King5 Interview about "Film is Not a Crime"

[Sharkman3472]

If the base is not smart enough to hide their tanks on their property "During a Time Of War" thats their problem... Not this young kid whom is well with in his legal and Constitutional rights to be/do what he was doing. There is Supreme Court Rulings that protect photographs and video under the 1st amendment. Every thing I have said does address the issue AND blows every thing you said right out of the water. If he violated that federal law WHY WERE THERE NO CHARGES FILED.

[floridaman2000]

@Sharkman3472 the video taping of the military current, soon to be, and or retired is A VIOLATION of the security of the US and it would be potentially leaked to the US enemies where the government keeps our defenses, so he should be charged for attempt of espionage

[Sharkman3472]

I'm a former police officer... If you are on public property like this young man filming was, you can film and photograph until you are blue in the face, so as long as you don't interfere with other people's movement or the officer's investigation. These officers stepped on their dicks... The first officer said he had to go across the street, the second one said clear on the other side of the lights. Their female spokes woman was an idiot as well, its simple, filming on public property is OK

[stewartx5]

@Sharkman3472 '.. filming on public property is OK ..'

Once again, not when you're filming military property, hardware, arms, equipment, supplies, and so on. Read 18 U.S.C. § 793.

[Sharkman3472]

@stewartx5 Read the beginning of that statute a bit closer It says "Goes Upon" or "Flies Over" federal or military property. Going Upon means you have to physically be "Upon" the property. When you are beside or next to it you have NOT met the definition of this federal statute. If this guy violated this statute, why were all of his charges dropped? Its simple, they had no case. People photograph and video secret bases all the time from public property look at area 51.

[jayguy173]

viral yo

[OhMyHiggs]

Gangsters with badges.

[MPETE1976]

So, how did this end? Internal affairs concluded....?

[garagecrap]

OBEY!

[brianlowdown]

hey pig no your rights

[roboplant]

stop taking this shit. fight back

[emodude123123]

do any officers know our rights?

[wait887]

there job is not to protect your "rights," whatever those maybe. It's there job to protect government and generate revenue. Our rights are ideas that can only be defended by our action. No piece of paper will protect you

[andrewbnkjv]

Anything that violates our Constitution Rights is null and void. NULL and VOID.

If they violate your basic fundamental rights it is NULL AND VOID. Simple as that.

You have basic rights use them or loose them.

[andrewbnkjv]

Awesome.

[TQXPreturns]

we dont have rights anymore.

[stewartx5]

Those claiming a right to photograph whatever he wants should reconsider. Guy was filming military vehicles (see 1:13) at a shipping port with restricted access (and told by police to stop) while country is actively engaged in warfare. As such, he could have been charged with espionage under provisions of 1917 Espionage Act or with violating 18 USC 793 (Gathering...Defense Information). Courts (U.S. v. Morison and others) have ruled no need to show "evil purpose" - act itself is crime.

[highwaystar1009]

yes but he was filming from a public location which is completely legal.

[stewartx5]

Filming from a public location is legal, highwaystar1009. Filming military hardware located in a restricted area is not. If that were not true, all a spy, or other out to harm the USA, would have to do is film from a public location. This young man was filming through a clearly visible police line into a restricted area - and filming military hardware within that area for purposes unknown. These laws have been on the books for decades, so ongoing enforcement should not be a surprise.

[highwaystar1009]

u have a point! that's for sure :)

[Sharkman3472]

@stewartx5 Spies film from public spots all the time... thats been going on for long before WW1. As far 18 USC 793 a federal statute regarding espionage laws, the key words for that statute are "Goes Upon" and "Flies Over" military property. These guys did not "Go Upon" military property, they were on public property.

[stewartx5]

@Sharkman3472 > '.. did not "Go Upon" military property .."

Actually, the text is ".. goes upon, enters, flies over, OR OTHERWISE OBTAINS INFORMATION .." Since you seemed to have missed them, I capitalized the relevant words for greater emphasis.

