It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by fordrew
reply to post by defcon5
That is BS. I have lived in NYC for a year and I use to avoid the cops often. People should not be avoiding the cops. If you slip up (drive in a bus lane, bike on sidewalk) they will hand out the tickets like candy. Talk back to them and you will find yourself in deeper trouble.
Why? Because they can't hand out more tickets if you are making a situation of yourself, so they will try to escalate the situation to tack on more crimes therefore increase amount of charges brought upon you. More charges = more $$$. Its all about the money.
You won't see this outside major cities I suppose. New York being the worst. Cop's job in New York is to hand out tickets not protect and serve. I have seen this on several occasions.edit on 16-4-2011 by fordrew because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by areyouserious2010
Lets approach this with a level head for a second.
The NYPD stopped the man on the bicycle for riding on the sidewalk.
If you live in New York City, I can imagine that you could understand why this law is in place. Because of the dense population of the city and its sidewalks, a law was passed mandating that people travelling by bicycle use the street and follow all appropriate traffic laws while doing so. I am sure that the cause of passing this law is that several people were struck by bicycles while walking on the sidewalk or bicyclists transfering from using the sidewalk to using the street caused them to be struck by a vehicle.
This law is a matter of safety. It may be hard to relate to this line of thinking when you live in a suburban area or small town because the volume of people is no where near New York City.
The police are enforcing this law, not because they are trying to satisfy a quota but, because it is a problem for the city which needs enforcement to promote public safety.
The man walks by and yells several comments to the man stopped by the police.
This is not an argument of free speech. In the United States, you have the right to say anything you want. It was not what he said that got him in trouble.
Many states have many different laws reguarding disorderly conduct and hindering a police investigation.
When it comes to disorderly conduct, the man not only made his comments but he yelled them causing a scene. The man then persisted yelling his comments as he walked down the street causing more of a scene and drawing attention to himself and the situation.
Disorderly conduct laws promote the right of people to be able to walk down a public street or be in a public place in peace. There obviously is a fine line between a persons right to act a certain way and disorderly conduct. It is a police officer's responsibility to make that determination. It is the court's responsibility to find them guilty or innocent.
Laws reguarding hindering a police investigation are to promote an officer's ability to invest his or her efforts in dealing with the situation or investigation at hand in order to gather the neccessary facts and bring it to a conclusion. The man yelling his comments at the man on the bicycle not only drew the man on the bicycle's attention away from the stop but also the police officer's attention as well. This man's actions hindered the officer's ability, however slightly, to issue a citation and have the man on the bicycle on his way.
After the comments, you observed the officer go through a pretty conservative system of escalation. The officer first told the man to mind his business from inside the police van. The man had two choices, continue walking or yell back at the officer diverting more attetion to himself and away from the matter at hand. The man chose to yell back. The officer then stopped him and asked for identification clearly stating that he was going to issue a "summons" or criminal citation. The man had two choices, either provide identification so a citation could be issued or refuse. The man refused.
There are many different laws in many different states reguarding the police demanding identification. For the most part, a police officer can ASK for identification whenever he or she wants. For the most part, a police officer can only DEMAND identification when he or she is directly investigating a particular crime or suspicion of a particular crime.
In this situation, the officer was going to issue a criminal citation in leiu of arresting the man. A criminal citation requires the person to be positively identified. The man refused to provide identification so the only choice was to arrest him and positively identify him at the station.
If you pay attention to the video and know a minimal amount of the law you can clearly see that the man chose his own fate. There were several opportunities to make a decision that effected the outcome. The man made the wrong decision at every turn.
Originally posted by Quasar_La-Zar
The great American revolution is coming
Civil war is the only answer that I see from this, tyrannical police will not exist like this forever, this is just a dark part of humanities history, where we are all monetary slaves and they are our sheep dogs.
I myself, will be preparing for said day.
Originally posted by brindle
No,you cant walk by people and scream whatever you want.This is called disorderly conduct.This is a misdeameanor crime.Repeat 100 times ,maybe it will sink into your head,Repeatedly screaming at people in public is disorderly conduct.
Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Originally posted by brindle
When in doubt,always refer to rule number 1-dont scream at cops.If you get confused,you can always refer to rule number 3--if I continually scream at cops,I may get my ass kicked,get tasered to the nutsack,fined, jailed or all of the above.If you have a serious doubt about what to do in a situation,Refer to rule number 4--by continuing on with my actions,most likely I will spend the evening in jail.Is this where I want to spend the rest of my night?If you answer no,keep your mouth shut.If the answer is yes,continue on screaming.
You're a very compliant person...they'd love you in prison! When Big Harry tells you to tossthesalad I guess you'd comply with no problem?
The entire point is, that police puts his pants on the same as I do, he has no more authority over a free person than I do. That man could walk past and yell whatever he wants. He was in no way interferring with that officers job. Now if the guy has any knowledge, that officers job is in danger and the city is at risk of losing a couple dollars.
Originally posted by thegasface
props to the camera man.
Originally posted by brindle
For those who still deny that this man was involved in disorderly conduct,I quote wikipedia's definition of disorderly conduct "one who makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop",also Wikipedia defines disorderly conduct as a person who disrupts a lawful assemby of persons.I think you would be more hard-pressed to find a case any where in the world,on videotape,that more exemplifies the precise definition of disorderly conduct.In fact,the police should use this videotape in their training courses.I mean it fits to the tee the exact definition of disorderly conduct,so much so,that it almost looks like it is a police training video.
Originally posted by brindle
Yeall are like part of the manson family calling cops pigs and insulting the principles of this country.Thank god for the police forces across this great land with amber waves of grain.GOD BLESS AMERICA,home of the brave.I salute you Nypd,even though you gave me a bogus ticket last year for over $100 clams.
Originally posted by Cycleiron
Having said that our "Comedian" in this little farce really didn't help his cause now did he?
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Witness what local thugs with badges are capable of, and imagine what corrupt federal agents are capable of doing, with complete anonymity, and immunity.... That video would have never been seen by the public, and all witnesses silenced.