TheAgitator.com
Morning Links
Monday, April 26th, 2010- Don’t be gay, Sparky.
- May 20th is “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.”
- James Madison University police conduct illegal raid on student newspaper offices, demand unpublished photos of a campus riot. More here.
- The A.P. on cops who’ve been caught misbehaving on video.
- Indiana court (mildly) upholds the right to resist police who enter your home unlawfully.
- Now: Green-light cameras.
Regarding the cops misbehaving link:
“The work of a police officer, even when done properly is … not pleasant to watch,” said Al O’Leary, spokesman for the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association in New York City. “We’ve had situations, circumstances where an officer doing his job by the book is caught on video is tagged as brutal. Sometimes the work is brutal but necessary.”
THey are all just doing their job. At least that’s usually what the police department says after any video of a cop misbehaving. “They were just following departmental policy>” Yeha right.
By the way, I don’t like the word “misbehaving”. It makes it sounds like they are merely being rude when in fact they are almost always committing an act which, if done by any civilian, would probably result in charges.
“It wasn’t the suspect’s head that caused the glass to break,” said Jesse Sekhon, BART police officers union president. “When you freeze the video and enhance it you see it was the suspect punching it with his hand.”
Yeah, and when you “enhance” the video of Rodney King, you can clearly see he was beating and kicking himself as the cops wrestled to save him from his own self abuse…
I remember The Breeze being a great newspaper from my days at JMU, glad the current editor is standing up against this crap.
we now have red light cameras, green light cameras, speed cameras, expired tag cameras… there’s already technology in place for low tire pressure cameras… I won’t be surprised if we start seeing smoking cameras, texting cameras, seat belt cameras, trans fat cameras, sagging pants cameras, unrestrained pet cameras, litter cams, curfew cams, beer cams, and unpaid taxes cameras.
it boggles me what we allow the govt to get away with.
From misbehaving cops:
“Eight days later, Pigott — stripped of his gun and badge and demoted — committed suicide, leaving a note saying he was trying to protect his men.”
He was trying to “protect his men” from a naked guy trapped on a fire escape. He “protected” them by having the naked guy tasered until he fell off a building. I’m sorry the cop committed suicide, but geez…
Hmmm, the raid seems unjustified, but on the other hand, if someone has physical evidence pertaining to a particular crime, the prosecution and defense should have the power to obtain it via the appropriate channels.
I’m not comfortable with the implication in the article that just because you’re a newspaper, you’re allowed to sit on that evidence until you feel like releasing it. In deed, especially since this privelege seems to solely be extended to “official” newspapers. Suppose you were wrongly charged of involvement in that riot and the photos show you were just a bystander. Should you be prevented from defending yourself in order to protect the newpaper’s scoop?
I also don’t like the growing trend to extend special protections to “real” journalists, while denying those same protections from the rest of the public. A lot of the news media seems to think that they’re the only people protected by the first ammendment and are happy to back the state in supressing the speech of others as long as they get a special cutout.
May 20th has been marked on my calendar. Somewhere in my picture will be a bottle of empty booze and a ham sandwich.
Stormy, did we read the same article? It clearly states that the police could have used a subpoena. It doesn’t mean the newspaper can just sit on evidence, it means that police have to, you know, follow the law!
Stormy, IANAL…but my understanding of the law is that a news organization does not have to cough up its information unless it’s the only source available. This means that if someone gets killed and they have a copy of the video but no one else does, they have to give it up. In this case the paper had media of the event, the cops had media of the event, and so did lots of other people.
I don’t, personally, have a problem with the police legally demanding the paper’s media if it pertains to some portion of the riot where an incident occurred and they have no record of it. Hell, I don’t have a problem with the them subpoenaing the lot of them. The problem here is that they didn’t. They raided the place. This would be appropriate *after* the paper refused a valid subpoena, which one would hope they would not do. Kind of like I’m ok with a SWAT team showing up at someone’s door when they barricade themselves inside taking shots at their neighbors, not when they buy a couple of guns.
South Park Punks the “Revolution Muslim” Punks
Right, as I said, the raid was wrong instead of going through the proper channels. But the article also implies the reporter could have fought the subpoena, which is the bit I’m taking issue with, especially since that’s a special protection extended only to “official” journalists.
Why isn’t, say, an amateur blogger extended the same protections?
The emergence of green-light cameras would not surprise me, but the video in the article does not show a delayed yellow-turning to red. It shows a red light, which one truck sailed through making a right turn without even slowing down. A second vehicle slows down but does not stop while the light is still RED not yellow. As the car clears the intersection, the green arrow came on.
Stormy- You also argue that if someone is innocent, the newspaper could just sit on the evidence. That is not what the article is saying. If that is the case, my lawyer would need a subpoena. I couldn’t raid the offices!
Obviously, you can fight a subpoena. That is your right. If you truly hold evidence, that fight won’t hold up. The point is, you have to follow the law… but the cops don’t!
…
Do you have problems with reading comprehension? I’ve already said twice the raid was wrong.
Threadjack Related to misbehaving cops.
Science -fiction writer Dr. Peter Watts appears to be locked up as of today
for the heinous crime of getting beaten up by Border thugs
as he tried to *leave* the USA.
The papers called it “assault” but the only assault was *against* him;
there’s fine print in the stupid law that says if you don’t follow commands
quickly enough it is “obstructing an officer.”
So this brilliant guy has to go to prison for peanuts? Absurd.
For more:
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1280#comments
Stormy- I’ll give you that you have stated that… twice. You just seem pretty sympathetic to the cause (if not the actions) of the police. That, I just don’t get.
I’m going to work now, so my free time to argue on the internet is done!
““Eight days later, Pigott — stripped of his gun and badge and demoted — committed suicide””
Probably the only real public service he’d ever done.
#12 | Ron | April 26th, 2010 at 10:43 am
‘It shows a red light, which one truck sailed through making a right turn without even slowing down. A second vehicle slows down but does not stop while the light is still RED not yellow.’
ticketing rolling stops to turn right are the worst offenses of red light camera laws. These people lose a couple day’s wages over this nonsense. This is not the same as blowing through an intersection after the light turns red.
Ron — That’s what I thought. The color in the video is way off and tints the yellow light to a reddish hue. Watch the position of the lights. The truck actually rolls through the yellow (which lasts a minimum of four seconds) then the light turns red -before- the Nissan hits the crosswalk. The guy clearly ran the red.
Normally, to nab motorists, the city shortens the yellow. A friend of mine got caught by being in an intersection 0.2 seconds after the light turned red. I told him to go out and start timing yellows to see if that one was a half-second shorter than the others. But in the video, the yellow lasts a full four seconds — more than enough time to come to a stop when you’re already making a turn.
One might say, “well, they made that 0.6 second gap between the red and the arrow to trick drivers to expect a green light to turn on at the same time.” I find this argument very weak. If the Nissan driver knew the intersection well, he would have known of the delay. (As a long-time San Fernando Valley driver myself, I’ve seen many green arrows work like this.) Otherwise, he would be an idiot for driving around anticipating when green lights should turn on. In either case, he still had four full seconds to see not only a yellow light, but a truck in front him cruse through it.
Full disclosure: I am 100% opposed to red light cameras. I believe they are merely a tool for the city to pad their pockets at the expense of motorist safety. Having said that, if this were video from an LAPD car, and an officer had witnessed it, I would say the guy deserved the ticket, unless he can show the delay was ADDED recently.
Marty – Mostly, I agree. I agree that making people stop for a right turn at a red light is pretty lame, but I disagree that it’s the worst offence when using a red light camera.
The WORST offence is when it makes people slam on their brakes and CAUSES accidents, when it would actually be safer for the person 0.2 seconds behind the red to just scoot through.
In many cases, they are not lying–which is quite frightening when you realize that their job really does include doing things which we consider immoral and abusive, on the face of it. That’s true even if you put aside the enforcement of “vice” crimes.
Another common expression used is: “This _______ is necessary to make sure that our police officers get to go home at the end of the day.” Well, many victims of police abuse and predation would also like to go home at the end of the day. I have no problem with police acting in self-defense against a violent criminal who poses a realistic threat to them. But too many times, people are only guilty of Contempt of Cop, and end up being roughly manhandled and locked up for a few hours or days, ultimately without any charges pressed, just to show them who’s boss.
Well, if the police aren’t doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide, right?
Um. I guess police at JMU have never actually read James Madison? Particularly that thing he coauthored called the Constitution.
So here’s my thing with the police brutality story… I have friends and family members who are cops, and I realize that there are times where force is necessary and videos, taken out of context, may be misleading. HOWEVER, if police departments would treat accusations of police brutality more seriously and if officers would stand up to inappropriate behavior within their ranks of summarily hiding behind the blue curtain I think people would be more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt. As it is, law enforcement has nobody to blame but itself for the average citizen ‘s tendency to take police abuse videos at face value.
D’oh; must proofread before hitting “submit comment.” Should read “…if officers would stand up to inappropriate behavior within their ranks INSTEAD of summarily hiding behind the blue curtain…”
Regarding the gay dog link,
WTF? Seriously, how does that even happen, and what actually took place? The quote from the blind guy is incomplete, and the restaurant’s explanation makes no sense at all.
I’m not sympathetic to the cops, I’m just not sympathetic to the subtext of the article that this was only wrong because it was done to a newspaper and would have been fine if they were doing it to some random member of the public.
THAT’S what I’m arguing against: the assertion of special priveleges by professional journalists.
‘#20 | Sean L. | April 26th, 2010 at 11:45 am
‘The WORST offence is when it makes people slam on their brakes and CAUSES accidents, when it would actually be safer for the person 0.2 seconds behind the red to just scoot through.’
agreed!
Regarding the unlawful arrest, it seems to me as though the legality of actions taken to prevent/resist such an unlawful arrest were already settled in the case of John Bad Elk vs United States, 177 U. S. 529, 1900. In that case, the victim of an unlawful arrest shot and killed one of the policemen attempting to make the unlawful arrest, and was ultimately found not guilty of any crime in the matter.
Sean L. I’ll up the ante: The worst offense that happens with Red-Light cameras is when the highway department is pressured into reducing the yellow light time to a point below that of the required interval for safety at the intersection, in order to drive up revenue by, essentially, forcing people to go through the light due to dilemma zone effects.
This is something that’s been proven at multiple intersections, and is a direct violation of good and safe engineering practice in the name of more money in the pockets of the government.
People knowingly putting others at risk so that the locals don’t have to cut their free parking budget at the statehouse really ticks me off.
Re: Draw Mohammed Day.
Since we here in America are all about free speech AND religious freedom, I suggest some alternative drawings.
Draw Shit on Jesus’s Head Day
Draw Mohammed Sodomizing the Pope Day
Draw the Pope Sodomizing Jesus Day
Draw an Atheist Just Going About Their Day Day…
An after you draw Mohammad, you can go out to your front lawn, and express your freedom of speech and religion by lighting a cross. If anyone gets upset, just tell them it’s freedom of speech, I’m sure they’ll understand.
That’s a much more effective way than giving money to the EFF, the ACLU, or to Radley, right?
According to Digg, its May 22nd for the everybody draw Mohammed. Oh well, twice the fun!
I drew young Mohammed. In Catholic school. Then I realized that was too tasteless even for me to continue.
(((Regarding the gay dog link,
WTF? Seriously, how does that even happen, and what actually took place? )))
My guess? Blind guy said something like “This is my guide dog,” which when said in an Australian accent sounds kinda like “this is my gay dog.” Restaurant employee doesn’t understand that it is a seeing eye dog, thinks blind guy is a weirdo trying to bring a gay dog in the restaurant and kicks him out.
Stranger things have happened, though that is pretty freaking strange.
Guido- What exactly would be accomplished by drawing the Pope sodomizing Jesus? My understanding is that the whole point of Draw Mohammed day is that Islamic clerics have threatened to kill people for doing just that and it’s a way to stand up and show that we as a society won’t be bullied. Last time I checked, nobody has threatened to kill anybody for drawing a picture of the Pope sodomizing Jesus. Don’t get me wrong; I think you absolutely have the right to do that. That being said, I fail to see what that accomplishes other than simply being a dick.
Re: the “gay dog” story–to be fair, “gay dog” and “guide dog” do sound an awful lot alike with a heavy Aussie accent… :)
//One might say, “well, they made that 0.6 second gap between the red and the arrow to trick drivers to expect a green light to turn on at the same time.” I find this argument very weak. If the Nissan driver knew the intersection well, he would have known of the delay.//
I am opposed to red-light cameras, but jumping an expected green light (i.e. entering an intersection before a light turns green) is far more dangerous than lagging a red light (entering an intersection just after the light turns red). A motorist who is approaching a light which is red, or will clearly turn red before the motorist reaches it, must stop and must not proceed until both: (1) the light has turned green, and (2) the intersection is clear. Note that the motorist must yield to any traffic which enters the intersection before him, and must be prepared to deal with the fact that his light might not turn green as expected.
I have seen intersections with funny right-turn arrows. The interval between the light turning red and the arrow turning green is necessary to allow on-coming left-turn traffic to clear the intersection. It’s annoying having to stop if one arrives at just the wrong moment, but pretending that the arrow turns green before it actually does is dangerous. Many motorists are probably unaware of why it’s dangerous, but the solution to that would be improved signage rather than revenue tickets.
