Their claim that the cell phone could have been a gun is totally bogus and they know it. You can see from their own behaviour that they had zero concerns about threat to their own lives where they just saw it as a phone and where they did not want to be recorded.
Had they really thought a gun then they would soon draw their own handguns while ordering them down on the ground spread eagle style.
So all we have here is abuse of the law to censor. You would think cops would want to teach a bunch of kids better lessons in this high technology world.
Prenda really are following the ACS:Law example these days.
Let is remember that ACS:Law in the UK was making a good £1 million to £2 million on speculative invoicing. Andrew Crossley the only lawyer involved, before his downfall, had just purchased a new car and was working on a deal to buy a new luxury house.
Most interesting is that only a few months later when he lost his Court case against suspect infringers, where Speculative Invoicing came to an end, and he was punished by the SDT, that he did declare bankruptcy. Riches to rags in a short space of time.
My point is that I am sure a wise Prenda would shift all their profit to offshore tax havens away from USA eyes and knowledge where they declare bankruptcy as the punishment come rolling in.
It is not so hard living a bankrupt life when you can just take a really long holiday to spend your millions in untraceable cash, bearer bonds, gold bars and gemstones.
Outside our little Copyright War in this technology field then public ignorance between copyright and patents seems quite high. TechDirt have of course reported on this ignorance often when it comes to news services who should know better.
Knowing the difference between laws helps to avoid confusion over the difference between murder and rape, theft and fraud, copyright and patents.
As I have said before I would have called a lawyer even if it had been nearly 3am. The only defence against overpowering authority is someone intelligent and wise on the ways of the law. Then yes to fight them in Court to make the Judge fully aware of the situation and not their one sided story.
Here today it is clarified that the law says the Police cannot use a warrant to seize a by-standers property if a news story is to be reported. Only a Subpoena can be used and that of course gives people time to do their thing.
It is also true that detaining someone in their home for hours is not on the good side of the law. Police Officers are not even allowed in your house without a warrant unless you invite them in.
So all a case of not knowing the law, not taking up their lawful rights, then allowing the Police to bully them and to abuse the law in order to delete critical evidence against them. To win there is only one choice... to be an even bigger bully and annoyance.
The autopsy report seems most critical in this case when if a good job is done then they can catalogue every blow to his body, the damage caused, then what exactly killed him.
Then they only need to try to tie up every blow with the video evidence and who did what.
Well 1, 3 and 5 would be invalid when even Police Officers have Fourth Amendment rights meaning their privacy cannot be violated by the Government until there are facts to indicate that they may have been involved in a crime.
Number 2 does not seem too useful when Police Officers can lie but sure if their sanity is questioned then they can be sent off to be evaluated.
Number 4 seems a fair request and part of the job agreement but weekly seems a bit too intrusive where random checks can work better.
This whole case though is about cops not following established procedure rules, and even in breaking the law, where they will indeed be judged and fairly punished for what they have done.
I would hope to see in this case that the system works with no changes needed beyond reminding Police Officers to actually follow the law and standard procedures.
Yes it seems she did go out to passively annoy where they should have really just told her to back off (if not f**k off).
It also seems to me that if a device has two SD cards then one of them is a clear decoy. This is a nice addition to fight unlawful seizure but clearly this is a sign that she aimed to get arrested.
With all that said she did not do anything wrong when she did not interfere in their work. I am quite sure that upholding the law does not involve charging people with false crimes when they could have handled her in a more social way.
One would think that it would be an idea for them to obtain public approval (or at least technological approval) before they submit their final approval into the political system when TPP come to release the TPPA.
Due to the large shift in Copyright laws then it is indeed foolish to include 80 pages on Intellectual Property. Let us keep in mind that even if there is one single unacceptable point in TPPA then the whole document would need to be scrapped where years of work would then be lost. These documents can't have late amendments unlike common law proposals can meaning that they should aim to high general happiness to begin with.
They should really have kicked intellectual property out of the entire discussion when they only go and ruin the party for everyone else. Maybe those rest should now open their own trade discussion where IP is banned.
Well if they want to release unacceptable trash then how about the radical idea of not releasing it? If they aim another ACTA+ then clearly this will not pass democratic approval.
Let us keep in mind that high on the Copyright Cartel's wish list is the ability to completely by-pass the WTO. That was indeed a large part of ACTA to form their own international club filled full of the very worst copyright enforcements ideas, along with the ability unify national copyright laws into one unified international copyright law, subject to their sole desires.
Instead what you have here is the US empowering their Embassy in the Ukraine to summon high ranking Government officials and then threatening trade sanctions against the Ukraine should not radical reform of their copyright laws be soon achieved. Unfortunately officials do much fear being held responsible for US trade sanctions and quickly fold where details of such backroom deals rarely become public. None has ever yet turned to the WTO for protection and few realise that the US actioning trade sanctions on an EU country can soon have the entire EU respond with their own united sanctions.
