Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
dlofton wrote:
dlofton wrote:
We have a photo of it from the road - I was thinking of one from you house?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Video of Norfolk PD Officer Unlawfully Detaining Gun Owners and Interfering in Videotaping
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
imported post
On Duty vs Off Duty.....
On Duty = You are working your normal shiftto cover your40 hour work week.
Off Duty =You are NOT working any hours covered by your 40 hour work week.
OK... two variations of Off Duty
1. You are not working at all
2.You are working an off duty assignment
You are permitted to exercise police powers at any time... working or not.
Many departments will identify limitations on when they want you to act if you are not working. They want to limit your involvement in situations where you have no radio, cuffs, mace, baton, and vest.
The only real difference betweenexercising police powers while not working and workingis that if you do something when you arenot working... you may have to report the incident to a supervisor and document it in a written report where it would not otherwise be required.
So in the Danbus case.... The officer appears to be in full uniform so I would suspect he is on duty or is working an off duty assignment.
In regards to being video taped.... I think it is a natural for anyone being taped to become uncomfortable and want it to stop. The officer in this case should understand that it is allowed and he is in public. He can ask for it to be stopped but is in no position to demand it to cease.
Ask yourself how you would feel if a stranger walked up and started video taping you as you bought groceries in the store. I am confident you would not like it one bit and do what you could to make it stop.
On Duty vs Off Duty.....
On Duty = You are working your normal shiftto cover your40 hour work week.
Off Duty =You are NOT working any hours covered by your 40 hour work week.
OK... two variations of Off Duty
1. You are not working at all
2.You are working an off duty assignment
You are permitted to exercise police powers at any time... working or not.
Many departments will identify limitations on when they want you to act if you are not working. They want to limit your involvement in situations where you have no radio, cuffs, mace, baton, and vest.
The only real difference betweenexercising police powers while not working and workingis that if you do something when you arenot working... you may have to report the incident to a supervisor and document it in a written report where it would not otherwise be required.
So in the Danbus case.... The officer appears to be in full uniform so I would suspect he is on duty or is working an off duty assignment.
In regards to being video taped.... I think it is a natural for anyone being taped to become uncomfortable and want it to stop. The officer in this case should understand that it is allowed and he is in public. He can ask for it to be stopped but is in no position to demand it to cease.
Ask yourself how you would feel if a stranger walked up and started video taping you as you bought groceries in the store. I am confident you would not like it one bit and do what you could to make it stop.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
DT
DT
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Some learn to work comfortably while being audio/video monitored. Railroad engineers, pilots, reactor plant operators...
"It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it!"
Some learn to work comfortably while being audio/video monitored. Railroad engineers, pilots, reactor plant operators...
"It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it!"
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
He can ask, or even demand but when unlawful touching starts, things get more complicated.
Using your example....I would ask once, than take the camera away. Illegal, YES!
LEO 229 wrote:
It appeared in the video that he was reaching for the camera, 229.
He can ask, or even demand but when unlawful touching starts, things get more complicated.
Using your example....I would ask once, than take the camera away. Illegal, YES!
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I had a former co-worker who hated to becalmly observedwhile he was working.He usually shutup when I asked him if he was doing something he didn't want others to know about.
LEO 229 wrote:
One has to wonder why this was included in the post. It was going well when he agreed it was improper for the LEO to order the recording suspended. More police apologizing? (rhetorical question)
I had a former co-worker who hated to becalmly observedwhile he was working.He usually shutup when I asked him if he was doing something he didn't want others to know about.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Citizen wrote
Is it strange to expect fecal matter to exit one's anus? That's just what an ass does.
;-)
Citizen wrote
Consider the source.
Is it strange to expect fecal matter to exit one's anus? That's just what an ass does.
;-)
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Now, if I plan to break the law and don't want proof, yeah, I'm going to get uncomfortable.
It's a legal turnabout really. Don't you love those cops that when told that I don't consent to any searches will then tell me "Well, refsual to consent is probable cause, becase you must have something to hide if you're saying 'no.'" Same goes for this, eh? If he doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't he want us to see? With, of course, the glaring exception that the video taping is 100% legal, and a search without consent or probable cause, is not...
How he 'feels' about it is irrelevant. I think your bleeding heart is showing.... There is nothing he has a legal right to do to stop it, yet he crosses that line anyway.
LEO fail.
LEO 229 wrote:
Nah, why would I do that? If they want to waste their time taping me as I do nothing interesting for an hour, fine by me... In fact, I laugh at this person for having nothing better to do.
Now, if I plan to break the law and don't want proof, yeah, I'm going to get uncomfortable.
It's a legal turnabout really. Don't you love those cops that when told that I don't consent to any searches will then tell me "Well, refsual to consent is probable cause, becase you must have something to hide if you're saying 'no.'" Same goes for this, eh? If he doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't he want us to see? With, of course, the glaring exception that the video taping is 100% legal, and a search without consent or probable cause, is not...
