Idiot Cop never heard of the Constitution
tags:
Stumble ThisFrom YT: Martial Law in America Oct Nov 2008. Cop clearly says "I can do whatever I want" If that's not disturbing I do not know what is.
If this cameraman did not work for CBS this would have played out entirely different.
How did this not get carried by major networks? Every network? Shouldn't every single videographer out there be pushing for coverage of this.
That was NEWS man. Real live news.... this should be shown across America, across North America. This is the world we live in today. Again, this would have played out more dramatically had dude been an independent journalist, that's a fact.
http://wcbstv.com/local/cbs.photograp...
If this cameraman did not work for CBS this would have played out entirely different.
How did this not get carried by major networks? Every network? Shouldn't every single videographer out there be pushing for coverage of this.
That was NEWS man. Real live news.... this should be shown across America, across North America. This is the world we live in today. Again, this would have played out more dramatically had dude been an independent journalist, that's a fact.
http://wcbstv.com/local/cbs.photograp...
The gestapo needs to make it a requirement that every peace officer knows the constitution.
Ihre papiere bitte.
if a cop is telling someone who is clearly a reporter "none of your business" we may have a problem.
Also, we need to get rid of the bogus idea of "disorderly conduct" a.k.a. "you didn't do anything illegal, but I don't like you"
when you become a police officer, you can arrest:
A: anyone
B: people that do illegal stuff
"Protecting freedom" with an iron fist.
Im fairly certain that the BillOreilly account is a joke now, but seriously, it's getting old.
Dude, an online persona is forever.
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Im fairly certain that the BillOreilly account is a joke now, but seriously, it's getting old.
At what point will we get a law forbidding police officers to touch cameras? Really, I can't think of a reasonable time for a police officer to demand a camera be put away. If they are doing their job correctly, the camera should not be a problem.
yeah. we should also have a law against cops touching yogurt, soda cans, books, ipods, sticks, stones, and bones.
you don't understand sh*t.
You know it seems to me... there just might already be a law saying a little something about what we appear to be seeing in the video...
A little ditty about the right to freedom of speach, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceable assemble... yes i'm sure i read that somewhere...
Or some such...
>> ^MaxWilder:
At what point will we get a law forbidding police officers to touch cameras? Really, I can't think of a reasonable time for a police officer to demand a camera be put away. If they are doing their job correctly, the camera should not be a problem.
yeah. we should also have a law against cops touching yogurt, soda cans, books, ipods, sticks, stones, and bones.
you don't understand sh t.
X is similar to Y.
Y has property Z.
Therefore, X has property Z.
Yogurts on one hand and recording devices on the other.
Weak analogies FTW!!!
you two fail to understand the underlying principle. why is it a law that a cop cannot turn off a camera? tell me what is the moral principle behind it? what about being a human being makes this unalienable? now tell me how that principle depends on what the object in your hand is--whether it is a camera or a cup of yogurt. why is it you think he can't tell someone to turn off a camera, but he can tell someone to close the lid on their yogurt? if you consider a camera a recording device, wouldn't you also have to consider an eye attached to a brain and hand with pencil and paper a recording device? if somehow the yogurt is different than the camera because it is non-recording, does that make your foot fair property to remove?
you seem to think freedom of speech and freedom of press are somehow inherent human rights, yet how are they human rights? you don't even understand why humans are entitled to such rights. you may have heard of the constitution, but like this cop, you have no idea of the moral principles behind the words written on it. if the guy was holding a cup of yogurt, and was told to put it away, you wouldn't even know what to say because its not explicitly forbidden in the 1st amendment.
you two, don't understand sh*t. all you know how to do is repeat the words and motions of your predecessors like unthinking zombies.
If I am walking down the sidewalk with a yogurt, do police have the right to run up and demand that I put it down? Maybe if I'm doing something illegal.
Do you think that they were doing something illegal?
Do you think it's illegal to videotape cops?
Anyone who has thoughts or opinions which are outside your narrow tiny pidgin holed perspective, is by default an idiot. You have absolutly no idea what I do and do not understand... and to assume you do really just shows the deapths of your ignorance.
My neice makes the same kind of assumptions of people she doesn't really know. But then... she is 4.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to tell me I don't understand... and don't know shit... so be it... It certainly doesn't make it right... and it won't become so because you just continue to repeat it.
mauz15, januari,
you two fail to understand the underlying principle. why is it a law that a cop cannot turn off a camera? tell me what is the moral principle behind it? what about being a human being makes this unalienable? now tell me how that principle depends on what the object in your hand is--whether it is a camera or a cup of yogurt. why is it you think he can't tell someone to turn off a camera, but he can tell someone to close the lid on their yogurt? if you consider a camera a recording device, wouldn't you also have to consider an eye attached to a brain and hand with pencil and paper a recording device? if somehow the yogurt is different than the camera because it is non-recording, does that make your foot fair property to remove?
you seem to think freedom of speech and freedom of press are somehow inherent human rights, yet how are they human rights? you don't even understand why humans are entitled to such rights. you may have heard of the constitution, but like this cop, you have no idea of the moral principles behind the words written on it. if the guy was holding a cup of yogurt, and was told to put it away, you wouldn't even know what to say because its not explicitly forbidden in the 1st amendment.
you two, don't understand sh t. all you know how to do is repeat the words and motions of your predecessors like unthinking zombies.
That is a lot of content to assign to my post.
You made a weak analogy plain and simple. Where in that post have I addressed any moral principles? Where in that post am I telling you if you are right or wrong about the issue ("underlying principle") as a whole?
"you seem to think freedom of speech and freedom of press are somehow inherent human rights, yet how are they human rights? you don't even understand why humans are entitled to such rights"
you got all of this about my ethical worldview on rights by me writing the standard logical form to describe the informal fallacy of a weak analogy?
Where can I get those superpowers?
and secondly,
spare me, spare all of us the insulting tone, for I do not make those kind of evaluations about what you said nor your character. Hasty conclusions about my knowledge amount to nothing in this or any other discussion.
Somehow I think we'll all summon the courage to carry on...
You know what... going to amend this... I'm not sure how I allowed myself to get caught up in this, but it completely derailed the discussion and for that I'm sorry.. as well as any offense to Imstellar... clearly we don't agree on much but I am sorry for any part i played in it reaching this point...
even when I point out why and how you are wrong you don't understand. You are hopeless. Scurry off back to your dead end life, zombie. In three generations nobody will ever know or care that you once breathed on this rock. You have nothing to offer this world but a life full of drudgery, misery, and a handful of copies.
Loud language, but ultimately vacuous. Maybe you need to realize that informal fallacies occur to any of us and pointing them out is only to clear the discussion of unnecessary argumentative obstacles? is it that hard to see the analogy you made is not a strong one? Too hard to accept you made a cognitive error?
You dont even know if I agree with you or not. I simply pointed out an error.
Please keep generalizing about the people that comment here instead of solely addressing the arguments.
That helps your credibility and soundness immensely! the bulletproof logic of ad hominems!