Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/08/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Imagine: A policeman wanting to prevent a riot follows an individual around and hits him in the face with a stick or tear gasses or restrains him every time he attempts to speak in public. He takes the cop (LEO) to court. The court finds that the cop acted improperly. The policeman wanting to prevent a riot follows the individual around and hits him in the face with a stick or tear gasses or restrains him every time he attempts to speak in public. He takes the cop (LEO) to court. The court finds that the cop acted improperly. Repeat ad infinitum. The would be speaker has not been denied his freedom of speech since the court found in his favor and we have "robust justice system"? I can also understand the position of LEOs who want to do what they want to do. Better discipline WITHIN agencies is an issue which needs dealing with--call it education if you wish. ric On Aug 6, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Phil Forrest wrote: > This will continue because there has been no case that has appealed to > a higher court and no court that is willing to try a case that deals > with rights we already have specifically enumerated in both state and > US Constitutions. >> From a law enforcement point of view, this is an obstruction of justice > matter. From a press point of view it is a First Amendment matter. > As long as we have a robust justice system that respects the First > Amendment we are protected. We are NOT specifically protected from > harassment by law enforcement if the issue is a law enforcement one. > If cases like these were to go to a higher court there is the risk of > our rights being further restricted so as long as we have a right to > appeal the obstruction of justice charges and get them dropped (and > every one has been dropped in the city of New York) our system is > working. The only thing that might help would be more training for law > enforcement officers. >> From my point of view, as someone who has worked in law enforcement > with the Navy, I completely understand the position of LEOs who are > wanting to remove all variables from a tense, possibly violent and > dangerous situation. Sometimes the press doesn't need closer access to > some scenes due to danger and the dynamic environment. A journalist is > also a person that the LEOs must protect in such situations so the > further complication detracts from them doing their job. > These are always cases with lots of nuance and the press is usually > very quick to point fingers at law enforcement but the law enforcement > point of view in-situ is never known but should be considered before > the LEO is condemned. > > Phil Forrest > > > > On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:51:53 -0400 > Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/nyregion/robert-stolarik-times-photographe >> r-is-arrested-while-on-assignment-in-the-bronx.html?_r=1&nl=nyregion&emc=edi >> t_ur_20120806 or >> >> http://tinyurl.com/d3mkqbz >> >> >> Not good news. >> >> >> >> >> Mark William Rabiner >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > -- > http://philipforrestphoto.wordpress.com/ > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/philforrest > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information