How he 'feels' about it is irrelevant. I think your bleeding heart is showing.... There is nothing he has a legal right to do to stop it, yet he crosses that line anyway.
LEO fail.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
Thanks for the support, otherwise.
ixtow wrote:
No offense, Ixtow. But that might have been better unedited.
Thanks for the support, otherwise.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Just making a point Citizen... or is this not allowed? Oh wait... as you said.. " It was going well when he agreed it was improper for the LEO" so what I posted wasgood if I agreed that the cop was wrong...!! But if I try to posting something else to think about and take into consideration.. THAT is somehow wrong.
The rules are easy and obvious on this forum.... You are permitted to agree that a LEO was wrong. But you are not permitted to post anything to make people understand an opposing side.
There is clearly no apology here by me so please stop trying to play that angle.I am not going to side with him as he had no standing to order the taping to stop while out in public.
I will say that I understand why he would not want to be video taped as this can be creepy. You never know what will be done with the tape or how it will be manipulated.
Copsare not trained in the academyto react to being taped or photographed. This takes some exposure so you can become accustomed to it.
I am.
Citizen wrote:
Just making a point Citizen... or is this not allowed? Oh wait... as you said.. " It was going well when he agreed it was improper for the LEO" so what I posted wasgood if I agreed that the cop was wrong...!! But if I try to posting something else to think about and take into consideration.. THAT is somehow wrong.
The rules are easy and obvious on this forum.... You are permitted to agree that a LEO was wrong. But you are not permitted to post anything to make people understand an opposing side.
There is clearly no apology here by me so please stop trying to play that angle.I am not going to side with him as he had no standing to order the taping to stop while out in public.
I will say that I understand why he would not want to be video taped as this can be creepy. You never know what will be done with the tape or how it will be manipulated.
Copsare not trained in the academyto react to being taped or photographed. This takes some exposure so you can become accustomed to it.
I am.
imported post
ixtow wrote:
I try to help out and post what I believe is a value to the board but opinions and facts are all treated the same way! If they are not against the target... they are unacceptable!! The entire post is not suspect.
Not sure whyI even try... Some members cannot get past their own biased views to see the value in what is being posted.
Even Citizen had to post an attack on what he found wasin agreement to the topic at hand.
I cannot win either way...
Some members simply cannot look past their differences and accept what someone else posts. They are compelled to attack it just because it is there.
ixtow wrote:
Gee.... Thanks!!
I try to help out and post what I believe is a value to the board but opinions and facts are all treated the same way! If they are not against the target... they are unacceptable!! The entire post is not suspect.
Not sure whyI even try... Some members cannot get past their own biased views to see the value in what is being posted.
Even Citizen had to post an attack on what he found wasin agreement to the topic at hand.
I cannot win either way...
Some members simply cannot look past their differences and accept what someone else posts. They are compelled to attack it just because it is there.
imported post
peter nap wrote:
As I said..... no law against taping anyone in public with exception of trying to video up a gal's skirt.
I would not expect everyone to like being taped and can understand if theyexpress their displeasure on it.
peter nap wrote:
Oh Certainly... Touching or going after the camera is beyond a request.
As I said..... no law against taping anyone in public with exception of trying to video up a gal's skirt.
I would not expect everyone to like being taped and can understand if theyexpress their displeasure on it.
Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
There's a technical term for that, "witness intimidation".
LEO 229 wrote:
A better analogy would be you're burning a cross on an interracial couple's lawn and the victims' friend is videotaping you while you do it. I am confident you would not like it one bit and do what you could to make it stop.
There's a technical term for that, "witness intimidation".
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Oh, Christ. Here we go again.
He's "just" making a point?
He gives us "something else to take into consideration"? Why? Unless we're supposed to somehow sympathize and feel less strongly that something wrong was done,aka apologizing for the police officer.
"Oh, its understandable. Therefore, its not as bad. Just a little everyday, normal reaction. Don't judge too harshly."
Nevermind. I'm not going to go any further with it. Its not worth it.
LEO 229 wrote:
Oh, Christ. Here we go again.
He's "just" making a point?
He gives us "something else to take into consideration"? Why? Unless we're supposed to somehow sympathize and feel less strongly that something wrong was done,aka apologizing for the police officer.
"Oh, its understandable. Therefore, its not as bad. Just a little everyday, normal reaction. Don't judge too harshly."
Nevermind. I'm not going to go any further with it. Its not worth it.
imported post
Deanimator wrote:
Nobody here is talking about cross burning or race relations.
You walk up to any stranger on the street who is doing nothing but walking and I am confident they will not approve of you filming them. They may just kick your ass if you do not stop.
Deanimator wrote:
Not sure where you are going with that.