So the US is really in a losing position but since they have a history of winning then this shows what bullying the threats can achieve. Yes I am sorry to say before the year is up that the Ukraine is likely to roll out hash new enforcement measures.
The Police cannot take away your phone without a Court order to seize it. One of those two did refuse to hand it over and so was not allowed to leave for about 6hrs until such a Court order arrived.
Long enough for a lawyer to do some damage I am sure. If you are being detained the Police refusing to allow you to contact a lawyer seems another violation. Others could also contact a lawyer on your behalf when you still have a voice.
I also highly doubt the Police can arrest a witness in such a situation. This could be in front of family and friends and to arrest them for wanting their rights under the law?
Sure if you can backup the data it should be done as quickly as possible but my point is about if the Police arrive early and deny you using your phone before you can. So this is all about protecting the evidence from people who wish it deleted.
Certainly at nearly 2am this is a very bad time for both lawyers and judges. I am sure though it would not take long for one to understand your urgency and to know who exactly to contact to put a certain seizure order on hold.
The only other method I can think of is if you have the numbers to over-power the Police to allow you the time to complete the backup. A very risky move though most likely ending in mass beatings and arrests but maybe one backup.
I am well aware what you said and your point but here you are trying to make out all they did was quite reasonable. So the Police beat a guy to death and then on purpose delete the video evidence, twice.
I am sure everyone involved wants the truth to come out and the whole truth. Is not deleting the video evidence not trying to hide the truth? Is it not better for them to be open and honest and to follow the rules?
Unlike the days of Rodney King technology has now much improved where cameras are everywhere. Then damned right for the FBI to be involved when the Police just proved themselves untrustworthy. That fact won't make the public happy.
Let us keep in mind that while recovery is quite possible the person who did this may have had the smarts to write over all the blank memory area making recovery impossible.
Still such mass memory erasing should also leave its mark providing evidence of another kind.
I would believe that they need to hear the results of the first autopsy before they need to consider another. I can't say how independent from the Police the pathologist is but they have no reason to neglect their duty. After all if two autopsies largely varied big questions would be asked.
I would believe that they need to hear the results of the first autopsy before they need to consider another. I can't say how independent from the Police the pathologist is but they have no reason to neglect their duty. After all if two autopsies largely varied big questions would be asked.
In the Rodney King case there is no justification to beat him like that where Police Officers can only use the required force to ensure an arrest. As a result it was unprofessional if not unlawful.
Yes they did let them go. We can recall what happened next as half of LA went up in flames. The law is not just about the words of law when a Judge also needs to show that Justice is done where LA burned because Justice was not done. The discontent and anarchy in LA causing millions of dollars of damage became their Jury to judge them and guilty was their verdict. We can also recall who soon went to jail on public choice.
I will remind you that deleting video evidence is so extremely unprofessional and unlawful that any officer who does such should be immediately fired.
Filming officers doing their duty is allowed by order of the Court and a good reason for them to be professional. I am sure some do not like it but as long as it does not hinder their duty then they cannot interfere except by polite request.
Then should they wish to counter public opinion then be open and honest. You may note once seized the videos had no chance of going public so they only deleted evidence which could convict them.
Now that was a good choice move by Sheriff Youngblood when clearly there is an on-going cover up in the department. We can hope the FBI can recover these video recordings when once deleted they may still be available if not overwrote.
This is indeed a disgusting case so these Police Officers hanged around and totally abuse a Court seizure order so that they could delete the evidence against them.
I should point out the obvious when if the FBI investigation shows video deletion while in Police control then the Police Officers involved should be immediately fired. There should never be any excuse for deleting evidence.
I don't know about you but had it been my phone that captured this then I would say "sure you can have the phone but let me back-up the data first". Should they refuse I would soon have a lawyer make an emergency Court appeal to not place the evidence into hands of the perpetrators. Revoke the seizure order and to hand the phone to the Judge directly under assurance of evidence safety. Always in legal hard ball you need to fight strongly and not just sit there and take what they give you.
Well this is a truly disgusting case where having both videos deleted clearly shows tampering. We can only hope these videos are recovered so that we can all see what really happened. From what the witnesses have said though this is little more than Police Officers committing murder.
There was no defence offered in that case meaning no wisdom or logic seen. The Judge said the above simply to try and validate his order to block the sites.
Bogus
Their claim that the cell phone could have been a gun is totally bogus and they know it. You can see from their own behaviour that they had zero concerns about threat to their own lives where they just saw it as a phone and where they did not want to be recorded.
Had they really thought a gun then they would soon draw their own handguns while ordering them down on the ground spread eagle style.
So all we have here is abuse of the law to censor. You would think cops would want to teach a bunch of kids better lessons in this high technology world.
Real Gems
Prenda really are following the ACS:Law example these days.
Let is remember that ACS:Law in the UK was making a good £1 million to £2 million on speculative invoicing. Andrew Crossley the only lawyer involved, before his downfall, had just purchased a new car and was working on a deal to buy a new luxury house.
Most interesting is that only a few months later when he lost his Court case against suspect infringers, where Speculative Invoicing came to an end, and he was punished by the SDT, that he did declare bankruptcy. Riches to rags in a short space of time.
My point is that I am sure a wise Prenda would shift all their profit to offshore tax havens away from USA eyes and knowledge where they declare bankruptcy as the punishment come rolling in.
It is not so hard living a bankrupt life when you can just take a really long holiday to spend your millions in untraceable cash, bearer bonds, gold bars and gemstones.
Law is for Lawyers
Outside our little Copyright War in this technology field then public ignorance between copyright and patents seems quite high. TechDirt have of course reported on this ignorance often when it comes to news services who should know better.
Knowing the difference between laws helps to avoid confusion over the difference between murder and rape, theft and fraud, copyright and patents.
Re:
As I have said before I would have called a lawyer even if it had been nearly 3am. The only defence against overpowering authority is someone intelligent and wise on the ways of the law. Then yes to fight them in Court to make the Judge fully aware of the situation and not their one sided story.
Here today it is clarified that the law says the Police cannot use a warrant to seize a by-standers property if a news story is to be reported. Only a Subpoena can be used and that of course gives people time to do their thing.
It is also true that detaining someone in their home for hours is not on the good side of the law. Police Officers are not even allowed in your house without a warrant unless you invite them in.
So all a case of not knowing the law, not taking up their lawful rights, then allowing the Police to bully them and to abuse the law in order to delete critical evidence against them. To win there is only one choice... to be an even bigger bully and annoyance.
Re:
The autopsy report seems most critical in this case when if a good job is done then they can catalogue every blow to his body, the damage caused, then what exactly killed him.
Then they only need to try to tie up every blow with the video evidence and who did what.
Keep in mind innocent until proven guilty.
Re: Solution
Well 1, 3 and 5 would be invalid when even Police Officers have Fourth Amendment rights meaning their privacy cannot be violated by the Government until there are facts to indicate that they may have been involved in a crime.
Number 2 does not seem too useful when Police Officers can lie but sure if their sanity is questioned then they can be sent off to be evaluated.
Number 4 seems a fair request and part of the job agreement but weekly seems a bit too intrusive where random checks can work better.
This whole case though is about cops not following established procedure rules, and even in breaking the law, where they will indeed be judged and fairly punished for what they have done.
I would hope to see in this case that the system works with no changes needed beyond reminding Police Officers to actually follow the law and standard procedures.
Re: Re:
No-Tella
(untitled comment)
Nutella has just gone peanut butter on fans.
Re:
Yes it seems she did go out to passively annoy where they should have really just told her to back off (if not f**k off).
It also seems to me that if a device has two SD cards then one of them is a clear decoy. This is a nice addition to fight unlawful seizure but clearly this is a sign that she aimed to get arrested.
With all that said she did not do anything wrong when she did not interfere in their work. I am quite sure that upholding the law does not involve charging people with false crimes when they could have handled her in a more social way.
Foolishness
One would think that it would be an idea for them to obtain public approval (or at least technological approval) before they submit their final approval into the political system when TPP come to release the TPPA.
Due to the large shift in Copyright laws then it is indeed foolish to include 80 pages on Intellectual Property. Let us keep in mind that even if there is one single unacceptable point in TPPA then the whole document would need to be scrapped where years of work would then be lost. These documents can't have late amendments unlike common law proposals can meaning that they should aim to high general happiness to begin with.
They should really have kicked intellectual property out of the entire discussion when they only go and ruin the party for everyone else. Maybe those rest should now open their own trade discussion where IP is banned.
Well if they want to release unacceptable trash then how about the radical idea of not releasing it? If they aim another ACTA+ then clearly this will not pass democratic approval.
Bullying
Let us keep in mind that high on the Copyright Cartel's wish list is the ability to completely by-pass the WTO. That was indeed a large part of ACTA to form their own international club filled full of the very worst copyright enforcements ideas, along with the ability unify national copyright laws into one unified international copyright law, subject to their sole desires.
Instead what you have here is the US empowering their Embassy in the Ukraine to summon high ranking Government officials and then threatening trade sanctions against the Ukraine should not radical reform of their copyright laws be soon achieved. Unfortunately officials do much fear being held responsible for US trade sanctions and quickly fold where details of such backroom deals rarely become public. None has ever yet turned to the WTO for protection and few realise that the US actioning trade sanctions on an EU country can soon have the entire EU respond with their own united sanctions.