[Sharkman3472]

@stewartx5 Part 1 "Otherwise obtains information" The problem with that is that it is the bases's responsibility to conceal their proprietary material. There is something called a "Higher or Lower expectation of privacy" That is the responsibility of the property holders, not the person on public property to control the base's expectation of privacy. If it can be observed from public property there is a "Lower" standard privacy for that area. If it can't bee seen there is a "Higher" standard.

[Sharkman3472]

@stewartx5 Part 2 Its no different than if you walk by a bank on public property and see the combination of the safe through their window that happened to be kept open. By the bank keeping that window open they just "lowered their expectation of privacy" for that area. A person could stand on that public property all day long and look inside that area. If the bank closes that window they have just created a "Higher expectation of privacy. Its the Base's responsibility to raise their expectaion

[stewartx5]

@Sharkman3472 Your comments get longer and longer, but don't address the issue. I again refer you to 18 U.S.C. § 793, with a reminder that we were engaged in a declared war at the time, with a necessity to transport military hardware by rail and ship. Even without a law, an ounce of common sense suggests that hardware should not be filmed for broadcast on a website visible worldwide. This could have easily led to those ships, or even that port, being attacked. Is that what you would prefer?

[Sharkman3472]

@stewartx5 Also remember the National News Media was going to broadcast their footage of the base on the news for everyone to see. What difference is it when the news does the recording versus a civilian. Check out Supreme Court Rulings on video/Photography on private property and 1st amendment. Also look at the kid that posted this 1st video he received an apology from the Police Department with no charges.I'm sorry those cops stepped on their dicks.

[stewartx5]

@Sharkman3472 Suggest you check out court rulings on 18 U.S.C. § 793, such as 1988 U.S. v. Morison (844 F.2d 1057) and others. And the kid was released without charges only after his intent and actions up to that point were deemed non-threatening, with a promise from him not to resume filming at that location. The officers acted appropriately, with no followup action taken against them.

[Sharkman3472]

@stewartx5 I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[wait887]

I can't think of a time that we have not been at war. That's a great excuse that government uses. "well we're at war, we need to take away all your freedoms for your security." I'm amazed people just toss aside the fact that we have a right to photograph. It's not a claim. It's enshrined in various state and federal constitution. It's also essential in a free society which we are quickly losing by the day.

[stewartx5]

wait887 > "we are quickly losing by the day."

Again, current laws regarding expionage, including photography of military hardware, have been on the books for almost 100 years, replacing laws predating those. If you think that's a day, you using a different calendar than any I've seen.

And there's not a word in the "federal constitution" about a right to photograph. But, even if there were, no freedom is absolute. Each must be balanced against other concerns - such as national security.

[DavidForthoffer]

Police spokeswoman: "It is a case by case basis."

Uh, no. A videographer can videotape anyplace an ordinary citizen can be, except in states with restrictions on audio recording.

[PatriotsForYou]

This happens all the time in Olympia WA

[d00deth]

"Why didn't you just do what they say?" -- Because blindly obeying 'authority figures' is the first step towards a dictatorship. The second step is those 'authority figures' being able to deprive you of liberty, demoralise you in the street, and treat you like a common criminal when you've committed no clear crime. Then again, every 'Cops (tv)' traffic stop has that treatment involved, so I'm assuming the US is an outright fascist state?

[ozeshutterbug]

@d00deth It is starting to get that way here in South Australia with SAPOL arresting a photographer for Disturbing the Peace for attempting to video the interview at the Adelaide railway station. I was told you can't take photos here, on a station. At this point I hadn't even used my camera, it was just in my hand. I turned it on while they were talking to me, & next grabbed by 2 other Officers from behind & cuffed.

[12345bybi]

shoulde told him its perfectly legal to film on public ground and to film anything on public ground or anyone on public ground

[TQXPreturns]

typical police

[flyingdrake]

what??!! how is LAW case by case??? sentencing yea but the idea of a rule of law is that it is to be applied to everyone equally!

[l0gically]

There is such a thing as case law - it's a significant part of our current legal system. In civil matters, legal precedent (other similar cases) can have a significant affect on the outcome.

[flyingdrake]

point, i didn't consider legal precedence.