Nobody here is talking about cross burning or race relations.
You walk up to any stranger on the street who is doing nothing but walking and I am confident they will not approve of you filming them. They may just kick your ass if you do not stop.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Deanimator wrote:
Good point.
Of course, if I'm buying groceries in a store, I'm a little different than if I'm a police officerengaging a citizen adversarily.
Well, maybe not, some of the vegetables in the produce section look prehhhhttyadversarial sometimes.
"Hey!! Turn off that cam-corder. I don't want you to record what I'm gonna do to this lippy, back-talking, unintimidated artichoke!"
Deanimator wrote:
Good point.
Of course, if I'm buying groceries in a store, I'm a little different than if I'm a police officerengaging a citizen adversarily.
Well, maybe not, some of the vegetables in the produce section look prehhhhttyadversarial sometimes.
"Hey!! Turn off that cam-corder. I don't want you to record what I'm gonna do to this lippy, back-talking, unintimidated artichoke!"
imported post
Citizen wrote:
The members here do not need YOU to criticise my posts. They can read them and decide as they like. But you feel you need to do this for some reason. Mostly because I speak from both sides. You cannot accept this.
Now you are planting words and setting a stage. I said nothing about sympathy or apology... YOU DID! I only suggested you think about how it would feel to be video taped. Could you see yourself telling someone to stop?
Sure you could. But you would never admit it here. Youwant others to believe that this copLOVES to be taped and would only want someone to stop ifhe was committing a crime.
Oddly enough... another member posts the same way of thinking as his analogy is geared toward a crime being video taped.
This board is a lost cause... you only want to hear what makes you happy. Yourefuse to allow the truth to be posted without a full blown attack.
Case in point.... my post where you liked what was said but the ending was bad, bad, BAD!!!!
I do not mind if someone has a question about an opinion. But you have no question. All you have is an attack and you attempt to belittle the author.
"More police apologizing? (rhetorical question)"
Citizen wrote:
You are the one you started it.... you could not let it go. YOU had to point it out for all to see and make note of.
The members here do not need YOU to criticise my posts. They can read them and decide as they like. But you feel you need to do this for some reason. Mostly because I speak from both sides. You cannot accept this.
Now you are planting words and setting a stage. I said nothing about sympathy or apology... YOU DID! I only suggested you think about how it would feel to be video taped. Could you see yourself telling someone to stop?
Sure you could. But you would never admit it here. Youwant others to believe that this copLOVES to be taped and would only want someone to stop ifhe was committing a crime.
Oddly enough... another member posts the same way of thinking as his analogy is geared toward a crime being video taped.
This board is a lost cause... you only want to hear what makes you happy. Yourefuse to allow the truth to be posted without a full blown attack.
Case in point.... my post where you liked what was said but the ending was bad, bad, BAD!!!!
I do not mind if someone has a question about an opinion. But you have no question. All you have is an attack and you attempt to belittle the author.
"More police apologizing? (rhetorical question)"
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
Ah, the cop-haters come crawling out of the woodwork. Good, I was afraid something bad had happened to them, since we hadn't heard from them in a while. Good to know they're still alive.
Ah, the cop-haters come crawling out of the woodwork. Good, I was afraid something bad had happened to them, since we hadn't heard from them in a while. Good to know they're still alive.
razor_baghdad
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I hate dog-piling as much as the next guy, but this is truly a dumb quote.
Buying groceries has nothing, NOTHING in common with a sworn law enforcement officer while conducting his duties.....ie....LEO's are not trained...
You seem to think it's 'OK' for the LEO to do whatever he wants to stop the video..I'm dumbfounded that you don't see the $$$$$ signs that the PD's are paying for jack-ass cops like this one who think the same way you do. Amazing.
You opened that door.....no-one else, so the whole pity plea holds no merit.
Just as you don't necessarily agree with a lot of the posts on here, no-one is bashing you for your opinion, we're simply stating ours....eta.....if the dog deserves a pile....:shock:
LEO 229 wrote:
I hate dog-piling as much as the next guy, but this is truly a dumb quote.
Buying groceries has nothing, NOTHING in common with a sworn law enforcement officer while conducting his duties.....ie....LEO's are not trained...
How is it that an LEO can be trained in the use of 'radio, cuffs, mace, baton, and vest', but NOT be trained in how to conduct himself LEGALLY when an incident like Danbus's arises?
You seem to think it's 'OK' for the LEO to do whatever he wants to stop the video..I'm dumbfounded that you don't see the $$$$$ signs that the PD's are paying for jack-ass cops like this one who think the same way you do. Amazing.
You opened that door.....no-one else, so the whole pity plea holds no merit.
Just as you don't necessarily agree with a lot of the posts on here, no-one is bashing you for your opinion, we're simply stating ours....eta.....if the dog deserves a pile....:shock: