Capitol Cop Assaults Videographer During Lemonade Stand Protest

reply to post by BinaryG

Originally posted by BinaryG

just because you have a permit does not mean you wont poison them it just mean you paid for the privilege to do so.

Right, but having that permit means that you had to apply for it, and provide your identity and other personal information, as well as (in many cases) having your consumable products inspected and tested prior to sale to the public... And if you get through all of that, and still poison people... They know who you are and where you are.

But hey, if you think having these systems in place are inhibiting freedom... Lets remove all of these laws and regulations... Then see what happens.

reply to post by BinaryG


If you broke into a home with the intent of robbing and were confronted with the homeowner with a gun, would the homeowner be guilty of assault even if he never fired a shot? NO! Did you have fear of violence? YES! How can this not work out logically? ANSWER: Each case has to be investigated as to the causation of events to be determined if a crime did in fact take place. Cameraman filming on Govt. property= illegal. Cop within rights to touch camera.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Your location says Finland, I do not know the laws of that country but I do know the laws of my country. It is illegal here. Sorry.

you might want to check this out
A government war on cameras?

reply to post by Honor93


ooooohhhhh..... a person in a position of authority spoke in an authoritative tone....eeekk.... and pointed her finger.....OMG!!! Assault...that is the most laughable part of the whole thing....assault, give me a break!!!

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by micmerci

 

And, IMO should be commended for remaining cool throughout the entire event.

really ??
upon arrival, she immediately raises her voice, points her finger and assaults a non-participant (camera man)
and you find this behavior exemplary and commendable ??? wow

She doesn't raise her voice at all. Points her finger? wow that is really scary stuff, perhaps thats a secret Jeet Kune Do move eh deadly, perhaps she practices on lemons,......non-participant camera man who just happens to be there, yeah right. LOL

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by BinaryG

 

If you broke into a home with the intent of robbing and were confronted with the homeowner with a gun, would the homeowner be guilty of assault even if he never fired a shot? NO! Did you have fear of violence? YES! How can this not work out logically? ANSWER: Each case has to be investigated as to the causation of events to be determined if a crime did in fact take place. Cameraman filming on Govt. property= illegal. Cop within rights to touch camera.

your comparing apples to dog poop there mate and from what i have read about your lovely land it is not illegal or do they arrest all the tourists as well for filming around there.

reply to post by BinaryG


I am not arguing the morality of the issue, I am arguing the LEGALITY of it. They were on federal property and it is illegal to film there (even your source agrees). So technically, a crime was in progress at the time the cop touched the camera. If I think it is moral or not does not matter.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


i understand that we need laws and procedure but as your man Benjamin Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by BinaryG

 

I am not arguing the morality of the issue, I am arguing the LEGALITY of it. They were on federal property and it is illegal to film there (even your source agrees). So technically, a crime was in progress at the time the cop touched the camera. If I think it is moral or not does not matter.

Federal property is owned by the citizens, not a private entity. Tourist film on federal property such as national parks all the time and aren't breaking the law. Show me the statute where it is illegal to film on federal property.

Of course there are instillation where it is illegal to film on federal property but that is thru a separate dispensation.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by BinaryG

 

I am not arguing the morality of the issue, I am arguing the LEGALITY of it. They were on federal property and it is illegal to film there (even your source agrees). So technically, a crime was in progress at the time the cop touched the camera. If I think it is moral or not does not matter.

Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.

Although the legal right to film on federal property now seems to be firmly established

yet thats how i read it, it is legal to film on federal property so what did you see?

reply to post by micmerci


You keep repeating that it is illegal to film there. That's a lie. Care to prove me wrong? Site a law if you think you can find one.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

That is where you are wrong. It is private property. The cameraman does not have the right to film there.

That is where you are wrong. The grounds of the National Mall is not private property. It is public property and filming there is perfectly legal.

While the female officer shouldn't have put her hands on the cameraman's camera (and it could be ruled assault, if a judge were so inclined to stick to the letter of the law), he was kind of in her face with it. I'd be annoyed, too.

But these people, while I can sympathize with the point they are trying to get across, were required to get a permit to sell lemonade there. I believe kids on the street corner should get a pass on that, but these were adults and knew the rules. They were there to get a reaction, and got one. Though it didn't quite go like they hoped, I'd imagine.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American


But these people, while I can sympathize with the point they are trying to get across, were required to get a permit to sell lemonade there. I believe kids on the street corner should get a pass on that, but these were adults and knew the rules. They were there to get a reaction, and got one. Though it didn't quite go like they hoped, I'd imagine.

/TOA

They knew exactly what would happen. They got the film and it will go viral on youtube and show how over reaction of authority is incrementally stripping our freedoms and leading us down the road to a corporate oligarchy and tyranny.

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by The Old American


But these people, while I can sympathize with the point they are trying to get across, were required to get a permit to sell lemonade there. I believe kids on the street corner should get a pass on that, but these were adults and knew the rules. They were there to get a reaction, and got one. Though it didn't quite go like they hoped, I'd imagine.

/TOA

They knew exactly what would happen. They got the film and it will go viral on youtube and show how over reaction of authority is incrementally stripping our freedoms and leading us down the road to a corporate oligarchy and tyranny.

The issue I have here is that the lemonade sellers created the problem they're in now. They likely knew there was a very real possibility of arrest, yet went forward anyway. I applaud their courage, but they basically did the same thing as someone that stages an accident to defraud an insurance company.

/TOA

I wouldn't compare the two like that. Making a fraud is dishonest and damaging criminal activity. Civil disobidience is at least in this case is honest and non-damaging because it is peacefull civil disobidience.