You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #254: You have the right to be uncritical of the police BUT [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-23-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #96
254. You have the right to be uncritical of the police BUT
You have no right to expect others to be so. Your acceptance of the correctness of the police actions is, as far as I can see based soley upon the very questionable proposition that, "the authorities know best;" which, if carried to it's logical conclusion, means that you have no right to question the activities of the executive.

Your whole post raised far more questions than it answers; I'll list some -

Every cop has a right to be safe. Every cop has a right to go home at the end of their shift. When they work the street, they practice certain safety procedures that you as a citizen do not understand.
I beg your pardon? The police have special knowlege that cannot be imparted to normanl mortals?

When working a call, they make themselves a safety zone. By stopping 60 feet from them and photographing them, you violated what they felt was their safety zone.
So why do they not make that clear to the press and public? Or are the general public too ignorant to understand the special knowlege that the police have?

Once they asked you to leave, that is what you should have done.
Why? Was the new object of their attention stopping them working? Did it need the 5 officers to abandon their, no doubt, legal proceedure - why not 1 or 2?

But it was at that point, that you told them you would defy their orders for you to leave, that you distracted them from their work. It is because of that distraction that you were charged with interfering. And I believe, rightfully so. Had you waited until the situation was over and then approached an officer to find out what was going on, you wouldn’t have been interfering. But distracting them while they are in the process of handling a situation can be construed as interfering.
I am sorry but there are few reasons that any police force can have for asking a person to move on. It might be for the safety of that person or because watching creates a threat to others; in either case it does not require 5 officers to force that person to move on but it does require 1 or 2 officers to state why and what would be acceptable.

And for those that believe that because a cop is a public worker and they (the citizen) has a right to question them or “stand watch” while they are involved in a situation, think again. Police matters are private.
No they are not private. Police matters are those which involve public safety and order and may lead to legal action. Does this ridiculous statement mean that you ar in favour of secret police and courts?

Think of it like this. If I am having some kind of a problem and I call the police, I expect privacy. I don’t expect 10 people to be able to listen in to my conversation with the police just because they think they have the right to by the Constitution. So while I am talking to the police about my daughter’s rape, or my wife’s problems or anything else, you better believe I’d side with the cop who told somebody to leave the area.
Whereas I would side with the person who made it clear to the police that personal and legal matters should be discussed in private.

My personal problems, albeit as a victim or a criminal, are not meant to be public domain. Why should you, just because you are a photojournalist, be allowed to overhear my private conversations with the police? And how would or should a cop try and determine what you can and cannot here? Therefore you were asked to leave, asked to go across the street. When you disobey that lawful order, expect to be charged.
Could you explain to me what a "lawful order" is? I have a problem with taking orders since I am neither a policeman nor a member of the armed services. The police can request me to move on they can then inform me that I am obstructing their work or am endangering myself or others. They could issue an instruction - not order - that they will arrest me if I continue to obstruct or endanger.

You spend the rest of your post alternately bemoaning the difficulties this makes for you or justifying those difficulties. I would suggest to you that you read your own post and ask yourself why you have been ordered to stop you legal activities, why you have been detained, why you have been handcuffed, why your media has been removed, why you have been roughed up. You are a journalist but it seems that you have abrogated your responsibility to your job in favour of an easy life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC