still think this is the USA you remember?

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17667
>>>>
>>>> (via fark.com)
>>>>
>>>> STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>>>> Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
>>>>
>>>> A Penn State college senior was arrested after he pointed his camera
>>>> cell
>>>> phone at police activity in his neighborhood. A Philadelphia NBC News
>>>> Channel 10 report says the family of Neftaly Cruz, 21, is claiming the
>>>> cops had "no right to come onto their property and arrest their
>>>> 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera."
>>>>
>>>> Cruz had heard a commotion outside his parents' home and walked out the
>>>> door to investigate it. When he saw the street lined with police, he
>>>> flipped his phone open to take a picture. Within moments, an officer
>>>> came
>>>> to his back gate, put him into a police car, cuffed him and took him to
>>>> jail. According to a neighbor's report, the cop spoke only once during
>>>> this process, allegedly saying, "You should have just went [sic] in the
>>>> house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures
>>>> off
>>>> your picture phone."
>>>>
>>>> The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly prohibiting
>>>> people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones. Cruz is
>>>> quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy,
>>>> impeding
>>>> an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel of
>>>> the
>>>> local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>>>> people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>>>> adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could actually
>>>> be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell
>>>> phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST
>>>
>>> Oh come on Brent. I thought you were too smart to believe everything you
>>> read. We already hashed this one out last week:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they
>>> said
>>> Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied
>>> that
>>> they told Cruz he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's famly
>>> said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's
>>> Internal
>>> Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation."
>>>
>>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
>>
>> So they arrested him for walking out in public mere feet from his home
>> and he and the witnesses are lying.
>>
>> Sorry jaybird, the cops denial doesn't make sense. And if they did just
>> arrest him for no stated reason at all, then that's an even worse.
>
> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and affidavit
> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say before
> you start blindly believing this story.

The cops can't just say so? very suspicious. The victim's story makes
sense and has a witness. The cops' is just an odd denial.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
news
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17667
>>>>>
>>>>> (via fark.com)
>>>>>
>>>>> STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>>>>> Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
>>>>>
>>>>> A Penn State college senior was arrested after he pointed his camera
>>>>> cell
>>>>> phone at police activity in his neighborhood. A Philadelphia NBC News
>>>>> Channel 10 report says the family of Neftaly Cruz, 21, is claiming the
>>>>> cops had "no right to come onto their property and arrest their
>>>>> 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera."
>>>>>
>>>>> Cruz had heard a commotion outside his parents' home and walked out
>>>>> the
>>>>> door to investigate it. When he saw the street lined with police, he
>>>>> flipped his phone open to take a picture. Within moments, an officer
>>>>> came
>>>>> to his back gate, put him into a police car, cuffed him and took him
>>>>> to
>>>>> jail. According to a neighbor's report, the cop spoke only once during
>>>>> this process, allegedly saying, "You should have just went [sic] in
>>>>> the
>>>>> house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures
>>>>> off
>>>>> your picture phone."
>>>>>
>>>>> The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly prohibiting
>>>>> people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones. Cruz
>>>>> is
>>>>> quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy,
>>>>> impeding
>>>>> an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel of
>>>>> the
>>>>> local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>>>>> people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>>>>> adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could
>>>>> actually
>>>>> be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell
>>>>> phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST
>>>>
>>>> Oh come on Brent. I thought you were too smart to believe everything
>>>> you
>>>> read. We already hashed this one out last week:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they
>>>> said
>>>> Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied
>>>> that
>>>> they told Cruz he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's
>>>> famly
>>>> said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's
>>>> Internal
>>>> Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
>>>
>>> So they arrested him for walking out in public mere feet from his home
>>> and he and the witnesses are lying.
>>>
>>> Sorry jaybird, the cops denial doesn't make sense. And if they did just
>>> arrest him for no stated reason at all, then that's an even worse.
>>
>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>> affidavit
>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>> before
>> you start blindly believing this story.
>
> The cops can't just say so? very suspicious. The victim's story makes
> sense and has a witness. The cops' is just an odd denial.

