From: eckinator
2011/1/18 P. J. Alling <webstertwenty...@gmail.com>:
>>
> Well, yes and no. ?Most of those charges, in the US at least stem from
> different statutes. ?What they probably actually arrest you for is
> "resisting", then they tack the reliant statute onto that. ?Which in a
> constitutional democracy what else should you do but resist illegal orders?
'fraid not, here's one link for your reference
http://www.dailytech.com/Man+Arrested+for+Photographing+Police+Officer+Who+Came+Into+His+House/article18838.htm
quote: "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of
the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to
consent to being taped"
Cheers
Ecke
Actually, the cops can "arrest" you just about anywhere in the world
(not just in the U.S.) simply because you look "funny".
Whether they can make the charges stick is another matter.
This case appears to be still in litigation. At least the civil case
against the police and the local government is still in litigation. If I
understood the article, the accused was acquitted of all charges.
Although, I don't have a warm and fuzzy feeling for where this incident
was supposed to have occurred. You got a tech blog of no fixed abode,
reporting on a story that appeared in a California based "news reporting
service for lawyers" (aka Blog) on an incident that occurred where?
Possibly in Texas?
We go through this shit periodically with the cops coming up with some
clever new ruse for running roughshod over the rights of the accused,
but when it eventually works its way through the courts, the courts tell
them whatever new stupidity they've come up with is unconstitutional,
and force the overturn of all the convictions that have come out of
their latest idiocy, if any.
Often the local government ends up getting sued (as is apparently
happening in this case) and has to pay compensation to everyone who's
been victimized by the police bullshit.
You'd think some smart DA would look at the track record for this kind
of idiocy and tell the local gendarmerie to back off BEFORE they waste
the local taxpayer's money again. But they don't.
Apparently restraining police stupidity BEFORE it costs the city a bunch
of money is considered to be "soft on crime."
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3387 - Release Date: 01/17/11
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
