Police State? I Was Ticketed For Trying To Protect My Son From MSM

reply to post by Criticalthinker99


Read the OP again. "public sidewalk" is written there. The school has 0 jurisdiction over that.

strange indeed that the newscameraman and reporter refuse to point the camera in diffrent direction than the kids,in my sons school is forbiden to take pictures of classmates in the school unless the parents are presents,theres been an in crease kiddnaping from parents with bitter divorces ,that they insist in not to film or picture a kid that is not your son.Not to mention that crooks dont need to see kids faces on tv,much less to have info to were they go to school.Just take a look to any walmart entrance,what is the firt thing that you see???....check the wall to the rigth and left,..........they all kids.

reply to post by Domo1

I owe a lot of people many thanks for the input. As it has been pointed out, in the letter of the law it appears I should have handled the situation better. I accept the criticism, and I wanted to stop momentarily to let you know I especially agree with what you have pointed out. When I finally completed writing the far too lengthy diatribe in the first place, I was unsure about a lot of things and although I did my best at the time to find the right phrase to title
the topic, I was actually disappointed myself.

I assure you I did not intend to be misleading or deceptive. The last thing I need is to become as ethically challenged publicly as I have accused others of being and I readily admit being wrong---again!!!

Thanks for the honest and constructive post.

reply to post by Mamatus

Given what we now know this is how I would deal with the Reporter. 1. Find out where he lives (should be a matter of record if you are being sued) and proceed to film that reporter at his home. Stand outside on a public sidewalk and video tape his face, his yard, his car and his address. 2. Follow him for an entire day, video taping him in public places from public places. 3. Post your videos on You Tube. Name them "A day in the life of a MSM whore".

Great concept. I haven't been able to laugh about the situation until now, so thanks very much. As much as I think I may actually enjoy your thoughts, I will most likely stick to my best effort to not lower myself to that level.

However, I will definitely keep your ideas handy.....just in case.

Sounds like you need to stop by their local office and have a little slip and fall in the main entrance. Make sure you call an ambulance though before you get up. Tie em up in court and waste their time and money. J/K, but it would make life a pain for them.

Thanks for this post, and while I may sound critical, it is nothing personal.

I will say that I am impressed how the community came together, if only for a very brief bit of time, to support each other with the missing person. It will probably take a much larger shock for the nation to come together permanently.

When I read this post, the tone sounds helpless many times. It starts off with being in a "near terror" that children may be getting videotaped. I understand the concern though, especially as the USA and other Western places are being programmed to be scared.

Then comes the arrogant MSM whore. I agree with the other poster on taking a different approach because it sounds like he did a great job intimidating you and pressing your buttons, and it seemed to work as it sounds like they got their video footage and relegated you to a helpless corner.

Now here is where I am confused:

I spent the next hour waiting for the police to come cite me for assault. They took too long, so I called and asked to leave if I gave them personal information and that was OK.

Why were you waiting at the school? What forced you to sit and wait for the police to cite you? Why not just take your kid and go home?

Second, why did you volunteer yourself to the police? You basically admitted to be in the wrong, whether you were or not.

I'm sure there is a reason for that which was not written, but when I read this it sounds like you submitted to the reporter and police without much any resistance. I feel bad for your legal troubles, but it sounds like you wanted them or else you wouldn't have reported yourself to the police for the reporter.

I wish I knew the answers better for myself. I suppose it was more arrogance than self-righteousness, but I did sincerely want my son to believe the system would protect him. As the events surrounding the young girl's disappearance continued to unwind, I can assure you I was not the only parent on edge. My son and his friends had developed a deeply sympathetic tone for her safety, and in the momentary flash where I made the decision to take the course I did I thought I could somehow encourage him. I am proud of the heart he has for others but that definitely conflicts with with my acknowledged and overdeveloped sense of entitlement. No, that was not a class warfare or ethnic statement, I am just aware that as a business owner I have a tendency to carry my decision making authority from the workplace into the real world in potentially inappropriate situations.

To answer why I waited, I did not want to have police knocking on my door later (certainly people with cameras noted my license plate), and even as I became calmer and calmer, I was able to justify my actions in my mind. This is very much the reason I brought it to ATS in the first place. I immensely value the opinion of the many like-minded people I have found here and I am open to criticism.