Of course not. A cop has to have a specific charge to arrest someone. The
victim's story sounds like he was not minding his own business, went
outside, and made an ass of himself and paid the price. You always hear:
"The cops arrested me for no reason". Uh huh.... sure.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> news
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17667
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (via fark.com)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>>>>>> Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Penn State college senior was arrested after he pointed his camera
>>>>>> cell
>>>>>> phone at police activity in his neighborhood. A Philadelphia NBC News
>>>>>> Channel 10 report says the family of Neftaly Cruz, 21, is claiming the
>>>>>> cops had "no right to come onto their property and arrest their
>>>>>> 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cruz had heard a commotion outside his parents' home and walked out
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> door to investigate it. When he saw the street lined with police, he
>>>>>> flipped his phone open to take a picture. Within moments, an officer
>>>>>> came
>>>>>> to his back gate, put him into a police car, cuffed him and took him
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> jail. According to a neighbor's report, the cop spoke only once during
>>>>>> this process, allegedly saying, "You should have just went [sic] in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures
>>>>>> off
>>>>>> your picture phone."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly prohibiting
>>>>>> people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones. Cruz
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy,
>>>>>> impeding
>>>>>> an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>>>>>> people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>>>>>> adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell
>>>>>> phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh come on Brent. I thought you were too smart to believe everything
>>>>> you
>>>>> read. We already hashed this one out last week:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they
>>>>> said
>>>>> Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied
>>>>> that
>>>>> they told Cruz he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's
>>>>> famly
>>>>> said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's
>>>>> Internal
>>>>> Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
>>>>
>>>> So they arrested him for walking out in public mere feet from his home
>>>> and he and the witnesses are lying.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry jaybird, the cops denial doesn't make sense. And if they did just
>>>> arrest him for no stated reason at all, then that's an even worse.
>>>
>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>> affidavit
>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>> before
>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>
>> The cops can't just say so? very suspicious. The victim's story makes
>> sense and has a witness. The cops' is just an odd denial.
>
> Of course not. A cop has to have a specific charge to arrest someone. The
> victim's story sounds like he was not minding his own business, went
> outside, and made an ass of himself and paid the price. You always hear:
> "The cops arrested me for no reason". Uh huh.... sure.

The victim gave the reason the cops told him why he was arrested. The cops
haven't given any reason publically. If you're going to play this dumb.....

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17667
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (via fark.com)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>>>>>>> Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Penn State college senior was arrested after he pointed his camera
>>>>>>> cell
>>>>>>> phone at police activity in his neighborhood. A Philadelphia NBC
>>>>>>> News
>>>>>>> Channel 10 report says the family of Neftaly Cruz, 21, is claiming
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> cops had "no right to come onto their property and arrest their
>>>>>>> 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's
>>>>>>> camera."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cruz had heard a commotion outside his parents' home and walked out
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> door to investigate it. When he saw the street lined with police, he
>>>>>>> flipped his phone open to take a picture. Within moments, an officer
>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>> to his back gate, put him into a police car, cuffed him and took him
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> jail. According to a neighbor's report, the cop spoke only once
>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>> this process, allegedly saying, "You should have just went [sic] in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> house and minded your own business instead of trying to take
>>>>>>> pictures
>>>>>>> off
>>>>>>> your picture phone."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly
>>>>>>> prohibiting
>>>>>>> people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones.
>>>>>>> Cruz
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy,
>>>>>>> impeding
>>>>>>> an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>>>>>>> people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>>>>>>> adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could
>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>> be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your
>>>>>>> cell
>>>>>>> phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh come on Brent. I thought you were too smart to believe everything
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> read. We already hashed this one out last week:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> said
>>>>>> Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also
>>>>>> denied
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> they told Cruz he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's
>>>>>> famly
>>>>>> said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's
>>>>>> Internal
>>>>>> Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
>>>>>
>>>>> So they arrested him for walking out in public mere feet from his home
>>>>> and he and the witnesses are lying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry jaybird, the cops denial doesn't make sense. And if they did
>>>>> just
>>>>> arrest him for no stated reason at all, then that's an even worse.
>>>>
>>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>> affidavit
>>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>>> before
>>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>>
>>> The cops can't just say so? very suspicious. The victim's story makes
>>> sense and has a witness. The cops' is just an odd denial.
>>
>> Of course not. A cop has to have a specific charge to arrest someone.
>> The
>> victim's story sounds like he was not minding his own business, went
>> outside, and made an ass of himself and paid the price. You always hear:
>> "The cops arrested me for no reason". Uh huh.... sure.
>
> The victim gave the reason the cops told him why he was arrested. The cops
> haven't given any reason publically. If you're going to play this
> dumb.....

Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge him with
any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason publically, just
in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what it
sounds like from my experience.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17667
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (via fark.com)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>>>>>>>> Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A Penn State college senior was arrested after he pointed his camera
>>>>>>>> cell
>>>>>>>> phone at police activity in his neighborhood. A Philadelphia NBC
>>>>>>>> News
>>>>>>>> Channel 10 report says the family of Neftaly Cruz, 21, is claiming
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> cops had "no right to come onto their property and arrest their
>>>>>>>> 21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's
>>>>>>>> camera."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cruz had heard a commotion outside his parents' home and walked out
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> door to investigate it. When he saw the street lined with police, he
>>>>>>>> flipped his phone open to take a picture. Within moments, an officer
>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>> to his back gate, put him into a police car, cuffed him and took him
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> jail. According to a neighbor's report, the cop spoke only once
>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>> this process, allegedly saying, "You should have just went [sic] in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> house and minded your own business instead of trying to take
>>>>>>>> pictures
>>>>>>>> off
>>>>>>>> your picture phone."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly
>>>>>>>> prohibiting
>>>>>>>> people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones.
>>>>>>>> Cruz
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy,
>>>>>>>> impeding
>>>>>>>> an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>>>>>>>> people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>>>>>>>> adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your
>>>>>>>> cell
>>>>>>>> phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh come on Brent. I thought you were too smart to believe everything
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> read. We already hashed this one out last week:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>> Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also
>>>>>>> denied
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> they told Cruz he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's
>>>>>>> famly
>>>>>>> said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's
>>>>>>> Internal
>>>>>>> Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So they arrested him for walking out in public mere feet from his home
>>>>>> and he and the witnesses are lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry jaybird, the cops denial doesn't make sense. And if they did
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> arrest him for no stated reason at all, then that's an even worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>>> affidavit
>>>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>>>> before
>>>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>>>
>>>> The cops can't just say so? very suspicious. The victim's story makes
>>>> sense and has a witness. The cops' is just an odd denial.
>>>
>>> Of course not. A cop has to have a specific charge to arrest someone.
>>> The
>>> victim's story sounds like he was not minding his own business, went
>>> outside, and made an ass of himself and paid the price. You always hear:
>>> "The cops arrested me for no reason". Uh huh.... sure.
>>
>> The victim gave the reason the cops told him why he was arrested. The cops
>> haven't given any reason publically. If you're going to play this
>> dumb.....
>
> Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge him with
> any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason publically, just
> in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what it
> sounds like from my experience.

That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they can
arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops and
not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it won't be
too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.

>> Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge him
>> with
>> any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason publically,
>> just
>> in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what it
>> sounds like from my experience.
>
> That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they can
> arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops and
> not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it won't be
> too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.

Again, incorrect. You can't arrest someone without a charge and the cops
did say that he was arrested, just not for what he is claiming.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

jaybird wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> news >
>>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>>news:KpydnevOk4aEqlPZnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast .com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17667
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(via fark.com)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>>>>>>Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A Penn State college senior was arrested after he pointed his camera
>>>>>>cell
>>>>>>phone at police activity in his neighborhood. A Philadelphia NBC News
>>>>>>Channel 10 report says the family of Neftaly Cruz, 21, is claiming the
>>>>>>cops had "no right to come onto their property and arrest their
>>>>>>21-year-old son simply because he was using his cell phone's camera."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cruz had heard a commotion outside his parents' home and walked out
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>door to investigate it. When he saw the street lined with police, he
>>>>>>flipped his phone open to take a picture. Within moments, an officer
>>>>>>came
>>>>>>to his back gate, put him into a police car, cuffed him and took him
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>jail. According to a neighbor's report, the cop spoke only once during
>>>>>>this process, allegedly saying, "You should have just went [sic] in
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures
>>>>>>off
>>>>>>your picture phone."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly prohibiting
>>>>>>people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones. Cruz
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy,
>>>>>>impeding
>>>>>>an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel of
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>>>>>>people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>>>>>>adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could
>>>>>>actually
>>>>>>be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell
>>>>>>phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh come on Brent. I thought you were too smart to believe everything
>>>>>you
>>>>>read. We already hashed this one out last week:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they
>>>>>said
>>>>>Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him. Police also denied
>>>>>that
>>>>>they told Cruz he was breaking the law with his cell phone. Cruz's
>>>>>famly
>>>>>said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's
>>>>>Internal
>>>>>Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation."
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
>>>>
>>>>So they arrested him for walking out in public mere feet from his home
>>>>and he and the witnesses are lying.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry jaybird, the cops denial doesn't make sense. And if they did just
>>>>arrest him for no stated reason at all, then that's an even worse.
>>>
>>>You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>affidavit
>>>have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>>before
>>>you start blindly believing this story.
>>
>>The cops can't just say so? very suspicious. The victim's story makes
>>sense and has a witness. The cops' is just an odd denial.
>
>
> Of course not. A cop has to have a specific charge to arrest someone. The
> victim's story sounds like he was not minding his own business, went
> outside, and made an ass of himself and paid the price. You always hear:
> "The cops arrested me for no reason". Uh huh.... sure.
>

So what was the reason, then? Surely enough time has passed that there
should have been some sort of official word.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:11:14 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>> The victim gave the reason the cops told him why he was arrested. The cops
>> haven't given any reason publically. If you're going to play this
>> dumb.....
>
>Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge him with
>any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason publically, just
>in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what it
>sounds like from my experience.

I think it's questionable whether he was actually arrested or only
taken into custody.
If he was arrested, there will be a booking record, which must give
the reason for the arrest.
Since the police said the guy was lucky since a supervisor wasn't on
duty (meaning no one could be arrested that night?), so he wasn't
actually booked, meaning he wasn't actually arrested on any charges,
it seems to me.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>

>STUDENT BUSTED FOR TAKING COP PICTURES
>Friday, July 28, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
[...]
>
>The charge against Cruz was based on a new law, allegedly prohibiting
>people from taking pictures of police officers with cell phones. Cruz is
>quoted as saying, "They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding
>an investigation, obstruction of a investigation..." Larry Frankel of the
>local ACLU chapter, reportedly said, "There is no law that prevents
>people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street,"
>adding that, "it's rather scary that in this country you could actually
>be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell
>phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street." - ST

Only catch is, there's no such law. The cops (surprise) just made it
up.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

jaybird wrote:
>>>Which was a lie because the cops replied saying they didn't charge him
>>>with
>>>any phone related crime. They don't have to give a reason publically,
>>>just
>>>in a court of law. I'm not playing dumb, I'm just telling you what it
>>>sounds like from my experience.
>>
>>That's why the jaws of the police state aren't quite closed, they can
>>arrest him, hassle him, send him the message not to watch the cops and
>>not charge him with anything. At the rate things are going, it won't be
>>too many more years before a guy like that just disappears.
>
>
> Again, incorrect. You can't arrest someone without a charge and the cops
> did say that he was arrested, just not for what he is claiming.
>

So why did they arrest him, then?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel