Slashdot Mirror
NY Couple On "Wanted" Poster For Filming Police
Hugh Pickens writes "Ben Fractenberg and Jeff Mays write that the NYPD has created a 'wanted' poster for a Harlem couple who film cops conducting stop-and-frisks and post the videos on YouTube — branding them 'professional agitators' who portray cops in a bad light and listing their home address. The flyer featuring side-by-side mugshots of Matthew Swaye and Christina Gonzalez and the couple's home address was taped to a podium outside a public hearing room in the 30th Precinct house and warns officers to be on guard against them. The couple has filmed officers stopping and frisking and arresting young people of color in Harlem and around New York City, which they post on Gonzalez's YouTube account. They said their actions are legal. 'There have been times when it's gotten combative. There have been times when they [police officers] have videoed Christina,' says Swaye. 'But if we were breaking the law they would have arrested us.' Swaye was part of a group of advocates including Cornel West who were detained at the 28th Precinct in Harlem in October for protesting the stop-and-frisk policy which Mayor Bloomberg strongly defends. "
From the article:
The only reason they would consider legal options would be because it would bring awareness to their (admittedly excellent) campaign.
If they want to record the cops doing what they believe is wrong, I honestly don't see why the police cannot publicly post a warning to other officers in what seems to be a mostly harmless joking way.
Listen, public embarrassment and notice is a two way street. If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.
The cynic in me wonders if this couple is just trolling for an arrest for a big payout in a civil rights lawsuit. Film cops stopping and frisking, get arrested, sue, profit! That would not really be a sure thing, though, so maybe that's not it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Most people don't mind this because every time it is implemented the crime rate goes down. When the bad guys know they are being watched, they don't do bad things. The truth is if you want to dress like a gansta or tough guy, don't be surprised if people treat you like one. Why else does someone dress like that other than to project an image.
If the image you want to project is that of a bad guy tough guy, stop fucking whining when you are treated that way. It's like women who where low cut tops and push up bras so their tits are bulging out, and then bitching about how they are degraded when men look at their tits. People are hard wired to react to what they see. Why, because evolution (you know that thing that we bitch about the religious right ignoring) wired us like this because it helped us survive. When we see potential danger or tough guy competition, we react. When we want to intimidate to win a fight without fighting (fighting is a last resort in the economy of survival... it is too dangerous to do it as a first resort) so we try to look tough and intimidate first. So the fact that we defend or go against the people who dress like tough guys is a facet of our evolutionary past.
The fact we look at big tits is part of our evolution too. If women look healthy it is ingrained in us that they are the ones we want to schtup... errr mate with. Bottom line, what we dress and act like is how others will treat us because evolution told us that generalizing is the safe way to go and leads to a greater chance to survive and excel, and we can generalize that guys who look like criminals probably have those tendencies. So stop trying to look the part and a good chance you won't be harassed.
I know the politically correct will hate this. I think they hate the effects of evolution more than the religious right. They don't like the fact that we are in essence animals and react often instinctually, and that no amount of 'civilization' will end it. No we are not above our animal instincts. At best we can mitigate them as long as it serves to our benefit. So get over it "sensitive people." And right now, people are allowing their instinctual fear of the guys who look like they want to bad things to them rule. And since crime goes down when these policies are enacted, it shows that our instincts via evolution are once again, correct. It is hard to win against a biologically ingrained education won over scores of millennia at the school or hard knocks.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
You know, I really dislike discussing issues with idiots like you. It's not a matter of your intelligence, rather how you hide it with what you presume is crass criticism of political ideology you dislike.
Reagan's tax cut actually raised taxes on the wealthy because the process of the tax cut eliminated loads of loopholes and shelters put in place by the democrats who controlled congress for decades before he became president. No longer could a doctor purchase a different luxury car for every day of the weak and claim it as a business expense. No longer could rich lawyers buy yachts claiming business expenses and second homes actually needed to be lived in with the requirement of only one second home counting for a mortgage deduction instead of all of them. There are tons of other loopholes closed.
Clinton's tax raise was actually a tax cut. All he did was raise the taxes on a small percentage of people who actually earned money from a job. He reduced the capitol gains tax in '96 to just 15% which the majority of the rich pay because the bulk of their income comes from investments rather then earnings from a job.
The so called fix to what you perceived as wrong from other presidents is a gimmick too. In 97 or 96 we had the ROTH IRAs and conversions created by Clinton (congress). This meant that a majority of people paid taxes on sheltered income that was supposed to be paid later when they retired during his administration. Some people even had the option to spread it out over 4 years, some paid it immediately. For these ROTH IRA programs, you had taxes paid up front instead of income being sheltered from taxes until retirement further increasing the tax revenue. The other portion was the artificial monetary flow from the Y2K scare. Enormous amounts of resources and money went into dealing with that which artificially inflated the economy at a time when the government by nature of the same, was able to increase productivity and save costs by the same upgrading. Those are 2 events that will not happen again (at least any time soon) and contributed heavily to the balanced budget Clinton ran. Evidence by this is the fact of 2001 fiscal year in which none of Bush's tax cuts or policy took effect and the surplus was gone.
But all that is all neither here nor there. Income taxes are not the only taxes in America and fees assigned by government offices are taxes too. The Federal Government is not the only entity that taxes in the US, states and municipalities within them also tax. Sales of items are taxes, sins are taxed, hell, in some area, groceries are even taxed. So stop thinking you are doing something with your political ramblings and lets be intellectually honest here.