Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
San Diego 7 photo gallery — Just Be Love All Stay Cool
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Retired Philly Cop Joins Occupy Wall Street, Criticizes NYPD For Aggressive Tactics
A retired Philadelphia police captain has donned his old uniform and come out in full support of Occupy Wall Street activists, harshly criticizing the NYPD for its aggressive crackdown early Tuesday morning, which included the arrest of ten journalists.
Holding a sign stating “NYPD Don’t Be Wall Street Mercenaries,” Ray Lewis was interviewed in the above video, saying police should have negotiated with activists instead of bullrushing them as they did.
The New York Observer confirmed he retired in 2004.
“You should, by law, only use force to protect someone’s life or to protect them from being bodily injured OK? If you’re not protecting somebody’s life or protecting them from bodily injury, there’s no need to use force. And the number one thing that they always have in their favor that they seldom use is negotiation–continue to talk, and talk and talk to people. You have nothing to lose by that,” Mr Lewis said. “This bullrush–what happened last night is totally uncalled for when they did not use negotiation long enough.”
“They complained about the park being dirty. Here they are worrying about dirty parks when people are starving to death, where people are freezing, where people are sleeping in subways and they’re concerned about a dirty park. That’s obnoxious, it’s arrogant, it’s ignorant, it’s disgusting,” Mr. Lewis said.
Lewis also believes there is a division among rank-and-file police officers and their commanding officers regarding views about the movement.
“I’m their worst enemy, especially with the white shirts, the bosses OK? Some of the fellow cops they might be thinking, you know, ‘That guy, he’s got a point,’ but the bosses, i’m their number one enemy,” Mr. Lewis said.
Comments
"You should, by law, only use force to protect someone’s life or to protect them from being bodily injured OK? If you’re not protecting somebody’s life or protecting them from bodily injury, there’s no need to use force"
Nonsense. Police officers are legally permitted to use force to gain compliance when arresting people as well. If you tell someone to leave the park and they refuse or lock arms, police can use force to make them comply.
I've had to use force to get people in handcuffs to arrest them for a variety of crime that didn't involve protecting someone from bodily injury. I wonder how this guy did it?
An unlawful order carries no legal force. Disobeying an unlawful order is not a criminal act.
I rather doubt that shooting someone with a shotgun, even one loaded with a less-lethal projectile (by definition, still a dangerous weapon), is a proportionate and proper use of force.
Johnny Law, you, with that kind of attitude, are the type who we do not need as a police officer.
We know cops are "legally permitted" to do whatever they want, even if it doesn't say so in the books.
But what did all that aggression accomplish?
Sure, the park was cleared of tents, but the activists have not gone away.
And now all the media companies and organizations are pissed and will probably be filing lawsuits.
And more people around the country are taking notice and are mostly siding with the activists.
If the past two months have taught us anything, it is that the activists are not going to back down to physical escalations from police.
So wouldn't it make sense for the cops to figure out a different strategy?
"So wouldn't it make sense for the cops to figure out a different strategy?"
And what strategy would that be? This movement has no leadership for the police to communicate with. My city has (or had) one of these Occupy freak shows. When it first formed everyone in city hall wanted to respect their right to protest so much we were ordered to ignore the violations of our anti-camping laws.
We watched as this tent city went up and became more and more disfunctional. Drug use started happening regularly. We got reports of women being assaulted. Fights happened all the time. People were pissing and shitting in public. It turned into a circus.
We tried to negotiate with them about the setup of the camp and explained the lack of sanitation and conditions created a real public safety hazard. Keep in mind that this is the reason we had all those anti-camping laws in the first place.
Every effort to deal with them failed because they took every contact as an attempt to stifle their freedom of speech. Last I checked, the freedom of speech didn't allow you to create a fire hazard or a biohazard. It didn't help that the camp had no leaders and no effort was made to create any.
Finally the decision was made to clear it out for public safety. Keep in mind we didn't prohibit any protesting. We simply had to make the area safe by enforcing pre-existing laws.
