| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2006 01:42:51 PM · #26 |
I understand the outrage at the harassment. A quick camera phone pic is harmless, right?
Take a minute to think about police officers on a drug raid. It is a life threatening situation, every time. That harmless pic could be used to identify officers on the raid, vehicles used in the raid (which may be associated with officers), etc...
If you know an officer that has conducted a drug raid, particularly in an area where gangs are prevelant, ask her/him if they feared retaliation. Ask him/her how they would feel about their picture being taken during a raid, especially with a cell phone by which the pic can immediately be sent anywhere and to anyone.
Now I'm not suggesting the officer's actions are justified or appropriate in whole or in part. But I do think I understand them. They probably held this kid until they determined he was a college student and likely meant them no harm.
That's my two cents/food for thought. |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:45:10 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by rswank:
... When one party is so obviously in the wrong ... |
"obviously"? Jury is quick to come out on this one.
edit to keep this from going to the rant forum quicker than it needs to. ;^)
Message edited by author 2006-07-27 13:46:16. |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:45:48 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by maryba:
I think the person taking the photograph made a bad judgement. I would never even think about coming close to a setting where the Philadelphia police were making a drug bust.
|
Regardless if you think he made poor judgement (which I don't know why you would say that especially considering he was on his private property) what he did was NOT illegal and the police infrigned on his basic rights that our country was founded on.
Originally posted by maryba:
I suspect the police thought the photo taker might have been involved with the drug dealers. |
Why would that matter in the least?
If they had reasonable suspicion that he was involved in the drugs then they needn't arrest him on a fake law.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:47:17 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
I understand the outrage at the harassment. A quick camera phone pic is harmless, right?
Take a minute to think about police officers on a drug raid. It is a life threatening situation, every time. That harmless pic could be used to identify officers on the raid, vehicles used in the raid (which may be associated with officers), etc...
If you know an officer that has conducted a drug raid, particularly in an area where gangs are prevelant, ask her/him if they feared retaliation. Ask him/her how they would feel about their picture being taken during a raid, especially with a cell phone by which the pic can immediately be sent anywhere and to anyone.
Now I'm not suggesting the officer's actions are justified or appropriate in whole or in part. But I do think I understand them. They probably held this kid until they determined he was a college student and likely meant them no harm.
That's my two cents/food for thought. |
This is exactly what I was about to post. Police officers who are undercover, or are doing surveillance need to be "unseen" or at least, unidentifiable. For their own safety and the safety of all officers and the public at large. They never will disclose their tactics on how they contain an area or do surveillance because it will compromise their ability to do their jobs safely and effectively and I think there is more to the story than what we've heard so far.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:49:48 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Now I'm not suggesting the officer's actions are justified or appropriate in whole or in part. But I do think I understand them. They probably held this kid until they determined he was a college student and likely meant them no harm.
That's my two cents/food for thought. |
I wonder if they could have ascertained that without taking him into custody and hauling him down to the station. Still seems like an abuse of power. |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:49:52 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by maryba:
Originally posted by amber:
But they didn't arrest him on drug charges..they arrested him for taking pictures!!!! |
He was not arrested for taking a photograph. For some reason the police thought he was interfering with the arrest of the drug dealers. |
"The family of Neftaly Cruz said police had no right to come onto their property and arrest their 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera. They told their story to Harry Hairston and the NBC 10 Investigators."
"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone."
Sounds like an arrest to me...
R.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:50:31 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by rswank:
... When one party is so obviously in the wrong ... |
"obviously"? Jury is quick to come out on this one.
|
Yes, obviously.
I see no charges filed.
They realized they screwed up and freed him.
How can you see it any other way?
A man not involved in the arrest was taken from his PRIVATE PROPERTY against his fourth amendment rights for exercising his first amendment rights.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:50:36 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
The sooner we get used to the fact that we are living in a tightly controlled society, the better we will be. We should adapt and forget about the liberties we should have. Be happy with the ones remaining... |
I'm sorry, are you actually being serious? It is when we lay down and accept everything our government tells us that our society begins to crumble. This country was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. Americans have fought for hundreds of years (MANY giving their lives) for the very liberties you think we should forget about. We should NEVER give up the fight! |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:52:40 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by maryba:
Originally posted by amber:
But they didn't arrest him on drug charges..they arrested him for taking pictures!!!! |
He was not arrested for taking a photograph. For some reason the police thought he was interfering with the arrest of the drug dealers. |
"The family of Neftaly Cruz said police had no right to come onto their property and arrest their 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera. They told their story to Harry Hairston and the NBC 10 Investigators."
"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone."
Sounds like an arrest to me...
R. |
Yep, but the reason is a bit muddy. "Not on his property" - so where was he (the guy with the camera phone)?
He said / she said...tough to air in public court. |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:55:06 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by rswank:
...I see no charges filed. ... |
I ask this in all sincerity: do charges have to be filed for a person to be detained? |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:56:33 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by rswank:
...I see no charges filed. ... |
I ask this in all sincerity: do charges have to be filed for a person to be detained? |
As far as I know No. |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:57:08 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Yep, but the reason is a bit muddy. "Not on his property" - so where was he (the guy with the camera phone)?