Still, with or without ego or status, I believe I would respect another parent for the same reaction in the same situation more than if he or she took no action at all. Maybe the answer, then, is a different course of action from the beginning or are mine understandable?

Thanks for any and all opinions.

Originally posted by samstone11
I wish I knew the answers better for myself. I suppose it was more arrogance than self-righteousness, but I did sincerely want my son to believe the system would protect him. As the events surrounding the young girl's disappearance continued to unwind, I can assure you I was not the only parent on edge. My son and his friends had developed a deeply sympathetic tone for her safety, and in the momentary flash where I made the decision to take the course I did I thought I could somehow encourage him. I am proud of the heart he has for others but that definitely conflicts with with my acknowledged and overdeveloped sense of entitlement. No, that was not a class warfare or ethnic statement, I am just aware that as a business owner I have a tendency to carry my decision making authority from the workplace into the real world in potentially inappropriate situations.

To answer why I waited, I did not want to have police knocking on my door later (certainly people with cameras noted my license plate), and even as I became calmer and calmer, I was able to justify my actions in my mind. This is very much the reason I brought it to ATS in the first place. I immensely value the opinion of the many like-minded people I have found here and I am open to criticism.

Still, with or without ego or status, I believe I would respect another parent for the same reaction in the same situation more than if he or she took no action at all. Maybe the answer, then, is a different course of action from the beginning or are mine understandable?

Thanks for any and all opinions.

Thanks for your nice reply, your maturity shines =)

I also felt the feelings of helplessness and fear when living in the USA and also westernized cities where people do what they're told -- or else -- and then at the same time keep people feeling helpless to do anything about it.

Like you I was a business owner and would often let my business temper carry over into my personal life. Needless to say I put myself completely out of that environment for more than a couple years in the middle of nowhere, Philippines, where I am working on deprogramming all the lies and emotional responses I was unknowingly taught while growing up in the USA.

Originally posted by samstone11
I believe I would respect another parent for the same reaction in the same situation more than if he or she took no action at all. Maybe the answer, then, is a different course of action from the beginning or are mine understandable?

It's not about seeking respect though is it? I choose all my actions in a potentially confrontational situation based solely on what is most appropriate at the time. If someone is filming me then unless I intend to steal the camera (evidence) I'm going to pretend to be civil and make sure every word which comes out of my mouth is justifiable in court.

I knocked a junkie out some years ago when he verbally abused my son after our ball went to close to him in our local park. My emotion, 'reclaim our park and don't let the addicts win', perfectly valid and understandable in my opinion. The law however wouldn't have thought the same because I didn't attack out of fear or defence, I did it as punishment, illegally taking the role of judge and jury.
Had the same incident happened in a CCTV area my reaction would be completely different for the benefit of the cameras.

Whilst I completely understand your emotions at the time, the choices you make must always have a mindset of "can I justify this in police interview/court when X or Y witnesses and/or camera evidence is submitted?"
If you react without thinking such things through there is a stronger chance of making the wrong call.

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by samstone11
I believe I would respect another parent for the same reaction in the same situation more than if he or she took no action at all. Maybe the answer, then, is a different course of action from the beginning or are mine understandable?

It's not about seeking respect though is it? I choose all my actions in a potentially confrontational situation based solely on what is most appropriate at the time. If someone is filming me then unless I intend to steal the camera (evidence) I'm going to pretend to be civil and make sure every word which comes out of my mouth is justifiable in court.

I knocked a junkie out some years ago when he verbally abused my son after our ball went to close to him in our local park. My emotion, 'reclaim our park and don't let the addicts win', perfectly valid and understandable in my opinion. The law however wouldn't have thought the same because I didn't attack out of fear or defence, I did it as punishment, illegally taking the role of judge and jury.
Had the same incident happened in a CCTV area my reaction would be completely different for the benefit of the cameras.

Whilst I completely understand your emotions at the time, the choices you make must always have a mindset of "can I justify this in police interview/court when X or Y witnesses and/or camera evidence is submitted?"
If you react without thinking such things through there is a stronger chance of making the wrong call.

