The latter are, in most cases, just doing a job as they would for any other employer, they have little individual power or discretion to apply those vast resources, and I don't see why they should be any less entitled to legal protection of their rights (including privacy) than anyone else.
If I as a private citizen make a citizens arrest, I better I be sure the person I arrest did commit a crime I can prove. Otherwise they can sue me. An off duty office does not have to worry about that though. An officer can get an out of jail free card for shooting someone, but I'll have charges brought against me if I shoot at someone, even if I can prove my or other people's lives were in danger in some places. Shoot a mugger in NYC and see if you're not arrested. Yet a bunch of officers can shoot an unarmed teen and not face any punishment.
The police. Not even China is immune to CCTV. "Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers."
If you have a shortage of money to hire police officers then you don't have enough money to install CCTV, unless of course you're going to force those who's property the cameras are installed on to pay for them. Even then though you still need to pay people to monitor the output.
No, cops are not allowed to beat people. And, when they do or cross the line, they ARE punished.
The cop in that video was not punished. Neither are the cops and prosecutors who falsely convict and imprison people.
I worked with cops. 99.9% of them are pretty decent folk.
Nowhere did I say they are were bad, I have too small a sample so while I won't say 99.9% of all cops are decent I will say some are. The bad ones give a bad name to the good ones.
not being allowed to photograph our fallen soldiers on their return.
I do not believe that was a Constitutional order the Bush amend gave, the only reason it was given was to hide from the public the cost of a war forced, based on lies, on the people. To this day I'm waiting to see all those WMDs Saddam had. There was none, what weapons Saddam did have he used when Reagan and the first Bush supported Saddam. He could use them against Iranians and it was good, he could use them against Kurds, March Arabs, and others and it was OK. It only became a problem when he ordered the invasion of Kuwait, a sheikdom not a democracy. And why did he order the invasion? Because he accused and believed Kuwait was slant, directional, drilling into Iraqi oil fields from Kuwait. Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq.
She may also learn her lesson and go away. If not, they will nail her.
More like they need to learn a lesson. If for no other reason than if she, an individual, could reveal undercover agents most certainly organized criminals can do the same. They should be awarding not arresting her.
In could not disagree with you more if it were a matter of life and death, and with a police state it is.
Police officers, on a daily basis, deal with dangerous threats to their lives. Members of the drug enforcement task force, even more so. Significantly more so. They do this knowingly and willingly and they should be respected for the dangerous jobs they do.
Oh, I respect some police officers, I respect the person not the uniform or badge. What I do not respects, and protest against is any war on liberty, like the War on Drugs. End the war and legalize drugs then those police will not be in a s much danger.
The actions of this woman have put the lives of these officers at risk.
Bullshit!!! These people put themselves in danger. If a private citizen can break the cover of undercover agents then most certainly so can criminals. But that ignores the fact that these people decided to do what they do, nobody put a gub to their heads and said they will be undercover police.
Lest people forget, drug dealers can often be violent and vindictive.
Lest people forget, police can often be violent and vindictive too.
It would be really nice if people remembered that the officers have a right to privacy
If they don't want people watching them then they can stop watching people as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. As public servants they are responsible to the people, if they don't want to be under the microscope then they can get a joy in another field, off the public dime.
I meant ubuntu, though I haven't really tried running a great deal on the 64-bit port. It sucks that it isn't seamless.
OK. I'd rather run 64bit Ubuntu but like I said before I read there were problems. I'd rather just install 32 bit Ubuntu Studio and get it setup that possibly spending weeks getting the 64 bit version running, or finding out it won't. As it is now it may take me a few hours, if there are no problems.
Yes inciting to riot is a crime however inciting is not. Beside provoking or stirring up as in "incite to riot" incite as at least two more definitions, "urge on; cause to act" and "give an incentive for action". Or do you want to say that incite to protest is a crime? That what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. did was a crime. If so them those laws need to be overturned.
People go on and on about the rights their society gives them without bothering to mention the responsibilities
Society does not give rights, at least not in the USA. Rights are innate, you're born with them. All society is supposed to do is respect those rights, and government is supposed to try to prevent them from being violated.
It's not that far a stretch to say that you have a responsibility to not wander around the President with a loaded gun or put the lives of the families of peace officers in danger.
It is a far stretch. The Second Amendment says nothing about not carrying a firearm when close to the president.
They are held responsible by the people (supposely), but that doesn't mean we are their employers.
We are the employer, unless we do not have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Or are you saying they aren't employed by the government? Who then employees them?
Oh, I get it, law enforcement was privatized. Now the employer is Blackwater.
I suppose this guy had every right to carry his loaded firearm within shooting distance of Obama without being removed from the premises. Secret Service would not agree with you.
Is this a straw man? I see nothing in there about the Secrete Service removing anyone. "Secret Service" isn't even in it.
"Freedom of speech" applies only to political action and only when such action is peaceful and doesn't constitute or promote violence.
The First Amendment says nothing about Freedom of Speech only applying to political speech, but it does specifically state no law shall not be passed abridging it. And OneLook Dictionary Search defines "abridge' as "verb: reduce in scope while retaining essential elements". Limiting free speech to only political speech is abridging it.
Her actions hinder the police's ability to do their job (obstruction of justice)
If so then she could have been charged with obstruction of justice, which the Post article states she was not charged with. She was instead charged with "identifying a police officer with intent to harass".
Cops are not allowed to publish information on who they have under surveillance
Cops are not allowed to beat people either but they do. Police lobbyist are even trying to have a second bill of rights citizens won't enjoy. Like the lady who was beat by the police.
Civil servant or not, it crosses the line when you place them or their families at risk
They placed themselves and their families in danger. Nobody held a gun to their heads and ordered them to go into law enforcement. I enlisted in the US Army, did you spend tyme military? The specialty I willingly went into was infantry, where I knew if a war broke out I would be on the first lines. My nephew is now a Marine stationed in Iraq, after having served before there he even re-enlisted, and got a $250,000 bonus for it. Now he expecting to be sent to Afghanistan.
It's not a stretch to consider her blog an attempt to interfere with police investigations. As far as I'm aware, that's illegal in most/all of the United States.
Why wasn't she charged with that instead of "identifying a police officer with intent to harass" then? Until she is charged with interfering in a police investigation, it's pretty easy to believe her arrest was harassment.
You're comparing the inquisition to the modern justice system? Have you been smoking crack?
When it comes to the War on Drugs, it is an inquisition.
Point is: There is no such thing as freedom or fair law
Well if you're defining your concept of fairness from the point-of-view of the criminal, then yea, no law can ever be fair.
Yea, tell all those who were in prison years who the Innocence Project were finally able to clear that the justice system is fair. Tell Steven Barnes, who was convicted of rape, sodomy, and murder in 1989 and cleared in 2009. Or Orlando Boquete who was convicted of attempted sexual battery and burglary in 1983. On 23 May 2006 DNA testing proved he was innocent yet he wasn't released until 22 August 2006. Tell him the justice system is fair.
Is the rest of that a straw man, used to deflect people from the issues?
The police are doing a job, which is required by law. The are the investigative and enforcement branch of the legal system.
Just like they, law enforcement and politicians, tell us, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". They don't get any sort of passes or get out of jail free cards.
We are not their employer. Stop with that nonsense. They are employees of the city, state, or government and in some cases private companies contracted by those.
Government, at least of the USA, is supposed to be of, by, and for the people so yes we the people are their employer.
They also get to be around guns and bullets a large portion of their day, especially when they're undercover infiltrating any sort of crime ring. Their job is definitely dangerous, and it can't be forgotten. They need some protection in their personal lives, unless you want them to not have one.
And what of the rights of the citizens who are paying their salaries? Don't they have the right to not be beat up? As senator now VP Biden, who also backs up the MP/RI-AA mafia, tried to give law enforcement more rights than citizens enjoy.
Would you be outraged if your boss tracked your every move
There's a huge difference between being privately employed and being a public servant. If you don't like the rules of being a public servant then you're welcome to try to find a private job, or create your own.
if you would be moved to act against your boss if he/she did what this woman has done, why are you defending what she's done?
If I found out after the fact yes I would sue my employers. However if it was a condition of my employment I'd find another job, or create my own, then when other potential employees do the same either the employer will change policies, risk being sued too, or will go out of business.
