Pixiq

Its the same old, “I got the gun, I got the badge, I got the uniform and the police car with the big insignia on the door and the lights on the roof. I AM the law here (and your rights don’t count for squat).”

I’m with you, Carlos. As soon I was out on the street I would’ve started flashing away just to make a statement for the First Amendment. I find this situation ironic as Haley Barbour at time was lobbyist for CBS.
Lawrence J. Smith´s last blog ..The Road to Individual Energy Independence | The Survival Podcast

If it had been me I would have continued snapping away and gotten arrested. Then I would sue the cops for false arrest and violating my civil rights. More people need to stand up and stop allowing these bully cops to get away with this shit.

Except that when you got to the police station you might have accidently tripped and fallen down a flight of stairs.

The trooper was out of line, but I don’t see what the governor did as being a problem. The Pentagon is taxpayer funded, that doesn’t mean I can waltz in and start taking pictures.

The real issue is the commercial. Their is alot of back and forth as to why the Gov. is in the commercial anyway. This commercial is BP funded. The state demanded the money be sent to the state and not the local tourism bureaus and all of a sudden the Gov. who will be running for national office soon (Think president) wanted 60 seconds of national air time. There is alot of frustrated people at Barbour. He has ignored the impending disaster coming towards our cost and has spent his time blasting media outlets for telling the truth about the spill. He is beginning to remind me of the mayor from Jaws…. The trooper is part of his special security detail and should know they law. John does I am sure but he already had his shots (they ran them with the article) .

So how did the governer “quash his rights”. Seems these articles have more lies then police reports. No wonder cops don’t like journalist, they twist everything to make a story out of nothing.

oscar-

the governor’s trooper threatened the photographer with false arrest for taking pictures from a public sidewalk, which is not a crime.

so the governor, via his trooper, squashed the photographer’s rights

get it?

Reaching.

The TROOPER quashed the guys rights illegally, not the governor.

Somehow many here seem to have concluded the governor ordered and/or approved of the trooper taking away this photographers rights.

The trooper could EASILY acted on his own. I doubt the governor followed this confrontation to the street side and told the cop audibly “Hey, don’t let him take pictures from the public street, either, and if he does, arrest him!”

The guy was screwed, but likely by the cop, not the governor.

As for the public aspect, the assertion that a commercial is funded by taxpayer money (how do we know this, also? Citation? Link? Proof?) doesn’t mean that anyone can come onto private property and photograph the commercial. The restaurant is private property being rented.

These type of leaps in logic and assertions damage the quality of the story, in my opinion.

That being said, the photographer was obviously screwed over by this cop and, as others have said, I’d have kept shooting from the sidewalk in a polite and non-disorderly fashion and let myself be arrested.

Mike S

Then say the trooper quashed his rights not the governor but that isn’t as sexy.

If the governor would not have had the photographer kicked out of the restaurant, would the trooper come out after him?

you ever hear of guilty by association?

the cops use it all the time on the public

and it is possible the trooper was told/ordered to take care of the photographer

The gov had every right to have the guy leave. You people sure care about your rights but apparently don’t care about other peoples rights.

oscar-

every right to have a guy arrested for taking pictures from a public sidewalk?

That was the trooper not the gov. If the cop shot the guy would that be the governors fault.

You people would be good cops, you twist things to fit your agenda and don’t care about the rights of others.

like i said in the above…guilty by association

the trooper was working for the governor aka the trooper’s boss. therefore, the governor is responsible for the trooper’s actions

are you an intern for the governor or something?

“You people would be good cops, you twist things to fit your agenda and don’t care about the rights of other”

it stings when it’s the other way around, doesn’t it?

Cops always seem to be “acting on [their] own” when they get called out for stuff like this. Must be a coincidence.

No it doesn’t sting but thanks for admitting your no different then the cops you cry about.

well, if it’s next to impossible to change the rules of the game so that all of us, including politicians and law enforcement play fairly and follow actual laws, then we/the public might as well jump into their game, and apply their “rules” against them

it’s an eye for an eye oscar in an unfair world where laws are created by greedy corporations and corrupt politicians and then enforced by crooked cops

More accurately still, the photographer ALLOWED his rights to be squashed (based on what we have presented to us here, the pj left, tail between legs).

That may be the expedient and perhaps even wisest move on his part (assuming the tripped-and-fell hypothetical situation) but it does a disservice to everyone by reinforcing the cop’s ‘I can make ‘em do anything I want, F their rights and the laws I swore to uphold’ mentality.

So making a point by arguable extension makes a writer equally guilty in terms of parity with an officer actually capable of wielding physical force and authority when threatening to illegally arrest someone? Would I then be as bad as a homophobic evangelist by telling you to stop sodomizing yourself with your own head and making a spectacle of yourself with 5 meaningless posts? Hypothetically, of course. I’m not judging you, just trying to understand you.

Oscar, let’s make it 6?

No Carlos, but there is a clear separation of responsibility here. Maybe the gov. was a turd but the cop was the one with the jack booted mentality.

“it’s an eye for an eye oscar in an unfair world where laws are created by greedy corporations and corrupt politicians and then enforced by crooked cops.”

Uhhhhhh……………………….no.

Uhhhhhh……………………….yes.

Get real discarted, greedy corporations and corrupt politicians are not the ONLY ones with their hands in that pie. There’s a whole plethora of interest groups who influence the law making process. Its called “broker rule democarcy”.

rusty-

i’m sorry to not have included the other “plethora of interest groups” in my comment, but rather only stuck to parties that were relevant to the conversation/post, i.e., politicians, cops, and corporations (BP)

next time i’ll make sure to include the long list of interest groups when discussing the law making process regardless of their relevance to the conversation

This was bright:

“discarted // May 24, 2010 at 12:58 PM

you ever hear of guilty by association?

the cops use it all the time on the public

and it is possible the trooper was told/ordered to take care of the photographer.”

There is no legal standard of “guilt by association”.

More amusing is the assertion: “It’s possible the trooper was told/ordered to take care of the photographer.”

Of course it’s possible. It’s also possible that you told him, I told him, a little birdie told him, – Anyone!

But to leap to such a conclusion with no proof or evidence is piss poor.

As someone else pointed out, had the cop shot him, would it have been the governernor’s fault?

The cop violated his rights, not the governor. He had no right to be on private property during a private event. No legal issue there. But what the cop did, well, that was infringement on his rights.

Now, in the odd case the governor said to the cop: “Hey, take him outside and if he continues to take photos from public land, arrest him!” the cop cannot legally abide by an unlawful order from any superior.

In the end, the photographer backed down to easily, the cop overstepped the law and the photographers rights and the governor did nothing wrong via any provable, known, evidence.

Mike S

Mike S

I didn’t know I concluded that the cop was told by the governor to take care of the photographer, but rather suggested it as a possibility.

Which, is far more likely a possibility than the inane suggestion that you, or me, or a little birdie told the cop to get rid of the photographer. That’s just a piss poor attempt at trying to prove your point.

Moreover, it seems like that you have concluded that the cop acted on his own accord without any real evidence or proof of your own to support this claim. But since that’s what you believe it must be factual and not impugned. So I’ll just agree with you—the cop acted on his own.

As far as the following:

“As someone else pointed out, had the cop shot him, would it have been the governernor’s fault?”

Fault and liability are completely different.

And you should preach the following to the cops.

There is no legal standard of “guilt by association”.

As well as to non-gang members in Los Angeles who have been effected by gang injunctions simply because of the people they occasionally hang out with. Well, use to hang out with.

Heady man, heady.

The trooper acted like a thug, but the venue is akin to a closed movie set. I used to work in the movie business and if we were filming on rented private property, no one was allowed on the set, let alone to take pics, unless the director gave the OK, or had been OK’d by the production company. Exceptions were union officials, like a SAG or Teamster business agent. And pictures certainly were not allowed. Even the still photog hired by the production company to document the shooting of the movie had to use the most quiet equipment possible, usually a Leica M or and SLR that was blimped to dampen sound.

The trooper acted like a thug, but the venue is akin to a closed movie set. I used to work in the movie business and if we were filming on rented private property, no one was allowed on the set, let alone to take pics, unless the director gave the OK, or had been OK’d by the production company. Exceptions were union officials, like a SAG or Teamster business agent. And pictures certainly were not allowed. Even the still photog hired by the production company to document the shooting of the movie had to use the most quiet equipment possible, usually a Leica M or and SLR that was blimped to dampen sound.