Wait, what? It is pretty late where I am and communication on the net isn't like in person but please help me to understand this:

1. You knocked out a "junkie" because he "verbally abused" your son?
- What is verbal abuse? How did it harm your son?
- A "junkie" on what?

2. Your emotion "reclaim the park and don't let the addicts win" -- What park/game? Why are the addicts winning?

3 . Lastly... Why does it seem your mentality that everything is ok unless you are caught with evidence to prove your deeds?

"can I justify this in police interview/court when X or Y witnesses and/or camera evidence is submitted?"

and

"Had the same incident happened in a CCTV area my reaction would be completely different for the benefit of the cameras."

and

"If someone is filming me then unless I intend to steal the camera (evidence) I'm going to pretend to be civil and make sure every word which comes out of my mouth is justifiable in court."

Just wondering, thanks

reply to post by Philippines
My point is that our own definitions of what is right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable may not correspond with what our laws instruct society.
It's off-topic regarding my junkie incident so I'll remain brief, but essentially the police had turned a blind eye to injecting drug addicts at our local green space park who intimidated women with their children and made it a no-go area. I used violence to fix a situation. A number of other men in my local community carried out the same course of action as myself and within days the problem was fixed, the junkies moved elsewhere.

The thrust of my previous comments is that you choose whatever course of action carefully if there is a chance that such a choice may be deemed a crime by those in a position of authority. If there is a camera filming you then more the fool who provides evidence to the cameraman by reacting without thinking.
My story was a demonstration that my choice was made in a non-CCTV area and had it been in a filmed zone then I would have made a sensible choice to make it appear justifiable in court....as the OP would have been wiser to have done himself.

reply to post by grainofsand

I wish it were that simple. In my case and many others I have seen, I would probably have to admit I reacted without thinking it through first. However, in some instances, this could be a good thing. Sometimes when I think about it I regret not doing more and at other times I wish I could have just turned and walked away. With nerves already frayed and your child's best interest hopefully foremost in your mind, instinct probably wins every time and you deal with what happens later. I may have not followed the law, I may have--this remains to be determined. Still, I strongly believe I would regret it more if I looked back and realized I didn't do enough for my son.

The really great thing I have seen throughout the thread is that whether people agreed or disagreed with my personal reaction it seems everyone is willing to put their kids ahead of themselves. I think it is becoming more and more difficult to stay centered on the line between right and wrong or legal and illegal. The line is either blurred for some or completely moved for others, and like most discussions a truly mutual answer is probably not there. What I think I am learning for myself is to stay as far from the line as possible so I won't be falling on the wrong side so often. What do you think?

Originally posted by samstone11
I think it is becoming more and more difficult to stay centered on the line between right and wrong or legal and illegal. The line is either blurred for some or completely moved for others, and like most discussions a truly mutual answer is probably not there. What I think I am learning for myself is to stay as far from the line as possible so I won't be falling on the wrong side so often. What do you think?

The line, and the punishment for crossing it, is written by legislators but that in itself does not make it 'right', just 'the law' which we must be seen to comply with.
I do not agree with every law, and I don't agree with every prescribed punishment for breaking them, but I am aware of the law, and what a police officer/magistrate/judge/jury might consider while making a decision about my actions.
I pseudo comply where necessary, and in any potentially confrontational situation my choices are influenced by understanding of potential legal consequences. It is instinctive to me.

I am driven solely by my own definitions of right or wrong but I know that 'the law' often differs with the way I see things. An act of Parliament does not impress me particularly in itself, I make my own choices based on my own moral code. But I'm aware of 'the law' and it's line, and enjoy crossing it where it fits my definition of right and wrong.

I always stop at a red light, where appropriate, but if it's safe to drive on again without waiting I generally will if there is no police car around. The law says it is wrong but I disagree that my decision at the time is wrong so I make my choice.
That's a tame example but you see my picture of knowing the line, but playing around it. I don't respect 'the law' simply because it is the law.

In the UK there is only one emotion acceptable in law for the use of force, fear.
Fear for the life or safety of yourself or others etc - Acting because of anger is not a defence, although it can be a mitigating factor in extreme circumstances..
The use of force must also be reasonable in the circumstances, but being subjective that's how any choices I make are influenced.

Many years ago I appeared in court on a violence/bodily harm charge after repeatedly striking and injuring an attacker much bigger than me. I was found not-guilty as I had claimed that I feared him killing me until he stopped struggling and it was safe for me to make good my escape. The court agreed that it was reasonable for me to use the amount of force I did due to the size of the guy and the situation. It was an 8 month process from arrest to not-guilty verdict, but from the moment the incident started my mind had legal defence firmly in mind along with my physical defence. Curiously 'the law' influenced me in that incident as it made me stop due to potential difficulties proving 'reasonable' force. If I'd known I could have got away with it the guy would have had more, he deserved it in my moral code, but hey it was sensible for me to follow Parliaments laws then

Know the line that applies to you and play their game where you have to. Of course I understand your emotions at the time and I probably would have wanted to smack the guy and break his camera, but unless I could get away with it I wouldn't. The law says no, so when there's any camera filming me I will be seen to be following said 'law', from the camera in the police car, to the cell and the interview room. Good luck with your legal situation though, crying about the camera being pushed away with no injuries is lame, and I'd be shocked if the Crown Prosecution Service here wasted thousands on such a pointless case, hope it's a similar situation where you are.

reply to post by samstone11


I would still consider a counter suit. First, they have to PROVE assault. They didn't report assault at the time, and they don't have assault on film, if all you did was nicely move the camera from your face. Public opinion is valuable, too. Gathering parents, talking to some OTHER media people (their competition?), and pointing out that you tried to protect the children, and they were placing them in danger, then they sue YOU for it, could go a LONG way towards stopping this. You could even sue for false allegations, and child endangerment. The principal stating they were told not to be there is in your favor also.

No, you were NOT in the wrong, for wanting to protect the children from such exposure. The idiots filming them, to show on television, and possibly make them targets, were in the wrong.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by samstone11

 

I would still consider a counter suit. First, they have to PROVE assault. They didn't report assault at the time, and they don't have assault on film, if all you did was nicely move the camera from your face.

Which is the very definition of assault. Also repeating this bs. about children being in danger because they appear on a news show for few seconds isnt going to make it true. They are on news and every other type of program all the time and there has never been a case of someone picking targets from them.

To the OP and a lesson for all, should you care to listen.

When dealing with people, try to adjust your approach to the situation in hand. A different approach may have persuaded the reporter to change how he was trying to report his story. People have a tendency to over react, even with the best possible motive and such reactions just make the situation worse.

Sympathies to the OP, but a lesson regardless.

Regards

Im so sorry to here about that OP. That is just ridiculous, assult for pushing a camera out of your face? Jesus Christ. This could have been anybody, i think if you fight this and speak in front of a judge, and say what you typed in your OP about protecting your child. You make alot of good points stating that if you wanted to, you could see what directions the children are walking, and who has rides or not. I would have done the same thing you have, i'm not completely sure i would have kept as calm to that camera guy.

You have to realize it is freedom of press.They weren't doing anything.Some people are to paranoid these days.if someone wanted to stalk your children and find out which way they were going..they would do it and not just watch tv..

Once you put your hand on him and his camera it is assault.I don't really feel bad for you because you did something that was just completely stupid.
to the people saying find out his email and address and do the same to him,..Sure the answer to this guy laying his hands on someone is finding out who they were and STALKING them.Grow up people.

Originally posted by indy0725
You have to realize it is freedom of press.They weren't doing anything.Some people are to paranoid these days.if someone wanted to stalk your children and find out which way they were going..they would do it and not just watch tv..

Once you put your hand on him and his camera it is assault.I don't really feel bad for you because you did something that was just completely stupid.
to the people saying find out his email and address and do the same to him,..Sure the answer to this guy laying his hands on someone is finding out who they were and STALKING them.Grow up people.

You make an interesting argument.

I am curious to what you think of this:

Let's say an on duty policeman is the person telling the press to stop filming. Would the reporter have acted the same way? Probably not. Would the reporter (or you) claim free press?

I think he acted as a father and took some form of action/stand, as any good father should do.

The law is fracked nowadays anyways.

reply to post by Philippines


So while my son is standing there I should push someone away and get violent?teaching my kid that violence is the answer?no thanks.I don't teach my children that violence is the answer