People draw pictures of Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Athena, Thor, Santa Claus, leprechauns, fairies, werewolves, ghosts, and plenty of other imaginary beings or so-called prophets of imaginary beings. There are movies of them, murals, paintings, and all other manner of visual representations.
Why is Mohammad a special case?
Even more interesting, why do you equate drawing a picture to mimicking a hate group like the KKK?
If it’s your property, you get to do what you want. You don’t get to force people to like you or to have anything to do with you if you behave like such a jackass, though.
Way to toss out the false dilemma fallacy.
Either you donate to some political group or you’re in league with murderous racists.
Why would I want to give money to any political organization? I despise all political parties. And, the ACLU has a major blind spot when it comes to the right to self-defense.
Radley’s a good guy. Even though I don’t always agree with him, I did buy an Agitator t-shirt.
It’s ironic that the groups name is (was) CACAH. I’ve got my drawing of Mohammed as a big turd all ready to go.
For some odd reason, the PC I usually use to comment here with is not working for comments anymore. I hope I’ve not offended Radley in some way….
@ #36 | ClubMedSux
Assuming we are talking about the USA:
Last time I checked, people of the islamic faith, like christians, are allowed to practice there own faith as they see fit. They get to say stuff that reflects their world view as protected by our freedom of speech just like, you know, christians. Christians that have invaded sovereign nations because their god told them to do so. -See Iraq- IAt best one could make the argument “tit for tat”.
Now who have killed more people christians or muslims? Who cares right?
When you sum the two religions glorious murders together you begin to develop a picture. That picture leads too Atheism.
“Thank god” -but I digress. ;)
My point is it’s absurd talking about and trying to appease ANY religion. And to bring it back to your question. ” What exactly would be accomplished by drawing the Pope sodomizing Jesus?” What exactly can be worse than to, you know, ACTUALLY anally rape children under the guise of following the “faith”? And getting away with it for decades within our Jesus luvin’ nation? That’s OK here I guess. But to hear inflammatory speech from some douche bag muslim and that should be demonized and dealt with a strong hand? Folks need to get with program here in the good ol’ USA and quick like. What is the root of the problem?
Guido, you’re absolutely right that reality is bad enough that one doesn’t need to make up fictional scenarios to incense religious people. Just tell it like it is.
I’m always scratching my head wondering where feminist organizations like NOW are when it comes to Muslim women being treated like chattel in some Muslim countries or enclaves. Or, where are the gun control groups like the Brady bunch when it comes to Hezbollah or Somalis arming children with guns? Where are the children’s advocacy groups (or advocates for people with mental problems) when Muslim children or mentally retarded/ill are used as human bombs? Why are they afraid to challenge the oppressive activities of some Islamic governments or organizations? Why not criticize the cultural norms which involve the violations of individual rights?
It’s easy to see plenty of stories about Catholic abuse or the scandals of evangelists. But why are so-called human rights advocates so often silent on abominable actions when done by Muslims?
Rather than invading other countries, propping up rotten bastards, or doing the more unsavory activities of the “War on Terror”, Westerners would probably get far more traction if they spoke out against the “low-level” abuses and didn’t shy away from criticism out of fear of angry Muslim reactionaries throwing tantrums.
I’m not fan of red light cameras at all, but that wasn’t even a California roll. He blew right thru that right turn.
“Draw Mohammed day” – I can only draw stick figures…but I can get pretty creative with ‘em.
CC – the story makes the case relatively clear. The employee talked to the blind guy’s “female companion”, presumably by phone. She asked about bringing the guide dog but the employee thought she said “gay dog”. Stupid misunderstanding, really. You’d think that the follow-on questions from either side would quickly resolve the misunderstanding, but apparently it didn’t.
An apology is certainly in order, but I’m really surprised that the government found that the restaurant had discriminated against him on the basis of a disability and ordered them to pay $1500. Unless they just didn’t believe the “gay dog” story at all. This all despite the establishment having a clearly displayed sign noting that they allow guide dogs.
Really the employee is clearly something of an idiot, but should the restaurant be labeled as discriminatory based on one idiot’s lame mistake? It isn’t like the guy showed up and tried to be seated and was denied. I’m surprised that the hurdle for “discriminated against” is so low that it only requires a single conversation with a single low-level employee. That’s a pretty farcical standard. I’d wager you could make a pretty good living just by making phone calls to various public establishments phishing for low level employees to run afoul of this low standard. At $1500 a pop you’d only need a couple of hits a week to make a really nice living. You could probably do that in 1 day’s work a week.
At #44,
The best Mo drawing I’ve ever seen was just a stick figure with a label “Mohammed”. The point being ANY drawing (even dumb or really bad ones) gets the death mark.