[qazwas2001]

case by case is pig blather for "whatever I say"

[mi6QBranch]

I'm shooting Production stills for "Sex in the City" for the Studio.

[mi6QBranch]

I wish I could. Sounds like it will be informative. I'll be in NYC photographing that whole week but I hope everyone attending gets alot out of his lecture.

[mi6QBranch]

It

can likewise constitute a civil tort such as conversion. Law enforcement officers may have

the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order.

[Acumensch]

Yeah, that's from Bert Krages' website. That's useful information.

[mi6QBranch]

Whether your tone is sarcastic or not, the information is correct and follows the law. Anyone who disagrees can look it up in the Photographers Rights Handbook by the Author mentioned in Acumensch's post. I assume though that your post was sincere.

[mi6QBranch]

Sometimes agents acting for entities such as owners of industrial plants and shopping malls

may ask you to hand over your film. Absent a court order, private parties have no right to

confiscate your film. Taking your film directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or

call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion.

[AngryNotSoOldHippy]

God damned fascists!!!

[mi6QBranch]

You're all wrong. You have the right by LAW to film anything visible from a public space. This is nationwide LAW under the constitution and upheld by the supreme court. The Photographer was in the right if on Public space while filming.

[Acumensch]

Exactly, thanks mi6, and that's why the Police Department wrote me a letter apologizing for this incident, and I've been asked to file a lawsuit.

Know Your Rights!

Do you think I should make more videos which post the rights of the media?

[mi6QBranch]

Absolutely. I would make alot of Videos outlining a Photogs rights. People have to know so the harrassment of all of us stops. I was asked for my equipment by an overzealous guard at the Woolworth Building while shooting it from the sidewalk. He refused to allow me to leave and I threatened him with unlawful detainment. He backed off.

[floridaman2000]

@mi6QBranch you are wrong you douche

[Kreadus005]

Fire the cops, pay more, hire something other than jocks who lust for power.

[CavemanSynthesizer]

So a police officer can order "anything" and we have to obey? There are no limits to police power? Whoever thinks this needs to brush up on the meaning of "freedom"

[casmith245]

No you can disobey but then you can talk with a judge all you want about freedom.

[Quentyn73]

This sh*t does not happen in Europe.

You guys live in a police state

[thegman1985]

Yes it does. Dont lie, or ignore the G8 riots that take place whenever they meet. Edinburgh, Genova...shit you Europeans riot over soccer.

[wangfoo2]

You're right, in places like the UK it's accepted that you will be filmed everywhere.

Much less Orwellian there.

[SketchupDesigns12]

@Quentyn73 Yep I Lover Europe Better Than America Espically Italy

[strayvolts]

Funny thing is, the corporate media will report the original story, but never any follow up on the internal investigation. They report the first outrage, but not the continuing violation of our freedom, and the average brainwashed American forgets all about it.

[allo28]

"average brainwashed American forgets all about it". Its real sad, but i rekon its not just the average, but the nation as a whole suffers from the same.

[targetmann100]

maybe Probable Cause is the wrong word casmith but they need a reason to order people around i know the us call it self the land of the free and isent but they still need some reason to order people around no matter what you think

[casmith245]

Well you are in Denmark so you wouldn't know abut that now would you?

[targetmann100]

well you seams to be stupid what ever you say we will know in time wont we and i speak and write 3 langues fairly ok så what does that say about inteligence if you are gonna use the i am american thirfore i know more its clearly shows how stupid you are

[targetmann100]

i give up your right what ever happy now tsk tsk

[Acumensch]

Targetmann, casmith is wannabe police officer. She has an authority complex and needs to control people, and order them to do silly, hypocritical tasks. She said she was a law student as well, but she doesn't know basic concepts of law like 'burden of proof'. She probably thinks you're a "pussy" or a homosexual, and thinks everyone in the world should speak English. In short, she's a charlatan and it might be better to ignore her.

[casmith245]

I am a guy jack off

[targetmann100]

thats ok now be a man ok  tsk tsk

[targetmann100]

yeah ill rest my spamming here cause i se she gets on my nervs and make me say thing i dont like to say but i dont think the officers have right to talk to people like that or order them around whithout any reason respect is some all people should use and in that clip the tone was harsh no reason for that

[targetmann100]

i am sorry i took this down to a mud trow level but some people dont even listen at least i try to understand the officers actions and came to they were wrong so casmith245 sure have a authority complex as a objective wiew problem to even if it was me it happend to i would try to se if i was wrong here ..

[casmith245]

You were (passively) delaying. If the officer feels they have been clear and you are willfully hindering, delaying,or obstructing then you can be detained or arrested for obstruction.

[Acumensch]

What about my car being parked in the other direction?

What about the fact that protesters were allowed across the street, and I was asked to move 1/2 mile away?

And if their orders aren't clear (move across street, move down street)?

[casmith245]

Go back and get your car when they leave, So youare a half mile away you have a nice $4,500 camera they have the nice ZOOM invention.

[Acumensch]

Here are the circumstances:

That street was the only street to my car. They wouldn't have left that area when I left, since about 4 of them were stationed in a small booth about 30 yards from where I was standing, guarding the entrance to the Strykers.

So, in fact, they drove their cars just 30 yards from their booth location to my location.

It's a good training scenario for you to think about.

[casmith245]

a few things 1)It is not a good training scenario becuase I wouldn't be in that position. 2)Pack up and find a different location. And 3)Did they ever say something to the affect of "leave your car"?

[Acumensch]

And from a half mile away, at the light, the Stryker vehicles aren't visisble. Even if you have a telephoto lense you can't see them from that location.

[casmith245]

I refer you to #2 of my last comment. Pack up and move.

[Acumensch]

The 1st officer told me to "forget about" my car. Then he took it back and said "you'd better move it before it gets towed."

The officer in the video, however, didn't wait to hear the situation at all. He obviously wanted to arrest someone, without knowing anything.

No. Why should I move so far away? If protesters and news organizations are allowed either where I am or across the street, why should I have to move so far away?

You're an unreasonable fascist, just like him.

[casmith245]

Call me what ever you want. You are lucky you were not arrested. If you had just moved nothing would have happened.

[Acumensch]

"I don't care about your constitutional rights, son. I don't want to hear you complaining about them. I don't care about judges sitting in courtrooms with their black robes."

~Fascist Tacoma Police Officer

I hope you're just "exploring" the devil's advocate, Explorer Smith. I hope you don't turn out like the Gestapo in Tacoma.

[casmith245]

He doesn't care about your constitutional rights because he hadn't broken any of them. I wont be like them becuase when I talk to people I tereat them with more respect. I would be more like the first officer who contacted you. The only difference is I would have told the other officer to go. At the time the second officer arrived you were begining to comply, the first oficer should have told the other officer to shut up and leave.

[targetmann100]

why should he move its a public road are you by any chance a neocon the police was wrong

[casmith245]

No I am not a Neocon. He should move because he was told to if he doesn't usually he would have been arrested for obstructing. You are wrong targetman100

[targetmann100]

ok lets try this scenario do you think the police can just tell people to move or order them to shot down thier cam  whitout Probable cause and i am not agianst police but right gota be right

[casmith245]

They can ASK anything they want at any level of contact.

[targetmann100]

there you go he can ask but he diden in this case he orderd and thats were he need the Probable cause and he diden have any in this case

[casmith245]

NO an officer need probable cause to arrest or get a warrant in the US he can order him to move if he feels like it you are not american, you dont know american rights so stop making asumptions of them.

[targetmann100]

ohh and you know them .. unless you are a judge or lawyer you make your asumptions dont you and even those have problems whith the way to look at the laws so i guss you must be a superman whith the law

[casmith245]

I know a hell of a lot more about American and the state of Washington laws then you do dude. and NO i AM NOT A LAWYER OR A JUDGE I despise both with few exceptions.

[targetmann100]

are you sure about that cause you sure seam like a moron

[casmith245]

I know that I know more then about law you dumbass I live hear and i volunteer with the police. You however are making assumptions based on what you think laws are now either crack open an american law book or stop raising pointless comments.

[targetmann100]

why its his right to stand there the police dont get to say were you can be unless you do something wrong its a public road

[casmith245]

they can do a social contact and ask him to move which they did he did not comply and he should have been arrested for obstructing.

[Chiron9012]

Here is a TPD "event" that I called 911 about. Girl in front of my house tweaking out of her mind, picking up little pieces of bark ,rocks and graveland trying to smoke it. Cops comes...she is not able to control her body movements, and cops says for her to move on...she did not, he said he bet she did not want to be searched..she said no...more than probable cause, but they left her standing there. I find the law rather confusing.

[Chiron9012]

She did start wandering away, and was found the next day in a neighbors enclosed with a door back porch, on her hands and knees still trying to smoke rocks and bark and anything she thought was crack...cops came again....just told her to move on. So it is FINE to do crack in Tacoma so you all please come here cause they cops do not care about drugs, just video cams.

[Chiron9012]

not to mention the breaking and entering.... so the law is what ever the cop decides, nothing to do with the real law it seems.

[casmith245]

There is no such law as breaking and entering it is called burglary in the state of Washington.

[casmith245]

Since it is Pierce County it is probably methamphetamine not crack Pierce County is the #1 meth area in the state for labs and users.

[Acumensch]

If the legality of any situation is based on a case-by-case basis, then why worry about the legality of the situation in the first place? What does case-by-case-basis essentially say, and what does it say about our rights? Every person's rights are merited on a case-by-case basis?

[casmith245]

We all have right those are not on a case by case basis. What I assume the spokesperson means is when a officer contacts a person they will decide on a case by case basis where it goes. You were not arrested because officers have discretion they can let you go or you could be jailed and brought to court.

[Acumensch]

case-by-case means use your best judgment then, right?

But now the judgments have been made, and she can't evaluate whether they were the best judgments or not? I don't think she's very confident that these were the best judgments.

[casmith245]

No spokesperson can ever replace what the officer is thinking at the time he detains you no matter how hard they try. She does not evaluate their decision she informs the REAL mediaabout your comlaint. That is all public spokespeople do.

[nyp8triot]

Being told to move is well within a Police Officers scope of authority....questioning it isn't illegal, unless as a result of the questioning you fail to comply. No...PO's do NOT need to explain their orders to the average citizen.

[Acumensch]

I'm really sorry, but to show them that I was complying I started to move already.

That is a public street, and I drove through it on my way to that location. But they seemed to not care that my car was in the opposite direction they were telling me to go. I couldn't even tell them because they weren't listening.

[casmith245]

If you were complying then a second officer would not have been needed. Also I like it that you only show it from when the second officer starts contacting you. If you still have the entire contact I would like to see it. If you were completely complying why don't you post the entire contact?

[Acumensch]

I gave the full footage to King5. It's on their site.

[Acumensch]

"obstructing an officer" (RCW 9A.76.020)

"A person is guilty of [obstruction] if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of [his] official powers or duties."

Casmith, will you please elaborate on which of the three (hindering, delaying, or obstructing) I was actively or passively taking part in?

I ask in advance if 'orders' are unclear, or do not perceive the entire situation, is the suspect immediately detained for obstruction?

[Acumensch]

Here's a question I've been struggling with:

What does it mean to say that we're now making arrests on a "case-by-case basis"? It's not "If you do X, then Y will happen," the spokesperson says, and there's "no clear line drawn in the sand."

[grangersmith]

To me these videos are evidence of illegal actions by the police. This police officer should be fired, he is obviously using his own personal political agenda to use his power,against all protestors.Tacoma police and city council are corrupt, and need to be cleaned out from the city hall to the police.They are pro war right wingers using their powers outside of the law.

[casmith245]

Nothing these officers did was outside their power, don't like it move.

[casmith245]

that is a very big generalization. I know people at TPD they are very nice when off duty or in the vehicle. Police are only asses when they are contacting people.

[onemissourian]

Two things: much of their job involves interacting with citizens, so they should probably know how to do it responsibly; more importantly, it's pretty important to note the distinction between being an ass and unlawfully detaining someone. They're not just assholes, they're criminals.