Of course some people refused to let us clean it up so we had to use force to accomplish these goals. Man I wish Carlos had been there so he could have proposed to magic alternate communications strategy that would have saved us all that trouble.
Sometimes I think you people are so blinded by hatred of the police that you refuse to see the actual facts right in front of your face. These camps are unsafe and the police are simply doing what has to be done to ensure public safety. Hell the protesters in Oakland and NY can protest, they just can't put up a tent city. What is so hard to understand about that?
Johny your logic was all good until the police chose to break federal law by not allowing the news reporters to cover the event. How simple is it to just NOT break the law. Even when your right, you can get it right. The whote shirts are so fucking arrogant they INSIST on breaking the law. YOU just cant help yourselves. What is so hard about the fact that the press has a right to document your actions. The law is the Law. They BROKE the law when they stopped reporters from covering the event
Rich,
We're not talking about the rights of journalists right now. We're talking about the legal right for police to use to force to shut down these camps.
For the record, I think it is stupid to single out reporters. There are so many camera phones out there that it is impossible to prevent video from getting out anyway so it would be pointless to try to restrict it (plus illegal).
However just because you call yourself a reporter doesn't mean that you have a special right to stay in an area once the police give a legal order to disperse.
Although some level of force is necessary, but do you normally assault unarmed civilians for non-compliance?
The use of force should match the threat. Civil disobedience is not a justification to strike, shoot at, or injure unarmed and nonviolent persons. Non-compliance and resisting arrest are two different things.
I remember a year or so ago St. Petersburg, FL Police eradicated a large tent city without assaulting anyone. Since when is a protest any different? It is entirely possible to arrest or physically remove someone without "smashing heads."
We should be disgusted with what's going on on Oakland or NYC regardless of whether you agree with the movement or not. There's a reason why credentialed journalists are being arrested, airspace is being closed from media coverage, and city cameras are being shut down.
I find it quite amusing the people who believe in police accountability are accused of being anti-police.
"I remember a year or so ago St. Petersburg, FL Police eradicated a large tent city without assaulting anyone. Since when is a protest any different? It is entirely possible to arrest or physically remove someone without "smashing heads."
Perhaps the people at that tent city in FL didn't put up barricades or throw items at the officers? The protesters in Oakland were violent and refused to leave.
I really think you people are living in a fantasy world. If the police give people orders to leave the park and get shit thrown at them, what the hell are they supposed to do? Stand there and take it? Just keep asking until once party falls asleep? Sooner or later you have to physically make them comply.
Check out the latest video where a campus PD sprayed a bunch of SITTING students with pepper spray. How is sitting violent? Again, if someone needs to be removed, pick them up and move them.
This whole sanitation and public safety argument is complete BS. Police everywhere are trying to use this very very stupid argument as rational to clear people out.
I guarantee if you any jail you walk into in any state is 10 times more unsanitary than any encampment setup in any city.
"Drug use started happening regularly" ..Yeah right. What drugs do you speak of?
Other then anti camping laws, what laws were specifically broken?
Hey Carlos I have a couple of questions I hope you can answer.Is it legal to film a prison inmate crew working in public?I witnessed an officer/guard sleeping in the truck while the inmates were working and wanted to get video but was afraid of some law prohibiting filming of inmates.
Also does the ruling on the filming of federal buildings include FBI and DHS buildings? I want to do a 1st amendment test by filming FBI and DHS buildings here in Jacksonville Florida. Inspired by your activities of filming federal court houses of course.
Thanks Carlos,PINAC Rules!!!
HYO, regardless of what some security guards and LEOs may say, it's perfectly legal to photograph and film the exteriors of federal buildings. Filming the prison inmate crew and their guard, who was derelict in his duty, wouldn't have been any different, as it was in a public place.
This is a cop who see's the big picture. He sees the problems affecting society and he understands why people are occupying the park.
It would seem that as much time as the cops have spent near the encampment, they would have taken time to get to know the activists and not just the crazy assholes I'm writing about, but the sane ones who actually have a vision of what they want to accomplish.
This movement is not about the cops, it's about so many other things, but the cops end up making it about themselves with their aggressive tactics.