He said / she said...tough to air in public court. |
Yep, but you have the family and neighbor as witnesses to his location.
The cops realized that they screwed up had a potential lawsuit so they claim he was not on his private property.
Even if he was on public property they had no right to take him.
If he was indeed interfering with the arrest then he would have been charged.
Simple case of all too typical abuse of power by the police.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:57:08 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
The sooner we get used to the fact that we are living in a tightly controlled society, the better we will be. We should adapt and forget about the liberties we should have. Be happy with the ones remaining... |
Dear god, just roll over and let them trample us!? I think not! It's a darn good thing they didn't think like that in 1776, or we'd be toasting to the Queen still.
Throughout history, oppressed peoples have constantly found the strength to rise up against their oppressors and demand freedom and justice. Today, it seems too many people are willing to give up and submit to this crap.
But not everyone.
The police are public servants, and must be held accountable for their actions. It's got to start somewhere...
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 01:59:22 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by rswank:
...I see no charges filed. ... |
I ask this in all sincerity: do charges have to be filed for a person to be detained? |
As far as I know No. |
That's kinda what I was thinking. Something like 24 or 48 hrs you can be held without being officially charged? |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 02:01:16 PM · #40 |
That's weird; when I was responding to the post before, it just said "But they didn't arrest him." Somehow in the interim it got more complicated ;-) My earlier post has no meaning in the new context...
R.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 02:09:37 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by rswank:
...I see no charges filed. ... |
I ask this in all sincerity: do charges have to be filed for a person to be detained? |
As far as I know No. |
4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No charges need to be filed but there needs to be probable cause for the detainment.
The police are only allowed to detain citizens when there are "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" (SAF) that you are involved in criminal activity.
This means you can't be detained on a "hunch." The police must have observed something about your behavior that links you to specific criminal activity. If you are detained without SAF, you are detained illegally. If this matter ever lands in court, you may be able to get off because the original detention on their part was illegal.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 02:23:55 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by rswank:
...I see no charges filed. ... |
I ask this in all sincerity: do charges have to be filed for a person to be detained? |
As far as I know No. |
4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No charges need to be filed but there needs to be probable cause for the detainment.
The police are only allowed to detain citizens when there are "specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion" (SAF) that you are involved in criminal activity.
This means you can't be detained on a "hunch." The police must have observed something about your behavior that links you to specific criminal activity. If you are detained without SAF, you are detained illegally. If this matter ever lands in court, you may be able to get off because the original detention on their part was illegal. |
True.
I have been detained before during a weird situation and I was told by the cops that it was for my safety and theirs while they sorted the situation out. So they have the gun the badge and the power to do it whether it's right or not is a different story and if it never makes it to court then they can do these things with almost no fear of repercussions.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 03:01:58 PM · #43 |
"He opened the gate and took me by my right hand," Cruz said.
"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down, had Neffy on the car and was telling him, "
"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him."
Two witnesses say he was basically dragged to the street. The police use the term "when we arreseted him". This does not mean that he was not on his property when he took the picture. It is careful wording. BTW - it is interesting to note that the Police use the term arrest.
And Holy Crap, I will not even address the folks here who say it is time to roll over on our civil liberties because it is a new world order. WTF!
Message edited by author 2006-07-27 15:07:20.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2006 03:03:32 PM · #44 |
True, best I can think of is there was an undercover policeman/women person involved. Hense the requirement to
a) not tell the person why they were being asked to not take pictures or
b) removing from the scene in general
or
c) Likely checking out the images on the phone to make sure the person was not caught on film.
The other times general public is asked not to take pictures is when someone underage is involved. Different rules again apply, (as anyone who has tried to take pictures of kids in a mall/park/etc... can attest too). |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 03:07:31 PM · #45 |
| "Can't we just get along"? |
|
|
|
07/27/2006 03:47:04 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
It is the mistake (IMO) to involve ACLU in this. That way you turn on yourself all the ACLU haters and you ruin your chances for any redemption. They should proceed silently, via legal means, and get their justice. (Unless, of course, they prefer publicity over justice).
Pretty soon someone will rip the guy's life apart, find that he tied a firecracker to a cat's tail when he was 9, and they'll proclaim him a communist/terrorist or whatever is the current scary word.
I agree with focuspoint on one point at least: Things like this happen every day everywhere, and if it is you, bad for you.
The sooner we get used to the fact that we are living in a tightly controlled society, the better we will be. We should adapt and forget about the liberties we should have. Be happy with the ones remaining...
The little paper about "photographers' rights" states that one has the right to take photos of police in a public place. There is also a disclaimer to check against local laws to see if there is one that overrides this general law.
The absence of prohibition means that it is allowed (or is it the other way around?) |
Yeah sure, private, silent legal means. Have you seen how much lawyers charge? Unless you are quite rich, you have no real option other than an organization like the ACLU.
So, your bottom line is that unless someone is rich enough to pursue justice through private, silent means, they should just shut up and take it lying down?
Just keep quiet until they kick down your door and drag you and your family off to the re-education center for heinous thoughtcrimes against the state? That's a GREAT approach.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/23/2025 11:26:15 AM EDT.
