U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-04-2013, 10:50 PM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,172,197 times
Reputation: 1325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by geargrinder70 View Post
So do you consider verbal assault as acceptable? If you do then maybe that's the problem. You must believe you have the right to say anything you want anytime you want and should be protected from any repercussions from doing so. Should he be able to beat you no not at all, but I would not be opposed to them arresting you for disorderly conduct in such a situation and if you resist arrest well then it's on you. The problem with a lot of people is they think the time to argue their case is right there on the street. Yea if I just get into this dirtbag cops face he will let me go. I really hope you don't feel that way because you will never help yourself or win your case. Yes they are held to a higher standard, but with all of the innocent guilty folks out there who constantly file false complaints after a while I can see where they would not give the complaints much consideration. Again they are just humans with faults and emotions just like the rest of us and as such should be given the same respect that you would wish to be given.
That's the thing. They don't have a right to beat someone for calling them a name or having an attitude, yet it has happened.
I don't think it's ok to verbally or physically abuse anyone, but I also think an officer of the law should be held to a much higher standard than a citizen. I'm not talking of people who claim they are innocent, I'm talking about the truly innocent people who have been struck, or beaten by an officer for having an attitude and being disrespectful. Or the people who have been thrown against a car because they were asking questions instead of signing the citation. I saw the latter happen on a video after they already had him in cuffs and he wasn't resisting at all.
How about if you're the one that needed and called them and they showed up after a long wait and you were pissed about it and didn't hide that and they decided to assault you, cuff you, then rub it in your face they just beat you. I saw that on a video recently too.
Is this kind of stuff rare, I'm sure it is, but that it happens at all scares the heck out of me.
What would you do if you were pulled over and a Sheriff with an attitude pulls you over and doesn't like something you did, then decides he's going to take his bad day out on you? There ain't a thing you can do about it.

Do they get a rash of attitude thrown their way everyday? Maybe, but that's the job they signed up for and it doesn't give them a right to abuse their power.
If they can't take it without taking it out on someone then they need to find another career.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-05-2013, 01:04 AM
 
172 posts, read 284,640 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina View Post
Not sure about state of Texas, or Bexar County laws, but in most states it's a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission.
Now, would the cop agree to being recorded is another question...
Videotaping with "mute" is probably legal.

Oh, I found the code:

Texas Penal code
Sec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING.
(a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is a bathroom or private dressing room: (A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to: (i) invade the privacy of the other person; or
(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision.

Below are the relevant sections for audio recording.


Sec. 16.02. UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS


(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication
(4) a person not acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if:
(A) the person is a party to the communication; or
(B) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act;

If you are audio or video recording a conversation you are not a party to you could be arrested. If you are a party to the conversation, you may record it even without informing the other party(s). This differs state to state but Texas allows it.
The SCOUTUS made a ruling last year that filming cops is legal. Even in All Party Consent states such as Maryland, and Illinois. Also, I know Antonio Buehler of Peaceful Streets.

Filming on Public Property is allowed without getting consent from the other party in California.
You just can't record telephone calls or film where a reasonable expectation of privacy is in California.

The people who were against it were Chicagoland thug officers union. State v. Alvarez I believe was the case.

I tape record all the time in One Party Consent states, and expose public officials on my YouTube channel.

I own a Marantz PMD-201 Telephone Tape Recorder.

Did you know that you can record in All Party Consent states telephone calls made to toll free numbers? That's because Toll Free Numbers are under FEDERAL jurisdiction, and FEDERAL jurisdiction is One Party Consent State (One Party= YOU)

Want to tape record a call to California? Don't dial the Tolled number, dial the Toll-Free Number!

Film away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 01:34 AM
 
172 posts, read 284,640 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by smuboy86 View Post
Didn't they goof up during the last legislative session or a special session and accidentally make it legal to have no front plate? It's been fixed and is once again illegal but for awhile it was legal not
To have one.
Found the link

Legislature's mistake jeopardizes license plate law | www.statesman.com
"It was just a very huge, detailed bill that we'd already rewritten three, four, five times," Pickett, D-El Paso, said Tuesday. "This wasn't a first draft. We made so many corrections and changes, we thought we caught everything."

Reminds me of "You got to pass the bill to find out what's in it." Pelosi D-San Fransisco.

Wow, (2) D's

How does this apply to motorcycles?
I am suprised someone hasn't challanged this in the courts.

What if I have a front license plate that reads "Jesus is Lord"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 01:28 PM
 
172 posts, read 284,640 times
Reputation: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neshomamench View Post
That is not true. (as I said in a previous post) There are many lawful reasons Police can stop you from recording or separate you from your device.

You also cant record whatever you want. There are many limitations on what and where you may record. For obvious examples, you cant record through the windows of peoples homes while on their property (and often times off) and without permission. You cant record in a courtroom. You cant record in public restrooms....

Have you been volunteering for CopBlock? I beg to differ.

You are not interferring if you keep a reasonable distance while filming the cop. If you are like 20 maybe 25 feet away and filming, and he demands you to stop. Ask for a supervisor, remind the officer that the Supreme Court ruled you can film on the Public Rights of Way an officer of the law, and it is for transparency, and you are not interferring, and you will not obey a unlawful order. It also helps to have the SCOTUS ruling printed out and on your person just in case.

One of the most B.S. excuses is they have to take it in as evidence, don't fall for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 02:38 PM
 
1,007 posts, read 1,210,963 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongLiveCassettes View Post
Have you been volunteering for CopBlock? I beg to differ.

You are not interferring if you keep a reasonable distance while filming the cop. If you are like 20 maybe 25 feet away and filming, and he demands you to stop. Ask for a supervisor, remind the officer that the Supreme Court ruled you can film on the Public Rights of Way an officer of the law, and it is for transparency, and you are not interferring, and you will not obey a unlawful order. It also helps to have the SCOTUS ruling printed out and on your person just in case.

One of the most B.S. excuses is they have to take it in as evidence, don't fall for that.
You are givng people dangerous advice that is not full of the entire truth.

People tell me what they can and cant do every day. Most often because they hear stuff like you are saying and think they have it all figured out.

They are often mistaken.

If I give you a lawful order and you dont obey it because you think you are right, dont be surprised if you find yourself arrested and your equipment taken into evidence.

People such as yourself who are advocates of such things and are well versed in what you are doing wont have a problem from me or 99% of Officers. I know what I am doing as well. Again, the problem you create is putting only part of the truth out there. Often not on purpose, simply because of limitations of time and medium. You spend a lot of time learning what you can and cant do. When you toss out a few lines about that, you cant convey the entire issue. Unfortunately, people pick up and things and then cant understand why things go so wrong for them.

BTW, I would never "demand you stop" (nor would 99% of cops....which isnt what you are looking for anyways) I can however give you a lawful order to move to somewhere else or to a greater distance. An LEO is the arbitrator of what is reasonable when it comes to his scene. I dont even have to be right, I just have to articulate, under oath, risking my honor, my job, my pension and my freedom, why I did what I did. The courts will then do QC on my choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 02:45 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
4,274 posts, read 6,628,080 times
Reputation: 3910
QC? What's that? Quality control?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 09:01 PM
 
1,007 posts, read 1,210,963 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soviet View Post
QC? What's that? Quality control?
Yes. (it is a cop expression) "We do what we do and the courts QC our work."

It may sound flippant to some but it does express how the system works. A lot of people just dont understand that the police (in general) DO NOT have to be right. The Police have to be able to articulate why the actions they took rise to the necessary evidentiary standards. They must articulate these beliefs under oath, risking their honor, jobs, pensions and freedom.

The courts are the triers of fact. It is their job to decide what is legally true. Not the Police.

Law enforcement does a very good job of getting it right but sometimes, Law Enforcement is wrong. In almost every case they are wrong, that does not mean they did something wrong. It just means that, in the course of legally carrying out their duties, the evidence and totality of the circumstances the Police have, at the time, led them to a conclusion that a court later found to not be a legal fact...but the Police still did their job correctly. It is a process.

Some people (a lot of people actually) believe with every fiber of their being that the cops are "doing something" wrong. They are flat out wrong most of the time. What is really happening is they are "sure" the cops are wrong because it doesnt feel right. I get that. I feel that way about a lot of things I dont understand. Which is the point. Lack of understanding.

Cops also also know, more than most people, that anything they do has a chance of going all the way to the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 01:26 AM
 
5,239 posts, read 6,738,898 times
Reputation: 11326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Cop View Post
And for those of you who don't trust us badge wearers, fine, don't call us when a bad person is doing something to you that you don't like or when someone breaks into your house or vehicle. You complain about us and whose the first person you call when you need help....a police officer!!!
There are citizens that don't trust the police because of valid bad past experiences and there are officers that begin to see it as an us versus them scenario. The public may all get the label dirtbag because that's the kind of people officers deal with a good part of the time. So everyone gets the label, much like all the police may get a bad label. I was a cop at one time, I've known officers that referred to all civilians as dirtbags or other things.

If I'm stopped, I'm polite and give respect, I do expect the same in return. I was actually stopped once by two young cops in a city up north for looking at them as I drove by their cruiser after waiting at a stop sign to cross a main road. They even told me they stopped me because I looked at them a little too long. Oh is that against the law now too, I thought. I was upset by it, as I just glanced over as I drove by as I might have done to anyone. But I was polite because that's the smart way to handle it. I shook my head thinking these two idiots shouldn't be wearing a badge.

For the most part cops do a good job. It's a very difficult job. People hear a lot about the bad things that happen, rarely do they hear the positive stories. Remember that cop that bought boots for that homeless guy in NYC? That was a great story and showed what a kind man that officer is. Kind things do happen but most never become news stories. What people have the most problem with are cases where an unjustified shooting or other act of brutality is not treated with a like penalty one would receive if an average citizen. I think body cams would be a big help with the trust issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 02:12 AM
 
1,007 posts, read 1,210,963 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by todd00 View Post
There are citizens that don't trust the police because of valid bad past experiences and there are officers that begin to see it as an us versus them scenario. The public may all get the label dirtbag because that's the kind of people officers deal with a good part of the time. So everyone gets the label, much like all the police may get a bad label. I was a cop at one time, I've known officers that referred to all civilians as dirtbags or other things.

If I'm stopped, I'm polite and give respect, I do expect the same in return. I was actually stopped once by two young cops in a city up north for looking at them as I drove by their cruiser after waiting at a stop sign to cross a main road. They even told me they stopped me because I looked at them a little too long. Oh is that against the law now too, I thought. I was upset by it, as I just glanced over as I drove by as I might have done to anyone. But I was polite because that's the smart way to handle it. I shook my head thinking these two idiots shouldn't be wearing a badge.

For the most part cops do a good job. It's a very difficult job. People hear a lot about the bad things that happen, rarely do they hear the positive stories. Remember that cop that bought boots for that homeless guy in NYC? That was a great story and showed what a kind man that officer is. Kind things do happen but most never become news stories. What people have the most problem with are cases where an unjustified shooting or other act of brutality is not treated with a like penalty one would receive if an average citizen. I think body cams would be a big help with the trust issues.
Where were you a cop?

Are you actually telling us that you were once a cop and casually let a Title 18 violation slide...even though you freely admit they should not be wearing a badge? Cops live and breath Title 18.

If that is true, then you are as much the problem as anything about the system you dont like.

You may have been a cop...and if you were then you will especially understand why what you just said doesnt pass the "sniff test."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2013, 09:55 AM
 
5,621 posts, read 6,403,554 times
Reputation: 3593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neshomamench View Post
Where were you a cop?

Are you actually telling us that you were once a cop and casually let a Title 18 violation slide...even though you freely admit they should not be wearing a badge? Cops live and breath Title 18.

If that is true, then you are as much the problem as anything about the system you dont like.

You may have been a cop...and if you were then you will especially understand why what you just said doesnt pass the "sniff test."
Where are you a cop currently?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:21 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top