Carlos, you're right. This movement isn't about the cops. And it also shouldn't be about tent cities and high crime rates. It should be about the issues these people are trying to bring up. However their lack of control over their encampments are causing them to get off topic. If they were smart, they would realize how these attempts to form permanent enclaves are hurting them more than helping.
JohnnyTroll regurgitates more nonsense.
I'll take the guy who was actually a cop's word over our POS troll any day.
"I've had to use force to get people in handcuffs to arrest them for a variety of crime that didn't involve protecting someone from bodily injury. I wonder how this guy did it?" -Jtrolltard
And that's why you are nothing but an internet joke.
"You should, by law, only use force to protect someone’s life or to protect them from being bodily injured OK? If you’re not protecting somebody’s life or protecting them from bodily injury, there’s no need to use force."
I'm sure glad I never worked for somebody like this guy
If you want to end these demonstrations the best thing to do is pull out the police officers and make sure everybody knows that the police will not be responding to the area for any reason and that remaining there you do so at your own risk. The media will pull out because the cops won't be there to protect them and the demonstrators will get tired and go home. As soon as there are a few good fights and maybe a stabbing or a shooting and the people realize the police aren't coming they will leave. Demonstrations like this are only possible because of the police. Why waste all this money paying for the police to be there.
How cute. All the trolls and fake cops are back.
Here's an idea troll. STFU.
If you want to end the demonstrations give us back our government of the People, by the People, for the People.
And make these thugs with badges crawl back to their holes.
"If you want to end the demonstrations give us back our government of the People, by the People, for the People."
That is not necessary because as I already explained if you want to end the demonstrations just pull out all the cops.
Yeah right ... and if that doesn't work, why not dump a bunch of violent criminals from the jails into the park to do the job for you (incidentally there are reports of NYPD sending drunk and disorderly people from other parts of the city to the park.)
You and Fidel Castro would get along famously. You share the same authoritarian mindset, as well as a callous disregard for human life and dignity.
So these people create these free anarchist camps and it is the fault of the police that some people show up that cause trouble? It's not the fault of the organizers for not being able to control what they created?
Amazing logic there. Of course! Blame the police for all problems. It's so simple.
I didn't say anything about whose fault it is. But your premise is false - they are not "free anarchist camps." And by your logic, the police have no responsibility to protect public safety anywhere, since the people at any place have failed to be "able to control" what they created.
And again - you display your authoritarian bent by revealing that you believe it is the proper role of the police to implement the desire of those in authority to "end these demonstrations" even if that means betraying their duty to protect public safety.
No duty to protect and I think it comes down to money. Isn't that what these protests are all about anyways. Why should these cash strapped cities continue to spend the extra money it is costing to police these demonstrations. Don't send extra cops down there. Use the ones that are working their regular shifts to respond to any problems and they don't respond unless it is safe to do so.
Personally I hope they all get to stay because I want to see them out there in January buried in snow.
The protests are about the corrupt coalition of the financial and political elite. They're about how the principle of the rule of law has been betrayed by those in power.
And I'm all for no *extra* cops. As far as I know, none of the occupy sites have asked for *extra* cops - if they're there it's the choice of city officials that they're there.
But you said something quite different before: "... the best thing to do is pull out the police officers and make sure everybody knows that the police will not be responding to the area for any reason and that remaining there you do so at your own risk. ... As soon as there are a few good fights and maybe a stabbing or a shooting and the people realize the police aren't coming they will leave." It was that betrayal of the duty of the police which I was responding to. Are you now disavowing that position?
You have it wrong Jan. I think the police certainly have a duty to protect public safety. That is why I think they should enforce pre-existing anti-camping laws and the like.
So since you obviously think the police have a duty to act in regards to public safety at these camps, I assume you support them taking action to limit the squalor that many of these camps produce?
I don't care if they wave signs and do other protest related actions but "occupying" an area with no regard to health and safety ordinances is another matter.
Tell me this, do you think the police should take action in instances like in this video where assholes just decide to block a busy street:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u1w-jUr2HU
I admit I mistook you for "Law Man" who is being a particularly authoritarian jerk in this thread. I'm glad to see you (in contrast with "Law Man") agree that police have a duty to protect public safety.
In answer to your first question, sure I agree that there should be efforts to limit the squalor. But I don't agree that forcibly ejecting everyone in the middle of the night and immediately destroying all property left behind is the way to go about it. And I'd note that if the concern of officials truly were to reduce health and safety hazards then they wouldn't have steadfastly refused to permit things like the installation of port-a-potties. What possible reason could there have been for that other than deliberately trying to create the squalor they claim to want to limit?
In answer to your second question, obviously deliberately blocking traffic is a violation of the traffic laws and were I to engage in such an act of civil disobedience I would expect to be ticketed or arrested. Whether police should "take action" in such a case is a judgement call. But in any case they have a responsibility not to use excessive force.
(incidentally there are reports of NYPD sending drunk and disorderly people from other parts of the city to the park.)
So what, drunk people have a right to visit the park. I always give rides to drunk people and drop them off somewhere else to get rid of them, usually it's into another city but the park works.
The point is those cops are deliberately adding to the problem that you condemn the occupy movement for failing to control on their own.
So the occupy movement should be able to say who comes and goes to the park, sounds like a hostile takeover.
Why don't you try addressing what I actually say, rather than some shit you invent in your mind?
I never said those people don't have a right to go to the park. But you're trying to have it both ways if you say the police have no duty to protect people in the park (because of their inability to control what they have created) whilst endorsing the police actively and intentionally adding to the problems the movement has to deal with.
I don't think the police are rounding up the drunk assholes and dropping them off in the park so I don't think they are adding to any problems.
So directing them to the park isn't adding to the problem? Really?
Why would it be? Aren't those folks also part of the 99%?
Because absent being directed there by police, odds are they wouldn't have any inclination to go there. I don't for one moment believe you're stupid enough not to understand this - so why are you pretending to be?
Keep in mind, your cohort with whom I'm arguing has declared that the police have no duty to protect the public if, in his words, they have failed to control what they created. In that context, it's quite relevant if the police are actively attempting to make the situation more difficult to control.
And how about responding to my port-a-pottie question above?
No I am not disavowing that position.
Then (if you truly are police and not just a wannabe poser) you are willing to betray your duty in service to lawless authority. Sad.
I would prefer to forcibly remove them but since everybody is crying about that approach my other option is to leave them on their own.
Well ... at least you are up-front with your authoritarianism. I'd respond that we are ill-served to have police (if indeed you are police and not just a wannabe poser) who actually desire violence.
It's not that I desire violence and I don't consider removing people by force violence, it is their job. I would prefer everybody left peacefully but if they refuse then you have to take the next step.
So force is not violence? I'll bet you wouldn't have the same interpretation if it were directed at you.
And the option which you resolutely refuse to consider for some reason is to *not* try to force the protests to end.
Most cities have been pretty clear that they don;t want to restrict the protesting, they just want to prevent the lawless of the tent encampments.
It's not that I desire violence and I don't consider removing people by force violence, it is their job. I would prefer everybody left peacefully but if they refuse then you have to take the next step.
resisting with force an unlawful arrest in NY can result in significant sanctions, so be careful with this logic
Does anyone else find it interesting that both fake cop trolls show up at the same time, in the same blog, after weeks of blissful silence?
Hmmm, Lutz Man just another Jtard sock puppet?
If it smells like dog ****, looks like dog ****... It IS dog ****.
He/they must have been grounded from the internet for a couple of months.
But now we get to see how long it takes Boyce/bgwillia to come up with a new handle and be back after deleting himself in a panic... unless he's still driving nails through his old hard drives or something.
I'm sure we'll miss all the Googled copypasta in the meantime.
Ray Lewis was arrested today in full uniform.
I wonder if he has always had such strong beliefs or did he acquire them after retiring from the force?
I wonder how many other cops that are still active have his same views, which are no different than the views of the thousands of Occupy activists throughout the country.
http://www.observer.com/2011/11/former-police-captain-and-current-ows-pr...
Post new comment