted.... because they use the Napoleonic Code instead and follow French/Spanish/Roman precedence instead of English).
destroying evidence is obstruction of justice. That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"
hahahahahahahahhah, some one thinks the police are more than goverment thugs.
Rocket Surgeon.
You're assuming the state should be involved in marriage at all. I don't make that assumption. I actually think the state should not be involved at all.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Marriages existed before any economics happened, while people where in hunter gatherer clans. If you said "power" and "political" reasons, I might agree. But then again, those are often tied to religious reasons, and all of these were long before there was such a thing as a "state"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No, legal rulings should be a matter of LAW, not politics nor the popular opinions of the day. If we go by your definition, then if slavery were legal, you'd be okay with it, as long as judges said it was okay, right? Because the law is always right?
Marriage has never been defined by law, only by custom. There are prohibitions against plural marriages by law, but that is the only other defining mechanism we've had. And now, some are trying to codify that which has been culturally assumed, only to be overruled by judges in black robes based on things like "equal protection". But those very same legal constructs can be used for things like plural marriages, which ironically most proponents of homosexual marriage are against, usually on the same grounds that people opposing homosexual marriage oppose that.
There is something ironic about that.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
As far as I understand it -- and I am neither a lawyer nor a US-American -- amendments to the US constitution can only be made ineffective by the Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional (i.e. it violating either a prior or a later, other amendment), but only repealed by the legislative branch (Senate/House of Repr.) by introducing a new amendment; which has happened with the 18th amendment (prohibition) that was repealed by the 21st after the Supreme Court ruled it violated the 4th and 5th amendment.
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. The 21st was ratified via state ratifying conventions, Congress only proposed it. The Supreme Court never ruled the 18th amendment unconstitutional. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, as they amend what is constitutional. The only exceptions to this being making slavery illegal before 1808, or giving a state less senators than the others (although interestingly, the clauses that make those unamendable themselves could, in theory, be amended).
The Supreme Court wouldn't rule on the constitutionality of an amendment because of something called the polictical question doctrine, in which it has said it won't rule on issues it considers to be outside its realm of authority. Consitutional amendments are specifically included.
The Supreme Court does not have the power to declare a part of the Constitution unconstitutional. Once it's there, it's there and can only be revised by another amendment (as in the prohibition example above).
That's one reason some want a constitutional amendment to ban burning the American flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution protects flag burning under the First Amendment (freedom of speech). The only way to supersede the court's ruling is to amend the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.
How would that even work? If the state had NO interest in recognizing a marriage, how would jointly-owned property be treated by the legal system? Joint debt? Who would settle disputes over property ownership in the event of divorce? Custody of children? Probate? Would spousal immunity from testifying in a criminal proceeding be done away with?
Sure, have your wedding and your marriage (and your family planning) free from state interference, but if you think there isn't a very real need for the legal system to be institutionally aware that some people are married, and by extension a need for some sort of mechanism for recognizing that fact, you haven't thought this through.
Genius! Since complying with these criteria is a sin, religious bigots would soon be removed from the gene pool and we could move on to accepting marriage between two people who love each other regardless of gender.
simple, via civil unions or commonmarriage laws (where you are living together for XX years and therefore the state deems you dependant on each other)
marriage, as a term should be strictly religious IMO and the state should not even be involved, that way if a man and a woman want to be "married" they can be, in a church, if a gay couple wants to be "married" they can, somewhere other than a church. if 2 friends want to share a house together than they can be "married"
by married, i mean get the same benifits as a married couple does today, not the actual term "married"
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Whenever this topic comes up, I feel the need to link people to Qik: http://qik.com/ Its a video app for Android and iOS that will automatically upload your video once you take it. So even if your phone is confiscated, and the data deleted, the video is already out there.
It's actually because by and large you're cowards (being the richest people in the world did that to you) and you're not angry enough yet. People got shot in Syria today for protesting. Doubtlessly, more people will be shot tomorrow. In the meantime, you are thinking up ways to cover your ass when you next go "protest" in a "free speech zone" with an "Anonymous" mask on your face and a lawyer on speed-dial.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Either your usage of "very recently" is rather different from normal useage, or your are spouting bullshit.
Make the first photo on your camera be
0 / 1000 Photos
or
EMPTY
or some such
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Im so tired of hearing about homosexual marriage already. Just stop. Marriage is a religious ceremony recognized by the state and federal governments.
Personally I dont think state and federal government should recognize ANY marriage. Only the joining of domestic partners for tax purposes. Let organized religion worry about marriage.
Marriage really isn't a religious ceremony - it is a promise between two people. Pretty much all religions have tailored ceremonies around marriage, but the fact that it is pretty much universal (i.e. pretty much all cultures have something akin to marriage, whatever religion they do or don't follow) makes it not a fundamentally religious thing.
Personally, I do think that marriage should mean something legally - it is a contract and should be treated the same as any other contract. In this regard, you shouldn't have to have a marriage ceremony to get the same legal position - a simple paper contract between the two parties should be equivalent.
What I _do_ object to is the government dictating _how_ people get married. For example, speaking from the perspective of UK laws:
- You have to get married in a licensed venue - why not let the couple choose somewhere special to them to get married rather than dictating a restricted number of venues?
- You have to get married under a roof - no getting hitched on the beach.
- You have to get married within certain daytime hours, so getting married under the beautiful stars is a no-no.
- If you want a civil ceremony, you're allowed nothing religious in it, so for example, if you're a christian you pretty much have to get married in a church since getting married in your local castle, hotel, etc. is a civil ceremony and therefore cannot have any religious content. (I'm not religious, but I don't see any reason for restricting people from having whatever type of ceremony they like).
Some of rules have caused problems for me personally because they mean that my faincee and I cannot get married where we would choose (on top of a mountain, in the snow in winter - not under a roof so it isn't allowed). I simply don't see why there is any benefit to anyone placing these sorts of restrictions on people - the important thing is that two people are making a contract between each other and it really shouldn't matter where, when or how they choose to do it.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
No, ruling a law unconstitutional does NOT create a new law. It removes an illegal law from the books -- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if a law overrides your rights, it is not legal and a judge should throw it out.
Free Martian Whores!
The only way to declare a constitutional amendment null and void is if it didn't follow procedures to be put into law. If an amendment conflicts, the latest provisions override.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
In the meantime, you are thinking up ways to cover your ass when you next go "protest" in a "free speech zone" with an "Anonymous" mask on your face and a lawyer on speed-dial.
More often than not, people who protest here are worried about official tactics and strategies designed to neutralize protests in the first place. Getting arrested or even possibly shot can be an acceptable risk if you can get your message across in the process, which with many of the tactics in use here today is questionable at best. And as of yesterday, it's possible for certain three letter entities to grab us right off the street before we even get to where a protest is happening.
And trust me, there are plenty of people in this country who understand the profound injustice of herding anyone with any objections into "free speech zones" far from anywhere they could be effective at all. That's required some creative adjustments in protest tactics, and for the most part, the majority here are still so blinded by the mythology of the USA as a place where "it can't happen here" and there are still so few of us who see the reality that pushing too hard just gives the powers that be an excuse to crack down and shut us up by force. That will change, I'm sure, but the numbers just aren't there yet .. it's a hearts and minds game at present. Different country, different situation, different rules, different strategies.
Personally I dont think state and federal government should recognize ANY marriage. Only the joining of domestic partners for tax purposes.
I don't even think government should have a hand in that. Why should a widow with one child pay more in tax than a childless married couple earning the same amount?
Free Martian Whores!
Really? Can you give some examples?
That's the thing. Would we know? No one who knows about the kinds of detentions that are authorized now (as of the NDAA taking effect yesterday) is allowed to tell anyone.
It's always a possibility, and it's always cause for concern. The agencies involved have given us (citizens) some simple assertions of goodwill saying they won't, but there's little or no actual accountability keeping them from doing so -- in the actual law, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from using any of the powers they've been given to round up protesters under the pretext of antiterrorism. And it's very likely that it could go on for quite some time without any news of it reaching the public. So, to answer your question, no, I can't give examples, but I wouldn't expect to be able to. We just don't know, and we can't know, for sure. Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but as things stand now, there are reasons we wouldn't be able to cite examples..
I don't think 25% are committing crimes. Let's guess that fewer than the general populace are. So for a relatively high standard of crime (say, robbery, not speeding), the general populace might have 5% committing crime.
I justify the police having a lower percentage, because the police *do* sometimes catch their own, and evict them -- plus it can happen in different venues where they get caught and prosecuted. So maybe 3% are actively seriously criminal.
Then of those 3%, how many are simply not caught because they don't do it out in the open?
I think a lot of police, therefore, may well be good police.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
but I was modded a troll. hrmpf. thanks to whomever wasted that mod point.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
So, to answer your question, no, I can't give examples, but I wouldn't expect to be able to. We just don't know, and we can't know, for sure. Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but as things stand now, there are reasons we wouldn't be able to cite examples..
I don't know. On this I kind of lean toward the Alien Landing Conspiracy Rule: the government is not capable enough to keep such a conspiracy secret. It's not really the same, of course, but I have a hard time believing that the government would be able to arrest and indefinitely detain protesting citizens on any type of scale without word getting out or questions being asked. People have families that will miss them. Everyone is recording these events and pushing them out to the internet. I think its a bit paranoid to assume that the government could really pull citizens off of public streets and detain them in secret on any type of scale. They're much more likely to do it publicly, and play the terrorism card to the hilt (to mix my metaphors).
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Because they have got guns?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
On the contrary. The time to provoke over-reaction (a crack-down as you call it) is now, when information still travels relatively unimpeded. Generally speaking, time is not on your side.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
On the contrary. The time to provoke over-reaction (a crack-down as you call it) is now, when information still travels relatively unimpeded. Generally speaking, time is not on your side.
True on first approximation, but that leads to the question of who goes first and takes one for the team, so to speak? And thus it becomes a Nash equilibrium, because people act as self-interested individuals, and few if any are willing to be in that first wave because very few people are willing to commit that much even to demonstrably noble ideals .. and making that strategy work requires enough people to be willing to move toward such a provocation that it's impossible to dismiss it as a few rogue troublemakers taunting our brave boys in blue. To paraphrase an earlier commenter in the thread, we're not mad enough for that strategy to work yet, because the anger hasn't reached critical mass yet, because too many people here still believe that legal==moral==ethical and fail to grasp the true insanity of militarized police acting extralegally as counterrevolutionaries. This country just has too many ways of either keeping things out of the news or drowning them in the noise of reality TV and celebrity gossip and NASCAR and football.
True on first approximation, but that leads to the question of who goes first and takes one for the team, so to speak?
Manning, among others.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.