[casmith245]

They are not criminals they are doing nothing wrong which the internal investigation will show.

[Acumensch]

If the internal investigation yields nothing good. That is, if they don't apologize or reform their department in any way, then there will be an external investigation that I'm ready to pursue.

[casmith245]

Oh so in other words if you don't like the results you are going to keep bitching till you get results you like. They have NO reason to reform their department they have done nothing wrong.

[Cakbug]

Earlier in the week, I was harassed by the police for filming as well. Very quickly they realized that they do not have the right to take film without reasonable suspicion. Although, I did have to submit my information to Homeland Security.

[Acumensch]

This happened to me on Tuesday of last week. But I was completely alone--that's partly why officers were so obnoxious.

[casmith245]

The officer has done nothing wrong the officer is probably enjoying paid leave for this.

[rspawn]

Police gets rewarded with paid leave for arresting a camera man? You got to be kidding.

[casmith245]

HE WASN'T ARRESTED. He was detained and since there is an internal investigation going on they are mostlikely suspended with pay while it is getting sorted out.

[rspawn]

Police gets rewarded with paid leave for detaining a camera man? You got to be kidding.

[casmith245]

they were not rewarded they were given paid administrative leave that is not a reward.

[rspawn]

If it's not a reward than what is it?

[casmith245]

A demerit on his permanent record as an officer that someone has lodged a complaint against them.

[onemissourian]

So what if he was only detained? It seems that he was detained unlawfully. There should be more serious consequences for officers who violate constitutional rights.

[casmith245]

They did not violate his rights anywhere in this case which the internal investigation will show.

[queny2]

So paracop casmith the inside word is they have the conclusion, now they just need the facts for the internal investigation?

[casmith245]

I have a hard time understanding your question queny2. But an internal investigation will review everything.

[Acumensch]

They haven't proved to be trustworthy to the media. How can we trust their "internal" investigations?

[casmith245]

Oh and the media is the glowing gem of perfection in the american society. They answer the tough questions who is Anna Nicoles babby daddy? Should I wear this pair of shoes with these pants? Am I fat?

[queny2]

casmith, normally the result of an investigation is formulated at it's conclusion, after the facts are gathered and assessed. You announced what the investigation WOULD determine, as a claimed police insider, severely undermining it's credibility.

[casmith245]

No I ment that that was my opinion based on my law enforcement knowledge. There was nothing done illegaly to this mans rights in my opinion like thousands of other BS claims investigated by IA.

[Acumensch]

Law-Student-Charlatan (casmith), I agree that the media focuses on many trivial questions. Zizek, Chomsky and Jameson have analyzed that subject convincingly.

[casmith245]

Stop calling me a charlatan you have no proof of that.

[Acumensch]

The proof is that you don't know what any reasonable law student would know the burdens of prosecuting and defending. You don't know how "proof" works in law.

And a student is one who studies something or other. You may be "enrolled" in law classes. But you don't "study" law like the real scholastici would, I'm sorry.

[jmpmo03]

He's right the cops honestly DON"T know the laws or our freedoms. We have rights, man!

[AuntBee09]

i think that the police can detain anyone they want for no offical reason for a max of 24 hours. someone tell me if i'm wrong.

[lakewood78]

You are wrong. Police have to have "probable cause". To stop and detain someone police have to have reasonable grounds for believing that person has committed a crime. They cannot simply detain anyone for any reason they want. And good cops wouldn't want to do that. They respect other people as much as we should respect them. We are free Americans. We have the right to peacefully go about our lawful business without interference from anyone.

[lakewood78]

Police have to have "probable cause". To detain someone they have to have reasonable grounds for believing a crime has been committed. They cannot simply detain anyone for any reason. And good cops wouldn't want to. They have as much respect for us as we should have for them. We are free Americans. We have a right to go peacefully about our lawful business without interference.

[casmith245]

Thats wrong they need what is called "Reasonable Suspicion" to detain (developed in Terry V. Ohio a supreme Court case)most detentions are around 20 mins although it can be longer if the officer deems it necessary.

[Acumensch]

In order for "reasonable suspicion" the suspect must either have been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.