Nobody is forcing anybody to go into public service.
The problem here is what exactly? That she stalked them? I think it does not matter if they are cops. Stalking people is just not right. In fact, imagine she was a government agent stalking some privacy group. You would have called it an outrage too, but called her bad, not them.
There's huge difference, they are public servants paid for with taxes. As such what they do on duty should be open to public scrutiny.
And outing someone who is the inside man on such a drug group actually puts his life in danger. Not cool.
How did she find out who the undercover agents were? If she, a single private person, can find out imagine what a gang can find out. Their MO has to be changed, so it's not so easy to unveil undercover agents.
Or by following plain clothes cops going to meet undercover agents and informants.
And criminals can't do that? If that's the police MO then that seems to be the perfect way to find out who undercover agents are. I wonder how much organized crime will pay me for that? Maybe I can have my own bailout.
If it's that easy and I were in charge I might award this woman for showing how screwed the system is.
This is basically what the police do when they want to stalk a private citizen. They get a warrant from a judge to stalk people.
No they don't, police need a warrant when they search but not to follow.
it appears she may have taken it a bit too far.
I agree but the way they handled it, by arresting her, was going too far too. What she did was legal. Well it may end up in a court where others will decide whether it was legal or illegal. Actually if it were up to me, I might give her a medal, if she was able to identify undercover officers then something's wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The latter are, in most cases, just doing a job as they would for any other employer, they have little individual power or discretion to apply those vast resources, and I don't see why they should be any less entitled to legal protection of their rights (including privacy) than anyone else.
If I as a private citizen make a citizens arrest, I better I be sure the person I arrest did commit a crime I can prove. Otherwise they can sue me. An off duty office does not have to worry about that though. An officer can get an out of jail free card for shooting someone, but I'll have charges brought against me if I shoot at someone, even if I can prove my or other people's lives were in danger in some places. Shoot a mugger in NYC and see if you're not arrested. Yet a bunch of officers can shoot an unarmed teen and not face any punishment.
Falcon
The police. Not even China is immune to CCTV. "Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers."
If you have a shortage of money to hire police officers then you don't have enough money to install CCTV, unless of course you're going to force those who's property the cameras are installed on to pay for them. Even then though you still need to pay people to monitor the output.
Falcon
What oath did you take?
To defend the Constitution of the USA.
No, cops are not allowed to beat people. And, when they do or cross the line, they ARE punished.
The cop in that video was not punished. Neither are the cops and prosecutors who falsely convict and imprison people.
I worked with cops. 99.9% of them are pretty decent folk.
Nowhere did I say they are were bad, I have too small a sample so while I won't say 99.9% of all cops are decent I will say some are. The bad ones give a bad name to the good ones.
not being allowed to photograph our fallen soldiers on their return.
I do not believe that was a Constitutional order the Bush amend gave, the only reason it was given was to hide from the public the cost of a war forced, based on lies, on the people. To this day I'm waiting to see all those WMDs Saddam had. There was none, what weapons Saddam did have he used when Reagan and the first Bush supported Saddam. He could use them against Iranians and it was good, he could use them against Kurds, March Arabs, and others and it was OK. It only became a problem when he ordered the invasion of Kuwait, a sheikdom not a democracy. And why did he order the invasion? Because he accused and believed Kuwait was slant, directional, drilling into Iraqi oil fields from Kuwait. Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq.
She may also learn her lesson and go away. If not, they will nail her.
More like they need to learn a lesson. If for no other reason than if she, an individual, could reveal undercover agents most certainly organized criminals can do the same. They should be awarding not arresting her.
Falcon
I could not disagree with you more if I tried.
In could not disagree with you more if it were a matter of life and death, and with a police state it is.
Police officers, on a daily basis, deal with dangerous threats to their lives. Members of the drug enforcement task force, even more so. Significantly more so. They do this knowingly and willingly and they should be respected for the dangerous jobs they do.
Oh, I respect some police officers, I respect the person not the uniform or badge. What I do not respects, and protest against is any war on liberty, like the War on Drugs. End the war and legalize drugs then those police will not be in a s much danger.
The actions of this woman have put the lives of these officers at risk.
Bullshit!!! These people put themselves in danger. If a private citizen can break the cover of undercover agents then most certainly so can criminals. But that ignores the fact that these people decided to do what they do, nobody put a gub to their heads and said they will be undercover police.
Lest people forget, drug dealers can often be violent and vindictive.
Lest people forget, police can often be violent and vindictive too.
It would be really nice if people remembered that the officers have a right to privacy
If they don't want people watching them then they can stop watching people as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. As public servants they are responsible to the people, if they don't want to be under the microscope then they can get a joy in another field, off the public dime.
Falcon
In an ideal world the police would have been allowed to just go round to her and ask her to act more responsibly.
In an ideal world there wouldn't be police never mind jackbooted thugs. Or Narco News. But we don't live in one.
Falcon
I meant ubuntu, though I haven't really tried running a great deal on the 64-bit port. It sucks that it isn't seamless.
OK. I'd rather run 64bit Ubuntu but like I said before I read there were problems. I'd rather just install 32 bit Ubuntu Studio and get it setup that possibly spending weeks getting the 64 bit version running, or finding out it won't. As it is now it may take me a few hours, if there are no problems.
Falcon
Yes inciting to riot is a crime however inciting is not. Beside provoking or stirring up as in "incite to riot" incite as at least two more definitions, "urge on; cause to act" and "give an incentive for action". Or do you want to say that incite to protest is a crime? That what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. did was a crime. If so them those laws need to be overturned.
Falcon
The problem with the "you damn well should do it" argument is it assumes the law is perfectly crafted and has thought of everything
No, it means you will not rollover and allow your rights to be violated, you are saying a law is bad.
Falcon
People go on and on about the rights their society gives them without bothering to mention the responsibilities
Society does not give rights, at least not in the USA. Rights are innate, you're born with them. All society is supposed to do is respect those rights, and government is supposed to try to prevent them from being violated.
It's not that far a stretch to say that you have a responsibility to not wander around the President with a loaded gun or put the lives of the families of peace officers in danger.
It is a far stretch. The Second Amendment says nothing about not carrying a firearm when close to the president.
Falcon
They are held responsible by the people (supposely), but that doesn't mean we are their employers.
We are the employer, unless we do not have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Or are you saying they aren't employed by the government? Who then employees them?
Oh, I get it, law enforcement was privatized. Now the employer is Blackwater.
Falcon
I suppose this guy had every right to carry his loaded firearm within shooting distance of Obama without being removed from the premises. Secret Service would not agree with you.
Is this a straw man? I see nothing in there about the Secrete Service removing anyone. "Secret Service" isn't even in it.
Falcon
"Freedom of speech" applies only to political action and only when such action is peaceful and doesn't constitute or promote violence.
The First Amendment says nothing about Freedom of Speech only applying to political speech, but it does specifically state no law shall not be passed abridging it. And OneLook Dictionary Search defines "abridge' as "verb: reduce in scope while retaining essential elements". Limiting free speech to only political speech is abridging it.
Her actions hinder the police's ability to do their job (obstruction of justice)
If so then she could have been charged with obstruction of justice, which the Post article states she was not charged with. She was instead charged with "identifying a police officer with intent to harass".
Cops are not allowed to publish information on who they have under surveillance
Cops are not allowed to beat people either but they do. Police lobbyist are even trying to have a second bill of rights citizens won't enjoy. Like the lady who was beat by the police.
Civil servant or not, it crosses the line when you place them or their families at risk
They placed themselves and their families in danger. Nobody held a gun to their heads and ordered them to go into law enforcement. I enlisted in the US Army, did you spend tyme military? The specialty I willingly went into was infantry, where I knew if a war broke out I would be on the first lines. My nephew is now a Marine stationed in Iraq, after having served before there he even re-enlisted, and got a $250,000 bonus for it. Now he expecting to be sent to Afghanistan.
Falcon
That too is precious - and it cannot be sustained if those who protect it live in fear themselves.
What I fear more than any foreign power or terrorists is government.
Falcon
It's not a stretch to consider her blog an attempt to interfere with police investigations. As far as I'm aware, that's illegal in most/all of the United States.
Why wasn't she charged with that instead of "identifying a police officer with intent to harass" then? Until she is charged with interfering in a police investigation, it's pretty easy to believe her arrest was harassment.