So the US is really in a losing position but since they have a history of winning then this shows what bullying the threats can achieve. Yes I am sorry to say before the year is up that the Ukraine is likely to roll out hash new enforcement measures.
Re: Re: Shame
The Police cannot take away your phone without a Court order to seize it. One of those two did refuse to hand it over and so was not allowed to leave for about 6hrs until such a Court order arrived.
Long enough for a lawyer to do some damage I am sure. If you are being detained the Police refusing to allow you to contact a lawyer seems another violation. Others could also contact a lawyer on your behalf when you still have a voice.
I also highly doubt the Police can arrest a witness in such a situation. This could be in front of family and friends and to arrest them for wanting their rights under the law?
Sure if you can backup the data it should be done as quickly as possible but my point is about if the Police arrive early and deny you using your phone before you can. So this is all about protecting the evidence from people who wish it deleted.
Certainly at nearly 2am this is a very bad time for both lawyers and judges. I am sure though it would not take long for one to understand your urgency and to know who exactly to contact to put a certain seizure order on hold.
The only other method I can think of is if you have the numbers to over-power the Police to allow you the time to complete the backup. A very risky move though most likely ending in mass beatings and arrests but maybe one backup.
Re: Re: Re: The trouble with footage
I am well aware what you said and your point but here you are trying to make out all they did was quite reasonable. So the Police beat a guy to death and then on purpose delete the video evidence, twice.
I am sure everyone involved wants the truth to come out and the whole truth. Is not deleting the video evidence not trying to hide the truth? Is it not better for them to be open and honest and to follow the rules?
Unlike the days of Rodney King technology has now much improved where cameras are everywhere. Then damned right for the FBI to be involved when the Police just proved themselves untrustworthy. That fact won't make the public happy.
Re: Re: Re:
Let us keep in mind that while recovery is quite possible the person who did this may have had the smarts to write over all the blank memory area making recovery impossible.
Still such mass memory erasing should also leave its mark providing evidence of another kind.
Re:
When the Police do it then cities burn.
Re: Re:
I would believe that they need to hear the results of the first autopsy before they need to consider another. I can't say how independent from the Police the pathologist is but they have no reason to neglect their duty. After all if two autopsies largely varied big questions would be asked.
Re: Re:
I would believe that they need to hear the results of the first autopsy before they need to consider another. I can't say how independent from the Police the pathologist is but they have no reason to neglect their duty. After all if two autopsies largely varied big questions would be asked.
Re: The trouble with footage
In the Rodney King case there is no justification to beat him like that where Police Officers can only use the required force to ensure an arrest. As a result it was unprofessional if not unlawful.
Yes they did let them go. We can recall what happened next as half of LA went up in flames. The law is not just about the words of law when a Judge also needs to show that Justice is done where LA burned because Justice was not done. The discontent and anarchy in LA causing millions of dollars of damage became their Jury to judge them and guilty was their verdict. We can also recall who soon went to jail on public choice.
I will remind you that deleting video evidence is so extremely unprofessional and unlawful that any officer who does such should be immediately fired.
Filming officers doing their duty is allowed by order of the Court and a good reason for them to be professional. I am sure some do not like it but as long as it does not hinder their duty then they cannot interfere except by polite request.
Then should they wish to counter public opinion then be open and honest. You may note once seized the videos had no chance of going public so they only deleted evidence which could convict them.
Shame
Now that was a good choice move by Sheriff Youngblood when clearly there is an on-going cover up in the department. We can hope the FBI can recover these video recordings when once deleted they may still be available if not overwrote.
This is indeed a disgusting case so these Police Officers hanged around and totally abuse a Court seizure order so that they could delete the evidence against them.
I should point out the obvious when if the FBI investigation shows video deletion while in Police control then the Police Officers involved should be immediately fired. There should never be any excuse for deleting evidence.
I don't know about you but had it been my phone that captured this then I would say "sure you can have the phone but let me back-up the data first". Should they refuse I would soon have a lawyer make an emergency Court appeal to not place the evidence into hands of the perpetrators. Revoke the seizure order and to hand the phone to the Judge directly under assurance of evidence safety. Always in legal hard ball you need to fight strongly and not just sit there and take what they give you.
Well this is a truly disgusting case where having both videos deleted clearly shows tampering. We can only hope these videos are recovered so that we can all see what really happened. From what the witnesses have said though this is little more than Police Officers committing murder.
Re: Re: Denied seeing
There was no defence offered in that case meaning no wisdom or logic seen. The Judge said the above simply to try and validate his order to block the sites.