I told them I was with independent media. What criminal activity could they have reasonably suspected I was involved in?

[casmith245]

They didnt in the begining it was what police call a social contact which could be as simple as "Nice out today isn't it sir?". But when they asked you to move and you did not it then jumped from Social Contact to Probable Cause/ arrest for Obstucting a Law Enforcement Officer.

[Acumensch]

Actually I was moving where I was told. He checked to be sure it was also okay I could film from where I was told too.

Then told to move a half-mile away. Everyone else, media, protesters, public, were able to be either where I was or across that street.

Why would I have to move down the street a half-mile?

[casmith245]

because you were told to and that still is Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer

[targetmann100]

ohh no its not the police is not the law they have to follow it just as civilian people all they have is some tooles to do thier job

[casmith245]

The police in the US (I know it is hard to get from Denmark) have the power to contact people in a system

1. Social contact (or what this started as)

2. Terry stop

3.PC (Probable cause)

[targetmann100]

if its so cut and clear why does the internal affair or how its spelled looking into it of cause the police can contact him no problem there the problem is this nothing was going on there the officers clearly diden have what you say Probable cause to do that and you are wrong they cant order people to move if they have no ground or Probable cause to tell him not very hard to get even from denmark since the police laws rules etc etc are almost the same in all western contrys

[casmith245]

Because he filed a complaint whith the department which he is allowed to do. Internal affairs investigates all citizen complaints that they recieve some are obviously BS like a cpmplaint was logged against an officer for how he held his flashlight on a traffic stop.

[targetmann100]

yes but this one here isent bs they were vialating his rights because they diden have any Probable cause but they created one because he diden do as they sayed thats intrapment and yes of cause there are morons that complaint about silly stuff but in this case i have to back the young man up it was wrong of them but how wrong i dont know a i am sorry would do it for me ....

[casmith245]

Yes it is BS because they didn't need Probable Cause because he wasn't arrested. Also it is not entrapment (if you are going to spell it spell it right or click spell check). So you are wrong that simple. It is not entrapment read the deffinition of entrapment in the state of Washington.

[targetmann100]

listen here i dont know if you are stupid a cop cant just walk around and tell people to move just for the hell of it or detain cause he feel like it get it in to you thick head it dosent take a american citezen to figure that out no matter what western contry you are in at least i can make my self understandble in your langue can you in mine there goes your gramma check

[casmith245]

I am american I speak read and write english I dont care about your language. Get it through your thick skull and officer can order someone to do something.

[targetmann100]

no an officer cant moron go ask any of them if they out of the blue can order people around whoth no reason AND GET THIS NUMNUT THE WORLD IS BIGGER THAN THE STATS AND I DIDEN ASK FOR YOU TO CARE ABOUT MY LANGUE IDIOT NOW HUSH AND GET A JOB AND OF YOUR MOMS PC OK ...

[casmith245]

Ha ha ha if you are going to insult me at least spell it correctly. So you go get your thumb out you ass and stop trying to argue a point that you know nothing about.

[grangersmith]

So doesn't that appear to be entrapment. He used the social contact to turn it into obstruction. The police officer was definately aggresive, looking for an excuse. This power is very facist, police are public servants not guestopo...

[casmith245]

If police where guestapo they would have beat him down and arrested him for no reason. He was not injured during this, nor was he arrested. There was nothing over agressive. They were not looking for an excuse and look up the RCW for entrapment(RCW 9A.16.070

).It says "The defense of entrapment is not established by a showing only that law enforcement officials merely afforded the actor an opportunity to commit a crime."

[targetmann100]

no it diden caue they have to have a Probable Cause to tell him to move and there wasent any and they can for damm sure not order the cam of

[casmith245]

No they don't need probable cause to tell him to move they can do a social contact and ask him to move which they did he did not comply and he should have been arrested for obstructing.

[AuntBee09]

i thought about it, and i realized that was wrong. i heard that cops can hold you 24 hours WITHOUT CHARGING YOU WITH ANYTHING. that was it. sry about my confusion.

[Pratchettgaiman]

good for you, Joe