Falcon
Throughout human history, the greatest threat to life and liberty has been not terrorism but the power of the state.
I see this sig line of yours, yet I keep reading your posts advocating hiding government. Or at least allowing a veil covering those who work for it.
Falcon
You're comparing the inquisition to the modern justice system? Have you been smoking crack?
When it comes to the War on Drugs, it is an inquisition.
Point is: There is no such thing as freedom or fair law
Well if you're defining your concept of fairness from the point-of-view of the criminal, then yea, no law can ever be fair.
Yea, tell all those who were in prison years who the Innocence Project were finally able to clear that the justice system is fair. Tell Steven Barnes, who was convicted of rape, sodomy, and murder in 1989 and cleared in 2009. Or Orlando Boquete who was convicted of attempted sexual battery and burglary in 1983. On 23 May 2006 DNA testing proved he was innocent yet he wasn't released until 22 August 2006. Tell him the justice system is fair.
Is the rest of that a straw man, used to deflect people from the issues?
Falcon
The police are doing a job, which is required by law. The are the investigative and enforcement branch of the legal system.
Just like they, law enforcement and politicians, tell us, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". They don't get any sort of passes or get out of jail free cards.
Falcon
We are not their employer. Stop with that nonsense. They are employees of the city, state, or government and in some cases private companies contracted by those.
Government, at least of the USA, is supposed to be of, by, and for the people so yes we the people are their employer.
Falcon
You are conflating law enforcement with the military. They are not the same.
Falcon
They also get to be around guns and bullets a large portion of their day, especially when they're undercover infiltrating any sort of crime ring. Their job is definitely dangerous, and it can't be forgotten. They need some protection in their personal lives, unless you want them to not have one.
And what of the rights of the citizens who are paying their salaries? Don't they have the right to not be beat up? As senator now VP Biden, who also backs up the MP/RI-AA mafia, tried to give law enforcement more rights than citizens enjoy.
Falcon
Would you be outraged if your boss tracked your every move
There's a huge difference between being privately employed and being a public servant. If you don't like the rules of being a public servant then you're welcome to try to find a private job, or create your own.
if you would be moved to act against your boss if he/she did what this woman has done, why are you defending what she's done?
If I found out after the fact yes I would sue my employers. However if it was a condition of my employment I'd find another job, or create my own, then when other potential employees do the same either the employer will change policies, risk being sued too, or will go out of business.
Nobody is forcing anybody to go into public service.
Falcon
If you don't like being watched by the citizens that employ you, feel free to become a private citizen.
Luckily for society as a whole, that's not actually how the system works.
Unluckily for society as a whole, politicians make the laws, the police enforce them, and both can hide behind them.
If it were, we'd have a hell of a time finding people to work in policing.
The good ones that go in to improve society don't need to hide, whereas those who go in to pervert the system need to be watched.
Falcon
The problem here is what exactly? That she stalked them? I think it does not matter if they are cops. Stalking people is just not right. In fact, imagine she was a government agent stalking some privacy group. You would have called it an outrage too, but called her bad, not them.
There's huge difference, they are public servants paid for with taxes. As such what they do on duty should be open to public scrutiny.
And outing someone who is the inside man on such a drug group actually puts his life in danger. Not cool.
How did she find out who the undercover agents were? If she, a single private person, can find out imagine what a gang can find out. Their MO has to be changed, so it's not so easy to unveil undercover agents.
Falcon
Or by following plain clothes cops going to meet undercover agents and informants.
And criminals can't do that? If that's the police MO then that seems to be the perfect way to find out who undercover agents are. I wonder how much organized crime will pay me for that? Maybe I can have my own bailout.
If it's that easy and I were in charge I might award this woman for showing how screwed the system is.
Falcon
This is basically what the police do when they want to stalk a private citizen. They get a warrant from a judge to stalk people.
No they don't, police need a warrant when they search but not to follow.
it appears she may have taken it a bit too far.
I agree but the way they handled it, by arresting her, was going too far too. What she did was legal. Well it may end up in a court where others will decide whether it was legal or illegal. Actually if it were up to me, I might give her a medal, if she was able to identify undercover officers then something's wrong.
Falcon